Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Third-Party Power Purchase Agreements During the first nine months of 2017, SCE had existing PPAs that met the critical contract provisions (including completion of major milestones for construction). SCE's net additional commitments for power purchase agreements are estimated to be: $27 million in 2018, $72 million in 2019, $62 million in 2020, $20 million in 2021, and $1.2 billion for the remaining period thereafter. For further information, see Note 11 in the 2016 Form 10-K. 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 the Mountainview power plant'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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 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. San Onofre CPUC Proceedings In November 2014, the CPUC unanimously approved the Settlement Agreement by and among SCE, The Utility Reform Network, the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates and San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"), which was later joined by the Coalition of California Utility Employees and Friends of the Earth, dated November 20, 2014 (the "San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement"), which resolved the CPUC's investigation regarding the steam generator replacement project at San Onofre and the related outages and subsequent shutdown of San Onofre. Subsequently, the San Onofre Order Instituting Investigation ("OII") proceeding record was reopened by a joint ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and the Assigned administrative law judge ("ALJ") to consider whether, in light of SCE not reporting certain ex parte communications on a timely basis, the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement remained reasonable, consistent with the law, and in the public interest, which is the standard the CPUC applies in reviewing settlements submitted for approval. In comments filed with the CPUC in July 2016, SCE asserted that the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement continues to meet this standard and therefore should not be disturbed. In a December 2016 joint ruling, the Assigned Commissioner and the Assigned ALJ expressed concerns about the extent to which the failure to timely report ex parte communications had impacted the settlement negotiations and directed SCE and SDG&E to meet and confer with the other parties in the San Onofre OII to consider changing the terms of the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement. In March 2017, SCE and the parties participating in the meet-and-confer process initiated a mediation of the issues identified in the December 2016 joint ruling. On August 15, 2017, SCE notified the CPUC that the parties in the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement were unable to reach agreement on possible changes to the settlement unanimously approved by the CPUC in 2014. In connection with the termination of the meet-and-confer process, SCE asked the CPUC to affirm that the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and in the public interest. A number of the parties to the San Onofre OII, however, have requested that the CPUC either modify the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement or vacate its previous approval of the settlement and reinstate the San Onofre OII for further proceedings. Several of the parties to the meet-and-confer process petitioned the CPUC on a broad range of litigation positions, certain of which included substantial additional disallowances. On October 10, 2017, the Assigned Commissioner and ALJ issued a Ruling ordering additional process to resolve the San Onofre OII. The Ruling did not set aside nor confirm the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement but stated that the CPUC required an additional record to address the appropriate cost allocation for the premature shutdown of San Onofre Units 2 and 3, in the event the CPUC decides that the settlement does not meet the CPUC's standards for approval of settlements. The Ruling sets an expedited schedule with a status conference on November 7, 2017 and hearings tentatively scheduled to end in March 2018. The CPUC has not announced the expected timing for a decision. SCE has recorded a regulatory asset of $730 million at September 30, 2017 to reflect the expected recoveries under the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement. Management assesses at the end of each reporting period whether regulatory assets are probable of future recovery. SCE assessed the San Onofre regulatory asset at September 30, 2017 and continues to conclude that the asset is probable, though not certain, of recovery based on SCE's knowledge of facts and judgment in applying the relevant regulatory principles to the issue. Such judgment is subject to uncertainty, and regulatory principles and precedents are not necessarily binding and are subject to interpretation. Additional Challenges related to the Settlement of 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. In light of the San Onofre OII meet-and-confer sessions, the Ninth Circuit cancelled the hearing that had been scheduled for February 9, 2017 and ordered the parties to notify the Ninth Circuit of the status of the San Onofre OII by May 1, 2017 and periodically thereafter. In October 2017, the Ninth Circuit scheduled a hearing for February 13, 2018 and directed the parties to file a status report on January 30, 2018. In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The complaint was later amended to include SCE's former President as a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre OII that were either unreported or more extensive than initially reported. The initial complaint purported to be filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period"). In September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the federal court dismissed again with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in May 2017, which extends the Class Period to August 10, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in June 2017, and are awaiting a ruling. Also 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. The federal derivative lawsuit is based on similar allegations to the federal class action securities lawsuit and seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, and various corporate governance reforms. An additional federal shareholder derivative lawsuit making essentially the same allegations was filed in August 2015 and was subsequently consolidated with the July 2015 federal derivative lawsuit. In September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiffs to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the required date. Plaintiffs' deadline to appeal the federal court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss lapsed in March 2017 and no appeal was filed. In October 2015, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in California state court against members of the Edison International Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims, making similar allegations to those in the federal derivative lawsuits discussed above. In light of the ruling in the parallel federal derivative lawsuit discussed above, plaintiff requested that the court voluntarily dismiss the state court action. The action was dismissed in April 2017. In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison International employee, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of Edison International employees who were participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested in the Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and June 24, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties because they knew or should have known that investment in the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent because the price of Edison International common stock was artificially inflated due to Edison International's alleged failure to disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC decision-makers related to the San Onofre OII. In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016, that dismissed Edison International as a named defendant and the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016. These defendants' motion was heard by the court in November 2016. In June 2017, the federal court again granted defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in early July 2017. Defendants have filed motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was heard by the court in October 2017, and are awaiting a ruling. Edison International and SCE cannot predict the outcome of the open proceedings. MHI Claims SCE pursued claims against MHI, which designed and supplied the replacement steam generators. In October 2013, SCE sent MHI a formal request for binding arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce seeking damages for all losses. SCE alleged contract and tort claims and sought at least $4 billion in damages on behalf of itself and its customers and in its capacity as Operating Agent for San Onofre. MHI denied any liability and asserted counterclaims for $41 million, for which SCE denied any liability. Each of the other San Onofre owners (SDG&E and Riverside) sued MHI, alleging claims arising from MHI's supplying the faulty steam generators. These litigation claims have been stayed pending the arbitration. The other co-owners were added as additional claimants in the arbitration. In March 2017, the arbitration tribunal found MHI liable for breach of contract, but rejected claimants' other claims. The tribunal found that damages were subject to contractual limitations on liability. In addition, the tribunal ordered the claimants to pay MHI's legal costs but rejected MHI's counterclaims. The net recovery awarded to SCE was initially determined to be $52 million. An adjustment to the interest awarded to SCE subsequently reduced the net recovery to $47 million. As a result of uncertainty associated with the allocation of the award under the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement, SCE recorded a regulatory liability for the net recovery. 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, 2017, SCE's recorded estimated minimum liability to remediate its 19 identified material sites (sites with a liability balance at September 30, 2017, in which the upper end of the range of the costs is at least $1 million) was $125 million, including $74 million related to San Onofre. In addition to these sites, SCE also has 17 immaterial sites with a liability balance as of September 30, 2017, for which the total minimum recorded liability was $4 million. Of the $129 million total environmental remediation liability for SCE, $123 million has been recorded as a regulatory asset. SCE expects to recover $46 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 $77 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 $151 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 $5 million to $17 million. Costs incurred for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 were $6 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 2016 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 utility practices and/or 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. Drought and other severe weather conditions in California have also increased the duration of the wildfire season and the risk of severe wildfire events. SCE has approximately $1 billion of insurance coverage for wildfire liabilities for the period ending on May 31, 2018. SCE has 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. SCE or its vegetation management contractors 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 insurance coverage. In the event of fire-related losses involving utility practices and/or the failure of electric and other utility equipment, SCE may be unable to recover self-insured retention or losses in excess of insurance coverage from customers. Spent Nuclear Fuel Under federal law, the U.S. 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 their current license period. In June 2010, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued a decision granting SCE and the San Onofre co-owners damages of approximately $142 million (SCE share $112 million) to recover costs incurred through December 31, 2005 for the DOE's failure to meet its obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from San Onofre. SCE received payment from the federal government in the amount of the damage award. In April 2016, SCE, as operating agent, settled a lawsuit on behalf of the San Onofre owners against the DOE for $162 million, including reimbursement for legal costs (SCE share $124 million) to compensate for damages caused by 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. The settlement also provides for a claim submission/audit process for expenses incurred from 2014 – 2016, where SCE will submit a claim for damages caused by the DOE failure to accept spent nuclear fuel each year, followed by a government audit and payment of the claim. This process will make additional legal action to recover damages incurred in 2014 – 2016 unnecessary. The first such claim covering damages for 2014 – 2015 was filed on September 30, 2016 for approximately $56 million. In February 2017, the DOE reviewed the 2014 – 2015 claim submission and reduced the original request to approximately $43 million (SCE share was approximately $34 million) primarily due to DOE allocation limits. SCE accepted the DOE's determination, and the government paid the 2014 – 2015 claim under the terms of the settlement. In October 2017, SCE filed a claim covering damages for 2016 for approximately $59 million. 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. In August 2017, SCE settled a dispute brought by Citizens Oversight and an individual that sought to overturn the California Coastal Commission's approval of a coastal development permit granted in October 2015 for the expansion of San Onofre ISFSI (a dry cask storage facility for the long-term, on-site storage of nuclear fuel). The plaintiffs primarily alleged that the California Coastal Commission did not adequately consider alternative, offsite locations for the ISFSI. The parties' settlement permits the current ISFSI project to proceed while steps are taken to identify the potential for moving the fuel offsite in the future. In the settlement, SCE agreed to use "commercially reasonable efforts" to relocate San Onofre fuel to an offsite storage facility, agreeing to spend up to $4 million, which will be funded by the nuclear decommissioning trust, principally for retaining experts and preparing spent nuclear fuel transportation and strategic plans applicable to a potential relocation of the fuel. SCE Collective Bargaining Agreement Approximately 3,900 of SCE's full-time employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW"). SCE and IBEW recently negotiated, and among other things, IBEW ratified, 3% per year wage increases covering calendar years 2018 and 2019. The wage increases are effective as of October 2, 2017. The IBEW collective bargaining agreements expire on December 31, 2019.

Commitments and Contingencies

Third-Party Power Purchase Agreements

During the first nine months of 2017, SCE had existing PPAs that met the critical contract provisions (including completion of major milestones for construction). SCE's net additional commitments for power purchase agreements are estimated to be: $27 million in 2018, $72 million in 2019, $62 million in 2020, $20 million in 2021, and $1.2 billion for the remaining period thereafter. For further information, see Note 11 in the 2016 Form 10-K.

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 the Mountainview power plant'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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

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.

San Onofre CPUC Proceedings

In November 2014, the CPUC unanimously approved the Settlement Agreement by and among SCE, The Utility Reform Network, the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates and San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"), which was later joined by the Coalition of California Utility Employees and Friends of the Earth, dated November 20, 2014 (the "San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement"), which resolved the CPUC's investigation regarding the steam generator replacement project at San Onofre and the related outages and subsequent shutdown of San Onofre. Subsequently, the San Onofre Order Instituting Investigation ("OII") proceeding record was reopened by a joint ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and the Assigned administrative law judge ("ALJ") to consider whether, in light of SCE not reporting certain ex parte communications on a timely basis, the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement remained reasonable, consistent with the law, and in the public interest, which is the standard the CPUC applies in reviewing settlements submitted for approval. In comments filed with the CPUC in July 2016, SCE asserted that the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement continues to meet this standard and therefore should not be disturbed.

In a December 2016 joint ruling, the Assigned Commissioner and the Assigned ALJ expressed concerns about the extent to which the failure to timely report ex parte communications had impacted the settlement negotiations and directed SCE and SDG&E to meet and confer with the other parties in the San Onofre OII to consider changing the terms of the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement. In March 2017, SCE and the parties participating in the meet-and-confer process initiated a mediation of the issues identified in the December 2016 joint ruling. On August 15, 2017, SCE notified the CPUC that the parties in the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement were unable to reach agreement on possible changes to the settlement unanimously approved by the CPUC in 2014. In connection with the termination of the meet-and-confer process, SCE asked the CPUC to affirm that the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and in the public interest. A number of the parties to the San Onofre OII, however, have requested that the CPUC either modify the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement or vacate its previous approval of the settlement and reinstate the San Onofre OII for further proceedings. Several of the parties to the meet-and-confer process petitioned the CPUC on a broad range of litigation positions, certain of which included substantial additional disallowances.

On October 10, 2017, the Assigned Commissioner and ALJ issued a Ruling ordering additional process to resolve the San Onofre OII. The Ruling did not set aside nor confirm the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement but stated that the CPUC required an additional record to address the appropriate cost allocation for the premature shutdown of San Onofre Units 2 and 3, in the event the CPUC decides that the settlement does not meet the CPUC's standards for approval of settlements. The Ruling sets an expedited schedule with a status conference on November 7, 2017 and hearings tentatively scheduled to end in March 2018. The CPUC has not announced the expected timing for a decision.

SCE has recorded a regulatory asset of $730 million at September 30, 2017 to reflect the expected recoveries under the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement. Management assesses at the end of each reporting period whether regulatory assets are probable of future recovery. SCE assessed the San Onofre regulatory asset at September 30, 2017 and continues to conclude that the asset is probable, though not certain, of recovery based on SCE's knowledge of facts and judgment in applying the relevant regulatory principles to the issue. Such judgment is subject to uncertainty, and regulatory principles and precedents are not necessarily binding and are subject to interpretation.

Additional Challenges related to the Settlement of 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. In light of the San Onofre OII meet-and-confer sessions, the Ninth Circuit cancelled the hearing that had been scheduled for February 9, 2017 and ordered the parties to notify the Ninth Circuit of the status of the San Onofre OII by May 1, 2017 and periodically thereafter. In October 2017, the Ninth Circuit scheduled a hearing for February 13, 2018 and directed the parties to file a status report on January 30, 2018.

In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The complaint was later amended to include SCE's former President as a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre OII that were either unreported or more extensive than initially reported. The initial complaint purported to be filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period"). In September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the federal court dismissed again with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in May 2017, which extends the Class Period to August 10, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in June 2017, and are awaiting a ruling.

Also 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. The federal derivative lawsuit is based on similar allegations to the federal class action securities lawsuit and seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, and various corporate governance reforms. An additional federal shareholder derivative lawsuit making essentially the same allegations was filed in August 2015 and was subsequently consolidated with the July 2015 federal derivative lawsuit. In September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiffs to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the required date. Plaintiffs' deadline to appeal the federal court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss lapsed in March 2017 and no appeal was filed.

In October 2015, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in California state court against members of the Edison International Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duty and other claims, making similar allegations to those in the federal derivative lawsuits discussed above. In light of the ruling in the parallel federal derivative lawsuit discussed above, plaintiff requested that the court voluntarily dismiss the state court action. The action was dismissed in April 2017.

In November 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison International employee, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of Edison International employees who were participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested in the Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and June 24, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties because they knew or should have known that investment in the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent because the price of Edison International common stock was artificially inflated due to Edison International's alleged failure to disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC decision-makers related to the San Onofre OII. In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016, that dismissed Edison International as a named defendant and the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016. These defendants' motion was heard by the court in November 2016. In June 2017, the federal court again granted defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in early July 2017. Defendants have filed motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was heard by the court in October 2017, and are awaiting a ruling.

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

MHI Claims

SCE pursued claims against MHI, which designed and supplied the replacement steam generators. In October 2013, SCE sent MHI a formal request for binding arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce seeking damages for all losses. SCE alleged contract and tort claims and sought at least $4 billion in damages on behalf of itself and its customers and in its capacity as Operating Agent for San Onofre. MHI denied any liability and asserted counterclaims for $41 million, for which SCE denied any liability. Each of the other San Onofre owners (SDG&E and Riverside) sued MHI, alleging claims arising from MHI's supplying the faulty steam generators. These litigation claims have been stayed pending the arbitration. The other co-owners were added as additional claimants in the arbitration. In March 2017, the arbitration tribunal found MHI liable for breach of contract, but rejected claimants' other claims. The tribunal found that damages were subject to contractual limitations on liability. In addition, the tribunal ordered the claimants to pay MHI's legal costs but rejected MHI's counterclaims. The net recovery awarded to SCE was initially determined to be $52 million. An adjustment to the interest awarded to SCE subsequently reduced the net recovery to $47 million. As a result of uncertainty associated with the allocation of the award under the San Onofre OII Settlement Agreement, SCE recorded a regulatory liability for the net recovery.

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, 2017, SCE's recorded estimated minimum liability to remediate its 19 identified material sites (sites with a liability balance at September 30, 2017, in which the upper end of the range of the costs is at least $1 million) was $125 million, including $74 million related to San Onofre. In addition to these sites, SCE also has 17 immaterial sites with a liability balance as of September 30, 2017, for which the total minimum recorded liability was $4 million. Of the $129 million total environmental remediation liability for SCE, $123 million has been recorded as a regulatory asset. SCE expects to recover $46 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 $77 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 $151 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 $5 million to $17 million. Costs incurred for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016 were $6 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 2016 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 utility practices and/or 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. Drought and other severe weather conditions in California have also increased the duration of the wildfire season and the risk of severe wildfire events. SCE has approximately $1 billion of insurance coverage for wildfire liabilities for the period ending on May 31, 2018. SCE has 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. SCE or its vegetation management contractors 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 insurance coverage. In the event of fire-related losses involving utility practices and/or the failure of electric and other utility equipment, SCE may be unable to recover self-insured retention or losses in excess of insurance coverage from customers.

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Under federal law, the U.S. 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 their current license period.

In June 2010, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued a decision granting SCE and the San Onofre co-owners damages of approximately $142 million (SCE share $112 million) to recover costs incurred through December 31, 2005 for the DOE's failure to meet its obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from San Onofre. SCE received payment from the federal government in the amount of the damage award. In April 2016, SCE, as operating agent, settled a lawsuit on behalf of the San Onofre owners against the DOE for $162 million, including reimbursement for legal costs (SCE share $124 million) to compensate for damages caused by 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. The settlement also provides for a claim submission/audit process for expenses incurred from 2014 – 2016, where SCE will submit a claim for damages caused by the DOE failure to accept spent nuclear fuel each year, followed by a government audit and payment of the claim. This process will make additional legal action to recover damages incurred in 2014 – 2016 unnecessary. The first such claim covering damages for 2014 – 2015 was filed on September 30, 2016 for approximately $56 million. In February 2017, the DOE reviewed the 2014 – 2015 claim submission and reduced the original request to approximately $43 million (SCE share was approximately $34 million) primarily due to DOE allocation limits. SCE accepted the DOE's determination, and the government paid the 2014 – 2015 claim under the terms of the settlement. In October 2017, SCE filed a claim covering damages for 2016 for approximately $59 million. 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.

In August 2017, SCE settled a dispute brought by Citizens Oversight and an individual that sought to overturn the California Coastal Commission's approval of a coastal development permit granted in October 2015 for the expansion of San Onofre ISFSI (a dry cask storage facility for the long-term, on-site storage of nuclear fuel). The plaintiffs primarily alleged that the California Coastal Commission did not adequately consider alternative, offsite locations for the ISFSI. The parties' settlement permits the current ISFSI project to proceed while steps are taken to identify the potential for moving the fuel offsite in the future. In the settlement, SCE agreed to use "commercially reasonable efforts" to relocate San Onofre fuel to an offsite storage facility, agreeing to spend up to $4 million, which will be funded by the nuclear decommissioning trust, principally for retaining experts and preparing spent nuclear fuel transportation and strategic plans applicable to a potential relocation of the fuel.

SCE Collective Bargaining Agreement

Approximately 3,900 of SCE's full-time employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW"). SCE and IBEW recently negotiated, and among other things, IBEW ratified, 3% per year wage increases covering calendar years 2018 and 2019. The wage increases are effective as of October 2, 2017. The IBEW collective bargaining agreements expire on December 31, 2019.