Edison International (EIX) Q3 2026 Earnings Call: Guidance Reaffirmed as Wildfire Risks Persist

Key Takeaways

• Edison International (NYSE: EIX) reported Q3 2026 core EPS of $1.92, compared with $2.34 a year earlier. The prior-year quarter included a $0.55 true-up related to SCE’s general rate case decision.
• Year-to-date core EPS reached $4.89. Management reaffirmed 2026 core EPS guidance of $5.90 to $6.20, with a bias toward the midpoint.
• The company also maintained its 2027 and 2028 core EPS ranges and its long-term core EPS growth target of 5% to 7% through 2030.
• SCE plans approximately $38 billion to $41 billion of capital expenditures from 2026 through 2030, supporting projected rate base growth of about 7% from 2025 through 2030.
• Management said delayed California wildfire reform is raising financing costs. Current credit spreads could add an estimated $300 million to customer costs over the life of bonds SCE expects to issue in 2027 alone.
• SCE has extended more than 3,200 Eaton Fire compensation offers totaling about $1.1 billion, but management said available claims data remain insufficient to estimate the full liability range.

Key Financial Data

Business and Operating Performance

SCE has hardened approximately 90% of its distribution system in high-fire-risk areas. Its current wildfire mitigation strategy combines covered conductor, targeted undergrounding, asset replacement, vegetation management, inspections and remediation.

The utility is also using expanded weather-station data, high-definition cameras, fuel sampling, advanced modeling and AI-enabled inspection tools to identify maintenance needs and potential equipment failures earlier.

The Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety approved SCE’s 2026-2028 Wildfire Mitigation Plan and described its transmission inspection program as the most comprehensive among California’s large investor-owned utilities. SCE performs annual detailed ground and aerial inspections on approximately 77% of transmission assets in high-fire-risk areas.

Management said conditions for the remainder of 2026 currently appear consistent with a normal year, with potential for El Niño to contribute to earlier rainfall. SCE retains flexibility to increase inspections and remediation if conditions change.

Management Guidance

Edison International reaffirmed its 2026 core EPS guidance of $5.90 to $6.20. Management indicated a bias toward the midpoint after considering year-to-date performance and plans to invest in the business to reduce risks in future periods and improve efficiency.

The company also reaffirmed its 2027 and 2028 core EPS guidance ranges, although the specific ranges were not repeated during the call. Its long-term core EPS growth target remains 5% to 7% through 2030.

No common equity issuance is forecast through 2030. Management said SCE has no long-term variable-rate debt, limiting direct exposure to near-term interest-rate movements.

Risks and Areas to Watch

California wildfire liability reform remains the central policy risk. Management is seeking a durable source of claims liquidity and a shareholder liability cap that is not tied to the life of the Wildfire Fund. Any bill from the current legislature must be sent to the governor by the November 15 constitutional deadline.

Management warned that failure to enact reform in 2026 could increase financing costs and potentially affect SCE’s 2029 general rate case. Safety, reliability and compliance investments would remain the priority, while spending tied to electrification, clean-energy policy and load growth could face greater constraints.

The Eaton Fire remains a major legal and financial uncertainty. Los Angeles County Fire Department reports concluded that SCE equipment caused the ignition. SCE continues to review those findings and maintains that it can make a good-faith showing that its conduct was consistent with that of a reasonable utility. The company also said it sees no basis for felony liability or a finding of conscious or willful disregard for others’ rights and safety.

Management cannot yet determine when it will have enough information to estimate Eaton Fire reserves. Personal injury claims face a January 2027 statute-of-limitations deadline, while property damage claims may be filed through January 2028. Insurance subrogation and governmental claims add further uncertainty.

Analyst Q&A Highlights

• Wildfire reform timing: Management said there may be openness to a special legislative session, but no session is guaranteed. It expects a session would be called only if the Senate, Assembly and governor’s office could support a common framework.
• Potential capital reductions: Approximately 22% of the capital plan relates to load growth and interconnection costs. Management identified CPUC-regulated capital, rather than FERC spending, as the primary area under review if financing costs remain elevated.
• Eaton Fire reserves: The November 30 deadline for SCE’s Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program will provide additional data, but management does not expect the program alone to generate enough information to estimate total claims unless participation rises substantially.
• Insurance subrogation: Management said a clearer and faster subrogation process could reduce litigation friction, shorten settlement timelines and lower costs for customers. SCE has settled three Eaton subrogation claims at approximately $0.55 on the dollar.
• Litigation timeline: Eight plaintiffs and eight backup plaintiffs are scheduled for initial bellwether trials, with additional trial dates later in the year. Management stressed that resolving tens of thousands of claims through litigation could take multiple years.
• Credit-rating pressure: Management said rating agencies have not indicated they will wait until 2027 for reform. Further downgrades could raise financing costs and take time to reverse even if legislation is eventually enacted.

Full Earnings Call Transcript

Complete Earnings Call Transcript

Management Remarks

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.

Question-and-Answer Session

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.