SRE Sempra

Debra L. Reed

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

William C. Rusnack

Lead Independent Director

Our Board of Directors is making these materials available to you over the Internet or by mailing paper copies to you in connection with Sempra Energy’s Annual Shareholders Meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 13, 2015. As a shareholder, you are invited to attend the Annual Meeting and are entitled and requested to vote on the

business items described in this proxy statement. This proxy statement includes information that we are required to provide under Securities and Exchange Commission rules and is designed to assist you in voting your shares.

We furnish proxy materials over the Internet to shareholders who have not requested a paper copy. To conserve paper and reduce costs, we mail a notice about the Internet availability of the proxy materials.

All shareholders receiving the notice may access the proxy materials over the Internet and request a paper copy by mail or an electronic copy by email. The notice contains instructions on how to do so. It also contains instructions on how you may request proxy materials by mail or email on an ongoing basis.

If you are a shareholder of record and wish to receive paper copies of future proxy materials, please access www.voteproxy.com on the Internet. Click on Request Paper Copies of Materials, then click on Sempra Energy. You will see an option to elect to receive paper copies each year. You also may request to receive paper copies of future proxy materials by calling (888) 776-9962 from the United States and Canada or +1 (718) 921-8562 from other countries, or by emailing info@amstock.com.

If you are a shareholder of record and wish to request electronic delivery of proxy materials in the future, please access www.amstock.com on the Internet. Click on Shareholder Account Access and enroll. Please enter your account number and tax identification number to log in, then select Receive Company Mailings Via Email and provide your email address.

If you choose to access future proxy materials electronically, you will receive an email with instructions containing a link to the website where the materials are available and a link to the proxy voting website. Your election to access proxy materials electronically will remain in effect until you terminate it.

We are providing some of our shareholders, including those who previously have requested paper copies, with a paper copy of the proxy materials instead of a notice about the Internet availability of the proxy materials.

In addition, we are providing notice of the availability of the proxy materials by email to our shareholders who previously have elected electronic delivery. The email contains a link to the website where the proxy materials are available and a link to the proxy voting website.

Sempra Energy is making this solicitation and will pay the entire cost of preparing, assembling, printing, mailing and distributing these proxy materials and of soliciting proxies.

Our directors, officers and employees also may solicit proxies in person, by telephone or by electronic communication. They will not receive any additional compensation for these activities.

We also have hired Georgeson Inc. to assist us in distributing proxy materials and soliciting proxies. We will pay a base fee of $27,500, plus customary costs and expenses for these services.

We will reimburse brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries for forwarding proxy materials to beneficial shareholders.

To conduct business at the Annual Meeting, a quorum consisting of a majority of our outstanding shares must be present in person or represented by proxy.

In order for shareholders to elect directors or approve a proposal, such director or proposal must receive “FOR” votes constituting a majority of the shares represented and voting at the Annual Meeting at which a quorum is present, and the “FOR” votes must also represent more than 25 percent of our outstanding shares.

If you indicate “ABSTAIN,” your vote will be counted for purposes of determining the presence or absence of a quorum for the transaction of business at the Annual Meeting, but will not be considered a vote cast with respect to the election of any director nominee or any other proposal.

As described below, broker non-votes will be counted for determining the presence or absence of a quorum for the transaction of business at the Annual Meeting, but will not be considered votes cast with respect to the election of any director nominee or on any other proposal.

Our Employee Savings Plans automatically provide for confidential voting. Other shareholders may elect that their identity and individual vote be held confidential by marking the appropriate box on their proxy card or ballot. Confidentiality elections will not apply to the extent that voting disclosure is required by law or is necessary or appropriate to assert or defend any claim relating to voting. They also will not apply

with respect to any matter for which votes are solicited in opposition to the director nominees or voting recommendations of our Board of Directors, unless the persons engaging in the opposing solicitation provide shareholders with voting confidentiality comparable to that which we provide.

You are entitled to one vote for each share of our common stock that you owned at the close of business on March 17, 2015, the record date for the Annual Meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof. You may vote all shares owned by you on the record date, including

(a) shares held directly in your name as the shareholder of record and (b) shares held for you as the beneficial owner through a bank, broker or other nominee. On the record date, 247,338,992 shares of our common stock were outstanding.

If your shares are held through a bank, broker or other nominee, it is likely that they are registered in the name of the nominee and you are the beneficial owner of shares held in street name. You are also the beneficial owner of any shares that you may own through our Employee Savings Plans.

As the beneficial owner of shares held for your account, you have the right to direct the registered holder to vote your shares as you instruct,

and you also are invited to attend the Annual Meeting. Your bank, broker, plan trustee or other nominee has provided a voting instruction card for you to use in directing how your shares are to be voted. However, since a beneficial owner is not the shareholder of record, you may not vote your shares in person at the meeting unless you obtain a legal proxy from the registered holder of the shares giving you the right to do so.

You may vote in person at the Annual Meeting those shares that you hold in your name as the shareholder of record. You may vote in person shares for which you are the beneficial owner only by obtaining a legal proxy giving you the right to vote the shares from the bank, broker or other nominee that is the registered holder of your shares. You may not vote in person those shares you own through our Employee Savings Plans. Please see Question 24 for deadlines to vote such shares.

Even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we recommend that you also submit your proxy or voting instructions as described below so that your vote will be counted if you later decide not to attend.

Whether you hold your shares as a shareholder of record or as a beneficial owner, you may direct how your shares are to be voted without attending the Annual Meeting. If you are a shareholder of record, you may vote by submitting a proxy. If you hold shares as a beneficial owner, you may vote by submitting voting instructions to the registered owner of your shares.

For directions on how to vote, please refer to the following instructions and those included on your proxy or voting instruction card.

Voting by Internet – Shareholders who have received a notice of the availability of our proxy materials by mail or email may vote over the Internet by following the instructions in the notice or email. Those who have received a paper copy of the proxy or voting instruction card by mail may vote over the Internet by following the instructions on the card.

Voting by Telephone – Shareholders of record may vote by telephone by calling (800) 776-9437 from the United States and Canada or +1 (718) 921-8500 from other countries and following the instructions. When voting by telephone, shareholders must have available the control number included on their proxy card, notice of availability of proxy materials or email notification.

Most shareholders who are beneficial owners of their shares and have received a voting instruction card by mail may vote by phone by calling the number specified on the voting instruction card provided by their bank, broker or nominee. These shareholders should check the card for telephone voting availability.

Voting by Mail – Shareholders who have received a paper copy of these proxy materials may vote by mail by signing, dating and returning their proxy or voting instruction card.

If you hold shares through our Employee Savings Plans, they will be voted as you instruct on the proxy or voting instruction card provided to you.

If you sign and return your proxy or voting instruction card without giving specific instructions or you do not timely return your card, your shares will be voted in the same manner and proportion as shares for which instructions are timely received from other plan participants,

unless contrary to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. For example, if you own 1,000 shares through the plan and fail to provide timely voting instructions for your shares, the plan trustee would vote them. If the trustee had timely received instructions from other plan participants to vote their plan shares 60 percent for, 35 percent against and 5 percent abstain on a particular item of business, the trustee, on that item, would vote your shares 600 for, 350 against and 50 abstain.

If your shares are held through a brokerage firm, they will be voted as you instruct on the voting instruction card provided by your broker. If you sign and return your card without giving specific instructions, your shares will be voted in accordance with the recommendations of our Board of Directors.

If you do not provide timely instructions as to how your brokerage shares are to be voted, your broker will have the authority to vote them only on

the proposal to ratify our independent registered public accounting firm. Your broker will be prohibited from voting your shares on the election of directors, the advisory approval of our executive compensation and the shareholder proposal. These “broker non-votes” will be counted only for the purpose of determining whether a quorum is present at the meeting and not as votes cast.

Shares that you own as a shareholder of record will be voted as you instruct on your proxy card. If you sign and return your proxy card without giving specific instructions, they will be voted in accordance with the recommendations of our Board of Directors.

If you do not timely return your proxy card, your shares will not be voted unless you or your proxy holder attends the Annual Meeting and votes in person as described in Question 18.

You may change your vote at any time prior to the vote at the Annual Meeting, except that any change to your voting instructions for shares held in our Employee Savings Plans must be received by 8:00 a.m. Eastern time on Monday, May 11, 2015.

If you are a shareholder of record, you may change your vote by granting a new proxy bearing a later date (which automatically revokes the earlier proxy), by providing a written notice of revocation to our Corporate Secretary at the address set forth in Question 28 prior to your

shares being voted, or by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person. Attendance at the meeting will not cause your previously granted proxy to be revoked unless you specifically so request.

For shares you hold as a beneficial owner, you may change your vote by timely submitting new voting instructions to your bank, broker or other nominee (which revokes your earlier instructions), or, if you have obtained a legal proxy from the nominee giving you the right to vote your shares, by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person.

You may attend the Annual Meeting only if you were a Sempra Energy shareholder at the close of business on March 17, 2015, the record date for the Annual Meeting, or you hold a valid proxy to vote at the meeting. You should be prepared to present photo identification to be admitted to the meeting.

If you are a shareholder of record or hold shares through our Direct Stock Purchase Plan or Employee Savings Plans, an admission ticket has been included as part of your notice of Internet availability of proxy materials or your proxy card. If you plan to attend the meeting, please bring the admission ticket with you. If you do not bring your admission ticket, your name must be verified against our list of shareholders of record and plan participants.

If you are not a shareholder of record but are the beneficial owner of shares held in street name through a bank, broker or other nominee, you must provide proof of beneficial ownership on the record date, such as your most recent account statement prior to March 17, 2015, a copy of the voting instruction card provided by your nominee, or other similar evidence of share ownership.

The meeting will begin promptly at 9:00 a.m., local time. Check-in will begin at 8:00 a.m., and you should allow ample time for check-in procedures.

Shareholder proposals that are intended to be included in our proxy materials for next year’s Annual Shareholders Meeting must be received by our Corporate Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. San Diego time on November 27, 2015 and must be submitted to the following address if sent prior to July 1, 2015:

		Corporate Secretary Sempra Energy 101 Ash Street San Diego, CA 92101-3017

And if submitted on or after July 1, 2015, must be sent to the following address:

		Corporate Secretary Sempra Energy 488 8th Avenue San Diego, CA 92101

Proposals that are not timely submitted or are submitted to the incorrect address or other than to the attention of our Corporate Secretary may be excluded from our proxy materials.

Shareholder proponents must meet the eligibility requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Shareholder Proposal Rule (Rule 14a-8), and their proposals must comply with the requirements of that rule to be included in our proxy materials.

Shareholders who wish to nominate director candidates or to present other items of business to be voted on at an Annual Shareholders Meeting must give written notice of their intention to do so to our Corporate Secretary at the appropriate address set forth in Question 28. We must receive the notice at least 90 days but not more than 120 days before the date corresponding to the first anniversary of the date of the last Annual Shareholders Meeting. The notice also must include the information required by our bylaws, which may be obtained as provided in Question 31, and must be updated and supplemented as provided in the bylaws.

The time for us to receive notice of business items for the 2015 Annual Meeting has expired. The period for the receipt from shareholders of notice of business items for the 2016 Annual Meeting will begin on January 14, 2016 and end on February 13, 2016. These notice requirements do not apply to shareholder proposals intended for inclusion in our proxy materials under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Shareholder Proposal Rule (Rule 14a-8). The deadline for receiving those proposals is set forth in Question 28. The notice requirements also do not apply to questions that a shareholder may wish to ask at the Annual Shareholders Meeting.

Shareholders may recommend director candidates for consideration by the Corporate Governance Committee of our Board of Directors by writing to our Corporate Secretary at the appropriate address set forth in Question 28. A recommendation must be accompanied by a statement from the candidate that he or she would give favorable consideration to

serving on the board and should include sufficient biographical and other information concerning the candidate and his or her qualifications to permit the committee to make an informed decision as to whether further consideration of the candidate would be warranted.

Our consolidated financial statements are included in our 2014 Annual Report to Shareholders that accompanies this proxy statement.

Additional information regarding the company is included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, which we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Our

Form 10-K and other information that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission are available on our website at www.sempra.com under the “Investors” and “Company SEC Filings” tabs. We also will furnish a copy of our 2014 Form 10-K (excluding exhibits, except those that are specifically requested) without charge to any shareholder who so requests by writing to us at our address set forth in Question 28.

By writing to us, shareholders also may obtain, without charge, a copy of our bylaws, corporate governance guidelines, codes of conduct and board committee charters. You also can view these materials on the

Internet by accessing our website at www.sempra.com and clicking on the “Investors” tab, then clicking on the “Governance” tab.

We have a dividend reinvestment and direct stock purchase program under which you may have all or a portion of your dividends automatically reinvested to purchase our shares. You also may elect to purchase additional shares through optional cash payments. For information about this program, please contact American Stock Transfer & Trust Company at the address or the phone numbers listed at the left.

If you need additional copies of this proxy statement or voting materials, please contact Georgeson Inc. as described at the left or send an email to SempraEnergy@georgeson.com.

Our business and affairs are managed and all corporate powers are exercised under the direction of our Board of Directors. The board establishes fundamental corporate policies and oversees the performance of the company and our Chief Executive Officer and the other officers to whom the board has delegated day-to-day business operations.

The board has adopted corporate governance guidelines that set forth expectations for directors, director independence standards, board committee structure and functions, and other policies for the company’s governance. It also has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for Directors and Officers. Officers also are subject to business conduct

guidelines that apply to all employees. Several standing and special committees assist the board in carrying out its responsibilities. Each operates under a written charter adopted by the board.

Our corporate governance guidelines, committee charters, including our Audit, Compensation, and Corporate Governance Committee charters, and codes of conduct are posted on our website at www.sempra.com under the “Investors” and “Governance” tabs. Paper copies may be obtained upon request by writing to: Corporate Secretary, Sempra Energy, at 101 Ash Street, San Diego, California 92101-3017 prior to July 1, 2015 and at 488 8^th Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101 on or after July 1, 2015.

In addition to its general oversight role, our Board of Directors performs a number of specific functions, including:

The Board of Directors retains the flexibility to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the positions of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board should be combined or separate and whether an independent director should serve as Chairman. This flexibility permits the board to organize its functions and conduct its business in a manner it deems most effective in then prevailing circumstances.

In connection with a shareholder proposal in 2012 looking to separate the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman positions, the board instructed management to actively engage with our largest shareholders and, in particular, those that had supported the proposal. Such engagement included outreach to the holders of over 50 percent of our total outstanding shares and nearly 80 percent of our total institutional share ownership. Through our shareholder outreach program, we learned that most of our largest institutional shareholders who voted in favor of the proposal did so because of the limited role of our Lead Director position, not because they favored appointment of an independent chairman.

Having considered the feedback received from our shareholder engagement outreach, the board took two significant actions in the summer of 2012. First, it amended our corporate governance guidelines to strengthen the Lead Director’s role and responsibilities by adding the following duties:

The above duties are in addition to the following duties and responsibilities previously assigned to, and continuing as the responsibility of, the Lead Director:

The position and role of the Lead Director is intended to provide board leadership where the roles of a combined Chairman and Chief Executive Officer may be in conflict. It is also intended to expand lines of communication between the board and members of management. It is not intended to reduce the free and open access and communications that each independent board member has with other board members and members of management.

The board also amended our bylaws in the summer of 2012 to give itself flexibility to appoint an independent Chairman who is not an officer of the company should it believe that such appointment would be in the best interest of shareholders given the facts and circumstances at that time. The amendments also formally established the office of Lead Director and provided him or her with authority to call special meetings of the board. In addition to these actions to strengthen the Lead Director

role, the board considers other factors in determining the appropriate leadership structure, including the governance structures at other California investor-owned utilities.

In 2013, a shareholder proposal looking to separate the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman was soundly defeated, with over 81 percent of the shares voted rejecting this proposal. Based upon an extensive shareholder outreach program conducted predominantly in the fall of 2014, most of our largest institutional shareholders continued to express no preference for an independent chair as long as the Lead Director has significant duties as is the case at Sempra. In addition, at the request of the Corporate Governance Committee, we conducted a survey of our 29 peer companies in the S&P 500 Utilities Index to see if any had a policy requiring the Chair to be independent. Based upon this survey, we found that as of February 2015, 20 of these companies combined the offices of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. According to their Corporate Governance Guidelines, the remaining 9 companies that split these roles have no policy requiring that the Chair be independent.

After Donald E. Felsinger retired as Chairman on November 30, 2012, consistent with the board’s well-considered succession planning process and following an extended period of deliberation, the board elected Debra L. Reed as Chairman effective December 1, 2012. In addition to being Chairman, Ms. Reed retained her office of Chief Executive Officer.

Ms. Reed is a 37-year employee of the Sempra Energy family of companies with an outstanding career of achievement, as well as extensive industry experience and public board service. She also has significant experience in working with and adhering to the rules established by the California Public Utilities Commission, the principal regulator of our California utilities.

The Board of Directors believes that the company and its shareholders currently are best served by having Ms. Reed continue to serve as Chairman of the Board as well as Chief Executive Officer. By combining these positions, Ms. Reed serves as a bridge between the board and the operating organization and provides critical leadership for the strategic initiatives and challenges of the future. During those periods in which we do not have a non-executive Chairman, the independent directors annually select an independent director as the Lead Director. William C. Rusnack continues to serve as our Lead Director.

The Board of Directors believes that its independence and oversight of management is maintained effectively through this flexible leadership structure, our board’s composition and sound corporate governance policies and practices.

The Board of Directors determines the independence of our directors by applying the independence principles and standards established by the New York Stock Exchange. These provide that a director is independent only if the board affirmatively determines that the director has no direct or indirect material relationship with the company. They also identify various relationships that preclude a determination of director independence. Material relationships may include commercial, industrial, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable, family and other business, professional and personal relationships.

Applying these standards, the board annually reviews the independence of the company’s directors and director nominees. In its most recent review, the board considered, among other things, the absence of any employment relationships between the company and its current directors and nominees (other than Debra L. Reed who is also an executive officer of the company) and their immediate family members; the absence of any of the other specific relationships that would preclude a determination of independence under New York Stock Exchange independence rules; the absence of any affiliation of the company’s directors and their immediate family members with the

company’s independent registered public accounting firm, compensation consultants, legal counsel, and investment bankers; the absence of any transactions with directors and members of their families that would require disclosure in this proxy statement under Securities and Exchange Commission rules regarding related person transactions; and the modest amount of our discretionary contributions to non-profit organizations with which some of our directors or their immediate family members may be associated.

Based upon this review, the board has affirmatively determined that each of the company’s non-employee directors is independent. The independent directors are:

The board has established share ownership guidelines for directors and officers to further strengthen the link between company performance and compensation. For non-employee directors, the guideline is ownership of a number of our shares having a value of five times the directors’ annual base retainer of $85,000, resulting in an ownership guideline equal to $425,000. The Compensation Committee annually reviews adherence to this guideline, which is expected to be attained within five years of becoming a director. For these purposes, share

ownership includes phantom shares into which compensation has been deferred and the vested portion of certain in-the-money stock options, as well as shares owned directly. All of our non-employee directors meet or exceed the guideline. For information regarding executive officer share ownership requirements, please see “Executive Compensation — Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Share Ownership Requirements.”

At regularly scheduled board and committee meetings, directors review and discuss management reports regarding the company’s performance, prospects and plans, as well as significant opportunities and immediate issues facing the company. At least once a year, the board also reviews management’s long-term strategic and financial plans.

The Chairman of the Board proposes the agenda and schedule for each board meeting to the Lead Director who then reviews and modifies or approves it. Committee agendas and schedules are set by or in consultation with the committee chair and with the approval of the Lead Director.

Directors are encouraged to propose agenda items, and any director also may raise at any meeting subjects that are not on the agenda.

Information and other materials important to understanding the business to be conducted at board and committee meetings, to the

extent available, are distributed in writing to the directors in advance of the meeting. Additional information may be presented at the meeting.

An executive session of independent board members is held at each regular board meeting, and any director may call for an executive session at any board meeting. The Lead Director presides over executive sessions. During 2014, the board held seven executive sessions.

During 2014, the board held 11 meetings and committees of the board held 24 meetings. Directors, on an aggregate basis, attended over 96 percent of the combined number of these meetings. Each director attended at least 80 percent of the combined number of meetings of the board and each committee of which the director was a member.

The board encourages all nominees for election as directors to attend the Annual Shareholders Meeting. Last year, all of the nominees for election at the 2014 Annual Meeting attended the meeting.

The Corporate Governance Committee annually reviews and evaluates the performance of the Board of Directors. In order to ensure the objectivity and integrity of this process, an outside law firm is engaged every year to conduct the peer review portion of this evaluation and compile the results. The committee assesses the board’s contribution as a whole and identifies areas in which the board or senior management believes a better contribution may be made. The purpose of the review is to increase the effectiveness of the board, and the results are reviewed with the board and its committees. In addition, each committee, other

than the Executive Committee and the three LNG committees, conducts an annual self-evaluation. The LNG Government Relations and Permitting Committee and LNG Joint Venture and Financing Committee were dissolved effective December 31, 2014.

Our board annually reviews the individual performance and qualifications of each director who may wish to be considered for nomination to an additional term. The evaluations are reviewed by the Corporate Governance Committee, which makes recommendations to the board regarding nominees for election as directors.

The board has developed an integrated risk management framework to assess, prioritize, manage and monitor risks across the company’s operations. Sempra’s full board has ultimate responsibility for risk oversight under this framework. Consistent with this approach, our corporate governance guidelines provide that the specific functions of the Board of Directors include assessing and monitoring risks and risk management strategies.

The board believes that risk stretches far beyond any one committee. As a result, the board has diversified its risk oversight responsibilities across its membership, housing categories of risk oversight within board committees by topic. Any risk oversight that does not fall within a particular committee remains with the full board.

The board reviews and monitors strategic, financial and operating plans that are intended to provide sustainable long-term growth with an acceptable level of risk. Each of our business units is responsible for identifying and moderating risk in a manner consistent with these goals. The board fulfills its risk oversight function through receipt of reports provided both directly to the board and to appropriate board committees. Based on these reports, the board or appropriate committees establish or amend existing risk oversight and control mechanisms. In addition, the company has a robust internal audit function that reports directly to the Audit Committee.

The board and its committees mitigate risk through establishing policies that include:

With respect to the investments where we do not operate or control the related entity or operations, in addition to closely monitoring these investments, we mitigate risk by having representation on the governing body; by negotiating contractual protections such as limiting our liability, having independent audit rights or prohibiting certain actions without our consent; by carefully selecting our business partners; or by using a combination of these methods. The risks inherent in these businesses, which primarily involve the generation of energy and transmission of natural gas and propane through pipelines, are similar to those of our subsidiaries and are periodically reviewed by our board and the appropriate board committees.

Our Audit Committee is composed entirely of independent directors. It is directly responsible and has sole authority for selecting, appointing, retaining and overseeing the work and approving the compensation of our independent registered public accounting firm, which reports directly to the committee. The committee prepares the report under the caption “Audit Committee Report.” It also assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling oversight responsibilities regarding:

The board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate. It also has determined that Mr. Brocksmith, who chairs the committee, and Mr. Taylor are each an audit committee financial expert as defined by the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

During 2014, the Audit Committee held seven meetings.

Our Compensation Committee is composed entirely of independent directors. It assists the Board of Directors in the evaluation and compensation of our executives. It establishes our compensation principles and policies and oversees our executive compensation program and executive succession planning. The committee has direct responsibility for:

During 2014, the Compensation Committee held four meetings.

For additional information regarding the Compensation Committee’s principles, policies and practices, please see the discussion under “Executive Compensation — Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

Our Corporate Governance Committee is composed entirely of independent directors. The committee’s responsibilities include:

The committee reviews with the board the skills and characteristics required of directors in the context of current board membership. It seeks a group of individuals who bring to the board a variety of complementary skills and a range of viewpoints, backgrounds, experiences and other individual qualities and attributes that contribute to overall board diversity. It solicits the names of director candidates from a variety of sources, including members of the board and search firms advised of these policies, and also considers candidates submitted by shareholders. The committee assesses the effectiveness of its policies as part of its annual review of board composition and board, committee and individual director performance and in its recommendations of nominees for election as directors at the next Annual Shareholders Meeting.

The committee reviews biographical data and other relevant information regarding potential board candidates, may request additional information from the candidates or other sources and, if the committee deems it appropriate, may interview candidates and consult references and others who may assist in candidate evaluation. The committee evaluates all candidates in the same manner whether identified by shareholders or through other sources.

In considering potential director candidates, the committee evaluates each candidate’s integrity, independence, judgment, knowledge,

experience and other relevant factors to develop an informed opinion of his or her qualifications and ability and commitment to meet the board’s expectations for directors as set forth in our corporate governance guidelines. The committee’s deliberations reflect the board’s requirement that substantially all directors (other than current or former company officers) should be independent and that all director nominees must be financially literate or must become financially literate within a reasonable time after becoming a director. They also reflect the board’s view regarding the appropriate number of directors and the composition of the board, including its belief that the membership of the board should reflect diversity.

The committee in recommending nominees for election as directors at the 2015 Annual Meeting and the board in approving the nominees considered the individual experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of each nominee (including his or her prior contributions to the board), with a view to constituting a board that, as a whole, is well-qualified to oversee our businesses.

With respect to Mr. Rutledge and Dr. Ouchi, the committee and the board also considered that in 2010 they were directors of FirstFed Financial Corp. and during 2009 and prior years they also served as directors of FirstFed’s subsidiary First Federal Bank of California. In January 2009, First Federal Bank consented to an order by the Office of Thrift Supervision that First Federal Bank and its directors and employees cease and desist engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices. In December 2009, First Federal Bank was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and in January 2010, FirstFed Financial filed for liquidation under the Bankruptcy Code. The committee and the board concluded that these events do not reflect upon the integrity of Mr. Rutledge or Dr. Ouchi or, in view of the unprecedented and historic national and international financial crisis that resulted in the insolvency of numerous financial institutions, their ability and qualifications to serve on our board.

During 2014, the Corporate Governance Committee held five meetings.

Our Environmental, Health, Safety and Technology Committee is responsible for:

During 2014, the Environmental, Health, Safety and Technology Committee held four meetings.

Our LNG Construction and Technology Committee is responsible for:

During 2014, the LNG Construction and Technology Committee held one meeting.

Our LNG Government Relations and Permitting Committee was responsible for:

During 2014, the LNG Government Relations and Permitting Committee held one meeting.

This committee was dissolved on December 31, 2014 due to the progress that has been made with our Cameron liquefaction project in these areas.

Our LNG Joint Venture and Financing Committee was responsible for:

During 2014, the LNG Joint Venture and Financing Committee held one meeting.

This committee was dissolved on December 31, 2014 due to the progress that has been made with our Cameron liquefaction project in these areas.

Shareholders, employees and interested parties who wish to communicate with the board, non-management directors as a group, a board committee or a specific director may do so by mail addressed to the attention of our Corporate Secretary. All such communications regarding executive compensation will be relayed to the Compensation Committee Chair for appropriate evaluation and consideration. All such communications regarding accounting, accounting policies, internal accounting controls and procedures, auditing matters, financial reporting processes, or disclosure controls and procedures will be relayed to the Audit Committee Chair.

All other communications are reviewed by the Corporate Secretary and provided to the directors consistent with a screening policy providing that unsolicited items, sales materials, and other routine items and items unrelated to the duties and responsibilities of the board are not relayed to directors. Any communication that is not relayed is recorded in a log and made available to the directors.

The address for these communications sent prior to July 1, 2015 is:

		Corporate Secretary Sempra Energy 101 Ash Street San Diego, CA 92101-3017

And if submitted on or after July 1, 2015, must be sent to the following address:

		Corporate Secretary Sempra Energy 488 8th Avenue San Diego, CA 92101

Directors who are not employees of Sempra Energy received annual retainers as set forth in the table above.

The LNG Joint Venture and Financing Committee and the LNG Government Relations and Permitting Committee were dissolved effective December 31, 2014, as they served the purpose for which they were formed in connection with our Cameron liquefaction project.

Directors may elect to receive their retainer and meeting fees in shares of our common stock or to defer them into an interest-bearing account, phantom investment funds or phantom shares of our common stock.

Each quarter, non-employee directors are credited with a number of phantom shares of our common stock having a market value of $12,500. Following the director’s retirement, the current market value of the shares credited to the director’s account (together with reinvested dividend equivalents) is paid to the director in cash. Directors also receive grants of restricted stock units or phantom shares of our common stock, which are subject to the vesting requirements described below.

Upon first becoming a director, each non-employee director receives a number of restricted stock units or phantom shares having a market value of $180,000 and vesting in equal annual installments of one-third of the original grant (together with related reinvested dividend equivalents) on each of the first three anniversaries of the grant date.

Thereafter, at each annual meeting (other than the annual meeting that coincides with or first follows the director’s election to the board), each non-employee director who continues to serve as a director will receive an additional number of restricted stock units or phantom shares having a market value of $60,000 and vesting on the date of the next annual meeting.

Unvested restricted stock units or phantom shares immediately vest if the director’s service on the board terminates by reason of death, disability or removal without cause. Upon any other termination event, all unvested units or phantom shares are forfeited.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors is composed of the six directors named below, all of whom have been determined by the board to be independent directors. The board also has determined that all members of the committee are financially literate and that Mr. Brocksmith, the chair of the committee, and Mr. Taylor are each an audit committee financial expert as defined by the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The committee’s charter, adopted by the board, is posted on the company’s website at www.sempra.com under the “Investors” and “Governance” tabs.

The committee’s responsibilities include appointing the company’s independent registered public accounting firm, pre-approving both audit and non-audit services to be provided by the firm and assisting the board in providing oversight of the company’s financial reporting process. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the committee meets with the company’s independent registered public accounting firm, internal auditors and management to review accounting, auditing, internal controls and financial reporting matters.

It is not the committee’s responsibility to plan or conduct audits or to determine that the company’s financial statements and disclosures are complete, accurate and in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and applicable laws, rules and regulations. Management is responsible for the company’s financial statements, including the estimates and judgments on which they are based, as well as the company’s financial reporting process, accounting policies, internal audit function, internal accounting controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and risk management. The company’s independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, is responsible for performing an audit of the company’s annual financial statements, expressing an opinion as to the conformity of the annual financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, expressing an opinion as to the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls over financial reporting and reviewing the company’s quarterly financial statements.

The committee has discussed with Deloitte & Touche LLP the matters required to be discussed by the rules of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Auditing Standard No. 16, Communications with Audit Committees, which requires the independent registered public accounting firm to communicate information to the committee regarding the scope and results of its audit of the company’s financial

statements, including information with respect to the firm’s responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, significant accounting policies, management judgments and estimates, any significant audit adjustments, any disagreements with management and any difficulties encountered in performing the audit and other such matters required to be discussed with the committee by those standards.

The committee also has received from Deloitte & Touche LLP a report providing the disclosures required by the applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountant’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence. Deloitte & Touche LLP also has discussed its independence with the committee and confirmed in the report that, in its professional judgment, it is independent of the company within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The committee also considered whether Deloitte & Touche’s provision of non-audit services to the company and its affiliates is compatible with its independence.

The committee also has reviewed and discussed with the company’s senior management the audited financial statements included in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 and management’s reports on the financial statements and internal controls. Management has confirmed to the committee that the financial statements have been prepared with integrity and objectivity and that management has maintained an effective system of internal controls. Deloitte & Touche LLP has expressed its professional opinions that the financial statements conform with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and that management has maintained an effective system of internal controls. In addition, the company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have reviewed with the committee the certifications that each will file with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the policies and procedures management has adopted to support the certifications.

Based on these considerations, the Audit Committee has recommended to the Board of Directors that the company’s audited financial statements be included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The following table shows the number of shares of our common stock beneficially owned at March 17, 2015 by each of our directors, by each of our executive officers named in the executive compensation tables in this proxy statement, and by all of our directors and executive officers as a group. The shares of common stock beneficially owned by our

directors and executive officers as a group total less than 1.0 percent of our outstanding shares. In calculating these percentages, shares under the heading “Phantom Shares” are not included because these phantom shares cannot be voted and may only be settled for cash.

Directors are elected at each Annual Shareholders Meeting for terms expiring at the next Annual Shareholders Meeting.

The Corporate Governance Committee has recommended and the Board of Directors has nominated the following 13 individuals for election as directors, all of whom currently are directors:

Alan L. Boeckmann

James G. Brocksmith Jr.

Kathleen L. Brown

Pablo A. Ferrero

William D. Jones

William G. Ouchi

Debra L. Reed

William C. Rusnack

William P. Rutledge

Lynn Schenk

Jack T. Taylor

Luis M. Téllez

James C. Yardley

Properly executed proxies will be voted for these 13 nominees unless other instructions are specified. If any nominee should become unavailable to serve, the proxies may be voted for a substitute nominee designated by the board, or the board may reduce the authorized number of directors.

We have not received notice of any additional candidates to be nominated for election as directors at the 2015 Annual Meeting and the deadline for notice of the nomination of additional candidates has passed. Consequently, the election of directors will be an uncontested election and our bylaw providing for majority voting in uncontested elections will apply. Under majority voting, to be elected as a director, a nominee must receive votes “FOR” his or her election constituting a majority of the shares represented and voting at the Annual Meeting at which a quorum is present, and the “FOR” votes must also represent more than 25 percent of our outstanding shares. If a nominee who currently is serving as a director does not receive sufficient “FOR” votes to be re-elected, the director will cease to be a director not later than 90 days following the certification of the election results, and the resulting vacancy in the board may be filled by the remaining directors.

The board has determined that each non-employee nominee is an independent director. Information concerning the board’s independence standards is contained under the caption “Corporate Governance — Board of Directors — Director Independence.”

Biographical information regarding each director nominee and his or her qualifications to serve as a director is set forth on the succeeding pages. The year shown as election as a director is the year that the director was first elected as a director of Sempra Energy. Unless otherwise indicated, each director has held his or her principal occupation or other positions with the same or predecessor organizations for at least the last five years. In addition, the following chart summarizes the tenure of our board. As reflected in the chart, our board has an average tenure of 7.7 years, with over 60 percent of our directors having served less than eight years.

Alan L. Boeckmann, 66, has been a director since 2011. In February 2012, he retired as the Non-Executive Chairman of Fluor Corporation, a leading engineering, procurement, construction and maintenance services company. From 2002 to early 2011, Mr. Boeckmann was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fluor. Prior to that, he held a number of senior management and operating positions at Fluor. Mr. Boeckmann currently is a director of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company and BP p.l.c. He is also a former director of Fluor Corporation, BHP Billiton, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and the National Petroleum Council.

Mr. Boeckmann has been an outspoken business leader in promoting international standards for business ethics and was instrumental in the formation of the World Economic Forum’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative in 2004. His extensive board, executive management and infrastructure construction experience, coupled with his commitment to ethical conduct in international business activities, makes him a valuable member of our board.

James G. Brocksmith Jr., 74, has been a director since 2001. He is an independent financial consultant and the former Deputy Chairman and Chief Operating Officer for the U.S. operations of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP. Mr. Brocksmith is a former director of AAR Corp., Alberto-Culver Company and Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.

Mr. Brocksmith’s extensive experience with public accounting issues and knowledge of corporate accounting, tax and compliance practices are important for us in his role as chair of the Audit Committee. His financial expertise provides a resource that is helpful to our board given the increasingly complex financial environment in which we operate.

Kathleen L. Brown, 69, has been a director since June 2013. She is a partner of the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. Prior to joining Manatt in September 2013, she worked at Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a global investment banking and securities firm, in various leadership positions over the last 12 years. From 2011 to 2013, Ms. Brown served as the chairman of investment banking for Goldman’s Midwest division in Chicago and was managing director and head of the firm’s Los Angeles-based western region public sector and infrastructure group from 2003 to 2011. From 1995 to 2000, Ms. Brown was a senior executive at Bank of America where she served in various positions, including President of the Private Bank. She served as California state treasurer from 1991 to 1995. Ms. Brown currently serves on the boards of directors of Forestar Group Inc., a real estate, oil and gas and natural resources company, and the National Park Foundation. She is a member of the Stanford Center on Longevity Advisory Board and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ms. Brown has extensive experience in both the public and private financial sectors, as well as in-depth knowledge of California government processes. Her knowledge of the law and experience as a partner at Manatt gives her insight into the effect of laws and regulations on our businesses. This combination of public and private financial experience, legal experience and public service in the State of California makes her a valuable member of our board.

Pablo A. Ferrero, 52, has been a director since November 2013. He is an independent energy consultant. From 2006 to 2011, Mr. Ferrero served as Executive Vice President for the Southern Cone at AEI Energy, a power generation and distribution and gas transmission and distribution company. From 2004 to 2006, he was the Chief Executive Officer of Transportadora de Gas del Sur S.A. He serves as a director on the boards of EDESA Holding and Servicios Petroleros Argentina and is a former director of Pampa Energía.

Mr. Ferrero has a deep understanding of the energy industry and in particular energy operations in South America. This understanding of international energy operations along with his extensive executive and board experience make him a valuable member of our board.

William D. Jones, 59, has been a director since Sempra Energy’s inception in 1998. He is the President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of CityLink Investment Corporation, a real estate investment, development and management firm, and City Scene Management Company. From 1989 to 1993, Mr. Jones served as General Manager/ Senior Asset Manager and Investment Manager with certain real estate subsidiaries of The Prudential. Prior to joining The Prudential, he served as a San Diego City Council member from 1982 to 1987. Mr. Jones is a director of certain funds under management by Capital Research and Management Company. He is the immediate past Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Francis Parker School and a member of the Corporate Directors Forum. Mr. Jones is a former director of The Price Real Estate Investment Trust, Southwest Water Company, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, and the San Diego Padres baseball club and former Chairman of the Board of the Los Angeles Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Mr. Jones has extensive experience as a real estate developer in San Diego, where he built the City Heights Urban Village, an award-winning redevelopment project.

Mr. Jones’s background in the public and financial arenas, along with his real estate expertise, has been helpful to our board as it considers the development of large infrastructure projects, which requires extensive amounts of land and an understanding of the construction and real estate industries. His expertise in these areas makes him a vital member of our board.

William G. Ouchi, Ph.D., 71, has been a director since Sempra Energy’s inception in 1998. He is the Sanford and Betty Sigoloff Distinguished Professor in Corporate Renewal in the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA. Professor Ouchi is the lead director of AECOM Technology Corporation and a former director of FirstFed Financial Corp. He is a director of the Alliance for College Ready Public Schools, the California Heart Center Foundation, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the Riordan Foundation and RX for Learning.

Professor Ouchi is a renowned academic and an expert in corporate management and organization. He is a best-selling author and has published numerous books on promoting effective corporate management. Professor Ouchi’s academic background and practical knowledge of national and state public institutions, and his understanding of corporate governance in both theory and practice, make him a valuable member of our board.

Debra L. Reed, 58, was appointed Chairman of the Board of Directors in 2012 and has been a director and the Chief Executive Officer of the company since 2011. Previously, Ms. Reed served as an Executive Vice President of the company. From 2006 to 2010, she was President and Chief Executive Officer of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”) and Southern California Gas Company (“SoCalGas”), Sempra Energy’s regulated California utilities. From 2004 to 2006, Ms. Reed was President and Chief Operating Officer of SDG&E and SoCalGas and, before that, she was President of SDG&E and Chief Financial Officer of both companies. Ms. Reed serves on the Board of Directors of Halliburton Company. She is a member of The Business Council and serves on the energy and environment and tax and fiscal policy committees of the Business Roundtable. Both associations are composed of chief executive officers of leading U.S. corporations. Ms. Reed also is a member of The Trusteeship, an affiliate of the International Women’s Forum, and the Chairman’s Competitiveness Council of the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation. She serves on the University of Southern California Viterbi Engineering School Board of Councilors and on the National Petroleum Council. She has formerly served as Chair of the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation and is a former director of Genentech, Inc. and Avery Dennison Corporation.

Ms. Reed, in her current position as our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, oversees the management of all aspects of our business. She brings decades of service to our company and its subsidiaries and has benefitted from years of hands-on experience with utility and energy infrastructure operations. That experience, coupled with current and prior service as a board member of other large publicly-traded companies, brings a multifaceted perspective and in-depth industry understanding to the board.

William C. Rusnack, 70, has been a director since 2001. He was the President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of Premcor Inc., an independent oil refiner, from 1998 to 2002. Prior to 1998, Mr. Rusnack was an executive of Atlantic Richfield Company, an integrated petroleum company. He is also a director of Flowserve Corporation and Peabody Energy Corporation, and a former director of Solutia Inc. Mr. Rusnack is a member of the Dean’s Advisory Council of the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago, the Energy Policy Institute at Chicago at the University of Chicago and the National Council of the Olin School of Business at the Washington University in St. Louis.

Mr. Rusnack brings a deep understanding of the energy industry to our board. He spent 31 years at Atlantic Richfield Company, many of which he worked in a senior leadership capacity. Mr. Rusnack also offers knowledge and insight gained as a senior executive with the oil refinery company Premcor. This specialized energy industry experience, along with his deep understanding of effective executive management development, makes him a valuable member of our board.

William P. Rutledge, 73, has been a director since 2001. He is the Chief Executive Officer of AquaNano, LLC, a water treatment company. Mr. Rutledge was Chairman of CPI International, Inc. (formerly Communications and Power Industries), a communications company, from 1999 to 2004. Prior to 1998, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of Allegheny Teledyne, a diversified manufacturing company. Prior to 1997, he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of

Teledyne, Inc., an industrial conglomerate. Mr. Rutledge is a director of AECOM Technology Corporation. He is a trustee emeritus of Lafayette College, a trustee of St. John’s Health Center Foundation and a trustee of The National World War II Museum. Mr. Rutledge is a former director of FirstFed Financial Corp., CPI International, Inc. and Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mr. Rutledge has extensive board and senior management experience. He serves and has served on numerous public company boards and has significant experience in the role of chief executive officer for multiple companies. In addition to his management expertise, Mr. Rutledge brings to our board a strong understanding of technological advances and nascent technology-based business models and their impacts on our business.

Lynn Schenk, 70, has been a director since 2008. She is an attorney in private practice. Ms. Schenk served as Chief of Staff to the Governor of California from 1999 to 2003 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives representing San Diego, California, from 1993 to 1995, serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. From 1978 to 1983, she served as the Deputy and then Secretary of California’s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; prior to that she was on the in-house counsel staff of SDG&E and a California Deputy Attorney General. Ms. Schenk is a director of Biogen Idec Inc., where she chairs the Risk Committee and serves on the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Compensation Committee. She is a trustee of The Scripps Research Institute serving on the Governance Committee, a member of the California High Speed Rail Authority, a trustee of the University of California San Diego Foundation and a member of the University of San Diego School of Law, Board of Visitors.

Ms. Schenk has an extensive history of government, political and public service and an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of federal and state governmental processes. Along with her insight and experience in government, Ms. Schenk’s legal background within our business sector has equipped her with the tools to help our board identify and manage risk. She also has served on the boards of a number of publicly listed companies. This combination enables Ms. Schenk to provide our board with unique perspective on matters pertaining to California’s complex government and regulatory environment, as well as corporate governance.

Jack T. Taylor, 63, has been a director since February 2013. He was the Chief Operating Officer-Americas and Executive Vice Chair of U.S. Operations for KPMG LLP from 2005 to 2010. From 2001 to 2005 he served as the Vice Chairman of U.S. Audit and Risk Advisory Services for KPMG. Mr. Taylor is a National Association of Corporate Directors Board Leadership Fellow. He is a director of Genesis Energy LP and Murphy USA Inc.

Mr. Taylor has extensive experience with financial and public accounting issues as well as a deep knowledge of the energy industry. He spent over 35 years as a public accountant at KPMG LLP, many of which he worked in a leadership capacity. This experience with financial and public accounting issues, together with his executive experience and knowledge of the energy industry, makes him a valuable member of the board.

Luis M. Téllez, Ph.D. (MIT, 1986), 56, has been a director since 2010. From 2009 until 2014, he was the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Mexican Stock Exchange (Bolsa Mexicana de Valores). Dr. Téllez served as Mexico’s Secretary of Communications and Transportation from 2006 to 2009. He is also a director of Grupo GEPP, S.A.P.I. de C.V., a holding company principally engaged in the beverage industry, and Fondo Mexicano del Petróleo. Dr. Téllez is a member of the Board of Counselors of McLarty Associates, the Trilateral Commission and the Mexican Council on Foreign Affairs. He is a former director of Organización Cultiba S.A.B. de C.V.; Grupo México S.A. de C.V.; Global Industries Ltd.; FEMSA (Fomento Economico Mexicano S.A.B. de C.V.); DESC, S.A. de C.V.; Mexico’s Federal Electricity Commission (La Comisión Federal de Electricidad); and Grupo Azucarero México, S.A.B. de C.V. Dr. Téllez also has served as Mexico’s Secretary of Energy, Chief of Staff to the President of Mexico, and Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. He was a managing director of the investment firm, The Carlyle Group, and Chief Executive Officer of DESC, S.A. de C.V., one of Mexico’s largest industrial companies. Dr. Téllez also served as a director of Sempra Energy from June 2006 until November 2006. He resigned as a director of Sempra Energy because of his appointment as Mexico’s Secretary of Communications and Transportation.

Dr. Téllez’s extensive experience and knowledge of transnational business activities, international energy markets and the Mexican regulatory and financial sectors make him a valuable member of the board, particularly as we develop and operate international energy projects.

James C. Yardley, 63, has been a director since May 2013. He was Executive Vice President of El Paso Corporation and President of its Pipeline Group from 2006 through 2012. Mr. Yardley was also the President and Chief Executive Officer of El Paso Pipeline GP Company LLC, the general partner of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., a master limited partnership that owned and operated interstate natural gas transportation pipelines, storage and other midstream assets, from 2007 through 2012. From 1998 through 2006, he was the President of Southern Natural Gas Company, previously a unit of El Paso Corporation and now a unit of Kinder Morgan Inc. Mr. Yardley was formerly a director of El Paso Pipeline GP Company LLC, and of Scorpion Offshore Ltd.

Mr. Yardley has extensive experience in the natural gas industry and in particular the midstream portion of that industry. He spent over 34 years in the energy sector, many of which he worked in a leadership capacity, and has public board experience. This specialized energy industry experience, together with Mr. Yardley’s executive and public board experience, makes him a valuable member of our board.

Our board recognizes that performance-based executive compensation is an important element in driving long-term shareholder value. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we are asking shareholders to approve an advisory resolution on the

compensation of the named executive officers, as reported in this proxy statement. This proposal, commonly known as a “say-on-pay” proposal, gives our shareholders the opportunity to express their views on our 2014 executive compensation program.

The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors sets the company’s executive pay philosophy.

Our compensation philosophy emphasizes:

We believe this compensation philosophy enables us to attract, motivate and retain key executive talent and promote strong, sustainable long-term performance.

Elements of our executive pay program that exemplify our pay-for-performance philosophy include:

Our 2014 financial performance was strong. We achieved diluted earnings per share of $4.63. This was significantly above our 2014 guidance range of $4.25 to $4.55 per diluted share.

We also achieved several goals that are important to our future financial performance, including:

We expect to continue to deliver balanced, stable growth through our utilities and integrated energy infrastructure businesses:

For the above reasons, we are asking our shareholders to indicate their support for the compensation of our named executive officers as described in this proxy statement by voting in favor of the following resolution.

“RESOLVED, as an advisory matter, the shareholders of Sempra Energy approve the compensation paid to the company’s named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative discussion.”

Approval requires the receipt of “FOR” votes constituting a majority of the shares represented and voting at the Annual Meeting at which a quorum is present, and the approving majority must represent more than 25 percent of our outstanding shares.

Even though the say-on-pay vote is advisory and will not be binding on the company, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors value the opinions of our shareholders. Accordingly, to the extent there is a significant vote against the compensation of our named executive officers, we will consider our shareholders’ concerns and the Compensation Committee will evaluate what actions may be necessary or appropriate to address those concerns.

Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors adopt a policy that the Chair of the Board of Directors shall be an independent director who is not a current or former employee of the company, and whose only nontrivial professional, familial or financial connection to the company or its CEO is the directorship. The policy should be implemented so as not to violate existing agreements and should allow for departure under extraordinary circumstances such as the unexpected resignation of the chair.

When our CEO is our board chairman, this arrangement can hinder our board’s ability to monitor our CEO’s performance. Many companies already have an independent Chairman. An independent Chairman is the prevailing practice in the United Kingdom and many international markets. This proposal topic won 50%-plus support at 5 major U.S. companies in 2013 including 73%-support at Netflix. This proposal topic was submitted to Sempra by Ray T. Chevedden in 2012 and received 55% shareholder support.

Additional issues (as reported in 2014) are an added incentive to vote for this proposal:

Debra Reed had the two jobs of chairman and CEO at Sempra. Meanwhile Ms. Reed was negatively flagged by GMI Ratings, an

independent investment research firm, for her involvement with the Halliburton board when it filed for bankruptcy. William Ouchi and William Rutledge were flagged for involvement with the FirstFed Financial board when it filed for bankruptcy. Mr. Ouchi and Mr. Rutledge also served together on the AECOM Technology Corporation board. GMI said such intra-board relationships can compromise directors’ ability to act independently.

Debra Reed received 2013 Total Realized Pay of $9 million at a time when unvested equity awards would partially or fully accelerate upon CEO termination. GMI said multiple related party transactions and other potential conflicts of interest involving Sempra’s board or senior managers should be reviewed in greater depth.

James Brocksmith, William Ouchi and William Rutledge were beyond age 70 and were each beyond 13-years long-tenure which can negatively impact director independence. Long-tenured directors also controlled 47% of the vote on our 3 most important board committees. Sempra was flagged by GMI for its failure to utilize an environmental management system or to seek ISO 14001 certification for some or all of its operations.

Returning to the core topic of this proposal, please vote to protect shareholder value:

Independent Board Chairman — Proposal 4

The Board of Directors recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal because it believes that the company is best served by retaining the board’s flexibility to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the Chief Executive Officer or an independent director should serve as Chairman of the Board.

As described below, in 2012 the board seriously considered the shareholder vote favoring the appointment of an independent director as Chairman. As part of this consideration, we conducted extensive outreach to our largest shareholders and determined that the majority of our large institutional holders did not favor an independent Chairman over a strong Lead Director, but instead called on the company to adopt a more robust independent Lead Director structure. Based upon this input, the board substantially strengthened the role of the Lead Director. During those periods in which the Chairman of the Board is not independent, an independent Lead Director is appointed having broad powers and responsibilities similar to an independent Chairman. The board believes such a structure is responsive to the overall desires of our shareholders and provides sufficient safeguards to ensure the independent functioning of the board and oversight of management.

The board has adopted a number of other governance practices that promote board independence and the independent oversight of management. All but one of the members of our board are independent directors, and the Audit Committee, Corporate Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee consist solely of independent directors. Our independent directors meet in executive sessions, which the Lead Director chairs, at every regular board meeting and any director may call for an executive session at any board meeting. Our independent directors sitting on the Audit Committee, Corporate Governance Committee and Compensation Committee also routinely meet in executive sessions. Our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer’s performance is evaluated annually by the Corporate Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee which, as previously stated, are composed entirely of independent directors.

The Board of Directors has adopted a flexible policy as to the combination or separation of the offices of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The board evaluates its decision, from time to time, based on its judgment of relevant factors, including business needs and shareholder interests. In addition, when the office of Chairman of the Board is held by a non-independent person, the corporate governance guidelines require the independent members of the board to appoint a Lead Director from among the independent board members.

The board has made a number of changes to its bylaws and corporate governance guidelines in response to the 2012 shareholder vote favoring the appointment of an independent director as Chairman. These changes were the result of an extensive outreach program to our largest shareholders. This outreach determined that the majority of our large institutional shareholders did not favor an independent Chairman over a strong Lead Director, but instead called on the company to adopt a more robust independent Lead Director structure. In the summer of 2012, the corporate governance guidelines were revised to add the following functions and responsibilities to the Lead Director role during periods in which we do not have an independent Chairman:

The above duties are in addition to the following duties and responsibilities previously assigned to, and continuing as the responsibility of, the Lead Director:

The position and role of the Lead Director is intended to expand lines of communication between the board and members of management. It is not intended to reduce the free and open access and communication that each independent board member has with other board members and members of management.

The board elects a Lead Director on an annual basis. William C. Rusnack remains as our Lead Director in this expanded role.

In addition to expanding the Lead Director role as described above, the board amended our bylaws in the summer of 2012 to give it flexibility to appoint an independent chairman who is not an officer of the company at some future date should it believe that such appointment would be in the best interest of shareholders given the facts and circumstances at that time and to formally establish the office of Lead Director with authority to call special meetings of the board.

During its deliberations, the board also considered other factors, including the governance structures at other California investor-owned utilities and Debra L. Reed’s extensive experience working with and adhering to the rules established by the California Public Utilities Commission, the chief regulator of our two California utilities.

At the 2013 Annual Meeting, a shareholder proposal again was on the ballot requesting that the Company adopt a policy of having an

independent Chairman. As the concerns of most of our largest holders were addressed by the changes we made to strengthen the role of Lead Director as described above, that proposal was soundly defeated with over 81% of the shares voting at the meeting voting against this proposal.

An extensive outreach program conducted predominantly in the fall of 2014, confirmed that most of our largest shareholders do not favor an independent chair as long as the Lead Director has significant duties as is the case at Sempra. In addition, at the request of the Corporate Governance Committee, we conducted a survey of our 29 peer companies in the S&P 500 Utilities Index to see if any had a policy requiring the chair to be independent. Based on this survey, we found that as of February 2015, 20 of these companies combined the offices of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. According to their corporate governance guidelines, the remaining nine companies that currently split these roles have no policy requiring that the chair be independent.

After Donald E. Felsinger retired as Chairman on November 30, 2012, the board, following an extended period of deliberation, elected Ms. Reed as Chairman effective December 1, 2012. In addition to being Chairman, Ms. Reed retained her office of Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Reed is a 37-year employee of the Sempra Energy family of companies with an outstanding career of achievement, as well as extensive industry experience and public board service.

As it did in the appointment of Ms. Reed to Chairman, the Board of Directors believes that it is in the best interest of shareholders for the board to retain the flexibility to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the Chairman of the Board should be an independent director. The board believes that the permanent structure envisioned by the shareholder proposal deprives the company of the flexibility to restructure itself from time to time in a manner that most effectively serves shareholder interests.

What information is provided in this section of the proxy statement?

In this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, we:

Who are the Named Executive Officers?

The Compensation Discussion and Analysis focuses on the compensation of our named executive officers:

NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Table 1

What is the company’s business model and how are we viewed by investors?

When Sempra Energy was formed in 1998, we created a company that combined a large natural gas distribution utility with an electric and gas distribution utility. We have evolved into a highly successful, integrated energy infrastructure company.

During the past ten years, we have:

Due to our diverse business profile, we are covered by both gas and electric utility analysts. We also attract analyst coverage and investors from the broader energy sector, including the midstream energy sector.

How are our business model and our investor profile reflected in our executive compensation program?

A large portion of our executive pay is delivered in performance-based restricted stock units with a relative total shareholder return performance measure. We measure our total shareholder return against both the S&P 500 Index and the S&P 500 Utilities Index. We use these two peer groups because of our diverse business profile.

Because our operations extend beyond those of a typical utility, our stock can be influenced by factors that do not necessarily affect many of the companies in the S&P 500 Utilities Index. Measuring us only against a group of utilities whose performance is based largely on low growth and high-dividend payouts should not be the sole gauge of our performance.

While we believe that a broader measure should be used as a benchmark for our performance, we do not believe that the S&P 500 Index should be the sole benchmark, as over 70 percent of our earnings are still generated by our California utilities. Measuring our performance against the broader S&P 500 Index companies alone may not capture the impact of market and regulatory factors specific to energy delivery.

Thus, we believe that measuring our performance against both the S&P 500 Utilities Index and the S&P 500 Index is the most appropriate gauge of our stock performance.

We also take our company’s profile into account when we benchmark executive pay. We use two peer groups: a general industry peer group made up of similarly sized companies and a utilities peer group. This is described in detail under “Labor Market Benchmarking.”

How did the company perform in 2014 and what key goals have been achieved?

Our 2014 financial performance was strong. We achieved diluted earnings per share of $4.63. This was significantly above our 2014 guidance range of $4.25 to $4.55 per diluted share.

We also achieved several goals that are important to our future financial performance, including:

How has the company performed over the longer-term?

We consistently have delivered solid financial and operating performance.

How has the company delivered value to shareholders?

Our stock has provided investors with exceptional short-term and long-term returns. Figures 1, 2 and 3 below show the company’s total return to shareholders over one, five and ten years.

How is the company positioned for future growth?

We expect to deliver balanced, solid growth through our utilities and integrated energy infrastructure businesses:

How did our performance affect 2014 pay?

Our 2014 financial and operational performance was reflected in the results of our 2014 performance-based annual incentive plan. The overall performance for the plan was at 177 percent of target.

Our long-term stock performance was reflected in the results of the 2011-2014 award cycle, which vested on January 2, 2015. Our relative total shareholder return from 2011 through 2014 was at the 97^th percentile of the S&P 500 Utilities Index. As a result, the awards vested at 150 percent of target performance with a payout of 1.5 shares of common stock plus reinvested dividends for each restricted stock unit.

What is our compensation philosophy?

The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors sets the company’s executive pay philosophy.

Our compensation philosophy emphasizes:

We believe this compensation philosophy enables us to attract, motivate and retain key executive talent and promote strong, sustainable long-term performance.

What are our compensation program goals?

Our compensation program goals include:

What elements of our pay program underscore our pay-for-performance philosophy?

Elements of our executive pay program that exemplify our pay-for-performance philosophy include:

Company performance is the key indicator of whether our programs are effective. We use earnings as the financial performance measure for the payment of cash bonuses under our annual incentive plan. Our annual incentive plan also includes operational measures linked to our businesses, including employee and public safety and customer satisfaction. Total return to shareholders and earnings per share growth are the performance measures for our annual equity awards under our long-term incentive plan.

What compensation governance measures are in place?

Our compensation practices, which are highlighted in the following tables, reflect our pay-for-performance philosophy and our commitment

to sound compensation governance.

Does the company have a shareholder engagement program?

Building and maintaining relationships with our shareholders is a critical component of our corporate governance philosophy. We welcome dialogue with our shareholders. Within the past year, we reached out to 58 of our largest institutional shareholders, or holders of over 140 million outstanding shares. We engaged with shareholders representing over 100 million shares, primarily through telephonic or in-person meetings. These shareholders represent over 40 percent of our total outstanding shares and 55 percent of our institutional share ownership. This compensation and governance outreach was in addition to our normal investor relations outreach done on an ongoing basis.

What input did shareholders provide regarding the executive compensation program?

The Compensation Committee considers both the result of our annual “say on pay” vote as well as input provided by shareholders through the shareholder engagement program. Last year’s say on pay vote, held in connection with our 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, was very favorable with over 97 percent of the votes cast supporting our executive compensation program.

Executive compensation is always a significant topic in our shareholder engagement meetings. Shareholder input was a key factor in the Compensation Committee’s decision to make the changes outlined below under “What changes did the Compensation Committee make to executive compensation programs in 2014?”

The Compensation Committee values shareholder input and considers it in making its decisions. As an example, the Compensation Committee included additional performance measures to the annual and long-term incentive plans after hearing from many shareholders that they value more than one performance measure in incentive plans. While not all shareholders’ opinions are uniform, investor feedback is always taken into consideration.

What key changes did the Compensation Committee make to executive compensation programs for 2014?

Based on an evaluation of our business strategy, consultation with its independent compensation consultant, the result of our annual “say on

pay” vote, and input received during our shareholder engagement process, the Compensation Committee included a second performance measure in our 2014 equity grants. In addition to total shareholder return, the 2014 long-term incentive plan awards include a performance measure based on earnings per share growth. The Compensation Committee expects that this performance measure will further strengthen the link between executive pay and the company’s long-term earnings growth.

Overview

The Compensation Committee’s primary role is to determine all aspects of compensation for our executive officers. The committee reviews all pay components for our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers.

The committee holds four regularly scheduled meetings each year, with additional meetings scheduled when required. The committee’s chair approves the agenda prior to each meeting. Four directors currently sit on the committee. Each member of the committee is required to be:

The Compensation Committee:

The committee most recently reviewed its charter in June 2014. The charter is available on our website at www.sempra.com under the “Investors” and “Governance” tabs.

What are the responsibilities of the Compensation Committee?

The Compensation Committee’s major responsibilities include:

How do the Compensation Committee and the board use tally sheets?

The Compensation Committee uses tally sheets to review and evaluate our total executive compensation and benefit programs. These tally sheets, along with information prepared annually for the proxy statement, are used to consider:

The committee does not rely on tally sheets to establish specific pay levels. Instead, pay levels are based primarily on external market data and other considerations described elsewhere in this discussion.

In addition, board members receive a Compensation Program Summary. The summary provides an overview of our executive compensation philosophy, information on each executive compensation plan and officer and employee demographic data.

The Compensation Committee’s Advisors

The Compensation Committee retains advisors to assist it with executive compensation matters. It has the sole authority to select, compensate and terminate its external advisors.

In 2014, the committee retained Exequity as its independent compensation consultant. The committee has assessed Exequity’s independence pursuant to SEC rules and concluded that there are no conflicts of interest. Exequity is a nationally recognized independent provider of executive compensation advisory services, with no affiliation with any other service provider.

An Exequity representative attended all committee meetings and met in executive session with the committee members at all four of the regular 2014 meetings.

Exequity supported the committee by:

Exequity and its affiliates do not perform any work for the company outside of their advisory role to the Compensation Committee. Exequity’s fees for services provided in 2014 were $252,966.

Our Chief Executive Officer and/or Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources and Administrative Officer attend the non-executive session of each Compensation Committee meeting. Our human resources department assists the committee by preparing tally sheets and other compensation information and analyses for its consideration. Both the committee members and the independent compensation consultant receive all presentation materials in advance of committee meetings.

Our accounting, finance and law departments also support the committee with respect to compensation-related matters, including issues related to broad-based benefit plans and regulatory reporting and compliance.

None of our executive officers determine or approve any element or component of their own compensation, nor are they present during the committee’s deliberation regarding their own compensation. This includes base salary, annual bonus, long-term incentives and other aspects of compensation. Our CEO does not meet separately with the committee’s independent compensation consultant.

The Compensation Committee does seek our CEO’s views on the performance of our other executive officers, and she makes pay recommendations for these officers. In addition, the committee frequently requests input from the CEO on what programs and goals she believes might be most appropriate given the company’s strategic direction.

How does the committee use external market data in determining pay?

The Compensation Committee uses external pay data to help align executive compensation levels, in total and by component, with the labor market. The committee views the labor market for our most senior positions as a nationwide, broad cross-section of companies in various industries. The committee’s use of both general industry and utilities benchmarking data reflects the competitive labor market from which we recruit executives. This labor market varies by position and extends beyond our industry. The benchmarking process is described below.

General Industry Benchmarking

When benchmarking executive pay, the Compensation Committee first reviews general industry market pay data from the Aon Hewitt Total Compensation Management (TCM) Database for non-financial Fortune 500 companies with revenues between $5 billion and $20 billion. Our 2014 revenues were $11.0 billion.

The committee uses the general industry peer group as the primary benchmarking data source because it best represents the market from which we recruit executive talent. This peer group is not constrained by industry affiliation. It focuses on companies comparable in size to Sempra Energy. Companies in the utilities and energy sector make up approximately 16 percent of the general industry peer group.

The Compensation Committee also reviews pay and performance data in proxy statements and other public filings of energy and utility companies.

What are the primary components of our executive compensation program?

The primary components of our executive compensation program are:

Additional benefits include health and welfare programs, retirement and savings plans, personal benefits and severance pay.

All of our executive officers participate in the same compensation programs. However, market compensation levels used to establish compensation for the named executive officers vary substantially based upon the roles and responsibilities of individual officers.

Thus, the Chief Executive Officer’s total target compensation is approximately 320 percent of the average compensation of the other named executive officers and 209 percent of the compensation of the next highest paid officer.

Managing Risk in Compensation Plans

How does the company manage risk in compensation plans?

The Compensation Committee manages the risk inherent in incentive compensation plans:

Our risk management program is further strengthened by our clawback policy, which applies to both short-term and long-term incentive plans, our anti-hedging policy and our executive stock ownership requirements.

Has a risk assessment been conducted by an independent third party?

The Compensation Committee’s independent consultant, Exequity, conducted a risk assessment of our 2014 incentive compensation programs. Their findings concluded that our incentive plans do not create risks that are likely to have a material adverse impact on the company. The committee concurs with these findings. Specific examples of safeguards and risk-mitigating features found in our executive incentive programs are listed below.

What risk-mitigation features are used in our compensation program?

Our long-term incentive awards include the following features:

Our annual bonus plans include the following features:

What type of clawback policy is in place?

Our clawback policy applies to both short-term and long-term incentive plans. It is included in both executive and non-executive plans.

The policy requires the forfeiture, recovery or reimbursement of awards or compensation under the applicable plans as:

The company also reserves the right to recoup compensation paid if it determines that the results on which compensation was paid were not actually achieved.

In addition, the Compensation Committee may, in its sole discretion, require the recovery or reimbursement of incentive compensation awards from any employee whose fraudulent or intentional misconduct materially affects the operations or financial results of the company or its subsidiaries.

Pay Mix

What is “Pay Mix”?

Pay mix is the relative value of each of the primary compensation components as a percentage of total compensation. Figure 4 shows each component of our CEO’s total 2014 pay at target company performance.

Figure 4

What role do base salaries play in our compensation program?

Our executive compensation programs emphasize performance-based pay. This includes annual bonuses and equity-based long-term incentive awards. However, base salaries remain a necessary and typical part of compensation for attracting and retaining outstanding employees at all levels.

Salaries for our executive officers approximate the median of those for the general industry peer group. Using national general industry comparisons helps us attract and retain top-quality executive talent from a broad range of backgrounds.

How are base salaries determined for our named executive officers?

The Compensation Committee annually reviews base salaries for executive officers. The committee considers the following factors in its review:

What adjustments to base salaries were made in 2014?

Ms. Reed received a salary increase of 6.0 percent. Mr. Householder and Ms. Rowland received increases of 4.0 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively. Mr. Snell received an increase of 0.8 percent. Ms. Wyrsch joined the company in September 2013 and did not receive a 2014 salary increase.

How is our annual incentive compensation pool established?

Executive officers may receive performance-based annual bonuses under our shareholder-approved Executive Incentive Plan. Under the terms of the plan, a compensation pool based on operating earnings is established for each year. The plan is designed to permit awards to meet the conditions necessary to preserve the deductibility of the bonuses under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code while providing flexibility to the Compensation Committee in administering the plan.

Please see “Executive Compensation — Compensation Tables — Grants of Plan-Based Awards” for additional details regarding the plan.

How are performance guidelines established?

Each year the Compensation Committee establishes guidelines for bonus payments. These guidelines are substantially lower than the shareholder-approved incentive plan maximums.

Consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy, the guidelines do not provide for any bonus payment unless the company attains a threshold (minimum) performance level for the year. Bonus opportunities increase from zero for performance at the threshold level to 200 percent of target for performance at maximum.

In setting these guidelines, the committee seeks to use financial and operational performance measures that are linked to both our business strategy and shareholder interests.

Figures 9 and 10 show the 2014 bonus payout as a percentage of target payout for various levels of earnings and operational performance.

Based on a review of general industry peer group market data, the Compensation Committee adjusted target bonus opportunities for the named executive officers for 2014. With these adjustments, named executive officer bonus opportunities at target-level performance, on average, approximate the median of the general industry peer group market data for executives with comparable levels of responsibility at general industry peer group companies.

What were the annual bonus performance goals for the named executive officers?

For 2014, the Compensation Committee selected earnings, employee and public safety and customer satisfaction for the measurement of annual corporate performance. The earnings performance measure was weighted at 85 percent and the safety and customer satisfaction measures were weighted at 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively.

For annual bonus plan purposes, “earnings” means Sempra Energy Net Income, excluding earnings attributable to non-controlling interests. Earnings for annual bonus plan purposes may be higher or lower than earnings reported in our financial statements due to certain pre-

established adjustments. These adjustments are described under the section titled “How was the 2014 earnings goal determined?”

Why were these performance measures used for the annual bonus plan?

The Compensation Committee selected earnings as the 2014 annual bonus financial performance measure because it believes this measure provides an accurate and comprehensive picture of annual company financial performance that plan participants, shareholders, analysts and other parties clearly understand.

The committee includes employee and public safety and customer satisfaction measures in the annual bonus plan because it believes that strong safety and customer satisfaction performance are critical to strong long-term financial performance.

The committee also may apply discretionary adjustments to annual bonus awards in consideration of the contributions of each named executive officer. None were made to the 2014 annual bonus awards paid to our named executive officers.

The Compensation Committee set 2014 bonus guidelines, with the target of $1.096 billion in earnings, based on the company’s financial plan with certain adjustments for incentive plan purposes. The financial plan takes into account anticipated business unit earnings, planned purchases or sales of assets, major capital projects and other significant issues impacting the company’s earnings. The financial plan also is used to develop the company’s public earnings guidance.

Consistent with the approach taken in prior years, the committee also determined at the beginning of the year that the earnings calculation for bonus purposes would be adjusted as follows: