愛迪生國際 (EIX) 2026 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon and welcome to the Edison International third-quarter 2026 financial teleconference.

My name is Ted. And I'll be your operator today. (Operator Instructions) Today's call is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Sam Ramraj, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Ramraj, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Ted. And welcome, everyone.

Our speakers today are President and Chief Executive Officer, Pedro Pizarro; and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Aaron Moss. Also, on the call are other members of the management team.

Materials supporting today's call are available at www.edisoninvestor.com. These include a form 10-Q, prepared remarks from Pedro and Aaron, and the teleconference presentation. Tomorrow, we will distribute our regular-business update presentation.

During this call, we'll make forward-looking statements about the outlook for Edison International and its subsidiaries. Actual results could differ materially from current expectations. Important factors that could cause different results are set forth in our SEC filings. Please read these carefully.

The presentation includes certain outlook assumptions, as well as reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to the nearest GAAP measure.

(Event Instructions) I will now turn the call over to Pedro.

Okay. Thanks a lot, Sam. And good afternoon, everyone.

My comments today will focus on four areas: our strong performance; the need for durable wildfire reform; SCE's continued progress, making the grid safer and more reliable; and the utilities work to support communities impacted by the heat and fire.

Starting with earnings, Edison International's third-quarter core earnings per share was $1.92, bringing year-to-date core EPS to $4.89.

Based on strong year-to-date performance and our outlook for the remainder of the year, we are reaffirming our 2026 core EPS guidance range of $5.90 to $6.20. Aaron will discuss our financial performance in his remarks.

We know that durable wildfire-liability reform is a key focus for investors and, moreover, it is essential to manage customer costs and support the world's fourth largest economy.

We were disappointed, when California's legislative session concluded without action on a durable long-term solution. It was evident that capital providers also felt that way, given the market reaction.

Since the legislative session ended, we and the other California IOUs have been engaging with a broad group of stakeholders to improve understanding of the consequences of inaction and advocate for a special legislative session with a sense of urgency.

The objective is to achieve a long-term solution that includes a clear and durable liquidity source for funding claims per solution and a true shareholder-liability cap that is not connected to the [Wildfire Fund].

While we are focused on these key items, we recognize that other pieces may be needed to develop a package that gains support from stakeholders and, ultimately, the Senate, the Assembly, and the Governor in time to send a bill to the Governor by the constitutional deadline of November 15.

If we do not succeed in 2026, we must continue the effort with the new Governor and legislature in 2027. While we remain confident that California policymakers will ultimately take action, given the dire and escalating impacts on customers and the economy, delay into 2027 will have significant and costly consequences.

We evaluate our investments through a disciplined benefit-cost lens, balancing the needs of the system with affordability for customers. The uncertainty in the present environment is increasing the cost of financing these investments.

If Edison's credit rating were to fall below investment grade, that would add further costs at a time when affordability is paramount for customers. SCE will file its 2029 general-rate case in about six months.

Increased financing costs would influence the investments requested, with priority given to core work and safety, reliability, and compliance.

Without durable wildfire reform in place, SCE would request less capital than it otherwise would for projects that enable electrification, the clean-energy transition, and economic growth.

Higher financing costs could similarly affect decisions over the next couple of years about incremental capital investment in areas such as grid readiness for load growth and supply resources in SCE's service area.

Turning to SCE's progress in making the grid safer and more reliable, the utility has reached substantial wildfire-mitigation and grid-hardening milestones, including hardening approximately 90% of its distribution system in high-fire-risk areas.

SCE continues to focus on driving out risk through targeted infrastructure investment, comprehensive inspections, and remediation and vegetation management.

We continue to enhance our data-driven and risk-informed approach, integrating insights from multiple wildfire-risk and climate models to give us a more complete view of risk and help target investment where it can provide the greatest safety benefit and risk reduction.

The capital investments approved in SCE's 2025 GRC, including covered conductor, targeted undergrounding, and asset replacement, will make the grid safer and more resilient.

Conditions on the ground for the rest of 2026 currently appear consistent with the normal year. And there is potential for El Niño to contribute to earlier rainfall.

Looking over the much longer term, Edison International unveiled its most recent white paper at Climate Week New York City last month, titled Adapting Today: Energizing a More Resilient Tomorrow.

It highlights expected 2050 weather impacts across floods, droughts, sea-level rise, extreme heat, and wildfires. It illustrates the long-term planning and investments needed. And it emphasizes the need for partnership across communities, government, and the private sector to prepare California's economy.

Regardless of the weather outlook, SCE maintains flexibility in its work plan so it can conduct additional inspections and remediation where changing conditions indicate those activities will provide the greatest safety benefit.

To support those decisions, the utility has expanded the information available from weather stations, high-definition cameras, fuel sampling, inspections, and advanced modeling capabilities. Together, these tools help SCE target resources and take additional action, where conditions warrant.

They complement the substantial physical hardening SCE has already completed, including more than 7,200 miles of covered conductor.

That work provides a stronger foundation, more precise data, and more advanced technologies, including AI-enhanced inspections and AI-enabled cameras -- are helping SCE address the risk that remains by identifying maintenance needs, threats, and potential equipment failures earlier.

In parallel, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety continues to evolve its wildfire-mitigation plan guidelines and put in place more structured and in-depth requirements in select areas.

That scrutiny is an important part of continuously strengthening California investor-owned utilities, wildfire-mitigation programs; and reducing risk for customers and communities.

I'm pleased to note that in approving SCE's 2026 to 2028 wildfire-mitigation plan, OEIS highlighted SCE's transmission-high-fire risk-informed inspection program and described it as the most comprehensive among the large IOUs.

The agency noted that SCE conducts both detailed ground and aerial inspections annually on approximately 77% of its transmission assets in high-fire-risk areas, with inspection frequency tailored to the consequence and risk profile of each location.

SCE is committed to building on both its successes and opportunities for improvement to maintain a rigorous, layered approach to reducing risk and enhancing execution of its wildfire programs.

Turning to the Eaton Fire, we have said that, absent additional evidence, SCE believes that it is likely that its equipment was associated with the ignition.

During the quarter, the Los Angeles County Fire Department published redacted reports from its investigation. Those reports concluded that the Eaton Fire ignition was caused by SCE equipment. SCE is continuing to analyze those reports.

Importantly, the county's determination regarding the cause of ignition is distinct from the separate processes for determining legal liability, prudence, and Wildfire Fund reimbursement, each of which has its own standard.

Based on the information reviewed to date, I wanted to make three points very clear:

First, we remain confident that SCE will be able to make a good-faith showing that its conduct, with respect to the Eaton Fire, was consistent with the actions of a reasonable utility.

Second, SCE believes there is no basis for a finding-of-felony liability.

And third, SCE believes there is no basis for a finding-of-conscious or willful disregard of the rights and safety of others.

Now, the prudency standard established under California law evaluates whether the utility's actions were consistent with those of a reasonable operator across a spectrum of possible practices.

The CPUC can also consider factors within and beyond the utility's control that may have exacerbated the cause of the fire.

It is important to distinguish the prudency standard from the substantially different standards associated with felony liability or willful disregard.

Those standards require intentionality and recklessness. They involve a fundamentally different level of conduct and intent that we are fully confident our company did not exhibit.

Moving to the full Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program, community interest remains strong. October, with days still remaining, already has the most claims submitted of any month this year.

SCE has extended more than 3,200 offers, totaling about $1.1 billion. The pace of submissions indicates that community members continue to consider the WRCP as a potential path to compensation ahead of the November 30 deadline.

Let me close by thanking our team members for their continued dedication and execution. SCE continues to advance the capital investments authorized in the 2025 GRC with a clear focus on safety, reliability, and customer value.

At the same time, we continue to underscore the need to achieve a long-term wildfire-reform solution that includes a clear and durable liquidity source and a true shareholder-liability cap that is not connected to the Wildfire Fund.

We will continue working toward an outcome that serves customers, communities, and capital providers.

Our team and I look forward to seeing many of you at the EEI Financial Conference in a couple of weeks.

With that, Aaron, go ahead and provide your financial report.

Thanks, Pedro. Good afternoon, everyone.

In my comments today, I will cover third-quarter 2026 results, our capital and financing plans, and our financial position in the current legislative and interest-rate environment.

Starting with the third quarter, EIX reported core earnings per share of $1.92 compared to $2.34 last year. Page 6 provides the year-over-year quarterly variance analysis.

The 2025 results reflect a $0.55 true-up, resulting from the receipt of SCE's general-rate-case final decision. Looking through that item, the quarter reflected continued stability in our core operations.

We're pleased with how 2026 has progressed. And given our strong year-to-date performance and outlook for the remainder of the year, we are taking the opportunity to invest in the business to de-risk future periods and drive ongoing efficiency.

As a result, we are reaffirming our 2026 core earnings per share guidance range of $5.90 to $6.20, with a bias towards the middle of the range.

We are also reaffirming our 2027 and 2028 core EPS guidance ranges and our long-term core EPS growth target of 5% to 7% through 2030.

Turning to the capital plan, SCE continues to see substantial investment needs, driven by safety, reliability, and readiness for customer-driven load growth.

Our five-year plan calls for approximately $38 billion to $41 billion of capital expenditures from 2026 through 2030. The plan supports projected rate-based growth of approximately 7% from 2025 through 2030, which is the primary driver of our long-term earnings growth.

Pedro discussed the need for comprehensive and durable wildfire reform. From a financial perspective, today's volatility and uncertainty increase the cost of financing the infrastructure required for a safe and reliable grid.

Those higher costs are ultimately borne by our customers. For instance, we estimate that the currently elevated credit spreads could cost customers an incremental $300 million over the life of the bonds we expect SCE will issue in 2027 alone.

That's why a durable framework that improves predictability and supports reasonable access to capital is important to affordability.

Next, I will address the interest-rate environment in our debt portfolio. As you can see on page 9, our direct exposure to variable rates is limited. We have no long-term debt with variable interest rates.

Also, our debt maturities are distributed across the forecast period. Overall, this limits our exposure to near-term movement in market rates.

As of September 30, roughly $2 billion to $4 billion of long-term debt matures annually between 2027 and 2030. We approach each refinancing, based on market conditions, the needs of the business, and the objective of maintaining an efficient capital structure.

Interest rates are one of several operating, regulatory, and financing variables we regularly manage. We have managed through multiple interest-rate environments and remain confident in our ability to successfully navigate this period and deliver on our commitments.

From a balance-sheet standpoint, we have no common-equity issuance forecast through 2030. And we continue to target a long-term FFO-to-debt ratio of 15% to 17%.

To add to this, our longstanding dividend policy continues to target a pay-out ratio of 45% to 55% of SCE core earnings, subject to customary Board approval. This policy has enabled 22 consecutive years of dividend growth.

Let me conclude by saying that we remain confident in our multi-year financial outlook. And the Edison team is focused on delivering on our commitments to customers, communities, and capital providers.

That concludes my remarks.

Ted, please open the call for questions.

(Event Instructions)

(Operator Instructions)

Richard Sunderland, Truist Securities.

Rich? Rich, do we have you on the line?

Nicholas Campanella, Barclays.

Hey. Good afternoon. Thanks for the time.

Hey, (multiple speakers) -- just wanted to ask, first, the November 15 deadline date for the constitutional deadline, I think some were thinking that, maybe, it was more November 30 ; that the session could go till -- can you just clarify the timeline?

Thank you.

Yeah. Sure, Nick.

If you look in the Constitution, the Constitution specifies that any bills need to be sent to the Governor prior to November 15. I think this is because it's the end of the two-year session.

Now, once a bill goes to the Governor, I believe he has 12 days to either approve or veto. And if he takes no action, then the bill would become law. But he does have a 12-day active period, after that bill is submitted.

But November 15 is actually a constitutional deadline.

Thank you very much. And then, also, my understanding is that the Eaton Fire deadline for recovery compensation is November 30.

Does that mean, in the fourth-quarter call, we'd have a true sense or you'd have a better sense of what the potential charge could be and get that disclosure?

And then, secondly, just, how are you thinking of booking that? Can you talk about how PCG's prudence, determination that's coming up here in November under the AB 1054 framework -- could that change or inform how you're booking the Eaton liability, going forward?

Thanks.

Thanks, Nick. A lot there. Let me start out and then, Aaron can fill in.

First, yes, we have a deadline of November 30 for the WRCP. And, as I mentioned, we are seeing the number of applications increasing, which is good to see.

We have to see what the ultimate volume is in terms of applications we get, relative to the total claims outstanding. As of today, while we're pleased that we're seeing the number of applications we have, it's still a small fraction of the total claims that have been entered through the legal process.

So, unless something dramatically changed, we saw a very high volume of claims that approximated a very, very large percentage of the total claims that have been filed through litigation.

I don't think, today, we would expect to have enough information, just from the WRCP ,to be able to extrapolate sufficiently for individual claims. That said, we will continue to monitor this every quarter.

And one other factor I'll throw in -- you didn't ask about it -- but just for clarity for everybody, the statute of limitations for personal damages, personal injury is coming up in January of 2027. We may see a number of claims coming into the legal process for that.

The statute of limitations for property damage, however, goes to January 2028. And so I think a question mark is: Do we end up seeing combined claims coming in for the '27 deadline? Or do you see a number of property claims that actually go all the way up to 2028?

So I share that to illustrate that there's a lot of moving pieces and parts, just on the individual plaintiff side alone; and then, furthermore, we have, as other classes of claims, including subrogation claims from insurance companies and governmental claims -- and so, those are all moving pieces and parts that would all need to align in order to be able to develop a low end of the estimable range.

And I think Nick also asked about how the (inaudible) -- ?

Yeah. So we'll continue to pay, have a sense of urgency around being able to estimate the reserves as we reasonably can. And we just can't predict when that's going to be.

We are watching closely the PG&E matter on Dixie and Kincade. In fact, there were oral arguments just recently or early this week, late last week -- I can't remember at this point. But we watched those very closely and we'll take into consideration what comes out of that process and all the other precedents that we can.

One of the things that came up in those oral arguments is the comparison between the prudence standard here and the prudence standard. And so we'll look at FERC recoveries. We'll look at what happens Dixie and Kincaid and anything else.

So we'll take the totality of evidence into consideration, both when it comes to booking the reserves and also booking any regulatory asset or reserve against those regulatory assets.

Thanks.

Thanks. Good question.

Richard Sunderland, Truist Securities.

(technical difficulty) --

Carly Davenport, Goldman Sachs.

Hey. How are you? Thanks so much for taking the questions.

Maybe, just to start, it would be great to get your latest sense, just on the appetite, you think, at this point for a special-legislative session to be called after elections.

Has there been anything from the recent Assembly hearings that stuck out to you that you think has given any indication of the appetite there? Or do you think, maybe, we need to see some more movement from the Senate to get a better read?

Yeah. Carly -- and I don't want to get into [skeet tips] here -- (inaudible) -- think the assembly hearing was still -- a committee hearing was still going on, when we gathered to prepare for this call.

Look, I think my short answer, right now, is that there are a lot of moving parts and pieces. I think we're hearing that there'd be openness to a special session but it's certainly not guaranteed by any means.

And so that's how we continue -- so focused on making sure we're doing our part to educate policymakers, to try and bring stakeholders together. There are various pieces and parts to this that will be important.

Frankly, I would not expect a special session to be called, unless there's some clear sense that there's a framework there that, ultimately, the Senate, the Assembly, and the Governor's office could all support.

So that's a long-winded way of saying, stay tuned. But we are working really hard, right now, because of the sense of urgency we feel.

So my prepared remarks, if this doesn't happen in 2026, while I'm confident that, ultimately, the state will get there because of the importance of this to the state's economy, delay into 2027 is going to be costly for customers.

And I sure hope that the state can get all the stores aligned to avoid that cost for our economy.

Got it. That's really helpful. Thank you.

And then, you highlighted the potential for, perhaps, lower investment to be reflected in your 2029 GRC filing in the event that there's not durable wildfire reform in place by the time you do file.

Any sense of, relative, to maybe what's in the '29, 2030 capital plan today; what the magnitude of potential decreases could look like?

Yeah. Carly, this is Aaron.

When we put together our long-term forecast, obviously, it's a very top-down forecast. And as we're preparing for the general-rate case, we're really working bottoms up, what are the customer needs, and so we're taking it from different directions.

We're in that process now. And we're looking at all those investment needs through the benefit-cost lens that Pedro referred to.

So you could imagine as -- if we see material increases in cost of capital, when we have already started seeing spreads widen, we're certainly -- debt issuances are not reflective of our current credit rating in terms of the interest that we're paying.

So those costs are being paid by customers. And we need to take that into consideration for those customers. So Pedro alluded to where we need to focus our spending.

And we need to prioritize spending in safety, reliability, and compliance-related areas. And that just means, by definition, we'd have less furlough growth and clean-energy policy -- the types of investments that are driving the state's economy in terms of housing starts, things like that.

But, as far as the reconciliation to '29 and '30, that -- we'll have to get our way through the full testimony development for the general-rate case.

Better yet, hopefully, we'll get action in '26 and not have to worry about that.

Yeah. Got it. Okay. Awesome. Thank you so much for the time.

Thanks, Carly.

Gregg Orrill, UBS.

Hey, Greg.

Yeah. Hi. Thanks for taking the question.

Just, the focus in the hearings has been on subrogation. And I was wondering if you could connect the reform of insurance subrogation to the goals that you're seeking.

And if you see that getting addressed without your goals, how would you view that as an outcome? Thank you.

Yeah. Greg, that's a good way to frame the question.

I'll go back to the California Earthquake Authority report. That did a good job in portraying this. It's not just a utility issue but it's really a whole-of-the-economy issue.

And so, clearly, the insurance market is a big part of that; customer affordability is a big part of that. There are other pieces, of course.

And so I see the connection with subrogation is one that's important because, ultimately, clearly, utilities need to be accountable for running our systems prudently. I think the whole wildfire-mitigation plan structure that was set up in AB 1054 is a great framing for that.

But we're not really equipped as an industry to ensure every hazard. And, certainly, we're not equipped to ensure the added hazard that may come if you have a catastrophic fire that might start from utility admission but might get exacerbated, amplified, by a number of other factors like, frankly, we saw with Eaton, right?

The high winds, the grounding of aircraft, the lack of water resources, the communities that were at risk.

And so, just, if I step back from a high-level policy perspective, I understand where our friends and insurers are coming from and wanting to see subrogation rights but I can also understand the interest that a number of policy-makers have in making sure that the risks are allocated properly, appropriately, across multiple stakeholders.

And so, I think, looking at that subrogation connection is all about saying, well, what portion of costs in a catastrophic event are appropriately borne through, what I'll call, all-hazards insurance versus what portion are appropriately borne to an entity like the Wildfire Fund on the utility-customer and shareholder side?

So that's the nexus there, Gregg, if that makes sense. Aaron, anything to add?

Maybe, just to add: So when we think about what it is that we, as IOUs, need, it's really a predictable framework that supports access to reasonably priced capital for our investment.

And that's two things. That's a durable shareholder-liability cap that extends beyond the life of the Wildfire Fund and a liquidity measure.

But the other elements that are going to make up the successful reform would include public safety, reducing the likelihood and severity of ignitions, timely and fair recovery, and affordability, getting at total system costs.

And there's friction. We currently -- every time we've had a wildfire, we work through with subro and we settle claims. In fact, in Eaton, we've settled reclaims with subro for about $0.55 on the dollar.

But there's a bunch of friction in getting to those. And there's costs associated with that friction. And so part of an element of taking that friction out will save customers' costs.

Maybe, one added element, then, in saving customer costs and also, frankly, helping all the stakeholders here is, at least, in concept, if you had a clear level of subrogation right and you had that stapled with a faster process to resolve that, then there's a time value of money [aligned] there that could be helpful to insurance and, therefore, helpful to customers.

So a lot of pieces that click together here.

Got it. Thank you.

Aidan Kelly, JP Morgan.

Hello, Aidan.

Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for the time today.

Maybe just, first, starting with the Eden fire, given the latest investigative findings and some allegations out there from some third-party reports calling into scrutiny on the transmission maintenance, what do you see as the most significant remaining uncertainties in demonstrating prudence?

Has anything emerged that materially changes your assessment of likelihood at this time? I know you put up more slide and more disclosures there to bifurcate between the certain topics but just curious if you could elaborate on that in more depth?

Yeah. Thanks, Aidan.

And, look, I'll start by repeating what we had on the slide and what I said in my script, which you've heard from us now for multiple quarters: We remain confident that SCE will be able to make a good-faith showing of its prudency.

The longer version of that: There was a reasonable operator, with respect to Eaton Fire. And so that hasn't changed.

Let me also remind you of the process here -- and I think we touched on that in one of the slides -- but under AB 1054, because SCE had a safety certificate, the in-going assumption, essentially, is that it's a prudent operator, unless another party can create a serious doubt about that, in which case the PUC will then have the ability to go in and decide whether we were prudent or not.

That process will likely take many years from now -- many years from now -- because the PUC typically likes to see the vast majority of settlements resolved so that they know what the total dollar amount is before heading into the Public Utilities Commission proceeding.

And so it's certainly possible that, between now and then, additional facts might come to light or different analysis or what have you. And we continue to look at facts and evidence.

But, at the core, our view really hasn't changed that SCE will be able to make that good-faith showing. And we really haven't gotten into all the myriad, underlying details because that's really for another day.

Moreover, as I pointed out -- I want to repeat myself here because it's important -- not only do we have that confidence and prudency but you referred to various other third-party comments -- just to be very crystal clear on this -- not only do we not see any basis for felony liability, we certainly don't see any basis for allegations of conscious or willful disregard.

That's a really high standard. And I think I said this [overview] before -- that is not something I lose sleep over. I think we've all been impacted emotionally by the impact in our community.

But when it comes to what was the behavior of this company and the leadership, we certainly are nowhere anywhere close to something that would support any allegation of conscious or willful disregard.

So I'm aware of third-party comments out there. Those are without merit and, I think, self-interested.

Understood. Understood. Thanks for that, Pedro.

And then, just one other question back on the special session. I think people are just trying to want to see if you could clarify if a special session could still get sent as a bill to the governor after November 15.

And then, just, like, a follow-up on that is: Are the IOUs offering up any concessions to help catalyze the special session, in general?

So you might understand, Aidan -- I think you're asking a really appropriate question but you might understand that I really can't get into the details of the discussions that are underway right now.

But, as you can imagine, we want to make sure that we're being thoughtful about how we bring multiple stakeholders together to solve something that is really a whole-of-the-economy issue.

Inherent in any set of discussions like that will be trade-offs and different points of view. So we certainly are not going into this with a closed mind.

We want to have an open mind to listen and figure out if there's a path there that works not only for the stakeholders but, ultimately, for the Senate, and for the Assembly, and for the Governor's office.

To your question about, could anything happen post November 15, so let me clarify, this legislature is no longer in place, as of November 30. And so, under the Constitution, if they're going to send a bill to the Governor for a special session, that bill would need to go in no later than November 15.

And so that's the focus right now. Otherwise, you're looking at working with the next legislature. And so that -- now, those folks are sworn in, I believe, in early December.

And so -- but I'm sure there's a ramp-up period for them. So -- and I know the Governor has -- the current Governor has said that he's going to be working hard on all the topics across the economy all the way until his last day -- but just gives you a sense of the timing for different parties.

Great. Thanks for answering my questions. I'll leave it there.

Ryan Levine, Citi.

Hi, everybody.

Given the sense of urgency on the legislative session and the $300 million cost highlighted to Edison's customers of inaction, is there any estimate around the cost to customers that a delay in a solution would be, if nothing were to happen between now and August of next year?

Yeah. Ryan, it's a great question. It's certainly something -- as we're talking to folks -- we're trying to bring out these data points.

The $300 million that we talked about on the call here today is one of the data points that we share. But you could imagine that the elevated spreads that we've been seeing have been in place since January of 2025.

And they will continue. So we talked to folks about, what does that look like over a longer period of time and how, if you let the costs into the cycle, they take a really long time to get out because they're financing long-term investments that we're making on behalf of customers.

So we use these data points, as we're trying to educate all the interested parties on the cost of inaction.

Thanks. And then, with the upcoming report coming out in the next few days of the CPC, are there any key data points that you wanted to highlight that may supplement some of the analysis being done?

Looking forward to seeing the report, as you can imagine. Our team jointly -- along with the teams from the other investment utilities -- have been answering a number of questions that the PUC staff have been asking, a number of data requests on that, so certainly cooperating fully with that.

And, now, as we look forward to seeing the report, I think it will be a very important piece of information. And you've seen the PUC staff, in our view, do a very solid job in previous submissions.

For example, their submissions into the California Earthquake Authority process were very thought about, very balanced. And so looking forward to a similar report.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thanks, Ryan.

Anthony Crowdell, Mizuho.

Good afternoon. How you doing? Just a quick one.

When you think of break cases, sometimes, when the serial-rate filings -- it maybe causes some fatigue in your regulatory environment.

I'm just thinking, with regard to the special session and legislation -- SB 254, last year -- this year, tried to get something done. It didn't happen. The thoughts of maybe -- the utility is thinking -- is, maybe, 2027 a better year versus continuing to work at it this session?

And that's all I have.

Thanks, Anthony. Simple answer on that one: no. I can't emphasize enough -- and I think you hear the same from my other colleagues in California -- trying to be crystal clear here -- it is in our customers' interest to have action in 2026. Period. Full stop.

Again, Aaron's data point around, just, the debt that [SCE] expects to take on in 2027, just that tranche of one year's worth of activity, would lead to $300 million in estimated incremental costs over the lifetime of that debt. That's a staggering number.

I think you've heard similar numbers from Patti and the team at PG&E, right? And so, no. We are not in the mode of, well, maybe it's better to wait or maybe folks are tired.

Yeah. I appreciate that the legislature has had their hands full for many years. But it is the world's fourth largest economy. It's a complex state. There's a lot of different topics.

And this is an important one where there was excellent process set up by SB 254. It was executed very well by the California Earthquake Authority.

To their credit, both chambers had a number of hearings to help really sort through the information.

I'll be honest: When I hear some say that, well, maybe the legislature just ran out of time, I don't share that view because I think they had plenty of time, given the Earthquake Authority report's timing and given the good diligence that so many committees on both sides of the chamber or in both chambers showed in having all these hearings.

And so I think the table has been set. And I hope that, for the good of the California economy, our elected leaders who we sent up there to do a good job do a good job and take care of this year.

I'll add two things to what Pedro said:

Number 1, the rating agencies haven't told us that they'll wait on something for 2027. So they make their own decisions in terms of rating actions. But we see that as something that we want to guard against.

And, if there are further downgrades, those things take time to work our way out of, even in the event of reform. So that's another reason why we want to make sure something happens in the special session.

But let me also say this: There is no fatigue on the behalf of the utilities. If we don't get something in the special session, we will continue to get after it in 2027, with the same sense of urgency that we have right now.

Absolutely. And, by the way, I do want to say thank you because you do see a number of legislators chairing committees, chairing hearings, working hard even now. We've seen the Assembly, today, do their third committee hearing in a week.

And so there are folks who get it and are working hard for the people of California.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Anthony.

Paul Zimbardo, Jefferies.

Hello, Paul.

Hi. Good afternoon. Hi. Thank you. I'm glad you're doing well, Pedro. I appreciate the time.

(multiple speakers) -- no, of course.

I must ask Carly's question in reverse: Is there a little bit of guidance to give on what percentage of your CapEx is the safety, reliability, compliance? I assume it's a pretty big mix of the capital.

And, also, just to clarify: Were you referring to the CPUC capital or is also the FERC spending within scope?

Yeah. So good questions, Paul. And thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

So we're focused on CPUC capital. And maybe I'll take it. In our business update slides, you can see the break-down of our various categories of CapEx through 2030.

And, in that, about 22% of that capital is load growth in interconnection costs. So it's focused (inaudible) -- on there, as opposed to -- there's other pieces that we would look at, as well. But that's the big piece that we'd be looking at.

Okay. No. That is very helpful.

And then, the other small one, just on the upcoming trial. I saw you mentioned there's new dates added in the spring and summertime beyond the January, just, could you help clarify what do those additional trial dates relate to?

Yeah. Those are -- we've got bellwether trials that have been set up for January right now. There's eight plaintiffs and then, eight back-up plaintiffs to that.

And then, there's -- so that only deals with 16 plaintiffs out of the tens of thousands that are out there. So you could imagine that there would be subsequent trials. And so there's subsequent trials set up later in the year.

But it also highlights how important it is that the settlement program work because that's the way to get through these in an expeditious matter.

Dealing with eight plaintiffs over the course of several months is not an efficient way to work our way through the litigation.

Aaron, you got a bit right but let me just add a little editorial comment here.

One of the things that's been so disconcerting out in the community is that, while we have a number of trial attorneys who have been helping their clients work through the WRCP -- in fact, I think the latest count that I saw something like 35% of the claims submitted have been submitted with the help of our plaintiff's attorney so it's great to see that: the collaboration with their clients.

You do have some set of other attorneys that are telling their clients, don't check out Edison's WRCP program because there's a trial date coming up in January and so, therefore, you'll be able to get through litigation and breeze through and get paid in a matter of months.

And it is really sad to see that misinformation out there, recognizing that these cases, with thousands and thousands of claims -- tens of thousands of claims -- will end up taking multiple years to be resolved.

And so one of the things that we are really working hard to do is to provide the right information to our community so that folks understand that the idea that every case will be somehow resolved magically just because eight cases are going to bellwether trial in January is just such a deep fallacy.

And so we want to make sure we set the record straight and encourage everybody who can to check out our program.

Thank you for helping clarify that [fallacy], as well. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Paul.

That was our last question. I will now turn the call back over to Mr. Sam Ramraj.

Thank you for joining us. This concludes the conference call.

Have a good rest of the day. You may now disconnect.

Thank you for your participation. You may just disconnect at this time.