| Commitments and Contingencies | 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 reasonably estimate 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 materially 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, 2018 , loss contingency accruals for legal matters, including associated legal fees, that are probable and estimable were $191 million for Sempra Energy Consolidated, including $2 million for SDG&E and $136 million for SoCalGas. Amounts for Sempra Energy and SoCalGas include $127 million for matters related to the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility gas leak, which we discuss below. SDG&E 2007 Wildfire Litigation and Net Cost Recovery Status SDG&E has resolved all litigation associated with three wildfires that occurred in October 2007, except one appeal that remains 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 maintains reserves for the wildfire litigation and adjusts these reserves as information becomes available and amounts are estimable. As a result of a CPUC decision denying SDG&E’s request to recover wildfire costs, SDG&E wrote off the wildfire regulatory asset, resulting in a charge of $351 million ( $208 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2017. SDG&E will continue to vigorously pursue recovery of these costs, which were incurred through settling claims brought under the doctrine of inverse condemnation. SDG&E applied to the CPUC for rehearing of its decision on January 2, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the CPUC adopted a decision denying the rehearing requests filed by SDG&E and other parties. On August 3, 2018, we filed an appeal with the California Courts of Appeal seeking to reverse the CPUC’s decision. 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 (the Leak), located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world’s leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18, 2016, DOGGR confirmed that the well was permanently sealed. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility as a result of the Leak. Local Community Mitigation Efforts. Pursuant to a stipulation and order by the LA Superior Court, SoCalGas provided temporary relocation support to residents in the nearby community who requested it before the well was permanently sealed. Following the permanent sealing of the well, the DPH conducted testing in certain homes in the Porter Ranch community, and concluded that indoor conditions did not present a long-term health risk and that it was safe for residents to return home. In May 2016, the LA Superior Court ordered SoCalGas to offer to clean residents’ homes at SoCalGas’ expense as a condition to ending the relocation program. SoCalGas completed the residential cleaning program and the relocation program ended in July 2016. In May 2016, the DPH also issued a directive that SoCalGas additionally 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 participated in the relocation program, or who are located within a five-mile radius of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and experienced symptoms from the Leak (the Directive). SoCalGas disputes the Directive, contending that it is invalid and unenforceable, and has filed a petition for writ of mandate to set aside the Directive. The costs incurred to remediate and stop the Leak and to mitigate local community impacts have been significant and may increase, and we may be subject to potentially significant damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs. To the extent any of these costs are not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, or if the insurance recoveries are subject to income taxes, such amounts could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Cost Estimates and Accounting Impact. At June 30, 2018 , SoCalGas estimates that its costs related to the Leak are $1,014 million , which includes $987 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. Of the $1,014 million of estimated costs, approximately 55 percent is for the temporary relocation program (including cleaning costs and certain labor costs). The remaining portion of the $1,014 million includes legal costs incurred to defend litigation, the estimated costs to settle certain actions, the estimated cost of the root cause analysis being conducted by an independent third party, efforts to control the well, the costs to mitigate the actual natural gas released, the value of lost gas, and other costs. The value of lost gas reflects the replacement cost of all lost gas. SoCalGas adjusts its estimated total liability associated with the Leak as additional information becomes available. The $1,014 million represents management’s best estimate of these costs related to the Leak. Of these costs, a substantial portion has been paid and $160 million is accrued as Reserve for Aliso Canyon Costs as of June 30, 2018 on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for amounts expected to be paid after June 30, 2018 . As of June 30, 2018 , we recorded the expected recovery of the costs described in the immediately preceding paragraph related to the Leak of $502 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 $485 million of insurance proceeds we received through June 30, 2018 related to portions of the costs described above, including temporary relocation costs, control-of-well expenses, legal costs and lost gas. If we were to conclude that this receivable or a portion of it is 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 SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. As described in “Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation” below, the actions seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs, which except for the amounts paid or estimated to settle certain actions, are not included in the above amounts as it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate the amount of damages, restitution or civil, administrative or criminal fines, penalties or other costs that may be imposed. The recorded amounts above also do not include the costs to clean additional homes pursuant to the Directive, future legal costs necessary to defend litigation, and other potential costs that we currently do not anticipate incurring or that we cannot reasonably estimate. Furthermore, the cost estimate of $1,014 million does not include certain other costs expensed by Sempra Energy through June 30, 2018 associated with defending against shareholder derivative lawsuits. In March 2016, the CPUC ordered SoCalGas to establish 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 natural gas storage facility and, in September 2016, approved SoCalGas’ request to begin tracking these revenues as of March 17, 2016. The CPUC will determine at a later time whether, and to what extent, the authorized revenues tracked in the memorandum account will be refunded to ratepayers. Insurance. Excluding directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, we have at least four kinds of insurance policies that together we estimate provide between $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion in insurance coverage, depending on the nature of the claims. 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. Subject to various policy limits, exclusions and conditions, based on 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: costs incurred for 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 investigate the cause of the Leak, the value of lost gas, costs incurred to mitigate the actual natural gas released, costs associated with litigation and claims by nearby residents and businesses, any costs to clean additional homes pursuant to the Directive, 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 have received insurance payments for portions of the costs described above, including temporary relocation costs, control-of-well expenses, legal costs and lost gas. We intend to pursue the full extent of our insurance coverage for the costs we have incurred or may incur. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining additional insurance recovery for these costs under the applicable policies, and to the extent we are not successful in obtaining coverage or these costs exceed the amount of our coverage, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. At June 30, 2018 , SoCalGas’ estimated costs related to the Leak of $1,014 million include $987 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. This estimate may rise significantly as more information becomes available. Any costs not included in the $1,014 million cost estimate could be material. To the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, or if the insurance recoveries are subject to income taxes, such amounts could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation. Various governmental agencies, including DOGGR, DPH, SCAQMD, CARB, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, CPUC, PHMSA, EPA, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and California Attorney General’s Office, have investigated or are investigating this incident. Other federal agencies (e.g., the DOE and the U.S. Department of the Interior) investigated the incident as part of a joint interagency task force. In January 2016, DOGGR and the CPUC selected Blade Energy Partners to conduct, under their supervision, an independent analysis of the technical root cause of the Leak, to be funded by SoCalGas. The timing of the root cause analysis is under the control of Blade Energy Partners, DOGGR and the CPUC. As of August 1, 2018, 382 lawsuits, including approximately 48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. All of these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the federal securities class action discussed below, are coordinated before a single court in the LA Superior Court for pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding). Pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, in March 2017, the individuals and business entities asserting tort and Proposition 65 claims filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master 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, loss of consortium and violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes also naming Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and attorneys’ fees. In January 2017, pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, two consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real property within a five -mile radius of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action). Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of California Unfair Competition Law. The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action also asserts a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law. In February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling. In September and October of 2017, property developers filed two complaints, one of which was amended in July 2018, against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy alleging causes of action for strict liability, negligence per se, negligence, continuing nuisance, permanent nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, as well as claims for negligence against certain directors of SoCalGas. The complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. These claims are joined in the Coordination Proceeding. In addition to the lawsuits described above, a federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal securities laws has been filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and certain of its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In March 2018, the District Court dismissed the action with prejudice, and in April 2018 the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order. Five shareholder derivative actions are also pending in the Coordination Proceeding alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain officers and certain directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas, four of which were joined in a Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint in August 2017. Three actions filed by public entities are pending in the Coordination Proceeding. First, in July 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 LA Superior Court for public nuisance, unfair competition, breach of franchise agreement, breach of lease, and damages. This suit alleges that the four natural gas storage fields operated by SoCalGas in Los Angeles County require safety upgrades, including the installation of a sub-surface safety shut-off valve on every well. It additionally alleges that SoCalGas failed to comply with the DPH 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. Second, in August 2016, the California Attorney General, acting in an independent capacity and on behalf of the people of the State of California and the CARB, together with the Los Angeles City Attorney, filed a third amended complaint on behalf of the people of the State of California against SoCalGas alleging public nuisance, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violations of California Health and Safety Code sections 41700 (prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance 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. Third, a petition for writ of mandate filed by the County of Los Angeles is pending against DOGGR and its State Oil and Gas Supervisor and the CPUC and its Executive Director, as to which SoCalGas is the real party in interest. The petition alleges that in issuing its July 2017 determination that the requirements for the resumption of injection operations were met (discussed under “Natural Gas Storage Operations and Reliability” below), DOGGR failed to comply with the provisions of SB 380, which requires a comprehensive safety review of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility before injection of natural gas may resume. The County alleges, among other things, that DOGGR failed to comply with the provisions of SB 380 in declaring the safety review complete and authorizing the resumption of injection of natural gas into the facility before the root cause analysis was complete, failing to make its safety-review documents available to the public and failing to address seismic risks to the field as part of its safety review. The County further alleges that CEQA required DOGGR to prepare an EIR before the resumption of injection of natural gas at the facility may be approved. The petition seeks a writ of mandate requiring DOGGR and the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to comply with SB 380 and CEQA, and to produce records in response to the County’s Public Records Act request, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief against any authorization to inject natural gas and attorneys’ fees. Separately, in February 2016, the Los Angeles County 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 2703(a), and for allegedly violating California Health and Safety Code section 41700 prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public. Pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, SoCalGas agreed to plead no contest to the notice charge under Health and Safety Code section 25510(a) and agreed to pay the maximum fine of $75,000 , penalty assessments of approximately $233,500 , and operational commitments estimated to cost approximately $6 million , reimbursement and assessments in exchange for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office moving to dismiss the remaining counts at sentencing and settling the complaint (the District Attorney Settlement). In November 2016, SoCalGas completed the commitments and obligations under the District Attorney Settlement, and on November 29, 2016, the LA Superior Court approved the settlement and entered judgment on the notice charge. Certain individuals who object to the settlement have filed an appeal of the judgment, contending they should be granted restitution. The costs of defending against these civil and criminal lawsuits, cooperating with these investigations, and any damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs, if awarded or imposed, as well as the costs of mitigating the actual natural gas released, could be significant and to the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, or if the insurance recoveries are subject to income taxes, such amounts could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Regulatory Proceedings. In February 2017, the CPUC opened a proceeding pursuant to SB 380 to determine the feasibility of minimizing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, while still maintaining energy and electric reliability for the region. The CPUC indicated it intends to conduct the proceeding in two phases, with Phase 1 undertaking a comprehensive effort to develop the appropriate analyses and scenarios to evaluate the impact of reducing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and Phase 2 using those analyses and scenarios to evaluate the impacts of reducing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. The order establishing the scope of the proceeding expressly excludes issues with respect to air quality, public health, causation, culpability or cost responsibility regarding the Leak. The CPUC adopted an initial Phase 1 schedule contemplating public participation hearings and workshops beginning in April 2017, but no hearings until Phase 2. In May 2018, the CPUC updated the Phase 1 schedule, providing for Phase 1 to be concluded November 14, 2018 with issuance of a Ruling Adopting Scenarios, Assumptions and Models. Section 455.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, among other things, directs regulated utilities to notify the CPUC if all or any portion of a major facility has been out of service for nine consecutive months. Although SoCalGas does not believe the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility or any portion of the facility was out of service (as that term is meant in section 455.5) for nine consecutive months, SoCalGas provided notification out of an abundance of caution to demonstrate its commitment to regulatory compliance and transparency, and because obtaining authorization to resume injection operations at the facility required more time than initially contemplated. In response, and as required by section 455.5, the CPUC issued an OII to address whether the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility or any portion of the facility was out of service for nine consecutive months under section 455.5, and if so, whether the CPUC should disallow costs for such period from SoCalGas’ rates. If the CPUC determines that all or any portion of the facility was out of service for nine consecutive months, the amount of any refund to ratepayers and the inability to earn a return on those assets could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Governmental Orders and Additional Regulation. In January 2016, the Governor of the State of California issued an order (the Governor’s Order) proclaiming a state of emergency in Los Angeles County due to the Leak. The Governor’s Order imposes various orders with respect to: stopping the Leak; protecting public health and safety; ensuring accountability; and strengthening oversight. Most of the directives in the Governor’s Order have been fulfilled, with the following remaining open items: (1) applicable agencies must 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; (2) the CPUC must ensure that SoCalGas covers costs related to the natural gas leak and its response while protecting ratepayers; (3) CARB must develop a program to fully mitigate the leak’s emissions of methane by March 31, 2016, with such program to be funded by SoCalGas; and (4) DOGGR, CPUC, CARB and the CEC must submit to the Governor’s Office a report that assesses the long-term viability of natural gas storage facilities in California. In December 2015, SoCalGas made a commitment to mitigate the actual natural gas released from the Leak and has been working on a plan to accomplish the mitigation. In March 2016, pursuant to the Governor’s Order, the CARB issued its Aliso Canyon Methane Leak Climate Impacts Mitigation Program , which set forth its recommended approach to achieve full mitigation of the emissions from the Leak. The CARB program requires that reductions in short-lived climate pollutants and other GHG be at least equivalent to the amount of the emissions from the Leak, and that the amount of reductions required be derived using the global warming potential based on a 20 -year term (rather than the 100 -year term the CARB and other state and federal agencies use in regulating emissions), resulting in a target of approximately 9,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. CARB’s program also calls for all of the mitigation to occur in California over the next five to ten years without the use of allowances or offsets. In October 2016, CARB issued its final report concluding that the incident resulted in total emissions from 90,350 to 108,950 metric tons of methane, and asserting that SoCalGas should mitigate 109,000 metric tons of methane to fully mitigate the GHG impacts of the Leak. We have not agreed with CARB’s estimate of methane released and continue to work with CARB on developing a mitigation plan. Natural Gas Storage Operations and Reliability. Natural gas withdrawn from storage is important for service reliability during peak demand periods, including peak electric generation needs in the summer and heating needs in the winter. The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, with a storage capacity of 86 Bcf (which represents 63 percent of SoCalGas’ natural gas storage inventory capacity), is the largest SoCalGas storage facility and an important element of SoCalGas’ delivery system. Beginning October 25, 2015, pursuant to orders by DOGGR and the Governor of the State of California, and in accordance with SB 380, SoCalGas suspended injection of natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. In April and June of 2017, SoCalGas advised the California ISO, CEC, CPUC and PHMSA of its concerns that the inability to inject natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility posed a risk to energy reliability in Southern California. Limited withdrawals of natural gas from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility have been made to augment natural gas supplies during critical demand periods. On July 19, 2017, DOGGR issued its determination that SoCalGas had met the requirements of SB 380 for the resumption of injection operations, including all safety requirements. On the same date, the CPUC’s Executive Director issued his concurrence with that determination, and DOGGR issued its Order to: Test and Take Temporary Actions Upon Resuming Injection: Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility lifting the prohibition on injection at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, subject to certain requirements after injection resumed, including limitations on the rate at which SoCalGas may withdraw natural gas from the field. The County of Los Angeles filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a stay of DOGGR’s order lifting the prohibition against injecting natural gas at the facility. We provide further detail regarding the County of Los Angeles’ suit above in “Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation.” Having completed the steps outlined by state agencies to safely begin injections at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, as of July 31, 2017, SoCalGas resumed limited injections. The CPUC has issued a series of directives to SoCalGas establishing the range of working gas to be maintained in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility to help ensure safety and reliability for the region and just and reasonable rates in California, the most recent of which, issued July 2, 2018, directed SoCalGas to maintain up to 34 Bcf of working gas. If the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were determined to have been out of service for any meaningful period of time or permanently closed, or if future cash flows were otherwise insufficient to recover its carrying value, it could result in an impairment of the facility and significantly higher than expected operating costs and/or additional capital expenditures, and natural gas reliability and electric generation could be jeopardized. At June 30, 2018 , the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has a net book value of $678 million , including $286 million for the recently completed construction of a new compressor station. Any significant impairment of this asset could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Higher operating costs and additional capital expenditures incurred by SoCalGas may not be recoverable in customer rates, and could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Sempra Mexico Property Disputes and Permit Challenges Energía Costa Azul. Sempra Mexico has been engaged in a long-running land dispute relating to property adjacent to its ECA LNG terminal near Ensenada, Mexico. A claimant to the adjacent property filed complaints in the federal Agrarian Court challenging the refusal of SEDATU in 2006 to issue a title to him for the disputed property. In November 2013, the federal Agrarian Court ordered that SEDATU issue the requested title and cause it to be registered. Both SEDATU and Sempra Mexico challenged the ruling, due to lack of notification of the underlying process. Both challenges are pending to be resolved by a Federal Court in Mexico. Sempra Mexico expects additional proceedings regarding the claims. Several administrative challenges are pending in Mexico before the Mexican environmental protection agency and the Federal Tax and Administrative Courts seeking revocation of the environmental impact authorization issued to ECA in 2003. These cases generally allege that the conditions and mitigation measures in the environmental impact authorization are inadequate and challenge findings that the activities of the terminal are consistent with regional development guidelines. Cases involving t wo parcels of real property have been filed against ECA. In one case, filed in the federal Agrarian Court in 2006, the plaintiffs seek to annul the recorded property title for a parcel on which the ECA LNG terminal is situated and to obtain possession of a different parcel that allegedly sits in the same place. Another civil complaint filed in the state court was served in April 2012 seeking to invalidate the contract by which ECA purchased another of the terminal parcels, on the grounds the purchase price was unfair; the plaintiff filed a second complaint in 2013 in the federal Agrarian Court seeking an order that SEDATU issue title to her. In January 2016, the federal Agrarian Court ruled against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff appealed the ruling. In May 2018, the state court dismissed the civil complaint, and the plaintif |
