エジソン・インターナショナル（EIX）2026年第3四半期決算説明会：山火事リスクが継続するなかガイダンスを維持

主要なポイント

• エジソン・インターナショナル（NYSE: EIX）が発表した2026年第3四半期のコアEPSは1.92ドルとなり、前年同期の2.34ドルから減少しました。前年同期には、サザン・カリフォルニア・エジソン（SCE）の総括原価主義に基づく料金改定（GRC）決定に関連する0.55ドルの精算が含まれていました。
• 年初からの累計コアEPSは4.89ドルに達しました。経営陣は2026年通期のコアEPS見通しを5.90ドル〜6.20ドルに据え置き、中央値寄りを見込んでいます。
• 同社はまた、2027年および2028年のコアEPS目標レンジと、2030年までの長期コアEPS成長率目標である5%〜7%を維持しました。
• SCEは2026年から2030年にかけて約380億ドル〜410億ドルの設備投資を計画しており、これにより2025年から2030年までの約7%の想定レートベース成長を支えます。
• 経営陣は、カリフォルニア州の山火事関連改革の遅れが資金調達コストを引き上げていると述べました。現在のクレジットスプレッドにより、SCEが2027年単年で発行を予定している社債の期間全体で、顧客負担額が推定3億ドル増加する可能性があります。
• SCEはイートン火災に関して、総額約11億ドルに上る3,200件以上の補償提示を行いましたが、経営陣は利用可能な請求データがまだ不十分であり、負債の全体像を見積もるには至っていないと説明しました。

主要財務データ

事業およびオペレーションの実績

SCEは山火事の高リスク地域における配電システムの約90%で耐災化（ハードニング）を完了しました。現在の山火事軽減戦略は、被覆電線の導入、局所的な地中化、設備更新、樹木管理、点検および是正措置を組み合わせています。

また、同電力会社は気象観測所データの拡張、高解像度カメラ、可燃物サンプリング、高度なモデリング、AIを活用した点検ツールを使用して、メンテナンス要件や潜在的な設備故障をより早期に特定しています。

エネルギーインフラ安全局（OEIS）はSCEの2026年〜2028年山火事軽減計画を承認し、同社の送電点検プログラムをカリフォルニア州の大型民間電力会社の中で最も包括的であると評価しました。SCEは山火事高リスク地域の送電資産の約77%に対し、毎年詳細な地上および空撮点検を実施しています。

経営陣は、2026年残りの気象条件は現在平年並みと見込まれ、エルニーニョ現象により降雨が早まる可能性があると述べました。状況が変化した場合、SCEは点検や是正措置を拡大する柔軟性を維持しています。

経営陣の見通し（ガイダンス）

エジソン・インターナショナルは、2026年のコアEPS見通しである5.90ドル〜6.20ドルを再確認しました。経営陣は、これまでの業績や将来の不確実性を軽減し効率性を向上させるための事業投資計画を考慮した結果、中央値寄りを見込んでいると示しました。

同社はまた、電話会議の中で具体的なレンジの再言及はなかったものの、2027年および2028年のコアEPS見通しレンジを再確認しました。2030年までの長期コアEPS成長率目標も5%〜7%で維持されています。

2030年までの普通株式の発行予定はありません。経営陣によると、SCEには長期の変動金利負債が存在せず、近々の金利変動による直接的な影響は限定的であるとのことです。

リスクおよび注視すべき点

カリフォルニア州における山火事賠償責任制度の改革が、引き続き政策上の主要リスクとなっています。経営陣は、流動性の持続的な確保策と、山火事基金（Wildfire Fund）の存続期間に縛られない株主賠償責任の上限設定を求めています。現会期における法案は、憲法上の期限である11月15日までに州知事へ送付される必要があります。

経営陣は、2026年中に関係法案が成立しない場合、資金調達コストが上昇し、SCEの2029年総括原価主義料金改定（GRC）に影響を与える可能性があると警告しました。安全性、信頼性、および規制遵守のための投資が引き続き優先されますが、電化、クリーンエネルギー政策、電力需要増加に関連する支出は、より大きな制約を受ける可能性があります。

イートン火災は依然として法的ならびに財務上の大きな不確実性となっています。ロサンゼルス郡消防局の報告書は、出火原因がSCEの設備にあると結論付けました。SCEはこれらの調査結果の検証を継続しており、自社の対応が合理的な電力会社として適切なものであったことを誠実に証明できると主張しています。また同社は、重罪責任や他者の権利・安全性に対する意識的・意図的な軽視を認定する根拠はないと述べました。

経営陣は、イートン火災に関連する引当金を見積もるために十分な情報が得られる時期を、まだ特定できないとしています。人身傷害請求は2027年1月が訴訟時効期限であり、物損被害請求は2028年1月まで提出が可能です。保険会社の代位求償権行使や政府機関からの請求が、さらなる不確実性をもたらしています。

アナリストQ&Aの要点

• 山火事改革の時期：経営陣は、特別議会の開催に前向きな姿勢が示される可能性はあるものの、開催自体は保証されていないと述べました。上院、下院、および州知事室が共通の枠組みを支持できる場合にのみ、特別議会が招集されると予想しています。
• 設備投資削減の可能性：設備投資計画の約22%は、需要増加および系統接続コストに関連しています。経営陣は、資金調達コストが高止まりした場合、FERC（連邦エネルギー規制委員会）管轄の支出ではなく、CPUC（カリフォルニア州公共事業委員会）規制下の設備投資が主な見直しの対象になると指摘しました。
• イートン火災関連の引当金：11月30日を期限とするSCEの山火事復旧補償プログラムにより追加データが得られるものの、参加者が大幅に増加しない限り、同プログラムだけで請求総額を見積もるのに十分な情報が得られるとは予想していません。
• 保険の代位求償：経営陣は、より明確で迅速な代位求償プロセスが訴訟上の摩擦を軽減し、和解までの期間を短縮して、顧客のコストを削減できると述べました。SCEは、イートン火災の代位求償3件について、請求額1ドルあたり約0.55ドルで和解しました。
• 訴訟のタイムライン：最初の代表訴訟（ベルウェザー裁判）には原告8名と予備原告8名が予定されており、年後半にも追加の公判日が設定されています。経営陣は、訴訟を通じて数万件の請求を解決するには複数年かかる可能性があると強調しました。
• 格付けの低下圧力：経営陣は、格付会社が改革の実施を2027年まで待つ姿勢を示しているわけではないと述べました。さらなる格下げは資金調達コストを引き上げるおそれがあり、最終的に法制化がなされたとしても、格付けの回復には時間がかかる可能性があります。

決算説明会トランスクリプト全文

決算説明会の完全なトランスクリプト

経営陣による説明

Operator

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.

Sam Ramraj

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 our 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 will 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. During the question-and-answer session, please limit yourself to 1 question and 1 follow-up.

I will now turn the call over to Pedro.

Pedro Pizarro

Thanks a lot, Sam, and good afternoon, everyone. My comments today will focus on 4 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 Eaton 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 for 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 gain 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 6 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 and 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 a normal year, and there is potential for El Nino 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 70 to 100 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 through 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 cost of cognition 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 want to make 3 points very clear. First, we remain confident that SCE will be able to make a good faith showing that its contact 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.

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 cost 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 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.

Aaron Moss

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 derisk 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 5-year plan calls for approximately $38 billion to $41 billion of capital expenditures from 2026 through 2030. The plan supports projected rate base 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 increased 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 long-standing dividend policy continues to target a payout 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 multiyear financial outlook, and the Edison team is focused on delivering on our commitments to customers, communities and capital providers. That concludes my remarks.

Sam Ramraj

Ted, please open the call for questions. [Operator Instructions]

Operator

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Richard Sunderland with Truist Securities.

Pedro Pizarro

Hey, Rich. Rich, do we have you online?

Operator

The next question in the queue is from Nicholas Campanella with Barclays.

質疑応答

Nicholas Campanella

Thanks for the time. I just wanted to ask, I mean, 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 to. Can you just kind of clarify the time line?

Pedro Pizarro

Yes, sure, Nick. If you look at 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 2-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, the bill would become law. But he does have a 12-day active period after that bill is submitted. But November 15, it's actually a constitutional deadline.

Nicholas Campanella

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 kind of 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 kind of thinking of booking that? Can you talk about how PCG's prudence and 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?

Pedro Pizarro

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 to 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've been asked 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 statutory limitations for property damage, however, goes through 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 to actually go all the way out 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 you know, other classes of claims, including subrogation claims from insurance companies and governmental claims. And so these are all moving pieces and parts that would all need to align in order to be able to develop a low end of the [ assumable ] range. I think Nick also asked about how the PG&E -- [ PGF ] [indiscernible].

Aaron Moss

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 Kincaid. In fact, they were oral arguments just recently or early this week, late last week, I can't remember at this point. But we watch 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 comparison between the prudent standard here and the FERC prudent standard. And so we'll look at FERC recoveries. We'll look at what happens to Kincaid, anything else. So we'll take the totality of evidence into consideration both when it comes to booking the reserves and also booking any kind of regulatory asset or reserve against those regulatory assets.

Pedro Pizarro

Good question.

Operator

The next question is from Richard Sunderland with Truist Securities.

Pedro Pizarro

Hey, Rich. You here, Rich?

Operator

The next question is from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs.

Carly Davenport

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 kind of 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?

Pedro Pizarro

Yes, Carly, I don't want to get to [ quite ] here. 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 may be openness to a special session, but it's certainly not guaranteed by any means. And so that's how we continue to focus on making sure we're doing our part to educate policymakers to try and bring stakeholders together. We recognize there's 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. So 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. I said in 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, a delay into 2027, it's going to be costly for customers. And I sure hope that the state can get all the stars aligned to avoid that cost for our economy.

Carly Davenport

Got it. That's really helpful. 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?

Aaron Moss

Yes, 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 this -- through the benefit cost lens that Pedro referred to.

So you could imagine, if we see material increases in cost of capital when we have already started seeing spreads widen, where 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 kind of 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 furloughed growth and sort of 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 kind of the full testimony development for the general rate case.

Pedro Pizarro

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

Operator

The next question comes from Gregg Orrill with UBS.

Gregg Orrill

Just the focus in the hearings has been on subrogation. And I was wondering if you could kind of 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?

Pedro Pizarro

Yes. Gregg, that's a good frame -- 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. 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 insure every hazard. And certainly, we're not equipped to insure the added hazards 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 in wanting to see subrogation rights. But I can also understand the interest that a number of policymakers have in making sure that the risks are allocated properly, appropriately across multiple stakeholders.

And so I think looking at that subrogation connection, it's all about saying, well, what portion of cost in a catastrophic event are appropriately borne through what I'll call all hazards kind of insurance versus what portion or portion through an entity like the Wildfire Fund on the utility customer and shareholder side. So that's the next is there, Gregg. Does that make sense? Aaron, anything to add?

Aaron Moss

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 a successful sort of reform would include public safety reducing the likelihood and severity of ignitions, timely and fair recovery and affordability kind of getting at total system cost. And there's [ friction ]. We currently -- every time we've had a wildfire, we worked through a subro and we settle claims. In fact, in Eaton, we've settled 3 claims 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.

Pedro Pizarro

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 have 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 have clicked together here.

Operator

The next question is from Aidan Kelly with JPMorgan.

Aidan Kelly

Maybe just first, starting with the Eaton Fire. Given the latest investigative findings and some allegations out there from some third-party reports kind of 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 the likelihood at this time? I know you kind of put out more slide and more disclosures there to kind of bifurcate between the certain topics. Just curious if you could kind of elaborate on that in more depth?

Pedro Pizarro

Yes. 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. Right? We remain confident that SCE will be able to make a good faith showing of its prudency. The longer virtue of that, there was a reasonable operator with respect to the 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 1 of the slides. But under AB 1054, because SCE had a safety certificate, the ingoing 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 we solved 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 a different analysis or what have you. And we continue to look at facts, at 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 the -- all the myriad underlying details because that's really for another day.

Moreover, as we 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 sort of 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 so of you before, that is not something I lose sleep over. I may -- 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 sort of allegation of conscious or willful disregard [ sale ]. Aware of third-party comments out there, without merit, and I think self interesting.

Aidan Kelly

Understood. Understood. And then just 1 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 kind of help catalyze the special session in general?

Pedro Pizarro

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 sort of set of discussions like that will be trade-offs and different points of view. So we certainly are not going into this with a close 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 happened 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 to a special session, that bill will 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 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, although until his last day, but just kind of gives you a sense of the timing for different parties.

Operator

And the next question in the queue is from Ryan Levine with Citi.

Ryan Levine

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 of customers that a delay in the solution would be if nothing were to happen between now and August of next year?

Aaron Moss

Yes. 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 1 of the data points that we share. But you can imagine that the elevated spreads that we've been seeing have been in place since January of 2025, and they will continue.

So we talk to folks about what does that look like over a longer period of time and how, if you let the cost 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.

Ryan Levine

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

Pedro Pizarro

No, just looking forward to seeing the report. As you can imagine, our team jointly or along with the other teams, some of 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 out, very balanced. And so looking forward to seeing the report.

Operator

The next question is from Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho.

Anthony Crowdell

Just a quick one. When you think of rate cases, sometimes when the serial rate filings that maybe caused some fatigue in the regulatory environment. I'm just thinking with regard to the special session and legislation, SB 254 last year, this year, try to get something done, it didn't happen. The thoughts of maybe the utility is thinking is maybe 2027 or better year versus continuing to work out this session. And that's all I have.

Pedro Pizarro

Thanks, Anthony. A simple answer on that one. No. I mean, 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 -- as he expects to take on in 2027, just that tranche of 1 year's worth of activity would lead to $300 million in estimated incremental cost 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. 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 1 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 reports 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, this year.

Aaron Moss

I'll add two things to what Pedro said. Number one, 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 we're -- that's another reason why we want to make sure something happens in a 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.

Pedro Pizarro

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. You'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 in California.

Operator

And the next question is from Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies.

Paul Zimbardo

The first question almost, of course, almost ask Carly's question in reverse. Is there a little bit of guidance to give on what percentage of your CapEx is kind of 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?

Aaron Moss

Yes. 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 breakdown of our various categories of CapEx through 2030. And in that, about 22% of that capital is load growth in interconnection costs. So -- and focus you on there as opposed to -- there's other pieces that could -- that we would look at as well, but that's the big piece that we'd be looking at.

Paul Zimbardo

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 summer time beyond the January. Just -- could you help clarify what are those additional trial dates relate to?

Aaron Moss

Yes. Those are -- we've got bellwether trials that have been set up for January. Right now, there's 8 plaintiffs and then 8 backup 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 are subsequent trials set up later in the year.

But it also kind of 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 8 plaintiffs over the course of several months is not an efficient way to work our way through the litigation.

Pedro Pizarro

Well, Aaron, you got a bit right, but let me just add a little editorial comment here. One of the things that's been a little disconcerting out in the community is that while we have a number of trial attorneys who are -- 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 [ plants ] 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 to litigation and breeze through and get paid in a matter of months." And it is really sad to see that sort of misinformation out there, recognizing that these kind of cases with thousands and thousands of claims -- tens of thousands of claims will end up taking multiple years to be resolved.

And so 1 of the things that you're really working hard to do is to provide the right sort of information to our community so that folks understand that the idea that every case will be somehow resolved magically just because 8 cases are going through bellwether trial in January, it's 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.

Operator

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

Sam Ramraj

Thank you for joining us. This concludes the conference call. Have a good rest of the day. You may now disconnect.

Operator

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