Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We accrue losses for a legal proceeding when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings make it difficult to estimate with reasonable certainty the costs and effects of resolving these matters. Accordingly, actual costs incurred may differ materially from amounts accrued, may exceed applicable insurance coverage and could material ly adversely affect our business, cash flows, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate reasonably possible losses in excess of any amounts accrued. At June 30, 2016, Sempra Energy’s acc rued liabilities for legal proceedings, including associated legal fees and costs of litigation, on a consolidated basis, were $44 million. At June 30, 2016, accrued liabilities for legal proceedings were $21 million for SDG&E and $21 million for SoCalGas . Amount s for Sempra Energy and SoCalGas include $21 million for matters related to the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak, which we discuss below SDG&E 2007 Wildfire Litigation In October 2007, San Diego County experienced several catastrophic wildfires. Reports issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) concluded that two of these fires (the Witch and Rice fires) were SDG&E “power line caused” and that a third fire (the Guejito fire) occurred when a wire securing a Cox Communications’ (Cox) fiber optic cable came into contact with an SDG&E power line “causing an arc and starting the fire.” A September 2008 staff report issued by the CPUC’s Consumer Protection and Safety Division, now known as the Safety and Enforcement Division, reached substantially the same conclusions as the Cal Fire reports, but also contended that the power lines involved in the Witch and Rice fire s and the lashing wire involved in the Guejito fire were not properly designed, constructed and maintained. Numerous parties sued SDG&E and Sempra Energy in San Diego County Superior Court seeking recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punit ive damages, from the three fires. They asserted various bases for recovery, including inverse condemnation based upon a California Court of Appeal decision finding that another California investor-owned utility was subject to strict liability, without reg ard to foreseeability or negligence, for property damages resulting from a wildfire ignited by power lines. SDG&E has resolved almost all of these lawsuits. One case remains subject to a damages-only trial, where the value of any compensatory damages res ulting from the fires will be determined. Two appeals are pending after judgment in the trial court. SDG&E does not expect additional plaintiffs to file lawsuits given the applicable statutes of limitation, but could receive additional settlement demands and damage estimates from the remaining plaintiff until the case is resolved. SDG&E establishes reserves for the wildfire litigation as information becomes available and amounts are estimable. SDG&E has concluded that it is probable that it will be permit ted to recover in rates a substantial portion of the costs incurred to resolve wildfire claims in excess of its liability insurance coverage and the amounts recovered from third parties. Accordingly, at June 30, 2016, Sempra Energy and SDG&E have recorded assets of $355 million in Other Regulatory Assets (long-term) on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, including $353 million related to CPUC-regulated operations, which represents the amount substantially equal to the aggregate amou nt it has paid a nd reserved for payment for the resolution of wildfire claims and related costs in excess of its liability insurance coverage and amounts recovered from third parties. On September 25, 2015, SDG&E filed an application with the CPUC seeking authority to rec over these costs, as we discuss in Note 10. Should SDG&E conclude that recovery in rates is no longer probable, SDG&E will record a charge against earnings at the time such conclusion is reached. If SDG&E had concluded that the recovery of regulatory asset s related to CPUC-regulated operations was no longer probable or was less than currently estimated at June 30, 2016, the resulting after-tax charge against earnings would have been up to approximately $210 million. A failure to obtain substantial or full r ecovery of these costs from customers, or any negative assessment of the likelihood of recovery, would likely have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy’s and SDG&E’s results of operations and cash flows. We provide additional information about excess wildfire claims cost recovery and related CPUC actions in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report and discuss how we assess the probability of recovery of our regulatory assets in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. Smart Meters Patent Infringement Lawsuit In October 2011, SDG&E was sued by a Texas design and manufacturing company in Federal District Court, Southern District of California, and later transferred to the Federal District Court, Western District of Oklahoma as part of Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceedings, alleging that SDG&E’s recently installed smart meters infringed certain patents. The meters were purchased from a third party vendor that has agreed to defend and indemnify SDG&E. The lawsuit sought injunctive relief and recovery of unspe cified amounts of damages . The third party vendor has settled the lawsuit without cost to SDG&E, and a dismissal was entered in federal court on July 20, 2016 . Lawsuit Against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. On July 18, 2013, SDG&E filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in the County of San Diego against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc., and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (collectively MHI). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages SDG&E has incurred and will incur related to the design defects in the steam generators MHI provided to the SONGS nuclear power plant. The lawsuit asserts a number of causes of action, including fraud, based on the repr esentations MHI made about its qualifications and ability to design generators free from defects of the kind that resulted in the permanent shutdown of the plant and further seeks to set aside the contractual limitation of damages that MHI has asserted. On July 24, 2013, MHI removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and on August 8, 2013, MHI moved to stay the proceeding pending resolution of the dispute resolution process involving MHI and Edison arisin g from their contract for the purchase and sale of the steam generators. On October 16, 2013, Edison initiated an arbitration proceeding against MHI seeking damages stemming from the failure of the replacement steam generators. In late December 2013, MHI a nswered and filed a counterclaim against Edison. On March 14, 2014, MHI’s motion to stay the United States District Court proceeding was granted with instructions that require the parties to allow SDG&E to participate in the ongoing Edison/MHI arbitration. As a result, SDG&E participated in the arbitration as a claimant and respondent . The arbitration hearing concluded at the end of April 2016, and a decision could come as early as this year. Rim Rock Wind Farm In 2011, the CPUC and FERC approved SDG&E’s estimated $285 million tax equity investment in a wind farm project and its purchase of renewable energy credits from that project. SDG&E’s contractual obligations to both invest in the Rim Rock wind farm and to purchase renewable energy credits from the wind farm under the power purchase agreement were subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions which, if not achieved, would allow SDG&E to terminate the power purchase agreement and not make the investment. In December 2013, SDG&E and the project developer began litigating claims against each other regarding whether the project developer had timely satisfied all contractual conditions necessary to trigger SDG&E’s obligations to invest in the project and purchase renewable energy credits. On February 11, 2016, SDG&E, the project developer and several of the project developer’s parent and affiliated entities entered into a conditional settlement agreement, which was approved by the CPUC in July 2016 and will become final and non-appealable 30 days after the CPUC approval, provided that no party requests rehearing. Under the settlement agreement, among other things, the parties agreed to terminate the tax equity investment arrangement, contin ue the power purchase agreement for the wind farm generation and release all claims against each other, while generally continuing the other elements of the 2011 approved decision. The settlement agreement will result in a $39 million credit to ratepayers . SoCalGas Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility Gas Leak On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its injection and withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is more than one mile away from and 1,200 feet above the closest homes. It is one of more than 100 injection and withdrawal wells at the storage facility. Stopping the Leak, and Local Community Mitigation Efforts. SoCalGas worked closely w ith several of the world’s leading experts to stop the leak, including planning and obtaining all necessary approvals for drilling relief wells. On February 18, 2016, the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resource s (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was permanently sealed. On December 24, 2015, by stipulation and court order, SoCalGas agreed to implement a formal plan for assisting residents in the nearby community to temporarily relocate, as well as to pay for additi onal overtime and costs associated with extra Los Angeles Police Department security patrols, among other things. SoCalGas provid ed temporary relocation support to residents in the nearby community who requested it before the well was permanently sealed. I n addition, SoCalGas provided air filtration and purification systems to those residents in the nearby community requesting them. As a result of receiving the confirmation from DOGGR that SS25 was permanently sealed, SoCalGas started winding down its temp orary relocation support in accordance with the terms of the formal relocation plan. Subject to certain exceptions, the period for temporary relocation support to residents who temporarily relocated to short-term housing, such as hotels, was scheduled to e nd on February 25, 2016. This deadline was challenged by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH), which contended that indoor testing was required to determine whether it was safe for residents to return home. In mid-March 2016, a third pa rty engaged by SoCalGas conducted screening of indoor air for methane and mercaptans (odorants added to natural gas) in 71 houses in the Porter Ranch community near the Aliso Canyon storage facility. No mercaptans were detected in this screening, and conce ntrations of methane were well below levels of concern as established by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Toxic Substances Control. On March 24, 2016, the DPH released its indoor sampling work plan to test approximately 100 ho uses for a broad range of chemicals, including volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, metals, and sulfur compounds in the air and on surfaces. These substances are commonly found in households at varying levels. On April 27, 2016, the California Superior Court issued an order extending the relocation support term pending the completion of the DPH’s indoor testing. The DPH took samples from more than 100 homes and certain schools, as well as 11 “control” homes outside the Porter Ranch C ommunity, and tested for over 250 chemical substances, and on May 13, 2016 issued its report of the results, which concluded that the testing did not detect chemicals at levels that presented an elevated health risk, and that the occurrence of air contamin ants was consistent with background levels for indoor settings. The DPH’s report stated that certain metals had been detected in surface dust in a small number of homes tested. Although the levels of any such metals were found to be significantly below lev els established as safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and even though such metals were also found in homes outside the Porter Ranch Community that were tested as a control group, the DPH nevertheless asserted that the detection of such substances required the homes of relocated residents to be cleaned before the relocation program could end. In response, the Superior Court issued an order on May 20, 2016, as supplemented by the Superior Court on May 25, 2016, ruling that: (1) currently relocated residents be given the choice to request residence cleaning, to be performed according to the DPH’s proposed protocol and at SoCalGas ’ expense, and (2) the relocation program for currently relocated residents would terminate. In accordance with t he May 20 and May 25 orders, SoCalGas finished cleaning all homes covered by this order on July 6, 2016, or approximately 1,500 homes. As of July 24, 2016, the relocation program has ended. Apart from the Superior Court order, on May 13, 2016, the DPH also issued a directive that SoCalGas professionally clean (in accordance with the proposed protocol prepared by the DPH) the homes of all residents located within the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council boundary, or who have participated in the relocation progr am, or who are located within a five mile radius of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and have experienced symptoms from the natural gas leak (the Directive). SoCalGas does not believe that the DPH has the authority to issue the Directive and h as filed a petition for writ of mandate to set aside the Directive. The total costs incurred to remediate and stop the leak and to mitigate local community impacts are significant and may increase, and to the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas ’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of oper ations. Cost Estimates and Accounting Impact. At June 30, 2016, SoCalGas recorded estimated costs of $717 million related to the leak. Of this amount, approximately 70 percent is for the temporary relocation program (including cleaning costs and certain la bor costs) and approximately 15 percent is for attempts to control the well, stop the leak, stop or reduce the emissions, and the estimated cost of the root cause analysis being conducted to determine the cause of the leak. The remaining portion of the $71 7 million includes estimated legal costs necessary to defend litigation, the value of lost gas, the costs to mitigate the actual natural gas released, and other costs. As the value of lost gas reflects the current replacement cost, the value may fluctuate until such time as replacement gas is purchased and injected into storage. SoCalGas made a commitment in December 2015 to mitigate the actual natural gas released and has been working on a plan to accomplish the mitigation. The $717 million represents mana gement’s best estimate of these costs related to the leak. Of these costs, a substantial portion has been paid and $117 million is recorded as Reserve for Aliso Canyon Costs at June 30, 2016 on SoCalGas ’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance S heets for amounts expected to be paid after June 30, 2016. At June 30, 2016, we recorded the expected recovery of the costs described in the immediately preceding paragraph related to the leak of $679 million as Insurance Receivable for Aliso Canyon Costs on SoCalGas ’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. This amount is net of insurance retentions and $34 million of insurance proceeds we received in the second quarter of 2016 related to control of well expenses. If we were to conclude t hat this receivable or a portion of it was no longer probable of recovery from insurers, some or all of this receivable would be charged against earnings, which could have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy’s and SoCalGas ’ financial condition and r esults of operations. The above amounts do not include any damage awards, restitution, or any civil or criminal fines, costs or other penalties that may be imposed, as it is not possible to predict the outcome of any criminal or civil proceeding or any adm inistrative action in which such damage awards, restitution or civil or criminal fines, costs or other penalties could be imposed, and any such amounts, if awarded or imposed, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In addition, the above amounts do n ot include the cost to clean additional homes as directed by the DPH and other potential costs that we currently do not anticipate incurring or that we cannot reasonably estimate. On March 17, 2016, the CPUC issued a decision directing SoCalGas to establis h a memorandum account to prospectively track its authorized revenue requirement and all revenues that it receives for its normal, business-as-usual costs to own and operate the Aliso Canyon gas storage field. The CPUC will determine at a later time whethe r, and to what extent, the tracked revenues may be refunded to ratepayers. Pursuant to the CPUC’s decision, on March 24, 2016, SoCalGas filed an advice letter requesting to establish a memorandum account to track all business-as-usual costs to own and oper ate the Aliso Canyon storage field, which has been protested by TURN and SCGC. On April 22, 2016, the CPUC’s Energy Division issued a suspension notice for SoCalGas ’ advice letter citing the need for additional time for staff review. Insurance. We have at least four kinds of insurance policies that provide in excess of $1 billion in insurance coverage. We cannot predict all of the potential categories of costs or the total amount of costs that we may incur as a result of the leak. In reviewing each of our p olicies, and subject to various policy limits, exclusions and conditions, based upon what we know as of the filing date of this report, we believe that our insurance policies collectively should cover the following categories of costs: the costs incurred f or temporary relocation (including cleaning costs and certain labor costs), costs to address the leak and stop or reduce emissions, the root cause analysis being conducted to determine the cause of the leak, the value of lost natural gas and estimated cost s to mitigate the actual natural gas released, the costs associated with litigation and claims by nearby residents and businesses, the cost to clean additional homes as directed by the DPH, and, in some circumstances depending on their nature and manner of assessment, fines and penalties. We have been communicating with our insurance carriers and, as discussed above, we recently received an insurance payment for control of well costs. We intend to pursue the full extent of our insurance coverage for the cos ts we have incurred or may incur. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining insurance coverage for these costs under the applicable policies, and to the extent we are not successful, it could result in a material charge against the earnings of SoCalGas and Sempra Energy. Our estimate at June 30, 2016 of $717 million of certain costs in connection with the Aliso Canyon storage facility leak may rise significantly as more information becomes available, and to the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy’s and SoCalGas ’ cash flows, financial condi tion and results of operations. In addition, any costs not included in the $717 million estimate could be material, and to the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), could have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy’s and SoCalGas ’ cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation . Various governmental agencies, including the DOGGR, DPH, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), CPUC, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), EPA, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and California Attorney General’s Office, are investigating this incident. On January 25, 2016, the DOGGR and CPUC selected Blade Energy Partners to conduct an independent analysis under their supervision and to be funded by SoC alGas to investigate the technical root cause of the Aliso Canyon gas leak. We expect the root cause analysis to be completed in late 2016 or early 2017, but the timing is dependent on the DOGGR and the CPUC. As of July 28, 2016, 1 81 lawsuits have been fil ed ( 177 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, 2 in San Diego County Superior Court, and 2 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California) against SoCalGas , some of which have also named Sempra Energy, and, in derivative and sec urities law claims on behalf of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas , against certain officers and directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas . These various lawsuits assert causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, property damage, fra ud, public and private nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, breach of fiduciary duties, inverse condemnation, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, and violation of federal securities laws, among other things, and additional litigation may be filed against us in the future related to this incident. Many of these complaints seek class action status, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the court ordered that the individual and business entity plaintiffs would proceed by filing two consolidated master complaints, one for the individual tort cases, and a second for the class action cases. The Los Angeles City Attorney and Los Angeles Coun ty Counsel have also filed a complaint on behalf of the people of the State of California against SoCalGas for public nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The California Attorney General , acting in her independent capacity and o n behalf of the people of the State of California and the CARB, joined this lawsuit. The complaint, as amended includes allegations of violations of California Health and Safety Code sections 41700, prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause anno yance to the public, and 25510, requiring reporting of the release of hazardous material, as well as California Government Code section 12607 for equitable relief for the protection of natural resources. The complaint seeks an order for injunctive relief, to abate the public nuisance, and to impose civil penalties. The SCAQMD also filed a complaint against SoCalGas seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of several nuisance-related statutory provisions arising from the leak and delays in stopping the leak. That suit seeks up to $250,000 in civil penalties for each day the violations occurred. On July 13, 2016, the SCAQMD amended its complaint to seek a declaration that SoCalGas is required to pay the costs of a longitudinal study of the health of pers ons exposed to the gas leak. All of these cases , other than the derivative and securities law claims , are coordinated before a single court in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for pretrial management. As ordered by the court in the coordination proceedi ng, on July 25, 2016 , the individuals and business entities asserting tort claims filed a Consolidated Case Complaint for Individual Actions through which their separate lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes. The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment and loss of conso rtium against SoCalGas , with certain causes also naming Sempra Energy . The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, property damage and diminution in property value, a temporary injunction, costs of future medic al monitoring, and attorneys’ fees. On February 2, 2016, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas seeking penalties and other remedies for alleged failure to provide timely notice of the leak pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 25510(a), Los Angeles County Code section 12.56.030, and Title 19 California Code of Regulations section 27 03(a), and for violating California Health and Safety Code section 41700 prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public. On February 16, 2016, SoCalGas pled not guilty to the complaint. No trial date has been set. On July 25, 2016, the County of Los Angeles, on behalf of itself and the people of the State of California, filed a complaint against SoCalGas in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for public nuisance, unfair competition, breach of franchise agreement, breach of le ase, and damages. This suit alleges that the four natural gas storage fields operated or formerly operated by SoCalGas in Los Angeles County require safety upgrades, including the installation of sub-surface safety shut-off valves on every well. It additio nally alleges that SoCalGas failed to comply with the Directive. It seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, and damages for the County’s costs to respond to the leak, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The costs of defending against these civil and criminal lawsuits and cooperating with these investigations, and any damages, restitution, and civil and criminal fines, costs and other penalties, if awarded or imposed, could be significant and to the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits) , or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas ’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition an d results of operations. Governmental Orders, Additional Regulation and Reliability. On January 6, 2016, the Governor of the State of California issued the Governor’s Order proclaiming a state of emergency to exist in Los Angeles County due to the natural gas leak at the Aliso Canyon facility. The Governor’s Order directs the following: Protecting Public Health and Safety : State agencies will: continue the prohibition against SoCalGas injecting any gas into the Aliso Canyon storage facility until a comprehensive review, utilizing independent experts, of the safety of the storage wells and the air quality of the surrounding community is completed; expand real-time monitoring of emission s in the surrounding community; convene an independent panel of scientific and medical experts to review public health concerns stemming from the natural gas leak and evaluate whether additional measures are needed to protect public health; and take all ac tions necessary to ensure the continued reliability of natural gas and electricity supplies in the coming months during the moratorium on gas injections into the Aliso Canyon storage facility. Ensuring Accountability : The CPUC will ensure that SoCalGas cov ers costs related to the natural gas leak and its response, while protecting ratepayers; and CARB will develop a program to fully mitigate the leak’s emissions of methane by March 31, 2016, with such program to be funded by SoCalGas . Strengthening Oversigh t : The DOGGR will promulgate emergency regulations for gas storage facility operators throughout the state, requiring: at least daily inspection of gas storage well heads using gas leak detection technology such as infrared imaging; ongoing verification of the mechanical integrity of all gas storage wells; ongoing measurement of annular gas pressure or annular gas flow within wells; regular testing of all safety valves used in wells; minimum and maximum pressure limits for each gas storage facility in the s tate; and a comprehensive risk management plan for each facility that evaluates and prepares for risks, including corrosion potential of pipes and equipment. Additionally, the DOGGR, CPUC, CARB and California Energy Commission (CEC) will submit to the Gove rnor’s Office a report that assesses the long-term viability of natural gas storage facilities in California. SoCalGas made a commitment in December 2015 to mitigate the actual natural gas released from the leak and has been working on a plan to accomplish the mitigation. On March 31, 2016, pursuant to the Governor’s Order, the CARB issued its Aliso Canyon Methane Leak Climate Impacts Mitigation Program, which sets forth its recommended approach to achieve full mitigation of the emissions from the Aliso Can yon natural gas leak. The CARB program preliminarily assumes that the leak released approximately 100,000 metric tons of methane. It states that full mitigation requires that the program generate reductions in short-lived climate pollutants and other green house gases at least equivalent to that amount and that the appropriate global warming potential to be used in deriving the amount of reductions required is a 20-year term rather than the 100-year term the CARB and other state and federal agencies use in r egulating emissions, resulting in a target of approximately 8,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. CARB’s program also requires all of the mitigation to occur in California over the next five to ten years without the use of allowances or offse ts. We have not agreed to this proposed formulation and continue to work with CARB on the mitigation plan. On January 23, 2016, the Hearing Board of the SCAQMD ordered SoCalGas to, among other things: stop all injections of natural gas except as directed b y the CPUC, withdraw the maximum amount of natural gas feasible in a contained and safe manner, subject to orders of the CPUC, and permanently seal the well once the leak has ceased; continuously monitor the well site with infrared cameras until 30 days af ter the leak has ceased; provide the public with daily air monitoring data collected by SoCalGas ; provide the SCAQMD with certain natural gas injection, withdrawal and emissions data from the Aliso Canyon facility; prepare and submit to the SCAQMD for its approval an enhanced leak detection and reporting well inspection program for the Aliso Canyon facility; provide the SCAQMD with funding to develop a continuous air monitoring plan for the Aliso Canyon facility and the nearby schools and community; prepare and submit to the SCAQMD for its approval an air quality notification plan to provide notice to SCAQMD, other public agencies and the nearby community in the event of a future reportable release; and provide the SCAQMD with funding to conduct an independe nt health study on the potential impacts of exposure on the constituents of the natural gas released from the facility, as well as any odor suppressants used to mitigate odors from the leaking well. On April 1, 2016, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and PHMSA jointly announced the formation of an Interagency Task Force on Natural Gas Storage Safety in response to the leak at Aliso Canyon to assess and make recommendations on best practices, response plans and safe operation of gas storag e facilities. On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed the “Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act o |