Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Third-Party Power Purchase Agreements During the nine months ended September 30, 2015, SCE had new power procurement contracts with additional commitments estimated to be: $21 million for the remainder of 2015, $142 million for 2016, $303 million for 2017, $352 million for 2018, $391 million for 2019 and $5.2 billion for the period remaining thereafter. Indemnities Edison International and SCE have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnity agreements which are issued in the normal course of business. Edison International and SCE have provided indemnifications through contracts entered into in the normal course of business. These are primarily indemnifications against adverse litigation outcomes in connection with underwriting agreements, and indemnities for specified environmental liabilities and income taxes with respect to assets sold. Edison International's and SCE's obligations under these agreements may or may not be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances Edison International and SCE may have recourse against third parties. Edison International and SCE have not recorded a liability related to these indemnities. The overall maximum amount of the obligations under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated. SCE has indemnified the City of Redlands, California in connection with Mountainview's California Energy Commission permit for cleanup or associated actions related to groundwater contaminated by perchlorate due to the disposal of filter cake at the City's solid waste landfill. The obligations under this agreement are not limited to a specific time period or subject to a maximum liability. SCE has not recorded a liability related to this indemnity. Contingencies In addition to the matters disclosed in these Notes, Edison International and SCE are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Edison International and SCE believe the outcome of these other proceedings will not, individually or in the aggregate, materially affect its results of operations or liquidity. San Onofre Related Matters Replacement steam generators were installed at San Onofre in 2010 and 2011. On January 31, 2012, a leak suddenly occurred in one of the heat transfer tubes in San Onofre's Unit 3 steam generators. The Unit was safely taken off-line and subsequent inspections revealed excessive tube wear. Unit 2 was off-line for a planned outage when areas of unexpected tube wear were also discovered. On June 6, 2013, SCE decided to permanently retire Units 2 and 3. Settlement of San Onofre CPUC Proceedings In November 2014, the CPUC approved the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement that SCE had entered into with TURN, ORA, SDG&E, the Coalition of California Utility Employees, and Friends of the Earth. The San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement resolved the CPUC's investigation regarding the Steam Generator Replacement Project at San Onofre and the related outages and subsequent shutdown of San Onofre. The San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement does not affect proceedings related to recoveries from third parties described below, but does describe how shareholders and customers will share any potential recoveries. Challenges related to San Onofre CPUC Proceedings A federal lawsuit challenging the CPUC's authority to permit rate recovery of San Onofre costs and an application to the CPUC for rehearing of its decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement were filed in November and December 2014, respectively. In April 2015, the federal lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs in that case appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit in May 2015. Both the appeal and the application for rehearing remain pending. In February 2015, SCE filed in the OII proceeding a Late-Filed Notice of Ex Parte Communication regarding a meeting in March 2013 between an SCE senior executive and the president of the CPUC, both of whom have since retired from their respective positions. Following this filing, the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility ("A4NR"), one of the intervenors in the OII, filed a motion requesting that the CPUC institute an investigation into whether sanctions should be imposed on SCE for the late notice of the March 2013 meeting. The motion requests that the CPUC order SCE to produce all ex parte communications between SCE and the CPUC or its staff since January 31, 2012 and all internal SCE unprivileged communications that discuss such ex parte communications. On May 6, 2015, A4NR amended its motion to recommend that the CPUC impose a $38.2 million penalty on SCE and additional restrictions on ex parte communications. On April 14, 2015, the OII ALJs ordered SCE, among other things, to produce unprivileged documents pertaining to oral and written communications regarding the possible settlement of the OII proceeding between any SCE employee and CPUC decision makers from March 2013 to November 2014. SCE produced responsive documents and information on April 29, 2015. On June 26, 2015, the ALJs requested additional information, which SCE provided on July 3, 2015. Subsequently, another intervenor, the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre, filed a motion to move the start date for the production of documents under the CPUC's order to January 31, 2012 and to authorize the intervenors to conduct discovery of SCE. On August 5, 2015, the OII ALJ issued a ruling that nine additional communications should have been reported in addition to the March 2013 communication that SCE had reported in February 2015. The ruling dismissed all other pending requests for disclosures by SCE, discovery, or sanctions. In addition, the August 2015 ruling ordered SCE to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for violations of the ex parte rules and two related violations of Rule 1.1. The amount of potential monetary sanctions may vary from $500 to $50,000 per offense and will also depend on whether each offense is considered to be a single or a continuing violation, rendering it subject to a separate fine for each day. SCE responded to the order on August 20, 2015, arguing that the additional communications were not reportable and that sanctions were not justified. On October 20, 2015, SCE submitted to the CPUC additional documents that were responsive to the ALJs' order discussed above. On October 26, 2015, the OII ALJ issued a proposed decision that would impose a penalty of $16.74 million in connection with eight communications that the proposed decision finds should have been reported. The proposed decision does not address the petitions for modification of the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement discussed below. On April 17, 2015, ORA and TURN issued press releases asking the CPUC to impose penalties on SCE as a sanction for allegedly improper ex parte communications pertaining to San Onofre or failures to report such communications. ORA recommended penalties in the amount of $648 million, representing ORA's calculation of the difference in ratepayer value between ORA's initial settlement negotiating position in the San Onofre OII and the approved settlement. TURN did not recommend a penalty amount. On April 27, 2015, A4NR filed a petition to modify the CPUC's decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement based on SCE's alleged failures to disclose communications between SCE and CPUC decision-makers pertaining to the issues in the San Onofre OII. The petition seeks the reversal of the decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement and reopening of the OII proceeding. Subsequently, TURN and ORA filed responses supporting A4NR's petition to reopen the San Onofre OII proceeding. In August 2015, ORA filed its own petition to modify the CPUC's decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement seeking to set aside the settlement and reopen the San Onofre OII proceeding. SCE and SDG&E responded to this petition in September 2015. Both petitions remain pending before the CPUC. On July 6, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its CEO and CFO. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison International's ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers were more extensive than initially reported. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between July 31, 2014 and June 24, 2015. Subsequently, in July 2015, a federal shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against members of the Edison International Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims based on similar allegations to the federal securities lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, and various corporate governance reforms. Two additional federal shareholder derivative lawsuits making essentially the same allegations were filed in August and October 2015. Edison International and SCE cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. NEIL Insurance Settlement San Onofre carries accidental property damage and carried accidental outage insurance issued by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"). Through August 30, 2014, the San Onofre owners had submitted approximately $433 million in claims (SCE's share of which is approximately $339 million) under the accidental outage insurance. The accidental outage insurance at San Onofre has been canceled prospectively as a result of the permanent retirement. In October 2015, San Onofre owners reached an agreement with NEIL to resolve all insurance claims arising out of the failures of the San Onofre replacement steam generators for a total payment by NEIL of $400 million (SCE's share of which is approximately $313 million). According to the terms of the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement, the settlement proceeds will be applied to reimburse the costs of pursuing the recovery and then allocated 95% to customers and 5% to SCE. SCE will record the recoveries from NEIL during the fourth quarter of 2015. SCE customers' portion of amounts recovered from NEIL would be distributed to SCE customers via a credit to SCE's ERRA account. MHI Claims SCE is also pursuing claims against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and a related company ("MHI"), which designed and supplied the RSGs. MHI warranted the RSGs for an initial period of 20 years from acceptance and is contractually obligated to repair or replace defective items with dispatch and to pay specified damages for certain repairs. MHI's stated liability under the purchase agreement is limited to $138 million and excludes consequential damages, defined to include "the cost of replacement power;" however, limitations in the contract are subject to applicable exceptions both in the contract and under law. SCE has advised MHI that it believes one or more of such exceptions apply and that MHI's liability is not limited to $138 million. MHI has advised SCE that it disagrees. In October 2013, SCE sent MHI a formal request for binding arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce in accordance with the purchase contract seeking damages for all losses. In the request for arbitration, SCE alleges contract and tort claims and seeks at least $4 billion in damages on behalf of itself and its customers and in its capacity as Operating Agent for San Onofre. MHI has denied any liability and has asserted counterclaims for $41 million, for which SCE has denied any liability. Each of the other San Onofre owners sued MHI, alleging claims arising from MHI's supplying the faulty steam generators. These litigation claims have been stayed pending the arbitration. The other owners (SDG&E and Riverside) have been added as additional claimants in the arbitration. The arbitration is being conducted pursuant to a confidentiality order issued by the arbitration panel. SCE, on behalf of itself and the other San Onofre owners, has submitted seven invoices to MHI totaling $149 million for steam generator repair costs incurred through April 30, 2013. MHI paid the first invoice of $45 million, while reserving its right to challenge it and subsequently rejected a portion of the first invoice and has not paid further invoices, claiming further documentation is required, which SCE disputes. SCE recorded its share of the invoice paid (approximately $35 million) as a reduction of repair and inspection costs in 2012. Under the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement, recoveries from MHI (including amounts paid by MHI under the first invoice), if any, will first be applied to reimburse costs incurred in pursuing such recoveries, including litigation costs. To the extent SCE's share of recoveries from MHI exceed such costs, they will be allocated 50% to customers and 50% to SCE. The first $282 million of SCE's customers' portion of such recoveries from MHI will be distributed to customers via a credit to a sub-account of SCE's Base Revenue Requirement Balancing Account ("BRRBA"), reducing revenue requirements from customers. Amounts in excess of the first $282 million distributable to SCE customers will reduce SCE's regulatory asset represented by the unamortized balance of investment in San Onofre base plant, reducing the revenue requirement needed to amortize such investment. The amortization period, however, will be unaffected. Any additional amounts received after the regulatory asset is recovered will be applied to the BRRBA. The San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement provides the utilities with the discretion to resolve the NEIL and MHI disputes without CPUC approval or review, but the utilities are obligated to use their best efforts to inform the CPUC of any settlement or other resolution of these disputes to the extent this is possible without compromising any aspect of the resolution. SCE and SDG&E have also agreed to allow the CPUC to review the documentation of any final resolution of the NEIL and MHI disputes and the litigation costs incurred in pursuing claims against NEIL and MHI to ensure they are not exorbitant in relation to the recovery obtained. There is no assurance that there will be any recoveries from NEIL or MHI or, that if there are recoveries, that they will equal or exceed the costs incurred to pursue them. NRC Proceedings In July 2015, the NRC issued a final decision regarding SCE's compliance with the license amendment regulatory process related to the RSGs, finding the issue to be moot, given the permanent cessation of operation of San Onofre. In March 2015, the NRC issued a lessons learned report in which it restated earlier NRC inspection findings that SCE properly concluded that the replacement steam generators at San Onofre did not require a formal license amendment prior to installation using a common NRC process for replacement components. Certain anti-nuclear groups and individual members of Congress have alleged that SCE knew of deficiencies in the steam generators when they were installed or otherwise did not correctly follow NRC requirements for the design and installation of the replacement steam generators, all of which SCE has vigorously denied, and have called for investigations, including by the Department of Justice. SCE cannot predict when or whether ongoing proceedings by the NRC will be completed or whether inquiries by other government agencies concerning how the RSG project was conducted will be initiated or reopened. Long Beach Service Interruptions In July 2015, SCE's customers who are served via the network portion of SCE's electric system in Long Beach, California experienced service interruptions due to multiple underground vault fires and underground cable failures. No personal injuries have been reported in connection with these events. SCE instituted an internal investigation and commissioned an external investigation of these events and their causes. These events and their causes are also being investigated by the CPUC's SED. SCE is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss associated with any penalties that may be imposed by the CPUC related to this matter. Subject to applicable deductibles, SCE is generally insured against customer claims arising from these service interruptions. Environmental Remediation SCE records its environmental remediation liabilities when site assessments and/or remedial actions are probable and a range of reasonably likely cleanup costs can be estimated. SCE reviews its sites and measures the liability quarterly, by assessing a range of reasonably likely costs for each identified site using currently available information, including existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, experience gained at similar sites, and the probable level of involvement and financial condition of other potentially responsible parties. These estimates include costs for site investigations, remediation, operation and maintenance, monitoring and site closure. Unless there is a single probable amount, SCE records the lower end of this reasonably likely range of costs (reflected in "Other long-term liabilities") at undiscounted amounts as timing of cash flows is uncertain. At September 30, 2015, SCE's recorded estimated minimum liability to remediate its 19 identified material sites (sites in which the upper end of the range of the costs is at least $1 million) was $137 million, including $82 million related to San Onofre. In addition to these sites, SCE also has 39 immaterial sites for which the total minimum recorded liability was $4 million. Of the $140 million total environmental remediation liability for SCE, $135 million has been recorded as a regulatory asset. SCE expects to recover $50 million through an incentive mechanism that allows SCE to recover 90% of its environmental remediation costs at certain sites (SCE may request to include additional sites) and $84 million through a mechanism that allows SCE to recover 100% of the costs incurred at certain sites through customer rates. SCE's identified sites include several sites for which there is a lack of currently available information, including the nature and magnitude of contamination, and the extent, if any, that SCE may be held responsible for contributing to any costs incurred for remediating these sites. Thus, no reasonable estimate of cleanup costs can be made for these sites. The ultimate costs to clean up SCE's identified sites may vary from its recorded liability due to numerous uncertainties inherent in the estimation process, such as: the extent and nature of contamination; the scarcity of reliable data for identified sites; the varying costs of alternative cleanup methods; developments resulting from investigatory studies; the possibility of identifying additional sites; and the time periods over which site remediation is expected to occur. SCE believes that, due to these uncertainties, it is reasonably possible that cleanup costs at the identified material sites and immaterial sites could exceed its recorded liability by up to $163 million and $8 million, respectively. The upper limit of this range of costs was estimated using assumptions least favorable to SCE among a range of reasonably possible outcomes. SCE expects to clean up and mitigate its identified sites over a period of up to 30 years. Remediation costs for each of the next five years are expected to range from $7 million to $24 million. Costs incurred for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 were $5 million and $3 million, respectively. Based upon the CPUC's regulatory treatment of environmental remediation costs incurred at SCE, SCE believes that costs ultimately recorded will not materially affect its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. There can be no assurance, however, that future developments, including additional information about existing sites or the identification of new sites, will not require material revisions to estimates. Nuclear Insurance SCE is a member of NEIL, a mutual insurance company owned by entities with nuclear facilities. NEIL provides insurance for nuclear property damage, including damages caused by acts of terrorism up to specified limits, and for accidental outages for active facilities. The amount of nuclear property damage insurance purchased for San Onofre and Palo Verde exceeds the minimum federal requirement of $1.06 billion. If NEIL losses at any nuclear facility covered by the arrangement were to exceed the accumulated funds for these insurance programs, SCE could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments of up to approximately $52 million per year. Federal law limits public offsite liability claims for bodily injury and property damage from a nuclear incident to the amount of available financial protection, which is currently approximately $13.4 billion. Based on its ownership interests, SCE could be required to pay a maximum of approximately $255 million per nuclear incident. However, it would have to pay no more than approximately $38 million per incident in any one year. For more information on nuclear insurance coverage, see Note 11 in the 2014 Form 10-K. Wildfire Insurance Severe wildfires in California have given rise to large damage claims against California utilities for fire-related losses alleged to be the result of the failure of electric and other utility equipment. Invoking a California Court of Appeal decision, plaintiffs pursuing these claims have relied on the doctrine of inverse condemnation, which can impose strict liability (including liability for a claimant's attorneys' fees) for property damage. Prolonged drought conditions in California have also increased the risk of severe wildfire events. On June 1, 2015, Edison International renewed its liability insurance coverage, which included coverage for SCE's wildfire liabilities up to a $610 million limit (with a self-insured retention of $10 million per wildfire occurrence). Various coverage limitations within the policies that make up this insurance coverage could result in additional self-insured costs in the event of multiple wildfire occurrences during the policy period (June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016). SCE also has additional coverage for certain wildfire liabilities of $390 million, which applies when total covered wildfire claims exceed $610 million, through June 14, 2016. SCE may experience coverage reductions and/or increased insurance costs in future years. No assurance can be given that future losses will not exceed the limits of SCE's insurance coverage. Spent Nuclear Fuel Under federal law, the Department of Energy ("DOE") is responsible for the selection and construction of a facility for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The DOE has not met its contractual obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel. Extended delays by the DOE have led to the construction of costly alternatives and associated siting and environmental issues. Currently, both San Onofre and Palo Verde have interim storage for spent nuclear fuel on site sufficient for the current license period. SCE, as operating agent, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the San Onofre owners against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages of approximately $182 million for the DOE's failure to meet its obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2013. Additional legal action would be necessary to recover damages incurred after December 31, 2013. All damages recovered by SCE are subject to CPUC review as to how these amounts would be distributed among customers, shareholders, or to offset fuel decommissioning or storage costs.

Commitments and Contingencies

Third-Party Power Purchase Agreements

During the nine months ended September 30, 2015, SCE had new power procurement contracts with additional commitments estimated to be: $21 million for the remainder of 2015, $142 million for 2016, $303 million for 2017, $352 million for 2018, $391 million for 2019 and $5.2 billion for the period remaining thereafter.

Indemnities

Edison International and SCE have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnity agreements which are issued in the normal course of business.

Edison International and SCE have provided indemnifications through contracts entered into in the normal course of business. These are primarily indemnifications against adverse litigation outcomes in connection with underwriting agreements, and indemnities for specified environmental liabilities and income taxes with respect to assets sold. Edison International's and SCE's obligations under these agreements may or may not be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some instances Edison International and SCE may have recourse against third parties. Edison International and SCE have not recorded a liability related to these indemnities. The overall maximum amount of the obligations under these indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated.

SCE has indemnified the City of Redlands, California in connection with Mountainview's California Energy Commission permit for cleanup or associated actions related to groundwater contaminated by perchlorate due to the disposal of filter cake at the City's solid waste landfill. The obligations under this agreement are not limited to a specific time period or subject to a maximum liability. SCE has not recorded a liability related to this indemnity.

Contingencies

In addition to the matters disclosed in these Notes, Edison International and SCE are involved in other legal, tax and regulatory proceedings before various courts and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Edison International and SCE believe the outcome of these other proceedings will not, individually or in the aggregate, materially affect its results of operations or liquidity.

San Onofre Related Matters

Replacement steam generators were installed at San Onofre in 2010 and 2011. On January 31, 2012, a leak suddenly occurred in one of the heat transfer tubes in San Onofre's Unit 3 steam generators. The Unit was safely taken off-line and subsequent inspections revealed excessive tube wear. Unit 2 was off-line for a planned outage when areas of unexpected tube wear were also discovered. On June 6, 2013, SCE decided to permanently retire Units 2 and 3.

Settlement of San Onofre CPUC Proceedings

In November 2014, the CPUC approved the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement that SCE had entered into with TURN, ORA, SDG&E, the Coalition of California Utility Employees, and Friends of the Earth. The San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement resolved the CPUC's investigation regarding the Steam Generator Replacement Project at San Onofre and the related outages and subsequent shutdown of San Onofre. The San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement does not affect proceedings related to recoveries from third parties described below, but does describe how shareholders and customers will share any potential recoveries.

Challenges related to San Onofre CPUC Proceedings

A federal lawsuit challenging the CPUC's authority to permit rate recovery of San Onofre costs and an application to the CPUC for rehearing of its decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement were filed in November and December 2014, respectively. In April 2015, the federal lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs in that case appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit in May 2015. Both the appeal and the application for rehearing remain pending.

In February 2015, SCE filed in the OII proceeding a Late-Filed Notice of Ex Parte Communication regarding a meeting in March 2013 between an SCE senior executive and the president of the CPUC, both of whom have since retired from their respective positions. Following this filing, the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility ("A4NR"), one of the intervenors in the OII, filed a motion requesting that the CPUC institute an investigation into whether sanctions should be imposed on SCE for the late notice of the March 2013 meeting. The motion requests that the CPUC order SCE to produce all ex parte communications between SCE and the CPUC or its staff since January 31, 2012 and all internal SCE unprivileged communications that discuss such ex parte communications. On May 6, 2015, A4NR amended its motion to recommend that the CPUC impose a $38.2 million penalty on SCE and additional restrictions on ex parte communications.

On April 14, 2015, the OII ALJs ordered SCE, among other things, to produce unprivileged documents pertaining to oral and written communications regarding the possible settlement of the OII proceeding between any SCE employee and CPUC decision makers from March 2013 to November 2014. SCE produced responsive documents and information on April 29, 2015. On June 26, 2015, the ALJs requested additional information, which SCE provided on July 3, 2015. Subsequently, another intervenor, the Coalition to Decommission San Onofre, filed a motion to move the start date for the production of documents under the CPUC's order to January 31, 2012 and to authorize the intervenors to conduct discovery of SCE. On August 5, 2015, the OII ALJ issued a ruling that nine additional communications should have been reported in addition to the March 2013 communication that SCE had reported in February 2015. The ruling dismissed all other pending requests for disclosures by SCE, discovery, or sanctions. In addition, the August 2015 ruling ordered SCE to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for violations of the ex parte rules and two related violations of Rule 1.1. The amount of potential monetary sanctions may vary from $500 to $50,000 per offense and will also depend on whether each offense is considered to be a single or a continuing violation, rendering it subject to a separate fine for each day. SCE responded to the order on August 20, 2015, arguing that the additional communications were not reportable and that sanctions were not justified. On October 20, 2015, SCE submitted to the CPUC additional documents that were responsive to the ALJs' order discussed above. On October 26, 2015, the OII ALJ issued a proposed decision that would impose a penalty of $16.74 million in connection with eight communications that the proposed decision finds should have been reported. The proposed decision does not address the petitions for modification of the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement discussed below.

On April 17, 2015, ORA and TURN issued press releases asking the CPUC to impose penalties on SCE as a sanction for allegedly improper ex parte communications pertaining to San Onofre or failures to report such communications. ORA recommended penalties in the amount of $648 million, representing ORA's calculation of the difference in ratepayer value between ORA's initial settlement negotiating position in the San Onofre OII and the approved settlement. TURN did not recommend a penalty amount.

On April 27, 2015, A4NR filed a petition to modify the CPUC's decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement based on SCE's alleged failures to disclose communications between SCE and CPUC decision-makers pertaining to the issues in the San Onofre OII. The petition seeks the reversal of the decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement and reopening of the OII proceeding. Subsequently, TURN and ORA filed responses supporting A4NR's petition to reopen the San Onofre OII proceeding. In August 2015, ORA filed its own petition to modify the CPUC's decision approving the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement seeking to set aside the settlement and reopen the San Onofre OII proceeding. SCE and SDG&E responded to this petition in September 2015. Both petitions remain pending before the CPUC. On July 6, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its CEO and CFO. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison International's ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers were more extensive than initially reported. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between July 31, 2014 and June 24, 2015.

Subsequently, in July 2015, a federal shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against members of the Edison International Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims based on similar allegations to the federal securities lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, and various corporate governance reforms. Two additional federal shareholder derivative lawsuits making essentially the same allegations were filed in August and October 2015.

Edison International and SCE cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings.

NEIL Insurance Settlement

San Onofre carries accidental property damage and carried accidental outage insurance issued by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"). Through August 30, 2014, the San Onofre owners had submitted approximately $433 million in claims (SCE's share of which is approximately $339 million) under the accidental outage insurance. The accidental outage insurance at San Onofre has been canceled prospectively as a result of the permanent retirement.

In October 2015, San Onofre owners reached an agreement with NEIL to resolve all insurance claims arising out of the failures of the San Onofre replacement steam generators for a total payment by NEIL of $400 million (SCE's share of which is approximately $313 million). According to the terms of the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement, the settlement proceeds will be applied to reimburse the costs of pursuing the recovery and then allocated 95% to customers and 5% to SCE. SCE will record the recoveries from NEIL during the fourth quarter of 2015. SCE customers' portion of amounts recovered from NEIL would be distributed to SCE customers via a credit to SCE's ERRA account.

MHI Claims

SCE is also pursuing claims against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and a related company ("MHI"), which designed and supplied the RSGs. MHI warranted the RSGs for an initial period of 20 years from acceptance and is contractually obligated to repair or replace defective items with dispatch and to pay specified damages for certain repairs. MHI's stated liability under the purchase agreement is limited to $138 million and excludes consequential damages, defined to include "the cost of replacement power;" however, limitations in the contract are subject to applicable exceptions both in the contract and under law. SCE has advised MHI that it believes one or more of such exceptions apply and that MHI's liability is not limited to $138 million. MHI has advised SCE that it disagrees. In October 2013, SCE sent MHI a formal request for binding arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce in accordance with the purchase contract seeking damages for all losses. In the request for arbitration, SCE alleges contract and tort claims and seeks at least $4 billion in damages on behalf of itself and its customers and in its capacity as Operating Agent for San Onofre. MHI has denied any liability and has asserted counterclaims for $41 million, for which SCE has denied any liability. Each of the other San Onofre owners sued MHI, alleging claims arising from MHI's supplying the faulty steam generators. These litigation claims have been stayed pending the arbitration. The other owners (SDG&E and Riverside) have been added as additional claimants in the arbitration. The arbitration is being conducted pursuant to a confidentiality order issued by the arbitration panel.

SCE, on behalf of itself and the other San Onofre owners, has submitted seven invoices to MHI totaling $149 million for steam generator repair costs incurred through April 30, 2013. MHI paid the first invoice of $45 million, while reserving its right to challenge it and subsequently rejected a portion of the first invoice and has not paid further invoices, claiming further documentation is required, which SCE disputes. SCE recorded its share of the invoice paid (approximately $35 million) as a reduction of repair and inspection costs in 2012.

Under the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement, recoveries from MHI (including amounts paid by MHI under the first invoice), if any, will first be applied to reimburse costs incurred in pursuing such recoveries, including litigation costs. To the extent SCE's share of recoveries from MHI exceed such costs, they will be allocated 50% to customers and 50% to SCE.

The first $282 million of SCE's customers' portion of such recoveries from MHI will be distributed to customers via a credit to a sub-account of SCE's Base Revenue Requirement Balancing Account ("BRRBA"), reducing revenue requirements from customers. Amounts in excess of the first $282 million distributable to SCE customers will reduce SCE's regulatory asset represented by the unamortized balance of investment in San Onofre base plant, reducing the revenue requirement needed to amortize such investment. The amortization period, however, will be unaffected. Any additional amounts received after the regulatory asset is recovered will be applied to the BRRBA.

The San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement provides the utilities with the discretion to resolve the NEIL and MHI disputes without CPUC approval or review, but the utilities are obligated to use their best efforts to inform the CPUC of any settlement or other resolution of these disputes to the extent this is possible without compromising any aspect of the resolution. SCE and SDG&E have also agreed to allow the CPUC to review the documentation of any final resolution of the NEIL and MHI disputes and the litigation costs incurred in pursuing claims against NEIL and MHI to ensure they are not exorbitant in relation to the recovery obtained. There is no assurance that there will be any recoveries from NEIL or MHI or, that if there are recoveries, that they will equal or exceed the costs incurred to pursue them.

NRC Proceedings

In July 2015, the NRC issued a final decision regarding SCE's compliance with the license amendment regulatory process related to the RSGs, finding the issue to be moot, given the permanent cessation of operation of San Onofre. In March 2015, the NRC issued a lessons learned report in which it restated earlier NRC inspection findings that SCE properly concluded that the replacement steam generators at San Onofre did not require a formal license amendment prior to installation using a common NRC process for replacement components.

Certain anti-nuclear groups and individual members of Congress have alleged that SCE knew of deficiencies in the steam generators when they were installed or otherwise did not correctly follow NRC requirements for the design and installation of the replacement steam generators, all of which SCE has vigorously denied, and have called for investigations, including by the Department of Justice. SCE cannot predict when or whether ongoing proceedings by the NRC will be completed or whether inquiries by other government agencies concerning how the RSG project was conducted will be initiated or reopened.

Long Beach Service Interruptions

In July 2015, SCE's customers who are served via the network portion of SCE's electric system in Long Beach, California experienced service interruptions due to multiple underground vault fires and underground cable failures. No personal injuries have been reported in connection with these events. SCE instituted an internal investigation and commissioned an external investigation of these events and their causes. These events and their causes are also being investigated by the CPUC's SED. SCE is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss associated with any penalties that may be imposed by the CPUC related to this matter. Subject to applicable deductibles, SCE is generally insured against customer claims arising from these service interruptions.

Environmental Remediation

SCE records its environmental remediation liabilities when site assessments and/or remedial actions are probable and a range of reasonably likely cleanup costs can be estimated. SCE reviews its sites and measures the liability quarterly, by assessing a range of reasonably likely costs for each identified site using currently available information, including existing technology, presently enacted laws and regulations, experience gained at similar sites, and the probable level of involvement and financial condition of other potentially responsible parties. These estimates include costs for site investigations, remediation, operation and maintenance, monitoring and site closure. Unless there is a single probable amount, SCE records the lower end of this reasonably likely range of costs (reflected in "Other long-term liabilities") at undiscounted amounts as timing of cash flows is uncertain.

At September 30, 2015, SCE's recorded estimated minimum liability to remediate its 19 identified material sites (sites in which the upper end of the range of the costs is at least $1 million) was $137 million, including $82 million related to San Onofre. In addition to these sites, SCE also has 39 immaterial sites for which the total minimum recorded liability was $4 million. Of the $140 million total environmental remediation liability for SCE, $135 million has been recorded as a regulatory asset. SCE expects to recover $50 million through an incentive mechanism that allows SCE to recover 90% of its environmental remediation costs at certain sites (SCE may request to include additional sites) and $84 million through a mechanism that allows SCE to recover 100% of the costs incurred at certain sites through customer rates. SCE's identified sites include several sites for which there is a lack of currently available information, including the nature and magnitude of contamination, and the extent, if any, that SCE may be held responsible for contributing to any costs incurred for remediating these sites. Thus, no reasonable estimate of cleanup costs can be made for these sites.

The ultimate costs to clean up SCE's identified sites may vary from its recorded liability due to numerous uncertainties inherent in the estimation process, such as: the extent and nature of contamination; the scarcity of reliable data for identified sites; the varying costs of alternative cleanup methods; developments resulting from investigatory studies; the possibility of identifying additional sites; and the time periods over which site remediation is expected to occur. SCE believes that, due to these uncertainties, it is reasonably possible that cleanup costs at the identified material sites and immaterial sites could exceed its recorded liability by up to $163 million and $8 million, respectively. The upper limit of this range of costs was estimated using assumptions least favorable to SCE among a range of reasonably possible outcomes.

SCE expects to clean up and mitigate its identified sites over a period of up to 30 years. Remediation costs for each of the next five years are expected to range from $7 million to $24 million. Costs incurred for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014 were $5 million and $3 million, respectively.

Based upon the CPUC's regulatory treatment of environmental remediation costs incurred at SCE, SCE believes that costs ultimately recorded will not materially affect its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. There can be no assurance, however, that future developments, including additional information about existing sites or the identification of new sites, will not require material revisions to estimates.

Nuclear Insurance

SCE is a member of NEIL, a mutual insurance company owned by entities with nuclear facilities. NEIL provides insurance for nuclear property damage, including damages caused by acts of terrorism up to specified limits, and for accidental outages for active facilities. The amount of nuclear property damage insurance purchased for San Onofre and Palo Verde exceeds the minimum federal requirement of $1.06 billion. If NEIL losses at any nuclear facility covered by the arrangement were to exceed the accumulated funds for these insurance programs, SCE could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments of up to approximately $52 million per year.

Federal law limits public offsite liability claims for bodily injury and property damage from a nuclear incident to the amount of available financial protection, which is currently approximately $13.4 billion. Based on its ownership interests, SCE could be required to pay a maximum of approximately $255 million per nuclear incident. However, it would have to pay no more than approximately $38 million per incident in any one year.

For more information on nuclear insurance coverage, see Note 11 in the 2014 Form 10-K.

Wildfire Insurance

Severe wildfires in California have given rise to large damage claims against California utilities for fire-related losses alleged to be the result of the failure of electric and other utility equipment. Invoking a California Court of Appeal decision, plaintiffs pursuing these claims have relied on the doctrine of inverse condemnation, which can impose strict liability (including liability for a claimant's attorneys' fees) for property damage. Prolonged drought conditions in California have also increased the risk of severe wildfire events. On June 1, 2015, Edison International renewed its liability insurance coverage, which included coverage for SCE's wildfire liabilities up to a $610 million limit (with a self-insured retention of $10 million per wildfire occurrence). Various coverage limitations within the policies that make up this insurance coverage could result in additional self-insured costs in the event of multiple wildfire occurrences during the policy period (June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016). SCE also has additional coverage for certain wildfire liabilities of $390 million, which applies when total covered wildfire claims exceed $610 million, through June 14, 2016. SCE may experience coverage reductions and/or increased insurance costs in future years. No assurance can be given that future losses will not exceed the limits of SCE's insurance coverage.

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Under federal law, the Department of Energy ("DOE") is responsible for the selection and construction of a facility for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The DOE has not met its contractual obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel. Extended delays by the DOE have led to the construction of costly alternatives and associated siting and environmental issues. Currently, both San Onofre and Palo Verde have interim storage for spent nuclear fuel on site sufficient for the current license period.

SCE, as operating agent, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the San Onofre owners against the DOE in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages of approximately $182 million for the DOE's failure to meet its obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2013. Additional legal action would be necessary to recover damages incurred after December 31, 2013. All damages recovered by SCE are subject to CPUC review as to how these amounts would be distributed among customers, shareholders, or to offset fuel decommissioning or storage costs.