With a combined revenue of $21 trillion and $2.1 trillion in profits, the 2026 Fortune 500 is the definitive list of America's largest companies.

Fortune 500

AI is a major force shaping this year’s list—but it’s far from the only story.

World's Most Admired Companies

Almost $20 trillion in revenue—and a record-breaking $1.87 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2025 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

Leaders in all industries rely more than ever on Big Tech—and appreciate the giants that deliver, at scale, without drama.

Industries included in the sector are mining, oil and gas exploration and services, pipelines, refining, and utilities.

Fortune Sector Leaders: Energy

The Fortune 500, in its 70th year in 2024, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

The 26th edition of the list shows how much esteem Big Tech giants command among other business leaders.

The 25th Fortune World’s Most Admired Companies list suggests that tech giants’ peers respect them as much as ever.

The Fortune 500, in its 69th year in 2023, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

Just as it dominates our economy, Big Tech now dominates Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 68th running of the list.

After a year in which humanity leaned more heavily than ever on tech giants, see which companies topped Fortune's ranking of corporate reputation.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 67th running of the list.

F500-2021-255-Sempra Energy

The San Diego-based natural gas and electric power utility has 36 million consumers in North America through its subsidiaries. The company divested itself of its U.S. renewables business in 2019.

For an astounding 13th straight year, Apple claims the top spot in Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation, based on a survey of almost 3,800 executives, directors, and analysts.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 66th running of the list.

500-2020-258-Sempra-Energy

The San Diego energy company claims the largest U.S. customer base of any utility and counts more than 40 million customers worldwide.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2019 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 65th running of the list.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2018 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 64th running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 63rd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 62nd running of the list.

Business insiders have spoken: Asked which companies they most admire, more than 4,100 executives, directors, and analysts chose these top 50 All-Stars.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Sector

Industry

Current All-Star Rank

Previous All-Star Rank

Industry Rank

Previous Industry Rank

Overall Score

Innovation

People Management

Use of Corporate Assets

Social Responsibility

Quality of Management

Financial Soundness

Long-Term Investment Value

Quality of Products/Services

Global Competitiveness

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

The energy infrastructure company Sempra was formed by the 1998 merger of Pacific Enterprises, the parent company of Southern California Gas, and Enova, parent of San Diego Gas &amp; Electric. Sempra operates through three business lines: Sempra California provides energy to consumers in Southern and Central California through utilities SDG&amp;E and SoCalGas. Sempra Texas includes Oncor Electric Delivery, an electric transmission and distribution utility. And Sempra Infrastructure develops, builds, and operates energy infrastructure. The company was previously known as Sempra Energy and rebranded to Sempra in 2021.

Q2 2026

Q1 2026

Q4 2025

Q3 2025

Q2 2025

Q1 2025

Q4 2024

Q3 2024

Sempra (SRE): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

Sempra

sempra

Good day, and welcome to Sempra's second quarter earnings call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Louise Bick. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Welcome to Sempra's second quarter 2026 earnings call. A live webcast of this teleconference and slide presentation are available on our website under the Events and Presentations section. We have several members of our management team with us today, including Jeff Martin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Karen Sedgwick, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Justin Bird, Executive Vice President of Sempra and Chief Executive Officer of Sempra Infrastructure, Caroline Winn, Executive Vice President of Sempra, Allen Nye, Chief Executive Officer of Oncor, Dyan Wold, Vice President, Controller, and Chief Accounting Officer, and other members of our senior management team. Before starting, I'd like to remind everyone that we'll be discussing forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statement we make today.

The factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially are discussed in the company's most recent 10-Q filed with the SEC. Earnings per common share amounts in our presentation are shown on a diluted basis. We'll be discussing certain non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to the presentation slides that accompany this call for a reconciliation to GAAP measures. We also encourage you to review our 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30th, 2026. I'd also like to mention that forward-looking statements contained in this presentation speak only as of today, August 6th, 2026. It's important to note that the company does not assume any obligation to update or revise any of these forward-looking statements in the future. Finally, we've established a new corporate updates page within the Sempra Investors website to post investor updates while complying with our disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD.

We encourage you to subscribe to the email alerts so you remain informed of any developments. With that, please turn to slide three. Let me hand the call over to Jeff.  

Thank you for joining us today. Our operating businesses are executing well, and our employees are aligned around our mission of building America's leading utility growth business. The strength of our execution can be seen in year-to-date financial results with double-digit gains in adjusted EPS and positive contributions from all three growth segments. Karen will cover our financial results in more detail later in the call, but on this first slide, I thought it'd be helpful to cover our key priorities for the third quarter. The first is the pending sale of a 45% equity stake in SI Partners. The transaction is expected to close later in the quarter and directly supports our corporate strategy by simplifying our business model, recycling capital into our regulated utilities, displacing the need for common equity in our current base capital plan, and deconsolidating close to $9 billion of debt from Sempra's balance sheet.

Second, our capital recycling program also extends to Mexico, where Sempra Infrastructure is making solid progress on the sale of Ecogas. They recently received a critical regulatory approval, which puts the transaction on track to close later this month. In addition to the update Sempra Infrastructure provided last week, they remain focused on the commissioning process at ECA LNG Phase 1, which remains a key priority as they continue to move that project toward full commercial operations. Sempra Infrastructure is also pleased with the continued progress at Port Arthur LNG Phase 1 and 2, which remain on time and on budget. Please turn to the next slide. Texas is continuing to experience unprecedented growth in electricity demand, as evidenced by ERCOT's new all-time peak load of 91 GW that was reached last month.

With forecasts of significant load growth in the future, Oncor is well positioned to participate in what we believe is a multi-decade investment opportunity focused on modernizing and extending the electric grid. Oncor's current capital plan accounts for major investment drivers, such as new high-voltage transmission projects and other system upgrades. You'll recall that Oncor is executing on a five-year base capital plan of $47.5 billion with $10 billion of incremental capital opportunities through 2030. Through the first half of the year, Oncor's made a lot of progress in firming up these incremental opportunities, specifically the $4 billion of North and Central Texas transmission upgrades that were recently endorsed by ERCOT.

Oncor's other incremental capital opportunities include an additional $3 billion of non-Permian Basin reliability plan projects endorsed by ERCOT in 2025 and $3 billion of investment that forms a part of a system resiliency plan filing that Oncor is expected to make next year. As we look ahead, we also expect a new set of capital opportunities. This slide highlights that any additional investments to serve load from the Batch Zero process fall outside of Oncor's $10 billion incremental capital opportunity. Please turn to the next slide where we'll discuss preliminary expectations related to ERCOT's Batch Zero process. The PUCT recently approved ERCOT's Batch Zero process, which establishes a system-wide approach for selecting and sequencing large load customer interconnection requests. 

Although the timeline for the batch process is uncertain, 44 GW of large load requests are expected to be eligible as base or studied load in Oncor's transmission system. By classification, this includes 27 GW of base load, defined as not requiring additional interconnection studies or allocation, and 17 GW of studied load, which will be evaluated and assigned through a new system-wide reliability analysis. To put the magnitude of these figures in context, 44 GW of additional demand would represent a 140% increase to Oncor's current system peak load of 31 GW. Importantly, this projected load meets all the PUCT eligibility requirements. Oncor holds nearly $6 billion in collateral from large load customers, including over $2 billion for the 44 GW of Batch Zero submissions shown here.

Of the 44 GW, it's important to note that approximately 8 GW is already connected to the system and continuing to ramp toward full utilization. This demonstrates that demand growth in Texas is not just a projection, but is actively occurring on Oncor's network. ERCOT will now study how the projects included in the Batch Zero process impact the existing transmission system and provide the initial results of that study. If ERCOT were to determine additional transmission is required to be built by Oncor, the capital expenditures for those projects would be incremental to Oncor's base capital plan and incremental CapEx opportunities. Looking ahead, Oncor expects to update its five-year plan on our fourth quarter call. ERCOT's current timeline for identifying additional transmission projects is expected to extend beyond February of next year, we don't expect the roll forward plan to include new capital investments associated with Batch Zero. 

The key takeaway here is that we have a growing confidence in Oncor's execution of its base capital plan and incremental capital opportunities, and believe there's increasing momentum behind Oncor's long-term growth, separate and apart from how data center growth materializes in the state. Please turn to the next slide, where Karen will walk through our financial results. 

Thanks, Jeff. Earlier today, Sempra reported second quarter 2026 GAAP earnings of $796 million, or $1.21 per share. This compares to second quarter 2025 GAAP earnings of $461 million, or $0.71 per share. On an adjusted basis, second quarter earnings were $762 million, or $1.16 per share. This is a notable increase compared to our second quarter 2025 earnings of $583 million, or $0.89 per share. As Jeff noted, we're very pleased with our performance for the first half of the year and think we're well positioned to deliver another year of strong financial results. Please turn to the next slide. Let's go over the second quarter of 2026 adjusted earnings variances compared to the same period last year.

At Sempra Texas, we had $138 million of higher equity earnings from new base rates, including interim rates, the UTM, higher invested capital and customer growth, partially offset by higher depreciation, interest expense, and O&M. Due to the timing of Oncor's comprehensive base rate settlement approved in April 2026, our second quarter earnings includes a favorable impact of approximately $50 million related to the first quarter of 2026. This amount reflects the difference between the newly approved rates and the rates previously in effect during that period. Turning to Sempra California, we had $24 million of increased earnings, primarily from higher CPUC base operating margin, net of operating expenses, and higher electric transmission margin, partially offset by lower AFUDC equity. Sempra California also had $11 million of lower earnings from higher net interest expense and other, partially offset by higher income tax benefits.

At Sempra Infrastructure, earnings increased by $26 million, primarily from lower depreciation due to assets held for sale, lower O&M and other, partially offset by higher income tax expense. At Sempra Parent, results were effectively in line with the prior period. Please turn to the next slide. With strong year-to-date results and progress against our key initiatives, we're affirming our full year 2026 adjusted EPS guidance range of $4.80-$5.30, and 2027 EPS guidance range of $5.10-$5.70. We're also affirming our projected long-term EPS growth rate of 7%-9%. As we look ahead, our focus remains on execution, including closing the SI Partners transaction, strengthening the balance sheet post-close, and continuing to advance our record $65 billion capital plan. This capital plan is centered on utility growth, with investments increasingly directed towards Sempra Texas.     

The growth we see there is supported by robust economic activity, increasing electricity demand, and the need to modernize and expand the electricity network across the state. I'd also note that we're considering our improving confidence in Oncor's $10 billion of incremental capital opportunities. We see Texas continuing to become an even larger part of our business, with a goal for it to comprise over 60% of Sempra's total rate base in 2030. Taken together, this investment outlook supports our confidence in Sempra's long-term growth. With one of the highest projected long-term EPS growth rates in the sector, we think Sempra continues to offer investors a compelling mix of current yield, durable earnings growth, and long-term capital appreciation. Let's open it up for your questions.

Thank you. This concludes the prepared remarks. We will now open the line to take your questions. Please limit your questions to one question and one follow-up. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one one on your telephone keypad. Please make sure your mute function is turned off. We will pause for just a moment to allow everyone to signal for questions. Our first question will come from Shar Pourreza from Wells Fargo. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning, team. It's actually Constantine here for Shar. Really appreciate the time today.

Hey, Jeff. Thanks. Starting off in Texas, the obvious question around the data center pause, rhetoric or not, do you see a threat of pushing for generation or even behind the meter solutions instead of transmission build? How does that impact timelines here, especially as you highlight the Batch Zero opportunities going into next year?

Thanks, Constantine. I'll address the data center focus first. I think one of the key things that we wanted to approach this call was to send the message that our long-term view at Oncor has improved over the last quarter. We continue to think there's a great opportunity here for our base capital plan to move forward, as well as upside capital. One of the key points in our prepared materials was anything related to the batch process would really be upside beyond that. One of the things I think that we're focused on in this environment is that public policy and a lot of the recent discussions have been focused on protecting Texas families from the new costs associated with expanding the grid to meet new load customers, as you indicated, data centers.  

I think in this area, the Governor and the PUC both have shown a lot of leadership, and I think that is important. I would also note, Constantine, that at Sempra, we are signatories to the President's Ratepayer Protection Pledge. Together with Oncor, we are supportive of the framework that the PUCT is now moving forward with, and I think this is very important relative to your question. That is to ensure that data centers, number one, cover the full cost of interconnection, and number two, lower residential bills by having a portion of their tariff allocated to ratepayer subsidies. You are seeing this model play out across other jurisdictions as well. Overall, I think broader stakeholder involvement in the process sets the foundation for a more durable framework. I think this is a very important point for our stakeholders. 

The process that is underway now in Austin, we are receiving more input and more inclusivity to the process. That is designed to create a more durable framework for participants in the market, like Oncor, to deploy capital. Constantine, when you put that together with the improving regulatory compact that we received through the UTM legislation last year and the improvements in the recent base rate review, that is obviously key drivers in the improved financial performance you are seeing at Oncor.

Excellent. Thanks for that. Maybe just a quick follow-up there. The quick return to normal kind of helped the Oncor CapEx update at year-end. Any way to think about that upside to the upside kind of converting closer to plan by that timeframe?

I think one of the things that we are kind of sending the message here is that there is a lot of flexibility in that base capital plan around how Don Clevenger and Allen Nye move capital around. Obviously, there has been some positive steps to firm up the $10 billion of incremental opportunity. I think that investors can take away from this call that we expect that the roll-forward capital plan at Oncor will go up, and I would expect that there is a fair amount of flexibility about how they sequence projects. I think the near-term focus of the team and Allen Nye were to make sure that we are really engaged in the ongoing process, particularly at the PUCT. 

I think that will also be helpful to them firming up their plans this fall. We expect to come back to you on the fourth quarter call with a robust discussion around Oncor. Clearly, Karen made this point, this is becoming a much bigger part of Sempra. I think as you think about the KKR & Co. Inc. transaction, Constantine, putting that in context, it's all about our pivot to become a pure play utility and allocate capital to the markets where we think investors will assign the highest value, and certainly, we believe that's Texas. The story in Texas continues to get better. Some of these near-term issues need to be dealt with, and that's obviously going to be a priority for Allen Nye's team. 

Excellent. Maybe just a quick housekeeping item on the earlier announced ECA delays. How are you thinking about some of the near-term offsets going into year-end? Any potential re-proof of the SIP transaction or are those two separate tracks?

Yeah. Thank you for that question. We put out a press release just over a week ago that gave kind of a comprehensive update on Sempra Infrastructure. I think there's a couple key points here to your question. First off, the two very large projects at Port Arthur, both Phase 1 and Phase 2, are on time and on budget. They're proceeding very well. Obviously, anytime you have a commissioning process like you have at ECA, there's a fair amount of complexity to that. I continue to feel quite constructive about the work that's underway to commission that project. Justin, you recall Justin Bird is the CEO of Sempra Infrastructure, Constantine. It would be helpful if you provide some additional details about

What you found in the root cause analysis and how you think about the timeline going forward this fall?

Yeah. As you recall, after we exported the first cargo out of ECA in July, we shut down the plant for planned maintenance and inspections. During that time, we discovered damage to equipment connected to the plant's mixed refrigerant compressors. We are working with our EPC contractor and the OEM, the original equipment vendor, on the root cause and our mediation plan. Given where we are, we expect the project to reach substantial completion in the fourth quarter of 2026, with sales under our long-term, sale and purchase agreements commencing shortly thereafter. We don't anticipate additional delay after that at ECA. Again, the substantial completion of ECA is not a condition precedent under the SI transaction. 

Really appreciate that. Abundantly clear. Thank you very much.

Thank you. As a reminder, we do ask that you please limit yourselves to one question and one follow-up. Our next question will come from Steve Fleishman from Wolfe. Your line is open.

Yeah. Hi, Jeff and team. Maybe you could just talk to some of the recent political commentary on the 765 kV approval process and thoughts on any risk of that changing or just where do you think that goes from here? Any color on that?

Sure. Let me make a couple points here. I mentioned this to Constantine's question, Steve, but we continue to think the long-term picture at Oncor is intact and improving. Obviously, to your point, there's been some important recent developments, I'll make two quick points here. I think the theme is we remain constructive. The most important thing that we'll be hearing out of Austin is to make sure that we're spending enough time to fully integrate the voices and concerns from landowners. We want to make sure, obviously, that process is inclusive. That's been a clear directive from the governor's office, I think that's also something that the PUCT is working hard to ensure happens. 

The key theme, I think you're hearing people focus on, Steve, is if it takes a little bit more time in the process stage to get to what we think is a durable framework that allows us to invest capital with more certainty, we think this process will be time well spent. I would also note at recent Senate hearings, it's very clear that there's two priorities being focused on. One is protecting landowner interests, and secondly, also making sure that Texas has the infrastructure needed to support its continued growth. I think you saw some of that echoed by the lieutenant governor, and obviously we want to make sure that the PUCT process, and Allen and his team will participate.

I know it's been a very high focus for Allen, is making sure that we're being inclusive of all the different voices that have a stake in the outcome here. If I could, Allen, maybe you could provide a little bit more commentary on where you see the 765 process going from here.

Yeah, sure Jeff. Thanks, Steve. I think the way we're thinking about the 765 issue right now is obviously there was a hearing on the 29th. It lasted 15 hours, followed by the statements issued by Chairman Schwertner and Lieutenant Governor Patrick. As Jeff said, overall, there's kind of two key themes that we're seeing. One, I think state leaders thoughtfully and appropriately responding to the landowner concerns. Two, I believe clear affirmation that Texas needs a reliable grid and more investment. That's a balance that we've been working hard on to strike across all four of our Permian import projects. Just to give you some examples, we mailed notice to over 12,000 landowners, more than required by the PUC rules. We mailed notice to over 1,000 elected officials. We filed 529 unique routes.

We added 110 link segments in direct response to public feedback. We had 16 days of hearings. At this point, the SOAH, State Office of Administrative Hearings, judges have issued PFDs in three of our four dockets. We expect the fourth to come sometime in mid-August. Those proposed orders now go to the PUC. The PUC can accept them, they can deny them, they can modify them, or they can request more evidence. We're hopeful that given the significant reliability needs in the Permian, the PUC can reach a timely resolution of those dockets. Whatever they decide, we're committed to, and we look forward to working collaboratively with our regulators, the impacted landowners, obviously our state officials, to advance a reliable grid that meets the needs of Texas and our customers while protecting landowner rights. As Jeff said, we remain constructive.    

Okay, one follow-up, or I guess an unrelated follow-up. Just any sense on how things are developing on the California wildfire liability legislation and related, obviously, issues and just your confidence on something constructive getting done there?

Yeah, thanks for asking that question, Steve. I think one of the things that really resonates with me is the central focus for policymakers in the state, I think, are focused on the right thing. The key theme here is livability. I think people recognize when you think about the white paper from the utilities, the feedback from the CPUC, the report that was provided by the earthquake authority. I think it really recognizes, Steve, that the status quo doesn't work. If we're going to get at this issue of livability, you've got to be willing to address a larger ecosystem of related considerations. I'll offer a few to you.

One of which is, there's a big focus in this legislative session on ensuring that housing is more accessible and more affordable, that we take steps to create a more vibrant insurance marketplace, that there are steps taken and active considerations to put new safeguards in place to mitigate risk to California families. Kind of addressing that entire ecosystem, I think there's a lot of focus on making sure that providers of utility services remain financially strong. The focus, Steve, here needs to be on good public policy for the state of California and getting at the heart of the livability issue. 

If you look at some of the reports that have come out from both Moody's and S&P, they clearly are focused on making sure that some type of legislation comes out that avoids utilities moving to a higher rate environment and continues to allow California to be economically competitive. I would conclude by saying, I think Governor Newsom and the leadership of both houses deserve a ton of credit. They're very much actively working on this issue. This is clearly, Steve, not an easy task, I continue to believe that the right people are focused on the right set of issues, I continue to believe that we'll see solid progress during this legislative session. I'll stop there and see if you want to ask additional questions.

No, I appreciate that. I asked my two, I'll let someone else. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question will come from David Arcaro from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Hey there. Thank you so much. Let me see. One thing I wanted to get a little bit of elaboration on was your large load pipeline in ERCOT. Let me see. I guess as I'm just thinking about, you've updated the overall interconnection queue here to 298 GW at Oncor. I think last quarter you had mentioned 127 GW of advanced pipeline, and now you've got the, obviously drilling down further into the Batch Zero at 44 GW. I guess I'm just looking for a little bit of help to understand the relationship there. Is there still a very big advanced pipeline of realistic data centers? When could those come in, and how do you kind of frame that up in the context of Batch Zero?

Thank you for the question. I'll make a couple comments and pass it to Allen. The way I would think about it is, all across the U.S., it doesn't matter whether you're in PJM or you're in the CAISO or you're in ERCOT, we as a nation are struggling with ways to address issues around being short or net short dispatchable generation. We're addressing ways that we can see large load customers come onto the system and ways that we can meet that growth and make sure that we can allocate costs to protect the residential consumer. Frame this, David, as a starting point as a national issue. What I think is exciting is there is a clear signal that Texas is open for business.

One of the things that there's strong alignment on across the legislature and executive branch is they want to continue to advance the Texas miracle, that comes back to the Batch Process that's being led by ERCOT. Think about a situation where you've got close to 500 GW of generation on the sideline waiting to come on the system, and similarly, over 400 GW of large load customers. That Batch Process is intended to sequence generation with large loads. Over time, it will be a sequencing effect that's intended to balance what we think is going to be remarkable load growth. Here's the issue. Getting the process right is really important. It's complex, you've seen a lot of different voices participate in the process. I think the long-term story for Oncor will continue to get better. 

This state is focused on the right issues, I heard someone, I had a conversation recently with the CEO of the U.S. Chamber, who made a comment, David, that really resonated with me, is you may not be able to solve all the problems in this country with higher economic growth, you can't solve any problems without it. I think Texas recognizes that, I think there's a lot of goodwill being spent making sure that we have the right framework to allow folks to invest the capital needed to meet the needs of stakeholders. If you could, Allen, you mind walking through kind of where you're at with your queue and how you see it unfolding?

Yeah, sure, Jeff. Thanks, David. I think you got the numbers right. I mean, we got 44 GW in our service territory that's presently in the Batch Zero Process. You referenced the 127.5 from the last call. The relationship between those two numbers, the 127.5 was what we had in our RTP submission versus the 44 in the Batch Zero. The delta there is that the Batch Zero rules were finalized in June. They're a different set of rules than the RTP submission rules. Batch required things like finalization of studies, posting financial security of $50,000 a MW, attestations of site control and contracting resources, things like that. That's the difference between the 127.5 and the 44. Regarding your question about, is there a lot still out there? Obviously, you also referenced the 298 total overall queue. I think we were at 283 last time.

I will direct you to, I think in our earnings release, we talked about some of our growth numbers. The answer to your question is yes. Is there more out there? Total active requests year-to-date for transmission TOIs is up 15%. LC&I, minus data centers, new requests are up 8% quarter over same quarter last year, and active are up about 22% second quarter of 2026 versus second quarter of 2025. We continue to have really strong growth, really strong interest, and yes, there is more out there.

Excellent. Yeah, thanks for all that color. Appreciate that. Relatedly, I just wanted to clarify the additional Batch Zero capital investment opportunities in terms of when you could frame that up and quantify it. Is that something that comes after April of 2027 next year? Is it something we could get mid-year in terms of the timing just as ERCOT goes through the batch process?  

Thank you, David. I think you've got the timeline correct. We obviously will look to update Sempra's roll-forward five-year plan as well as Oncor's on the Q4 call. I think in my prepared remarks, we talked about the fact that we think that visibility into additional capital that we require to support the batch process as it moves forward will be information we get after that. I think we'll have to revisit how we can continue to be as transparent as possible following Q4, we're excited to bring those additional numbers to you at the right time. 

Thank you. Our next question comes from Nicholas Campanella from Barclays. Your line is open.

I just wanted to ask if we could be a little bit more clear just on the batch process, just the actual next steps. To my understanding, there's a good cause exception request of the PUCT, do you guys think that that gets acknowledged and then we just kind of keep moving along with the prior schedule, or are we kind of on pause until we get past November election? Any thoughts from Oncor, if we could see additional legislation in the next session around this too would be helpful. Thanks.

Yes. I'll make a couple comments, Allen, I'd appreciate if you do as well. I think one of the things we've made clear on this call, I know you're on top of this, Nick, is we've laid out a path here where we think we feel good about the base capital plan at Oncor. We've got improving confidence in the additional capital opportunities, certainly, we think there will be a big backlog of new capital opportunities that fall outside of both of those two first buckets. As this goes forward, we're seeing strong leadership, I think, from Greg Abbott. The PUCT has obviously taken up the issue as well, I think as it goes forward, we'll have more visibility to it in the next few months.

Allen, maybe talk about what your expectations are for the process being firmed up and whether you think there'll be potential legislation would be helpful.

Yeah, you bet. Hey, Nick. I think the way we're thinking about it is, obviously, Governor Abbott issued his letter on August 3rd, calling for the comprehensive verification and audit of all the data centers before they can interconnect. The immediate impact is, I think, exactly the way you described it. ERCOT previously was going to notify TDSPs on August 7th of the loads that could potentially be in Batch Zero, now ERCOT apparently intends to consult with the PUC on next steps and seek approval for a good cause exception related to the Batch Zero timeline and process at the August 20 PUC open meeting. We've really been focused on August 20 as being the next big event where we may learn more about what's going to go on.

The only other thing I would say is it's also our perspective that these projects that were going to make it into Batch Zero were always subject to a validation process to ensure that they met the criteria of the new rules. With the comprehensive audit moving to the front end and effectively reordering the prior process, we think it will benefit the process by allowing more participation on the front end and lead potentially to a more durable framework on the back end. That's probably what we know right now. 

Yeah, I think that's a really good point, too, is the way this is being structured, it's almost like a reordering of the existing process, and I think it's designed, I think, thoughtfully by the Governor to make sure that there's more input on the front end. If we get to a more durable framework on the back end, Nick, I think that's a win for everyone in the process.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for sharing those thoughts. Then I guess just coming back to the questions on California legislation, I know that there's been wide discussion that this is a more than utilities type problem for the state, right? Everyone has to bring something to the table. Just how do we kind of think about where you guys are drawing the line on maybe trading things like future contributions to Phase 2 fund?

Sure. I'll make a couple comments here, then I'll pass it to Caroline Winn, Nick, who you know, who runs California. In my earlier remarks on today's call, I think it was really important that for Sempra and other participants in the market to frame this correctly. I think for us to see successful legislation, it really goes through making sure it's focused primarily on public policy that improves livability, right? As you think about the utility side of it, I think this is less about pushing for a quote-unquote, utility bailout bill. This is more about making sure that everyone's joined around the exercise of improving the environment for California families. I think an output from that will be there's a lot of benefit to California families when load-serving entities are financially healthy. I think that will be important.

In terms of the legislation itself, we have been active. We're working through all the various constituencies. I have been very pleased with the leadership of the state, and I really feel great about the role that Governor Newsom is playing. I think it's a little bit premature for us to front-run the process without having the text of a bill, Nick, in front of us. I think it's important not to pass judgment there, and we'll look at the totality of the bill and the benefits to the entire list of stakeholders before we weigh in on any bright lines around what we might be expecting. Caroline, I know you've done a lot of work in this area. Could you add some additional color for Nick's benefit? 

Sure. Happy to. Hi, Nick. We are encouraged by not only the ongoing dialogue, but importantly, the range of solutions that are being discussed. I'm pleased with the broad recognition that California would benefit from a more durable wildfire framework. That said, I'll agree with Jeff that it's premature to assess any specific proposal until there's actual bill language for us to evaluate and a clear understanding of how it would operate as part of the broader package. Count on us to continue to engage constructively over the last three weeks of session, but we don't want to get ahead of the process. I'll just end with this, that our focus remains unchanged, that we're going to operate the system safely, we'll execute on our wildfire mitigation plans, maintain financial discipline, and invest in the system in a way that supports customers, communities, and long-term shareholder value.

We'll evaluate any legislation against those principles, and we'll be able to communicate our assessment at the appropriate time. Thanks.

Thanks, Caroline. Nick, I would just conclude, and I made this comment before, that a lot of people have sought us out and asked for their views on this. I think the thing I keep coming back to is, and I think I've been pretty clear, I'm constructive. I actually think we're going to get some solid legislation this session, and I'm really pleased with the leadership that we're hearing from key folks. I don't want to get ahead of the process. Caroline's absolutely right. There's a long way to go. We want to see the text language. It's a very complicated exercise. The reason I'm constructive is I think it's the right thing for the state. I think it's the right thing for livability. I think it's the right thing to improve affordability.  

When you line it up around what's right from a public policy standpoint, it becomes just a good old-fashioned leadership challenge, I'm pleased with the people that are stepping forward to address it in Sacramento.

Thank you. Our next question will come from Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Jefferies. Your line is open.

Hi. Sorry to disappoint, good afternoon. It's Paul Zimbardo on for Julien today.

Of course. Thank you very much. I know a lot has been asked already. Just on the good old transmission side of the business, kind of the earlier stage projects, any view on timing changes on some of these Certificate of Convenience and Necessity approvals just related to what's going on? Or would you describe things as on track?

Yeah, I would describe things as on track, and I'll pass it to Allen. Let me just make a quick point you may find helpful, Paul. Oncor's base capital plan is $47.5 billion. They only have about $5 billion of that base capital program that's focused on 765 import pathways related to the Permian. I think Allen and Don have enough flexibility in their capital program to adjust the timing and sequencing of those projects if they need to. We continue to feel good about Oncor's five-year capital plan and look forward to coming back in Q4 to update you on how we might grow that going forward. Allen, on the specific issue of where you're at with CCNs, you feel like things are on track and you want to add additional color for Paul's benefit?

Yeah, I don't have much to add. I'll simply say, I take Chairman Schwertner and Lieutenant Governor Patrick's statements very seriously. We intend to work with landowners and work through this process. Just right now, it's so recent, I don't have really a very good understanding or belief about what's going to happen or what timelines could change or not.

Okay. No, understood. One follow-up on the Batch Zero. You mentioned the 8 GW of kind of load that is already in process. If you could elaborate that a little bit, does that require capital to go? Is that kind of in that upside to the upside capital bucket as well? If you could help on that 8 GW scope. Thank you.

Yeah. I think when you think about that 44 GW that we have identified in today's call, the reason we called out that 8 GW is that is projects that have moved forward and they are already interconnected. All it is pointing to is the customers that have been interconnected, their overall utilization is not at the 8 GW level. They are already connected, and their load is expected to increase over time to 8 GW. The reason that is important, and I think we called this out, it shows that that load growth is not just a prospective opportunity. It is something that is coming onto Oncor's system currently.  

Okay. No, that is helpful. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question will come from Richard Sunderland from Truist Securities. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning. Thanks for the time today. Sticking with some of these Oncor upside CapEx themes, you're very clear on the Batch Zero sequencing relative to your 4Q update. Can you speak to other opportunities that could fold into the upside bucket on that 4Q update? Presumably, there's things like the SRP that would remain in there, but just trying to think about other things that might translate into upside that aren't currently being discussed right now.

Thank you for the question, Richard. We outlined how we thought about the upside opportunity for Oncor on our Q4 call. That might be something that you go back and reference. In our current materials, if you look at slide four, we're talking about the $47.5 billion base capital plan that we announced four months ago, you can see that we've articulated the three buckets that form what we've referred to as the $10 billion incremental capital opportunity. That's $4 billion associated with these recently endorsed DFW projects, $3 billion associated with non-Permian 765 projects. Then you referenced it correctly, they do expect to make a system resiliency plan filing next year. They've earmarked about $3 billion of capital for that. That number can move around a little bit.

To your point, there may be other opportunities that come to us before we announce this next February. I think we're quite constructive on those two buckets together, the $47.5 billion and also this $10 billion opportunity. I think, Richard, one of the key things we've taken a lot of questions on since our last call was how this batch process fit into our current plan. I think it's been a real clear takeaway for us that the batch process is clearly an incremental opportunity beyond the $47.5 billion and beyond the $10 billion of upside capital they have. The challenge will be, as that process unfolds, we don't think we'll have a lot more definition on the batch-related capital until later in 2027.

Got it. Thanks for running through all that. I'll just ask the question in a different way. Is the $10 billion that you currently call out as Oncor upside, kind of what you're working with, and then some of that presumably translates into base on that February update, and then the remainder stays as upside? Or do you see other opportunities and programs that may backfill whatever moves into base? 

I appreciate the clarification. Let me go back a little bit because I think that the past is prologue here. If you go back and look where we were in February of 2025, at the 100% level, Oncor had a $36 billion capital program, and they had about $12 billion of upside opportunities. Through the year, they continued to work on that pipeline, and by the time they got to February this year, they took the $36 billion and the $12 billion and announced a brand-new base capital plan of $47.5 billion. Then, Richard, they re-upped that opportunity bucket back to $10 billion. I think that is probably something like that is what we expect.

We expect to see all or portions of the $10 billion get rolled into the $47.5 billion, and I'm quite confident that Don and Allen will come back with a very large upside bucket beyond that. That's what we'll cover on the February call.

Sempra (SRE) Q2 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants