UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)


[X]

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d)15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended

December 31, 20052007


[   ]

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D)15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from

to

Commission file number

1-3779


SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

California

95-1184800

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)


8326 Century Park Court, San Diego, California 92123

(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)


(619) 696-2000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:

Title of each class

Name of each exchange on which registered

Preference Stock (Cumulative)
Without Par Value (except $1.70 and
 $1.7625 Series)

Cumulative Preferred Stock, $20 Par Value
         (except(except 4.60% Series)

American



American

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:

None



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes

No

X



1






Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes

No

X



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes

X

No



Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

X



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of "accelerated filer and large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer

[  ]

Accelerated filer

[ ]

Non-accelerated filer

[ X ]


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes

No

X


Exhibit Index on page 82.91. Glossary on page 89.95.

Aggregate market value of the voting stockand non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 20052007 was $24.6 million.$0.

Registrant'sRegistrant’s common stock outstanding as of January 31, 20062008, was wholly owned by Enova Corporation.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the Information Statement prepared for the May 2006June 2008 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III.

 






2





TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I

Item 1.

Business and Risk Factors

45

Item 2.

Properties

1516

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

1517

Item 4.

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

1617

PART II

Item 5.

Market for Registrant's Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

1617

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data

1618

Item 7.

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

1719

Item 7A.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

2936

Item 8.

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

3036

Item 9.

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosures

7686

Item 9A.

Controls and Procedures

7686

PART III

Item 10.

Directors, and Executive Officers of the Registrantand Corporate Governance

7787

Item 11.

Executive Compensation

7787

Item 12.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

7787

Item 13.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

7787

Item 14.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

7888

PART IV

Item 15.

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K

7888

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

8089

Signatures

8190

Exhibit Index

8291

Glossary

8995






3



INFORMATION REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS


This Annual Report contains statements that are not historical fact and constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words "estimates," "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "plans," "intends," "may," "could," "would" and "should" or similar expressions, or discussions of strategy or of plans are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Future results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements.


Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon various assumptions involving judgments with respect to the future and other risks, including, among others, local, regional and national economic, competitive, political, legislative and regulatory conditions and developments; actions by the California Public Utilities Commission, the California State Legislature, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other regulatory bodies in the United States; capital markets conditions, inflation rates, interest rates and exchange rates; energy and trading markets, including the timing and extent of changes in commodity prices; the availability of electric power, natural gas and liquefied natural gas; weather conditions and conservation efforts; war and terrorist attacks; business, regulatory, environmental and legal decisions and requirements; the status of deregulation of retail natural gasga s and electricity delivery; the timing and success of business development efforts; the resolution of litigati on;litigation; and other uncertainties, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the control of the company. Readers are cautioned not to rely unduly on any forward-looking statements and are urged to review and consider carefully the risks, uncertainties and other factors which affect the company's business described in this report and other reports filed by the company from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.








4



PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS AND RISK FACTORS

Description of Business

A description of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E or the company) is given in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" herein.


SDG&E's&E’s common stock is wholly owned by Enova Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sempra Energy, a California-based Fortune 500 holding company. The financial statements herein are the Consolidated Financial Statements of SDG&E, and its sole subsidiary, SDG&E Funding LLC.LLC, and a variable interest entity of which it is the primary beneficiary. Sempra Energy also indirectly owns the common stock of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). SDG&E and SoCalGas are collectively referred to herein as "the CaliforniaSempra Utilities."

Company Website

The company's website address is http://www.sdge.com/www.sdge.com and Sempra Energy'sEnergy’s website address is http://www.sempra.com. The company makes available free of charge via a hyperlink on its website its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


Risk Factors


The following risk factors and all other information contained in this report should be considered carefully when evaluating SDG&E.the company. These risk factors could affect the actual results of SDG&Ethe company and cause such results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements of, or made by or on behalf of SDG&E.the company. Other risks and uncertainties, in addition to those that are described below, may also impair its business operations. If any of the following risks occurs, SDG&E'sbusiness,the company's business, cash flows, results of operations and financial condition could be seriously harmed. These risk factors should be read in conjunction with the other detailed information concerning SDG&Ethe company set forth in the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" herein..herein.


SDG&E is subject to extensive regulation by state, federal and local legislation and regulatory authorities, which may adversely affect the operations, performance and growth of its businessbusiness.


The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which consists of five commissioners appointed by the Governor of California for staggered six-year terms, regulates SDG&E's rates (except electric transmission rates, which are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)) and conditions of service, sales of securities, capital structure, rates of return, rates of depreciation, the uniform systems of accounts examination of records and long-term resource procurement. The CPUC conducts various reviews of utility performance (which may include reasonableness and prudency reviews)reviews of capital expenditures, natural gas and electricity procurement, and other costs, and reviews and audits of the company's records) and affiliate relationships and conducts audits and investigations into various matters which may, from time to time, result in disallowances and penalties adversely affecting earnings and cash flows. Various proceedings involving the CPUC and relating to SDG&E's rates, costs, incentive mechanisms and performance-based regulation and compliance with affiliate and holding company rules are discussed in Notes 10 and 11 of the notesNotes to Consolida tedConsolidated Financial



5



Statements and in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" herein.


The company may expend funds prior to receiving regulatory approval to proceed with a major capital project. If the project does not receive regulatory approval or management decides not to proceed with the project, the company may not be able to recover the amount expended for that project.


Periodically,SDG&E's rates are approved by the CPUC based on forecasts ofauthorized capital expenditures and operating costs. If the company's actual capital expenditures and operating costs were to exceed the amount included in its base rates approved by the CPUC, it wouldcould adversely affect earnings and cash flows.


To promote efficient operations and improved productivity and to move away from reasonableness reviews and disallowances, the CPUC adoptedapplies Performance-Based Regulation (PBR) forto the CaliforniaSempra Utilities. Under PBR, regulators require future income potential to be tied to achieving or exceeding specific performance and operating income goals, rather than relying solely on expanding utility plant to increase earnings. The three areas that are eligible for PBR rewards are: operational incentives based on measurements of safety, reliability and customer satisfaction;service; energy efficiency rewards based on the effectiveness of the programs; and natural gas procurement rewards. Although SDG&E has received PBR rewards in the past, there can be no assurance that it will receive rewards in the future, or that they would be of comparable amounts. Additionally, if the company fails to achieve certain minimum performance levels established under the PBR mechanisms, it may be assessedasses sed financial disallowances or penalt iespenalties which could negatively affect earnings and cash flows.


The FERC regulates electric transmission rates, the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce, transmission access, the rates of return on transmission investments and other similar matters involving SDG&E.


The company may be adversely affected by new regulations, decisions, orders or interpretations of the CPUC, FERC or other regulatory bodies. New legislation, regulations, decisions, orders or interpretations could change how the company operates, could affect its ability to recover various costs through rates or adjustment mechanisms, or could require the company to incur additional expenses.


The construction and expansion of the company’s electric transmission and distribution facilities and natural gas pipelines require numerous permits and approvals from federal, state and local governmental agencies. If there are delays in obtaining required approvals, or if the company fails to obtain or maintain required approvals or to comply with applicable laws or regulations, its business, cash flows, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.


SDG&E may incur substantial costs and liabilities as a result of its ownership of nuclear facilities.


SDG&E ownshas a 20%20-percent ownership interest in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), a 2,150 megawatt2,150-megawatt (MW) nuclear generating facility near San Clemente, California. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has broad authority under federal law to impose licensing and safety-related requirements for the operation of nuclear generation facilities. SDG&E's ownership interest in SONGS subjects it to the risks of nuclear generation, which include:


The CaliforniaSempra Utilities' future results of operations, and financial condition and cash flows may be materially adversely affected by the outcome of pending litigation against them.

The California energy crisis of 2000-2001 has generated numerous lawsuits, governmental investigations and regulatory proceedings involving many energy companies, including Sempra Energy and the California Utilities. In January 2006, Sempra Energy and the California Utilities reached agreement to settle several of these lawsuits including, subject to court and other approvals, the principal class action antitrust lawsuits in which they are defendants. The companies remain defendants in several additional lawsuits arising out of the energy crisis, including lawsuits commenced in the fourth quarter of 2005 by the California Attorney General. The company is also responding to an ongoing CPUC proceeding related to the increase in natural gas prices at the California-Arizona border in 2000-2001. Sempra Energy and the California Utilitiesnumerous lawsuits. They have expended and continue to expend substantial amounts defending these lawsuits and in connection with related investigations and regulatory proceedings. Sempra Ener gyproceedings and the California Utilities have established reserves that they believe to be appropriate for their ultimate resolution. However, uncertainties inherent in complex legal proceedings make it difficult to estimate with any degree of certainty the agreedcosts and unresolved issues. However, given the uncertainties involved ineffects of resolving litigation,legal matters. Accordingly, costs ultimately incurred may differ materially from estimated costs and could materially adversely affect Sempra Energy's and the CaliforniaSempra Utilities' business, cash flows, results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.condition.


These proceedings are discussed in Note 12 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" herein.


Future environmental compliance costs could adversely affect SDG&E's profitability.


SDG&E is subject to extensive federal, state and local statutes, rules and regulations relating to environmental protection, including, in particular, global warming and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is required to obtain numerous governmental permits, licenses and other approvals to construct and operate its business. The company's cash flows, ability to pay dividends and ability to meet its debt obligations largely depend oncompany also is generally responsible for all on-site liabilities associated with the performanceenvironmental condition of its utilityelectric generation facilities and other energy projects, regardless of when the liabilities arose and whether they are known or unknown. If SDG&E fails to comply with applicable environmental laws, it may be subject to penalties, fines and/or curtailments of its operations.


The company's utilityscope and effect of new environmental laws and regulations, including their effects on current operations and future expansions, are difficult to predict. Increasing international, national, regional and state-level concerns as well as new or proposed legislation and regulation may have substantial effects on operations, operating costs, and the major sourcescope and economics of liquidity.proposed expansion. In particular, state-level laws and regulations as well as proposed national and international legislation and regulation relating to GHG emissions (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide, hydrofluorocarbon, perfluorocarbon and sulfur hexafluoride) may limit or otherwise adversely affect the operations of the company. The company's abilitycompanymay be affected if costs are not recoverable in rates and because the effects of significantly tougher standards may cause rates to pay dividendsincrease to levels that substantially reduce customer demand and growt h. In addition, the company may be subject to penalties if certain mandated renewable energy goals are not met. Further discussion of these matters is provided in Notes 10 and 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.


In addition, existing and future laws and regulation on mercury, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, particulates or other emissions could result in requirements for additional pollution control equipment or emission fees and taxes that could adversely affect the company. Moreover, existing rules and regulations may be interpreted or revised in ways that may adversely affect the company and its preferred stockfacilities and operations. Additional information on these matters is largely dependent onprovided in Note 10 of the sufficiency of utility earnings and cash flows in excess of operational needs.Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements herein. 




7



Natural disasters, catastrophic accidents or acts of terrorism could materially adversely affect the company's business, earnings and cash flows.


Like other major industrial facilities, the company's generation facilities, electric transmission and distribution facilities, and natural gas pipelines and storage facilities may be damaged by natural disasters, catastrophic accidents or acts of terrorism. Any such incidents could result in severe business disruptions, significant decreases in revenues or significant additional costs to the company, which could have a material adverse effect on the company's financial condition, earnings and cash flows. Given the nature and location of these facilities, any such incidents also could cause fires, leaks, explosions, spills or other significant damage to natural resources or property belonging to third parties, or personal injuries, which could lead to significant claims against the company. Insurance coverage may become unavailable for certain of these risks and the insurance proceeds received for any loss of or damage to any of its facilities, or for anya ny loss of or damage to natural resources or property or personal injuries caused by its operations, may be insufficient to cover the company'slosses or liabilities without materially adversely affecting the company's financial condition, earnings and cash flows.


The company's cash flows, ability to pay dividends and ability to meet its debt obligations largely depend on the performance of its utility operations.


The company's utility operations are the major source of liquidity. The company's ability to pay dividends on its preferred stock and meet its debt obligations is largely dependent on the sufficiency of utility earnings and cash flows in excess of operational needs.


GOVERNMENT REGULATION


California Utility Regulation


The CPUC, which consists of five commissioners appointed by the Governor of California for staggered six-year terms, regulates SDG&E's rates and conditions of service, sales of securities, raterates of return, capital structure, rates of depreciation, uniform systems of accounts examination of records, and long-term resource procurement.procurement, except as described below under "United States Utility Regulation." The CPUC also has jurisdiction over the proposed construction of major new electric transmission, electric distribution and natural gas transmission and distribution facilities. The CPUC conducts various reviews of utility performance, conducts audits for compliance with regulatory guidelines, and conducts investigations into various matters, such as deregulation, competition and the environment, to determine its future policies. The CPUC also regulates the relationshipinteractions and transactions of the CaliforniaSempra Utilities with Sempra Energy and its affiliates. Further discussion is currently investigating this relationship, as discussed furtherprovided in Note 1011 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.


The California Energy Commission (CEC) has discretion overestablishes electric demand forecasts for the state and for specific service territories. Based upon these forecasts, the CEC determines the need for additional energy sources and for conservation programs. The CEC sponsors alternative-energy research and development projects, promotes energy conservation programs and maintains a state-widestatewide plan of action in case of energy shortages. In addition, the CEC certifies power-plant sites and related facilities within California.


The CEC conducts a 20-year forecast of supply availability and prices for every market sector consuming natural gas in California. This forecast includes resource evaluation, pipeline capacity needs, natural gas demand and wellhead prices, and costs of transportation and distribution. This analysis is used to support long-term investment decisions.




8



CaliforniaAssembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, makes the California Air Resources Board (CARB) responsible for monitoring and reducing GHG emissions. The bill requires CARB to develop and adopt a comprehensive plan for achieving real, quantifiable and cost-effective GHG emission reductions including, among other things, a statewide GHG emissions cap, mandatory reporting rules, and regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve reductions of GHG emissions. CARB is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, an organization which reports directly to the Governor's Office in the Executive Branch of California State Government.


United States Utility Regulation


The FERC regulates the interstate sale and transportation of natural gas, the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce, transmission access, rates of return on transmission investment, the uniform systems of accounts, rates of depreciation and electric rates involving sales for resale. Both the FERC and the CPUC are currently investigating prices charged to the California investor-owned utilities (IOUs) by various suppliers of natural gas and electricity. Further discussion is provided in Notes 9, 10and 11 of the notes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.


The NRC oversees the licensing, construction and operation of nuclear facilities.facilities in the United States. NRC regulations require extensive review of the safety, radiological and environmental aspects of these facilities. Periodically, the NRC requires that newly developed data and techniques be used to re-analyzereanalyze the design of a nuclear power plant and, as a result, requires plant modifications as a condition of continued operation in some cases.


Local Regulation


SDG&E has electric franchises with the two counties and the 26 cities in its electric service territory, and natural gas franchises with the one county and the 18 cities in its natural gas service territory. These franchises allow SDG&E to locate, operate and maintain facilities for the transmission and distribution of electricity and/or natural gas in streets and other public places. Most of the franchises have indeterminateindefinite lives, except for the electric and natural gas franchises with the cities of (with expiration dates as indicated) Encinitas (2012), Chula Vista (2015), San Diego (2020), and Coronado (2028) and Chula Vista (2035), and the natural gas franchises with the city of Escondido (2035) and the county of San Diego (2029) and the city of Escondido (2035).


Licenses and Permits


SDG&E obtains numerous permits, authorizations and licenses in connection with the transmission and distribution of natural gas and electricity. They require periodic renewal, which results in continuing regulation by the granting agency.


Other regulatory matters are described in Notes 910 and 1011 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.


NATURAL GAS UTILITY OPERATIONS

Resource Planning and Natural Gas Procurement and Transportation

The company is engaged in the purchase, sale and distribution of natural gas. The company's resource planning, powernatural gas procurement, contractual commitments and related regulatory matters are discussed below and in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and in Notes 1011 and 1112 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.


Customers


For regulatory purposes, customers are separated intoclassified as either core andor noncore customers. Core customers are primarily residential and small commercial and industrial customers, without alternative fuel



9



capability. Noncore customers consist primarily of electric generation, and large commercial and industrial customers.


Most core customers purchase natural gas directly from the company. CoreWhile customers are permitted to aggregate their natural gas requirement and purchase directly from brokers or producers. Theproducers, the company continues to be obligated to purchaseprovide reliable supplies of natural gas to serve the requirements of core customers.


Natural Gas Procurement and Transportation


Most of the natural gas purchased and delivered by the company is produced outside of California, primarily in the southwestern U.S., U.S. Rockies and Canada. Thecompany purchases natural gas under short-term contracts, which are primarily based on monthly spot-market prices.


SDG&E has long-term natural gas transportation contracts with various interstate pipelines that expire on various dates between 20062008 and 2023. SDG&E currently purchases natural gas on a spot basis from Canada, the Rocky Mountain areaU.S. Rockies and the Southwesternsouthwestern U.S. to fill its long-term pipeline capacity and purchases additional spot-market supplies delivered directly to California for its remaining requirements. SDG&E continues its ongoing assessment of its pipeline capacity portfolio, including the release of a portion of this capacity to third parties. In accordance with regulatory directives, SDG&E has reconfigured its pipeline capacity portfolio as of November 2005 to secure firm transportation rights from a diverse mix of U.S. and Canadian supply sources for its projected core customer natural gas requirements. All of SDG&E's natural gas is delivered through SoCalGas' pipelines under a long-term transportation agreement. In addition, under separate agreements expiring in March 2008, , SoCalGas provides SDG&E up to nine billion cubic feet (Bcf) of storage capacity.

According to "Btu's Daily Gas Wire", the annual average spot price of A December 2007 CPUC decision directs that, effective April 1, 2008, natural gas at the California/Arizona border was $7.62 per million British thermal unit (mmbtu) in 2005 ($11.42 per mmbtu in December 2005), compared with $5.57 per mmbtu in 2004procurement for both SDG&E’s and $5.13 per mmbtu in 2003.The company's weighted average cost (including transportation charges) per mmbtu ofSoCalGas’ natural gas was $8.67 in 2005, $6.11in 2004 and $5.14in 2003.core customers be combined into a single supply portfolio to be administered by SoCalGas. All SDG&E assets associated with it s core customer natural gas supply portfolio will be transferred or assigned to SoCalGas.


Demand for Natural Gas


The company faces competition in the residential and commercial customer markets based on the customers' preferences for natural gas compared with other energy products. In the non-core industrial market, some customers are capable of using alternate fuels which can affect the demand for natural gas. The company's ability to maintain its industrial market share is largely dependent on the relative spread between energy prices. The demand for natural gas by electric generators is influenced by a number of factors. In the short-term, natural gas use by electric generators is impacted by the availability of alternative sources of generation. The availability of hydroelectricity is highly dependent on precipitation in the western United States.U.S. and Canada. In addition, natural gas use is impacted by the performance of other generation sources in the western United States,U.S., including nuclear and coal, renewable energy and other natural gas facilities outsideoutsi de the service area. Natural gas use is also impacted by changes in end-use electricity demand. For example, nat uralnatural gas use generally increases during summerextended heat waves. Over the long-term, natural gas used to generate electricity will be influenced by additional factors such as the location of new power plant construction and the development of renewable energy resources. MoreRecently, more generation capacity currently is beinghas been constructed outside Southern California than within the California Utilities'SDG&E's service area. This new generation will likely displace the output of older, less efficientless-efficient local generation, reducing the use of natural gas for local electric generation. Over the next few years, however, construction and planned construction of smaller natural gas-fired peaking and other electric generation facilities within SDG&E’s service area are expected to result in a slight overall increase in the demand for local natural gas for electric generation.


Effective March 31, 1998, electric industry restructuring provided out-of-state producers the option to provide power to California utility customers. As a result, natural gas demand for electric generation within Southern California competes with electric power generated throughout the western United States. Although electric industry restructuring has no direct impact on the company's natural gas operations, future volumes of naturalU.S.



10



Natural gas transported for electric generating plant customers may be significantly affected to the extent that regulatory changes and electric transmission infrastructure investment divert electric generation from the company's service area.


Growth in the natural gas markets is largely dependent upon the health and expansion of the Southern California economy and prices of other energy products. External factors such as weather, the price of electricity, electric deregulation, the use of hydroelectric power, development of renewable energy resources, development of new natural gas supply sources and general economic conditions can result in significant shifts in demand and market price. The company added 12,0005,000 and 8,000 new customer meters in each of 20052007 and 2004,2006, respectively, representing growth rates of 1.50.7 percent and 1.0 percent in both years.2007 and 2006, respectively. The slower growth in 2007 reflects a slowdown in the housing market. The company expects that its growth rate for 20062008 will approximate 2005's.that of 2007.


The natural gas distribution business is seasonal in nature and revenues generally are greater during the winter months. As is prevalent in the industry, the company injects natural gas into storage during the summer months (usually April through October) for withdrawal from storage during the winter months (usually November through March) when customer demand is higher.


ELECTRIC UTILITY OPERATIONS


Customers


At December 31, 2005,2007, the company had 1.31.4 million customer meters consisting of 1,188,0001,210,600 residential, 141,000146,300 commercial, 480500 industrial, 1,9902,000 street and highway lighting and 6,7005,400 direct access. The company's service area covers 4,100 square miles. The company added 20,00010,000 new electric customer meters in 20052007 and 22,00017,000 in 2004,2006, representing growth rates of 1.5%0.7 percent and 1.7%,1.3 percent, respectively. The company expects that its growth rate for 2008 will approximate that of 2007.


Resource Planning and Power Procurement


SDG&E's resource planning, power procurement and related regulatory matters are discussed below, in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and in Notes 9, 10, 11 and 1112 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.



11



Electric Resources


Based on CPUC-approved purchased-power contracts currently in place with SDG&E'sits various suppliers, its Palomar and SDG&E'sMiramar generating facilities and its 20-percent share of a generating plant, as of December 31, 2005,ownership interest in SONGS, the supply of electric power available to SDG&E as of December 31, 2007, is as follows:

Supplier

 

Source

 

Expiration
date

 

Megawatts
(MW)

 
    

PURCHASED POWER CONTRACTS:

        

DWR ** -allocated contracts:

       
 

Williams Energy Marketing & Trading

 

Natural gas

 

2007 to 2010

 

1,906

*

 
 

Sunrise Power Co. LLC

 

Natural gas

 

2012

 

574

  
 

Other

 

Natural gas / wind

 

2006 to 2013

 

227

  

 

Total

     

2,707

  

Other contracts with Qualifying Facilities (QFs):

       
 

Applied Energy Inc.

 

Cogeneration

 

2019

 

102

  
 

Yuma Cogeneration

 

Cogeneration

 

2024

 

50

  
 

Goal Line Limited Partnership

 

Cogeneration

 

2025

 

50

  
 

Other (16 contracts)

 

Cogeneration

 

2009 and thereafter

 

61

  

 

Total

     

263

  

Other contracts with renewable sources:

       
 

Oasis Power Partners

 

Wind

 

2019

 

60

  
 

AES Delano

 

Bio-mass

 

2007

 

49

  
 

PPM Energy

 

Wind

 

2018

 

25

  
 

WTE / FPL

 

Wind

 

2019

 

17

  
 

Other (6 contracts)

 

Bio-gas

 

2007-2014

 

24

  

 

Total

     

175

  

Other long-term contracts:

        
 

Portland General Electric (PGE)

 

Coal

 

2013

 

89

  

Total contracted

     

3,234

  

GENERATION:

SONGS

430

Miramar

47

Total Generation

477

TOTAL CONTRACTED AND GENERATION

3,711


Supplier

 

Source

 

Expiration date

 

MW

PURCHASED-POWER CONTRACTS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DWR** -allocated contracts:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bear Energy LP

 

Natural gas

 

2008 to 2010

 

700

*

 

Sunrise Power Co. LLC

 

Natural gas

 

2012

 

575

 

 

Other (5 contracts)

 

Natural gas/Wind

 

2011 to 2013

 

264

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

1,539

 

Other contracts with Qualifying Facilities (QFs):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Applied Energy Inc.

 

Cogeneration

 

2019

 

107

 

 

Yuma Cogeneration

 

Cogeneration

 

2024

 

53

 

 

Goal Line Limited Partnership

 

Cogeneration

 

2025

 

50

 

 

Other (17 contracts)

 

Cogeneration

 

2009 and thereafter

 

56

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

266

 

Other contracts with renewable sources:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oasis Power Partners

 

Wind

 

2019

 

60

 

 

Kumeyaay

 

Wind

 

2025

 

50

 

 

Covanta Delano

 

Bio-mass

 

2017

 

49

 

 

PPM Energy

 

Wind

 

2018

 

25

 

 

WTE/FPL

 

Wind

 

2019

 

17

 

 

Other (8 contracts)

 

Bio-gas/Hydro

 

2012 to 2022

 

31

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

232

 

Other long-term and tolling contracts:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cabrillo Power I, LLC

 

Natural Gas

 

2009

 

964

 

 

LSP South Bay, LLC

 

Natural Gas

 

2009

 

704

 

 

Portland General Electric (PGE)

 

Coal

 

2013

 

89

 

 

Enernoc

 

Demand Response/Dist. Generation

 

2016

 

25

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

1,782

 

Total contracted

 

 

 

 

 

3,819

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GENERATION:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Palomar

 

Natural Gas

 

 

 

550

 

 

SONGS

 

Nuclear

 

 

 

430

 

 

Miramar

 

Natural Gas

 

 

 

45

 

Total generation

 

 

 

 

 

1,025

 

TOTAL CONTRACTED AND GENERATION

 

 

 

4,844

 

*

Effective January 1, 2008, the quantity will decrease to 325 MW.

**

Department of Water Resources

* Effective January 1, 2007, 1,200 megawatts were reallocated to Southern California Edison (Edison) by the CPUC, as described in Note 9 of the notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
** Department of Water Resources

Under the contract with PGE, SDG&E pays a capacity charge plus a charge based on the amount of energy received and/or PGE's non-fuel costs. Costs under most of the contracts with QFs are based on SDG&E's avoided cost. Charges under the remaining contracts are for firm and as-available energy and are based on the amount of energy received.received, or are tolls based on available



12



capacity. The prices under these contracts are at the market value at the time the contracts were negotiated.

SONGS

Natural Gas Supply


SDG&E owns 20 percentbuys natural gas under short-term contracts for its Palomar and Miramar generating facilities and for the Cabrillo Power I, LLC and LSP South Bay, LLC tolling contracts. Purchases are from various southwestern U.S. suppliers and are primarily based on monthly and spot-market prices. All of SDG&E's natural gas is delivered through SoCalGas' pipelines under a two-year transportation agreement which expires on March 31, 2008.


SDG&E also buys natural gas as the DWR’s limited agent for the DWR-allocated contracts. Most of the natural gas deliveries for the DWR-allocated contracts are transported through the Kern Pipeline under a long-term transportation agreement. The DWR is financially responsible for the costs of gas and transportation.


SONGS


SDG&E has a 20-percent ownership interest in SONGS, which is located south of San Clemente, California. SONGS consists of threetwo operating nuclear generating units.units and one that is permanently shut down and is being decommissioned. The citiescity of Riverside and Anaheim own a total of 5owns 1.79 percent of Units 2 and 3.3, and Southern California Edison (Edison), the operator of SONGS, owns the remaining interestsinterests.


Units 2 and 3 began commercial operation in August 1983 and April 1984, respectively. SDG&E's share of the capacity is the operator214 MW of SONGS.Unit 2 and 216 MW of Unit 3.


Unit 1 was removed from service in November 1992 when the CPUC issued a decision to permanently shut it down. Decommissioning of Unit 1 is now in progress and its spent nuclear fuel is being stored on site.site in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) licensed by the NRC.

Units 2 and 3 began commercial operation in August 1983 and April 1984, respectively. SDG&E's share of the capacity is 214 MW of Unit 2 and 216 MW of Unit 3.

SDG&E hadhas fully recovered its SONGS capital investment through December 31, 2003.2003 and earns a return only on subsequent capital additions, including the company's share of costs associated with planned steam generator replacements.


Additional information concerning the SONGS units and nuclear decommissioning is provided below, in "Environmental Matters" herein, and in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" herein and in Notes 3, 94, 10 and 1112 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.


Nuclear Fuel Supply


The nuclear fuel supply cycle includes materials and services (uranium oxide, conversion of uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride, uranium enrichment services, and fabrication of fuel assemblies) performed by others under various contracts which extend through 2008.2012. The availability and the cost of the various components of the nuclear-fuelnuclear fuel cycle for SDG&E's nuclear facilities20-percent ownership interest in SONGS in subsequent years cannot be estimated at this time.


Spent fuel from SONGS is being stored on site in both the independentISFSI and spent fuel storage installation, wherepools. Upon completion of the current phase of Unit 1 decommissioning, the site will have adequate space to



13



build ISFSI storage capacity is expected to be adequate through 2022, the expiration date of the units' NRC operating license. Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, SDG&E entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for spent-fuel disposal. Under the agreement, the DOE is responsible for the ultimate disposal of spent fuel from SONGS. SDG&E pays the DOE a disposal fee of $1.00 per megawatt-hour of net nuclear generation, or $3 million per year. The DOE projects that it will not begin accepting spent fuel until 20102017 at the earliest.


Additional information concerning nuclear-fuel costs and the storage and movement of spent fuel is provided in Notes 910 and 11,12, respectively, of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.


Power Pools


SDG&E is a participant in the Western Systems Power Pool, which includes an electric-power and transmission-rate agreement with utilities and power agencies located throughout the United States and Canada. More than 270300 investor-owned and municipal utilities, state and federal power agencies, energy brokers and power marketers share power and information in order to increase efficiency and competition in the bulk power market. Participants are able to make power transactions on standardized terms that have been pre-approvedpreapproved by the FERC.


Transmission Arrangements

The Pacific Intertie, consisting of AC and DC transmission lines, connects the Northwest with SDG&E, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Edison and others under an agreement that expires in July 2007. SDG&E's share of the Pacific Intertie is 266 MW.

Power originating from sources utilizing the Pacific Intertie, as well as power from other sources, can be imported into SDG&E's system via the Edison-SDG&E interconnection at the SONGS switchyard. Five 230-kilovolt transmission lines into SDG&E's system from that interconnection comprise the "South of SONGS" path, which is normally rated at 2200 MW.

SDG&E's 500-kilovolt500-kV Southwest Powerlink transmission line, which is shared with Arizona Public Service Company and Imperial Irrigation District, extends from Palo Verde, Arizona, to San Diego. SDG&E's share of the line is 9701,163 MW, although it can be less under certain system conditions.


Mexico's Baja California Norte system is connected to SDG&E's system via two 230-kilovolt230-kV interconnections with firm capability of 408 MW in the north to south direction and 800 MW in the south to north direction.


SDG&E is in the planning stagesapproval phase for the Sunrise Powerlink, a new 500-kilovolt500-kV transmission line between the existing Imperial Valley Substation and a new Central Substationcentral substation to be located within the SDG&E system. The proposed rating of the Sunrise Powerlink is 1,000 MW or higher.MW. The project is subject to CPUC approval andapproval. Further discussion is estimatedprovided in Note 10 of the Notes to cost at least $1 billion. The planned in-service date is June 2010.Consolidated Financial Statements herein.


Transmission Access


The National Energy Policy Act governs procedures for others' requests for transmission service. The FERC approved the California IOUs'investor-owned utilities' (IOUs) transfer of operation and control of their transmission facilities to the Independent System Operator (ISO) in 1998. Additional information regarding the FERC, ISO and transmission issues is provided in Note 10 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.

RATES AND REGULATION

Information concerning rates and regulations applicable to the company is provided in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and in Notes 1, 9 and 10 of the notes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein.

14



ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS


Discussions about environmental issues affecting the company are included in Note 11Notes 10 and 12 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements herein. The following additional information should be read in conjunction with those discussions.

Hazardous Substances


In 1994, the CPUC approved the Hazardous Waste Collaborative Memorandum account,mechanism, allowing California's IOUs to recover theircertain hazardous waste cleanup costs, including those related to Superfund sites or similar sites requiring cleanup. RecoveryRate recovery of 90 percent of hazardous waste cleanup costs and related third-party litigation costs, and 70 percent of the related insurance-litigation expenses is permitted. In addition, the company has the opportunity to retain a percentage of any insurance recoveries to offset the 10 percent of costs not recovered in rates.


At December 31, 2005,2007, the company had accrued its estimated remaining investigation and remediation liability related to hazardous waste sites, including numerous locations that had been manufactured-gas plants, of $7.2$0.4 million, of which 90 percent is authorized to be recovered through the Hazardous Waste Collaborative mechanism. This estimated cost excludes remediation costs of $10.3$6 million associated with SDG&E's former fossil-fuel power plants. The company believes that any costs not ultimately recovered through rates, insurance or other means will not have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated results of operations or financial position.


Estimated liabilities for environmental remediation are recorded when amounts are probable and estimable. Amounts authorized to be recovered in rates under the Hazardous Waste Collaborative mechanism are recorded as a regulatory asset.

Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs)

Although scientists continue to research the possibility that exposure to EMFs causes adverse health effects, science has not demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between exposure to the type of EMFs emitted by power lines and other electrical facilities and adverse health effects. Some laboratory studies suggest that such exposure creates biological effects, but those effects have not been shown to be harmful. The studies that have most concerned the public are epidemiological studies, some of which have reported a weak correlation between childhood leukemia and the proximity of homes to certain power lines and equipment. Other epidemiological studies found no correlation between estimated exposure and any disease. Scientists cannot explain why some studies using estimates of past exposure report correlations between estimated EMF levels and disease, while others do not.

To respond to public concerns, the CPUC previously directed California IOUs to adopt a low-cost EMF-reduction policy that requires reasonable design changes to achieve noticeable reduction of EMF levels that are anticipated from new projects. The CPUC has recently reviewed the resultant policy in an Order Instituting Ratemaking and found no new scientific research to support a change to the existing policy, finding existing policy of prudent avoidance to be sufficient and reasonable.

Air and Water Quality


The transmission and distribution of natural gas require the operation of compressor stations, which are subject to increasingly stringent air-quality standards.standards, such as those established by the CARB as discussed under "Government Regulation – California Utility Regulation" herein. Costs to comply with these standards are generally recovered in rates.


In connection with the issuance of operating permits, SDG&E and the other owners of SONGS previously reached an agreement with the California Coastal Commission to mitigate the environmental damage to the marine environment attributed to the cooling-water discharge from SONGS Units 2 and 3. SDG&E's share of the cost is estimated to be $34$36 million, of which $16$25 million had been incurred at December 31, 2005. Rate recovery of 50% of2007, and $11 million is accrued for the remaining costs through 2050. In May 2006, the CPUC adopted a decision in Edison's 2006 General Rate Case, in which decision SDG&E is uncertain.no longer subject to a 50-percent disallowance of cost recovery going forward.




15



OTHER MATTERS

Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D)

Effective January 2005, a surcharge was established by the CPUC for natural gas public interest RD&D. The natural gas public interest research program is administered by the CEC. For 2005, the funding level is subject to a statewide cap of $12 million. The statewide cap increases to $15 million in 2006. For 2005, SDG&E funding for the natural gas public purpose RD&D program was $1 million.

SDG&E continues to fund the California Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program for electric research. For 2005, SDG&E's funding level was $6 million for the PIER program.

Employees of Registrant


As of December 31, 2005,2007, the company had 4,505 employees,4,774employees, compared to 4,405 at4,758at December 31, 2004.2006.

Labor Relations

Certain

Field, technical and some clerical employees at SDG&E are represented by the Local 465 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The current contractcollective bargaining agreement for these employees covering wages, hours and working conditions is in effect through August 31, 2008. For these same employees, the agreements covering health and welfare benefits and pension benefits are in effect through December 31, 2010 and December 4, 2009, respectively.


ITEM 2. PROPERTIES


Electric Properties


SDG&E owns two natural gas-fired power plants: a 550-MW electric generation facility (the Palomar generation facility) located in Escondido, California, and a 45-MW electric generation facility (the Miramar generation facility) located in San Diego, California. SDG&E's interest in SONGS is described in "Electric Resources" herein.


At December 31, 2005,2007, SDG&E's electric transmission and distribution facilities included substations, and overhead and underground lines. TheThese electric facilities are located in San Diego, Imperial and Orange counties of California and in Arizona, and consist of 1,8351,886 miles of transmission lines and 21,60122,056 miles of distribution lines. Periodically, various areas of the service territory require expansion to accommodate customer growth.

In 2005, SDG&E purchased a 45-MW electric generation facility located in San Diego, California. In 2006, SDG&E will purchase the 550-MW Palomar power plant, located in Escondido, California, which is being constructed by Sempra Generation.

Natural Gas Properties


At December 31, 2005,2007, SDG&E's natural gas facilities, which are located in San Diego and Riverside counties of California, consisted of the Moreno and Rainbow compressor stations, 166 miles of high pressure transmission pipelines, 8,1008,335 miles of high and low pressure distribution mains and 6,1976,292 miles of service lines.


Other Properties


SDG&E occupies an office complex in San Diego pursuant to antwo separate operating leaseleases, both ending in 2007. TheDecember 2017. One lease can be renewed for twohas four five-year periods.renewal options and the other lease has three five-year renewal options.


The company owns or leases other land, easements, rights of way, warehouses, offices, operating and maintenance centers, shops, service facilities and equipment necessary in the conduct of its business.




16



ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS


Except for the matters described in Note 1112 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements or referred to elsewhere in this Annual Report,"Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" herein, neither the company nor its subsidiary is party to, nor is their property the subject of, any material pending legal proceedings.

Sempra Energy

On July 13, 2007, SDG&E, one of its employees, and an SDG&E are defendantscontractor were convicted in a lawsuit filed by the County of San Diego seeking civil penalties for alleged violationsfederal jury trial on criminal charges of environmental standards applicable toviolations in connection with the abatement, handling and disposal of asbestos-containing materials during the demolition2000 - 2001 dismantlement of a natural gas storage facility in 2001. Infacility. SDG&E was also convicted of a federal criminal indictment,related charge of making a false statement to a government agency. SDG&E is subject to a maximum fine of $2 million. On December 7, 2007, the trial court set aside all of the convictions and two employees have also been charged with having violated these standards and with conspiracy and making false statements to governmental authorities in connection with these matters. Sempra Energy and SDG&E believe thatgranted all of the maximum fines and penalties that could reasonably be assessed against them with respect to these matters would not exceed $750,000.defendants a new trial on all counts. The company believes that the claims and charges are without merit and is vigorously contesting them.government has filed a notice of appeal.


ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

None

None.



PART II



ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS


All of the issued and outstanding common stock of SDG&E is owned by Enova Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sempra Energy. The information required by Item 5 concerning dividend declarations is included in the "Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income and Changes in Shareholders' Equity" set forth in Item 8 herein.


Dividend Restrictions


The payment and amount of future dividends are within the discretion of the 2005 Annual Reportcompany's board of directors. The CPUC's regulation of SDG&E'scapital structure limits the amounts that are available for loans and dividends to ShareholdersSempra Energy from SDG&E. Additional information regarding these restrictions is provided in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" under "Capital Resources and Liquidity--Dividends" herein.



17



ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

At December 31, or for the years then ended

 

    

2005

   

2004

   

2003

   

2002

   

2001

 

Income Statement Data:

                    
 

Operating revenues

 

$

2,512

  

$

2,274

  

$

2,308

  

$

1,725

  

$

2,359

 
 

Operating income

 

$

283

  

$

256

  

$

388

  

$

256

  

$

241

 
 

Dividends on preferred stock

 

$

5

  

$

5

  

$

6

  

$

6

  

$

6

 
 

Earnings applicable to common shares

 

$

262

  

$

208

  

$

334

  

$

203

  

$

177

 
                      

Balance Sheet Data:

                    
 

Total assets

 

$

7,492

  

$

6,834

  

$

6,461

  

$

6,285

  

$

6,542

 
 

Long-term debt

 

$

1,455

  

$

1,022

  

$

1,087

  

$

1,153

  

$

1,229

 
 

Short-term debt (a)

 

$

66

  

$

66

  

$

66

  

$

66

  

$

93

 
 

Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption (b)

 

$

--

  

$

--

  

$

--

  

$

25

  

$

25

 
 

Shareholders' equity

 

$

1,562

  

$

1,376

  

$

1,343

  

$

1,223

  

$

1,165

 

(a) Includes long-term debt due within one year.
(b) At December 31, 2005 and 2004, $16 million and $19 million, respectively, were included in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities, and $3 million and $2 million, respectively, were included in Other Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


 

 

At December 31, or for the years then ended

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

2005

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

2003

 

Income Statement Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating revenues

 

$

2,852

 

 

$

2,785

 

 

$

2,512

 

 

$

2,274

 

 

$

2,308

 

 

Operating income

 

$

500

 

 

$

477

 

 

$

393

 

 

$

393

 

 

$

515

 

 

Dividends on preferred stock

 

$

5

 

 

$

5

 

 

$

5

 

 

$

5

 

 

$

6

 

 

Earnings applicable to common shares

 

$

283

 

 

$

237

 

 

$

262

 

 

$

208

 

 

$

334

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance Sheet Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total assets

 

$

8,508

 

 

$

7,795

 

 

$

7,492

 

 

$

6,834

 

 

$

6,461

 

 

Long-term debt

 

$

1,958

 

 

$

1,638

 

 

$

1,455

 

 

$

1,022

 

 

$

1,087

 

 

Short-term debt (a)

 

$

--

 

 

$

138

 

 

$

66

 

 

$

66

 

 

$

66

 

 

Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption

 

$

14

 

 

$

17

 

 

$

19

 

 

$

21

 

 

$

24

 

 

Shareholders’ equity

 

$

2,279

 

 

$

1,994

 

 

$

1,562

 

 

$

1,376

 

 

$

1,343

 

(a)

Includes long-term debt due within one year.


Since SDG&E is a wholly owned subsidiary of Enova Corporation, per shareper-share data is not provided.



This data should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained herein.



Item18



ITEM 7.

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS


INTRODUCTION


This section of the 20052007 Annual Report includes management's discussion and analysis of operating results from 20032005 through 2005,2007, and provides information about the capital resources, liquidity and financial performance of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E or the company). ""This section also focuses on the major factors expected to influence future operating results and discusses investment and financing activities and plans. It should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Annual Report.


The company is an operating public utility engaged in the electric business, serving 3.4 million consumers, and in the natural gas business, serving 3.1 million consumers. It distributes electric energy, purchased from others or generated from its 20 percentPalomar and Miramar generating facilities and its 20-percent ownership interest in a nuclear facility,the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), through 1.31.4 million electric meters in San Diego County and an adjacent portion of southern Orange County, California. It also purchases and distributes natural gas through 825,000840,000 meters in San Diego County and transports electricity and natural gas for others. SDG&E's service territory encompasses 4,100 square miles. SDG&E's only subsidiary is SDG&E Funding LLC, which was formed to facilitate the issuance of SDG&E's rate reductionrate-reduction bonds describeddiscussed in Note 23 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The company's financial statements include a variable interest entity, Otay Mesa Energy Center LLC (OMEC LLC), as discussed in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. SDG&E is a substantially wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Sempra Energy. SDG&E and its sister utility, Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which distributes natural gas throughou tthroughout most of Southern California and a portion of central California, are collectively referred to herein as "the CaliforniaSempra Utilities."


RESULTS OF OPERATIONS


The following table shows net income for each of the last five years.

(Dollars in millions)

  

2005

 

$ 267

2004

 

$ 213

2003

 

$ 340

2002

 

$ 209

2001

 

$ 183


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

 

$ 288

2006

 

$ 242

2005

 

$ 267

2004

 

$ 213

2003

 

$ 340

Comparison of Earnings

To assist the reader in understanding the trend of earnings, the following table summarizes the major unusual factors affecting net income and operating income in 2005, 2004 and 2003. The numbers in parentheses are the page numbers where each 2005 item is discussed therein.

  

Net Income

 

Operating Income

(Dollars in millions)

  

2005

  

2004

  

2003

   

2005

  

2004

  

2003

 

Reported amounts

 

$

267

 

$

213

 

$

340

  

$

283

 

$

256

 

$

388

 

Unusual items:

                    

Resolution of prior years' income tax issues (21)

  

(60

)

 

(12

)

 

(79

)

  

(60

)

 

(12

)

 

(79

)

Increase in California energy crisis litigation reserves (66)

  

28

  

11

  

11

   

28

  

11

  

11

 

South Bay charitable contribution deduction (21)

  

(23

)

 

--

  

--

   

(21

)

 

--

  

--

 

DSM1 awards (62)

  

(22

)

 

--

  

--

   

(21

)

 

--

  

--

 

Other regulatory matters (66)

  

(23

)

 

(21

)

 

--

   

(20

)

 

(15

)

 

--

 

Power contract settlement

  

--

  

--

  

(65

)

  

--

  

--

  

(65

)

SONGS2 incentive pricing (ended 12/31/03)

  

--

  

--

  

(53

)

  

--

  

--

  

(53

)

  

$

167

 

$

191

 

$

154

  

$

189

 

$

240

 

$

202

 

1Demand side management (DSM)
2 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)

The company issubject to regulation by federal, state and local governmental agencies. The primary regulatory agency is the California Public UtilitiesUtility Commission (CPUC), which regulates utility rates and operations. Theoperations in California, except for SDG&E's electric transmission operations, which are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The FERC also regulates interstate transportation of natural gas and electricity and various related matters. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates nuclear generating plants. Municipalities and other local authorities regulate the location of utility assets, including natural gas pipelines and electric lines.


Electric RevenueRevenues and Cost of Electric Fuel and Purchased Power.ElectricPower.Electric revenues increased by $125$47 million (7%(2%) to $1.8$2.2 billion, in 2005, and the cost of electric fuel and purchased power increaseddecreased by $48$22 million (8%(3%) to $624$699 million in 2005.2007. The increased revenue in 2007 was primarily due to $33 million from higher authorized transmission and electric generation margins, $22 million



19



from the resolution of a regulatory matter, a $24 million increase in revenue was due to $41authorized base margin on electric distribution and $12 million of higher revenues for recoverable expenses, which are fully offset in other operating expenses. The increases were offset by $20 million from the favorable resolution of a prior year cost recovery issue in 2006 and $22 million lower recovery of electric fuel and purchased power costs in 2007.


Electric revenues increased by $344 million (19%) to $2.1 billion, and the cost of electric fuel and purchased power increased by $97 million (16%) to $721 million in 2006 compared to 2005. The increase in revenue was due to $206 million of increased authorized distribution, generation and transmission base margins, $60 million of higher revenues for recoverable expenses, and the $20 million favorable resolution of a DSM awardprior year cost recovery issue. The increases were offset by a $28 million demand-side management (DSM) awards settlement in 2005 of $28 million and $23 million related tofrom the 2005 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) decision relating to the sale of SDG&E's former South Bay power plant. In addition, revenues and costs increased $48 million due to higher purchased power costs.

Electric revenues decreased by $123 million (7%) to $1.7 billion in 2004 compared to 2003, and the cost of electric fuel and purchased power increased by $35 million (6%) to $576 million in 2004 compared to 2003. The decrease in revenues was due to the recognition of $116 million related to the approved settlement that allocated between SDG&E's customers and shareholders the profits from certain intermediate-term purchase power contracts in the third quarter of 2003, and higher 2003 earnings of $25 million from Performance-Based Regulation (PBR) awards. Performance awards are discussed in Note 10 of the notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, electric revenues and costs increased $35 million due to higher electric commoditythe commencement of commercial operations of the Palomar generating facility in 2006, which contributed $112 million to both 2006 revenues and costs, and volumes.offset by lower purchased power costs.


Natural Gas RevenueRevenues and Cost of Natural Gas.NaturalGas.Natural gas revenues increased by $113$20 million (19%(3%) to $709$658 million, in 2005, and the cost of natural gas increased by $109$12 million (31%(3%) to $456$392 million in2005.in 2007. The increasescompany's weighted average cost (including transportation charges) per million British thermal units (MMBtu) of natural gas was $7.17 in 20052007, $6.94 in 2006 and $8.67 in 2005.


Natural gas revenues decreased by $71 million (10%) to $638 million, and the cost of natural gas decreased by $76 million (17%) to $380 million in 2006 compared to 2005. The decreases in 2006 were due to higherlower overall average costs of natural gas, prices, which are passed on to customers, offset by a small decrease in volume. In addition,natural gas revenuesincreased due to $7 million in DSM awards in 2005. The company's weighted average cost per million British thermal units (mmbtu) of natural gas was $8.67in 2005, $6.11in 2004 and $5.14in 2003.higher volumes.


Although the current regulatory framework provides that the cost of natural gas purchased for customers and the variations in that cost are passed through to the customers on a substantially concurrent basis, SDG&E's natural gas procurement PBRPerformance-Based Regulation (PBR) mechanism provides an incentive mechanism by measuring SDG&E's procurement ofallows the company to share in the savings or costs from buying natural gas againstfor its customers below or above market-based monthly benchmarks. The mechanism permits full recovery of all costs within a benchmark price comprised of monthly natural gas indices, resulting in shareholder rewards for costs achieved belowtolerance band around the benchmark price. The costs or savings outside the tolerance band are shared between customers and shareholder penalties when costs exceed the benchmark.shareholders. Further discussion is provided in Notes 1 and 1011 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Natural gas revenues increased by $89 million (18%) to $596 million in 2004 compared to 2003, and the cost of natural gas increased by $73 million (27%) to $347 million in 2004 compared to 2003. The increase in 2004 was primarily attributable to natural gas price increases.

The tables below summarize the electric and natural gas volumes and revenues by customer class for the years ended December 31, 2005, 20042007, 2006 and 2003.2005.




20



Electric Distribution and Transmission

(Volumes in millions of kWhs,kilowatt-hours, dollars in millions)

     

2005

2004

2003

 

Volumes

Revenue

Volumes

Revenue

Volumes

Revenue

Residential

 

7,075

 

$

738

 

7,038

 

$

692

 

6,702

 

$

731

Commercial

 

6,674

  

654

 

6,592

  

644

 

6,263

  

674

Industrial

 

2,159

  

142

 

2,084

  

134

 

1,987

  

162

Direct access

 

3,213

  

114

 

3,441

  

105

 

3,322

  

87

Street and highway lighting

 

93

  

11

 

97

  

11

 

91

  

11

Off-system sales

 

--

  

--

 

--

  

--

 

8

  

--

      

19,214

  

1,659

 

19,252

  

1,586

 

18,373

  

1,665

Balancing accounts and other

    

144

    

92

    

136

 

Total

      

$

1,803

   

$

1,678

   

$

1,801


 

 

 

 

 

2007

2006

2005

 

Volumes

Revenue

Volumes

Revenue

Volumes

Revenue

Residential

 

7,520

 

$

980

 

7,501

 

$

910

 

7,075

 

$

738

Commercial

 

7,154

 

 

852

 

6,983

 

 

723

 

6,674

 

 

654

Industrial

 

2,275

 

 

229

 

2,261

 

 

181

 

2,159

 

 

142

Direct access

 

3,220

 

 

118

 

3,390

 

 

133

 

3,213

 

 

114

Street and highway lighting

 

107

 

 

12

 

102

 

 

10

 

93

 

 

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

20,276

 

 

2,191

 

20,237

 

 

1,957

 

19,214

 

 

1,659

Balancing accounts and other

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

190

 

 

 

 

144

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

2,194

 

 

 

$

2,147

 

 

 

$

1,803


Although commodity costs associated with long-term contracts allocated to SDG&E from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (and the revenues to recover those costs) are not included in the Statements of Consolidated Income, as discussed in Note 1 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements, the associated volumes and distribution revenues are included in the above table.

 

Natural Gas Sales, Transportation and Exchange

(Volumes in billion cubic feet, dollars in millions)

           

Transportation
and Exchange

     
      

Natural Gas Sales

Total

      

Volumes

Revenue

Volumes

Revenue

Volumes

Revenue

2005:

               
 

Residential

 

31

 

$

381

 

--

 

$

--

 

31

 

$

381

 

Commercial and industrial

 

17

  

174

 

4

  

5

 

21

  

179

 

Electric generation plants

 

1

  

3

 

59

  

39

 

60

  

42

       

49

 

$

558

 

63

 

$

44

 

112

  

602

 

Balancing accounts and other

              

107

  

Total

                

$

709

2004:

               
 

Residential

 

33

 

$

332

 

--

 

$

--

 

33

 

$

332

 

Commercial and industrial

 

18

  

142

 

4

  

4

 

22

  

146

 

Electric generation plants

 

--

  

2

 

74

  

36

 

74

  

38

  

51

 

$

476

 

78

 

$

40

 

129

  

516

 

Balancing accounts and other

              

80

  

Total

                

$

596

2003:

               
 

Residential

 

32

 

$

291

 

--

 

$

--

 

32

 

$

291

 

Commercial and industrial

 

17

  

127

 

4

  

5

 

21

  

132

 

Electric generation plants

 

--

  

3

 

62

  

30

 

62

  

33

  

49

 

$

421

 

66

 

$

35

 

115

  

456

 

Balancing accounts and other

              

51

  

Total

                

$

507


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Transportation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Natural Gas Sales

 and Exchange

 Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

Volumes

Revenue

Volumes

Revenue

Volumes

Revenue

2007:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residential

 

32

 

$

405

 

--

 

$

--

 

32

 

$

405

 

Commercial and industrial

 

16

 

 

160

 

5

 

 

7

 

21

 

 

167

 

Electric generation plants

 

--

 

 

1

 

60

 

 

40

 

60

 

 

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

 

$

566

 

65

 

$

47

 

113

 

 

613

 

Balancing accounts and other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

658

2006:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residential

 

31

 

$

397

 

--

 

$

--

 

31

 

$

397

 

Commercial and industrial

 

17

 

 

169

 

5

 

 

7

 

22

 

 

176

 

Electric generation plants

 

--

 

 

2

 

65

 

 

44

 

65

 

 

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

 

$

568

 

70

 

$

51

 

118

 

 

619

 

Balancing accounts and other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

638

2005:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residential

 

31

 

$

381

 

--

 

$

--

 

31

 

$

381

 

Commercial and industrial

 

17

 

 

174

 

4

 

 

5

 

21

 

 

179

 

Electric generation plants

 

1

 

 

3

 

59

 

 

39

 

60

 

 

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

 

$

558

 

63

 

$

44

 

112

 

 

602

 

Balancing accounts and other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

709




21



Other Operating Expenses.

Litigation Expenses.LitigationOther operating expenses were $52$797 million, $19$774 million and $17$603 million forin 2007, 2006 and 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The increase in 2005 was primarily due to an increase in litigation reserves related to matters arising from the 2000 - 2001 California energy crisis. Note 11 of the notes to Consolidated Financial Statements provides additional information concerning this matter.

Other Operating Expenses.Other operating expenses were $603 million, $574 million and $611 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The increase in 20052007 was due to $37$5 million of higher recoverable expenses $34(offset in revenues) and $23 million of favorable resolution of regulatory matters in 2004 and increases in varioushigher other operational costs, offset by the $42$5 million net effectlower SONGS operating costs. The increase in 2006 compared to 2005 was due to $72 million higher recoverable expenses, $33 million related to the 2005 recovery of line losses and grid management charges arising from thea favorable settlement with the Independent System Operator (ISO,(ISO), an independent operator of California's wholesale transmission grid).grid, $24 million higher SONGS operating costs and a $42 million increase in various other operational costs.


Litigation Expense.Litigation expense was $10 million,$3 million and$52 million for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The decreasehigher amount in 20042005 was primarily due to an increase in litigation reserves related to a settlement of matters arising from 2003 was due primarily to the favorable resolution of regulatory matters.

Other Income, Net. Other income, net, as discussed further in2000 - 2001 California energy crisis. Note 112 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements consists primarily of interest income from short-term investments, income taxes on non-operating income, interest income/expense from regulatory balancing accounts and allowance for equity funds used during construction. Excluding the impact of income taxes on non-operating income, otherprovides additional information concerning this matter.


Interest Income.Interest income was $37$8 million, $36$6 million and $46$23 million in 2005, 20042007, 2006 and 2003,2005, respectively. The decrease in 2004 from 20032006 compared to 2005 was primarily due to higher$12 million lower interest income in 2003 resulting from the favorable $37 million before-tax resolutionas a result of income-tax issues with the IRS, offset by a lesser amount of interest earned on income tax receivables during 2004.audit settlements in 2005.


Interest Expense.Interest expense was $96 million, $97 million and $74 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The increase in 2006 compared to 2005 was primarily due to increased borrowings to finance the purchase of the Palomar generating facility and interest expense related to the accretion of the California energy crisis litigation settlement liability.


Income Taxes.IncomeTaxes.Income tax expense was $135 million, $152 million and $89 million forin 2007, 2006 and 2005, and $148 million for each of 2004 and 2003.respectively. The corresponding effective income tax rates were 2532 percent, 4139 percent and 3025 percent. The decrease in income tax expense in 2007 was primarily due to a lower effective tax rate resulting from higher favorable resolution of prior years' income tax issues. The decrease was partially offset by the effect of higher pretax income in 2007. The increase in 2006 expense compared to 2005 expense was due to the lowerhigher effective tax rate.rate and higher pretax income. The decreaseincrease in the effective tax rate in 2006 was due primarily to a $60 million favorable resolution of prior years' income tax issues in 2005, compared to $12$2 million unfavorable in 2004. The higher effective income tax rate in 2004 compared to 2003 was due primarily to the comparatively low rate in 2003 resulting from the $57 million favorable resolution of income-tax issues. In addition, income before taxes in 2003 included $37 million in interest income arising from the income tax settlement, resulting in an offsetting $15 million income tax expense.2006.


Net Income.SDGIncome.  SDG&E recorded net income of $267$288 million, $213$242 million and $340and$267 million in 2005, 20042007, 2006 and 2003,2005, respectively. The increase in 20052007 was primarily due primarily to the regulatory resolution of the recovery of line losses and grid management charges arising$18 million from the favorable after-tax settlement of $23 million with the ISO (as discussed further in Note 10 of the notes to Consolidated Financial Statements), the recognition of DSM awards of $22 million after-tax,higher favorable resolution of prior years' income tax issues in 2007, $15 million from higher electric transmission earnings and $7 million due to the Palomar electric generation facility operating for twelve months in 2007 as compared to nine months in 2006. Net income in 2007 also included $26 million from the resolution of a regulatory item associated with the disposition of a power plant in a prior year. Regulatory items in 2006 included a $13 million resolution of a prior-year cost recovery issue, $8 million due to the CPUC authorization for retroactive recovery on SONGS revenues related to a computational error in the 2004 Cost of Service, and $4 million due to FERC approval to recover prior-year ISO charges in 2006.


The decrease in 2006 compared to 2005 was primarily due to $60 million andassociated with the favorable resolution of prior years' income tax issues in 2005, the $23 million recovery of costs in 2005 associated with the 2005an IRS decision relating to the sale of the South Bay power plant and $22 million related to a DSM awards settlement in 2005. These items were offset by a $17$42 million increase in after-taxearnings from electric generation activities including the commencement of commercial operation of the Palomar generating facility in 2006, $28 million due to the litigation expense in 2005 related to the California energy crisis litigation expenses,matter and a $13 million increase in



22



earnings due to lower income tax expense primarily resulting from a lower effective tax rate in 2006 (excluding the favorable after-tax impacteffect of $21 million from the resolution of the 2004 Cost of Service proceeding, and $19 million from lower after-tax electric transmission and distribution margin and higher operational costs in 2005. In addition to the 2004 matte rs noted above, the decrease in 2004 from 2003 was primarily due to the favorable resolution ofprior years' income tax issues in 2003, which positively affected 2003 earnings by $792005). Resolution of regulatory items was $25 million incomein 2006 as compared to $23 million in 2005. The 2005 regulatory item of $65$23 million after-tax in 2003 relatedresulted from FERC approval to the approved settlement of intermediate-term power purchase contracts that SDG&E had entered into during the early stages of California's electric utility industry restructuring; the 2003 Incremental Cost Incentive Pricing incomerecover prior-year ISO charges (as discussed further in Note 912 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements) for SONGS ($53 million after-tax) and higher performance awards in 2003, offset by higher electric transmission and distribution margin in 2004..


CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY


The company's utility operations generally are the major source of liquidity. In addition, working capitalcash requirements can be met through the issuance of short-term and long-term debt. Cash requirements primarily consist of capital expenditures for utility plant.


At December 31, 2005, there was $2362007, the company had $158 million in unrestricted cash and cash equivalents and $500 million in available unused committed linescredit on itscommitted line, which is shared with SoCalGas and is discussed more fully in Note 3 of credit.the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Management believes thatthese amounts and cash flows from operationsandsecurityoperations andsecurity issuances will be adequate to finance capital expenditures and meet liquidity requirements and other commitments. Forecasted capital expenditures for the next five years are discussed in"Future Capital Expenditures for Utility Plant."Management continues to regularly monitor the company's ability to finance the needs of its operating, investing and financing activities in a manner consistent with its intention to maintain strong, investment-quality credit ratings.


In connection with the purchase of the Palomar generating facility in 2006, the company received a $200 million capital contribution from Sempra Energy. As a result of the company's projected capital expenditure program, SDG&E has elected to suspend the payment of dividends on its common stock to Sempra Energy, and the level of future common dividends may be affected during periods of increased capital expenditures.


CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES


Net cash provided by operating activities totaled $660 million, $397 million and $338 million $435for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Cash provided by operating activities in 2007 increased by $263 million (66%). The change was primarily due to a $150 million increase in income from continuing operations (adjusted for noncash items) and $567a $133 million for 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.increase in overcollected regulatory balancing accounts in 2007 compared to a decrease of $14 million in 2006.


The 2005 changeincrease in net cash provided by operating activities in 2006 compared to 2005 was primarily due to a $246$138 million changedecrease in income taxes mainly duethe reduction of overcollected regulatory balancing accounts in 2006 as compared to an increase2005 and a $95 million decrease in income tax payments in 2005,accounts receivable, partially offset by a $66$53 million decrease in other assets,liabilities, a $62$50 million decrease in current liabilities, a $37 million increase in other liabilities, a $57 million reduction of interest receivable and a $54$29 million increase in net income in 2005.inventories.

The decrease in cash flows from operations in 2004 compared to 2003 was primarily attributable to a lower net income in 2004.

The company made pension plan and other postretirement benefit plan contributions of $27 million and $15 million, respectively, during 2007, $30 million and $12 million, respectively, during 2006 and $21 million and $7 million, respectively, during 2005, and $20 million and $8 million, respectively, during 2004.2005.


CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES


Net cash used in investing activities totaled $707 million, $1.1 billion and $458 million $289for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Cash used in investing activities in 2007 decreased by $360 million (34%) primarily due to the purchase of the Palomar generating facility and $305 million higher expenditures



23



for 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. the Otay Metro Powerloop transmission project in 2006, partially offset by increased capital spending resulting from the October 2007 Southern California wildfires.


The increase in cash used in investing activities in 2006 compared to 2005 was primarily due to a $50$606 million increase in capital expenditures in 20052006, including the purchase of the Palomar generating facility and a $122 million decrease in loans to affiliate in 2004. The decrease in cash used in investing activities in 2004 compared to 2003 was primarily due to greater than normalhigher expenditures for the Otay Metro Powerloop project.


Future Capital Expenditures for Utility Plant


Significant capital expenditures and investments in 2003 as a result2008 are expected to include $700 million for additions to the company's natural gas and electric distribution, electric transmission and generation systems, and advanced metering infrastructure. These expenditures are expected to be financed by cash flows from operations andsecurity issuances. These amounts exclude capital expenditures of OMEC LLC.


Over the 2003 Southern California wildfires.

In December 2005,next five years, the company submitted its initial requestexpects to make capital expenditures of $5 billion at a rate ranging from $600 million to $1.3 billion per year.


The company has an application on file with the CPUC for the Sunrise Powerlink, a proposed new transmission power line between the San Diego region and the Imperial Valley.Valley of Southern California. The proposed line called the Sunrise Powerlink, would be capable of providing electricityable to 650,000 homesdeliver 1,000 MW and is estimated to cost between $1 billion$1.2 billion. Additional information on the Sunrise Powerlink is provided in Note 10 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.


Capital expenditure amounts include the portion of AFUDC (allowance for funds used during construction) related to debt, and $1.4 billion. The company expectsexclude the portion of AFUDC related to submit a proposed route and an alternative routeequity. AFUDC is discussed in Note 1 of the Notes to the CPUC in 2006.Consolidated Financial Statements.

Future Capital Expenditures for Utility Plant

Significant capital expenditures in 2006 are expected to include $1.2 billion for additions to the company's natural gas and electric distribution and generation systems. These expenditures are expected to be financed by cash flows from operations, asset sales andsecurity issuances.

Over the next five years, the company expects to make capital expenditures of $4 billion at a rate ranging from $500 million to $1.2 billion per year.

Construction programs are periodically reviewed and revised by the company in response to changes in regulation, economic conditions, competition, customer growth, inflation, customer rates, the cost of capital and environmental requirements, as discussed in Note 11Notes 10 and 12 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

'The

The company intends to finance its capital expenditures in a manner that will maintain its strong investment-grade ratings and capital structure.


The amounts and timing of capital expenditures are subject to approvals by the CPUC, the FERC and other regulatory bodies.

The possible SDG&E' involvement with completion of the Otay Mesa power plant is discussed in Note 9 of the notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES


Net cashprovided by (used in) financing activities totaled $167 million, $443 million and $347 million $(285)for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Cash provided by financing activities in 2007 decreased by $276 million (62%), primarily due to the $200 million capital contribution made by Sempra Energy in 2006 and $(273)a $98 million for 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.decrease in issuances of long-term debt in 2007.


The 2005 increase in cash provided by financing activities in 2006 compared to 2005 was primarily due to the $500$200 million capital contribution from Sempra Energy and a $72 million increase in short-term debt, offset by a $161 million increase in payments on long-term debt and an $89 million decrease in issuances of first mortgage bondslong-term debt. In addition, the company did not pay any common dividends in 2005 and a $1302006 as compared to $75 million decrease inof common dividends paid in 2005. The



24




Long-Term Debt


In September 2007, the company issued $251publicly offered and sold $250 million of 6.125-percent first mortgage bonds, maturing in 20042037. The company’s variable interest entity, OMEC LLC, had construction loan borrowings of $63 million.


In September 2006, the company issued $161 million of variable-rate first mortgage bonds, maturing in 2018, and applied the proceeds in November 2006 to refundretire an identical amount of first mortgage bonds and related tax-exempt industrial development bonds of a shorter maturity in the same year.

Long-Term and Short-Term Debt

In May 2005, the company publicly offered and sold $250 million of 5.35% first mortgage bonds, maturing in 2035. In November 2005, the company publicly offered and sold $250 million of 5.30% first mortgage bonds, maturing in 2015.

Payments on long-term debt in 2005 were $66 million related to its rate-reduction bonds.

In June 2004, the company issued $251 million of first mortgage bonds and applied the proceeds in July to refund an identical amount of first mortgage bonds and related tax-exempt industrial development bonds of a shortersimilar weighted-average maturity. The bonds will secure the repayment of tax-exempt industrial development bonds of an identical amount, maturity and interest rate issued by the City of Chula Vista, the proceeds of which werehave been loaned to the company and which arewill be repaid with payments on the first mortgage bonds. The bonds were initially issued as auction-rate securities, but


In June 2006, the company entered into floating-for-fixed interest-rate swap agreements that effectively changedpublicly offered and sold $250 million of 6-percent first mortgage bonds, maturing in 2026.


In November 2005, the bonds' interest rates to fixed ratescompany publicly offered and sold $250 million of 5.30-percent first mortgage bonds, maturing in September 2004. The swaps are set to expire2015. In May 2005, the company publicly offered and sold $250 million of 5.35-percent first mortgage bonds, maturing in 2009.2035.


Payments on long-term debt in 20042007 were $66 million, the remaining outstanding balance of rate-reduction bonds.


Payments on long-term debt in 2006 included $251$161 million of SDG&E'sthe company's first mortgage bonds and $66 million of rate-reduction bonds.


Payments on long-term debt in 20032005 were for $66 million ofrelated to the company's rate-reduction bonds.


Note 23 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements provideprovides information concerning lines of credit and further discussion of debt activity.


Dividends

Common

The company did not pay any common dividends paid to Sempra Energy werein 2007 and 2006 to preserve cash to fund the company’s capital expenditures program, but did pay $75 million of common dividends to Sempra Energy in 2005, compared to $205 million in 2004 and $200 million in 2003.2005.


The payment and amount of future dividends are withinat the discretion of the company's board of directors. The CPUC's regulation of SDG&E'scapital structure limits the amounts that are available for loans and dividends to Sempra Energy from SDG&E. At December 31, 2005, no amounts were available from SDG&E.2007, the company could have provided a total (combined loans and dividends) of $29 million to Sempra Energy.


Capitalization

Total

At December 31, 2007, total capitalization, including the current portion of long-termall debt, and excluding the rate-reduction bonds (which are non-recourse to the company),at December 31, 2005 was $3 billion.The$4.4 billion. The debt-to-capitalization ratio was 4745 percent at December 31, 2005.2007. Significant changes affecting capitalization during 2007 included an increase in long-term debt, reductions in short-term



25



borrowings, an increase in minority interest, and comprehensive income. Additional discussion related to the significant changes is provided in Note3 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and "Results of Operations" above.


Commitments


The following is a summary of the company's principal contractual commitments at December 31, 2005.2007. Additional information concerning commitments is provided above and in Notes 2, 5, 83, 6, 9 and 1112 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

(Dollars in millions)

2006

2007 and 2008

2009 and 2010

Thereafter

Total

Long-term debt

$

66

$

66

$

--

$

1,389

$

1,521

Interest on debt (1)

78

145

152

1,687

2,062

Operating leases

19

29

17

19

84

Litigation reserve

25

50

--

--

75

Purchased-power contracts

247

536

565

2,627

3,975

Natural gas contracts

22

28

20

112

182

Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption

3

16

--

--

19

Construction commitments

16

24

7

20

67

SONGS decommissioning

14

11

--

314

339

Other asset retirement obligations

4

9

5

105

123

Pension and postretirement benefit obligations (2)

41

106

89

257

493

Environmental commitments

9

9

--

--

18

Totals

$

544

$

1,029

$

855

$

6,530

$

8,958


(Dollars in millions)

 

2008

 

 

2009 and 2010

 

 

2011 and 2012

 

 

Thereafter

 

 

Total

Long-term debt

$

--

 

$

--

 

$

--

 

 

$

1,958

 

$

1,958

Interest on debt (1)

 

90

 

 

190

 

 

197

 

 

 

1,376

 

 

1,853

Operating leases

 

22

 

 

42

 

 

36

 

 

 

63

 

 

163

Litigation reserves

 

12

 

 

12

 

 

12

 

 

 

11

 

 

47

Purchased-power contracts

 

360

 

 

764

 

 

680

 

 

 

2,536

 

 

4,340

Natural gas contracts (2)

 

26

 

 

29

 

 

26

 

 

 

109

 

 

190

Preferred stock subject to mandatory redemption

 

14

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

 

--

 

 

14

Construction commitments

 

7

 

 

8

 

 

1

 

 

 

--

 

 

16

SONGS decommissioning

 

10

 

 

1

 

 

--

 

 

 

400

 

 

411

Other asset retirement obligations

 

4

 

 

7

 

 

7

 

 

 

139

 

 

157

Pension and postretirement benefit obligations (3)

 

57

 

 

115

 

 

122

 

 

 

280

 

 

574

Environmental commitments

 

8

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

 

4

 

 

17

Totals

$

610

 

$

1,170

 

$

1,084

 

 

$

6,876

 

$

9,740

(1)

Expected interest payments were calculated using the stated interest rate for fixed rate obligations, including floating-to-fixed interest rate swaps. Expected interest payments were calculated based on forward rates in effect at December 31, 2007 for variable rate obligations.

(2)

Upon the combination of the company's and SoCalGas' core natural gas portfolios, as discussed in Note 11 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, these commitments will be assigned or transferred to SoCalGas.

(3)

Amounts are after reduction for the Medicare Part D subsidy and only include expected payments to the plans for the next 10 years.


(1) Based on forward rates in effect at December 31, 2005.
(2) Amounts are after reduction for the Medicare Part D subsidy and only include expected payments to the plans for the next 10 years.
The table excludes contracts between affiliates, intercompany debt and individual contracts that have annual cash requirements less than $1 million. The table also excludes income tax liabilities of $26 million and employment contracts.recorded in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation (FIN) No. 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 (FIN 48), because the company is unable to reasonably estimate the timing of future payments of these liabilities due to uncertainties in the timing of the effective settlement of tax positions. Additional information on FIN 48 is provided in Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.





26



Credit Ratings


Credit ratings of the company remained at investment grade levels in 2005.2007. As of January 31, 2006,2008, company credit ratings were still as follows:


Standard

& Poor's

Moody's Investor

Services, Inc.

Fitch

Secured debt

A+

A1

AA

Unsecured debt

A-

A2

AA-

Preferred stock

BBB+

Baa1

A+

Commercial paper

A-1

P-1

F1+


As of January 31, 2006,2008, the company has a stable ratings outlook rating from all three credit rating agencies.


FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE PERFORMANCE


Performance of the company will depend primarily on the ratemaking and regulatory process, electric and natural gas industry restructuring, and the changing energy marketplace. Performance will also depend on the CPUC’s final decision regarding the 2008 General Rate Case and the successful completion of construction programs,capital projects which are discussed in various places in this report. These factors are discussed in Notes 910 and 1011 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements. '


Litigation


Note 1112 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements describes litigation, (primarily cases arising from the California energy crisis), the ultimate resolution of which could have a material adverse effect on future performance.


IndustryDevelopments


Notes 9 and 10 and11 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements describe electric and natural gas restructuringregulation and rates, and other pending proceedings and investigations.


Market Risk


Market risk is the risk of erosion of the company's cash flows, net income, asset values and equity due to adverse changes in prices for various commodities, and in interest rates.


The company has adopted policies governing its market risk management and trading activitiesactivities. The company maintains a risk management committee, organization and processes to provide oversight of all affiliates. Assisted by the company's Risk Management Department (RMD), the company's Risk Management Committee (RMC)these activities. The committee, consisting of senior officers, establishes policy for and oversees company-wide energy risk management activities and monitors the results of trading and other activities to ensure compliance with the company's stated energy risk management policies and applicable regulatory requirements. The RMD receivestrading policies. This includes monitoring daily, detailed information detailing positions regarding market positions that create credit, liquidity and market riskrisk.Independently from the company’s energy procurement department, the oversight organization and monitorscommittee monitor energy price risk management and measuresmeasure and reportsreport the marketcredit, liquidity and creditmarket risk associated with these positions to the RMC.positions.


Along with other tools, the company uses Value at Risk (VaR) to measure daily its exposure to market risk. VaR is an estimate of the potential loss on a position or portfolio of positions over a specified holding period, based on normal market conditions and within a given statistical confidence interval. The company has adopted the variance/covariance methodology in its calculation of VaR, and uses both the



27



95-percent and 99-percent confidence intervals. VaR is calculated independently by the RMD for the company.risk management oversight organization. Historical and implied volatilities and correlations between instruments and positions are used in the calculation.


The company uses energy and natural gas derivatives to manage natural gas and energy price risk associated with servicing load requirements. The use of energy and natural gas derivatives is subject to certain limitations imposed by company policy and is in compliance with risk management and trading activity plans that have been filed and approved by the CPUC. Any costs or gains/losses associated with the use of energy and natural gas derivatives, which use is in compliance with CPUC approved plans, are considered to be commodity costs that are passed on to customers inon a substantially concurrent basis.


Revenue recognition is discussed in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and the additional market riskmarket-risk information regarding derivative instruments is discussed in Note 78 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements.


The following discussion of the company's primary market riskmarket-risk exposures as of December 31, 20052007 includes a discussion of how these exposures are managed.


Commodity Price Risk


Market risk related to physical commodities is created by volatility in the prices and basis of natural gas and electricity. The company's market risk is impacted by changes in volatility and liquidity in the markets in which these commodities or related financial instruments are traded. The company is exposed, in varying degrees, to price risk, primarily in the natural gas and electricity markets. The company's policy is to manage this risk within a framework that considers the unique markets and operating and regulatory environments.


The company's market riskmarket-risk exposure is limited due to CPUC-authorized rate recovery of the costs of electric procurement and natural gas purchases, and sales.intrastate transportation and storage activity. However, the company may, at times, be exposed to market risk as a result of SDG&E's natural gas PBR and electric procurement activities,,which isare discussed inNote 10in Note 11 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements. If commodity prices were to rise too rapidly, it is likely that volumes would decline. This would increase the per-unit fixed costs, which could lead to further volume declines. The company manages its risk within the parameters of its market risk management framework. As of December 31, 2005,2007, the company's VaR was not material, and the procurement activities arewere in compliance with the procurement plans filed with and approved by the CPUC.


Interest Rate Risk


The company is exposed to fluctuations in interest rates primarily as a result of its short-term and long-term debt. The company historically has funded operations through long-term debt issues at fixed rates of interest recovered in utility rates. Some more-recent debt offerings have been issued with floating rates. Subject to regulatory constraints, interest-rate swaps may be used to adjust interest-rate exposures. The company periodically enters into interest-rate swap agreements to moderate its exposure to interest-rate changes and to lower its overall costs of borrowing.


At December 31, 2005,2007, after the effects of interest-rate swaps, the company had $1.5$1.8 billion of fixed-rate, long-term debt and no$168 million of variable-rate, long-term debt. Interest on fixed-rate utility debt is fully recovered in rates on a historical cost basis and interest on variable-rate debt is provided for in rates on a forecasted basis. At December 31, 2005,2007, the company's fixed-rate, long-term debt, after the effects of interest-rate swaps, had a one-year VaR of $171$320 million and variable-rate, long-term debt, after the effects of interest-rate swaps, had a one-year VaR of $17 million.




28



At December 31, 2005,2007, the total notional amount of interest-rate swap transactions totaled $251 million.ranges from $324 million to $628 million (ranges relate to amortizing notional amounts). Note 2of8 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements provides further information regarding interest-rate swap transactions.


In addition, the company is subject to the effect of interest-rate fluctuations on the assets of its pension plans, other postretirement benefit plans and the nuclear decommissioning trust.trusts. However, the effects of these fluctuations are expected to be passed on to customers.


Credit Risk


Credit risk is the risk of loss that would be incurred as a result of nonperformance by counterparties of their contractual obligations. As with market risk, the company has adopted policies governing the management of credit risk. Credit risk management is performedthat are administered by the company's credit department and overseen by the company's RMC.its risk management committee. Using rigorous models, the RMD and the company calculatethis oversight includes calculating current and potential credit risk to counterparties on a daily basis and monitormonitoring actual balances in comparison to approved limits. The company avoids concentration of counterparties whenever possible, and management believes its credit policies associated with counterparties significantly reduce overall credit risk. These policies include an evaluation of prospective counterparties' financial condition (including credit ratings), collateral requirements under certain circumstances, the use of standardized agreements that allow for the netting of positive and negative exposures associated with a single counterparty, and other security such as lock-box liens and downgrade triggers. The company believes that adequate reserves have been provided for counterparty nonperformance.


The company monitors credit risk through a credit approvalcredit-approval process and the assignment and monitoring of credit limits. These credit limits are established based on risk and return considerations under terms customarily available in the industry.


As noted above under "Interest Rate Risk," the company periodically enters into interest-rate swap agreements to moderate exposure to interest-rate changes and to lower the overall cost of borrowing. The company would be exposed to interest-rate fluctuations on the underlying debt should counterparties to the agreement not perform.




29



CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES AND KEY NON-CASHNONCASH PERFORMANCE INDICATORS


Certain accounting policies are viewed by management as critical because their application is the most relevant, judgmental and/or material to the company's financial position and results of operations, and/or because they require the use of material judgments and estimates.


The company's significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 of the notesNotes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The most critical policies, all of which are mandatory under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America and the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, are the following:

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 5, "Accounting for Contingencies," establishes the amounts and timing of when the company provides for contingent losses. Details of the company's issues in this area are discussed in Note 11 of the notes

Description

Assumptions & Approach Utilized

Effect if Different Assumptions Used

Contingencies

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 5,Accounting for Contingencies, establishes the amounts and timing of when the company provides for contingent losses. The company continuously assesses potential loss contingencies for litigation claims, environmental remediation and other events.


The company accrues losses for the estimated impacts of various conditions, situations or circumstances involving uncertain outcomes. For loss contingencies, the loss is accrued if (1) information is available that indicates it is probable that the loss has been incurred, given the likelihood of uncertain future events, and (2) the amounts of the loss can be reasonably estimated. SFAS 5 does not permit the accrual of contingencies that might result in gains.

Details of the company's issues in this area are discussed in Note 12of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Regulatory Accounting

SFAS 71,Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation, has a significant effect on the way the Sempra Utilities record assets and liabilities, and the related revenues and expenses that would not be recorded absent the principles contained in SFAS 71.

The company records a regulatory asset if it is probable that, through the ratemaking process, the utility will recover that asset from customers. Similarly, the company records regulatory liabilities for amounts recovered in rates in advance of the expenditure. The company reviews probabilities associated with regulatory balances whenever new events occur, such as changes in the regulatory environment or the utility's competitive position, issuance of a regulatory commission order or passage of new legislation. To the extent that circumstances associated with regulatory balances change, the regulatory balances could be adjusted.

Details of the company's regulatory assets and liabilities are discussed in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.



SFAS 71, "Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation," has a significant effect on the way the California Utilities record assets and liabilities, and the related revenues and expenses that would not be recorded absent the principles contained in SFAS 71.30

SFAS 109, "Accounting for Income Taxes,"



Description

Assumptions & Approach Utilized

Effect if Different Assumptions Used

Income Taxes

SFAS 109,Accounting for Income Taxes, governs the way the company provides for income taxes. Details of the way the company provides for income taxes.



The company's issues in this area are discussed in Note 4 of the notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

SFAS 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities," SFAS 138, "Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities," SFAS 149, "Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities," andEmerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue 02-3,"Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities," have a significant effect on the balance sheets of the company but have no significant effect on its income statements because of the principles contained in SFAS 71.

In connection with the application of these and other accounting policies, the company makes estimates and judgments about various matters. The most significant of these involve:

The calculation of fair or realizable values.

The probable costs to be incurred in the resolution of litigation.

The collectibility of receivables, regulatory assets, deferred tax assets and other assets.

The resolution of various income tax issues between the company and the various taxing authorities.

Differences between estimates and actual amounts have had significant impacts in the past and are likely to have significant impacts in the future.

As discussed elsewhere herein, the company uses exchange quotations or other third-party pricing to estimate fair values whenever possible. When no such data is available, it uses internally developed models and other techniques. The assumed collectibility of receivables considers the aging of the receivables, the credit-worthiness of customers and the enforceability of contracts, where applicable. The assumed collectibility of regulatory assets considers legal and regulatory decisions involving the specific items or similar items. The assumed collectibility of other assets considers the nature of the item, the enforceability of contracts where applicable, the credit-worthiness of the other parties and other factors. The anticipated resolution of income tax issues considers past resolutions of the same or similar issue, the status of any income tax expense and related balance sheet amounts involve significant management estimates and judgments. Amounts of deferred income tax assets and liabilities, as well as current and noncurrent accruals, involve judgments and estimates of the timing and probability of recognition of income and deductions by taxing authorities. The anticipated resolution of income-tax issues considers past resolutions of the same or similar issue, the status of any income-tax examination in progress and positions taken by taxing authorities with other taxpayers with similar issues. Actuarial assumptions are based on the advice of th e company's independent actuaries. The likelihood of deferred tax recovery is based on analyses of the deferred tax assets and the company's expectation of future financial and/or taxable income, based on its strategic planning.

Actual income taxes could vary from estimated amounts due to the future impacts of various items including changes in tax laws, the company's financial condition in future periods, and the resolution of various income tax issues between the company and the various taxing authorities. Details of the company's issues in this area are discussed in Note 5of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.


FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in a company's financial statements. FIN 48 addresses how an entity should recognize, measure, classify and disclose in its financial statements uncertain tax positions that it has taken or expects to take in an income tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition.

For a position to qualify for benefit recognition under FIN 48, the position must have at least a "more likely than not" chance of being sustained (based on the position’s technical merits) upon challenge by the respective authorities. The term "more likely than not" means a likelihood of more than 50 percent. If the company does not have a more likely than not position with respect to a tax position, then the company may not recognize any of the potential tax benefit associated with the position. A tax position that meets the "more likely than not" recognition shall initially and subsequently be measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon the effective resolution of the tax position.

Unrecognized tax benefits involve management judgment regarding the likelihood of the benefit being sustained. The final resolution of uncertain tax positions could result in adjustments to recorded amounts and may affect the company’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Additional information related to accounting for uncertainty in income taxes is discussed in Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.




31




Description

Assumptions & Approach Utilized

Effect if Different Assumptions Used

Fair Value Measurements

SFAS 157,Fair Value Measurements, was adopted by the company in the first quarter of 2007. SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes criteria to be considered when measuring fair value and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS 157 does not expand the use of fair value accounting in any new circumstances.


SFAS 157: (1) establishes that fair value is based on a hierarchy of inputs into the valuation process (as described in Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements), (2) clarifies that an issuer's credit standing should be considered when measuring liabilities at fair value, (3) precludes the use of a liquidity or blockage factor discount when measuring instruments traded in an actively quoted market at fair value, and (4) requires costs related to acquiring instruments carried at fair value to be recognized as expense when incurred.


The following assets and liabilities are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2007: (1) derivatives and (2) the assets of the company’s nuclear decommissioning trusts.

As defined in SFAS 157, fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (exit price). However, as permitted under SFAS 157, the company utilizes a mid-market pricing convention (the mid-point price between bid and ask prices) as a practical expedient for valuing the majority of its assets and liabilities carried at fair value. The company utilizes market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated, or generally unobservable. The company primarily applies the market approach for recurring fair value measurement s and endeavors to utilize the best available information. Accordingly, the company utilizes valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The company is able to classify fair value balances based on the observability of those inputs. SFAS 157 establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurement). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy defined by SFAS 157 are as follows:


Level 1 – Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. Level 1 primarily consists of financial instruments such as exchange-traded derivatives, listed equities and U.S. government treasury securities.

The company's assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurements requires judgment, and may affect the valuation of fair value assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels. Generally, the company’s results of operations are not significantly impacted by the assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value because of the principles contained in SFAS 71.


There was no transition adjustment as a result of the company's adoption of SFAS 157. Additional information relating to fair value measurement is discussed in Notes 2 and 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.




32






Description

Assumptions & Approach Utilized

Effect if Different Assumptions Used

Fair Value Measurements (continued)

Level 2 – Pricing inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets included in level 1, which are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued using models or other valuation methodologies. These models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument, can be derived from observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace. Instruments in this category include non-exchange-traded derivatives such as over-the-counter forwards and options.


Level 3 – Pricing inputs include significant inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources. These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value from the perspective of a market participant. At each balance sheet date, the company performs an analysis of all instruments subject to SFAS 157 and includes in level 3 all of those whose fair value is based on significant unobservable inputs.




33




Description

Assumptions & Approach Utilized

Effect if Different Assumptions Used

Derivatives

SFAS 133,Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended, and related Emerging Issues Task Force Issues govern the accounting requirements for derivatives.

The company values derivative instruments at fair value on the balance sheet. Depending on the purpose for the contract and the applicability of hedge accounting, the impact of instruments may be offset in earnings, on the balance sheet, or in other comprehensive income. The company also utilizes normal purchase or sale accounting for certain contracts.

The application of hedge accounting to certain derivatives and the normal purchase or sale election is made on a contract-by-contract basis. Utilizing hedge accounting or the normal purchase or sale election in a different manner could materially impact reported results of operations. The effects of derivatives' accounting have a significant impact on the balance sheet of the company but have no significant effect on its results of operations because of the principles contained in SFAS 71 and the application of the normal purchase or sale election. Details of the company's financial instruments are discussed in Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.




34




Description

Assumptions & Approach Utilized

Effect if Different Assumptions Used

Defined Benefit Plans

The company has funded and unfunded noncontributory defined benefit plans that together cover substantially all of its employees. The company also has other postretirement benefit plans covering substantially all of its employees. The company accounts for its pension and other postretirement benefit plans under SFAS 87,Employers' Accounting for Pensions, and SFAS 106,Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other than Pensions, respectively, and under SFAS 158,Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R).

The measurement of the company's pension and postretirement obligations, costs and liabilities is dependent on a variety of assumptions used by the company. The critical assumptions used in developing the required estimates include the following key factors: discount rate, expected return on plan assets, health-care cost trend rates, mortality rates, rate of compensation increases and payout elections (lump sum or annuity). These assumptions are reviewed on an annual basis prior to the beginning of each year and updated when appropriate. The company considers current market conditions, including interest rates, in making these assumptions.

The actuarial assumptions used may differ materially from actual results due to changing market and economic conditions, higher or lower withdrawal rates, longer or shorter participant life spans, or more or fewer lump sum versus annuity payout elections made by plan participants.


The health-care cost trend rate is 9.48 percent for 2007. Increasing the health-care cost trend rate by one percentage point would increase the accumulated obligation for postretirement benefit plans by $5 million and total service and interest cost by $1 million. Decreasing the health-care cost trend rate by one percentage point would decrease the accumulated obligation by $5 million and total service and interest cost by $1 million.


However, these differences have minimal impact on the company's net income due to rate recovery of most benefit plan costs. Additional discussion of pension plan assumptions is included in Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.


Choices among alternative accounting policies that are material to the company's financial statements and information concerning significant estimates have been discussed with the audit committee of the Sempra Energy board of directors.


Key non-cashnoncash performance indicators for the company include numbersnumber of customers and quantities of natural gas volumes and electricity sold. The information is provided in "Overview" and "Results of Operations."


NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS


Relevant pronouncements that have recently become effective and have had or may have a significant effect on the company's financial statements are SFAS 143 and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. (FIN) 47. They are described below.

SFAS 143,"Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations" and FIN 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143": SFAS 143 requires entities to record the fair value of liabilities for legal obligations related to asset retirements in the period in which they are incurred. It also requires the company to reclassify amounts recovered in rates for future removal costs not covered by a legal obligation from accumulated depreciation to a regulatory liability. Issued in March 2005, FIN 47 clarifies that the term conditional asset-retirement obligation as used in SFAS 143 refers to a legal obligation to perform an asset-retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the controlNote 2 of the entity. FIN 47 requires companiesNotes to recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset-retirement obligation if the fair value of the obligation can be rea sonably estimated. FIN 47 is effective for the company's 2005 annual report.Consolidated Financial Statements.



35



ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK


The information required by Item 7A is set forth under "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -- Market Risk."







ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA


MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


Management is responsible for the preparation of the company's consolidated financial statements and related information appearing in this report. Management believes that the consolidated financial statements fairly present the form and substance of transactions and that the financial statements reasonably present the company's financial position and results of operations in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Management also has included in the company's financial statements amounts that are based on estimates and judgments, which it believes are reasonable under the circumstances.


The board of directors of Sempra Energy, the company's parent company, has an Audit Committee composed of six non-management directors. The committee meets periodically with financial management and the internal auditors to review accounting, control, auditing and financial reporting matters.



MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING


Company management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of company management, including the principal executive officer and principal financial officer, the company conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework inInternal Control -- Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on the company's evaluation under the framework inInternal Control -- Integrated Framework, management concluded that the company's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2005. Management's assessment2007. The effectiveness of the effectiveness ofcompany’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 20052007, has been audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, as stated in itsthe ir report, which is included herein.in Item 8.






36



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of San Diego Gas & Electric Company:


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheetsinternal control over financial reporting of San Diego Gas & Electric Company and subsidiary (the "Company") as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 47,Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143,effective December 31, 2005.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, based on the criteria established inInternal Control--Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 21, 2006 expressed an unqualified opinion on management's assessment of the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting and an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Diego, California
February 21, 2006






REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of San Diego Gas & Electric Company:

We have audited management's assessment, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, that San Diego Gas & Electric and subsidiaries (the "Company") maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2007 based on criteria established inInternal Control--IntegratedControl — Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.


We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management's assessment,assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.opinion.


A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company's principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company's board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,princ iples, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.


Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.


In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria established inInternal Control--Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.  Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2007, based on the criteria established inInternal Control--IntegratedControl — Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.


We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year



37



ended December 31, 20052007 of the Company and our report dated February 21, 200625, 2008 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and included an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company'sCompany’s adoption of atwo new accounting standard.standards in 2007.


/s/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



San Diego, California
February 21,25, 2008





38



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of San Diego Gas & Electric Company:


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of San Diego Gas & Electric Company and subsidiary (the "Company") as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related statements of consolidated income, comprehensive income and changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.


We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.


In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of San Diego Gas & Electric Company and subsidiary as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Statement No. 157,Fair Value Measurements, effective January 1, 2007 and FASB Interpretation No. 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, effective January 1, 2007. As discussed in Note 6 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company adopted FASB Statement No. 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), effective December 31, 2006.


We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, based on the criteria established inInternal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 25, 2008 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company's internal control over financial reporting.


/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


San Diego, California
February 25, 2008








39




SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY

STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years ended December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating revenues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electric

 

$

2,194

 

 

$

2,147

 

 

$

1,803

 

 

Natural gas

 

 

658

 

 

 

638

 

 

 

709

 

 

Total operating revenues

 

 

2,852

 

 

 

2,785

 

 

 

2,512

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost of electric fuel and purchased power

 

 

699

 

 

 

721

 

 

 

624

 

 

Cost of natural gas

 

 

392

 

 

 

380

 

 

 

456

 

 

Other operating expenses

 

 

797

 

 

 

774

 

 

 

603

 

 

Depreciation and amortization

 

 

301

 

 

 

291

 

 

 

264

 

 

Franchise fees and other taxes

 

 

155

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

119

 

 

Litigation expense

 

 

10

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

52

 

 

Gains on sale of assets

 

 

(2

)

 

 

(1

)

 

 

(1

)

 

Impairment losses

 

 

--

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

Total operating expenses

 

 

2,352

 

 

 

2,308

 

 

 

2,119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating income

 

 

500

 

 

 

477

 

 

 

393

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other income, net

 

 

11

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

14

 

Interest income

 

 

8

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

23

 

Interest expense

 

 

(96

)

 

 

(97

)

 

 

(74

)

Income before income taxes

 

 

423

 

 

 

394

 

 

 

356

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income tax expense

 

 

135

 

 

 

152

 

 

 

89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

 

288

 

 

 

242

 

 

 

267

 

Preferred dividend requirements

 

 

5

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

5

 

Earnings applicable to common shares

 

$

283

 

 

$

237

 

 

$

262

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.




40







SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY

 

 

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

2007

 

2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

158

 

 

$

9

 

 

Accounts receivable – trade

 

 

207

 

 

 

206

 

 

Accounts receivable – other

 

 

49

 

 

 

26

 

 

Interest receivable

 

 

1

 

 

 

15

 

 

Due from unconsolidated affiliates

 

 

22

 

 

 

24

 

 

Income taxes receivable

 

 

56

 

 

 

25

 

 

Deferred income taxes

 

 

67

 

 

 

41

 

 

Inventories

 

 

113

 

 

 

97

 

 

Regulatory assets arising from fixed-price contracts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and other derivatives

 

 

52

 

 

 

83

 

 

Other regulatory assets

 

 

14

 

 

 

69

 

 

Other

 

 

60

 

 

 

71

 

 

 

Total current assets

 

 

799

 

 

 

666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due from unconsolidated affiliate

 

 

5

 

 

 

5

 

 

Deferred taxes recoverable in rates

 

 

312

 

 

 

318

 

 

Regulatory assets arising from fixed-price contracts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and other derivatives

 

 

309

 

 

 

353

 

 

Regulatory assets arising from pensions and other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    postretirement benefit obligations

 

 

162

 

 

 

220

 

 

Other regulatory assets

 

 

48

 

 

 

59

 

 

Nuclear decommissioning trusts

 

 

739

 

 

 

702

 

 

Sundry

 

 

123

 

 

 

72

 

 

 

Total other assets

 

 

1,698

 

 

 

1,729

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property, plant and equipment:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property, plant and equipment

 

 

8,282

 

 

 

7,495

 

 

Less accumulated depreciation and amortization

 

 

(2,271

)

 

 

(2,095

)

 

 

Property, plant and equipment, net

 

 

6,011

 

 

 

5,400

 

Total assets

 

$

8,508

 

 

$

7,795

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




41







SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY

 

 

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 31,

 

December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

2007

 

2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short-term debt

 

$

--

 

 

$

72

 

 

Accounts payable

 

 

290

 

 

 

273

 

 

Due to unconsolidated affiliates

 

 

10

 

 

 

5

 

 

Regulatory balancing accounts, net

 

 

298

 

 

 

165

 

 

Fixed-price contracts and other derivatives

 

 

61

 

 

 

83

 

 

Customer deposits

 

 

52

 

 

 

47

 

 

Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities

 

 

14

 

 

 

3

 

 

Current portion of long-term debt

 

 

--

 

 

 

66

 

 

Other

 

 

259

 

 

 

287

 

 

 

Total current liabilities

 

 

984

 

 

 

1,001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Long-term debt

 

 

1,958

 

 

 

1,638

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deferred credits and other liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Customer advances for construction

 

 

33

 

 

 

38

 

 

Pension and other postretirement benefit obligations,

     net of plan assets

 

 

190

 

 

 

249

 

 

Deferred income taxes

 

 

506

 

 

 

520

 

 

Deferred investment tax credits

 

 

29

 

 

 

31

 

 

Regulatory liabilities arising from removal obligations

 

 

1,335

 

 

 

1,311

 

 

Asset retirement obligations

 

 

554

 

 

 

462

 

 

Fixed-price contracts and other derivatives

 

 

329

 

 

 

353

 

 

Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities

 

 

--

 

 

 

14

 

 

Deferred credits and other

 

 

176

 

 

 

184

 

 

 

Total deferred credits and other liabilities

 

 

3,152

 

 

 

3,162

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minority interest

 

 

135

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commitments and contingencies (Note 12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shareholders' equity:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption

 

 

79

 

 

 

79

 

 

Common stock (255 million shares authorized;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117 million shares outstanding; no par value)

 

 

1,138

 

 

 

1,138

 

 

Retained earnings

 

 

1,078

 

 

 

796

 

 

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

 

 

(16

)

 

 

(19

)

 

 

Total shareholders' equity

 

 

2,279

 

 

 

1,994

 

Total liabilities and shareholders' equity

 

$

8,508

 

 

$

7,795

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






42




SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY

STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years ended December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

 

$

288

 

 

$

242

 

 

$

267

 

 

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depreciation and amortization

 

 

 

301

 

 

 

291

 

 

 

264

 

 

 

 

Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits

 

 

 

(40

)

 

 

(130

)

 

 

37

 

 

 

 

Noncash rate-reduction bond expense

 

 

 

55

 

 

 

60

 

 

 

68

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

(3

)

 

Changes in other assets

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

13

 

 

Changes in other liabilities

 

 

 

(5

)

 

 

(16

)

 

 

37

 

 

Changes in working capital components:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts receivable

 

 

 

(43

)

 

 

39

 

 

 

(56

)

 

 

 

Interest receivable

 

 

 

(1

)

 

 

2

 

 

 

39

 

 

 

 

Due to/from affiliates, net

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

(12

)

 

 

(1

)

 

 

 

Inventories

 

 

 

(16

)

 

 

(19

)

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

Other current assets

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

(19

)

 

 

(16

)

 

 

 

Income taxes

 

 

 

(31

)

 

 

(32

)

 

 

(231

)

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

28

 

 

 

 

Regulatory balancing accounts

 

 

 

133

 

 

 

(14

)

 

 

(152

)

 

 

 

Other current liabilities

 

 

 

(21

)

 

 

(16

)

 

 

34

 

 

 

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

 

 

660

 

 

 

397

 

 

 

338

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditures for property, plant and equipment

 

 

 

(714

)

 

 

(1,070

)

 

 

(464

)

 

Purchases of nuclear decommissioning trust assets

 

 

 

(587

)

 

 

(481

)

 

 

(230

)

 

Proceeds from sales by nuclear decommissioning trusts

 

 

 

592

 

 

 

484

 

 

 

234

 

 

Decrease (increase) in loans to affiliates, net

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

(1

)

 

 

1

 

 

Proceeds from sale of assets

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

Net cash used in investing activities

 

 

 

(707

)

 

 

(1,067

)

 

 

(458

)

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital contribution

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

--

 

 

Common dividends paid

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

(75

)

 

Preferred dividends paid

 

 

 

(5

)

 

 

(5

)

 

 

(5

)

 

Redemptions of preferred stock

 

 

 

(3

)

 

 

(3

)

 

 

(3

)

 

Issuances of long-term debt

 

 

 

313

 

 

 

411

 

 

 

500

 

 

Payments on long-term debt

 

 

 

(66

)

 

 

(227

)

 

 

(66

)

 

Decrease (increase) in short-term debt, net

 

 

 

(72

)

 

 

72

 

 

 

--

 

 

Other

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

(5

)

 

 

(4

)

 

 

Net cash provided by financing activities

 

 

 

167

 

 

 

443

 

 

 

347

 

Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

 

 

120

 

 

 

(227

)

 

 

227

 

Cash and cash equivalents, January 1

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

236

 

 

 

9

 

Cash assumed in connection with FIN 46(R) initial consolidation

 

 

 

29

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

--

 

Cash and cash equivalents, December 31

 

 

$

158

 

 

$

9

 

 

$

236

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





43




SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY

STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years ended December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

& nbsp;

 

CASH FLOW INFORMATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

& nbsp;

 

 

Interest payments, net of amounts capitalized

 

 

$

85

 

 

$

91

 

 

$

66

 

 

 

Income tax payments, net of refunds

 

 

$

206

 

 

$

313

 

 

$

291

 

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF NONCASH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INVESTING ACTIVITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Increase in accounts payable from investments in property, plant and equipment

 

 

$

37

 

 

$

21

 

 

$

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.






44




SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY

STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AND CHANGES IN

SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

Years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Dollars in millions)

Comprehensive Income

 

Preferred Stock Not Subject to Mandatory Redemption

 

Common Stock

 

Retained Earnings

 

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

 

Total Shareholders' Equity

 

Balance at December 31, 2004

 

 

$ 79

 

$ 938

 

$ 372

 

$ (13

)

$ 1,376

 

Net income

$ 267

 

 

 

 

 

267

 

 

 

267

 

     Pension adjustment

(1

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

(1

)

Comprehensive income

$ 266

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preferred stock dividends declared

 

 

 

 

 

 

(5

)

 

 

(5

)

Common stock dividends declared

 

 

 

 

 

 

(75

)

 

 

(75

)

Balance at December 31, 2005

 

 

79

 

938

 

559

 

(14

)

1,562

 

Net income

$ 242

 

 

 

 

 

242

 

 

 

242

 

     Pension adjustment

(2

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2

)

(2

)

Comprehensive income

$ 240

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adoption of FASB Statement No. 158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3

)

(3

)

Preferred stock dividends declared

 

 

 

 

 

 

(5

)

 

 

(5

)

Capital contribution

 

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

200

 

Balance at December 31, 2006

 

 

79

 

1,138

 

796

 

(19

)

1,994

 

Adoption of FIN 48

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

 

 

(1

)

Net income

$ 288

 

 

 

 

 

288

 

 

 

288

 

    Financial instruments

(1

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1

)

(1

)

    Pension adjustment

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

4

 

Comprehensive income

$ 291

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preferred stock dividends declared

 

 

 

 

 

 

(5

)

 

 

(5

)

Balance at December 31, 2007

 

 

$ 79

 

$1,138

 

$1,078

 

$ (16

)

$ 2,279

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.







45



SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME
(Dollars in millions)

       

Years ended December 31,

       

2005

 

2004

 

2003

                  

Operating revenues

            
 

Electric

 

$

1,803

  

$

1,678

  

$

1,801

 
 

Natural gas

  

709

   

596

   

507

 

 

Total operating revenues

  

2,512

   

2,274

   

2,308

 

             

Operating expenses

            
 

Cost of electric fuel and purchased power

  

624

   

576

   

541

 
 

Cost of natural gas

  

456

   

347

   

274

 
 

Other operating expenses

  

603

   

574

   

611

 
 

Depreciation and amortization

  

264

   

259

   

242

 
 

Income taxes

  

110

   

137

   

127

 
 

Franchise fees and other taxes

  

119

   

113

   

114

 
 

Litigation expense

  

52

   

19

   

17

 
 

Gain on sale of assets

  

(1

)

  

(1

)

  

(9

)

 

Impairment losses (adjustments)

  

2

   

(6

)

  

3

 

  

Total operating expenses

  

2,229

   

2,018

   

1,920

 

             

Operating income

  

283

   

256

   

388

 

             

Other income, net (Note 1)

  

58

   

25

   

25

 

             

Interest charges

            
 

Long-term debt

  

65

   

61

   

67

 
 

Other

  

12

   

10

   

11

 
 

Allowance for borrowed funds used during construction

 

(3

)

  

(3

)

  

(5

)

  

Total

  

74

   

68

   

73

 

             

Net income

  

267

   

213

   

340

 

Preferred dividend requirements

  

5

   

5

   

6

 

Earnings applicable to common shares

 

$

262

  

$

208

  

$

334

 

See notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.






SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in millions)

        

December 31,
2005

 

December 31,
2004

         

               

ASSETS

         

Utility plant, at original cost

  

$

6,927

  

$

6,345

 

Accumulated depreciation and amortization

   

(1,956

)

  

(1,821

)

 

Utility plant, net

   

4,971

   

4,524

 

          

Nuclear decommissioning trusts

   

638

   

612

 

          

Current assets:

         
 

Cash and cash equivalents

  

236

   

9

 
 

Accounts receivable - trade

  

188

   

185

 
 

Accounts receivable - other

  

83

   

30

 
 

Interest receivable

  

17

   

55

 
 

Due from unconsolidated affiliates

  

32

   

30

 
 

Deferred income taxes

  

7

   

--

 

Regulatory assets arising from fixed-price contracts

76

55

and other derivatives

 

Other regulatory assets

  

91

   

77

 
 

Inventories

  

78

   

88

 
 

Other

  

39

   

31

 

  

Total current assets

  

847

   

560

 

               

Other assets:

        
 

Deferred taxes recoverable in rates

  

294

   

278

 

Regulatory assets arising from fixed-price contracts

398

448

and other derivatives

 

Other regulatory assets

  

276

   

341

 
 

Sundry

  

68

   

71

 

  

Total other assets

  

1,036

   

1,138

 

Total assets

 

$

7,492

  

$

6,834

 

See notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.






SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in millions)

        

December 31,
2005

 

December 31,
2004

         

               

CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES

        

Capitalization:

        

Common stock (255 million shares authorized;

$

938

$

938

117 million shares outstanding)

 

Retained earnings

  

559

   

372

 
 

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

  

(14

)

  

(13

)

  

Total common equity

  

1,483

   

1,297

 
 

Preferred stock not subject to mandatory redemption

  

79

   

79

 

  

Total shareholders' equity

  

1,562

   

1,376

 
 

Long-term debt

  

1,455

   

1,022

 

  

Total capitalization

  

3,017

   

2,398

 

         

Current liabilities:

        
 

Accounts payable

  

243

   

200

 
 

Due to unconsolidated affiliates

  

441

   

15

 
 

Income taxes payable

  

6

   

225

 
 

Deferred income taxes

  

--

   

15

 
 

Regulatory balancing accounts, net

  

179

   

331

 
 

Fixed-price contracts and other derivatives

  

76

   

55

 
 

Customer deposits

  

52

   

45

 
 

Current portion of long-term debt

  

66

   

66

 
 

Other

  

282

   

256

 

  

Total current liabilities

  

1,345

   

1,208

 

         

Deferred credits and other liabilities:

        
 

Due to unconsolidated affiliate

  

--

   

267

 
 

Customer advances for construction

  

39

   

45

 
 

Deferred income taxes

  

591

   

522

 
 

Deferred investment tax credits

  

34

   

37

 

Regulatory liabilities arising from removal obligations

1,216

1,246

 

Asset retirement obligations

  

444

   

318

 
 

Fixed-price contracts and other derivatives

  

398

   

448

 
 

Mandatorily redeemable preferred securities

  

16

   

19

 
 

Deferred credits and other

  

392

   

326

 

  

Total deferred credits and other liabilities

  

3,130

   

3,228

 

         

Commitments and contingencies (Note 11)

        
               

Total liabilities and shareholders' equity

 

$

7,492

  

$

6,834

 

See notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.






SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in millions)

          

Years ended December 31,

          

2005

 

2004

 

2003

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

 

Net income

  

$

267

  

$

213

  

$

340

 
 

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:

             

   

Depreciation and amortization

   

264

   

259

   

242

 
   

Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits

   

37

   

--

   

(29

)

   

Non-cash rate reduction bond expense

   

68

   

75

   

68

 
   

Other

   

(3

)

  

(7

)

  

(6

)

 

Changes in other assets

   

13

   

(53

)

  

(3

)

 

Changes in other liabilities

   

37

   

(25

)

  

(7

)

 

Changes in working capital components:

             
   

Accounts receivable

   

(56

)

  

(24

)

  

(9

)

   

Interest receivable

   

39

   

(18

)

  

(37

)

   

Due to/from affiliates, net

   

(1

)

  

13

   

2

 
   

Inventories

   

10

   

(27

)

  

(14

)

   

Other current assets

   

(16

)

  

(1

)

  

(23

)

   

Income taxes

   

(231

)

  

15

   

8

 
   

Accounts payable

   

28

   

6

   

34

 
   

Regulatory balancing accounts

   

(152

)

  

(15

)

  

(56

)

   

Other current liabilities

   

34

   

24

   

57

 

  

Net cash provided by operating activities

   

338

   

435

   

567

 

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES

             
 

Expenditures for property, plant and equipment

   

(464

)

  

(414

)

  

(444

)

 

Purchases of nuclear decommissioning and other trusts

   

(230

)

  

(244

)

  

(271

)

 

Proceeds from sales by nuclear decommissioning and other trusts

   

234

   

247

   

277

 
 

Net proceeds from sale of assets

   

1

   

--

   

4

 
 

Decrease in loans to affiliate, net

   

1

   

122

   

129

 

  

Net cash used in investing activities

   

(458

)

  

(289

)

  

(305

)

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES

             
 

Common dividends paid

   

(75

)

  

(205

)

  

(200

)

 

Preferred dividends paid

   

(5

)

  

(5

)

  

(6

)

 

Payments on long-term debt

   

(66

)

  

(317

)

  

(66

)

 

Issuances of long-term debt

   

500

   

251

   

--

 
 

Redemption of preferred stock

   

(3

)

  

(3

)

  

(1

)

 

Other

   

(4

)

  

(6

)

  

--

 

  

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities

   

347

   

(285

)

  

(273

)

Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

   

227

   

(139

)

  

(11

)

Cash and cash equivalents, January 1

   

9

   

148

   

159

 

Cash and cash equivalents, December 31

  

$

236

  

$

9

  

$

148

 

See notes to Consolidated Financial Statements






SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in millions)

          

Years ended December 31,

          

2005

 

2004

 

2003

                     
                     

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW

             

INFORMATION

             

Interest payments, net of amounts capitalized

  

$

66

  

$

63

  

$

68

 

Income tax payments, net of refunds

$

291

$

129

$

167

See notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.






SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CHANGES IN SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003
(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

Comprehensive Income

 

Preferred Stock Not Subject to Mandatory Redemption

 

Common Stock

 

Retained Earnings

 

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

 

Total Shareholders' Equity

 

Balance at December 31, 2002

$ 79

$ 943

$ 235

$ (34

)

$ 1,223

Net income

$ 340

 

   

340

   

340

 

Other comprehensive income adjustment - pension

(9

)

      

(9

)

(9

)

Comprehensive income

$ 331

           

Preferred stock dividends declared

      

(6

)

  

(6

)

Common stock dividends declared

      

(200

)

  

(200

)

Capital contribution

    

(5

)

    

(5

)

Balance at December 31, 2003

  

79

 

938

 

369

 

(43

)

1,343

 

Net income

$ 213

     

213

   

213

 

Other comprehensive income adjustment - pension

30

       

30

 

30

 

Comprehensive income

$ 243

           

Preferred stock dividends declared

      

(5

)

  

(5

)

Common stock dividends declared

      

(205

)

  

(205

)

Balance at December 31, 2004

  

79

 

938

 

372

 

(13

)

1,376

 

Net income

$ 267

     

267

   

267

 

Other comprehensive income adjustment - pension

(1

)

      

(1

)

(1

)

Comprehensive income

$ 266

           

Preferred stock dividends declared

      

(5

)

  

(5

)

Common stock dividends declared

      

(75

)

  

(75

)

Balance at December 31, 2005

  

$ 79

 

$ 938

 

$ 559

 

$ (14

)

$ 1,562

 

See notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.






NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


NOTE 1. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND OTHER FINANCIAL DATA


Principles of Consolidation


The Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E or the company) and, its sole subsidiary, SDG&E Funding LLC.LLC, and Otay Mesa Energy Center LLC (OMEC LLC), a variable interest entity of which SDG&E is the primary beneficiary, as discussed below. SDG&E’s common stock is wholly owned by Enova Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sempra Energy, a California-based Fortune 500 holding company. All material intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.


Sempra Energy also indirectly owns all of the common stock of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). SDG&E and SoCalGas are collectively referred to herein as the Sempra Utilities.


As a subsidiary, of Sempra Energy, the company receives certain services therefrom,from Sempra Energy, for which it is charged its allocable share of the cost of such services. Management believes that the cost is reasonable butand probably less than if the company had to provide those services itself. In addition, in connection with charges related to litigation, the significant instances of which are discussed in Note 11, Sempra Energy management determines the allocation of the charges among its business units, including the company, based on the extent of their involvement with the subject of the litigation.


Use of Estimates in the Preparation of the Financial Statements


The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period, and the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. Although management believes the estimates and assumptions are reasonable, actual amounts canultimately may differ significantly from those estimates.

Basis of Presentation

Certain prior-year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year's presentation.

Regulatory Matters


Effects of Regulation


The accounting policies of the company conform with GAAP for regulated enterprises and reflect the policies of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). SDG&E and its affiliate, Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), are collectively referred to herein as "the California Utilities."


The company prepares its financial statements in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 71, Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation(SFAS 71), under which a regulated utility records a regulatory asset if it is probable that, through the ratemaking process, the utility will recover that asset from customers. To the extent that recovery is no longer probable as a result of changes in regulation or the utility's competitive position, the related regulatory assets would be written off. In addition, SFAS 144,Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, requires that a loss be recognized whenever a regulator excludes all or part of utility plant or regulatory assets from ratebase. Regulatory liabilities represent reductions in future rates for amounts due to customers. Information concerning regulatory assets and liabilities is provided below in "Revenues," "Regulatory Balancing Accounts" and "Regulatory Assets and Liabilit ies.Liabilities."


Regulatory Balancing Accounts


The amounts included in regulatory balancing accounts at December 31, 2005,2007, represent net payables (payables net of receivables) thatarethat are returned to customers by reducingthrough the reduction of future rates.



46



Except for certain costs subject to balancing account treatment, fluctuations in most operating and maintenance accounts from forecasted amounts approved by the CPUC in establishing rates affect utility earnings. Balancing accounts provide a mechanism for charging utility customers, over time, the amount actually incurred for certain costs, primarily commodity costs. The CPUC has also approved balancing account treatment for variances between forecast and actual for SDG&E's&E’s commodity volumes and commodity costs, eliminating the impact on earnings from any throughput and revenue variances from adopted forecast levels. Additional information on regulatory matters is included in Notes 910 and 10.11.


Regulatory Assets and Liabilities


In accordance with the accounting principles of SFAS 71, the company records regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities as discussed above.


Regulatory assets (liabilities) as of December 31 relate to the following matters:

(Dollars in millions)

  

2005

   

2004

 

Fixed-price contracts and other derivatives

 

$

473

  

$

500

 

Recapture of temporary rate reduction*

  

116

   

183

 

Deferred taxes recoverable in rates

  

294

   

278

 

Unamortized loss on retirement of debt, net

  

42

   

46

 

Employee benefit costs

  

174

   

160

 

Removal obligations**

  

(1,216

)

  

(1,246

)

Other

  

36

   

29

 

Total

 

$

(81

)

 

$

(50

)


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2006

 

Fixed-price contracts and other derivatives

 

$

361

 

 

$

429

 

Recapture of temporary rate reduction*

 

 

--

 

 

 

56

 

Deferred taxes recoverable in rates

 

 

312

 

 

 

318

 

Unamortized loss on reacquired debt, net

 

 

34

 

 

 

38

 

Pension and other postretirement benefit obligations

 

 

162

 

 

 

220

 

Removal obligations**

 

 

(1,335

)

 

 

(1,311

)

Environmental costs

 

 

11

 

 

 

16

 

Other

 

 

17

 

 

 

18

 

 

Total

 

$

(438

)

 

$

(216

)

*

 

In connection with electric industry restructuring, which is described in Note 10, SDG&E temporarily reduced rates to its small-usage customers. That reduction was recovered in rates through 2007.

**

 

This is related to SFAS 143,Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, which is discussed below in "Asset Retirement Obligations."

* In connection with electric industry restructuring, which is described in Note 9, SDG&E temporarily reduced rates to its small-usage customers. That reduction is being recovered in rates through 2007.
** This is related to SFAS 143,Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, which is discussed below in "New Accounting Standards."

Net regulatory assets (liabilities) are recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31 as follows:

(Dollars in millions)

  

2005

   

2004

 

Current regulatory assets

 

$

167

  

$

132

 

Noncurrent regulatory assets

  

968

   

1,067

 

Current regulatory liabilities*

  

--

   

(3

)

Noncurrent regulatory liabilities

  

(1,216

)

  

(1,246

)

 

Total

 

$

(81

)

 

$

(50

)


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2006

 

Current regulatory assets

 

$

66

 

 

$

152

 

Noncurrent regulatory assets

 

 

831

 

 

 

950

 

Current regulatory liabilities*

 

 

--

 

 

 

(7

)

Noncurrent regulatory liabilities

 

 

(1,335

)

 

 

(1,311

)

 

Total

 

$

(438

)

 

$

(216

)

*

Included in Other Current Liabilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


* IncludedRegulatory assets arising from fixed-price contracts and other derivatives are offset by corresponding liabilities arising from purchased power and natural gas transportation contracts. The regulatory asset is reduced as payments are made for services under these contracts. Deferred taxes recoverable in Other Current Liabilities.rates are based on current regulatory ratemaking and income tax laws. SDG&E expects to recover net regulatory assets related to deferred income taxes over the lives of the assets that give rise to the accumulated deferred income taxes. Theregulatory asset related to the recapture of a temporary rate reduction was amortized simultaneously with the amortization of the related rate-reduction bond liability and was fully recovered by the end of 2007. The regulatory assets related to unamortized losses on reacquired debt are being recovered over the remaining original amortization periods of the loss on reacquired debt over periods ranging from fo ur months to 20 years. Regulatory assets related to environmental costs represent



47



the portion of the company’s environmental liability recognized at the end of the period in excess of the amount that has been recovered through rates charged to customers. This amount is expected to be recovered in future rates as expenditures are made. Regulatory assets related topension and other postretirement benefit obligations are offset by corresponding liabilities and are being recovered in rates as the costs are incurred.


All of these assets either earn a return, generally at short-term rates, or the cash has not yet been expended and the assets are offset by liabilities that do not incur a carrying cost.


Cash and Cash Equivalents


Cash equivalents are highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less at the date of purchase.

Non-cash Investing and Financing Activities

SDG&E added utility plant of $150 million and $267 million in 2005 and 2004, respectively, related to the Palomar power plant (discussed in Note 2), which will not be paid until 2006.  In 2003 the company received $1 million of assets from Sempra Energy and assumed related liabilities of $6million.

Collection Allowances


The allowance for doubtful accounts was $2 million, $2 million and $2 million at each of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, 2004 and 2003.respectively. The company recorded provisions for doubtful accounts of $4 million, $2 million and $3 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The company wrote off doubtful accounts of $4 million, $2 million and $3 million in 2007, 2006 and $1 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.


Inventories


At December 31, 2005,2007, inventory shown on the Consolidated Balance Sheets included natural gas of $30$49 million, and materials and supplies of $48$64 million. The corresponding balances at December 31, 20042006 were $50$43 million and $38$54 million, respectively. Natural gas is valued by the last-in first-out (LIFO) method. When the inventory is consumed, differences between the LIFO valuation and replacement cost are reflected in customer rates. Materials and supplies at the company are generally valued at the lower of average cost or market.


Income Taxes


Income tax expense includes current and deferred income taxes from operations during the year. In accordance with SFAS 109,Accounting for Income Taxes(SFAS 109), the company records deferred income taxes for temporary differences between the book and tax bases of assets and liabilities. Investment tax credits from prior years are being amortized to income over the estimated service lives of the properties. Other credits mainly low-income housing tax credits, are recognized in income as earned. The company follows certain provisions of SFAS 109 that permitrequire regulated enterprises to recognize regulatory assets or liabilities to offset deferred tax liabilities and assets, respectively, if it is probable that such amounts will be recovered from, or returned to, customers.


Note 2 describes the impact of the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation (FIN) No. 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109.


Property, Plant and Equipment

Utility

Property, plant and equipment primarily represents the buildings, equipment and other facilities used by the company to provide natural gas and electric utility services.




48



The cost of plant includes labor, materials, contract services,and certain expenditures incurred during a major maintenance outage of a generating plant. Maintenanceplant.Maintenance costs are expensed as incurred. In addition, the cost of plant includes an allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC)., as discussed below. The cost of most retired depreciable utility plant minus salvage value is charged to accumulated depreciation.

Utility

Property, plant and equipment balances by major functional categories are as follows:

  

Utility Plant at
December 31,

 

Depreciation rates for years ended

December 31,

   
   
 

(Dollars in billions)

2005

2004

 

2005

2004

2003

 

Natural gas operations

$

1.1

$

1.0

 

3.42

%

3.42

%

3.63

%

 

Electric distribution

 

3.5

 

3.4

 

4.13

%

4.11

%

4.70

%

 

Electric transmission

 

1.1

 

1.0

 

3.05

%

3.06

%

3.09

%

 

Other electric

 

0.6

 

0.6

 

9.75

%

11.33

%

9.53

%

 

Construction work in progress

 

0.6

 

0.3

 

NA

 

NA

 

NA

 

  

Total

$

6.9

$

6.3

       


 

 

Property, Plant

 

Depreciation rates

 

 

and Equipment at

 

for the years ended

 

 

December 31,

 

December 31,

 

(Dollars in billions)

2007

2006

 

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

 

Natural gas operations

$

1.1

$

1.1

 

3.43

%

 3.42

%

3.42

%

 

Electric distribution

 

4.0

 

3.7

 

4.15

%

 4.13

%

4.13

%

 

Electric transmission

 

1.4

 

1.2

 

2.84

%

 3.07

%

3.05

%

 

Other electric

 

1.3

 

1.2

 

8.50

%

8.70

%

9.75

%

 

Construction work in progress

 

0.5

 

0.3

 

NA

 

NA

 

NA

 

 

 

Total

$

8.3

$

7.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Accumulated depreciation and decommissioning of natural gas and electric utility plant in service were $0.4$0.5 billion and $1.6$1.8 billion, respectively, at December 31, 2005,2007, and were $0.4 billion and $1.4$1.7 billion, respectively, at December 31, 2004.2006. Depreciation expense is based on the straight-line method over the useful lives of the assets or a shorter period prescribed by the CPUC. The discussion of SFAS 143 under "New Accounting Standards" describes a change in the presentation of accumulated depreciation.


AFUDC, which represents the cost of debt and equity funds used to finance the construction of utility plant, is added to the cost of utility plant. Although it is not a current source of cash, AFUDC increases income and is recorded partly as an offset to interest chargesexpense and partly as a component of Other Income, Net in the Statements of Consolidated Income.AFUDCIncome. AFUDC amounted to $12million,$24million, $15 million and $12 million for 2007, 2006 and $17million for 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

Nuclear Decommissioning Liability

AtVariable Interest Entities


FIN 46 (revised December 2003),Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities - an interpretation of ARB No. 51 (FIN 46(R)), requires an enterprise to consolidate a variable interest entity (VIE), as defined in FIN 46(R), if the company is the primary beneficiary of a VIE’s activities.


The company has entered into a 10-year power purchase agreement with OMEC LLC for power generated at the Otay Mesa Energy Center (OMEC), a 573-megawatt (MW) generating facility currently under construction by OMEC LLC, which is expected to be in commercial operation by mid-2009. SDG&E will supply all of the natural gas to fuel the power plant. The agreement provides SDG&E the option to purchase the power plant from OMEC LLC at the end of the contract term in 2019, or upon earlier termination of the purchase power agreement, at a predetermined price subject to adjustments based on performance of the facility. If SDG&E does not exercise its option, OMEC LLC has the right, under certain circumstances, to require SDG&E to purchase the power plant at a predetermined price. As defined in FIN 46(R), OMEC LLC is a VIE, of which the company is the primary beneficiary. Accordingly, the company consolidated OMEC LLC beginning in the second quarter of 2007. The CPUC also approved an additional financial return to SDG&E to compensate it for the effect on its financial ratios from the requirement to consolidate OMEC LLC in accordance with FIN 46(R).




49



The company’s Consolidated Financial Statements include the following amounts associated with OMEC LLC:


(Dollars in millions)

 

December 31, 2007

 

Cash and cash equivalents

 

$

1

 

Other current assets

 

 

3

 

   Total current assets

 

 

4

 

Property, plant and equipment

 

 

232

 

Sundry

 

 

9

 

   Total assets

 

$

245

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounts payable

 

$

15

 

Other current liabilities

 

 

2

 

Long-term debt

 

 

70

 

Minority interest

 

 

135

 

Other

 

 

23

 

   Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity

 

$

245

 


(Dollars in millions)

 

Year ended
December 31, 2007

 

Loss on interest-rate swaps

 

$

(17

)

Minority interest

 

 

17

 

   Other income, net

 

 

--

 

   Net income

 

$

--

 


OMEC LLC has a project finance credit facility with third party lenders, secured by the assets of OMEC LLC, that provides for up to $377 million for the construction of OMEC. SDG&E is not a party to the credit agreement. The loan matures in April 2019. Borrowings under the facility bear interest at rates varying with market rates. OMEC LLC had $63 million of outstanding borrowings under this facility at December 31, 20052007. In addition, OMEC LLC has entered into interest-rate swap agreements to moderate its exposure to interest-rate changes on this facility. Additional information concerning the interest-rate swaps is provided in Note 8.


Contracts under which SDG&E acquires power from generation facilities otherwise unrelated to SDG&E could result in a requirement for SDG&E to consolidate the entity that owns the facility. In accordance with FIN 46(R), SDG&E is continuing the process of determining whether it has any such situations and, 2004,if so, gathering the information that would be needed to perform the consolidation. The effects of this, if any, are not expected to significantly affect the financial position of SDG&E and there would be no effect on results of operations or liquidity.

Asset Retirement Obligations


The company accounts for its tangible long-lived assets under SFAS 143,Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations (SFAS 143), and FIN 47,Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of SFAS 143 (FIN 47). SFAS 143 and FIN 47 require the company hadto record an asset retirement obligation for the present value of liabilities of future costs expected to be incurred when assets are retired from service, if the retirement process is legally required and if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. It requires recording of the estimated retirement cost over the life of the related asset by depreciating the present value of the obligation (measured at the time of the asset's acquisition) and accreting the discount until the liability is settled.Rate-regulated entities may recognize regulatory assets or liabilities as a result of the timing difference between the recognition of costs as recorded in acco rdance with SFAS 143 and FIN 47, and costs recovered through the rate-making



50



process. A regulatory liability has been recorded to reflect that the company has collected the funds from customers more quickly than SFAS 143 and FIN 47 would accrete the retirement liability and depreciate the asset.


The company has recorded asset retirement obligations of $339 million and $328 million, respectively, and related regulatory liabilities of $346 million and $333 million, respectively, related to fuel storage tanks; hazardous waste storage facilities; asbestos-containing construction materials; decommissioning of its nuclear decommissioning,power facilities; natural gas transportation and distribution, electric distribution and electric transmission systems assets; and the site restoration of a former power plant.


The changes in accordance with SFAS 143. Information about San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) decommissioning costs is included below in "New Accounting Standards."asset retirement obligations for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 are as follows:


(Dollars in millions)

2007

2006

Balance as of January 1*

 

 

$

 483

 

$

 463

 

Accretion expense

 

 

 

35

 

 

30

 

Liabilities incurred

 

 

 

1

 

 

--

 

Payments

 

 

 

(20

)

 

(12

)

Revision to estimated cash flows

 

 

 

69

 

 

2

 

Balance as of December 31*

 

 

$

568

 

$

483

 

*

The current portion of the obligation is included in Other Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


Legal Fees


Legal fees that are associated with a past event for which a contingent liability has been recorded are accrued when it is probable that fees also will be incurred.


In connection with charges related to litigation, the significant instances of which are discussed in Note 12, Sempra Energy management determines the allocation of the charges among its business units, including the company, based on the extent of their involvement with the subject of the litigation.


Comprehensive Income


Comprehensive income includes all changes exceptin the equity of a business enterprise (except those resulting from investments by owners and distributions to owners, in the equityowners), including amortization of a business enterprise from transactionsnet actuarial loss and prior service cost related to pension and other events, including foreign-currency translation adjustments,postretirement benefits plans and changes in minimum pension liability adjustments and certain hedging activities.liability. The components of other comprehensive income, which consistsconsist of all these changes other than net income as shown on the Statements of Consolidated Income, are shown in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income and Changes in Shareholders' Equity. At December 31, 2005,


The components of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income consisted entirely of minimum pension liability adjustments,(Loss), net of related income tax.taxes, at December 31, 2007 and 2006 are as follows:


(Dollars in millions)

 2007

 2006

Unamortized net actuarial loss, net of $11 and $14 income tax benefit, respectively

 

 

$

(16

)

$

(20

)

Unamortized prior service credit, net of $1 and $1 income tax expense, respectively

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Financial instruments, net of $1 income tax benefit

 

 

 

(1

)

 

--

 

Balance as of December 31

 

 

$

(16

)

$

(19

)




51



Revenues


Revenues are primarily derived from deliveries of electricity and natural gas to customers and changes in related regulatory balancing accounts. Revenues from electricity and natural gas sales and services are recorded under the accrual method and recognized upon delivery.delivery and performance. The portion of SDG&E's electric commodity that was procured for its customers by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and delivered by SDG&E is not included in SDG&E's revenues or costs. Commodity costs associated with long-term contracts allocated to SDG&E from the DWR also are not included in the Statements of Consolidated Income, since the DWR retains legal and financial responsibility for these contracts. Note 910 includes a discussion of the electric industry restructuring. Operating revenue includesrevenues include amounts for services rendered but unbilled (approximately one-half month's deliveries) at the end of each year. The company presents its operating revenues net of sales taxes.


Additional information concerning utility revenue recognition is discussed above under "Regulatory Matters."


Other Operating Expenses


Other operating expenses include operating and maintenance costs, and general and administrative costs, consisting primarily of personnel costs, purchased materials and services and outside services.


Transactions with Affiliates


On a daily basis, SDG&E and SoCalGas share numerous functions with each other and they also receive various services from and provide various services to Sempra Energy.


At December 31, 20052007 and 2004,2006, SDG&E had $32$22 million and $30$24 million, respectively, due from affiliates. These amounts are included in current assets as Due from Unconsolidated Affiliates.


SDG&E also has a promissory note due from Sempra Energy which bears a variable interest rate based on short-term commercial paper rates (4.48 percent at December 31, 2007). The balance of the note was $5 million at both December 31, 2007 and 2006, and is included in noncurrent assets as Due from Unconsolidated Affiliates.


Additionally, at December 31, 2005,2007, SDG&E had $441$10 million due to affiliates, including $20$9 million to Sempra Energy and $417Energy. At December 31, 2006, SDG&E had $5 million relateddue to the Palomar project, which isaffiliates, including $3 million to Sempra Energy. These amounts are included in current liabilities as Due to Unconsolidated Affiliates.


Dividends


The CPUC's regulation of the company's capital structure limits the amounts that are available for dividends and loans to Sempra Energy. At December 31, 2004,2007, SDG&E had $15could have provided a total of $29 million due to Sempra Energy which is included in current liabilitiesthrough dividends and $267loans.


Capitalized Interest


SDG&Erecorded $10 million, $6 million and $4 million of capitalized interest for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, including the portion of AFUDC related to the Palomar project, which is included in noncurrent liabilities. These amounts are reported as Due to Unconsolidated Affiliates.debt.




52



Other Income,Net


Other Income, Net consists of the following:

             

Years ended December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

       

2005

 

2004

 

2003

Interest income

      

$

23

  

$

25

  

$

42

 

Regulatory interest, net

      

(3

)

  

(6

)

  

(5

)

Allowance for equity funds used during construction

     

9

   

9

   

12

 

Income taxes on non-operating income

     

21

   

(11

)

  

(21

)

Sundry, net

       

8

   

8

   

(3

)

 

Total

      

$

58

  

$

25

  

$

25

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years ended December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2007

 

2006

 

2005

Regulatory interest, net

 

 

 

 

 

$

(7

)

 

$

(3

)

 

$

(3

)

Allowance for equity funds used during construction

 

 

 

 

 

17

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

9

 

Sundry, net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

8

 

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

11

 

 

$

8

 

 

$

14

 


NOTE 2. NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS


Pronouncements that have recently become effective that have had or may have a significant effect on the company's financial statements are described below.


SFAS 157, "Fair Value Measurements" (SFAS 157): SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes criteria to be considered when measuring fair value and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS 157 does not expand the application of fair value accounting to any new circumstances. The company applies recurring fair value measurements to certain assets and liabilities, primarily nuclear decommissioning trusts and commodity and other derivatives.

New Accounting Standards

SFAS 123 (revised 2004),"Share-Based Payment" (SFAS 123R): In December 2004,157: (1) establishes that fair value is based on a hierarchy of inputs into the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issuedvaluation process (as described in Note 8), (2) clarifies that an issuer's credit standing should be considered when measuring liabilities at fair value, (3) precludes the use of a liquidity or blockage factor discount when measuring instruments traded in an actively quoted market at fair value, and (4) requires costs relating to acquiring instruments carried at fair value to be recognized as expense when incurred. SFAS 123R,157 requires that a revisionfair value measurement reflect the assumptions market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability based on the best available information. These assumptions include the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique (such as a pricing model) and the risks inherent in the inputs to the model.


The provisions of SFAS 123,157 are to be applied prospectively, except for the initial impact on three specific items: (1) changes in fair value measurements of existing derivative financial instruments measured initially using the transaction price under Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 02-3,Issues Involved in Accounting for Stock-Based CompensationDerivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities(, (2) existing hybrid financial instruments measured initially at fair value using the transaction price and (3) blockage factor discounts. Adjustments to these items required under SFAS 123)157 are to be recorded as a transition adjustment to beginning retained earnings in the year of adoption.


The company elected to early-adopt SFAS 157 in the first quarter of 2007. There was no transition adjustment as a result of the company's adoption of SFAS 157. SFAS 157 also requires new disclosures regarding the level of pricing observability associated with financial instruments carried at fair value. This additional disclosure is provided in Note 8.


SFAS 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities – Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115" (SFAS 159): SFAS 159 allows measurement at fair value of eligible financial assets and liabilities that are not otherwise measured at fair value. If the fair value option for an eligible item is elected, unrealized gains and losses for that item are reported in current earnings at each subsequent reporting date. SFAS 159 also establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to draw comparison between the different measurement attributes the company elects for similar



53



types of assets and liabilities. This statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The company does not anticipate electing the fair value option at the adoption of SFAS 159 for its eligible financial assets or liabilities.


SFAS 160, "Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements – an amendment of ARB No. 51" (SFAS 160):SFAS 160 amends Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB) No. 51, Consolidated Financial Statements, to establish accounting and reporting standards for ownership interests in subsidiaries held by parties other than the parent, the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and to the noncontrolling interest, changes in a parent’s ownership interest and the valuation of retained noncontrolling equity investments when a subsidiary is deconsolidated. This statement also requires disclosures that clearly identify and distinguish between the interest of the parent and the interest of the noncontrolling owners. SFAS 160 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is prohi bited. SFAS 160 requires retroactive application for the presentation and disclosure requirements for existing minority interests. All other requirements of SFAS 160 shall be applied prospectively. The company is in the process of evaluating the effect of this statement on its financial position and results of operations.


SFAS 141 (revised 2007), which establishes the accounting for"Business Combinations" (SFAS 141R):SFAS 141R applies to all transactions or events in which an entity exchanges its equity instrumentsobtains control of one or more businesses, including those combinations achieved without transfer or consideration. In the context of a business combination, SFAS 141R establishes principles and requirements for goods or services received.how the acquirer recognizes assets acquired including goodwill, liabilities assumed, noncontrolling interest in the acquiree, contractual contingencies and contingent consideration measured at fair value. SFAS 141R requires that the acquirer in a business combination achieved in stages recognize identifiable assets and liabilities at the full amounts of their fair values. This statement requires companiesalso establishes disclosure requirements that will enable users to measureevaluate the nature and record the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the grant-date fair valuefinancial effect of the award. Sempra Energybusiness combination. SFAS 141R applies prospectively to business combinations for which t he acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Early adoption is prohibited.


FIN 48, "Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes - an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109" (FIN 48): FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise's financial statements in accordance with SFAS 109. FIN 48 addresses how an entity should recognize, measure, classify and disclose in its financial statements uncertain tax positions that it has taken or expects to adopttake in an income tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. Additionally, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) FIN 48-1, Definition of Settlement in FASB Interpretation No. 48, which amends FIN 48 to provide guidance on how an enterprise should determine whether a tax position is effectively settled for the purpose of recognizing previously unrecognized tax benefits. The company's implementation of FIN 48 as of January 1, 2007 was consistent with the guidance in this FSP.


The company adopted the provisions of SFAS 123R usingFIN 48 on January 1, 2007 and recognized a modified prospective application. The modified prospective method requires companies to recognize compensation cost for unvested awards that are outstanding on the effective date based on the fair value that$1 million decrease in retained earnings. Including this adjustment, the company had originally estimated for purposesunrecognized tax benefits of preparing its SFAS 123 pro forma disclosures. For all new awards that are granted or modified after the effective dat e, a company would use SFAS 123R's measurement model. The effect$40 million as of adopting FAS 123R has not been determined. The effective date of this statement is January 1, 2006 for Sempra Energy.

SFAS 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations"and FASB Interpretation No (FIN) 47, "Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of SFAS 143": Beginning in 2003, SFAS 143 requires entities to record the present value of liabilities for future costs expected to be incurred when assets are retired from service, if the retirement process is legally required. It requires recording of the estimated retirement cost over the life of the related asset by depreciating the present value of the obligation (measured at the time of the asset's acquisition) and accreting the discount until the liability is settled.The adoption of SFAS 143 on January 1, 2003 resulted in the recording of an addition to utility plant of $71 million, representing the company's share of SONGS' estimated future decommissioning costs (as discounted to the present value at the dates the units began operation), and accumulate d depreciation of $412007. Of this amount, $36 million related to tax positions that, if recognized, would decrease the effective tax rate; however, $26 million related to tax positions that would increase the effective tax rate in subsequent years.


As of December 31, 2007, the company had unrecognized tax benefits of $26 million. Of this amount, $23 million related to utility plant, for a nettax positions that, if recognized, would decrease the effective tax rate; however, $22 million related to tax positions that would increase the effective tax rate in subsequent years.




54



A reconciliation of $30 million. Onthe company's unrecognized tax benefits from January 1, 2003,2007 to December 31, 2007 is provided in the company recorded additional asset retirement obligations of $10 million associated with the future retirement of a former power plant.following table:

In March 2005, the FASB issued FIN 47,"Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations, an interpretation of SFAS 143." The interpretation clarifies

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

2007

 

Balance as of January 1, 2007

 

 

 

$

40

 

 

Increase in prior period tax positions

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

Decrease in prior period tax positions

 

 

 

 

(9

)

 

Increase in current period tax positions

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

Decrease in current period tax positions

 

 

 

 

(1

)

 

Settlements with taxing authorities

 

 

 

 

(13

)

Balance as of December 31, 2007

 

 

 

$

26

 


It is reasonably possible that the term "conditional asset-retirement obligation" as used in SFAS 143, referscompany’s unrecognized tax benefits could decrease by up to a legal obligation to perform an asset-retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may or may not be$6 million within the controlnext 12 months due to the expiration of statutes of limitations on tax assessments and by up to $4 million due to the entity. FIN 47 requires companiespotential resolution of audit issues with various federal and state taxing authorities.


Effective January 1, 2007, the company’s policy is to recognize a liability foraccrued interest and penalties on accrued tax balances as components of tax expense. Prior to the fair value of a conditional asset-retirement obligation if the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably estimated.

The adoption of FIN 47 on48, the company accrued interest expense and penalties as components of tax expense and interest income as a component of interest income. As of January 1, 2007, the company had accrued a total of $7 million of such interest expense. As of December 31, 2005 resulted in the recording of an addition to utility plant of $32 million and accumulated depreciation of $13 million related to the increase to utility plant, for a net increase of $19 million. In addition,2007, the company recordedhad accrued a corresponding retirement obligation liabilitytotal of $116$11 million (which includes accretion of that discounted value tointerest benefit. The company had no accrued penalties as of either January 1, 2007 or December 31, 2005) and a regulatory liability of $164 million to reflect that the company has collected the funds from customers more quickly than FIN 47 would accrete the retirement liability and depreciate the asset.

The adoption of SFAS 143 required the reclassification of estimated removal costs collected in rates, which had historically been recorded in accumulated depreciation, to a regulatory liability. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, these costs were $724 million and $913 million, respectively. The change in the balance is due to the implementation of FIN 47, which required the reclassification of disposal costs that previously have been2007. Amounts accrued for interest expense associated with income taxes are included in income tax expense on the company's estimated costStatements of removal obligations to a regulatory liabilityConsolidated Income and to Asset Retirement Obligations.

In accordance with FIN 47, the company has determined that the amount of asbestos-containing materials could not be determined and, therefore, no liability has been recognized for the related removal obligations. Since most, if not all, of the cost of removing such materials would be expected to be recovered in rates, the effect of not recognizing these liabilities is not material to the company's financial condition or results of operations. A liability for the obligations will be recorded in the period in which sufficient information is available to reasonably estimate the removal cost.

Had FIN 47 been in effect on December 31, 2004, the asset retirement obligation liability would have been $109 million as of that date.

Except for the items noted above, the company has determined that there are no other material retirement obligations associated with tangible long-lived assets.

Implementation of SFAS 143 and FIN 47 had no significant effect on results of operations and is not expected to have a significant effect in the future.

The changes in the asset retirement obligations for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 are as follows (dollars in millions):

 

2005

2004

Balance as of January 1

  

$

339

*

$

326

*

Adoption of FIN 47

   

116

  

--

 

Accretion expense

   

23

  

23

 

Payments

   

(15

)

 

(10

)

Balance as of December 31

  

$

463

*

$

339

*

* The current portion of the obligation is included in Other Current Liabilitiesvarious income tax balances on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

SFAS 154,"Accounting Changes

The company is subject to U.S. federal income tax as well as income tax of state jurisdictions. The company remains subject to examination by U.S. federal and Error Corrections, a replacement of Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APBO) 20 and FASB Statement No. 3:"This statement applies to all voluntary changes in accounting principles and to changes required by an accounting pronouncement in instances where the pronouncement does not include specific transition provisions. APBO 20 previously required that most voluntary changes in accounting principle be recognized by including in net income of the period of the change the cumulative effect of changing to the new accounting principle. SFAS 154 requires retrospective application to prior periods' financial statements of changes in accounting principle, unless it is impracticable to do so. This statement is effectivemajor state tax jurisdictions only for accounting changes and corrections of errors made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005.2001.

FIN 46,"Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB) No. 51": FIN 46, as revised by FIN 46R, requires an enterprise to consolidate a variable interest entity (VIE), as defined in FIN 46, if

In addition, the company ishas filed federal and state refund claims for tax years back to 1998. The pre-2002 tax years are closed to new issues; therefore, no additional tax may be assessed by the primary beneficiary of a VIE's activities.

Contracts under which SDG&E acquires power from generation facilities otherwise unrelated to SDG&E could result in a requirementtaxing authorities for SDG&E to consolidate the entity that owns the facility. In accordance with FIN 46, SDG&E is continuing the process of determining whether it has any such situations and, if so, gathering the information that would be needed to perform the consolidation. The effects of this, if any, are not expected to significantly affect the financial position of SDG&E and there would be no effect on results of operations or liquidity.these years.


NOTE 2.3. DEBT AND CREDIT FACILITIES


Committed Lines of Credit


SDG&E and its affiliate,SoCalGas, have a combined $600 million, five-year syndicated revolving credit facility expiring in 2010, under which each utility individually may borrow up to $500 million, subject to thea combined borrowing limit for both utilities of $600 million. Borrowings under the agreement bear interestat rates varying with market rates and SDG&E's credit rating. The agreement requires SDG&E to maintain, at the end of each quarter, a ratio of total indebtedness to total capitalization (as defined in the facility) of no more than 65 percent.Borrowings under the agreement are individual obligations of the borrowing utility and a default by one utility would not constitute a default or preclude borrowings by the other. At December 31, 2005,2007, SDG&E had no amounts outstanding under this facility.

LONG-TERM DEBT

   

December 31,

 

(Dollars in millions)

  

2005

   

2004

 

First mortgage bonds

        
 

6.8% June 1, 2015

 

$

14

  

$

14

 
 

5.3% November 15, 2015

  

250

   

--

 
 

5.9% June 1, 2018

  

68

   

68

 
 

5.9% September 1, 2018

  

93

   

93

 
 

5.85% June 1, 2021

  

60

   

60

 
 

5% to 5.25% December 1, 2027

  

150

   

150

 
 

2.516% to 2.832%* January and February 2034

  

176

   

176

 
 

5.35% May 15, 2035

  

250

   

--

 
 

2.8275%* May 1, 2039

  

75

   

75

 

   

1,136

   

636

 

Rate-reduction bonds, 6.31% to 6.37% at December 31, 2005 payable

        
 

through 2007

  

132

   

198

 
         

Other bonds

        
 

5.9% June 1, 2014

  

130

   

130

 
 

5.3% July 1, 2021

  

39

   

39

 
 

5.5% December 1, 2021

  

60

   

60

 
 

4.9% March 1, 2023

  

25

   

25

 

   

254

   

254

 

   

1,522

   

1,088

 
         

Current portion of long-term debt

  

(66

)

  

(66

)

Unamortized discount on long-term debt

  

(1

)

  

--

 

Total

 

$

1,455

  

$

1,022

 

Weighted Average Interest Rate

* After floating-to-fixed

The company’s weighted average interest rate swaps expiring in 2009.on the total short-term debt outstanding was 5.36 percent at December 31, 2006.




55



Long-Term Debt


 

 

 

December 31,

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2006

 

First mortgage bonds:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.8% June 1, 2015

 

$

14

 

 

$

14

 

 

5.3% November 15, 2015

 

 

250

 

 

 

250

 

 

Variable rate (3.80% at December 31, 2007) July 2018

 

 

161

 

 

 

161

 

 

5.85% June 1, 2021

 

 

60

 

 

 

60

 

 

6.0% June 1, 2026

 

 

250

 

 

 

250

 

 

5% to 5.25% December 1, 2027

 

 

150

 

 

 

150

 

 

2.516% to 2.832%* January and February 2034

 

 

176

 

 

 

176

 

 

5.35% May 15, 2035

 

 

250

 

 

 

250

 

 

6.125% September 15, 2037

 

 

250

 

 

 

--

 

 

2.8275%* May 1, 2039

 

 

75

 

 

 

75

 

 

 

 

1,636

 

 

 

1,386

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.37% Rate-reduction bonds, payable through 2007

 

 

--

 

 

 

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other long term:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.9% June 1, 2014

 

 

130

 

 

 

130

 

 

5.3% July 1, 2021

 

 

39

 

 

 

39

 

 

5.5% December 1, 2021

 

 

60

 

 

 

60

 

 

4.9% March 1, 2023

 

 

25

 

 

 

25

 

 

OMEC LLC project financing at 5.2925% April 2019**

 

 

63

 

 

 

--

 

 

OMEC LLC capitalized lease December 2033

 

 

7

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

 

324

 

 

 

254

 

 

 

 

1,960

 

 

 

1,706

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current portion of long-term debt

 

 

--

 

 

 

(66

)

Unamortized discount on long-term debt

 

 

(2

)

 

 

(2

)

Total

 

$

1,958

 

 

$

1,638

 

*

After floating-to-fixed rate swaps expiring in 2009.

**

After floating-to-fixed rate swaps expiring in 2019.


Maturities of long-term debt are:

(Dollars in millions)

  

2006

$

66

2007

 

66

2008

 

--

2009

 

--

2010

 

--

Thereafter

 

1,390

Total

$

1,522


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

2008

$

--

 

2009

 

--

 

2010

 

--

 

2011

 

--

 

2012

 

--

 

Thereafter

 

1,960

 

Total

$

1,960

 




56



Callable BondsLong-Term Debt


At the company's option,certain bonds aredebt is callable subject to premiums at various dates: $472 million in 20062008, $50 million in 2010 and $274 million after 2010.2012. In addition, $500 million$1 billion of bonds isare callable subject to make-whole provisions.


In addition, the OMEC LLC project financing loan, discussed in Note 1, with $63 million of borrowings at December 31, 2007, may be prepaid at the borrower’s option.


First Mortgage Bonds


First mortgage bondsaresecured by a lien on utility plant. SDG&E may issue additional first mortgage bonds upon compliance with the provisions of itsbondindenture, which requires, among other things, the satisfaction of pro forma earnings-coverage tests on first mortgage bond interest and the availability of sufficient mortgaged property to support the additional bonds, after giving effect to prior bond redemptions. The most restrictive of these tests (the property test) would permit the issuance, subject to CPUC authorization, of an additional $2.3$2.6 billion of first mortgage bonds at December 31, 2005.2007.


In November 2005, the company issuedSeptember 2007, SDG&E sold $250 million of 6.125-percent first mortgage bonds, maturing in 2015.In May 2005, the company issued $250 million of first mortgage bonds maturing in 2035.2037.


Unsecured Long-termLong-Term Debt


Various long-term obligations totaling $254million at December 31, 20052007 are unsecured.


Rate-Reduction Bonds


In December 1997, $6582007, SDG&E redeemed the $66 million remaining outstanding balance of its rate-reduction bonds, were issued on behalfincluding $17 million in September 2007 in advance of SDG&E at an average interest ratethe scheduled maturity of 6.26%. These bonds were issued to facilitate the 10percent rate reduction mandated by California's electric-restructuring law, which is described in Note 9. They are being repaid over ten years by SDG&E's residential and small-commercial customers through a specified charge on their electricity bills. These bonds are secured by the revenue streams collected from customers and are not secured by, or payable from, utility property.December 26, 2007.


Interest-Rate Swaps


The company periodically enters into interest-rate swap agreements to moderate its exposure to interest-rate changes and to lower its overall cost of borrowing.

Cash flow hedges

In September 2004, SDG&E entered intocompany's interest-rate swaps to exchange the floating rates on its $251 million Chula Vista Series 2004 bonds maturing from 2034 through 2039 for fixed rates. The swaps expirehedge cash flows are discussed in 2009. At December 31, 2005 pre-tax income arising from the ineffective portion of interest-rate cash flow hedges included $4 million recorded in Other Income, Net on the Statements of Consolidated Income. The effect of the interest-rate cash flow hedges on other comprehensive income (loss) was immaterial for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004. The balance in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) at December 31, 2005, related to interest-rate cash flow hedges was reduced to zero due to the hedge ineffectiveness.Note 8.


NOTE 3.4. FACILITIES UNDER JOINT OWNERSHIP

SONGS

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and the Southwest Powerlink transmission line are owned jointly with other utilities. The company's interests at December 31, 20052007 were as follows:

(Dollars in millions)

 

SONGS

 

Southwest
Powerlink

Percentage ownership

20%

91%

Utility plant in service

$ 39

$ 290

Accumulated depreciation and amortization

$ 2

$ 156

Construction work in progress

$ 21

$ 9


(Dollars in millions)

 

SONGS

 

Southwest

Powerlink

Percentage ownership

 

 

20

%

 

 

91

%

Utility plant in service

 

$

75

 

 

$

311

 

Accumulated depreciation and amortization

 

$

14

 

 

$

169

 

Construction work in progress

 

$

75

 

 

$

2

 


The company, and each of the other owners, each holds its interest as an undivided interest as tenants in common in the property. Each owner is responsible for financing its share of each project and participates in decisions concerning operations and capital expenditures.


The company's share of operating expenses is included in the Statements of Consolidated Income.



57




SONGS Decommissioning


Objectives, work scope and procedures for the dismantling and decontamination of the SONGS units must meet the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of the Navy (the land owner), the CPUC and other regulatory bodies.


The company's share ofasset retirement obligation related to decommissioning costs for the SONGS units is estimated to be $339was $411 million in 2005 dollars.at December 31, 2007. That amount includes the cost to decommission Units 2 and 3, and the remaining cost to complete Unit 1's1’s decommissioning, which is currently in progress. CostDecommissioning cost studies are updated every three years. Theyears, with the most recent update was submitted toapproved by the CPUC for its approval in 2005.January 2007. Rate recovery of decommissioning costs is allowed until the time that the costs are fully recovered, and is subject to adjustment every three years based on the costs allowed by regulators. Collections are authorized to continue until 2013, at which time sufficient funds are expected to have been collected to fully decommission SONGS, but may be extended by CPUC approval until 2022, when the units' NRC operating licenses terminate and the decommissioning of Units 2 and 3 would be expected to begin.2022.

The amounts collected in rates are invested in externally managed trust funds. Amounts held by the trusts are invested in accordance with CPUC regulations that establish maximum amounts for investments in equity securities (50 percent of a qualified trust and 60 percent of a nonqualified trust), international equity securities (20 percent) and securities of electric utilities having ownership interests in nuclear power plants (10 percent). Not less than 50 percent of the equity portion of the trusts must be invested passively. The securities held by the trust are considered available for sale. These trusts are shown on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at market value with the offsetting credits recorded in Asset Retirement Obligations and Regulatory Liabilities Arising from Removal Obligations.

Unit 1 was permanently shut down in 1992, and physical decommissioning began in January 2000. SeveralMost structures, foundations and large components have been dismantled, removed and disposed of. Spent nuclear fuel has been removed from the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool and stored on-site in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) licensed by the NRC. The remaining major work will include dismantling, removal and disposal of all remaining equipment and facilities (both nuclear and non-nuclear components), and decontamination of the site. These activities are expected to be completed in 2008. The ISFSI will be decommissioned after a permanent storage facility becomes available and the spent fuel is removed from the site by the U.S. Department of Energy.Energy (DOE). The Unit 1's1 reactor vessel is expected to remain on site until Units 2 and 3 are decommissioned.

Trust investments include:

    

December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

Maturity dates

  

2005

 

2004

Municipal bonds

2006 - 2034

 

$

54

$

45

U.S. government issues

2006 - 2038

  

222

 

209

Cash and other securities

2006 - 2033

  

35

 

55

Equity securities

   

327

 

303

Total

  

$

638

$

612

The amounts collected in rates are invested in externally managed trust funds. Amounts held by the trusts are invested in accordance with CPUC regulations. These trusts are shown on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value with the offsetting credits recorded in Asset Retirement Obligations and Regulatory Liabilities Arising from Removal Obligations.

Net earnings of



58



The following tables show the fair values and gross unrealized gains and losses for the securities held in the trust were $30 million in 2005, $46 million in 2004 and $82 million in 2003. Proceedsfunds.


 

 

As of December 31, 2007

 

 

 

 

Gross

 

Gross

 

Estimated

 

 

 

 

Unrealized

 

Unrealized

 

Fair

(Dollars in millions)

 

Cost

 

Gains

 

Losses

 

Value

Debt securities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. government issues*

 

$

168

 

$

15

 

$

--

 

$

183

 

Municipal bonds**

 

 

77

 

 

1

 

 

(2)

 

 

76

Total debt securities

 

 

245

 

 

16

 

 

(2)

 

 

259

Equity securities

 

 

204

 

 

234

 

 

(4)

 

 

434

Cash and other securities***

 

 

44

 

 

2

 

 

--

 

 

46

Total available-for-sale securities

 

$

493

 

$

252

 

$

(6)

 

$

739

*

Maturity dates are 2009-2038.

 

 

**

Maturity dates are 2008-2057.

 

 

***

Maturity dates are 2008-2049.

 

 



 

 

As of December 31, 2006

 

 

 

 

Gross

 

Gross

 

Estimated

 

 

 

 

Unrealized

 

Unrealized

 

Fair

(Dollars in millions)

 

Cost

 

Gains

 

Losses

 

Value

Debt securities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. government issues

 

$

215

 

$

10

 

$

(1)

 

$

224

 

Municipal bonds

 

 

55

 

 

1

 

 

--

 

 

56

Total debt securities

 

 

270

 

 

11

 

 

(1)

 

 

280

Equity securities

 

 

142

 

 

217

 

 

(1)

 

 

358

Cash and other securities

 

 

61

 

 

3

 

 

--

 

 

64

Total available-for-sale securities

 

$

473

 

$

231

 

$

(2)

 

$

702


The following table shows the proceeds from sales of securities (whichin the trust and gross realized gains and losses on those sales.


 

 

Years ended December 31,

(Dollars in millions)

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

 

2005

 

Proceeds from sales

 

$

578

 

 

$

474

 

 

$

223

 

Gross realized gains

 

$

18

 

 

$

22

 

 

$

17

 

Gross realized losses

 

$

(12

)

 

$

(13

)

 

$

(11

)


Net unrealized gains are reinvested) were $223 million in 2005, $237 million in 2004 and $266 million in 2003, including net gains of $3 million, $12 million and $4 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The net unrealized holding gains included in Asset Retirement Obligations and Regulatory Liabilities Arising from Removal Obligations on the Consolidated Balance sheets were $193 million, $182 million and $159 million atSheets. The company determines the cost of securities in the trust on the basis of specific identification.


The fair value of securities in an unrealized loss position as of December 31, 2005, 20042007 was $79 million. The unrealized losses were primarily caused by interest-rate movements and 2003, respectively.fluctuations in the market. The company does not consider these investments to be other than temporarily impaired as of December 31, 2007.




59



Customer contribution amounts are determined by estimates of after-tax investment returns, decommissioning costs and decommissioning cost escalation rates. Lower actual investment returns or higher actual decommissioning costs result in an increase in future customer contributions.


Discussion regarding the impact of SFAS 143 is provided in Note 1. Additional information regarding SONGS is includedprovided in Notes 910 and 11.12.


NOTE 4.5. INCOME TAXES


Reconciliations of the U.S. statutory federal income tax rate to the effective income tax rate are as follows:

    

Years ended December 31,

 
   

2005

   

2004

   

2003

 

Statutory federal income tax rate

  

35

%

  

35

%

  

35

%

Depreciation

  

4

   

4

   

4

 

State income taxes - net of federal income tax benefit

  

6

   

5

   

7

 

Tax credits

  

(1

)

  

(1

)

  

(1

)

Resolution of Internal Revenue Service audits

  

(13

)

  

--

   

(12

)

Other - net

  

(6

)

  

(2

)

  

(3

)

 

Effective income tax rate

  

25

%

  

41

%

  

30

%


 

 

 

 

Years ended December 31,

 

 

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

2005

 

Statutory federal income tax rate

 

 

35

%

 

 

35

%

 

 

35

%

Depreciation

 

 

3

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

4

 

State income taxes, net of federal income tax benefit

 

 

5

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

6

 

Tax credits

 

 

(1

)

 

 

(1

)

 

 

(1

)

Resolution of Internal Revenue Service audits

 

 

(3

)

 

 

2

 

 

 

(13

)

Regulatory reserve release

 

 

(2

)

 

 

--

 

 

 

--

 

Other, net

 

 

(5

)

 

 

(6

)

 

 

(6

)

 

Effective income tax rate

 

 

32

%

 

 

39

%

 

 

25

%


The components of income tax expense are as follows:

    

Years ended December 31,

 

(Dollars in millions)

  

2005

   

2004

   

2003

 

Current:

            
 

Federal

 

$

27

  

$

107

  

$

133

 
 

State

  

25

   

41

   

44

 

 

Total

  

52

   

148

   

177

 

Deferred:

            
 

Federal

  

39

   

15

   

(20

)

 

State

  

1

   

(12

)

  

(6

)

 

Total

  

40

   

3

   

(26

)

Deferred investment tax credits

  

(3

)

  

(3

)

  

(3

)

Total income tax expense

 

$

89

  

$

148

  

$

148

 


 

 

 

 

Years ended December 31,

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

2005

 

Current:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal

 

$

131

 

 

$

209

 

 

$

27

 

 

State

 

 

44

 

 

 

73

 

 

 

25

 

 

Total

 

 

175

 

 

 

282

 

 

 

52

 

Deferred:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal

 

 

(24

)

 

 

(87

)

 

 

39

 

 

State

 

 

(14

)

 

 

(40

)

 

 

1

 

 

Total

 

 

(38

)

 

 

(127

)

 

 

40

 

Deferred investment tax credits

 

 

(2

)

 

 

(3

)

 

 

(3

)

Total income tax expense

 

$

135

 

 

$

152

 

 

$

89

 


On the Statements of Consolidated Income, federal and state income taxes are allocated between operating income and other income.TheThe company is included in the consolidated income tax return of Sempra Energy and is allocated income tax expense from Sempra Energy in an amount equal to that which would result from the company's having always filed a separate return. At December 31, 2005,2007, income taxes payable to Sempra Energy are $6 million.of $38 millionwerereceivable fromSempra Energy.




60



Accumulated deferred income taxes at December 31 relate to the following:


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2006

 

Deferred tax liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Differences in financial and tax bases of utility plant and other assets

 

$

481

 

 

$

477

 

 

Regulatory balancing accounts

 

 

82

 

 

 

160

 

 

Loss on reacquired debt

 

 

11

 

 

 

13

 

 

Property taxes

 

 

19

 

 

 

16

 

 

Other

 

 

5

 

 

 

8

 

 

Total deferred tax liabilities

 

 

598

 

 

 

674

 

Deferred tax assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Postretirement benefits

 

 

78

 

 

 

101

 

 

Investment tax credits

 

 

20

 

 

 

22

 

 

Compensation-related items

 

 

14

 

 

 

16

 

 

State income taxes

 

 

21

 

 

 

16

 

 

Other accruals not yet deductible

 

 

27

 

 

 

35

 

 

Other

 

 

7

 

 

 

5

 

 

Total deferred tax assets

 

 

167

 

 

 

195

 

Net deferred income tax liability before valuation allowance

 

 

431

 

 

 

479

 

Valuation allowance

 

 

8

 

 

 

--

 

Net deferred income tax liability

 

$

439

 

 

$

479

 

(Dollars in millions)

  

2005

   

2004

 

         

Deferred tax liabilities:

        
 

Differences in financial and tax bases of utility plant

 

$

591

  

$

575

 
 

Regulatory balancing accounts

  

100

   

74

 
 

Loss on reacquired debt

  

14

   

20

 
 

Other

  

18

   

16

 

 

Total deferred tax liabilities

  

723

   

685

 

Deferred tax assets:

        
 

Investment tax credits

  

23

   

27

 
 

Deferred compensation

  

18

   

29

 
 

State income taxes

  

20

   

43

 
 

Workers compensation and public liability insurance

  

6

   

6

 
 

Environmental liabilities

  

8

   

11

 
 

Other accruals not yet deductible

  

59

   

30

 
 

Other

  

5

   

2

 

 

Total deferred tax assets

  

139

   

148

 

Net deferred income tax liability

 

$

584

  

$

537

 


The net deferred income tax liability is recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31 as follows:

(Dollars in millions)

  

2005

   

2004

 

Current (asset) liability

 

$

(7

)

 

$

15

 

Noncurrent liability

  

591

   

522

 

Total

 

$

584

  

$

537

 


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

 

 

 

2006

 

Current asset

 

$

(67

)

 

$

(41

)

Noncurrent liability

 

 

506

 

 

 

520

 

Total

 

$

439

 

 

$

479

 


The impact of the company’s adoption of FIN 48 is discussed in Note 2.


NOTE 5.6. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS


The company accounts for its employee benefit plans in accordance with SFAS 158,Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans - an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R) (SFAS 158), which requires an employer to recognize in its statement of financial position an asset for a plan's overfunded status or a liability for a plan's underfunded status, measure a plan's assets and its obligations that determine its funded status as of the end of the company's fiscal year (with limited exceptions), and recognize changes in the funded status of a defined benefit postretirement plan in the year in which the changes occur. Generally, those changes are reported in the company's comprehensive income and as a separate component of shareholders' equity.


The company has funded and unfunded noncontributory defined benefit plans that together cover substantially all of its employees. The plans provide defined benefits based on years of service and either final average or career salary.


The company also has other postretirement benefit plans covering substantially all of its employees. The life insurance plans are both contributory and noncontributory, and the health care plans are contributory, with participants' contributions adjusted annually. Other postretirement benefits include medical benefits for retirees' spouses.



61




Pension and other postretirement benefits costs and obligations are dependent on assumptions used in calculating such amounts. These assumptions include discount rates, expected return on plan assets, rates of compensation increase, health carehealth-care cost trend rates, mortality rates and other factors. These assumptions are reviewed on an annual basis prior to the beginning of each year and updated when appropriate. The company considers current market conditions, including interest rates, in making these assumptions. The company uses a December 31 measurement date for all of its plans.


Effective July 1, 2008, the company’s other postretirement benefit plan will be amended to increase the health benefits for certain represented participants. This amendment resulted in a $3 million increase in the benefit obligation and unrecognized prior service costs as of December 31, 2007.


Effective January 1, 2008, the pension plan was amended to increase the death benefit for beneficiaries of vested non-represented participants that die prior to retirement. This amendment resulted in a $1 million increase in the benefit obligation and unrecognized prior service costs as of December 31, 2007.


Effective March 1, 2007, the pension plan for the company was amended to change the calculation of the benefit for certain participants. The affected participants are those who had an accrued benefit under the plan at the date the plan transitioned from a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan. The transition date was July 1, 1998 for non-represented participants, and November 1, 1998 for represented participants. Before the amendment date, these participants received the greater of their accrued benefit in the cash balance plan or the present value of their benefit under the prior plan as of June 30, 2003. After the amendment date, they receive the greater of the accrued benefit under the cash balance plan, or the present value of their accrued benefit under the prior plan at June 30, 2003 plus the cash balance benefit accrued after that date. This amendment resulted in a $29 million increase in the company’s b enefit obligation and in the unrecognized prior service cost at the end of 2006.


In the third quarter of 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 was enacted. This act increases the funding requirements for qualified pension plans beginning in 2008. It also changes certain costs of providing pension benefits, including the interest rate for benefits paid as lump sums and the level of benefits that may be provided through qualified pension plans. The $13 million decrease in the company’s pension obligation due to the plan changes required by this legislation were recognized in the benefit obligation and in the unrecognized prior service cost at the end of 2006.


Effective January 1, 2006, the company'spension plan for the company was amended to include deferred compensation, beginning January 1, 2006, in pension-eligible earnings. Also effective January 1, 2006, SoCalGas’ pension plan for non-represented employees was amended to change the early retirement requirements. The service requirement necessary to qualify for early retirement was changed from 15 years to 10 years for participants employed by the company who were grandfathered back to SoCalGas’ prior pension plan as of June 30, 2003. These two changes resulted in a net $1 million increase in the company’s benefit obligation and in the unrecognized prior service cost at the end of 2006.


Effective January 1, 2006, the other postretirement benefit plans were amended to integrate the benefits plan design across the CaliforniaSempra Utilities, resulting in a $52 million increase in the benefit obligation as of December 31, 2005.

December 31 is the measurement date for the pension and other postretirement benefit plans.

62





The following table provides a reconciliation of the changes in the plans' projected benefit obligations during the latest two years, and the fair value of assets during the latest two years, and a statement of the funded status as of the latest two year ends:

 

Pension Benefits

 

Other
Postretirement Benefits

 
   

(Dollars in millions)

 

2005

  

2004

  

2005

  

2004

 

CHANGE IN PROJECTED BENEFIT OBLIGATION:

            

Net obligation at January 1

$

719

 

$

662

 

$

85

 

$

76

 

Service cost

 

10

  

9

  

3

  

3

 

Interest cost

 

42

  

41

  

5

  

5

 

Plan amendments

 

--

  

--

  

52

  

--

 

Actuarial loss (gain)

 

33

  

40

  

(19

)

 

6

 

Transfer of liability from Sempra Energy

 

35

  

28

  

2

  

--

 

Benefit payments

 

(52

)

 

(61

)

 

(4

)

 

(5

)

Net obligation at December 31

 

787

  

719

  

124

  

85

 

             

CHANGE IN PLAN ASSETS:

            

Fair value of plan assets at January 1

 

569

  

538

  

39

  

34

 

Actual return on plan assets

 

44

  

65

  

2

  

2

 

Employer contributions

 

21

  

20

  

7

  

8

 

Transfer of assets from Sempra Energy

 

34

  

7

  

--

  

--

 

Benefit payments

 

(52

)

 

(61

)

 

(4

)

 

(5

)

Fair value of plan assets at December 31

 

616

  

569

  

44

  

39

 

Benefit obligation, net of plan assets at December 31

 

(171

)

 

(150

)

 

(80

)

 

(46

)

Unrecognized net actuarial loss

 

138

  

94

  

1

  

19

 

Unrecognized prior service cost

 

4

  

7

  

46

  

(7

)

Net recorded liability at December 31

$

(29

)

$

(49

)

$

(33

)

$

(34

)


 


Pension Benefits

 

Other
Postretirement
Benefits

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

CHANGE IN PROJECTED BENEFIT OBLIGATION:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net obligation at January 1

$

842

 

$

787

 

$

139

 

$

124

 

Service cost

 

22

 

 

12

 

 

5

 

 

5

 

Interest cost

 

47

 

 

45

 

 

8

 

 

7

 

Plan amendments

 

1

 

 

17

 

 

3

 

 

--

 

Actuarial loss (gain)

 

(29

)

 

34

 

 

(10

)

 

11

 

Transfer of liability from (to) Sempra Energy

 

(5

)

 

1

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

Benefit payments

 

(75

)

 

(54

)

 

(6

)

 

(8

)

Net obligation at December 31

 

803

 

 

842

 

 

139

 

 

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHANGE IN PLAN ASSETS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair value of plan assets at January 1

 

679

 

 

616

 

 

52

 

 

44

 

Actual return on plan assets

 

56

 

 

86

 

 

3

 

 

4

 

Employer contributions

 

27

 

 

30

 

 

15

 

 

12

 

Transfer of assets from (to) Sempra Energy

 

(3

)

 

1

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

Other transfers

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

3

 

 

--

 

Benefit payments

 

(75

)

 

(54

)

 

(6

)

 

(8

)

Fair value of plan assets at December 31

 

684

 

 

679

 

 

67

 

 

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funded status at December 31

$

(119

)

$

(163

)

$

(72

)

$

(87

)

Net recorded liability at December 31

$

(119

)

$

(163

)

$

(72

)

$

(87

)


The assets and liabilities of the pension and other postretirement benefit plans are affected by changing market conditions as well as when actual plan experience is different than assumed. Such events result in gains and losses. Investment gains and losses are deferred and recognized in pension and postretirement benefit costs over a period of years. If, as of the beginning of a year, unrecognized net gain or loss exceeds 10 percent of the greater of the projected benefit obligation or the market-related value of plan assets, the excess is amortized over the average remaining service period of active participants. The 10-percent corridor accounting method helpsmitigate volatility of net periodic costs from year to year.


The net liability is recordedincluded in the following captions on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31 as follows:

 

Pension Benefits

 

Other
Postretirement Benefits

 
   

(Dollars in millions)

 

2005

  

2004

  

2005

  

2004

 

Prepaid benefit cost

$

4

 

$

6

 

$

--

 

$

--

 

Accrued benefit cost

 

(33

)

 

(55

)

 

(33

)

 

(34

)

Additional minimum liability

 

(128

)

 

(90

)

 

--

  

--

 

Intangible asset

 

5

  

6

  

--

  

--

 

Regulatory asset

 

99

  

62

  

--

  

--

 

Accumulated other comprehensive

            
 

income (pre-tax)

 

24

  

22

  

--

  

--

 

Net recorded liability

$

(29

)

$

(49

)

$

(33

)

$

(34

)


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

Pension Benefits

 

Postretirement Benefits

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

Current liabilities

$

(1

)

$

(1

)

$

--

 

$

--

 

Noncurrent liabilities

 

(118

)

 

(162

)

 

(72

)

 

(87

)

Net recorded liability

$

(119

)

$

(163

)

$

(72

)

$

(87

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




63



Amounts recorded in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, net of tax effects and amounts recorded as regulatory assets, are as follows:


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pension Benefits

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

Net actuarial loss

$

16

 

$

20

 

Prior service credit

 

(1

)

 

(1

)

Total

$

15

 

$

19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


At December 31, 20052007 and 2004,2006, the company had an unfunded and a funded pension plan. The funded plan had benefit obligations in excess of its plan assets. The following table provides information for the funded plan at December 31:

(Dollars in millions)

 

2005

  

2004

 

Projected benefit obligation

$

757

 

$

694

 

Accumulated benefit obligation

$

752

 

$

692

 

Fair value of plan assets

$

616

 

$

569

 


(Dollars in millions)

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

Projected benefit obligation

$

774

 

$

812

 

Accumulated benefit obligation

$

771

 

$

809

 

Fair value of plan assets

$

684

 

$

679

 


The following table provides the components of net periodic benefit costs (income)cost and amounts recognized in other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31:

 

Pension Benefits

 

Other
Postretirement Benefits

 
   

(Dollars in millions)

 

2005

  

2004

  

2003

  

2005

  

2004

  

2003

 

Service cost

$

10

 

$

9

 

$

14

 

$

3

 

$

3

 

$

2

 

Interest cost

 

42

  

41

  

40

  

5

  

5

  

4

 

Expected return on assets

 

(44

)

 

(40

)

 

(33

)

 

(2

)

 

(3

)

 

(1

)

Amortization of:

                  
 

Transition obligation

 

--

  

--

  

--

  

--

  

--

  

1

 
 

Prior service cost

 

3

  

2

  

3

  

(1

)

 

(1

)

 

(1

)

 

Actuarial loss

 

1

  

1

  

2

  

1

  

1

  

1

 

Regulatory adjustment

 

11

  

(55

)

 

--

  

1

  

(8

)

 

--

 

Transfer of retirees

 

12

  

--

  

--

  

(1

)

      

Total net periodic benefit cost (income)

$

35

 

$

(42

)

$

26

 

$

6

 

$

(3

)

$

6

 

                   

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

Pension Benefits

 

Postretirement Benefits

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

 

2005

 

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

 

2005

 

Net Periodic Benefit Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Service cost

$

22

 

$

12

 

$

10

 

$

5

 

$

5

 

$

3

 

Interest cost

 

47

 

 

45

 

 

42

 

 

8

 

 

7

 

 

5

 

Expected return on assets

 

(45

)

 

(41

)

 

(44

)

 

(3

)

 

(2

)

 

(2

)

Amortization of:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior service cost (credit)

 

2

 

 

2

 

 

3

 

 

3

 

 

3

 

 

(1

)

 

Actuarial loss

 

2

 

 

6

 

 

1

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

1

 

Regulatory adjustment

 

2

 

 

8

 

 

11

 

 

2

 

 

(1

)

 

1

 

Transfer of retirees

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

12

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

(1

)

Total net periodic benefit cost

 

30

 

 

32

 

 

35

 

 

15

 

 

12

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Changes in Plan Assets and Benefit Obligations Recognized in Other Comprehensive Income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net gain

 

(6

)

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

Amortization of actuarial loss

 

(2

)

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

Total recognized in other comprehensive income

 

(8

)

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

--

 

 

Total recognized in net periodic benefit cost and other comprehensive income

$

22

 

$

32

 

$

35

 

$

15

 

$

12

 

$

6

 


The estimated net loss and prior service credit for the pension plans that will be amortized from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) into net periodic benefit cost in 2008 are $1 million and a negligible amount, respectively.


The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the Act) was enacted in December of 2003. The Act establishes a prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D) and a tax-exempt federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans that provide a benefit that actuarially is at least



64



equivalent to Medicare Part D. The company and its actuarial advisors determined that benefits provided to certain participants actuarially will be at least equivalent to Medicare Part D, and, accordingly, the company expects to beis entitled to a tax-exempt subsidy that reducesreduced the company's accumulated postretirement benefit obligation under the plan at January 1, 20052007 by $22 million and reduced the net postretirement benefitperiodic cost for 20052007 by immaterial amounts.$3 million.


The significant assumptions related to the company's pension and other postretirement benefit plans are as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other

 

 

Pension Benefits

 

Postretirement Benefits

 

 

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

WEIGHTED-AVERAGE ASSUMPTIONS USED TO DETERMINE BENEFIT OBLIGATION AS OF DECEMBER 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discount rate

 

6.10%

 

 

5.75%

 

 

6.20%

 

 

5.85%

 

Rate of compensation increase

 

4.50%

 

 

4.50%

 

 

4.00%

 

 

4.50%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Pension Benefits

 

Other
Postretirement Benefits

 
   

  

2005

  

2004

  

2005

  

2004

 

WEIGHTED-AVERAGE ASSUMPTIONS USED

            
 

TO DETERMINE BENEFIT OBLIGATION

            
 

AS OF DECEMBER 31:

            

Discount rate

 

5.50%

  

5.66%

  

5.60%

  

5.66%

 

Rate of compensation increase

 

4.50%

  

4.50%

  

4.50%

  

4.50%

 


WEIGHTED-AVERAGE ASSUMPTIONS USED TO DETERMINE NET PERIODIC BENEFIT COSTS FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discount rate

 

5.75%

 

 

5.50%

 

 

5.85%

 

 

5.60%

 

Expected return on plan assets

 

7.00%

 

 

7.00%

 

 

5.50%

 

 

4.97%

 

Rate of compensation increase

 

       *

 

 

     *

 

 

N/A

 

 

N/A

 

*

4.50% for non-qualified pension plans. Qualified plan participants use an age-based table.

 


WEIGHTED-AVERAGE ASSUMPTIONS USED

            
 

TO DETERMINE NET PERIODIC BENEFIT

            
 

COSTS FOR YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31:

            

Discount rate

 

5.66%

  

6.00%

  

5.66%

  

6.00%

 

Expected return on plan assets

 

7.50%

  

7.50%

  

4.61%

  

4.76%

 

Rate of compensation increase

 

4.50%

  

4.50%

  

4.50%

  

4.50%

 

The company utilizesdevelops the discount rate assumptions based on the results of a bond-pricing modelthird party modeling tool that is tailoredmatches each plan's expected future benefit payments to the attributes of its pension and other postretirement plansa bond yield curve to determine the appropriatetheir present value. It then calculates a single equivalent discount rate that produces the same present value. The modeling tool uses an actual portfolio of 500 to use for its benefit plans.600 non-callable bonds with a Moody’s Aa rating with an outstanding value of at least $50 million to develop the bond yield curve. This reflects over $300 billion in outstanding bonds with approximately 50 issues having maturities in excess of 20 years.


The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets is derived from historical returns for broad asset classes consistent with expectations from a variety of sources, including pension consultants and investment advisors.sources.

  

2005

  

2004

 

ASSUMED HEALTH CARE COST

      

TREND RATES AT DECEMBER 31:

Health-care cost trend rate

9.78

%

*

19.00

%

*

Rate to which the cost trend rate is assumed to

        
 

decline (the ultimate trend)

 

5.50

%

  

5.50

%

 

Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend

 

2008

   

2008

  


 

 

2007

 

 

2006

 

ASSUMED HEALTH CARE COST TREND RATES AT DECEMBER 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health-care cost trend rate *

 

9.48

%

 

 

9.52

%

 

Rate to which the cost trend rate is assumed to decline (the ultimate trend)

 

5.50

%

 

 

5.50

%

 

Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend

2014 and 2016 **

 

2009

 

 

*

 

This is the weighted average of the increases for the company's health plans. The rate for these plans ranged from 8.50% to 10.00% in 2006 and 2007.

**

 

The ultimate trend rate is reached in 2014 for HMOs and 2016 for Anthem Blue Cross Plans.

* This is the weighted average of the increases for the company's health plans. The rate for these plans ranged from 8.50% to 10% in 2005 and from 10% to 20% in 2004.

Assumed health-care cost trend rates have a significant effect on the amounts reported for the health-care plan costs. A one-percent change in assumed health-care cost trend rates would have the following effects:

(Dollars in millions)

 

1% Increase

 

1% Decrease

 

Effect on total of service and interest cost components of net

       
 

periodic postretirement health-care benefit cost

 

$

1

 

$

(1

)

        

Effect on the health-care component of the accumulated other

       
 

postretirement benefit obligation

 

$

7

 

$

(6

)

         



65




(Dollars in millions)

 

1% Increase

 

1% Decrease

 

Effect on total of service and interest cost components of net periodic postretirement health-care benefit cost

 

$

1

 

$

(1

)

Effect on the health-care component of the accumulated other postretirement benefit obligation

 

$

5

 

$

(5

)


Pension PlanTrust Investment Strategy


The asset allocation for Sempra Energy's pension trust (which includes the company's pension plan)plan and other postretirement benefit plans, except for the plans separately described below) at December 31, 20052007 and 20042006 and the target allocation for 20062008 by asset categories are as follows:

 

Target
Allocation

 

Percentage of Plan
Assets at December 31,

 
   

Asset Category

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

U.S. Equity

45

%

 

44

%

 

45

%

 

Foreign Equity

25

  

27

  

32

  

Fixed Income

30

  

29

  

23

  

 

Total

100

%

 

100

%

 

100

%

 

        

 

Target

 

Percentage of Plan

 

Allocation

 

Assets at December 31,

Asset Category

2008

 

2007

 

2006

U.S. Equity

45

%

 

45

%

 

46

%

Foreign Equity

25

 

 

25

 

 

24

 

Fixed Income

30

 

 

30

 

 

30

 

 

Total

100

%

 

100

%

 

100

%


The company's investment strategy is to stay fully invested at all times and maintain its strategic asset allocation, keeping the investment structure relatively simple.allocation. The equity portfolio is balanced to maintain risk characteristics similar to the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) 2500 index with respect to industry, and sector exposures and market capitalization.capitalization exposures. The foreign equity portfolios are managed to track the MSCI Europe, Pacific Rim and Emerging Markets indexes.indices. Bond portfolios are managed with respect to the Lehman Aggregate Bond Index and Lehman Long Government Credit Bond Index. TheOther than index weight, the plan does not invest in securities of Sempra Energy.


Investment Strategy for Postretirement Health Plans


The asset allocation for the company's postretirement health plans at December 31, 20052007 and 20042006 and the target allocation for 20062008 by asset categories are as follows:

 

Target
Allocation

 

Percentage of Plan
Assets at December 31,

 
   

Asset Category

2006

 

2005

 

2004

 

U.S. Equity

25

%

 

23

%

 

25

%

 

Foreign Equity

5

  

6

  

6

  

Fixed Income

70

  

71

  

69

  

 

Total

100

%

 

100

%

 

100

%

 

        

 

Target

 

Percentage of Plan

 

Allocation

 

Assets at December 31,

Asset Category

2008

 

2007

 

2006

U.S. Equity

25

%

 

25

%

 

25

%

Foreign Equity

5

 

 

5

 

 

7

 

Fixed Income

70

 

 

70

 

 

68

 

 

Total

100

%

 

100

%

 

100

%


The company's postretirement health plans that are not included in the pension trust (shown above) pay premiums to health maintenance organization and point-of-service plans from company and participant contributions. The company's investment strategy is to match the long-term growth ratemaintain a diversified portfolio of the liability primarily through the use ofequities and tax-exempt California municipal bonds.




66



Future Payments


The company expects to contribute $1$42 million to theits pension plan and $15 million to its other postretirement benefit plans in 2006.2008.


The following table reflects the total benefits expected to be paid for the next 10 years to current employees and retirees from the plans or from the company's assets, including both the company's share of the benefit cost and, where applicable, the participants' share of the costs, which is funded by participant contributions to the plans.assets.

 

Pension Benefits

 

Other
Postretirement Benefits

(Dollars in millions)

 

2006

$

54

  

$

7

 

2007

$

56

  

$

8

 

2008

$

61

  

$

8

 

2009

$

62

  

$

9

 

2010

$

64

  

$

9

 

2011-2015

$

347

  

$

54

 


 

 

 

Other

(Dollars in millions)

Pension Benefits

 

Postretirement Benefits

2008

$

75

 

 

$

7

 

2009

$

74

 

 

$

8

 

2010

$

74

 

 

$

9

 

2011

$

75

 

 

$

10

 

2012

$

74

 

 

$

11

 

2013-2017

$

381

 

 

$

65

 


The expected future Medicare Part D subsidy payments are as follows:


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

2008-2012

 

 

 

 

$

2

 

2013-2017

 

 

 

 

$

5

 

(Dollars in millions)

   

2006-2010

    

$

2

 

2011-2015

    

$

4

 


Savings Plan


The company offers a trusteed savings plan to all eligible employees. Eligibility to participateParticipation in the plan is immediate for salary deferrals.deferrals for all employees. Subject to plan provisions, employees may contribute from one percent to 25 percent of their regular earnings, beginning with the start of employment. After one year of each employee's completed service, the company begins to make matching contributions. Employer contributions are equal to 50 percent of the first 6 percent of eligible base salary contributed by employees and, if certain company goals are met, an additional amount related to incentive compensation payments.


Employer contributions are initially invested in Sempra Energy common stock but may be transferred by the employee into other investments. Employee contributions are invested in Sempra Energy stock, mutual funds, or institutional trusts (the same investments to which employees may direct the employer contributions) as elected by the employee. Company contributions to the savings plan were $12 million in 2007, $11 million in 2005, $10million2006 and $11million in 2004 and $8million in 2003.2005.


NOTE 6. STOCK-BASED7. SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION


Sempra Energy has stock-basedshare-based compensation plans intended to align employee and shareholder objectives related to the long-term growth of the company. The plans permit a wide variety of stock-basedshare-based awards, including nonqualifiednon-qualified stock options, incentive stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights, performance awards, stock payments and dividend equivalents. Certain company employees are eligible to participate in Sempra Energy's share-based compensation plans as a component of their compensation package.

In 1995,

At December 31, 2007, Sempra Energy had the following types of equity awards outstanding:




67



·

Non-Qualified Stock Options: Options have an exercise price equal to the market price of the common stock at the date of grant; are service-based; become exercisable over a four-year period (subject to accelerated vesting and/or exercisability upon a change in control, in accordance with severance pay agreements or upon retirement eligibility); and expire 10 years from the date of grant. Options are subject to forfeiture or earlier expiration upon termination of employment.


·

Restricted Stock: Substantially all restricted stock vests at the end of a four-year period based on Sempra Energy’s total return to shareholders relative to that of market indices (subject to earlier forfeiture upon termination of employment and accelerated vesting upon a change in control, in accordance with severance pay agreements or upon retirement eligibility). Holders of restricted stock have full voting rights. They also have full dividend rights, except for company officers, whose dividends are reinvested to purchase additional shares that become subject to the same vesting conditions as the restricted stock to which the dividends relate.

Sempra Energy accounts for share-based awards in accordance with SFAS 123 was issued. It encouraged a fair-value-based(revised 2004),Share-Based Payment (SFAS 123(R)), which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to the company’s employees and directors based on estimated fair values. Sempra Energy adopted the provisions of SFAS 123(R) on January 1, 2006, using the modified prospective transition method. In accordance with this transition method, Sempra Energy's consolidated financial statements for prior periods have not been restated to reflect the impact of accountingSFAS 123(R). Under the modified prospective transition method, share-based compensation expense for stock-based compensation. As permitted by2006 includes compensation expense for all share-based compensation awards granted prior to, but for which the requisite service had not yet been performed as of January 1, 2006, based on the fair value estimated in accordance with the original provisions of SFAS 123, Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries adopted only its disclosure requirements and continued to accountAccounting for stock-basedStock-Based Compensation(SFAS 123). Share-based compensation expense for all share-based compensation awards granted after January 1, 2006 is based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of APBO 25. The issuanceSFAS 123(R). Sempra Energy recognizes compensation costs net of SFAS 123R will requirean assumed forfeiture rate and recognizes the company to begin accelerated recognitioncompensation costs for non-qualified stock options and restricted shares on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of stock-based compensation expense for participants who arethe award, which is generally four years. However, in the year that an employee becomes eligible for retirement-related vesting, beginningretirement, the remaining expense related to the employee's awards is recognized immediately. Sempra Energy estimates the forfeiture rate based on its historical experience. Sempra Energy accounts for these awards as equity awards in 2006. Discussion ofaccorda nce with SFAS 123R (a revision of SFAS 123) is provided in Note 1.123(R).


Sempra Energy subsidiaries record an expense for the plans to the extent that subsidiary employees participate in the plans and/or that the subsidiaries are allocated a portion of the Sempra Energy's costs of the plans.Energy plans’ corporate staff costs. SDG&E recorded expensesexpense of $6million, $7 million and $12 million $9 millionin 2007, 2006 and $72005, respectively.Capitalized compensation cost was $2 million in 2005, 2004each of 2007 and 2003, respectively.2006.


NOTE 7.8. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Fair Value Hedges

The company periodically enters into interest-rate swap agreements to moderate its exposure to interest-rate changes and to lower its overall cost of borrowing. The company's interest-rate swaps are discussed in Note 2.


Cash Flow Hedges


As of both December 31, 2007 and 2006, the company has established cash flow interest-rate swap hedges for a notional amount of debt totaling $251 million. The company'sswaps expire in 2009. In addition, OMEC LLC has entered into cash flow interest-rate swap hedges for a notional amount of debt ranging from $73 million to $377 million. The swaps expire in 2019.




68



In 2007, 2006 and 2005, pretax gain (loss) arising from the ineffective portion of interest-rate cash flow hedges was $(19) million (of which $(17) million applies to hedge cash flows are also discussedOMEC LLC), $(1) million and $4 million, respectively, and was recorded in Note 2.Other Income, Net on the Statements of Consolidated Income.


Energy and Natural Gas Contracts

At SDG&E, the

The use of derivative instruments is subject to certain limitations imposed by company policy and regulatory requirements. These instruments allowenable the company to estimate with greater certainty the effective prices to be received by the company and the prices to be charged to its customers. The company records realized gains or losses on derivative instruments associated with transactions for electric energy and natural gas and electric energy contracts in Cost of Natural Gas and in Cost of Electric Fuel and Purchased Power and Cost of Natural Gas, respectively,inon the Statements of Consolidated Income. Unrealized gain and losses related to these derivatives have offsettingOn the Consolidated Balance Sheets, the company records corresponding regulatory assets and liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheetsrelated to unrealized gains and losses from these derivative instruments to the extent derivative gains and losses associated with these derivative instruments will be recoverable frompayable or payable to customersrecoverable in future rates.


Fair Value of Financial Instruments


The fair values of certain of the company's financial instruments (cash, temporary investments, notes receivable, short-term debt and customer deposits) approximate their carrying amounts. The following table provides the carrying amounts and fair values of the remaining financial instruments at December 31:

 

2005

 

2004

 
  

Carrying

  

Fair

  

Carrying

  

Fair

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

Amount

  

Value

  

Amount

  

Value

 

Total long-term debt

$

1,522

 

$

1,544

 

$

1,088

 

$

1,179

 

Preferred stock of subsidiaries

$

98

*

$

96

 

$

100

*

$

100

 


 

2007

 

2006

 

 

Carrying

 

 

Fair

 

 

Carrying

 

 

Fair

(Dollars in millions)

 

Amount

 

 

Value

 

 

Amount

 

 

Value

Total long-term debt*

$

1,960

 

$

1,975

 

$

1,706

 

$

1,717

Preferred stock

$

93

 

$

90

 

$

96

 

$

97

*

Before reductions for unamortized discount of $2 million at both December 31, 2007 and 2006.

* $19 million and $21 million in 2005 and 2004, respectively, of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock is included in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and in Other Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The fair values of long-term debtanddebt and preferred stock arewere based on their quoted market prices or quoted market prices for similar securities.


Adoption of SFAS 157


Effective January 1, 2007, the company early-adopted SFAS 157 as discussed in Note 2, which, among other things, requires enhanced disclosures about assets and liabilities carried at fair value.


As defined in SFAS 157, fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (exit price). However, as permitted under SFAS 157, the company utilizes a mid-market pricing convention (the mid-point price between bid and ask prices) as a practical expedient for valuing the majority of its assets and liabilities measured and reported at fair value. The company utilizes market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated, or generally unobservable. The company primarily applies the market approach for recurring fair value measurements and endeavors to utilize the best available information. Accordingly, the company utilizes valuation techn iques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The company is able to classify fair value balances based on the observability of those inputs. SFAS 157 establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical



69



assets or liabilities (level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurement). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy defined by SFAS 157 are as follows:


Level 1 – Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reporting date. Active markets are those in which transactions for the asset or liability occur in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. Level 1 primarily consists of financial instruments such as exchange-traded derivatives, listed equities and U.S. government treasury securities.


Level 2 – Pricing inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets included in level 1, which are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reporting date. Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued using models or other valuation methodologies. These models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. Substantially all of these assumptions are observable in the marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument, can be derived from observable data or are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace. Instruments in this category include non-exchange-traded derivatives such as over-the-counter forwards and options.


Level 3 – Pricing inputs include significant inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources. These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in management’s best estimate of fair value. At each balance sheet date, the company performs an analysis of all instruments subject to SFAS 157 and includes in level 3 all of those whose fair value is based on significant unobservable inputs.


The following table sets forth by level within the fair value hierarchy the company's financial assets and liabilities that were accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2007. As required by SFAS 157, financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The company's assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment, and may affect the valuation of fair value assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.


Recurring Fair Value Measures

 

At fair value as of December 31, 2007

 

(Dollars in millions)

 

Level 1

 

 

 

Level 2

 

 

 

Level 3

 

 

 

Total

 

Assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commodity derivatives

 

$

18

 

 

$

3

 

 

$

--

 

 

$

21

 

 

Nuclear decommissioning trusts

 

 

551

 

 

 

175

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

726

 

 

Other derivatives

 

 

--

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

7

 

 

Total

 

$

569

 

 

$

178

 

 

$

7

 

 

$

754

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commodity derivatives

 

$

9

 

 

$

8

 

 

$

--

 

 

$

17

 

 

Other derivatives

 

 

--

 

 

 

20

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

20

 

 

Total

 

$

9

 

 

$

28

 

 

$

--

 

 

$

37

 


Nuclear decommissioning trusts reflect the assets of the company's nuclear decommissioning trusts, excluding cash balances, as discussed in Note 4. Commodity derivatives include commodity and other derivative positions entered into to manage customer price exposures, and other derivatives include interest-rate management instruments. The following table sets forth a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of net other derivatives classified as level 3 in the fair value hierarchy:




70






(Dollars in millions)

 

 

2007

Balance as of January 1, 2007

 

 

 

 

$

--

 

 

Allocated transmission instruments

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

Balance as of December 31, 2007

 

 

 

 

$

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in unrealized gains (losses) relating to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

instruments still held as of December 31, 2007

 

 

 

 

$

7

 


During the third quarter of 2007, the California Independent System Operator (ISO) began the process of allocating congestion revenue rights (CRRs) to load serving entities, including SDG&E. These instruments are considered derivatives and are recorded at fair value based on discounted cash flows. They are classified as level 3 and reflected in the table above. As of December 31, 2007, changes in the fair value of CRRs, which are valued at $7 million, will be deferred and recorded in regulatory accounts to the extent they are recoverable through rates.


NOTE 8.9. PREFERRED STOCK

     

Call/

    
   

Redemption

December 31,

    

Price

2005

2004

Not subject to mandatory redemption:

(in millions)

  

$20 par value, authorized 1,375,000 shares:

      
   

5% Series, 375,000 shares outstanding

$

24.00

$

8

$

8

   

4.5% Series, 300,000 shares outstanding

$

21.20

 

6

 

6

   

4.4% Series, 325,000 shares outstanding

$

21.00

 

7

 

7

   

4.6% Series, 373,770 shares outstanding

$

20.25

 

7

 

7

  

Without par value:

      
   

$1.70 Series, 1,400,000 shares outstanding

$

25.85

 

35

 

35

   

$1.82 Series, 640,000 shares outstanding

$

26.00

 

16

 

16

   

Total

  

$

79

$

79

          

Subject to mandatory redemption:

      
  

Without par value: $1.7625 Series, 750,000 and 850,000

      
  

shares outstanding at December 31, 2005

      
  

and December 31, 2004, respectively

$

25.00

$

19*

$

21*


 

 

 

 

 

Call/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Redemption

December 31,

 

 

 

 

Price

2007

2006

Not subject to mandatory redemption:

 

 

 

(in millions)

 

 

$20 par value, authorized 1,375,000 shares:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5% Series, 375,000 shares outstanding

$

24.00

$

8

$

8

 

 

 

4.5% Series, 300,000 shares outstanding

$

21.20

 

6

 

6

 

 

 

4.4% Series, 325,000 shares outstanding

$

21.00

 

7

 

7

 

 

 

4.6% Series, 373,770 shares outstanding

$

20.25

 

7

 

7

 

 

Without par value:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$1.70 Series, 1,400,000 shares outstanding

$

25.595

 

35

 

35

 

 

 

$1.82 Series, 640,000 shares outstanding

$

26.00

 

16

 

16

 

 

 

 Total

 

 

$

79

$

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject to mandatory redemption:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without par value: $1.7625 Series, 550,000 and 650,000 shares outstanding at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively

$

25.00

$

14

$

 17

* At December 31, 2005 and 2004, $16 million and $19 million, respectively, were included in Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities, and $3 million and 2 million, respectively, were included in Other Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

All series of SDG&E's preferred stock have cumulative preferences as to dividends. The $20 par value preferred stock has two votes per share on matters being voted upon by shareholders of SDG&E and a liquidation value at par. The no-par-value preferred stock is nonvoting and has a liquidation value of $25 per share plus any unpaid dividends. SDG&E is authorized to issue 10,000,000 shares of no-par-value preferred stock (both subject to and not subject to mandatory redemption). All series are callable. The $1.7625 Series has a sinking fund requirement to redeem 50,000 shares at $25 per share in each of 20062007 and 2007; all remaining shares must be redeemed in 2008. On each of January 15, 20052007 and January 15, 2006,2008, SDG&E redeemed 100,000 shares.shares and 550,000 shares, respectively.


SDG&E is currently authorized to issue up to 25 million shares of an additional class of preference shares designated as "Series Preference Stock." The Series Preference Stock is in addition to the Cumulative Preferred Stock, Preference Stock (Cumulative) and Common Stock that the company was otherwise authorized to issue, and when issued would rank junior to the Cumulative Preferred Stock and Preference Stock (Cumulative) and have rights, preferences and privileges that would be established by the board at the time of issuance.




71



NOTE 9.10. ELECTRIC INDUSTRY REGULATION


Background


One legislative response to the 2000 - 2001 powerenergy crisis resulted in the purchase by the 'DWRDWR of a substantial portion of the power requirements of California's electricity users. In 2001, the DWR entered into long-term contracts with supplierstosuppliers to provide power for the utility procurement customers of each of the California investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The CPUC has established the allocation among the IOUs of the power and its administrative responsibility, including collection of power contract costs from utility customers, among the IOUs.customers. Beginning on January 1, 2003, the IOUs resumed responsibility for electric commodity procurement above their allocated share of the DWR's long-term contracts.


Department of Water Resources


The DWR operating agreement with SDG&E, approved by the CPUC, provides that SDG&E is acting as a limited agent on behalf of the DWR in undertaking energy sales and natural gas procurement functions under the DWR contracts allocated to SDG&E's customers. Legal and financial responsibility associated with these activities continues to reside with the DWR. Therefore, commodity costs associated with long-term contracts allocated to SDG&E from the DWR (and the revenues to recover those costs) are not included in the Statements of Consolidated Income.

In October 2003, the CPUC initiated a proceeding to consider a permanent methodology for allocating the DWR's revenue requirement beginning in 2004 through the remaining life of the DWR contracts (2013). On June 30, 2005, the CPUC changed its prior decision and assigned SDG&E customers $422 million of the costs (instead of the $790 million pursuant to the prior decision). Such allocation does not affect SDG&E's net income, but does affect its customers' commodity rates. In August 2005, Southern California Edison (Edison), The Utility Reform Network and the California Large Energy Consumers Association(collectively the Parties) filed a Petition for Modification, not disputing the allocation of the DWR decision, but rather the schedule for reallocation. On December 1, 2005, the CPUC approved a decision that denied the Parties' petition to modify.

In December 2005, the CPUC approved a draft decision reallocating one of the state's DWR power contracts (Williams Energy "Power D") from SDG&E to Edison. The decision was modified to make the reallocation effective January 1, 2007, allowing SDG&E an additional year to plan for and acquire the necessary replacement resources. In the same decision, the CPUC rejected Edison's request to reallocate administration of Sempra Generation's DWR contract to SDG&E.

Power Procurement and Resource Planning

In 2001,

Effective in 2003, the CPUC directed the IOUs to resume electric commodity procurement to cover their net short energy requirements by January 1, 2003 and also implemented legislation regarding procurement and renewablesrenewable energy portfolio standards. In addition, the CPUC established a process for review and approval of the utilities' long-term resource and procurement plans, which is intended to identify forecasted needs for generation and transmission resources within a utility's service territory to support transmission grid reliability and to serve customers.

In June 2004,

Sunrise Powerlink Electric Transmission Line


SDG&E has applied to the CPUC approvedfor authorization to construct the Sunrise Powerlink, a request by SDG&E500-kV electric transmission line between the Imperial Valley and the San Diego region that will be able to enter into new electric resource contractsdeliver 1,000 MW. The project, as proposed, is estimated to meet its short-termcost $1.3 billion, which includes AFUDC related to both debt and long-term grid reliability needs, includingequity. In November 2007, the ten-year 573-Megawatt (MW) Otay Mesa Power Purchase Agreement (OMPPA) with Calpine Corp. (Calpine). The OMPPA was to begin January 1, 2008. In June 2005, the CPUC granted limited rehearing of its approval of the OMPPA and on February 16, 2005, the CPUC re-affirmed its approval of the OMPPA. However, several conditions precedent required by the OMPPA have not yet been satisfied. In lieu of the OMPPA, SDG&E and Calpine haveImperial Irrigation District, which had entered into a non-binding letterMemorandum of intent contemplatingAgreement with the company to cooperatively build the project subject to the negotiation of a definitive agreement, decided not to participate in the project.


Phase I evidentiary hearings covering project need were completed in October 2007, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) directed parties to submit Phase I opening and reply briefs, which were filed on November 9, 2007 and November 30, 2007, respectively.


In January 2008, the CPUC issued a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for public comment and will hold additional workshops and public participation hearings in response to their findings. Comments on the saledraft EIR/EIS are due in April 2008. Among other things, the draft EIR/EIS finds that a combination of in-basin conventional fossil fuel generation and renewable generation is the environmentally superior alternative when analyzed entirely from an environmental impact standpoint. The environmental analysis is one of many studies the CPUC will evaluate in its overall project assessment. Phase II evidentiary hearings have been scheduled for April 2008 to address environmental issues associated with the project, including alternative project and route proposals. The



72



final EIR/EIS is scheduled to be issued by June 2008. A final CPUC decision on the project, which will consider the environmental, technical and economic attributes of the Otay Mesa power plant to SDG&E. Any final, definitive agreement would requirevarious alternatives, is expected in the approvalsecond half of 2008.


Given this timeline, if the project is approved by the CPUC andas proposed in the bankruptcy court having jurisdiction overcompany’s original filings, the Calpine case.earliest management projects the Sunrise Powerlink would be in commercial operation would be in the first half of 2011.

In July 2005,

Renewable Energy


California Senate Bill 107 (SB 107), enacted in September 2006, requires certain California electric retail sellers, including the CPUC also approved SDG&E's request for the construction (CPCN application) of $209 million in transmission facilities needed, in part, to provide full dispatchability of the Otay Mesa generation project. SDG&E has commenced construction of the OMPPA transmission upgrade project, spending $8 million through December 31, 2005.

The CPUC requires SDG&Ecompany, to achieve a 20%20-percent renewable energy portfolio by 2010. The rules governing this requirement, administered by both the CPUC and the California Energy Commission, are generally known as the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).


At the end of December 2007, SDG&E has entered intorenewable energy supply under contract of approximately 13 percent of its projected 2010 retail demand. A substantial portion of these contracts, however, are contingent upon many factors, including access to electric transmission infrastructure (including SDG&E's proposed Sunrise Powerlink transmission line), timely regulatory approval of contracted renewable energy projects, the renewable energy project developers' ability to obtain project financing, and successful development and implementation of the renewable energy technologies.


Given the revised Sunrise Powerlink EIR/EIS timeline, as discussed above, the Sunrise Powerlink transmission line, if approved, will not be in operation to provide transmission capability to meet the RPS requirements by the 2010 deadline. Consequently, the company believes it is unlikely that it will be able to meet the 2010 delivered-energy goal as contained in the RPS. The company's failure to attain the 20-percent goal in 2010, or in any subsequent year, could subject it to a CPUC-imposed penalty, subject to flexible compliance measures, of 5 cents per kilowatt hour of renewable energy under-delivery up to a maximum penalty of $25 million per year under the current rules. In January 2008, the CPUC issued a proposed decision defining the flexible compliance mechanisms that can be used in meeting the RPS goals in 2010 and beyond, including clarifying rules within which insufficient transmission is a permissible reason for failing t o satisfy the RPS goals. While the company believes it will be able to comply with four developers for the purchaseRPS requirements based on its contracting activity and application of the flexible compliance mechanisms, the company is unable to predict whether it will be penalized or the amount that would be imposed.


Greenhouse Gas Regulation


Legislation was enacted in 2006, including California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and California Senate Bill 1368 (SB 1368), mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which could affect costs and growth at SDG&E. Any cost impact is expected to be recoverable through rates.


Long-Term Procurement Plan


SDG&E filed its long-term procurement plan (LTPP) with the CPUC in December 2006, including a ten-year energy resource plan that details its expected portfolio of energy from projects scheduled to begin operation betweenresources over the planning horizon of 2007 - 2016. The LTPP incorporates the renewable energy and 2016.greenhouse gas emissions performance standards established by the CPUC and by AB 32, SB 107 and SB 1368. SDG&E has entered into a 20-year contract to develop a 900-MW solar project in&E's LTPP identifies, among other details, the Imperial Valley area of California. The first phase would provide 300 MW of power beginning in 2008 - 2010. The second phase would provide an optionneed for an additional 300 MWsystem generation resources beginning in 2010, -including a baseload plant in 2012. The third phase would provide the right of first refusal for another 300 MW of power beginning after 2012. The first two phases receivedA final CPUC approvaldecision was issued in December 2005.2007 adopting the various elements of the SDG&E has also entered into a 20-year contract for developmentLTPP. Consistent with its LTPP, SDG&E separately filed an application with the CPUC in August 2007 seeking authority to exercise its option to acquire, in 2011, the El Dorado power plant from Sempra



73



Generation (a business unit of Sempra Energy) at Sempra Generation’s net book value on the date of acquisition, estimated to be $189 million, as part of a 205.5-MW wind project scheduledsettlement described in Note 12 under "Other Natural Gas Cases." The CPUC and the FERC approved SDG&E’s request to beginexercise its option to acquire the El Dorado power plant in 2011 in November 2007 - 2008. The projects are expected to raise SDG&E's overall renewable portfolio to 13.3 % in 2010. The projects are contingent upon successful completion of new transmission lines.and February 2008, respectively.


San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)

On May 5, 2005,

In June 2006, the CPUC grantedadopted a decision granting SDG&E an increase in SONGS' electric rate revenues for 2004 and 2005, which resulted in a rehearing to resolve what SDG&E has contended was$13.2 million increase in pretax income in the second quarter of 2006. This decision resolved a computational error in the CPUC's setting2004 Cost of Service decision which established the revenue requirement for SDG&E's share of the operating costs of SONGS. Any adjustment would be retroactive to January 1, 2004. If


In May 2006, the CPUC adopted a decision in the 2006 General Rate Case for Southern California Edison (Edison), the operator of SONGS, which authorized for SDG&E is fully successful,a $21.8 million increase in its revenue requirement for the period in which the rehearing is concluded would be increased by $10 million for each of 2004 and 2005. Final resolution is expected in the first half of 2006.

With the end of the Incremental Cost Incentive Mechanism in 2003, SDG&E's SONGS ratebase restarted at $0 on January 1, 2004 and, therefore, SDG&E's earnings from SONGS are now generally limited to a return on new additions to ratebase.

In 2004, Edison the operator of SONGS, applied for CPUC approval to replace the steam generators at SONGS, stating that the work needed to be done in 2009 and 2010 for Units 2 and 3, respectively, and would require an estimated capital expenditure of $680 million (in 2004 dollars). As provided forSDG&E’s share of the estimated capital investment, in 2004 dollars, is $136 million. During 2006, SDG&E, Edison and the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) reached a settlement, which was subsequently approved by the CPUC, supporting SDG&E's participation in the SONGS Operating Agreement,replacement project as well as providing SDG&E elected not to participate in the steam generator replacement project, which triggered a dispute under thewith full recovery of current operating agreement over the extent to which SDG&E's ownership share and its related share of SONGS's output would be reduced from its existing 20% interest if SDG&E does not participate in the project. In February 2005, an arbitrator issued a decision that would result in SDG&E's ownership interest in SONGS and its related share of SONGS's output being reduced to zero if SDG&E continues to decline to participate in the project.

SDG&E intervened in Edison's CPUC application and requested that the CPUC either deny Edison's application as premature, direct Edison to purchase the new steam generators but defer the replacement until it is warranted, or direct Edison to purchase SDG&E's share in the facility and offer back a long-term power purchase agreement in an amount equal to SDG&E's current share (430 MW). Hearings before the CPUC on Edison's application were completed in February 2005, and a final decision approving the steam generator project was issued on December 15, 2005. That decision sets cost recovery at a maximum cap of $782 million and requires a reasonableness review of allmaintenance costs if total costs exceed $680 million. The decision also approves Edison's revised schedule, which provides for completion of the project for Unit 2 and Unit 3 by early 2010 and late 2010, respectively. To relinquish its ownership share and to address the arbitrator's decision, SDG&E is required to file by April 14, 2006, an appl ication with the CPUC to determine the reasonableness of the transfer of all or part of SDG&E's share of SONGS to Edison, with a decision expected in 2007. The CPUC could require SDG&E to participate in the project and retain a share of SONGS or SDG&E could elect to participate in the project and retain its current 20-percent ownership share of SONGS. If SDG&E's ownership share of SONGS is reduced, SDG&E would seek to recover its net investment in SONGS made sincevia balancing account treatment effective January 1, 2004 ($86 million at December 31, 2005, including materials and supplies of $31 million) and any future SONGS investments made prior to the time the ownership reduction becomes effective, and a return on its investment in SONGS ratebase (including that portion of the $31 million that is transferred to plant by that time).2007.


Spent Nuclear Fuel


SONGS owners have responsibility for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel generated at SONGS until it is accepted by the Department of Energy (DOE)DOE for final disposal. Spent nuclear fuel has been stored in the SONGS Units 1, 2 and 3 spent fuel pools and in the ISFSI. Movement of all Unit 1 spent fuel to the ISFSI was completed as of December 31, 2005, providing sufficient space2005. Spent fuel for Unit 2 is being stored in both the UnitsUnit 2 and 3 spent fuel poolspool and the ISFSI. Spent fuel for Unit 3 is being stored in the spent fuel pool, with storage in the ISFSI scheduled to meet storage requirements through mid-2007begin in 2008. Construction of a second ISFSI pad was initiated in the second half of 2007 and mid-2008, respectively. The ISFSI has adequatewill provide sufficient storage capacity through 2022.


Electric Transmission Formula Rate


Effective July 1, 2007, SDG&E will recover its annual transmission capital investment at a return on equity (ROE) of 11.35 percent, an increase from the previous authorized ROE of 11.25 percent, which equates to an estimated annualized revenue increase in 2008 of $18 million. SDG&E also renewed its annual transmission formula rate, with only slight modifications from the previous formula, for six years from July 1, 2007 through August 31, 2013.


Advanced Metering Infrastructure


In April 2007, the CPUC approved SDG&E's initiative to install advanced meters with integrated two-way communications functionality, providing for remote disconnect and a home area network for all customers. SDG&E estimates expenditures for this project of $572 million (including approximately $500 million in capital investment), which involves the replacement of 1.4 million electric and 900,000 natural gas meters throughout SDG&E’s service territory. The meter replacements are anticipated to commence in the fourth quarter of 2008 and be completed by early 2011.




74



NOTE 10.11. OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS


General Rate Case (GRC)


In April 2007, the company filed an amendment to its original 2008 General Rate Case application (2008 GRC) as filed in December 2006 with the CPUC. The 2008 GRC application, as amended, establishes the 2008 authorized margin requirements and the ratemaking mechanisms by which those margin requirements would change annually effective in 2009 through 2013 (2008 GRC rate period).


As part of the General Rate Case process, applications are subject to review and testimony by various groups representing the interests of ratepayers and other constituents. In December 2007, the company filed with the CPUC a settlement agreement reached in principle with the DRA and Aglet Consumer Alliance. If approved, the settlement would provide a 2008 revenue requirement of $1.349 billion and would resolve all 2008 revenue requirement issues. Comments were submitted in January 2008. If adopted, the settlement represents an increase in the annual authorized margin in 2008 of $138 million, as compared to 2007 authorized margin. The company also reached a settlement agreement with the DRA, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Aglet Consumer Alliance regarding post test-year provisions including the term of the GRC period, earnings sharing and the year-to-year attrition allowances during the GRC period. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to a GRC term of four years (2008 through 2011) with the DRA separately agreeing to a term of five years (through 2012). The parties also agreed to post test-year revenue requirement increases in fixed dollar amounts (i.e., no escalation, true-up or after-the-fact modification) as follows: $41 million for 2009, $44 million for 2010 and $44 million for 2011. The DRA separately agreed to revenue requirement increases of $45 million for 2012. These amounts exclude any CPUC-approved revenue requirements or rate base changes that are outside the scope of the GRC (e.g., Cost of Capital). The parties also agreed that there would be no earnings sharing between the company and ratepayers should the company exceed the authorized return on equity for any year in the post test-year period. The settlement was filed with the CPUC on January 18, 2008, and parties have an opportunity to comment on the filing.

The company has filed a request with the CPUC to make any decision on the 2008 GRC effective retroactive to January 1, 2008. In December 2007, the CPUC issued a decision allowing SDG&E to establish regulatory memorandum accounts to record any difference between their current and future adopted revenue requirements on and after January 1, 2008 until a final decision is issued. This would enable the company to recover or refund these amounts in the future. However, the decision asks parties to comment on the extent to which SDG&E may have improperly caused a delay in the proceeding and to what extent, if any, these recorded amounts should be reduced as a result. A final CPUC decision on all GRC Phase I issues is expected in the second quarter of 2008.


Phase II of this proceeding, which deals with cost allocation among customer classes, began with public hearings in early September 2007. The GRC Phase II filing proposes a number of demand response and energy conservation initiatives for all customer classes, with incentives for reduced electricity usage. The filing also proposes the gradual elimination of residential rate caps that have been required by state legislation since the California energy crisis in 2001. An all-party settlement agreement was reached and filed with the CPUC in October 2007. The settlement agreement resolves all issues in the proceeding, except SDG&E's proposal to gradually eliminate residential rate caps. On January 29, 2008, the ALJ issued a proposed decision adopting the settlement agreement. A final decision on the settlement agreement is expected to be issued in early 2008. Opening briefs on the proposal to gradually eliminate residential rate caps were filed in Decem ber 2007 and reply briefs in January 2008. A CPUC decision on that proposal is expected to be issued by mid-2008.




75



Cost of Capital Proceeding


The company filed an application with the CPUC in May 2007 seeking to update its cost of capital, authorized ROE and debt/equity ratios. In December 2007, the CPUC issued a final decision increasing the company’s authorized ROE from 10.7 percent to 11.1 percent effective January 1, 2008, and maintaining the company’s current capital structure of 49 percent common equity, 5.75 percent preferred equity and 45.25 percent long-term debt. As a result, SDG&E’s authorized return on rate base will be 8.40 percent effective January 1, 2008.


Utility Ratemaking Incentive Awards

Performance-Based Regulation (PBR) consists of three primary components. The first is a mechanism to adjust rates in years between general rate cases or cost of service cases. It annually adjusts base rates from those of the prior year to provide for inflation based on the most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) forecast, subject to minimum and maximum percentage increases that change annually.

The second component is a mechanism whereby any earnings in excess of those authorized plus a narrow band above that are shared with customers in varying degrees depending upon the amount of the additional earnings.

The third component consists of a series of measures of utility performance. Generally, if performance is outside of a band around specified benchmarks, the utility is rewarded or penalized certain dollar amounts. The three areas that have beenare eligible for PBR rewardsincentive awards or penalties are PBR operational incentives, based on measurements ofwhich measure safety, reliability and customer service; energy efficiency (sometimes referred to as demand-side management, (DSM) rewardsor DSM or EE) awards based on the effectiveness of the DSMenergy efficiency programs; and natural gas procurement rewardsawards or penalties. As notedThe operational PBR incentives and the associated benchmarks are determined as a component of a general rate case or cost of service decision. The operational PBR incentives to be in effect for fiscal year 2008 through the end of the 2008 GRC rate period are under consideration as part of the 2008 GRC. The company has recommended continuing the PBR measures i n effect through 2007 with slight modifications to the benchmarks. The company expects a final CPUC decision on this issue in the second quarter of 2008.


The company’s PBR for natural gas procurement awards or penalties will end on the effective date of the combination of the core natural gas supply portfolios as discussed below the latest Cost of Service proceeding established formula-based performance measures for customer service, safety and reliability.under "Omnibus Gas Settlements."


PBR and DSM awards are not included in the company's earnings until CPUC approval of theeach award is received. All awards discussed below are on a pretax basis.


Operational PBR and Natural Gas Procurement


During 2005, the incentive rewards approved andyear ended December 31, 2007, SDG&E’s pretax earnings included in earnings consisted of $0.2$11 million related to SDG&E's Year 11 (2003-2004) natural gas PBR.PBR awards.


Energy Efficiency


In October, 2005,September 2007, the CPUC approvedestablished a mechanism to financially reward or penalize the settlement agreement betweenIOUs for their performance on post-2005 energy-efficiency programs. The mechanism rewards or penalizes the California Utilities and the CPUC's DRA, resolving all outstanding shareholder earnings claims associated with DSM,IOUs based upon specific portfolio performance goals to reduce energy efficiency and low-income energy efficiency programs through various dates, depending on the program.consumption by its customers. The decisionprogram provides for $73 million in awards, including interest, franchise fees, uncollectible amountsthree-year cycles, with the first three-year cycle covering 2006 through 2008. The company's maximum rewards and awards earned in prior years that had not yet then been requested. Approximately $37 millionpenalties for the three-year program period, on a pretax basis, are $50 million. Generally, the company will be entitled to rewards when the energy cost savings are 85-125 percent of the $73 million award was included in fourth quarter 2005 income.

In October 2005, the CPUC also approved $8.2 million in PBR incentive awards for SDG&E's 2003 Distribution PBR performance report, relating to employee safety, customer service and electric reliability. This awardgoal. The company is subject to refund inpenalties when the event the current investigationsavings are less than 65 percent of Edison's service quality incentive awards warrants a further investigation of PBR incentives for other utilities, including SDG&E. The CPUC's Consumer Protection and Safety Division is conducting an ongoing investigation of Edison's PBR incentive data reporting.

The cumulative amount of these awards that is subject to refund based on the outcome of the Border Price Investigation discussed in "Legal Proceedings" in Note 11 below is $8.5 million, the majority of which has been included in income.

Cost of Service

The California Utilities' proposed settlement of Phase II of their cost of service proceedings, addressing attrition allowances and performance-based incentive mechanisms, was approved by the CPUC and related performance measures and incentives were adopted. The CPUC's decision establishes an indexing methodology for post-test-year ratemaking that includes inflation adjustments and earnings-sharing mechanisms. The decision is retroactive to January 1, 2005 and is applicable to years 2005-2007. It eliminates earnings sharing and incentive awards for 2004.

For 2005 - 2007, the California Utilities' authorized base-rate revenues will be annually increased by the increase in the CPI, subject to minimum and maximum percentage increases that varygoal, with the particular utility and increase yearly. The annual minimum increases range from 3.2% to 3.8% and the annual maximum percentage increases range from 4.2% to 4.8%. Pursuant to the indexing mechanisms, SDG&E increased its 2006 base margin revenue requirements by $33 million. The base margin adjustments included the recalibrationpenalty reached when savings are 35 percent of the 2005 base margin escalation to reflect actual index values before calculating the 2006 base margin revenue.For 2005-2007, any utility base-rate earnings that exceed the CPUC-authorized rate of return on ratebase plus 0.5 percentage point will be shared with customers, in proportions that vary with the amount of the excess, beginning with customers' receiving 75% of the excess, declining to 25% as the excess increases. The decision authorizes either utility to filegoal. No incentive or penalty applies for a suspension of the indexing and sharing mechanisms if its base-rate earnings for any year are at least 1.75 percentage points below its authorized rate of return and authorizes others to file for a suspension if either utility's base-rate earnings for any year are at least 1.75 percentage points above its authorized rate of return. The mechanisms would be automatically suspended for either utility if its base-rate earnings for 2005 or 2006 are at least 3 percentage points above or below its authorized rate of return.performance between 65-85 percent.

The decision also establishes formula-based performance measures for customer service, safety and reliability. These provide symmetrical annual reward and penalty potentials aggregating approximately $14 million.

Cost of Capital

On December 15, 2005, the CPUC approved a return on equity (ROE) of 10.7% for SDG&E, an increase from its current ROE of 10.37%. SDG&E's authorized capital structure remains unchanged at 45.25% debt, 5.75% preferred stock and 49% common equity.

CPUC Investigation of Compliance with Affiliate Rules

In November 2004, the CPUC initiated the independent audit (known as the GDS audit) to evaluate energy-related holding company systems and affiliate activities undertaken by Sempra Energy within the service territories of the California Utilities. A draft audit report covering years 1997 through 2003 was provided to the CPUC's Energy Division in December 2005. The Energy Division is reviewing the draft audit report and plans to make the final audit report available in the first half of 2006. The scope of the audit is broader than the annual affiliate audit.

In May 2005, the California Utilities filed with the CPUC the results of the annual independent audit of the California Utilities' 2004 transactions with other Sempra Energy affiliates. Although the company does not agree with a finding of the auditor that utility procurement information was improperly provided to an affiliated risk-management consulting firm employed by Sempra Energy, the California Utilities have adopted the auditor's recommendation to perform risk management functions themselves rather than utilizing Sempra Energy's Risk Management Department.

"CPUC Investigation of Energy-Utility Holding Companies" and "Natural Gas Market OIR" (below) also discuss issues related to affiliate relationships.

CPUC Investigation of Energy-Utility Holding Companies

On October 27, 2005, the CPUC initiated a proceeding to re-examine the relationships between the California IOUs and their respective parent holding companies and other non-utility affiliates. It contemplates a review of the capital budgets, capital allocation processes, and dividend and capital retention policies of the utilities and their non-utility affiliates to better understand the amount of capital to be allocated for investment in energy infrastructure to meet California's need for reliable energy. The CPUC has broadly determined that, in appropriate circumstances, it could require the holding company to provide cash to a utility subsidiary to cover its operating expenses and working capital to the extent it is not adequately funded through retail rates. The CPUC may propose additional rules or regulations to ensure that the utilities retain sufficient capital and the ability to access such capital to meet their customers' needs, and to address potential conflicts between the interests of utility ratepayers and those of non-utility affiliates to ensure that they do not undermine the utilities' ability to meet their public service obligations at the lowest possible cost. A preliminary schedule contemplates that any proposed rules and final rules would be issued for comment and final rules be adopted in the first half of 2006. 

Natural Gas Industry Restructuring (GIR)

In December 2001,January 2008, the CPUC issued a decision modifying the measurement and verification process of this earnings mechanism, which will enhance the predictability of earnings (or penalties) from energy efficiency programs. The company expects to file its initial report on its 2006 and 2007 energy efficiency results as compared to goal with the CPUC in the second quarter of 2008, with a decision anticipated by the end of 2008.



76




Omnibus Gas Settlements


In August 2006, SoCalGas, SDG&E and Edison jointly filed an application with the CPUC seeking its approval of a series of revisions to the natural gas operations and service offerings of the Sempra Utilities. The proposals resulted from the successful resolution of various litigation matters related to GIR, with implementation anticipated during 2002. On April 1, 2004, after many delays and changes, the 2000 - 2001 energy crisis. The CPUC issued a final decision that adopts tariffs to implement the 2001 decision. However, that decision stayed implementationin December 2007 approving some, but not all, of the GIR tariffs untilproposals and deferring a number of issues to the Sempra Utilities’ next Biennial Cost Allocation Proceeding (BCAP), which is scheduled to begin in February 2008. As part of the decision, the natural gas supply portfolios for SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ core customers will be combined into a single natural gas supply portfolio to be administered by SoCalGas effective April 1, 2008. All SDG&E assets associated with its core natural gas supply portfolio will be transferred or assigned to SoCalGas, which will be responsibl e for meeting the needs of both SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ core natural gas customers at the same core gas monthly price. As a result, effective April 1, 2008, SDG&E will no longer be subject to its own gas procurement PBR mechanism. SDG&E and SoCalGas filed a joint BCAP application with the CPUC issuedin February 2008, seeking a decision in Phase Iby year-end 2008.


Natural Gas Market OIR


The CPUC considered natural gas market issues, including market design and infrastructure requirements, as part of theits Natural Gas Market Order Instituting RatemakingRulemaking (OIR) discussed below. At that time, the CPUC ordered the California Utilities to file a new proposal for system integration, firm access rights and off-system deliveries, as referenced below. The company is required to file a new Biennial Cost Allocation Proceeding (BCAP) application after the stay. A final decision in the GIR implementationPhase II of this proceeding is lifted.

Natural Gas Market OIR

The CPUC's Natural Gas Market OIR was instituted in January 2004 and is being addressed in two phases. The focus of the Natural Gas Market OIR is the period from 2006 to 2016. The California Utilities have made comprehensive filings in the OIR, outlining a proposed market structure that is intended to create access to new natural gas supply sources, such as liquefied natural gas, for California. In their filings, the California Utilities proposed a framework to provide firm tradable access rights for intrastate natural gas transportation; provide SoCalGas with continued balancing account protection for intrastate transmission and distribution revenues, thereby eliminating throughput risk; and integrate their transmission systems so as to have common rates and rules. The California Utilities also proposed that the capital expenditures necessary to access new sources of supply be included in ratebase and that the total amount of the expenditures would be $200 million to $300 million. A decision on Phase I w as issued in September 2004. The California Utilities were required to file separate applications to address system integration, firm access rights and off-system deliveries. The CPUC also determined that the ratemaking treatment and cost responsibility for any access-related infrastructure will be addressed in future applications to be filed when more is known about the particular project.

Evidentiary hearings on the system integration proposal were held in September 2005 to consider whether the transmission component of the natural gas transportation rates of the California Utilities should be equalized. System integration would allow customers in the California Utilities' service territories to access upstream supplies of natural gas on an equal basis. A decision on this phase is expected during the first quarter of 2006. Evidentiary hearings on infrastructure adequacy were held in August 2005 and addressed a variety of issues including the infrastructure adequacy of the California Utilities' transmission and storage facilities. Natural gas quality standards and interconnection requirements are being addressed in separate phases. In the second phase, to be addressed in mid-2006, the CPUC will consider establishing a system of firm access rights into the California Utilities' system and off-system deliveries.

The California Utilities proposed a methodology and framework to be used by the CPUC for granting pre-approval of new interstate transportation agreements. The Phase I decision approved the California Utilities' transportation capacity pre-approval procedures with some modifications. In 2005, SDG&E was granted approval for capacity contracts with El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso), Transwestern Pipeline Company and Kern River Gas Transmission Company, enabling the company to meet its identified goal to operate within the CPUC's approved planning range by November 1, 2006. All interstate transportation capacity under the pre-approved contracts will be used to transport natural gas supplies on behalf of the California Utilities' core residential and small commercial customers, and all costs of the capacity will be recovered in the customers' procurement rates.

Recovery of Certain Disallowed Transmission Costs

In September 2005, the FERC approved SDG&E's May 2005 settlement with the California Independent System Operator (ISO), which provides for refunds of ISO charges on the Arizona Public Service Co. and the Imperial Irrigation District ownership shares of the Southwest Powerlink, and resolves such unreimbursed charges going forward. Therefore, SDG&E recorded pre-tax income of $44 million in the third quarter of 2005.

California Utilities' Structural Changes

On January 4, 2006, the company announced an agreement that, subject to court approval, would settle the Continental Forge antitrust litigation, an identical proceeding in Nevada and class action lawsuits alleging price misreporting and wash trading. The agreement included that the California Utilities will seek approval from the CPUC to integrate their natural gas transmission facilities and to develop both firm, tradable natural gas receipt point rights for access to their combined intrastate transmission system and firm storage capacity rights on SoCalGas' underground natural gas storage system. Additional discussion of the settlement is provided in Note 11 under "Legal Proceedings."

Gain on Sale Rulemaking

A rulemaking was issued in September 20042006, reaffirming the adequacy of the capacity of the SoCalGas and SDG&E systems to standardizemeet current demand. In particular, this decision established natural gas quality standards that would permit the introduction of regasified liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies into California’s natural gas distribution system. The South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of San Diego (jointly with Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy) have filed petitions for review in the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court challenging the CPUC's September 2006 decision and contending that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to the changes in natural gas quality standards a pproved by the CPUC, and that impacts on the environment should be fully considered. In November 2007, the Court of Appeal determined that the California Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to consider a CEQA challenge to a CPUC decision. A decision by the California Supreme Court is expected by the end of 2008.


Gain On Sale Rulemaking


In May 2006, the CPUC adopted a decision standardizing the treatment of gains and losses on future sales of property by the IOUs. This rulemaking may result in the adoption of a general ratemaking policy for allocation between utility shareholders and ratepayers of any gain or loss on sale of utility property. The CPUC will consider adoptingIt provided for an allocation of 100 percent of the gains and losses from depreciable property to ratepayers and a standard percentage50/50 allocation probablyof gains and losses from non-depreciable property between 5 percentratepayers and 50 percent to shareholders, rather than resolving such allocations on a case-by-case basis, as is now its practice. In unusualshareholders. Under certain circumstances, the CPUC would be able to depart from the standard allocation to be adopted. The CPUC intends to apply this standard percentage to salesallocation.The DRA and TURN filed a joint request for rehearing of both depreciable and non-depreciable property. The rulemaking statesthe decision requesting, among other things, that the new policy would replace the CPUC's current policy of allocating to shareholders all gain or loss to shareholders on sale to a municipality of a utility operating system.In November 2005, a proposed decision was issued that, if approved, wouldCPUC adopt a process90/10 allocation of gains from non-depreciable assets between ratepayers and shareholders. In December 2006, the CPUC denied the request for allocatingrehearing, but modified its prior decision revising the allocation between ratepayers and shareholders to 67/33. In July 2007, the CPUC issued a resolution which adopted a gross-up formula for calculating the ratepayers’ allocation o f taxes associated with any gains onor losses from the sale received by certain electric, natural gas, telecommunications and water utilities when they sellof utility land, assets such as buildings, or other tangible or intangible assets formerly used to serve utility customers. In most cases, utility customers should receive 75% of the gain. The utilities' shareholders should receive the remaining 25% of the gain on sale. Opening and reply comments to the proposed decision were filed in January 2006. The final outcome of the rulemaking may be different than that proposed for comment in the order instituting the rulemaking.assets.


Southern California Wildfires


In August 2005,October 2007, major wildfires throughout Southern California destroyed many homes, damaged utility infrastructure and disrupted utility services. On October 21, 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for seven California counties, including the county of San Diego and six



77



counties within SoCalGas' service territory. With a declaration of a state of emergency, the Sempra Utilities can request recovery of any material incremental costs of restoring utility services and utility facilities damaged by the wildfires in cost recovery proceedings applicable to disaster events. In December 2007, the company notified the CPUC grantedof its intent to request recovery of the incremental costs incurred by SDG&E full recovery, via its catastrophic event memorandum account (CEMA), ofin response to the wildfires and has established the necessary regulatory accounts to record these costs. SDG&E currently estimates that the total incremental costs incurred costs ($40.8 million) associated with the fires.CPUC and FERC regulated operations, primarily capital-related, will range from $45 million to $55 million and $15 million to $25 million, respectively. The application for cost recovery is expected to be filed with the CPUC in the second quarter of 2008. Additional information regarding the Southern California Wildfires is provided in Note 12.


NOTE 11.12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES


Legal Proceedings

In January 2006,

At December 31, 2007, the companycompany’s reserves for litigation matters were $39 million, of which $37 million related to settlements reached agreements, subject to court approval, to settleresolve certain litigation arising out of the 2000 - 2001 California energy crisis. As a result of that settlement, the company increased its reserves at December 31, 2005, to $79million, of which $76million relates to the settled matters.

Other reserves of $3million have been established for the litigation that is continuing at February 22, 2006. The uncertainties inherent in complex legal proceedings make it difficult to estimate with any degree of certainty the costs and effects of resolving theselegal matters. Accordingly, costs ultimately incurred may differ materially from estimated costs and could materially adversely affect the company's business, cash flows, results of operations and financial condition.

Settlement Agreements


Sempra Commodities, Sempra Generation and Sempra LNG, referred to in the following discussion, are business units of Sempra Energy.


Continental Forge Settlement


The litigation that is the subject of the settlement agreementssettlements and $37million of reserves is frequently referred to as the Continental Forge litigation, although the settlements also include other cases. The Continental Forge litigation, consisting of class-action and individual antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits consolidated in San Diego Superior Court, allegeCalifornia and Nevada alleged that Sempra Energy and the CaliforniaSempra Utilities along with El Paso and several of its affiliates, unlawfully sought to control natural gas and electricity markets and claimclaimed damages in excess of $23 billion after applicable trebling. Plaintiff class members include virtually all natural gas and electric consumers served by the California IOUs.


The settlement of Continental Forge would also includeSan Diego County Superior Court entered a final order approving the settlement of class action price reporting litigation, consisting of antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging that Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully misreported natural gas transactions to publishers of price indi ces and engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions. A second settlement agreement relates toContinental Forge class-action litigation brought by the Nevadaas fair and reasonable in July 2006. The California Attorney General and the DWR have appealed the final order. Oral argument is expected to take place in 2008. The Nevada Clark County District Court entered an order approving the Nevada class-action settlement in September 2006. Both the California and involves virtually identical allegationsNevada settlements must be approved for either settlement to those intake effect, but Sempra Energyis permitted to waive this condition. The settlements are not conditioned upon approval by the Continental Forge litigation.CPUC, the DWR, or any other governmental or regulatory agency.


To settle the California and Nevada litigation, in January 2006, Sempra Energy wouldagreed to make cash payments in installments aggregating $377 million, of which $347 million relates to the Continental Forge and California class action price reporting litigation and $30 million relates to the Nevada antitrust litigation. OfThe Los Angeles City Council had not previously voted to approve the $377City of Los Angeles' participation in the January 2006 California settlement. In March 2007, Sempra Energy and the Sempra Utilities entered into a separate settlement agreement with the City of Los Angeles resolving all of its claims in the Continental Forge litigation in return for the payment of $8.5 million in April 2007. This payment was made in lieu of the $12 million payable in eight annual installments that the City of Los Angeles was to receive as part of the January 2006 California settlement.




78



Additional consideration for the January 2006 California settlement includes an agreement that Sempra LNG would sell to the Sempra Utilities, subject to CPUC approval, regasified LNG from its LNG terminal being constructed in Baja California, Mexico, for a period of 18 years at the California border index price minus $0.02 per million British thermal units (MMBtu). Also, Sempra Generation voluntarily would reduce the price that it charges for power and limit the locations at which it would deliver power under its DWR contract. Based on the expected contractual power deliveries, this discount would have potential value aggregating $300 million over the contract's then remaining six-year term.


Under the terms of the January 2006 settlements, $83 million would bewas paid within thirty days of final approval of the settlement by the San Diego County Superior Courtin August 2006 and an additional $83 million would bewas paid on the first anniversary of that approval.in August 2007. Of the remaining amount, $27.3amounts, $25.8 million wouldis to be paid on the closing date of the settlementJanuary 2006 settlements, which will take place after the resolution of all appeals, and $26.3$24.8 million wouldwill be paid on each successive anniversary of the closing date through the seventh anniversary of the closing date. At any time after the first anniversary of the closing date, Sempra Energy would have the option to prepay all or any portion of the remaining unpaid settlement amounts at a discount rate of 7%, with any partial prepayment applied to and reducing each remaining paym ent on an equal and proportionate basis.

Additional considerationas adjusted for the California settlement includes an agreement that Sempra LNG would sell to the California Utilities, subject to CPUC approval, re-gasified liquefied natural gas from its liquefied natural gas terminal being constructed in Baja California, Mexico at the California border index price minus $0.02. The volumes to be purchased and sold would be up to 500 million cubic feet per day that Sempra Energy subsidiaries currently have contractual rights to purchase and that is not delivered or sold to Mexican entities. The California Utilities also would seek approval from the CPUC to integrate their natural gas transmission facilities and to develop both firm, tradable natural gas receipt point rights for access to their combined intrastate transmission system and SoCalGas' underground natural gas storage system. In addition, as described below, Sempra Generation voluntarily would reduce the price that it charges for power and limit the places at which it would deliver power under its contract with the DWR.

The California settlement is subject to the approval of the San Diego Superior Court, which has preliminarily approved the settlement, and authorized providing notice to the plaintiff class. The Los Angeles City Council has not yet voted to approve the City of Los Angeles's participation in the settlement and it may elect to continue pursuing its individual case against Sempra Energy and the California Utilities. If the City of Los Angeles decides not to participate, Sempra Energy may, at its option, either proceed withsettlement. Under the settlementterms of the class action and other individual cases or terminate the entire agreement.City of Los Angeles settlement, $8.5 million was paid in April 2007. The California Attorney General, the DWR, the California Energy Oversight Board, Edison, and Pacific Gas & Electric Company unsuccessfully challenged the proposed notice to the class based on their concern that, among other things, the releases in the settlement agreement may be sufficiently broad to encompass other proceedings against Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries to which they are pa rties. The final approval hearing for the Continental Forge settlement is scheduled to occur on June 8, 2006. The Nevada settlement is subject to approval by the Nevada Clark County District Court, which has not yet approved notice to the class or scheduled a final approval hearing. Both the California and Nevada settlements must be approved for either settlement to take effect, but Sempra Energy is permitted to waive this condition. The settlements are not conditioned upon approval by the CPUC, the DWR, or any other governmental or regulatory agency to be effective.

Sempra Energyreserves recorded an after-tax charge of $116 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 (all at the parent company) to provide additional reserves to reflect the costs of the settlements that exceed amounts previously reserved. The additional and previously reserved amounts for the California and Nevada settlements aggregate $585 million (including $76 million atby Sempra Energy, including SDG&E, and $155 million at SoCalGas) andin 2005 fully provide for the present value of both the cash amounts to be paid in the settlements and the price discount to be provided on electricity expected to be delivered under the DWR contract. A portion of the reserves was discounted at 7 percent, the rate specified for prepaymen ts in the settlement agreement. For payments not addressed in the agreement and for periods from the settlement date through the estimated date of the first payment, 5 percent was used to approximate Sempra Energy's average cost of financing.

Other Natural Gas Cases

On November 21,

Other Natural Gas Cases


In 2005, the California Attorney General and the CPUC filed a lawsuit against Sempra Energy and the California Utilities in San Diego County Superior Court alleging that in 1998 Sempra Energy and the CaliforniaSempra Utilities had intentionally misled the CPUC, resulting in ultimately obtaining CPUC approval to use the utilities' California natural gas pipeline capacity to enable Sempra Energy's non-utility subsidiaries to deliver natural gas to a power plant in Mexico. It further alleges that, as a result of insufficient utility pipeline capacity, to serve both the power plant and California customers, SDG&E curtailedcurtailment of natural gas service to electric generators and large California commercialothers, and industrial customers 17 timesthe ensuing increase in 2000 - 2001, with service disruptions resulting in increased air pollution and higher electricity prices for California consumers from the use of oil as an alternate fuel sourcesource. In September 2006, the parties entered into a settlement that required the Sempra Utilities to pay $2 million for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by electric generating plants. The lawsuit seeks statutory penalties of not less than $1 million, $2,50 0the California Attorney General, SDG&E to be given the option to purchase Sempra Generation's El Dorado power plant in 2011 for each of an unspecified number of instances of unfair business practices,book value subject to FERC approval, and unspecified amounts of actual and punitive damages. It also seeks an injunction to require divestiture by Sempra Energy of non-utility subsidiaries to an extentpay approximately $5.7 million to be determined bySDG&E electricity customers beginning in 2009 to reduce SDG&E's electric procurement costs. The CPUC and the court.FERC approved t he company’s request to exercise its option to acquire the El Dorado power plant in 2011 in November 2007 and February 2008, respectively.


In April 2003, Sierra Pacific Resources and its utility subsidiary Nevada Power filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Las VegasNevada against major natural gas suppliers, and includedincluding Sempra Energy, the CaliforniaSempra Utilities and Sempra Commodities, seeking recovery of damages alleged to aggregate in excess of $150 million (before trebling). The lawsuit alleges a conspiracy to manipulate and inflate the prices that Nevada Power had to pay for its natural gas by preventing the construction of natural gas pipelines to serve Nevada and other Western states, and reporting artificially inflated prices to trade publications. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case in November 2004, determining that the FERC had exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the claims. In January 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal withSeptember 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.Appeals) reversed the dismissal and returned the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

During 2004, 12

Apart from the claims settled in connection with the Continental Forge settlement, the remaining 13 state antitrust actions that were filedcoordinated in San Diego Superior Court against Sempra Energy, the company,Sempra Utilities and Sempra Commodities and other, unrelated energy companies,alleging that energy prices were unlawfully manipulated by the reporting of artificially inflated natural gas prices to trade



79



publications and by entering into wash trades. Several of those lawsuits seek class action certification. On April 8, 2005, one of those lawsuits, filedtrades and churning transactions, were settled on January 4, 2008, for $2.5 million.


Pending in the Nevada U.S. District Court was dismissed, onin Nevada are five cases against Sempra Energy, Sempra Commodities, the grounds that the claims asserted were preempted by federal lawSempra Utilities and the Filed Rate Doctrine. In June 2005, the three remaining lawsuits pendingvarious other companies, which make similar allegations to those in the Nevada U.S. District Court were amended to name the California Utilities as defendants and tostate proceedings, four of which also include conspiracy allegations similar to those made in the Continental Forge litigation. On December 27, 2005,The court dismissed four of these actions, determining that the FERC had exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the claims. The remaining case, which includes conspiracy allegations, was stayed. In September 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and these cases are expected to return to the District Court dismissed these three actions, on the grounds that the claims asserted in these suits were preempted under federal law and the Filed Rate Doctrine. In addition, in June 2005, a class action lawsuit similar to the pending individual suits in the Nevada federal court was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California and has now been coordinated with the Nevada federal court proceeding. That action was stayed pending the court's determination of the motions to dismiss in the other federal cases. Sempra Energy will proceed to seek the dismissal of this action as well. With respect to the lawsuits coordinated before the San Diego Superior Court, on June 29, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on preemption and Filed Rate Doctrine grounds. A separate motion to dismiss filed by Sempra Energy for improper joinder remains pending resolution by the court. On January 4, 2006, the parties agreed to settle the class action cases coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court as part of the overall Continental Forge settlement described above.further proceedings.

Electricity Cases

Various antitrust lawsuits, which seek class-action certification, allege that numerous entities, including Sempra Energy and certain subsidiaries, including SDG&E, that participated in the wholesale electricity markets unlawfully manipulated those markets. Collectively, these lawsuits allege damages against all defendants in an aggregate amount in excess of $16 billion (before trebling). In January 2003, the federal court granted a motion to dismiss one of these lawsuits, filed by the Snohomish County, Washington Public Utility District against Sempra Energy and certain non-utility subsidiaries, among others, on the grounds that the claims contained in the complaint were subject to the Filed Rate Doctrine and were preempted by the Federal Power Act. In September 2004, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the

FERC not civil courts, has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Snohomish County appealed the Ninth Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in June 2005, declined to review the decision. The company believes that this decision provides a precedent for the dismissal on the basis of federal preemption and the Filed Rate Doctrine of the other lawsuits against the Sempra Energy companies claiming manipulation of the electricity markets. On October 4, 2005, on the basis of federal preemption and Filed Rate grounds, the San Diego Superior Court dismissed with prejudice the initial consolidated cases that claimed that energy companies, such as the Sempra Energy companies, manipulated the wholesale electricity markets. In December 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal in that case.

CPUC Border Price Investigation

In November 2002, the CPUC instituted an investigation into the Southern California natural gas market and the price of natural gas delivered to the California - Arizona border between March 2000 and May 2001. The Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) proposed decision was rejected by the CPUC in December 2004.Refund Proceedings

The portion of this investigation relating to the California Utilities is still open. If the investigation were to determine that the conduct of either of the California Utilities contributed to the natural gas price spikes that occurred during the investigation period, the CPUC may modify the party's natural gas procurement incentive mechanism, reduce the amount of any shareholder award for the period involved, and/or order the party to issue a refund to ratepayers. At December 31, 2005, the cumulative amount of these shareholder awards, substantially all of which has been included in income, was $8.5 million.

The CPUC may hold additional hearings to consider whether other companies, including other California utilities, contributed to the natural gas price spikes, or issue an order terminating the investigation. Discovery is ongoing and initial testimony was filed in November 2005. Hearings are expected to begin in late July 2006.

FERC Refund Proceedings

The FERC is investigating prices charged to buyers in the California Power Exchange (PX) and ISO markets by various electric suppliers. In December 2002, a FERC ALJ issued preliminary findings indicating that the PX and ISO owe power suppliers $1.2 billion for the October 2, 2000 through June 20, 2001 period (the $3.0 billion that the California PX and ISO still owe energy companies less $1.8 billion that the energy companies charged California customers in excess of the preliminarily determined competitive market clearing prices). In March 2003, the FERC adopted its ALJ's findings, but changed the calculation of the refund by basing it on a different estimate of natural gas prices. The March 2003 order estimates that the replacement formula for estimating natural gas prices, willwhich would increase the refund obligations from $1.8 billion to more than $3 billion for the same time period. Pending in


Various parties appealed the FERC's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2006, the Court of Appeals held that the FERC had properly established October 2, 2000 through June 20, 2001 as the refund period and had properly excluded certain bilateral transactions between sellers and the DWR from the refund proceedings. However, the court also held that the FERC erred in excluding certain multi-day transactions from the refund proceedings. Finally, while the court upheld the FERC's decision not to extend the refund proceedings to the summer period (prior to October 2, 2000), it found that the FERC had erred in not considering other remedies, such as disgorgement of profits, for tariff violations that are various parties' appeals on aspectsalleged to have occurred prior to October 2, 2000. The Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the FERC for further proceedings. In November 2007, Sempra Commodities and other entities filed requests for rehearing of the FERC's order.Court of Appeals’ August 2006 decision. In April 2005,August 2007, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on issues relatingCourt of Appeals issued a decision reversing and remanding FERC orders declining to provide refunds in a related proceeding regarding short-term bilateral sales up to one month in the Pacific Northwest. The court found that some of the short-term sales between the DWR and various sellers (including Sempra Commodities) that had previously been excluded from the refund proceeding involving sales in the ISO and PX markets in California, were within the scope of the Pacific Northwest refund proceedingproceeding. In December 2007, Sempra Commodities and whetherother sellers filed requests for rehearing of the Court of Appeals’ August 2007 decision. It is possible that on remand, the FERC had jurisdiction tocould order refunds from governmental entities. The Ninth Circuit determined in September 2005 that FERC did not have jurisdictionfor short-term sales to order refunds from governmental entities. The California IOUs, including SDG&E, have now filed claims with the various governmental entities to recoup monies paid over and above the just and reasonable rate for powerDWR in the 2000-2001 time frame. A decision on the remaining issues argued before the Court in April 2005 remains pending.Pacific Northwest refund proceeding.


SDG&E has been awarded $137$171 million through December 31, 2005,2007, in settlement of certain claims against electricity suppliers related to the 2000-012000 - 2001 California energy crisis. The net proceeds of these settlements are appliedfor the benefit of ratepayers and for the payment of third party fees associated with the recovery of these claims. Of the $171 million, all monies have been received by SDG&E, except for $10 million pending FERC approval.


Other Litigation


In October 2007, Southern California experienced catastrophic wildfires. The causes of many of these fires remain under investigation, including the possible role of SDG&E power lines affected by unusually



80



high winds. In November 2007, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) issued a press release stating that power lines caused three of the fires in San Diego County and that together these three fires burned more than 200,000 acres and destroyed approximately 1,900 structures. Cal Fire is expected to reduce electric rates.

FERC Manipulation Investigation

The FERCissue a final report, and the CPUC’s Consumer Protection and Safety Division, which is separatelyalso investigating whether there was manipulationthe fires, is also expected to issue a report. Five lawsuits, four of short-term energy marketswhich seek to be designated as class actions, have been filed against SDG&E in the western United States that would constitute violations of applicable tariffs and warrant disgorgement of associated profits. In this proceeding, the FERC's authority is not confinedSan Diego County Superior Court seeking unspecified amounts for damages relating to the periods relevant to the refund proceeding. In May 2002, the FERC ordered all energy companies engaged in electric energy trading activities to state whether they had engaged in various specific trading activities in violation of the PX and ISO tariffs.

On June 25, 2003, the FERC issued several orders requiring various entities to show cause why they should not be found to have violated California ISO and PX tariffs.fires. The FERC directed 43 entities, including SDG&E, to show cause why they should not disgorge profits from certain transactions between January 1, 2000 and June 20, 2001 that are asserted to have constituted gaming and/or anomalous market behavior under the California ISO and/or PX tariffs. SDG&E and the FERC resolved the matter through a settlement, which documents the ISO's findinglawsuits assert that SDG&E did not engageimproperly designed and maintained its power lines and failed to adequately clear adjacent vegetation. The company has in market activitiesexcess of $1 billion in violation ofliability insurance and has notified its insurers o f the ISO or PX tariffs, and in which SDG&E agreed to pay $27,792 into a FERC-established fund.lawsuits.


Natural Gas Contracts


SDG&E buys natural gas under short-term contracts. Purchases are from various Southwestsouthwestern U.S., U.S. Rockies and Canadian suppliers and are primarily based on monthly spot-market prices. The company transports natural gas under long-term firm pipeline capacity agreements that provide for annual reservation charges, which are recovered in rates. Note 11 discusses the CPUC's Natural Gas Market OIR.


SDG&E has long-term natural gas transportation contracts with various interstate pipelines that expire on various dates between 20062008 and 2023. SDG&E currently purchases natural gas on a spot basis from Canada, the U.S. Rockies, and the southwestern United States to fill its long-term pipeline capacity, and purchases additional spot marketspot-market supplies delivered directly to California for its remaining requirements. SDG&E continues its ongoing assessment of its long-term pipeline capacity portfolio, including the release of a portion of this capacity to third parties. In accordance with regulatory directives, SDG&E reconfigured its pipeline capacity portfolio in November 2005 to secure firm transportation rights from a diverse mix of U.S. and Canadian supply sources for its projected core customer natural gas requirements.


All of SDG&E's natural gas is delivered through SoCalGas' pipelines under a short-termlong-term transportation agreement. In addition, under a separate agreementagreements expiring in March 2006,2008, SoCalGas provides SDG&E sixup to nine billion cubic feet (Bcf) of storage capacity. In February 2006,Pursuant to a CPUC decision issued in December 2007, the responsibility for procuring gas for both SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ core customers will be combined into a single natural gas supply portfolio to be administered by SoCalGas effective April 1, 2008. All SDG&E entered into two agreementsassets associated with their core natural gas supply portfolio will be transferred or assigned to SoCalGas, to extendwhich will be responsible for meeting the storage capacity to 2008. The agreements are pending toneeds of both SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ core natural gas customers at the CPUC's approval.same core gas monthly price.


At December 31, 2005,2007, the future minimum payments under existing natural gas storage and transportation contracts were:

(Dollars in millions)

    

2006

 

$

22

 

2007

  

15

 

2008

  

13

 

2009

  

10

 

2010

  

10

 

Thereafter

  

112

 

Total minimum payments

 

$

182

 


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

2008

 

$

26

 

2009

 

 

16

 

2010

 

 

13

 

2011

 

 

13

 

2012

 

 

13

 

Thereafter

 

 

109

 

Total minimum payments

 

$

190

 


Total payments under natural gas contracts were $390 million in 2007, $380 million in 2006 and $455 million in 2005, $347 million in 20042005. Upon the combination of the company’s and $274 million in 2003.SoCalGas’ core natural gas portfolios, these commitments will be assigned or transferred to SoCalGas.


Purchased-Power Contracts


For 2006,2008, SDG&E expects to receive 4327 percent of its customer power requirements from DWR allocations. Of the remaining requirements, SONGS is expected to account for 1719 percent, long-term



81



contracts for 1917 percent (of which 76 percent is provided by renewable energy contracts expiring on various dates through 2025), Palomarother SDG&E-owned generation (including Palomar) and tolling contracts for 1219 percent and spot market purchases for 918 percent. The long-term contracts expire on various dates through 2032.2033.


At December 31, 2005,2007, the estimated future minimum payments under the long-term contracts (not including the DWR allocations) were:

(Dollars in millions)

    

2006

 

$

247

 

2007

  

248

 

2008

  

288

 

2009

  

283

 

2010

  

282

 

Thereafter

  

2,627

 

Total minimum payments

 

$

3,975

 


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

2008

 

$

360

 

2009

 

 

421

 

2010

 

 

343

 

2011

 

 

345

 

2012

 

 

335

 

Thereafter

 

 

2,536

 

Total minimum payments

 

$

4,340

 


The payments represent capacity charges and minimum energy purchases. SDG&EThe company is required to pay additional amounts for actual purchases of energy that exceed the minimum energy commitments. Excluding DWR-allocated contracts, total payments under the contracts were $351 million in 2007, $344 million in 2006 and $363 million in 2005, $329 million in 2004 and $396 million in 2003.2005.


Leases

SDG&E

The company has operating leases on real and personal property expiring at various dates from 20062008 to 2045.Certain2045. Certain leases on office facilities contain escalation clauses requiring annual increases in rent ranging from 24 percent to 5 percent. The rentals payable under these leases are determined on both fixed and percentage bases, and most leases contain extension options whichthat are exercisable by the company.

Rent expense totaled $24 million in 2007, $23 million in 2006 and $22 million in 2005. At December 31, 2005,2007, the minimum rental commitments payable in future years under all noncancellablenoncancelable leases were as follows:

(Dollars in millions)

    

2006

 

$

19

 

2007

  

17

 

2008

  

12

 

2009

  

9

 

2010

  

8

 

Thereafter

  

19

 

Total future rental commitments

 

$

84

 


(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

2008

 

$

22

 

2009

 

 

22

 

2010

 

 

20

 

2011

 

 

19

 

2012

 

 

17

 

Thereafter

 

 

63

 

Total future rental commitments

 

$

163

 

Rent expense for operating leases totaled $22 million in 2005, $20 million in 2004 and $20 million in 2003.

Construction Projects

In addition to the recurrent expenditures for plant improvements, the company will spend $500 million in 2006 to purchase the 550-MW Palomar power plant, which is currently being constructed by Sempra Generation, and other costs associated with the plant. The capitalized costs through December 31, 2005 are recorded as construction work in progress inUtilityPlant on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Guarantees


As of December 31, 2005,2007, the company did not have any outstanding guarantees.


Department Ofof Energy Nuclear Fuel Disposal


The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 made the DOE responsible for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. However, it is uncertain when the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from SONGS. This delay by the DOE will lead to increased costs for spent fuel storage. This cost will be recovered through SONGS revenue unless the company is able to recover the increased cost from the federal government.

Electric Distribution System Conversion

Under a CPUC-mandated program, the cost of which is included in utility rates, and through franchise agreements with various cities, SDG&E is committed, in varying amounts, to converting overhead distribution facilities to underground. As of December 31, 2005, the aggregate unexpended amount of this commitment was $67 million. Capital expenditures for underground conversions were $32 million in 2005, $23 million in 2004 and $28 million in 2003.

82



Environmental Issues


The company's operations are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing hazardous wastes, air and water quality, land use, solid waste disposal and the protection of wildlife. Laws and regulations require that the company investigate and remediate the effects of the release or disposal of materials at sites associated with past and present operations, including sites at which the company has been identified as a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) under the federal Superfund laws and comparable state laws. The company is required to obtain numerous governmental permits, licenses and other approvals to construct facilities and operate its businesses, and must spend significant sums on environmental monitoring, pollution control equipment, mitigation costs and emissions fees. Costs incurred to operate the facilities in compliance with these laws and regulations generally have been recovered in customer rates.

Significant costs incurred to mitigate or prevent future environmental contamination or extend the life, increase the capacity or improve the safety or efficiency of property utilized in current operations are generally capitalized. The company's capital expenditures to comply with environmental laws and regulations were $11 million in 2007, $14 million in 2006 and $9 million in 2005, $9 million in 2004 and $5 million in 2003.2005. The cost of compliance with these regulations over the next five years is not expected to be significant.


Costs that relate to current operations or an existing condition caused by past operations are generally recorded as a regulatory asset due to the probability that these costs will be recovered in rates.

The environmental issues currently facing the company or resolved during the last three years include investigation and remediation of its manufactured-gas sites (two completed as of December 31, 20052007 and site-closure letters received)one to be completed, including one site reopened during 2007), cleanup of third-party waste-disposal sites used by the company, which has been identified as a PRP (investigations and remediations are continuing)continuing and one site completed) and mitigation of damage to the marine environment caused by the cooling-water discharge from SONGS (the requirements for enhanced fish protection, a 150-acre artificial reef and restoration of 150 acres of coastal wetlands are in process).

Environmental liabilities are recorded at undiscounted amounts when the company's liability is probable and the costs are reasonably estimable. In many cases, however, investigations are not yet at a stage where the company has been able to determine whether it is liable or, if the liability is probable, to reasonably estimate the amount or range of amounts of the cost or certain components thereof. Estimates of the company's liability are further subject to other uncertainties, such as the nature and extent of site contamination, evolving remediation standards and imprecise engineering evaluations. The accruals are reviewed periodically and, as investigations and remediation proceed, adjustments are made as necessary. Not including the liability for SONGS marine mitigation, which SDG&E is participating in jointly with Edison, at December 31, 2005,2007, the company's accrued liability for environmental matters was $17.5$6.4 million, of which $6.3$0.1 million is related to manufactured-gas sites, $10.3$6 million to cleanup at SDG&E's fo rmerformer fossil-fueled power plants, and $0.9$0.2 million to waste-disposal sites used by the company (which has been identified as a PRP). and $0.1 million to other hazardous waste sites. The majority of these accruals are expected to be paid ratably over the next two years. In connection with the issuance of operating permits, SDG&E and the other owners of SONGS previously reached an agreement with the California Coastal Commission to mitigate the environmental damage to the marine environment attributed to the cooling-water discharge from SONGS Units 2 and 3. At December 31, 2007, the estimated amount remaining to be spent by SDG&E through 2050 is $11 million, which is recoverable in rates.




83



Nuclear Insurance


SDG&E and the other owners of SONGS have insurance to respond to nuclear liability claims related to SONGS. The insurance provides coverage of $300 million, the maximum amount available. In addition, the Price-Anderson Act provides for up to $10.5 billion of secondary financial protection. Should any of the licensed/commercial reactors in the United States experience a nuclear liability loss whichthat exceeds the $300 million insurance limit, all utilities owning nuclear reactors could be assessed to provide the secondary financial protection. SDG&E's total share would be up to $40 million, subject to an annual maximum assessment of $6 million, unless a default were to occur by any other SONGS owner. In the event the secondary financial protection limit were insufficient to cover the liability loss, SDG&E could be subject to an additional assessment.


SDG&E and the other owners of SONGS have $2.75 billion of nuclear property, decontamination and debris removal insurance and up to $490 million for outage expenses and replacement power costs incurred because of accidental property damage. This coverage is limited to $3.5 million per week for the first 52 weeks and $2.8 million per week for up to 110 additional weeks, after a waiting period of 12 weeks. The insurance is provided through a mutual insurance company, through which insured members are subject to retrospective premium assessments (up to $8.65$8.6 million in SDG&E's case).


The nuclear liability and property insurance programs subscribed to by members of the nuclear power generating industry include industry aggregate limits for non-certified acts (as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act) of terrorism-related SONGS losses, including replacement power costs. There are industry aggregate limits of $300 million for liability claims and $3.24 billion for property claims, including replacement power costs, for non-certified acts of terrorism. These limits are the maximum amount to be paid to members who sustain losses or damages from these non-certified terrorist acts. For certified acts of terrorism, the individual policy limits stated above apply.


Concentration Ofof Credit Risk


The company maintains credit policies and systems to manage overall credit risk. These policies include an evaluation of potential counterparties' financial condition and an assignment of credit limits. These credit limits are established based on risk and return considerations under terms customarily available in the industry. The company grants credit to customers and counterparties, substantially all of whom are located in itsservice territories,territory, which covercovers all of San Diego County and an adjacent portion of Orange County.




84



NOTE 12.13. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED)

      

Quarters ended

(Dollars in millions)

     

March 31

  

June 30

September 30

December 31

2005

                   

Operating revenues

     

$

621

  

$

539

  

$

601

  

$

751

Operating expenses

      

553

   

487

   

497

   

692

Operating income

     

$

68

  

$

52

  

$

104

  

$

59

                   

Net income

    

$

60

  

$

30

  

$

104

  

$

73

Dividends on preferred stock

      

1

   

1

   

2

   

1

Earnings applicable to common shares

     

$

59

  

$

29

  

$

102

  

$

72

2004

                   

Operating revenues

     

$

580

  

$

536

  

$

550

  

$

608

Operating expenses

      

518

   

488

   

486

   

526

Operating income

     

$

62

  

$

48

  

$

64

  

$

82

                    

Net income

     

$

51

  

$

31

  

$

62

  

$

69

Dividends on preferred stock

      

1

   

1

   

2

   

1

Earnings applicable to common shares

     

$

50

  

$

30

  

$

60

  

$

68


 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarters ended

(Dollars in millions)

 

 

 

 

March 31

 

 

June 30

September 30

December 31

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating revenues

 

 

 

 

 

$

709

 

 

$

659

 

 

$

716

 

 

$

768

Operating expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

589

 

 

 

548

 

 

 

549

 

 

 

666

Operating income

 

 

 

 

 

$

120

 

 

$

111

 

 

$

167

 

 

$

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

 

 

 

 

$

63

 

 

$

52

 

 

$

125

 

 

$

48

Dividends on preferred stock

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

1

Earnings applicable to common shares

 

 

 

 

 

$

62

 

 

$

51

 

 

$

123

 

 

$

47

2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating revenues

 

 

 

 

 

$

722

 

 

$

664

 

 

$

703

 

 

$

696

Operating expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

623

 

 

 

539

 

 

 

555

 

 

 

591

Operating income

 

 

 

 

 

$

99

 

 

$

125

 

 

$

148

 

 

$

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

 

 

 

$

48

 

 

$

66

 

 

$

72

 

 

$

56

Dividends on preferred stock

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

1

Earnings applicable to common shares

 

 

 

 

 

$

47

 

 

$

65

 

 

$

70

 

 

$

55


Operating revenues for the fourth quarter of 2005 included $23 million before-tax from the 2005 Internal Revenue Service decision relating to the sale of the company's former South Bay power plant. Operating expenses forNet income in the third quarter of 20052007 included $44favorable resolutions of prior years' income tax issues of $20 million before-tax California energy crisis litigation costs, offset by $38 million before-tax related to the 2005 recoveryand regulatory matters of line losses and grid management charges arising from the favorable settlement with the ISO. $26 million.


Net income for the second quarter of 2006 included $8 million from the CPUC authorization for retroactive recovery on SONGS revenues related to a computational error in the 2004 Cost of Service and $4 million as a result of FERC approval to recover prior year ISO charges in 2006. Net income in the third quarter of 20052006 included the favorable$13 million resolution of a prior years' income-tax issues.

Operating revenuesyear cost recovery issue. Net income for each of the last three quarters of 2006 included increased earnings from electric generation activities primarily from the commencement of commercial operation of the Palomar generating plant at the beginning of the second quarter. Increased earnings from electric generation were $15 million in the second quarter, $12 million in the third quarter and expenses$14 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 included a $34 million favorable impact of the final Cost of Service decision, offset by $19 million of litigation expense.quarter.




85



ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES


None.


ITEM 9A.9A.CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES


Company management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f). The company has designed and maintains disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the company's reports is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission and is accumulated and communicated to the company's management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating these controls and procedures, management recognizes that any system of controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired objectives and necessarily applies judgment in evaluating the cost-benefitcost-bene fit relationship of other possible controls and proce dures.

Duringprocedures. In addition, the year ended December 31, 2005, management outsourced certain human resource, payroll,company consolidates a variable interest entity as defined in Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation (FIN) No. 46(R) that it does not control or manage and employee benefit functions to a third-party service provider, and implemented a new software application that automates the calculation of the income tax provision. The changes strengthen the design and effectiveness of the internalconsequently, its disclosure controls and improveprocedures with respect to this entity are necessarily limited to oversight or monitoring controls that the efficiency of these systems. As part of the conversion processes, management performed substantial testing of related internal controls intendedcompany has implemented to provide reasonable assurancesassurance that the converted data and subsequent ongoing process meetobjectives of the company's objective to provide reliable financial reporting. Management has determined that the design of thedisclosure controls surrounding these new processes satisfies the control objectives and that the controlsprocedures as described above are operating effectively.met.

Except for these changes, there

There have been no changes in the company's internal controlscontrol over financial reporting during the company's most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal controlscontrol over financial reporting.


The company evaluates the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting based on the framework inInternal Control--Integrated Frameworkissued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, the company evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of the company's disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2005,2007, the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the company's disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level.


Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting is included in Item 8 herein.



86



PART III


ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANTAND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE


The information required on Identification of Directorsby Item 10 is incorporated by reference from "Election of Directors" in the Information Statement prepared for the May 2006June 2008 annual meeting of shareholders. The information required on the companies' executive officers is set forth below.


EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT


Name

Age*

Position*

Debra L. Reed

51

Edwin A. Guiles

56

ChairmanChairperson, President and Chief Executive Officer

Debra L. ReedMichael R. Niggli

4958

Chief Operating Officer

Dennis V. Arriola

47

Senior Vice President and Chief OperatingFinancial Officer

James P. Avery

4951

Senior Vice President - Electric

Steven D. DavisLee Schavrien

5053

Senior Vice President External Relations and
Chief Financial Officer- Regulatory Affairs

William L. ReedAnne S. Smith

54

Senior Vice President Regulatory and Strategic Planning- Customer Services

Anne S.W. Davis Smith

5258

Senior Vice President Customer Serviceand General Counsel

Lee M. Stewart

6062

Senior Vice President - Gas Operations

Robert M. Schlax

5052

Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer

* As of February 26, 2008.


* As of February 22, 2006.

Except for Mr. Schlax, eachEach executive officer has been an officer or employee of Sempra Energy or one of its subsidiaries for more than five years.years, with the exception of Mr. Schlax. Prior to joining the company in 2005, Mr. Schlax was Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Vice President of Finance of Mercury Air Group, Inc. since 2002. Except for Mr. Avery, each executive officer of San Diego Gas & Electric Company holds the same position at Southern California Gas Company.


ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION


The information required by Item 11 is incorporated by reference from "Election of Directors" and "Executive Compensation" in the Information Statement prepared for the May 2006June 2008 annual meeting of shareholders.


ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS


Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners


The security ownership information required by Item 12 is incorporated by reference from "Share Ownership" in the Information Statement prepared for the May 2006June 2008 annual meeting of shareholders.


ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

None.

The information required by Item 13 is incorporated by reference from the Information Statement prepared for the June 2008 annual meeting of shareholders.




87



ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES


Information regarding principal accountant fees and services as required by Item 14 is incorporated by reference from "Proposal 3: Ratification of Independent Auditors" in the Information Statement prepared for the May 2006June 2008 annual meeting of shareholders.



PART IV


ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES AND REPORTS ON

FORM 8-K

(a) The following documents are filed as part of this report:


1. Financial statements

Page in

This Report

Management's Responsibility for Financial Statements

36

Management's Report onOn Internal Control overOver Financial Reporting

3036

Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

3137

Statements of Consolidated Income for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

34

    December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005

40

Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 20052007 and 20042006

3541

Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

37

    December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005

43

Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income and

    Changes in Shareholders' Equity for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

39

    December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005

45

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

4046



2. Financial statement schedules


Schedules for which provision is made in Regulation S-X are not required under the instructions contained therein, are inapplicable or the information is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto.


3. Exhibits


See Exhibit Index on page 8291 of this report.

(b) Reports on Form 8-K

The following reports on Form 8-K were filed after September 30, 2005:

Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 2, 2005, including as exhibits Sempra Energy's press release of November 2, 2005, giving the financial results for the three months ended September 30, 2005, and related Income Statement Data by Business Unit.

Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 17, 2005, discussing the status of the company's energy crisis era legal proceedings.88

Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 17, 2005, discussing the company's $250 million bond offering.

Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 23, 2005, discussing the status of an action filed by the Attorney General of California against the company.

Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 5, 2006, announcing the agreement to settle certain litigation and the effect of the settlements on the company's results of operations and financial condition for the year ended December 31, 2005.

Current Report on Form 8-K filed February 22, 2006, including as exhibits Sempra Energy's press release of February 22, 2006, giving the financial results for the three months ended December 31, 2005, and related Income Statement Data by Business Unit.




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of San Diego Gas & Electric Company:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement NumbersStatements No. 33-45599, 33-52834, 333-52150, 33-49837, and 33-49837333-133541 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 21, 200625, 2008, relating to the financial statements of San Diego Gas and& Electric Company ("the Company") (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Statement No. 157,Fair Value Measurements, effective January 1, 2007, FASB Interpretation No. 47,48,Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations,Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143,109,effective January 1, 2007, and FASB Statement No. 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), effective December 31, 2005)2006) and management's report on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of San Diego Gas and& Electric Company for the year ended December 31, 2005.2007.


/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



San Diego, California
February 21, 200625, 2008





89






SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,
(Registrant)

By: /s/ Edwin A. GuilesDebra L. Reed

Edwin A. GuilesDebra L. Reed
ChairmanChairperson, President and Chief Executive Officer


 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report is signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Name/Title

Signature

Date

Principal Executive Officer:
Edwin A. GuilesDebra L. Reed
ChairmanChairperson, President and Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Edwin A. GuilesDebra L. Reed




February 13, 200626, 2008

Principal Financial Officer:
Steven D. DavisDennis V. Arriola
Senior Vice President External Relations
and

Chief Financial Officer




/s/ Steven D. DavisDennis V. Arriola




February 13, 200626, 2008

Principal Accounting Officer:
Robert M. Schlax
Vice President, Controller and
Chief Accounting Officer




/s/ Robert M. Schlax




February 13, 200626, 2008

Directors:

Edwin A. Guiles, Chairman

/s/ Edwin A. Guiles

February 13, 2006

Directors:

Debra L. Reed, DirectorChairperson

/s/ Debra L. Reed

February 13, 200626, 2008

Frank H. Ault,Michael R. Niggli, Director

/s/ Frank H. AultMichael R. Niggli

February 13, 200626, 2008

Mark A. Snell, Director

/s/ Mark A. Snell

February 26, 2008






90



EXHIBIT INDEX


The Registration Statements and Forms S-8, 8-K, 10-K and 10-Q referred to herein were filed under Commission File Number 1-3779 (SDG&E), Commission File Number 1-11439 (Enova Corporation), and/or Commission File Number 1-14201 (Sempra Energy) and/or Commission File Number 333-30761, (SDG&E Funding LLC).

Exhibit 1 -- Underwriting Agreements

1.01 Underwriting Agreement dated December 4, 1997 (Incorporated by reference from

Form 8-K filed by SDG&E Funding LLC on December 23, 1997 (Exhibit 1.1)).

Exhibit 3 -- Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation


Bylaws


3.01   Amended Bylaws of San Diego Gas & Electric effective August 4, 2003.


3.02   Amended and Restated Bylaws of San Diego Gas & Electric as of November 6, 2001. (2001 Form 10-K Exhibit 3.01)effective May 14, 2002.


Articles of Incorporation

3.02

3.03   Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (Incorporated by reference from theeffective November 10, 2006 (2006 SDG&E Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 1994 (Exhibit 3.1))10-K, Exhibit 3.02).


Exhibit 4 -- Instruments Defining the Rights of Security Holders, Including Indentures


The companyCompany agrees to furnish a copy of each such instrument to the Commission upon request.


4.01   Description of preferences of Cumulative Preferred Stock, Preference Stock (Cumulative) and Series Preference Stock (incorporated by reference from SDG&E Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation as of November 10, 2006, Exhibit 3.02 above).


4.02   Mortgage and Deed of Trust dated July 1, 1940. (Incorporated1940 (incorporated by reference from SDG&E Registration Statement No. 2-49810, Exhibit 2A.)2A).

4.02 Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of March 1, 1948. (Incorporated by reference from SDG&E Registration Statement No. 2-49810, Exhibit 2C).

4.03   Ninth Supplemental Indenture dated as of August 1, 1968. (Incorporated1968 (incorporated by reference from SDG&E Registration Statement No. 2-68420, Exhibit 2D).

4.04 Tenth Supplemental Indenture dated as of December 1, 1968. (Incorporated by reference from SDG&E Registration Statement No. 2-36042, Exhibit 2K).

4.054.04   Sixteenth Supplemental Indenture dated August 28, 1975. (Incorporated1975 (incorporated by reference from SDG&E Registration Statement No. 2-68420, Exhibit 2E).

4.06

4.05   Thirtieth Supplemental Indenture dated September 28, 1983. (Incorporated1983 (incorporated by reference from SDG&E Registration Statement No. 33-34017, Exhibit 4.3).

4.07 Forty-Ninth Supplemental Indenture dated June 1, 2004. (2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 4.07).

4.08 Fiftieth Supplemental Indenture Dated as of May 19, 2005. (8-K filed on May 19, 2005, Exhibit 4.1).

4.09 Fifty-First Supplemental Indenture Dated as of November 17, 2005. (8-K filed on November 17, 2005, Exhibit 4.1).


Exhibit 10 -- Material Contracts


10.01 Form of Continental Forge and California Class Action Price Reporting Settlement Agreement dated as of January 4, 2006 (8-K(Form 8-K filed on January 5, 2006, Exhibit 99.1).


10.02 Form of Nevada Antitrust Settlement Agreement dated as of January 4, 2006 (8-K(Form 8-K filed on January 5, 2006, Exhibit 99.2).


10.03 Text of Stipulation in Continental Forge Litigation (8-K filed on September 9, 2005, Exhibit 99.1)

10.04 San Diego Gas & Electric Underwriting Agreement dated November 14, 2005 (8-K filed on November 17, 2005, Exhibit 1.1)

10.05 San Diego Gas & Electric Pricing Agreement dated November 14, 2005 (8-K filed on November 17, 2005, Exhibit 1.2)

10.06 Operating Agreement between San Diego Gas & Electric and the California Department of Water Resources dated April 17, 2003 (2003 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.06).

10.07



91



10.04 Servicing Agreement between San Diego Gas & Electric and the California Department of Water Resources dated December 19, 2002 (2003 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.07).

10.08 Transition Property Purchase and Sale

Compensation


10.05 Form of Sempra Energy 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan, 2008 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Award (2007 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.09).


10.06 Form of Sempra Energy 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan, 2008 Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement (2007 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.10).


10.07

Sempra Energy Excess Cash Balance Plan dated December 16, 1997 (Incorporated by reference from5, 2005 (2006 Sempra Energy Form 8-K filed by SDG&E Funding LLC on December 23, 1997,10-K, Exhibit 10.1)10.08).

10.09 Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated December 16, 1997 (Incorporated by reference from Form 8-K filed by SDG&E Funding LLC on December 23, 1997, Exhibit 10.2).

Compensation

10.1010.08 Form of Severance Pay Agreement (2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.10).

10.11

10.09 Sempra Energy 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan (San Diego Gas & Electric Form 8-K filed on December 07,7, 2004, Exhibit 10.1).

10.12

10.10 Sempra Energy Employee Stock Incentive Plan (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.1).

10.13

10.11 Sempra Energy Amended and Restated Executive Life Insurance Plan (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.2).

10.14 Sempra Energy Excess Cash Balance Plan (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.3).

10.15 Form of Sempra Energy 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan Performance-Based Restricted Stock Award (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.4).

10.16 Form of Sempra Energy 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.5).

10.17 Form of Sempra Energy 1998 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Plan Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.6).

10.1810.12 Sempra Energy Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.7).

10.19 Neal Schmale Restricted Stock Award Agreement (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.8).

10.20 Severance Pay Agreement between Sempra Energy and Donald E. Felsinger (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.9).

10.21 Severance Pay Agreement between Sempra Energy and Neal Schmale (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.10).

10.2210.13 Sempra Energy Executive Personal Financial Planning Program Policy Document (September 30, 2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.11).

10.23

10.14 2003 Sempra Energy Executive Incentive Plan B (2003 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.10).

10.24

10.15 Amended and Restated Sempra Energy 2003 Executive Incentive Plan (June 30, 2003 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q Exhibit 10.1)

10.25 Amended 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan (June 30, 2003 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.2).

10.26

10.16 Sempra Energy Executive Incentive Plan effective January 1, 2003 (2002 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.09).

10.27

10.17 Amended Sempra Energy Retirement Plan for Directors (2002 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.10).

10.28

10.18 Amended and Restated Sempra Energy Deferred Compensation and Excess Savings Plan (September 30, 2002 Sempra Energy Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.3).

10.29 Form of Sempra Energy Severance Pay Agreement for Executives (2001 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.07).

10.30 Sempra Energy Executive Security Bonus Plan effective January 1, 2001 (2001 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.08).

10.31 Sempra Energy Deferred Compensation and Excess Savings Plan effective January 1, 2000 (2000 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.07).Nuclear

10.32 Sempra Energy 1998 Long Term Incentive Plan (Incorporated by reference from the Registration Statement on Form S-8 Sempra Energy Registration Statement No. 333-56161 dated June 5, 1998 (Exhibit 4.1)).

Financing

10.33 Loan agreement with the City of Chula Vista in connection with the issuance of $25 million of Industrial Development Bonds, dated as of October 1, 1997 (1997 Enova Corporation Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.34).

10.34 Loan agreement with the City of Chula Vista in connection with the issuance of $38.9 million of Industrial Development Bonds, dated as of August 1, 1996 (1996 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.31).

10.35 Loan agreement with the City of Chula Vista in connection with the issuance of $60 million of Industrial Development Bonds, dated as of November 1, 1996 (1996 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.32).

10.36 Loan agreement with the City of San Diego in connection with the issuance of $92.9 million of Industrial Development Bonds 1993 Series C dated as of July 1, 1993 (June 30, 1993 SDG&E Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.2).

10.37 Loan agreement with the City of San Diego in connection with the issuance of $70.8 million of Industrial Development Bonds 1993 Series A dated as of April 1, 1993 (March 31, 1993 SDG&E Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.3).

10.38 Loan agreement with the City of Chula Vista in connection with the issuance of $250 million of Industrial Development Bonds, dated as of December 1, 1992 (1992 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.5).

10.39 Loan agreement with the California Pollution Control Financing Authority in connection with the issuance of $129.82 million of Pollution Control Bonds, dated as of June 1, 1996 (1996 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.41).

10.40 Loan agreement with the California Pollution Control Financing Authority in connection with the issuance of $60 million of Pollution Control Bonds dated as of June 1, 1993 (June 30, 1993 SDG&E Form 10-Q, Exhibit 10.1).

10.41 Loan agreement with the California Pollution Control Financing Authority in connection with the issuance of $14.4 million of Pollution Control Bonds, dated as of December 1, 1991 (1991 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.11).

10.42 Loan agreement with the City of Chula Vista in connection with the issuance of $251.3 million of Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds, dated as of June 1, 2004 (2004 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.43).

Nuclear

10.4310.19 Nuclear Facilities Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, approved November 25, 1987 (1992 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.7).

10.44



92



10.20 Amendment No. 1 to the Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement dated September 22, 1994 (see Exhibit 10.4310.19 above)(1994 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.56).

10.45

10.21 Second Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.4310.19 above)(1994 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.57).

10.46

10.22 Third Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.4310.19 above)(SDG&E 1996 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.59).

10.47

10.23 Fourth Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.4310.19 above)(SDG&E 1996 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.60).

10.48

10.24 Fifth Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.4310.19 above)(SDG&E 1999 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.26).

10.49

10.25 Sixth Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.4310.19 above)(SDG&E 1999 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.27).

10.50

10.26 Seventh Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.4310.19 above)(2003 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.42).

10.51

10.27 Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, approved November 25, 1987 (1992 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.8).

10.52

10.28 First Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.5110.27 above)(SDG&E 1996 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.62).

10.53

10.29 Second Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.5110.27 above)(SDG&E 1996 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.63).

10.54

10.30 Third Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.5110.27 above)(SDG&E 1999 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.31).

10.55

10.31 Fourth Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.5110.27 above)(SDG&E 1999 Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.32).

10.56

10.32 Fifth Amendment to the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see Exhibit 10.5110.27 above)(2003 Sempra Energy Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.48).

10.57



93



10.33 Second Amended San Onofre Operating Agreement among Southern California Edison Company, SDG&E, the City of Anaheim and the City of Riverside, dated February 26, 1987 (1990 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.6).

10.58

10.34 U. S. Department of Energy contract for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and/or high-level radioactive waste, entered into between the DOE and Southern California Edison Company, as agent for SDG&E and others; Contract DE-CR01-83NE44418, dated June 10, 1983 (1988 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10N).

Natural Gas Transportation and Storage

10.59 Amendment to Firm Transportation Service Agreement, dated December 2, 1996, between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (1997 Enova Corporation Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.58).

10.60 Firm Transportation Service Agreement, dated December 31, 1991 between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (1991 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.7).

10.61 Firm Transportation Service Agreement, dated October 13, 1994 between Pacific Gas Transmission Company (succeeded by TransCanada Pipelines - GTN Systems) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (1997 Enova Corporation Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.60).

Other

10.62 Lease agreement dated as of March 25, 1992 with CarrAmerica Development and Construction as lessor of an office complex at Century Park (1994 SDG&E Form 10-K, Exhibit 10.70).

Exhibit 12 -- Statement Re: Computation Of Ratios


12.01 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 2003, 2002 and 2001.2003.


Exhibit 21 -- Subsidiaries14 - Code of Ethics

21.01 Schedule

14.01 Sempra Energy Code of Subsidiaries at December 31, 2005.Business Conduct and Ethics for Board of Directors and Senior Officers (also applies to directors and officers of San Diego Gas & Electric Company) (2006 Form 10-K, Exhibit 14.01).


Exhibit 23 -- Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, page 80.89.


Exhibit 31 -- Section 302 Certifications


31.1   Statement of Registrant's Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


31.2   Statement of Registrant's Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


Exhibit 32 -- Section 906 Certifications


32.1   Statement of Registrant's Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350.


32.2   Statement of Registrant's Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350.




GLOSSARY

AFUDC

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction

ALJ

Administrative Law Judge

APBO

Accounting Principles Board Opinion

ARB

Accounting Research Bulletin

BCAP

Biennial Cost Allocation Proceeding

California Utilities

Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas& Electric

Calpine

Calpine Corporation

CEC

California Energy Commission

CEMA

Catastrophic Event Memorandum Act

CPI

Consumer Price Index

CPUC

California Public Utilities Commission

DOE

Department of Energy

DSM

Demand Side Management

DWR

Department of Water Resources

Edison

Southern California Edison Company

EITF

Emerging Issues Task Force

El Paso

El Paso Natural Gas Company

EMFs

Electric and Magnetic Fields

FASB

Financial Accounting Standards Board

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FIN

FASB Interpretation Number

GAAP

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GIR

Gas Industry Restructuring

IOUs

Investor-Owned Utilities

IRS

Internal Revenue Service

ISFSI

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility

ISO

Independent System Operator

LIFO

Last in first out inventory costing method

mmbtu

Million British Thermal Units (of natural gas)

MSCI

Morgan Stanley Capital International

MW

Megawatt

NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OIR

Order Instituting Ratemaking

OMPPA

Otay Mesa Power Purchase Agreement

PBR

Performance-Based Ratemaking/Regulation

PG&E

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

PGE

Portland General Electric Company

PIER

Public Interest Energy Research

PRP

Potentially Responsible Party

PX

Power Exchange

QF

Qualifying Facility

RD&D

Research Development and Demonstration

RMC

Risk Management Committee

RMD

Risk Management Department

ROE

Return on Equity

SDG&E

San Diego Gas & Electric Company

SFAS

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards

SoCalGas

Southern California Gas Company

SONGS

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

VaR

Value at Risk

VIE

Variable Interest Entity

94



GLOSSARY


AFUDC

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction


ALJ

Administrative Law Judge


ARB

Accounting Research Bulletin


BCAP

Biennial Cost Allocation Proceedings


Bcf

Billion Cubic Feet (of natural gas)


Cal Fire

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection


CARB

California Air Resources Board


CEC

California Energy Commission


CEQA

California Environmental Quality Act


CPUC

California Public Utilities Commission


CRRs

Congestion Revenue Rights


DOE

Department of Energy


DRA

Division of Ratepayer Advocates


DSM

Demand-Side Management


DWR

Department of Water Resources  


Edison

Southern California Edison Company


EIR

Environmental Impact Report


EIS

Environmental Impact Study


FASB

Financial Accounting Standards Board


FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


FIN

FASB Interpretation


FSP

FASB Staff Position


GAAP

Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in the United States of

America


GHG

Greenhouse Gas




95



GRC

General Rate Case


IOUs

Investor-Owned Utilities


IRS

Internal Revenue Service


ISFSI

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation


ISO

Independent System Operator


LIFO

Last-in first-out inventory costing method


LTPP

Long-Term Procurement Plan


LNG

Liquefied Natural Gas


MMBtu

Million British Thermal Units (of natural gas)


MSCI

Morgan Stanley Capital International


MW

Megawatt


Ninth Circuit Court

 of Appeals

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit


NRC

Nuclear Regulatory Commission


OIR

Order Instituting Rulemaking


OMEC

Otay Mesa Energy Center


OMEC LLC

Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC  


PBR

Performance-Based Regulation


PGE

Portland General Electric


PRP

Potentially Responsible Party


PX

Power Exchange


QFs

Qualifying Facilities


ROE

Return on Equity


RPS

Renewable Portfolio Standards


SDG&E

San Diego Gas & Electric Company


Sempra Utilities

Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric

Company



96




SFAS

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards


SoCalGas

Southern California Gas Company


SONGS

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station


TURN

The Utility Reform Network


VaR

Value at Risk


VIE

Variable Interest Entity





97