Company: SREA
Filing Date: 2025-11-05
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001032208-25-000065
Chunk: 329

Company: SEMPRA
Filing Date: 2025-11-05
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 329
---
 TRUSTS(Dollars in millions) Three months ended September 30,Nine months ended September 30, 2025202420252024Proceeds from sales$210 $259 $709 $639 Gross realized gains12 17 43 41 Gross realized losses1 2 6 7 Net unrealized gains and losses, as well as realized gains and losses that are reinvested in the NDT, are included in noncurrent Regulatory Liabilities on Sempra’s and SDG&E’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We determine the cost of securities in the trusts on the basis of specific identification.ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONThe present value of SDG&E’s ARO related to decommissioning costs for all three SONGS units is $448 million at September 30, 2025 and is based on a cost study prepared in 2024, which is pending CPUC approval. SDG&E expects to receive an FD in the first half of 2026.

83

NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES

LEGAL PROCEEDINGSWe accrue losses for a legal proceeding when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings make it difficult to reasonably estimate the costs and effects of resolving these matters. Accordingly, actual costs incurred may differ materially from amounts accrued, may exceed, and in some cases have exceeded, applicable insurance coverage and could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or a range of losses in excess of any amounts accrued.At September 30, 2025, loss contingency accruals for legal matters that are probable and estimable are $43 million for Sempra, including $28 million for SoCalGas.

SDG&ECity of San Diego Franchise AgreementsIn 2021, two lawsuits were filed in the California Superior Court challenging various aspects of the natural gas and electric franchise agreements granted by the City of San Diego to SDG&E. Both lawsuits ultimately sought to void the franchise agreements. Pending. In one of the cases, the court ruled in favor of SDG&E and the City of San Diego, upholding all terms of the franchise agreements, except for the two-thirds City Council vote requirement for termination if the City decides to terminate under certain circumstances. Under