Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
PART IV

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

---

FORM 10-K

---

Commission File Number 1-9936

---

EDISON INTERNATIONAL
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

---

(626) 302-2222
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

---

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ    No o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes o    No þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ    No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ     No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One):

Large Accelerated Filer þ    Accelerated Filer o    Non-accelerated Filer o    Smaller Reporting Company o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o    No þ

The aggregate market value of registrant's voting stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $10.25 billion on or about June 30, 2009, based upon prices reported on the New York Stock Exchange. As of February 25, 2010, there were 325,811,206 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the following documents listed below have been incorporated by reference into the parts of this report so indicated.

---

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

---

Table of Contents

ii

---

Table of Contents

iii

---

Table of Contents

iv

---

Table of Contents

v

---

Table of Contents

vi

---

Table of Contents

vii

---

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements reflect Edison International's current expectations and projections about future events based on Edison International's knowledge of present facts and circumstances and assumptions about future events and include any statement that does not directly relate to a historical or current fact. Other information distributed by Edison International that is incorporated in this report, or that refers to or incorporates this report, may also contain forward-looking statements. In this report and elsewhere, the words "expects," "believes," "anticipates," "estimates," "projects," "intends," "plans," "probable," "may," "will," "could," "would," "should," and variations of such words and similar expressions, or discussions of strategy or of plans, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements necessarily involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. Some of the risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause results to differ from those currently expected, or that otherwise could impact Edison International, include, but are not limited to:

•

environmental laws and regulations, at both state and federal levels, or changes in the application of those laws, that could require additional expenditures or otherwise affect the cost and manner of doing business;

•

cost of capital and the ability to borrow funds and access the capital markets on reasonable terms;

•

cost and availability of electricity, including the ability to procure sufficient resources to meet expected customer needs in the event of significant counterparty defaults under power-purchase agreements;

•

changes in the fair value of investments and other assets;

•

ability of SCE to recover its costs in a timely manner from its customers through regulated rates;

•

decisions and other actions by the CPUC, the FERC and other regulatory authorities and delays in regulatory actions;

•

changes in interest rates, rates of inflation, including those rates which may be adjusted by public utility regulators;

•

governmental, statutory, regulatory or administrative changes or initiatives affecting the electricity industry, including the market structure rules applicable to each market and price mitigation strategies adopted by Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations;

•

risks associated with operating nuclear and other power generating facilities, including operating risks, nuclear fuel storage issues, failure, availability, efficiency, output, cost of repairs and retrofits, in each case, of equipment, and availability and cost of spare parts;

•

availability and creditworthiness of counterparties and the resulting effects on liquidity in the power and fuel markets and/or the ability of counterparties to pay amounts owed in excess of collateral provided in support of their obligations;

1

---

Table of Contents

•

cost and availability of labor, equipment and materials;

•

ability to obtain sufficient insurance, including insurance relating to SCE's nuclear facilities and wildfire-related liability, and to recover the costs of such insurance;

•

ability to recover uninsured losses in connection with wildfire-related liability;

•

effects of legal proceedings, changes in or interpretations of tax laws, rates or policies, and changes in accounting standards;

•

potential for penalties or disallowances caused by non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations;

•

outcome of disputes with state tax authorities regarding tax positions taken by Edison International;

•

cost and availability of coal, natural gas, fuel oil, and nuclear fuel, and related transportation to the extent not recovered through regulated rate cost escalation provisions or balancing accounts;

•

cost and availability of emission credits or allowances for emission credits;

•

transmission congestion in and to each market area and the resulting differences in prices between delivery points;

•

ability to provide sufficient collateral in support of hedging activities and power and fuel purchased;

•

risk of counterparty default in hedging transactions or power-purchase and fuel contracts;

•

weather conditions, natural disasters and other unforeseen events;

•

risks inherent in the development of generation projects and transmission and distribution infrastructure replacement and expansion projects, including those related to project site identification, construction, permitting, and governmental approvals; and

•

risks that competing transmission systems will be built by merchant transmission providers in SCE's territory.

See "Risk Factors" in Part I, Item 1A of this report for additional information on risks and uncertainties that could cause results to differ from those currently expected or that otherwise could impact Edison International or its subsidiaries.

Additional information about risks and uncertainties, including more detail about the factors described in this report, is contained throughout this report. Readers are urged to read this entire report, including the information incorporated by reference, and carefully consider the risks, uncertainties and other factors that affect Edison International's business. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and Edison International is not obligated to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements. Readers should review future reports filed by Edison International with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Except when otherwise stated, references to each of Edison International, SCE, EMG, EME or Edison Capital mean each such company with its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. References to "Edison International (parent)" or "parent company" mean Edison International on a stand-alone basis, not consolidated with its subsidiaries.

2

---

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY

When the following terms and abbreviations appear in the text of this report, they have the meanings indicated below.

3

---

Table of Contents

4

---

Table of Contents

5

---

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION

Edison International was incorporated on April 20, 1987, under the laws of the State of California for the purpose of becoming the parent holding company of Southern California Edison Company ("SCE"), a California public utility corporation, Edison Mission Energy ("EME"), an independent power producer, and Edison Capital, an infrastructure finance company. Beginning in 2006, EME and Edison Capital have been presented on a consolidated basis as Edison Mission Group Inc. ("EMG"), reflecting the integration of management and personnel at EME and Edison Capital. As a holding company, Edison International's progress and outlook are dependent on developments at its operating subsidiaries.

At December 31, 2009, Edison International and its subsidiaries had an aggregate of 19,244 full-time employees, of which 53 were employed directly by Edison International. The principal executive offices of Edison International are located at 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, P.O. Box 976, Rosemead, California 91770, and the telephone number is (626) 302-2222.

Edison International makes available on its investor website, www.edisoninvestor.com, its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, Proxy Statement and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after Edison International electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. Such reports are also available on the SEC's internet website at www.sec.gov. The information contained on, or connected to, the Edison investor website is not incorporated by reference into this report.

Subsidiaries of Edison International

Edison International has three business segments for financial reporting purposes: an electric utility operation segment (SCE), a competitive power generation segment (EME), and a financial services provider segment (Edison Capital). Financial information about these segments and about geographic areas, for fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007, is contained in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 16. Business Segments" and incorporated herein by this reference. Additional information about each of these business segments appears below under the headings "—Southern California Edison Company" and "—Edison Mission Group Inc."

SCE is an investor-owned public utility primarily engaged in the business of supplying electricity to a 50,000-square-mile area of central, coastal and southern California, excluding the City of Los Angeles and certain other cities. The SCE service territory includes over 400 cities and communities and a population of more than 13 million people. In 2009, SCE's total operating revenue was derived as follows: 42% commercial customers, 39% residential customers, 6% industrial customers, 2% resale sales, 6% public authorities, and 5% agricultural and other customers. SCE had 17,348 full-time employees at December 31, 2009. SCE's operating revenue was approximately $10 billion in 2009.

6

---

Table of Contents

SCE files separately an Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, Proxy Statement and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after SCE electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. Such reports are also available at www.edisoninvestor.com or on the SEC's internet website at www.sec.gov. The information contained on, or connected to, the Edison investor website is not incorporated by reference into this report.

EMG is the holding company for its principal wholly owned subsidiaries, EME and Edison Capital. EME is a holding company with subsidiaries and affiliates engaged in the business of developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling energy and capacity from independent power production facilities. EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in competitive power markets through its Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. ("EMMT") subsidiary. At December 31, 2009, EME and its subsidiaries employed 1,843 people.

EME's subsidiaries or affiliates have typically been formed to own full or partial interests in one or more power plants and ancillary facilities, with each plant or group of related plants being individually referred to by EME as a project. EME's operating projects primarily consist of coal-fired generating facilities, natural gas-fired generating facilities and renewable energy facilities (primarily wind projects and one biomass project). As of December 31, 2009, EME's subsidiaries and affiliates owned or leased interests in 39 operating projects with an aggregate net physical capacity of 11,269 MW of which EME's pro rata share was 10,072 MW. At December 31, 2009, EME's subsidiaries and affiliates also owned two wind projects under construction totaling 390 MW of net generating capacity. EME's consolidated operating revenue in 2009 was approximately $2.4 billion.

EME files separately an Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after EME electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. Such reports are also available www.edisoninvestor.com or on the SEC's internet website at www.sec.gov. The information contained on, or connected to, the Edison investor website is not incorporated by reference into this report.

Edison Capital has investments worldwide in energy and infrastructure projects, including power generation, electric transmission and distribution, transportation, and telecommunications. Edison Capital also has investments in affordable housing projects located throughout the United States. At the present time, no new investments are expected to be made by Edison Capital and the focus will be on managing the existing investment portfolio.

Regulation of Edison International and Subsidiaries

Edison International and its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation. As a public utility holding company, Edison International is subject to the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The PUHCA primarily obligates Edison International and its utility subsidiaries to provide access to their books and records to the FERC and the CPUC for ratemaking purposes.

7

---

Table of Contents

SCE's rates and operations are subject to extensive regulation by the CPUC, FERC, NRC, CEC, and CAISO. See "Southern California Edison Company – Regulation of SCE." EME's operating projects are also subject to energy, environmental and other governmental laws and regulations at the federal, state and local levels, and EME is additionally subject to the market rules, procedures, and protocols of the markets in which it participates. See "Edison Mission Group Inc. – Regulation." Both SCE and EME are also subject to the reliability standards for the bulk power system required by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC").

Edison International is not a public utility under the laws of the State of California or any other state and is not subject to regulation as such by the CPUC or any similar agency. See "Southern California Edison Company—Regulation of SCE" below for a description of the regulation of SCE by the CPUC. The 1988 CPUC decision authorizing SCE to reorganize into a holding company structure, however, contains certain conditions, which, among other things: (1) ensure CPUC access to books and records of Edison International and its affiliates which relate to transactions with SCE; (2) require Edison International and its subsidiaries to employ accounting and other procedures and controls to ensure full review by the CPUC and to protect against subsidization of nonutility activities by SCE's customers; (3) require that all transfers of market, technological, or similar data from SCE to Edison International or its affiliates be made at market value; (4) preclude SCE from guaranteeing any obligations of Edison International without prior written consent from the CPUC; (5) provide for royalty payments to be paid by Edison International or its subsidiaries in connection with the transfer of product rights, patents, copyrights, or similar legal rights from SCE; and (6) prevent Edison International and its subsidiaries from providing certain facilities and equipment to SCE except through competitive bidding. In addition, the decision provides that SCE shall maintain a balanced capital structure in accordance with CPUC decisions, that SCE's dividend policy shall continue to be established by SCE's Board of Directors as though SCE were a stand-alone utility company, and that the capital requirements of SCE, as deemed to be necessary to meet SCE's service obligations, shall receive first priority from the Boards of Directors of Edison International and SCE. The CPUC has also promulgated Affiliate Transaction Rules, which contain similar restrictions that apply to Edison International, as a holding company.

Financial Information About Geographic Areas

Financial information for geographic areas for Edison International can be found in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 16. Business Segments and—Note 17. Acquisitions."

8

---

Table of Contents

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Regulation

CPUC

SCE's retail operations are subject to regulation by the CPUC. The CPUC has the authority to regulate, among other things, retail rates, energy purchases on behalf of retail customers, rate of return, rates of depreciation, issuance of securities, disposition of utility assets and facilities, oversight of nuclear decommissioning, and aspects of the construction, planning and project site identification of the electricity transmission system.

Resource Adequacy Requirements

The CPUC has established resource adequacy requirements, which require SCE to procure adequate electricity to meet its expected customer needs on both a system-wide and a local basis. SCE would be subject to penalties if it failed to meet the requirements. SCE complied with the resource adequacy requirements in 2009 and expects to comply in 2010.

Procurement of Renewable Resources

California law requires SCE to increase its procurement of energy from renewable resources by at least 1% of its annual retail electricity sales per year so that 20% of its annual electricity sales are procured from renewable resources by no later than December 31, 2010 or such later date as flexible compliance requirements may permit. Under the CPUC's current rules, the maximum penalty for inability to achieve renewable procurement targets is $25 million per year. SCE's ability to meet the RPS target depends largely on the ability of third parties to meet contractual obligations to deliver power to SCE. Flexible compliance rules, such as banking of past surplus and earmarking of future deliveries from executed contracts, are also available. SCE does not believe it will be assessed penalties for 2009 or prior years and cannot predict whether it will be assessed penalties for future years.

FERC

SCE's wholesale operations (including sales of electricity into the wholesale markets) are subject to regulation by the FERC. The FERC has the authority to regulate wholesale rates as well as other matters, including unbundled transmission service pricing, accounting practices, and licensing of hydroelectric projects.

CEC

The construction, planning, and project site identification of SCE's power plants within California are subject to the jurisdiction of the California Energy Commission ("CEC") (for plants 50 MW or greater). The CEC is responsible for forecasting future energy needs. These forecasts are used by the CPUC in determining the adequacy of SCE's electricity procurement plans. California law prohibits the CEC from siting or permitting a new nuclear power plant in California until it finds a federally approved and demonstrated method for the disposal of nuclear waste.

9

---

Table of Contents

Nuclear Power Plant Regulation

SCE is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") with respect to its San Onofre and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Stations. NRC requirements govern the granting, amendment, and extension of licenses for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants and subject those power plants to continuing oversight, inspection, and performance assessment with respect to plant operation and related activities.

San Onofre is currently addressing a number of regulatory and performance issues. The NRC is requiring SCE to take actions to provide greater assurance of compliance by San Onofre personnel with applicable NRC requirements and procedures. SCE is currently implementing plans to address the identified issues. The NRC has continued to affirm that San Onofre has been operated and is being operated safely; however, the cumulative impact of these regulatory and performance issues is an increase in management focus and other resources applied at San Onofre.

Information about nuclear decommissioning can be found in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and—Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies." Information about nuclear insurance can be found in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies."

Transmission and Substation Facilities Regulation

The construction, planning and project site identification of SCE's transmission lines and substation facilities require the approval of many governmental agencies and compliance with various laws. These agencies include utility regulatory commissions such as the CPUC and other state regulatory agencies depending on the project location; the Independent System Operator ("ISO"), and other environmental, land management and resource agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game; and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. In addition, to the extent that SCE transmission line projects pass through lands owned or controlled by Native American tribes, consent and approval from the affected tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs will also be necessary for the project to proceed.

Relationship with Certain Affiliated Companies

SCE is subject to CPUC and FERC affiliate transaction rules and compliance plans governing the relationship between SCE and its affiliates.

Overview of Ratemaking Mechanisms

SCE sells electricity to retail customers at rates authorized by the CPUC. SCE sells transmission service and wholesale power at rates authorized by the FERC.

Base Rates

Base rates authorized by the CPUC and the FERC are intended to provide SCE a reasonable opportunity to recover its costs and earn a return on its net investment in generation,

10

---

Table of Contents

transmission and distribution facilities (or "rate base"). These base rates provide for recovery of operations and maintenance costs, capital-related carrying costs (depreciation, taxes and interest) and a return or profit, on a forecast basis.

CPUC Base Rates

Base rates for SCE's generation and distribution functions provide a rate of return and are authorized by the CPUC through triennial GRC proceedings. The CPUC sets an annual revenue requirement for the base year which is made up of the carrying cost on capital investment (depreciation, return and taxes), plus the authorized level of operation and maintenance expense. The return is established by multiplying an authorized rate of return, determined in the separate cost of capital proceedings (as discussed below), by the generation and distribution rate base. In the GRC proceedings, the CPUC also approves capital spending on a forecast basis. Adjustments to the revenue requirement for the remaining two years of a typical three-year GRC cycle are requested, based on criteria established in the GRC proceeding, which generally, among other items, include annual allowances for escalation in operation and maintenance costs, forecasted changes in capital-related investments and the timing and number of expected nuclear refueling outages. SCE's most recent GRC decision for the 2009-2011 period was issued in March 2009 and was effective as of January 1, 2009. SCE expects to begin proceedings for the 2012 GRC in the third quarter of 2010. As part of the GRC, the CPUC has authorized a revenue decoupling mechanism, which allows for the difference between the revenue authorized and the actual volume of electricity sales to be collected from or refunded to ratepayers. Accordingly, SCE does not bear the volumetric risk related to electricity sales.

The CPUC regulates SCE's capital structure and authorized rate of return. SCE's current authorized capital structure is 48% common equity, 43% long-term debt and 9% preferred equity. SCE's current authorized cost of capital consists of: cost of long-term debt of 6.22%, authorized cost of preferred equity of 6.01% and authorized return on common equity of 11.5%. In 2008, the CPUC approved a multi-year cost of capital mechanism, which allows for annual adjustments if certain thresholds are reached. SCE's earnings may be impacted when actual financing costs are above or below its authorized costs for long-term debt and preferred equity financings.

FERC Base Rates

Base rates for SCE's transmission functions provide a rate of return and are authorized by the FERC, in periodic proceedings that are similar to the CPUC GRC proceeding. Requested rate changes at the FERC are generally implemented before final approval of the application, with revenue collected prior to a final FERC decision being subject to refund. FERC-approved base rate revenues that vary from forecast are not subject to balancing account mechanisms, or otherwise recoverable or refundable and will therefore impact earnings.

Cost-Recovery Rates

Cost-recovery mechanisms allow SCE to recover its costs, but do not allow a return or profit. These mechanisms are used to recover SCE's costs of fuel, purchased-power, demand-side management programs, nuclear decommissioning, public purpose programs, certain operation

11

---

Table of Contents

and maintenance expenses, and depreciation expense related to certain projects. Although the CPUC authorizes balancing account mechanisms for such costs to refund or recover any differences between forecasted and actual costs, under- or over-collections in these balancing accounts do impact cash flows and can build rapidly.

The CPUC also uses a mechanism known as a "balancing account" to eliminate the effect on earnings that differences in revenue resulting from actual and forecast electricity sales may have. Under this mechanism, the difference in revenue between actual and forecast electricity sales is recovered from or refunded to ratepayers and therefore does not impact SCE's earnings.

SCE's balancing account for fuel and power procurement-related costs is established under the Energy Resource Recovery Account ("ERRA") Mechanism. SCE files annual forecasts of the costs that it expects to incur during the following year and sets rates using forecasts. The CPUC has established a "trigger" mechanism for the ERRA balancing account that allows for a rate adjustment if the balancing account over-collection or under-collection exceeds 5% of SCE's prior year's generation revenue.

The majority of costs eligible for recovery through cost-recovery rates are subject to CPUC reasonableness reviews, and thus could negatively impact earnings and cash flows if found to be unreasonable and disallowed.

Energy Efficiency Shareholder Risk/Reward Incentive Mechanism

The CPUC has adopted an Energy Efficiency Risk/Reward Incentive Mechanism which allows for both financial incentives and economic penalties based on SCE's performance toward meeting goals set by the CPUC for energy efficiency. Under this mechanism, SCE has the opportunity to earn an incentive if it achieves 85% or more of its energy efficiency goals for the three year period. Economic penalties would be imposed in the event SCE achieves less than 65% of its goals. The mechanism allows for two annual progress payments, subject to holdback percentages, for progress towards meeting the goals and a third payment for final performance on the goals, which includes the payment of any holdbacks. SCE may retain the first and second progress payments as long as it meets a minimum of 65% of the goals. If SCE does not meet the 65% level, the amount of the progress payments and economic penalties would be deducted from future incentive payments. Both incentives and economic penalties for each three-year period are capped at $200 million.

In January 2009, the CPUC issued a new rulemaking intended to review the framework of the Energy Efficiency Risk/Reward Incentive Mechanism. The CPUC has yet to release a Decision on a new framework.

CDWR-Related Rates

As a result of the California energy crisis, in 2001 the California Department of Water Resources ("CDWR") entered into contracts to purchase power for sale at cost directly to SCE's retail customers and issued bonds to finance those power purchases. The CDWR's total statewide power charge and bond charge revenue requirements are allocated by the CPUC among the customers of the Investor-Owned Utilities. SCE bills and collects from its customers the costs of power purchased and sold by the CDWR, CDWR bond-related charges

12

---

Table of Contents

and direct access exit fees. The CDWR-related charges and a portion of direct access exit fees that are remitted directly to the CDWR are not recognized as electric utility revenue by SCE and therefore have no impact on SCE's earnings; however, they do impact customer rates.

Competition

Because SCE is an electric utility company operating within a defined service territory pursuant to authority from the CPUC, SCE faces competition only to the extent that federal and California laws permit other entities to provide electricity and related services to customers within SCE's service territory. While California law provides only limited opportunities for customers to choose to purchase power directly from an energy service provider other than SCE, a California law was adopted in 2009 that permits a limited, phased-in expansion of customer choice (direct access) for nonresidential customers. SCE also faces some competition from cities and municipal districts that create municipal utilities or community choice aggregators. In addition, customers may install their own on-site power generation facilities.

Competition with SCE is conducted mainly on the basis of price, as customers seek the lowest cost power available. The effect of competition on SCE generally is to reduce the number of customers purchasing power from SCE, but those customers typically continue to utilize and pay for SCE's transmission and distribution services.

In the area of transmission infrastructure, SCE may experience increased competition from merchant transmission providers.

Purchased Power and Fuel Supply

SCE obtains the power needed to serve its customers from its generating facilities and from purchases from qualifying facilities ("QFs"), independent power producers, renewable power producers, the CAISO, and other utilities. In addition, power is provided to SCE's customers through purchases by the CDWR under contracts with third parties. Sources of power to serve SCE's customers during 2009 were approximately: 44% purchased power; 23% CDWR; and 33% SCE-owned generation.

Natural Gas Supply

SCE requires natural gas to meet contractual obligations for power tolling agreements (power contracts in which SCE has agreed to provide the natural gas needed for generation under those power contracts) and to serve demand for gas at Mountainview and SCE's peaker plants, which are supplemental plants that only operate when demand for power is high. All of the physical gas purchased by SCE in 2009 was purchased through competitive bidding.

13

---

Table of Contents

Nuclear Fuel Supply

For San Onofre Units 2 and 3, contractual arrangements are in place covering 100% of the projected nuclear fuel requirements through the years indicated below:

For Palo Verde, contractual arrangements are in place covering 100% of the projected nuclear fuel requirements through the years indicated below:

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Information about Spent Nuclear Fuel appears in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies."

Coal Supply

On January 1, 2005, SCE and the other Four Corners participants entered into a Restated and Amended Four Corners Fuel Agreement with the BHP Navajo Coal Company, under which coal will be supplied to Four Corners Units 4 and 5 until July 6, 2016. The Restated and Amended Agreement contains an option to extend for not less than five additional years or more than 15 years.

CAISO Wholesale Energy Market

In California and other states, wholesale energy markets exist through which competing electricity generators offer their electricity output to electricity retailers. Each state's wholesale electricity market is generally operated by its state ISO or a regional RTO. California's wholesale electricity market is operated by the CAISO. In 2006, the CAISO began its Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade ("MRTU") program to redesign and upgrade the wholesale energy market across its controlled grid. The MRTU market design allows the CAISO to schedule power in hourly increments with hourly prices through a real-time and day-ahead market that combines energy, ancillary services, unit commitment and congestion management. These MRTU features became effective in March 2009 and SCE began participating in the day-ahead and real-time markets for the sale of its generation and purchases of its load requirements.

The MRTU structure uses a nodal locational pricing model, which sets wholesale electricity prices at 3,000 different system points (nodes) that reflect local generation and delivery costs, as opposed to the previous system of three broad zonal prices. Generally, SCE schedules its

14

---

Table of Contents

electricity generation to serve its load but when it has excess generation or the market price of power is more economic than its own generation, SCE may sell power from utility-owned generation assets and existing power procurement contracts on, or buy generation and/or ancillary services to meet its load requirements from, the day-ahead market. SCE will offer to buy its generation at nodes near the source of the generation, but will take delivery at nodes throughout SCE's service territory. Congestion may occur when available energy cannot be delivered to all loads due to transmission constraints, which results in transmission congestion charges and differences in prices at various nodes. The CAISO also offers congestion revenue rights or CRRs, a commodity that entitles the holder to receive (or pay) the value of transmission congestion between specific nodes, acting as an economic hedge against transmission congestion charges.

Properties

SCE supplies electricity to its customers through extensive transmission and distribution networks. Its transmission facilities, which are located primarily in California but also in Nevada and Arizona, deliver power from generating sources to the distribution network and consist of 33 kV, 55 kV, 66 kV, 115 kV, 161 kV; 220 kV and 500 kV lines; and 893 substations. SCE's distribution system, which takes power from substations to customers, includes over 70,000 circuit miles of overhead lines, 43,500 circuit miles of underground lines, 1.46 million poles, over 720 distribution substations, approximately 715,600 transformers, and 813,000 area lights and streetlights, all of which are located in California.

15

---

Table of Contents

SCE owns the following generating facilities (and operates all of these facilities except Palo Verde and Four Corners, which are operated by Arizona Public Service Company ("APS")):

San Onofre, Four Corners, certain of SCE's substations, and portions of its transmission, distribution and communication systems are located on lands owned by the United States or others under licenses, permits, easements or leases, or on public streets or highways pursuant to franchises. Certain of the documents evidencing such rights obligate SCE, under specified circumstances and at its expense, to relocate such transmission, distribution, and communication facilities located on lands owned or controlled by federal, state, or local governments.

Thirty-one of SCE's 36 hydroelectric plants and related reservoirs, are located in whole or in part on U.S.-owned lands pursuant to 30- to 50-year FERC licenses that expire at various times between 2010 and 2040. Such licenses impose numerous restrictions and obligations on SCE, including the right of the United States to acquire projects upon payment of specified compensation. When existing licenses expire, the FERC has the authority to issue new licenses to third parties that have filed competing license applications, but only if their license

16

---

Table of Contents

application is superior to SCE's and then only upon payment of specified compensation to SCE. New licenses issued to SCE are expected to contain more restrictions and obligations than the expired licenses because laws enacted since the existing licenses were issued require the FERC to give environmental objectives greater consideration in the licensing process.

Substantially all of SCE's properties are subject to the lien of a trust indenture securing first and refunding mortgage bonds, of which approximately $6.4 billion in principal amount was outstanding on February 26, 2010.

SCE's rights in Four Corners, which is located on land of the Navajo Nation under an easement from the United States and a lease from the Navajo Nation, may be subject to possible defects. These defects include possible conflicting grants or encumbrances not ascertainable because of the absence of, or inadequacies in, the applicable recording law and record systems of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Navajo Nation, the possible inability of SCE to resort to legal process to enforce its rights against the Navajo Nation without Congressional consent, the possible impairment or termination under certain circumstances of the easement and lease by the Navajo Nation, Congress, or the Secretary of the Interior, and the possible invalidity of the trust indenture lien against SCE's interest in the easement, lease, and improvements on Four Corners.

Insurance

SCE has property and casualty insurance policies, which include excess liability insurance covering liabilities to third parties for bodily injury or property damage resulting from operations.

Severe wildfires in California have given rise to large damage claims against California utilities. Additionally, California law includes a doctrine of inverse condemnation that imposes strict liability (including liability for a claimant's attorneys' fees) for fire damage caused to private property by a utility's electric facilities that serve the public. These damage claims and the related doctrine may affect SCE's liability insurance levels and cost. On September 1, 2009, SCE renewed its insurance coverage, which included coverage for wildfire liabilities up to a reduced limit of $500 million (with an increased self-insured retention of $10 million per wildfire occurrence). Various coverage limitations within the policies that make up the insurance coverage could result in substantially higher self-insured costs in the event of multiple wildfire occurrences during the policy period (September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010). SCE may experience further 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.

Seasonality

For a discussion of the seasonality of electric utility revenues, see "Electric Utility Results of Operations—Supplemental Operating Revenue Information" in the MD&A.

17

---

Table of Contents

EDISON MISSION GROUP INC.

Regulation

U. S. Federal Energy Regulation

Federal Power Act

The Federal Power Act ("FPA") grants the FERC exclusive jurisdiction over the rates, terms and conditions of wholesale sales of electricity and transmission services in interstate commerce (other than transmission that is "bundled" with retail sales), including ongoing, as well as initial, rate jurisdiction. This jurisdiction allows the FERC to revoke or modify previously approved rates after notice and opportunity for hearing. These rates may be based on a cost-of-service approach or, in geographic and product markets determined by the FERC to be workably competitive, may be market based.

The FPA also grants the FERC jurisdiction over the sale or transfer of specified assets, including wholesale power sales contracts and generation facilities, and in some cases, jurisdiction over the issuance of securities or the assumption of specified liabilities and some interlocking directorates. Dispositions of EME's jurisdictional assets or certain types of financing arrangements may require FERC approval.

Deregulation of the electric generating sector began with the enactment of PURPA, which established a regulatory scheme for certain qualifying facilities. Most qualifying facilities, as that term is defined in PURPA, are exempt from the ratemaking and several other provisions of the FPA. It was further expanded with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which established a regulatory scheme for EWGs and foreign utility companies. EWGs are subject to the FPA and to the FERC's ratemaking jurisdiction thereunder, but the FERC typically grants EWGs the authority to sell power at market-based rates to purchasers which are not affiliated electric utility companies as long as the absence of market power is shown. More recently, in EPAct 2005, the U.S. Congress recognized that a significant market for electric power generated by independent power producers, such as EME, has developed in the United States and indicated that competitive wholesale electricity markets have become accepted as a fundamental aspect of the electricity industry.

Each of EME's U.S. generating facilities has either been determined by the FERC to qualify as a qualifying facility, or the subsidiary owning the facility has been determined to be an EWG. In addition, EME's power marketing subsidiaries, including EMMT, have been authorized by the FERC to make wholesale market sales of power at market-based rates and are subject to the FERC ratemaking regulation under the FPA.

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978

PURPA provides two primary benefits to qualifying facilities. First, all cogeneration facilities that are qualifying facilities are exempt from certain provisions of the FPA and regulations of the FERC thereunder. Second, the FERC regulations promulgated under PURPA initially required electric utilities to purchase electricity generated by qualifying facilities at a price based on the purchasing utility's avoided cost and to sell back up power to the qualifying

18

---

Table of Contents

facility on a nondiscriminatory basis. EPAct 2005 provides for the elimination of a utility's obligation to purchase power from qualifying facilities at its avoided cost if the FERC determines that the relevant market meets certain conditions for competitive, nondiscriminatory access. The FERC's regulations also permit qualifying facilities and utilities to negotiate agreements for utility purchases of power at prices different from the utility's avoided costs, but do not require utilities to purchase power at such prices.

Several of EME's projects, including the Big 4 projects, are qualifying cogeneration facilities. Qualifying cogeneration facilities must produce electricity and useful thermal energy for an industrial or commercial process or heating or cooling applications in certain proportions to the facility's total energy output, and must meet certain efficiency standards. If one of the projects in which EME has an interest were to lose its qualifying facility status, the project would no longer be entitled to the qualifying facility-related exemptions from regulation and could become subject to rate regulation by the FERC under the FPA and additional state regulation. Loss of qualifying facility status could also trigger defaults under covenants to maintain qualifying facility status in the project's power sales agreements, steam sales agreements and financing agreements and result in refund claims from utility customers, termination, penalties or acceleration of indebtedness under such agreements. EME endeavors to monitor regulatory compliance by its qualifying facility projects in a manner that minimizes the risks of losing these projects' qualifying facility status.

Transmission of Wholesale Power

Generally, projects that sell power to wholesale purchasers other than the local utility to which the project is interconnected require the transmission of electricity over power lines owned by others. The prices and other terms and conditions of transmission contracts are regulated by the FERC when the entity providing the transmission service is subject to FERC jurisdiction pursuant to the FPA.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 laid the groundwork for a competitive wholesale market for electricity by, among other things, expanding the FERC's authority to order electric utilities to transmit third-party electricity over their transmission lines, thus allowing qualifying facilities, power marketers and EWGs to more effectively compete in the wholesale market.

State Energy Regulation—Illinois Power Procurement

The Illinois Power Agency Act regulates the procurement of power by Commonwealth Edison and the Ameren Illinois utilities for their bundled-rate customers. In June 2009, the newly created Illinois Power Agency became responsible for the administration, planning and procurement of power for Commonwealth Edison and the Ameren Illinois utilities' bundled-rate customers using a portfolio-managed approach that is to include competitively procured standard wholesale products and renewable energy resources.

The Illinois Commerce Commission, which continues in its role of oversight and approval of the power planning and procurement for utilities' bundled retail customers, approved in January 2009, a procurement plan for 2009 that was proposed by the Illinois Power Agency. The plan, which was based on five-year demand forecasts, uses a laddered procurement strategy for the 2009-2014 period. In 2009, the Illinois Power Agency acquired through a

19

---

Table of Contents

single request for proposals roughly one third of the forecasted demand for bundled load for Commonwealth Edison and the Ameren Illinois utilities. Renewable requirements, in the first year, were purchased by way of one-year renewable energy credits; longer contracts may be included in future procurements if required by law or if approved by the Illinois Commerce Commission. In December 2009, the Illinois Power Agency's procurement plan for supply for the utilities' bundled customers for the 2010-2015 period was approved by the Illinois Commerce Commission.

Markets for Generation

The United States electric industry, including companies engaged in providing generation, transmission, distribution and retail sales and service of electric power, has undergone significant deregulation over the last three decades, which has led to increased competition, especially in the generation sector. See further discussion of regulations under "—Regulation of EME—United States Federal Energy Regulation."

In areas where ISOs and RTOs have been formed, market participants have open access to transmission service typically at a system-wide rate. ISOs and RTOs may also operate real-time and day-ahead energy and ancillary service markets, which are governed by FERC-approved tariffs and market rules. The development of such organized markets into which independent power producers are able to sell has reduced their dependence on bilateral contracts with electric utilities.

In various regional wholesale power markets, market administrators and independent market monitors have acknowledged that generators historically have not been provided adequate compensation in the energy markets to avoid the retirement of existing generation or provide adequate financial incentives to attract new investment when needed to ensure system reliability. As a result, capacity markets have emerged to provide additional financial incentives for electric capacity by compensating supply resources for the capability to supply electricity when needed, and demand resources, for electricity they avoid using. Capacity markets are expected to provide additional revenues for independent power producers.

Wholesale Markets

EME's largest power plants are its fossil fuel power plants located in Illinois, which are collectively referred to as the Midwest Generation plants, and the Homer City electric generating station located in Pennsylvania, which is referred to as the Homer City facilities. Collectively, both the Midwest Generation plants and Homer City facilities are referred to as the fossil-fueled facilities in this annual report. The fossil-fueled facilities are "merchant" generating stations that sell power primarily into PJM, an RTO which includes all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

PJM operates a wholesale spot energy market and determines the market-clearing price for each hour based on bids submitted by participating generators indicating the minimum prices at which a bidder is willing to dispatch energy at various incremental generation levels. PJM conducts both day-ahead and real-time energy markets. PJM's energy markets are based on locational marginal pricing, which establishes hourly prices at specific locations throughout

20

---

Table of Contents

PJM by considering a number of factors, including generator bids, load requirements, transmission congestion and transmission losses. It can also be affected by, among other things, price caps and other market rules intended to facilitate competition and discourage the exercise of market power.

PJM requires all load-serving entities to maintain prescribed levels of capacity, including a reserve margin, to ensure system reliability. PJM also determines the amount of capacity available from each generator and operates capacity markets. PJM's capacity markets have a single market-clearing price. In June 2007, PJM implemented the reliability pricing model ("RPM") for capacity, under which capacity commitments are made in advance to provide a long-term pricing signal for capacity resources. The RPM is intended to provide a mechanism for PJM to meet the region's need for generation capacity, while allocating the cost to load-serving entities through a locational reliability charge. PJM also implemented marginal losses for transmission for its competitive wholesale electric market.

Load-serving entities and generators, such as EME's subsidiaries, Midwest Generation (with respect to the Midwest Generation plants) and Homer City (with respect to the Homer City facilities), may participate in PJM's capacity markets or transact capacity sales on a bilateral basis. Sales may also be made from PJM into the Midwest ISO ("MISO") RTO, which includes all or parts of Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and other states in the region, and into the New York ISO ("NYISO"), which controls the transmission grid and energy and capacity markets for New York State.

Two of EME's wind projects sell electricity into RTOs as merchant generators. The Lookout wind project sells power into the PJM market, and the Goat Wind wind project sells power into the Electric Reliability Council of Texas market. The rest of EME's wind power generation facilities currently sell capacity, energy and/or ancillary services pursuant to bilateral contracts with electric utilities, regional cooperatives and public power authorities.

Competition

EME is subject to intense competition from energy marketers, investor-owned utilities, government-owned power agencies, industrial companies, financial institutions, and other independent power producers. Some of EME's competitors have a lower cost of capital than most independent power producers and, in the case of utilities, are often able to recover fixed costs through rate base mechanisms, allowing them to build, buy and upgrade generation without relying exclusively on market clearing prices to recover their investments. These companies may also have competitive advantages as a result of their scale, the location of their generation facilities, and their contractual arrangements with affiliated entities.

Environmental regulations, particularly those that impose stringent state specific emission limits, could put EME's coal-fired plants at a disadvantage compared with competing power plants operating in nearby states and subject only to federal emission limits. Potential future climate change regulations could also put EME's coal-fired plants at a disadvantage compared to both power plants utilizing other fuels and utilities that may be able to recover climate change compliance costs through rate mechanisms. In addition, the ability of EME's fossil fuel-fired plants to compete may be affected by governmental and regulatory activities

21

---

Table of Contents

designed to support the construction and operation of power generation facilities fueled by renewable energy sources.

Marketing and Trading Activities

EME's power marketing and trading subsidiary, EMMT, markets the energy and capacity of EME's merchant generating fleet and, in addition, trades electric power and related commodity and financial products, including forwards, futures, options and swaps. EMMT segregates its marketing and trading activities into two categories:

•

Marketing—EMMT engages in the sale of energy and capacity and the purchase of fuels, including coal, natural gas and fuel oil, through intercompany contracts with EME's subsidiaries that own or lease the fossil-fueled facilities and EME's merchant wind energy facilities. EME uses derivatives to reduce its exposure to market risks that arise from fluctuations in the prices of electricity, capacity, fuel, emission allowances, and transmission rights. The objective of these activities is to sell the output of the power plants on a forward basis or to hedge the risk of future changes in prices, thereby increasing the predictability of earnings and cash flows. Hedging activities include on-peak and off-peak periods and may include load service requirements contracts with local utilities. Transactions entered into related to hedging activities are designated separately from EMMT's trading activities and are recorded in what EMMT calls its hedge book. Not all contracts entered into by EMMT for hedging purposes qualify as hedges for accounting purposes.

•

Trading—As an extension of its marketing and hedging activities, EMMT seeks to generate trading profits from volatility in the price of electricity, capacity, fuels, and transmission congestion by buying and selling contracts in wholesale markets under limitations approved by EME's risk management committee.

22

---

Table of Contents

Properties

Existing Power Plants

As of December 31, 2009, EME's operations consisted of ownership or leasehold interests in the following operating projects:

23

---

Table of Contents

Projects under Construction

As of December 31, 2009, EME had the projects described below under construction.

Big Sky Wind Project

EME owns 100% of Big Sky Wind, LLC, which owns a 240 MW wind project under construction in Illinois, which EME refers to as the Big Sky wind project. Construction of this project commenced during the fourth quarter of 2009 and is scheduled for completion in late 2010. The project plans to sell electricity into the PJM market as a merchant generator or to third-party customers under power sales contracts.

Cedro Hill Wind Project

EME owns 100% of Cedro Hill Wind, LLC, which owns a 150 MW wind project under construction in Texas, which EME refers to as the Cedro Hill wind project. Construction of this project commenced during the fourth quarter of 2009 and is scheduled for completion in early 2011. The project has entered into a 20-year power purchase agreement with the City of San Antonio.

Renewable Development Activities

EME had a development pipeline of potential wind projects with projected installed capacity of approximately 4,000 MW at January 31, 2010. The development pipeline represents potential projects with respect to which EME either owns the project rights or has exclusive acquisition rights. As of December 31, 2009, EME had commitments to purchase 183 wind turbines (349 MW) and had 67 wind turbines (163 MW) in storage to be used for future wind projects. Successful completion of development of a wind project depends upon obtaining permits and agreements necessary to support an investment and may take a number of years due to factors that include local permit requirements, willingness of local utilities to purchase

24

---

Table of Contents

renewable power at sufficient prices to earn an appropriate rate of return, and availability and prices of equipment.

During 2008, EME had entered into an agreement with First Solar Electric, LLC to provide design, engineering, procurement, and construction services for solar projects for identified customers, subject to the satisfaction of certain contingencies and entering into definitive agreements for such services for each project. During 2009, EME sold a number of solar projects under development to First Solar Electric and terminated the agreement.

Significant Customers

In the past three fiscal years, the fossil-fueled facilities sold electric power generally into the PJM market by participating in PJM's capacity and energy markets or by transact in capacity and energy on a bilateral basis. Sales into PJM accounted for approximately 48%, 50% and 51% of EME's consolidated operating revenues for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. For the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, a second customer, Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. accounted for 16% and 10%, respectively, of EME's consolidated operating revenues. Sales to Constellation are primarily generated from the fossil-fueled facilities and consist of energy sales under forward contracts. In 2008 and 2007, EME also derived a significant source of its revenues from the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services generated at the Midwest Generation plants to Commonwealth Edison under load requirements services contracts. By May 2009, all these contracts had expired. Sales under these contracts accounted for 12% and 19% of EME's consolidated operating revenues for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

Insurance

EME maintains insurance policies consistent with those normally carried by companies engaged in similar business and owning similar properties. EME's insurance program includes all-risk property insurance, including business interruption, covering real and personal property, including losses from boiler or machinery breakdowns, and the perils of earthquake and flood, subject to specific sublimits. EME also carries general liability insurance covering liabilities to third parties for bodily injury or property damage resulting from operations, automobile liability insurance and excess liability insurance. Limits and deductibles in respect of these insurance policies are comparable to those carried by other electric generating facilities of similar size. No assurance can be given that EME's insurance will be adequate to cover all losses.

Seasonality

For a discussion of the seasonality of EME's Adjusted Operating income from its fossil-fueled facilities and unconsolidated affiliates, see "EMG: Results of Operations—Adjusted Operating Income from Consolidated Operations" and "—Adjusted Operating Income from Unconsolidated Affiliates" in the MD&A.

25

---

Table of Contents

Edison Capital

Energy and Infrastructure Investments

Edison Capital's energy and infrastructure investments are in the form of leveraged leases, partnership interests in international infrastructure funds and affordable housing projects in the United States.

As of December 31, 2009, Edison Capital is the lessor with an investment balance (including current lease receivable) of $184 million in the following leveraged leases:

Edison Capital's investments may be affected by the financial condition of other parties, the performance of assets, regulatory, economic conditions and other business and legal factors.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF EDISON INTERNATIONAL AND SUBSIDIARIES

Because Edison International does not own or operate any assets, other than the stock of its subsidiaries, it does not have any direct environmental obligations or liabilities. However, legislative and regulatory activities by federal, state, and local authorities in the United States relating to energy and the environment impose numerous restrictions on the operation of existing facilities and affect the timing, cost, location, design, construction, and operation of new facilities by Edison International's subsidiaries, as well as the cost of mitigating the environmental impacts of past operations. Many of these laws, regulations and other activities affect both SCE and EME's subsidiaries, although not always to the same extent. The environmental regulations and other developments discussed below have the largest impact on fossil-fuel fired power plants, and therefore the discussion in this section focuses on regulations applicable to the states of California, New Mexico, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, where such facilities are located.

Additional information about environmental matters affecting Edison International, including projected environmental capital expenditures, is included in the MD&A under the heading "—Environmental Capital Requirements, Commitments and Contingencies—Compliance Costs" and in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies—Environmental Remediation."

26

---

Table of Contents

Climate Change

There have been a number of efforts at both the federal and state legislative and regulatory levels to adopt or enact regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Any climate change regulation or other legal obligation that would require substantial reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases or that would impose additional costs or charges for the emission of greenhouse gases could significantly increase the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuels, especially coal, as well as the cost of purchased power, which could adversely affect Edison International's business.

Federal Legislative/Regulatory Developments

In June 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The bill, which was endorsed by Edison International, would establish a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions commencing in 2012. Under the cap-and-trade system, a cap to reduce aggregate greenhouse gas emissions from all covered entities would be established and decline over time. Emitters of greenhouse gases would be required to have allowances for greenhouse gas emissions during a relevant measurement period. The bill would provide for stated portions of required allowances to be allocated free of charge in declining amounts over time. Emitters of greenhouse gases would have to purchase the remainder of their required allowances in the open market, although a portion may be provided by so-called offset credits (for alternative greenhouse gas reduction efforts). Similar legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate in September 2009. Edison International cannot predict whether legislation imposing limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. will be passed in 2010, and the timing, content and potential effects on Edison International of any legislation that may be enacted remain uncertain.

Even if Congress does not pass legislation mandating greenhouse gas emissions reductions, regulatory developments under the Clean Air Act ("CAA") may also result in greenhouse gas emissions requirements that could affect Edison International's subsidiaries. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the CAA and that that the US EPA has a duty to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to climate change or offer a reasoned explanation for its failure to make such a determination. In response to this decision, in December 2009, the US EPA issued a finding that certain greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, endanger the public health and welfare, which enables the US EPA to establish greenhouse gas emissions limits for new light-duty vehicles. It is expected that the US EPA will issue the final light-duty vehicle emissions limits in March 2010.

The December 2009 endangerment finding will trigger future regulation of stationary sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants, which the US EPA plans to phase in beginning in 2011. In addition, when the regulation of greenhouse gases from light-duty vehicles is finalized, greenhouse gas emissions will become subject to review under the CAA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") (construction or modification of major sources) permit program. Sources subject to a PSD review for greenhouse gases would be required to use best available control technology ("BACT") to control greenhouse gas emissions. Because carbon

27

---

Table of Contents

dioxide is emitted in greater quantities than other CAA-regulated pollutants, regulating it under the PSD program would cover a large number of sources. To avoid the regulatory and enforcement consequences of such an outcome, in November 2009 the US EPA proposed a regulation, known as the "greenhouse gas tailoring rule." The greenhouse gas tailoring rule would redefine the PSD program to increase the threshold emission limit of carbon dioxide equivalents in a year from 250 tons to 25,000 metric tons. Whether or not this regulation is finalized, it is likely that EME's and SCE's fossil-fueled generating facilities would be major sources for purposes of the PSD programs. However, because the current PSD proposal affects only new or modified sources, it is not expected to have an immediate effect on EME's or SCE's existing generating plants. If EME or SCE are required to install pollution controls in the future or otherwise modify their operations in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the impact will depend on the nature and timing of the controls to be applied, both of which remain uncertain. Edison International does not believe that currently there are commercially and technically feasible, full scale methods to control greenhouse gas emissions from its subsidiaries' existing fossil-fueled generating facilities.

State Legislative/Regulatory Developments

California has enacted two laws regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The first law, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also referred to as AB 32), establishes a comprehensive program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") to develop regulations, potentially including market-based compliance mechanisms, targeted to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB's mandatory program will commence in 2012 and will implement incremental reductions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB has released preliminary draft regulations establishing a California cap-and-trade program, which include revisions to the CARB's mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting regulation and are expected to be finalized by the CARB in October 2010.

The second law, SB 1368, required the CPUC and the California Energy Commission ("CEC") to adopt greenhouse gas emission performance standards that restrict the ability of investor owned and publicly owned utilities, respectively, to enter into long-term arrangements for the purchase of electricity. The standards must equal the performance of a combined-cycle gas turbine generator. The standards that have been adopted prohibit California load-serving entities, including SCE, from entering into long-term financial commitments with generators that emit more than 1,100 pounds of CO₂ per MWh, which includes most coal-fired plants. Utility purchases of power generated by EME's facilities in California are subject to the emissions performance standards established in SB 1368. At this time, EME believes that all of its facilities in California meet the greenhouse gas emissions performance standard adopted under SB 1368, but EME will continue to monitor the regulations, as they are developed, for potential impact on its existing facilities and its projects under development.

SB 1368 also affects the ability of utilities to make long-term capital investments in generators that do not meet the emission performance standards. SB 1368 may prohibit SCE from making emission control expenditures at Four Corners.

28

---

Table of Contents

California law also requires SCE to increase its procurement of electricity generated from renewable resources by at least 1% of its annual retail electricity sales per year so that 20% of its annual electricity sales are procured from such resources by no later than December 31, 2010 or such later date as flexible compliance requirements permit. In addition, in September 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger issued an executive order directing the CARB to adopt a regulation consistent with 33% of retail sellers' annual electricity sales being obtained from renewable energy sources by 2020. The executive order provides that the regulation may accelerate or expand the timeframe for compliance as well as increase the targeted percentage of annual electricity sales to be obtained from renewable resources, based on a thorough assessment of relevant factors.

Regional Initiatives

There are a number of regional initiatives relating to greenhouse gas emissions. Implementing regulations for such regional initiatives are likely to vary from state to state and may be more stringent and costly than federal legislative proposals currently being debated in Congress. It cannot yet be determined whether or to what extent any federal legislation would preempt regional or state initiatives, because these initiatives are in varying stages of development and implementation. If state and/or regional initiatives remain in effect after federal legislation is enacted, generators could be required to satisfy them in addition to federal standards.

Seven northeastern states have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a regional cap-and-trade greenhouse gas program for electric generators, referred to as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI"). The RGGI states (now numbering 10) have passed laws and/or regulations to implement the RGGI program. Illinois and Pennsylvania are not signatories to the RGGI, although Pennsylvania participated in the process as an observer.

Illinois is a party to the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, by which six Midwestern states and the Canadian province of Manitoba agreed to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction goals within one year using a multi-sector cap-and-trade program to be implemented within 30 months. In June 2009, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord Advisory Group released its recommendations for emissions reduction targets and the design of a regional cap-and-trade program. The group is also drafting a framework for the cap-and-trade program that will serve as a basis for individual state legislative or regulatory action to implement the program.

Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec have launched the Western Climate Initiative to develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. In September 2008, the Initiative partners released recommendations for a regional cap-and-trade program to help achieve that reduction goal. In February 2010, Arizona gave notice that it would not take part in the Western Climate Initiative's cap-and-trade program.

29

---

Table of Contents

Litigation Developments

In 2009, three courts issued decisions in cases involving the question of whether power plants and other large sources could constitute public nuisances, making the sources potentially liable for damages or other remedies.

In October 2009, a California federal district court dismissed the complaint that had been filed by the native Alaskan village of Kivalina and the Kivalina Tribe in February 2008 against 24 defendants, including Edison International, who directly or indirectly engaged in the electric generating, oil and gas, or coal mining lines of business. Plaintiffs had alleged greenhouse gas emissions from the defendants' business activities contributed to global warming impacts that are melting the Arctic sea ice that protects the village from winter storms and that the village would soon need to be abandoned or relocated at a cost of between $95 million and $400 million. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' federal nuisance claims stating that they were inappropriate for judicial resolution because they required policy choices that were reserved to the legislative or executive branches of the government (the "political question doctrine"). The court also held that the plaintiffs did not have standing under federal law to bring the case, in part because of the lack of connection between the defendants' conduct and the harm that plaintiffs alleged was occurring. The court also dismissed plaintiffs' state law nuisance claims, but without prejudice to those claims being re-filed in state court. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In contrast to the district court decision in Kivalina, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in September 2009, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in October 2009, reversed and remanded lower court decisions that had dismissed complaints (filed in New York and Mississippi, respectively), against electric utilities and others, for injunctive relief and/or damages allegedly arising as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. These courts held that plaintiffs had standing and that their claims (sounding in various common law theories, including public nuisance in the New York case and public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass and negligence in the Mississippi case) were not barred by the political question doctrine. Neither Edison International nor its subsidiaries was named as a defendant in the New York case. At the time the action was dismissed by the court in Mississippi, the plaintiffs were seeking to amend their complaint to include Edison International and several affiliates of Edison International, including EME and SCE, as defendants.

Each of these differing rulings remains subject to appeal, rehearing, or potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court, and thus the ultimate impact of these cases remains uncertain. In addition, Edison International cannot predict whether the appellate decisions will result in the filing of new actions with similar claims or whether Congress, in considering climate legislation, will address directly the availability of courts for these sorts of claims.

30

---

Table of Contents

Emissions Data Reporting

SCE's independently certified greenhouse gas emission data for 2007, as reported to the California Climate Action Registry, showed that SCE emitted approximately 6.8 million metric tons from SCE-owned generation. SCE's reported emissions are pro-rated to its ownership interests in the emitting facilities. EME's 2007 greenhouse gas emissions were approximately 47.4 million metric tons, although they were not independently verified. Beginning with 2008 data, SCE will be reporting to TCR (as described below) and to the CARB. Edison International and its subsidiaries will begin reporting 2010 data to the US EPA in 2011. SCE reported 2008 greenhouse gas emission data to the CARB in June 2009. The CARB reporting is done in three parts: greenhouse gas emissions from SCE-owned generation, sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) emissions from SCE-owned or -operated equipment, and transaction reporting of MWhs purchased and resource types (from which the CARB calculates total greenhouse gas emissions). The CARB has not yet published its calculations on SCE's 2008 data.

Edison International became a founding reporter to The Climate Registry ("TCR"), formed in May 2008. TCR is a multi-national organization, which allows organizations to voluntarily inventory, verify, and publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions. Edison International filed initial emissions data for 2008 in September 2009 with TCR. This information did not cover all of Edison International's owned generation, as allowed under the TCR transitional reporter rules that apply for the first two years that an entity reports its emissions with TCR. Verified emissions data for Edison International is expected to be released publicly by TCR at the end of the second quarter of 2010.

In September 2009, the US EPA issued its Final Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, which requires all energy sources within specified categories, including electric generation facilities, to begin monitoring greenhouse gas emissions in January 2010, and to submit annual reports to the US EPA by March 31 of each year, with the first report due on March 31, 2011.

Responses to Energy Demands and Future Greenhouse Gas Emission Constraints

Irrespective of the outcome of current federal or state legislative deliberations, Edison International believes that regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is likely to develop through increased costs, mandatory emission limits or other mechanisms, and that demand for energy from renewable sources will also continue to increase. As a result, SCE is creating a generation profile from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydro plants, that will be adaptable to a variety of regulatory and energy use environments. Its renewables portfolio of owned and procured sources currently consists of: 1,583 MW from wind, 956 MW from geothermal, 360 MW from solar, 178 MW from biomass, and 200 MW from small hydro. EME is developing several renewables projects and is the seventh largest wind power generator in the United States.

SCE has developed and promoted several energy efficiency and demand response initiatives in the residential market, including an ongoing meter replacement program to help reduce peak energy demand; a rebate program to encourage customers to invest in more efficient appliances; subsidies for purchases of energy efficient lighting products; appliance recycling

31

---

Table of Contents

programs; widely publicized tips to customers for saving energy; and a voluntary demand response program which offers customers financial incentives to reduce their electricity use. SCE is also replacing its electro-mechanical grid control systems with computerized devices that allow more effective grid management.

Corporate Governance Processes

The Boards of Directors of Edison International and SCE regularly receive reports from senior management regarding environmental issues that affect the companies, including climate change issues.

Air Quality

The CAA establishes a comprehensive program to protect and improve the nation's air quality by regulating certain air emissions from mobile and stationary sources. The states implement and administer many of these programs and may impose additional or more stringent requirements under the CAA scheme. The federal CAA, state clean air acts, and federal and state regulations implementing such statutes apply to plants owned by EME and SCE, as well as to plants from which SCE purchases power, but have their largest impact on the operation of coal-fired plants. The federal environmental regulations require states to adopt state implementation plans for certain pollutants, known as SIPs, which are equal to or more stringent than the federal requirements. These plans detail how the state will attain the standards that are mandated by the relevant law or regulation.

The CAA requires the US EPA to review the available scientific data for six criteria pollutants and establish a concentration level in the ambient air for those substances that is adequate to protect public health and welfare. These concentration levels are known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS. The six criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state identifies the areas within its boundaries that meet the NAAQS (attainment areas) and those that do not (non-attainment areas), and must develop a SIP both to bring non-attainment areas into compliance with the NAAQS and to maintain good air quality in attainment areas. All SIPs are submitted to the US EPA for approval. If a state fails to develop adequate plans, the US EPA will develop and implement a plan. The attainment status of areas can change, and states may be required to develop new SIPs that address these changes. Many of EME's facilities are located in counties that have not attained NAAQS for ozone and fine particulate matter. NO_x emissions from power plants impact ambient air ozone levels and SO₂ emissions from power plants impact ambient air fine particulate matter levels.

As described further below, on December 11, 2006, Midwest Generation entered into an agreement with the Illinois EPA to reduce mercury, NO_x and SO₂ emissions at the Midwest Generation plants. The agreement requires Midwest Generation to achieve air emission reductions for NO_x and SO₂, and those reductions should contribute to or effect compliance with various existing US EPA ambient air quality standards. It is possible that if lower ozone, particulate matter, NO_x or SO₂ NAAQS are finalized by US EPA in the future, Illinois may implement regulations that are more stringent than those required by Midwest Generation's existing agreement with Illinois EPA.

32

---

Table of Contents

Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide

Clean Air Interstate Rule

The CAIR, issued by the US EPA on March 10, 2005, was intended to address ozone and fine particulate matter attainment issues by reducing regional NO_x and SO₂ emissions. The CAIR had mandated significant reductions in NO_x and SO₂ emission allowance caps under the CAA in the 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia where compliance with the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter was at issue. There is substantial uncertainty as to how the US EPA will address the deficiencies identified in 2008 decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that resulted in the remand of the CAIR to the US EPA for the issuance of a revised rule. The CAIR will remain in effect until the US EPA issues a revised rule, which is currently expected to be proposed in 2010. As a result of the D.C. Circuit Court's decisions, it is unclear whether the US EPA will be able to design a cap-and-trade program for NO_x and SO₂ that is consistent with the CAA. It is also unclear whether existing SIPs in certain states, particularly Illinois and Pennsylvania, will be sufficient to comply with the CAA. The fossil-fueled facilities may be subject to additional requirements, which could result in increased capital expenditures and operating expenses to comply with a revised CAIR or alternative regulations under the CAA. In the case of the Midwest Generation plants, these new requirements could exceed those applicable under the CPS.

Proposed NAAQS for Sulfur Dioxide

In November 2009, the US EPA proposed a new one-hour NAAQS for SO₂. The new standard is proposed to be between 50 and 100 parts per billion. The US EPA is required by a consent decree to take final action by June 2, 2010. The proposed rule would require states to submit SIPs in 2014, with compliance by 2017.

Illinois

On December 11, 2006, Midwest Generation entered into an agreement with the Illinois EPA to reduce mercury, NO_x and SO₂ emissions at the Midwest Generation plants. The agreement has been embodied in an Illinois rule called the CPS. All of Midwest Generation's Illinois coal-fired electric generating units are subject to the CPS. The principal emission standards and control technology requirements for NO_x and SO₂ under the CPS are as described below:

NO_x Emissions—Beginning in calendar year 2012 and continuing in each calendar year thereafter, Midwest Generation must comply with an annual and seasonal NO_x emission rate of no more than 0.11 lbs/million Btu. In addition to these standards, Midwest Generation must install and operate SNCR equipment on Units 7 and 8 at the Crawford Station by December 31, 2015.

SO₂ Emissions—Midwest Generation must comply with an overall SO₂ annual emission rate beginning with 0.44 lbs/million Btu in 2013 and decreasing annually until it reaches 0.11 lbs/million Btu in 2019 and thereafter.

33

---

Table of Contents

Midwest Generation has not decided upon a particular combination of retrofits to meet the required step down in emission rates and continues to review alternatives, including interim compliance solutions. The CPS also specifies that specific control technologies are to be installed on some units by specified dates. In these cases, Midwest Generation must either install the required technology by the specified deadline or shut down the unit. The CPS also requires Midwest Generation to shut down Units 1 and 2 at the Will County Station by December 31, 2010.

During 2009, Midwest Generation also conducted tests of NOx removal technology based on SNCR that may be employed to meet CPS requirements. Based on this testing, Midwest Generation has concluded that installation of SNCR technology on multiple units will meet the NOx portion of the CPS. Capital expenditures for installation of SNCR equipment are expected to be approximately $88 million in 2010 and approximately $70 million in 2011.

Testing of FGD technology based on dry sodium sorbent injection demonstrated significant reductions in SO₂ when using the low-sulfur coal employed by Midwest Generation; however, further analysis and evaluation are required to determine the appropriate method to comply with the SO₂ portion of the CPS. Use of FGD technology based on injection of dry sodium sorbent in combination with Midwest Generation's use of low-sulfur coal is expected to require substantially less capital and installation time than dry scrubber technology, but would likely result in higher ongoing operating costs than dry scrubber technology and may consequently result in lower dispatch rates and reduced competitiveness. Midwest Generation may also combine the use of dry sorbent injection technology with upgrades to its particulate removal systems to meet environmental regulations.

Midwest Generation cannot predict what specific method of SO₂ removal will be used or the total costs that will be incurred to comply with the CPS. A decision whether or not to proceed with the above or other approaches to compliance remains subject to further analysis and evaluation of several factors, such as market conditions, regulatory and legislative developments, and forecasted capital and operating costs. Midwest Generation could elect to shut down units when required in order to comply with the SO₂ removal requirements of the CPS. Due to existing uncertainties about the factors noted above, Midwest Generation may defer final decisions about particular units as long as possible. Accordingly, final decisions on whether to install controls, the particular controls that will be installed and the resulting capital commitments may not occur for up to two years for some of the units and potentially later for others. Midwest Generation continues to evaluate various scenarios and cannot predict the extent of shut downs and retrofits or the particular combination of retrofits and shut downs it may ultimately employ to comply with the CPS.

Pennsylvania

The Homer City facilities were subject to CAIR during 2009 and complied with both the NO_x and SO₂ requirements using existing equipment and purchasing of SO₂ allowances. Pennsylvania adopted a state version of CAIR, which the US EPA approved in December 2009. Homer City expects to comply with the Pennsylvania CAIR, which is substantially similar to the federal CAIR, in the same manner in which it complies with the federal CAIR.

34

---

Table of Contents

Mercury—Clean Air Mercury Rule

Until new federal standards are developed to replace the CAMR, EME will not be able to determine whether it will be necessary to undertake mercury emission control measures beyond those required by state regulations. The CAMR was established by the US EPA as an attempt to reduce mercury emissions from existing coal-fired power plants using a cap-and-trade program. EME's and SCE's coal-fired electric generating facilities (SCE currently has a 48% ownership interest in Units 4 and 5 at Four Corners) emit mercury and other regulated emissions. As a result of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in February 2007 that rejected both the CAMR and the related decision by the US EPA to remove oil and coal-fired plants from the list of sources to be regulated under Section 112 of the CAA until CAMR is replaced by a new mercury rule, mercury regulation will come from state regulatory bodies. As described below, EME's coal-fired electric generating facilities are already subject to significant unit-specific mercury emission reduction requirements under Illinois and Pennsylvania law (although, as noted below, Pennsylvania's mercury regulations have been invalidated).

Illinois

Midwest Generation's compliance with the CPS supersedes the Illinois mercury regulations that would otherwise be applicable to the Midwest Generation plants. The CPS requires that, beginning in calendar year 2015, and continuing thereafter on a rolling 12-month basis, Midwest Generation must either achieve an emission standard of .008 lbs mercury/GWh gross electrical output or a minimum 90% reduction in mercury for each unit (except Unit 3 at the Will County Station, which shall be included in calendar year 2016).

In addition to these standards, Midwest Generation was required to install and operate carbon injection equipment on all operating units. Installation of the equipment was completed in 2009. Capital expenditures relating to these controls were $42 million. Midwest Generation will also be required to install cold side electrostatic precipitator or baghouse equipment on Unit 7 at the Waukegan Station by December 31, 2013, and on Unit 3 at the Will County Station by December 31, 2015.

Pennsylvania

Until new legislation is passed authorizing the adoption of revised mercury regulations, the Homer facilities will not be required to comply with Pennsylvania mercury limitations. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("PADEP") attempted to implement regulations reducing the mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants by 80% by 2010 and 90% by 2015, as embodied in the Pennsylvania CAMR SIP. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Commonwealth Court declaring Pennsylvania's mercury rule unlawful, invalid and unenforceable, and enjoining Pennsylvania from continued implementation and enforcement of the rule.

35

---

Table of Contents

Ozone and Particulates

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

In September 2006, the US EPA issued a final rule that would significantly reduce the 24-hour fine particulate standard (from 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/m3), but in February 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded the annual fine particulate matter standard to the US EPA for further review.

In March 2008, the US EPA issued a final rule revising the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone, reducing the level of the 8-hour standard to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). In January 2010, the US EPA proposed revisions that would further lower the 8-hour primary ozone standard to a level in the range of 0.060 – 0.070 ppm and impose a cumulative, seasonal secondary standard in the range of 7 – 15 ppm-hours. Final standards are expected in August 2010. EME and SCE anticipate that any such further emission reduction obligations would not be imposed under this standard until 2014 at the earliest.

Illinois

The Illinois SIP for 8-hour ozone was submitted to the US EPA on March 18, 2009. The SIP for fine particulates was to be submitted to the US EPA by April 5, 2008, but is currently expected to be submitted in 2010. As the fine particulate and ozone standards are finalized, as described above, Illinois may be required to implement additional emission control measures to address emissions of NO_x, SO₂ and volatile organic compounds.

Pennsylvania

In August 2007, the US EPA accepted PADEP's maintenance plan, which indicated that the existing (and upcoming) regulations controlling emissions of volatile organic compounds and NO_x will result in continued compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard. However, in March 2009, the PADEP recommended to the US EPA that Indiana County (where the Homer City facilities are located) be designated non-attainment under the US EPA's 2008 revised 8-hour ozone standard. Until the US EPA completes its revision to the 8-hour ozone standard, redesignations are finalized, and additional regulations are developed to achieve attainment with the revised standard, EME will not know what specific requirements it will have to meet. However, EME expects that its currently installed SCRs will be capable of meeting these new requirements.

Effective April 1, 2009, the PADEP changed its air opacity policy, eliminating many exemptions and reducing the allowable exceedance rate to 0.5% of a unit's operating time. Homer City undertook optimization of unit ramp rates and combustion parameters at the Homer City facilities to reduce the deratings required to meet the opacity standards. Additional capital improvements may also be required. Homer City operated below the 0.5% exceedance rate during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2009.

With respect to fine particulates, in November 2009, the US EPA indicated that Indiana County, Homer City Township is not in compliance with applicable standards. The PADEP

36

---

Table of Contents

must now submit an updated SIP by November 13, 2012. EME cannot determine the potential effects of the SIP at this time.

Regional Haze

The regional haze rules under the CAA are designed to prevent impairment of visibility in certain federally designated areas. The goal of the rules is to restore visibility in mandatory federal Class I areas, such as national parks and wilderness areas, to natural background conditions by 2064. Sources such as power plants that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas may be required to install best available retrofit technology ("BART") or implement other control strategies to meet regional haze control requirements. The US EPA issued a final rulemaking on regional haze in 2005 requiring emission controls that constitute BART for industrial facilities that emit air pollutants which reduce visibility by causing or contributing to regional haze. These amendments required states to develop implementation plans to comply with BART by December 2007, to identify the facilities that will have to reduce SO_2, NO_x and particulate matter emissions, and then to set BART emissions limits for those facilities. Failure to do so results in a federal implementation plan.

Illinois and Pennsylvania

Neither Illinois nor Pennsylvania has submitted a SIP that addresses regional haze issues under the CAA, and so, beginning on December 31, 2009 both states became subject to a two-year deadline after which a federal implementation plan will govern related emission issues. As a result of this uncertainty and the questions surrounding the CAIR program, EME cannot predict whether it will be required to install BART or implement other control strategies at the Midwest Generation plants and/or the Homer City facilities, what specific measures will be required or how much they will cost.

The CPS, discussed above in "—Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide—Illinois," addresses emissions reductions at BART affected sources. In Pennsylvania, the PADEP considers the CAIR to meet the BART requirements, and the Homer City facilities are only required to consider reductions in emissions of suspended particulate matter (PM10), which at this time are being evaluated by the state.

New Mexico

In relation to Four Corners, the US EPA requested that the Arizona Public Service Company ("APS") perform a regional haze BART analysis. APS submitted the analysis to the US EPA, proposing the installation of certain combustion control equipment as BART for Four Corners. However, the US EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that called for post-combustion controls in the form of selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") pollution control equipment. A final US EPA determination on this matter is expected in late 2010. Until the final determination is issued, SCE cannot predict what pollution control equipment will be required at Four Corners and thus cannot accurately estimate the expenditures that would be necessary for such equipment. In any case, due to the investment constraints of SB 1368, the California law on greenhouse gas emission performance standards discussed above in "—Climate Change—State Legislative/Regulatory Developments," SCE does not expect to

37

---

Table of Contents

be able to participate in any investment in SCR post-combustion controls or combustion controls at Four Corners. SCE thus does not expect to enter into any long-term ownership arrangements for its share of Four Corners Units 4 and 5 after the 2016 expiration of the current participant agreements due to the investment constraints of SB 1368.

New Source Review Requirements ("NSR")

The NSR regulations impose certain requirements on facilities, such as electric generating stations, if modifications are made to air emissions sources at the facility. Since 1999, the US EPA has pursued a coordinated compliance and enforcement strategy to address CAA compliance issues at the nation's coal-fired power plants. The strategy has included both the filing of suits against a number of power plant owners, and the issuance of administrative NOVs to a number of power plant owners alleging NSR violations.

Illinois and Pennsylvania

On August 3, 2007, Midwest Generation received an NOV from the US EPA alleging that Midwest Generation and Commonwealth Edison violated various provisions of the NSR rules as well as state air regulations at the Midwest Generation plants. After attempts at settlement failed, on August 27, 2009, the US EPA and the State of Illinois filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois against Midwest Generation, but not Commonwealth Edison, based in part on the allegations in the NOV and alleging that construction projects undertaken prior to Midwest Generation's ownership violated various provisions of the NSR rules and Title V requirements. On June 12, 2008, Homer City received an NOV from the US EPA, which alleges that certain construction projects, all completed before Homer City acquired the Homer City facilities, violated various provisions of the NSR rules and Title V permit requirements. See "Item 3. Legal Proceedings—Midwest Generation New Source Review Lawsuit" and "—Homer City New Source Review Notice of Violation" for further discussion.

New Mexico

In April 2009, APS, as operating agent of Four Corners, received a US EPA request pursuant to Section 114 of the CAA for information about Four Corners. The US EPA requested information about Four Corners and its operations, including information about Four Corners capital projects from 1990 to the present. APS has responded to the US EPA request. SCE understands that in other cases the US EPA has utilized similar Section 114 letters for examining whether power plants have triggered NSR requirements under the CAA and are therefore potentially subject to more stringent air pollution control requirements. No NSR enforcement-related proceedings have been initiated by the US EPA with respect to Four Corners. SCE cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry.

Water Quality

Clean Water Act

Regulations under the federal Clean Water Act require permits for the discharge of pollutants into United States waters and permits for the discharge of storm water from certain facilities.

38

---

Table of Contents

The Clean Water Act also regulates the temperature of effluent discharges and the location, design, and construction of cooling water intake structures at generating facilities. California has a US EPA-approved program to issue individual or group (general) permits for the regulation of Clean Water Act discharges. California also regulates certain discharges not regulated by the US EPA.

In January 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the US EPA rule on cooling water intake structures and remanded it to the US EPA. Among the key provisions remanded by the court were the use of cost-benefit analysis for determining the best technology available and the use of restoration to achieve compliance with the rule. On July 2007, the US EPA suspended the requirements for cooling water intake structures, pending further rulemaking. In April 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and held that the US EPA may consider, but is not required to use, cost-benefit analysis in formulating regulations under Clean Water Act Section 316(b). The Court did not review the Second Circuit's rejection of the use of restoration as compliance with Section 316(b), which means the Second Circuit decision on this issue remains valid. The US EPA is currently rewriting the rule, and it is unknown whether revised regulations will use cost-benefit analysis.

EME has collected data at its potentially affected Midwest Generation plants in Illinois to begin determining what corrective actions might have been needed under the previous rule. Because there are no defined compliance targets absent a new rule, EME and SCE are reviewing a wide range of possible control technologies. Although the new rule could have a material impact on EME and SCE, until the final compliance criteria have been published, neither EME nor SCE can reasonably determine the financial impact.

Illinois

In October 2007, the Illinois EPA filed a proposed rule with the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("PCB") that would establish more stringent thermal and effluent water quality standards for the Chicago Area Waterway System and Lower Des Plaines River. Midwest Generation's Fisk, Crawford and Will County Stations use water from the Chicago Area Waterway System and its Joliet Station uses water from the Lower Des Plaines River for cooling purposes. The rule, if implemented, is expected to affect the manner in which those stations use water for station cooling.

The proposed rule is the subject of an administrative proceeding before the Illinois PCB and must be approved by the Illinois PCB and the Illinois Joint Committee on Administrative Rules as well as the US EPA. Hearings began in January 2008, and are continuing in 2010. Midwest Generation is a party in those proceedings. It is not possible to predict the timing for resolution of the proceeding, the final form of the rule, or how it would impact the operation of the affected stations; however, significant capital expenditures may be required depending on the form of the final rule.

Pennsylvania

The discharge from the treatment plant receiving the wastewater stream from EME's Unit 3 wet scrubbing system at the Homer City facilities has exceeded the stringent water-quality based limits for selenium in the station's NPDES permit. Homer City and the PADEP entered

39

---

Table of Contents

into a consent order and agreement related to selenium discharge, effective July 17, 2007, under which Homer City paid a civil penalty of $200,000 and agreed to install modifications to its wastewater system to achieve consistent compliance with discharge limits.

Prohibition on the Use of Ocean-Based Once-Through Cooling – California

In June 2009 the California State Water Resources Control Board issued a draft "Statewide Water Quality Control Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling." The Policy would establish closed-cycle wet cooling as the best technology available for retrofitting existing "once-through" cooled plants, such as SCE's San Onofre, which use ocean water for cooling purposes. If the draft policy is adopted, it may significantly impact both operations at San Onofre and SCE's ability to procure timely generating capacity from fossil-fuel plants that use ocean water in once-through cooling systems. It may also impact system reliability and the cost of electricity to the extent other coastal power plants in California are forced to shut down or limit operations. The Policy has the potential to adversely affect California's nineteen once-through cooled power plants, which provide over 21,000 MW of combined, in-state generation capacity, including over 9,100 MW of capacity interconnected within SCE's service territory.

Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Waste

Under various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of any facility may be required to investigate and remediate releases or threatened releases of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products located at that facility, and may be held liable for property damage, personal injury, natural resource damages, and investigation and remediation costs incurred by governmental entities and third parties in connection with these releases or threatened releases. Many of these laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, ("CERCLA"), impose liability without regard to whether the owner knew of or caused the presence of the hazardous substances, and courts have interpreted liability under these laws to be strict and joint and several.

In connection with the ownership and operation of its facilities, Edison International may be liable for costs associated with hazardous waste compliance and remediation required by laws and regulations. Through an incentive mechanism, the CPUC allows SCE to recover in retail rates paid by its customers some of the environmental remediation costs at certain sites. Additional information about these laws and regulations appears in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies."

Coal Combustion Wastes

US EPA regulations currently classify coal combustion wastes as solid wastes that are exempt from hazardous waste requirements. The exemption applies to fly ash, bottom ash, slag, and flue gas emission control wastes generated from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels. The US EPA has studied coal combustion wastes extensively and in 2000 concluded that fossil fuel combustions wastes do not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste. The current classification of coal combustion wastes as exempt from hazardous waste requirements enables

40

---

Table of Contents

beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes, such as for cement production and fill materials. Midwest Generation currently provides a portion of its coal combustion wastes for beneficial uses. Midwest Generation is also examining the impact of current and proposed emission control technologies on ash quality for beneficial use.

The US EPA is expected to publish proposed regulations relating to coal combustion waste in 2010. Additional regulation of the storage, disposal and beneficial reuse of coal combustion waste could affect the management of such wastes and could require EME and SCE to incur additional capital and operating costs, with no assurance that the additional costs could be recovered. Additionally, SCE may be prohibited from making such expenditures under SB 1368, the California law on greenhouse gas emission performance standards (see "—Climate Change—State Legislative/Regulatory Developments" above for a description of SB 1368).

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

RISKS RELATING TO EDISON INTERNATIONAL

Edison International's subsidiaries are subject to extensive environmental regulations that may involve significant and increasing costs and adversely affect them.

Edison International's subsidiaries are subject to extensive environmental regulation and permitting requirements that involve significant and increasing costs. SCE and EMG devote significant resources to environmental monitoring, pollution control equipment and emission allowances to comply with existing and anticipated environmental regulatory requirements. However, the current trend is toward more stringent standards, stricter regulation, and more expansive application of environmental regulations. The U.S. Congress is considering several proposals to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("US EPA") has issued a finding that certain greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare and are air pollutants that are subject to the Clean Air Act. In addition, the attorneys general of several states, including California, certain environmental advocacy groups, and numerous state regulatory agencies in the United States have been focusing considerable attention on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants and their potential role in climate change. The adoption of laws and regulations to implement greenhouse gas controls could adversely affect operations, particularly of the coal-fired plants. The continued operation of SCE and EMG facilities, particularly the coal-fired facilities, may require substantial capital expenditures for environmental controls. In addition, future environmental laws and regulations, and future enforcement proceedings by environmental authorities could affect the costs and the manner in which these subsidiaries conduct business. Current and future state laws and regulations in California also could increase the required amount of power that must be procured from renewable resources. Furthermore, changing environmental regulations could make some units uneconomical to maintain or operate. If the affected subsidiaries cannot comply with all applicable regulations, they could be required to retire or suspend operations at such facilities, or to restrict or modify the operations of these facilities, and their business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

41

---

Table of Contents

Edison International may be unable to meet its ongoing and future financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock if its subsidiaries are unable to pay upstream dividends or to repay funds for an extended period to Edison International.

Edison International is a holding company and, as such, it has no operations of its own. Edison International's ability to meet its financial obligations and to pay dividends on its common stock at the current rate is primarily dependent on the earnings and cash flows of its subsidiaries and their ability to make upstream distributions or to repay funds to Edison International. Prior to funding Edison International, Edison International's subsidiaries have financial and regulatory obligations that must be satisfied, including, among others, debt service and preferred stock dividends. Financial market and economic conditions may have an adverse effect on Edison International's subsidiaries. See "Risks Relating to SCE" and "Risks Relating to EMG" below for further discussion.

RISKS RELATING TO SCE

Regulatory Risks

SCE's financial viability depends upon its ability to recover its costs in a timely manner from its customers through regulated rates.

SCE is a regulated entity subject to CPUC and FERC jurisdiction in almost all aspects of its business, including the rates, terms and conditions of its services, procurement of electricity for its customers, issuance of securities, dispositions of utility assets and facilities, aspects of project site identification and the operations of its electricity distribution systems. SCE's ongoing financial viability depends on its ability to recover from its customers in a timely manner its costs, including the costs of electricity purchased for its customers, through the rates it charges its customers as approved by the CPUC, and its ability to pass through to its customers in rates its FERC-authorized revenue requirements. SCE's financial viability also depends on its ability to recover through the rates it is allowed to charge an adequate return on capital, including long-term debt and equity. If SCE is unable to recover material amounts of its costs in rates in a timely manner or recover an adequate return on capital, its financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

SCE's energy procurement activities are subject to regulatory and market risks that could adversely affect its financial condition and liquidity.

SCE obtains energy, capacity, renewable attributes and ancillary services needed to serve its customers from its own generating plants, as well as through contracts with energy producers and sellers. California law and CPUC decisions allow SCE to recover through the rates it is allowed to charge its customers reasonable procurement costs incurred in compliance with an approved procurement plan. Nonetheless, SCE's cash flows remain subject to volatility resulting from its procurement activities. In addition, SCE is subject to the risks of unfavorable or untimely CPUC decisions about the compliance of procurement activities with SCE's procurement plan and the reasonableness of certain procurement-related costs.

Many of SCE's power purchase contracts are tied to market prices for natural gas. Some of its contracts also are subject to volatility in market prices for electricity. SCE seeks to hedge

42

---

Table of Contents

its market price exposure to the extent authorized by the CPUC. SCE may not be able to hedge its risk for commodities on favorable terms or fully recover the costs of hedges through the rates it is allowed to charge its customers, which could adversely affect SCE's liquidity and results of operation.

In its power purchase contracts and other procurement arrangements, SCE is exposed to risks from changes in the credit quality of its counterparties, many of whom may be adversely affected by the conditions in the financial markets. If a counterparty were to default on its obligations, SCE could be exposed to potentially volatile spot markets for buying replacement power or selling excess power and this could have a material adverse effect on SCE's liquidity and financial condition if such costs cannot be recovered in a timely manner.

SCE is subject to extensive regulation and the risk of adverse regulatory decisions and changes in applicable regulations or legislation.

SCE operates in a highly regulated environment. SCE's business is subject to extensive federal, state and local energy, environmental and other laws and regulations. The CPUC regulates SCE's retail operations, and the FERC regulates SCE's wholesale operations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates SCE's nuclear power plants. The construction, planning, and project site identification of SCE's power plants and transmission lines in California are also subject to the jurisdiction of the California Energy Commission (for plants 50 MW or greater), and the CPUC. The construction, planning and project site identification of transmission lines that are outside of California are subject to the regulation of the relevant state agency.

SCE must periodically apply for licenses and permits from these various regulatory authorities and abide by their respective orders. Should SCE be unsuccessful in obtaining necessary licenses or permits or should these regulatory authorities initiate any investigations or enforcement actions or impose penalties or disallowances on SCE, SCE's business could be adversely affected. Existing regulations may be revised or reinterpreted and new laws and regulations may be adopted or become applicable to SCE or SCE's facilities in a manner that may have a detrimental effect on SCE's business or result in significant additional costs because of SCE's need to comply with those requirements.

Operating Risks

SCE's financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if it is unable to successfully manage the risks inherent in operating and improving its facilities.

SCE owns and operates extensive electricity facilities that are interconnected to the United States western electricity grid. SCE is also undertaking large-scale new infrastructure construction, which involves risks related to permitting, governmental approvals, and construction delays. The operation of SCE's facilities and the facilities of third parties on which it relies involves numerous risks, including:

•

operating limitations that may be imposed by environmental or other regulatory requirements;

43

---

Table of Contents

•

imposition of operational performance standards by agencies with regulatory oversight of SCE's facilities;

•

environmental and personal injury liabilities caused by the operation of SCE's facilities;

•

interruptions in fuel supply;

•

blackouts;

•

employee work force factors, including strikes, work stoppages or labor disputes;

•

weather, storms, earthquakes, fires, floods or other natural disasters;

•

acts of terrorism; and

•

explosions, accidents, mechanical breakdowns and other events that affect demand, result in power outages, reduce generating output or cause damage to SCE's assets or operations or those of third parties on which it relies.

The occurrence of any of these events could result in lower revenues or increased expenses and liabilities, or both, which may not be fully recovered through insurance, rates or other means in a timely manner or at all.

There are inherent risks associated with operating nuclear power generating facilities.

Spent fuel storage capacity could be insufficient to permit long-term operation of SCE's nuclear plants.

SCE operates and is majority owner of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and is part owner of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. The U.S. Department of Energy has defaulted on its obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear industry participants by January 31, 1998. If SCE or the operator of Palo Verde were unable to arrange and maintain sufficient capacity for interim spent-fuel storage now or in the future, it could hinder the operation of the plants and impair the value of SCE's ownership interests until storage could be obtained, each of which may have a material adverse effect on SCE.

Existing insurance and ratemaking arrangements may not protect SCE fully against losses from a nuclear incident.

Federal law limits public liability claims from a nuclear incident to the amount of available financial protection which is currently approximately $12.6 billion. SCE and other owners of the San Onofre and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Stations have purchased the maximum private primary insurance available of $375 million per site. If this public liability limit is insufficient, federal law contemplates that additional funds may be appropriated by Congress. This could include an additional assessment on all licensed reactor operators as a measure for raising further revenue. If this were to occur, tension could exist between the federal government's attempt to impose revenue-raising measures upon SCE and the CPUC's willingness to allow SCE to pass this liability along to its customers, resulting in under-collection of SCE's costs. There can be no assurance of SCE's ability to recover uninsured costs in the event federal appropriations are insufficient.

44

---

Table of Contents

SCE's insurance coverage may not be sufficient under all circumstances and SCE may not be able to obtain sufficient insurance.

SCE's insurance may not be sufficient or effective under all circumstances and against all hazards or liabilities to which it may be subject. A loss for which SCE is not fully insured could materially and adversely affect SCE's financial condition and results of operations. Further, due to rising insurance costs and changes in the insurance markets, insurance coverage may not continue to be available at all or at rates or on terms similar to those presently available to SCE.

Financing Risks

SCE relies on access to the capital markets. If SCE were unable to access capital markets or the cost of capital was to substantially increase, its liquidity and operations could be adversely affected.

SCE's ability to fund operations and planned capital expenditure projects, as well as its ability to refinance debt and make scheduled payments of principal and interest depends on its cash flow and access to the capital markets. SCE's ability to arrange financing and the costs of such capital are dependent on numerous factors, including SCE's levels of indebtedness, maintenance of acceptable credit ratings, its financial performance, liquidity and cash flow, and other market conditions. Market conditions which could adversely affect SCE's financing costs and availability include:

•

current state and liquidity of financial markets;

•

market prices for electricity or gas;

•

changes in interest rates and rates of inflation;

•

terrorist attacks or the threat of terrorist attacks on SCE's facilities or unrelated energy companies; and

•

the overall health of the utility industry.

SCE may not be successful in obtaining additional capital for these or other reasons. The failure to obtain additional capital from time to time may have a material adverse effect on SCE's liquidity and operations.

45

---

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATING TO EMG

Environmental and Regulatory Risks

EME is subject to extensive environmental regulation and permitting requirements that may involve significant and increasing costs.

EME's operations are subject to extensive environmental regulations with respect to, among other things, air quality, water quality, waste disposal, and noise. EME is required to obtain, and comply with conditions established by, licenses, permits and other approvals in order to construct, operate or modify its facilities. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject EME to civil or criminal liability, the imposition of liens or fines, or actions by regulatory agencies seeking to curtail operations of EME's projects. See "—Risks relating to Edison International."

The controls imposed on the Midwest Generation plants as a result of the Combined Pollutant Standard may require material expenditures or unit shutdowns.

Midwest Generation has entered into an agreement with the Illinois EPA to reduce mercury, NO_x and SO₂ emissions at the Midwest Generation plants. The agreement has been embodied in an Illinois rule called the Combined Pollutant Standard. All of Midwest Generation's Illinois coal-fired electric generating units are subject to the Combined Pollutant Standard. Capital expenditures relating to controls contemplated by the Combined Pollutant Standard could be significant and could make some units uneconomic to maintain or operate. Midwest Generation may ultimately decide to comply with Combined Pollutant Standard requirements by shutting down units rather than making improvements. Midwest Generation is evaluating technology and unit shutdown combinations and compliance solutions, to determine the economic effects of compliance with the Combined Pollutant Standard and optimal methods of compliance. For more information about the Combined Pollutant Standard requirements and Midwest Generation's plans for compliance, see "Item 1. Business—Environmental Regulation of Edison International and Subsidiaries—Air Quality—Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide—Clean Air Interstate Rule—Illinois" and "Edison International Overview—Environmental Developments—Midwest Generation Environmental Compliance Plans and Costs" in the MD&A.

EME is subject to extensive energy industry regulation.

EME's operations are subject to extensive regulation by governmental agencies. EME's projects are subject to federal laws and regulations that govern, among other things, transactions by and with purchasers of power, including utility companies, the development and construction of generation facilities, the ownership and operations of generation facilities, and access to transmission. Under limited circumstances where exclusive federal jurisdiction is not applicable or specific exemptions or waivers from state or federal laws or regulations are otherwise unavailable, federal and/or state utility regulatory commissions may have broad jurisdiction over non-utility owned electric power plants.

The FERC may impose various forms of market mitigation measures, including price caps and operating restrictions, where it determines that potential market power might exist and that

46

---

Table of Contents

the public interest requires mitigation. In addition, many of EME's facilities are subject to rules, restrictions and terms of participation imposed and administered by various Regional Transmission Operators and Independent System Operators. For example, Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Operators may impose bidding and scheduling rules, both to curb the potential exercise of market power and to facilitate market functions. Such actions may materially affect EME's results of operations.

Generation facilities are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations that govern, among other things, the geographical location, zoning, land use and operation of a project. EME in the course of its business must obtain and periodically renew licenses, permits and approvals for its facilities. There is no assurance that the introduction of new laws or other future regulatory developments will not have a material adverse effect on EME's business, results of operations or financial condition, nor is there any assurance that EME will be able to obtain and comply with all necessary licenses, permits and approvals for its projects. If projects cannot comply with all applicable regulations, EME's business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Market Risks

EME has substantial interests in merchant energy power plants which are subject to market risks related to wholesale energy prices.

EME's merchant energy power plants do not have long-term power purchase agreements. Because the output of these power plants is not committed to be sold under long-term contracts, these projects are subject to market forces which determine the amount and price of energy, capacity and ancillary services sold from the power plants. The market price for energy, capacity and ancillary services is influenced by multiple factors beyond EME's control, which include:

•

changes in the demand for electricity or in patterns of electricity usage as a result of factors such as regional economic conditions and the implementation of conservation programs;

•

weather conditions prevailing in surrounding areas from time to time;

•

the availability, reliability and operation of competing power generation facilities, including nuclear generating plants where applicable, and the extended operation of such facilities beyond their presently expected dates of decommissioning;

•

the extent of additional supplies of capacity, energy and ancillary services from current competitors or new market entrants, including the development of new generation facilities or technologies that may be able to produce electricity at a lower cost than EME's generating facilities and/or increased access by competitors to EME's markets as a result of transmission upgrades;

•

prevailing market prices for coal, natural gas and fuel oil, and associated transportation;

•

the cost and availability of emission credits or allowances;

•

transmission congestion within and to each market area and the resulting differences in prices between delivery points;

47

---

Table of Contents

•

the ability of regional pools to pay market participants' settlement prices for energy and related products;

•

the market structure rules established for each market area and regulatory developments affecting the market areas, including any price limitations and other mechanisms adopted to address volatility or illiquidity in these markets or the physical stability of the system; and

•

legal and political challenges to the rules used to calculate capacity payments in the markets in which EME operates.

In addition, unlike most other commodities, electric power can only be stored on a very limited basis and generally must be produced when it is to be used. As a result, the wholesale power markets are subject to significant and unpredictable price fluctuations over relatively short periods of time. Due to the volume of sales into PJM from the fossil-fueled facilities, EME has concentrated exposure to market conditions and fluctuations in PJM. There is no assurance that EME's merchant energy power plants will be successful in selling power into their markets or that the prices received for their power will generate positive cash flows. If EME's merchant energy power plants do not meet these objectives, they may not be able to generate enough cash to service their own debt and lease obligations, which could have a material adverse effect on EME.

EME's financial results can be affected by changes in fuel prices, fuel transportation cost increases, and interruptions in fuel supply.

EME's business is subject to changes in fuel costs, which may negatively affect its financial results and financial position by increasing the cost of producing power. Fuel costs can be influenced by many factors outside EME's control, including weather, market liquidity, transportation inefficiencies, demand for energy commodities (both as fuel and as feedstock for manufacturing processes), natural gas, crude oil and coal production levels, natural disasters, wars, embargoes and other catastrophic events, governmental regulation and legislation, and the creditworthiness, liquidity and willingness of fuel suppliers and transporters to do business with EME and its subsidiaries. The fuel markets can be volatile, and actual fuel prices can differ from EME's expectations.

Although EME attempts to purchase fuel based on its expected requirements, it is still subject to the risks of supply interruptions, transportation cost increases, and fuel price volatility. In addition, fuel deliveries will not exactly match energy sales, due in part to the need to purchase fuel inventories in advance for reliability and dispatch requirements. The price at which EME can sell its energy may not rise or fall at the same rate as a corresponding rise or fall in fuel costs. All of these factors may have an adverse effect on EME's financial condition and results of operations.

EME may not hedge market risks effectively.

EME is exposed to market risks through its ownership and operation of merchant energy power plants and through its power marketing business. These market risks include, among others, volatility arising from the timing differences associated with buying fuel, converting fuel into energy and delivering energy to a buyer. EME uses forward contracts and derivative

48

---

Table of Contents

instruments, such as futures contracts and options, to manage market risks and exposure to fluctuating electricity and fuel prices. However, EME cannot provide assurance that these strategies will successfully mitigate market risks.

EME's hedging activities may not cover the entire exposure of its assets or positions to market price volatility, and the level of coverage will vary over time. Amounts hedged at any given time are not indicative of amounts that may be hedged in the future. Fluctuating commodity prices may affect EME's financial results, either favorably or unfavorably, to the extent that assets and positions have not been hedged. In addition, EME's risk management strategies may not be as effective as anticipated.

The effectiveness of EME's hedging activities may depend on the amount of credit available to post collateral, either in support of performance guarantees or as a cash margin. The amount of credit support that must be provided typically is based on the difference between the contract price of the commodity and its current market price. Significant movements in market prices can result in a requirement to provide cash collateral and letters of credit in very large amounts. Without adequate liquidity to meet margin and collateral requirements, EME could be exposed to the following:

•

a reduction in the number of counterparties willing to enter into bilateral contracts, which would result in increased reliance on short-term and spot markets instead of bilateral contracts, increasing EME's exposure to market volatility; and

•

a failure to meet a margin requirement, which could permit the counterparty to terminate the related bilateral contract early and demand immediate payment for the replacement value of the contract.

As a result of these and other factors, EME cannot predict the effect that risk management decisions may have on its business, operating results or financial position.

Competition could adversely affect EME's business.

EME has numerous competitors in all aspects of its business some of whom may have greater liquidity, greater access to credit and other financial resources, lower cost structures, larger staffs or more experience than EME. EME's competitors may be able to respond more quickly and efficiently to new laws and regulations or emerging technologies, or to devote greater resources to the development, operation, and maintenance of their power generation facilities than EME. Multiple participants in the wholesale markets, including many regulated utilities, have a lower cost of capital than most merchant generators and often are able to recover fixed costs through rate base mechanisms, allowing them to build, buy and upgrade generation assets without relying exclusively on market clearing prices to recover their investments. These factors could affect EME's ability to compete effectively in the markets in which those entities operate.

Newer plants owned by EME's competitors are often more efficient than EME's facilities and may also have lower costs of operation. Over time, some of EME's merchant facilities may become obsolete in their markets, or be unable to compete with such plants.

49

---

Table of Contents

In addition to the competition already existing in the markets in which EME presently operates or may consider operating in the future, EME is likely to encounter significant competition as a result of further consolidation of the power industry by mergers and asset reallocations, which could create larger competitors, as well as new market entrants.

Financing Risks

EME may not be able to raise capital on favorable terms, which could adversely affect its results of operation.

Liquidity is essential to EME's business. EME cannot provide assurance that its projected sources of capital will be available when needed or that its actual cash requirements will not be greater than expected. Lack of available capital may affect EME's ability to complete environmental improvements at the fossil-fueled facilities, which could lead to the eventual shutdown of a material part of such facilities. Lack of available capital could also affect EME's ability to complete the development of sites for renewable projects deploying current turbine commitments, which could lead to postponement or cancellation of the turbine commitments subject to the provisions of the related contracts. EME cannot provide assurance that its projected sources of capital will be available when needed or that its actual cash requirements will not be greater than expected.

EME and its subsidiaries have a substantial amount of indebtedness, including long-term lease obligations.

As of December 31, 2009, EME's consolidated debt was approximately $4.0 billion. In addition, EME's subsidiaries had $3.2 billion of long-term, power plant lease obligations that are due over a period ranging up to 25 years. The substantial amount of consolidated debt and financial obligations presents the risk that EME and its subsidiaries might not have sufficient cash to service their indebtedness or long-term lease obligations and that the existing corporate debt, project debt and lease obligations could limit the ability of EME and its subsidiaries to grow their business, to compete effectively, to operate successfully under adverse economic conditions, to comply with evolving environmental regulations, or to plan for and react to business and industry changes. If cash flows and capital resources were insufficient to cover scheduled debt payments, EME or its subsidiaries might have to reduce or delay capital expenditures (including environmental improvements required by the CPS, which could in turn lead to unit shutdowns), sell assets, seek additional capital, or restructure or refinance the debt. The terms of EME's or its subsidiaries' debt may not allow these alternative measures, the debt or equity may not be available on acceptable terms, and these alternative measures may not satisfy all scheduled debt service obligations.

EME conducts a substantial portion of its operations through its subsidiaries and may be limited in its ability to access funds from these subsidiaries to service its debt.

EME depends to a large degree upon dividends and other intercompany transfers of funds from its subsidiaries to meet debt service and other obligations. In addition, the ability of EME's subsidiaries to pay dividends and make other payments to EME may be restricted by, among other things, applicable corporate and other laws, potentially adverse tax

50

---

Table of Contents

consequences, and agreements entered into by the subsidiaries. If EME is unable to access the cash flow of its subsidiaries, it may have difficulty meeting its own debt obligations.

Restrictions in the instruments governing EME's indebtedness and the indebtedness and lease obligations of its subsidiaries limit EME's and its subsidiaries' ability to enter into specified transactions that they otherwise might enter into.

The instruments governing EME's indebtedness and the indebtedness and lease obligations of its subsidiaries contain financial and investment covenants. Restrictions contained in these documents or documents EME or its subsidiaries enter in the future could affect, and in some cases significantly limit or prohibit, EME's ability and the ability of its subsidiaries to, among other things, incur, refinance, and prepay debt, make capital expenditures, pay dividends and make other distributions, make investments, create liens, sell assets, enter into sale and leaseback transactions, issue equity interests, enter into transactions with affiliates, create restrictions on the ability to pay dividends or make other distributions and engage in mergers and consolidations. These restrictions may significantly impede EME's ability and the ability of its subsidiaries to take advantage of business opportunities as they arise, to grow its business or to compete effectively. In addition, these restrictions may significantly impede the ability of EME's subsidiaries to make distributions to EME.

In connection with the entry into new financings or amendments to existing financing arrangements, EME's financial and operational flexibility may be further reduced as a result of more restrictive covenants, requirements for security and other terms that are often imposed on sub-investment grade entities.

Operating Risks

EME's development projects or future acquisitions may not be successful.

EME's development activities are subject to risks including, without limitation, risks related to the identification of project sites, financing, construction, permitting, governmental approvals and the negotiation of project agreements, including power purchase agreements. As a result of these risks, EME may not be successful in developing new projects, or the timing of such development may be delayed beyond the date that turbines are ready for installation. Projects under development may be adversely affected by delays in turbine deliveries or start-up problems related to turbine performance, and agreements with off-takers may contain damages and termination provisions related to failures to meet specified milestones. Moreover, recent economic conditions may affect the willingness of local utilities to enter into new power purchase agreements due to uncertainties over future load requirements, among other factors. If a project under development is abandoned, EME would expense all capitalized costs incurred in connection with that project, and could incur additional losses associated with any related contingent liabilities.

In support of its development activities, EME has entered into commitments to purchase wind turbines for future projects and may make substantial additional commitments in the future. If EME is not successful in developing new projects, it may be required to cancel turbine orders or sell turbines that were purchased. Such cancellations and/or sales may result in substantial losses and, under certain circumstances, may give rise to disputes with the turbine vendor. In

51

---

Table of Contents

addition, EME cannot provide assurance that its development projects or acquired assets will generate sufficient cash flow to support the indebtedness incurred to acquire them or to fund the capital expenditures needed to develop them, or that EME will ultimately realize a satisfactory rate of return.

EME's projects may be affected by general operating risks and hazards customary in the power generation industry. EME may not have adequate insurance to cover all these hazards.

The operation of power generation facilities involves many operating risks, including:

•

performance below expected levels of output, efficiency or availability;

•

interruptions in fuel supply;

•

disruptions in the transmission of electricity;

•

curtailment of operations due to transmission constraints;

•

breakdown or failure of equipment or processes;

•

shortages of equipment or spare parts;

•

imposition of new regulatory, permitting, or environmental requirements, or violations of existing requirements;

•

restrictions on emissions;

•

releases of hazardous substances to air, soil, surface water or groundwater;

•

inability to transport and dispose of coal ash at reasonable prices;

•

employee work force factors, including strikes, work stoppages or labor disputes;

•

operator/contractor error; and

•

catastrophic events such as terrorist activities, fires, tornadoes, earthquakes, explosions, floods or other similar occurrences affecting power generation facilities or the transmission and distribution infrastructure over which power is transported.

These and other hazards can cause significant personal injury or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property, plant and equipment, contamination of or damage to the environment, and suspension of operations. The occurrence of one or more of the events listed above could decrease or eliminate revenues generated by EME's projects or significantly increase the costs of operating them, and could also result in EME being named as a defendant in lawsuits asserting claims for substantial damages, potentially including environmental cleanup costs, personal injury, property damage, fines and penalties.

Unplanned outages typically increase operation and maintenance expenditures and reduce revenues. EME could also be required to purchase replacement power in the open market to satisfy contractual commitments. Equipment and plant warranties, guarantees and insurance may not be sufficient or effective under all circumstances to cover lost revenues or increased expenses. A decrease or elimination in revenues generated by the facilities or an increase in the costs of operating them could decrease or eliminate funds available to meet EME's obligations as they become due and could have a material adverse effect on EME. A default

52

---

Table of Contents

under a financing obligation of a project entity could cause EME to lose its interest in the project.

The creditworthiness of EME's customers, suppliers, transporters and other business partners could affect EME's business and operations.

EME is exposed to risks associated with the creditworthiness of its key customers, suppliers and business partners, many of whom may be adversely affected by the current conditions in the financial markets. Deterioration in the financial condition of EME's counterparties increases the possibility that EME may incur losses from the failure of counterparties to perform according to the terms of their contractual arrangements.

EME's operations depend on contracts for the supply and transportation of fuel and other services required for the operation of its generation facilities and are exposed to the risk that counterparties to contracts will not perform their obligations. If a fuel supplier or transporter failed to perform under a contract, EME would need to obtain alternate supplies or transportation, which could result in higher costs or disruptions in its operations. If the defaulting counterparty is in poor financial condition, damages related to a breach of contract may not be recoverable. Accordingly, the failure of counterparties to fulfill their contractual obligations could have a material adverse effect on EME's financial results.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

As a holding company, Edison International does not directly own any significant properties other than the stock of its subsidiaries. The principal properties of SCE are described above under "Southern California Edison Company—Properties of SCE." Properties of EME are discussed above under "Edison Mission Group Inc.—Properties of EME".

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Catalina South Coast Air Quality Management District Potential Environmental Proceeding

During the period 2006-2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") issued five notices of violation ("NOVs") alleging violations of the NO_x emission limits and related Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) trading credit (to offset NO_x emissions) requirements by certain of SCE's diesel generation units on Catalina Island. A settlement agreement, which resolves all of the NOVs, was fully executed in April 2009 and requires SCE to install new equipment by December 31, 2011 or pay a $3 million fine if the equipment is not installed by that date.

53

---

Table of Contents

Homer City New Source Review Notice of Violation

On June 12, 2008, Homer City received an NOV from the US EPA alleging that, beginning in 1988, Homer City (or former owners of the Homer City facilities) performed repair or replacement projects at Homer City Units 1 and 2 without first obtaining construction permits as required by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") requirements of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"). The US EPA also alleges that Homer City has failed to file timely and complete Title V permits. The NOV does not specify the penalties or other relief that the US EPA seeks for the alleged violations. On June 30, 2009 and January 2, 2010, the US EPA issued requests for information to Homer City under Section 114 of the CAA. Homer City is working on a response to the requests. Homer City has met with the US EPA and has expressed its intent to explore the possibility of a settlement. If no settlement is reached and the DOJ files suit, litigation could take many years to resolve the issues alleged in the NOV. EME cannot predict at this time what effect this matter may have on its facilities, its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Homer City has sought indemnification for liability and defense costs associated with the NOV from the sellers under the asset purchase agreement pursuant to which Homer City acquired the Homer City facilities. The sellers responded by denying the indemnity obligation, but accepting the defense of the claims.

Homer City notified the sale-leaseback owner participants of the Homer City facilities of the NOV under the operative indemnity provisions of the sale-leaseback documents. The owner participants of the Homer City facilities, in turn, have sought indemnification and defense from Homer City for costs and liabilities associated with the Homer City NOV. Homer City responded by undertaking the indemnity obligation and defense of the claims.

Midwest Generation New Source Review Lawsuit

On August 3, 2007, Midwest Generation received an NOV from the US EPA alleging that, beginning in the early 1990s and into 2003, Midwest Generation or Commonwealth Edison performed repair or replacement projects at six Illinois coal-fired electric generating stations in violation of the PSD requirements and of the New Source Performance Standards of the CAA, including alleged requirements to obtain a construction permit and to install BACT at the time of the projects. The US EPA also alleged that Midwest Generation and Commonwealth Edison violated certain operating permit requirements under Title V of the CAA. Finally, the US EPA alleged violations of certain opacity and particulate matter standards at the Midwest Generation plants. At approximately the same time, Commonwealth Edison received an NOV substantially similar to the Midwest Generation NOV. Midwest Generation, Commonwealth Edison, the US EPA, and the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), along with several Chicago-based environmental action groups, had discussions designed to explore the possibility of a settlement but no settlement resulted.

On August 27, 2009, the US EPA and the State of Illinois filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois against Midwest Generation, but not Commonwealth Edison, alleging claims substantially similar to those in the NOV. In addition to seeking penalties ranging from $25,000 to $37,500 per violation, per day, the complaint calls for an injunction ordering Midwest Generation to install best available control technology ("BACT") at all units subject

54

---

Table of Contents

to the complaint; to obtain new PSD or NSR permits for those units; to amend its applications under Title V of the CAA; to conduct audits of its operations to determine whether any additional modifications have occurred; and to offset and mitigate the harm to public health and the environment caused by the alleged CAA violations. The remedies sought by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit could go well beyond those required under the CPS. By order dated January 19, 2010, the court allowed a group of Chicago-based environmental action groups to intervene in the case.

The owner participants of the Powerton and Joliet Stations have sought indemnification and defense from Midwest Generation and/or EME for costs and liabilities associated with these matters. EME responded by undertaking the indemnity obligation and defense of the claims. An adverse decision could involve penalties and remedial actions that would have a material adverse impact on the financial condition and results of operations EME.

EME cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the impact on its facilities, its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Navajo Nation Litigation

Information about the Navajo Nation litigation appears in the "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies."

55

---

Table of Contents

Pursuant to Form 10-K's General Instruction G(3), the following information is included as an additional item in Part I:

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

As set forth in Article IV of Edison International's and the relevant subsidiary's Bylaws, the elected officers of Edison International and its subsidiaries are chosen annually by, and serve at the pleasure of, Edison International and the relevant subsidiary's Board of Directors and hold their respective offices until their resignation, removal, other disqualification from service, or until their respective successors are elected. All of the officers of Edison International and its subsidiaries have been actively engaged in the business of Edison International and its subsidiaries for more than five years, except for Messrs. Adler and David, and have served in their present positions for the periods stated below. Additionally,

56

---

Table of Contents

those officers who have had other or additional principal positions in the past five years had the following business experience during that period:

57

---

Table of Contents

58

---

Table of Contents

PART II

ITEM 4. RESERVED

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Edison International Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "EIX."

Market information responding to Item 5 is included in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 19. Quarterly Financial Data." There are restrictions on the ability of Edison International's subsidiaries to transfer funds to Edison International that materially limit the ability of Edison International to pay cash dividends. Such restrictions are discussed in the MD&A under the heading "Edison International Overview—Parent Company Liquidity and in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 3. Liabilities and Lines of Credit." The number of common stock shareholders of record of Edison International was 47,620 on February 25, 2010. Additional information concerning the market for Edison International's Common Stock is set forth on the cover page hereof.

Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities

The following table contains information about all purchases made by or on behalf of Edison International or any affiliated purchaser (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Exchange Act) of shares or other units of any class of Edison International's equity securities that is registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

59

---

Table of Contents

Comparison of Five-Year Cumulative Total Return

60

---

Table of Contents

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

Selected Financial Data: 2005 - 2009

The selected financial data was derived from Edison International's audited financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by the more detailed information and financial statements, including notes to these financial statements, included in this annual report.

61

---

Table of Contents

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

EDISON INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW

Introduction

Edison International is a holding company whose principal operating subsidiaries are SCE, a rate-regulated electric utility, and EMG, the holding company of Edison International's competitive power generation (EME) and financial services (Edison Capital) segments. As a holding company, Edison International's progress and outlook are the result of developments at its operating subsidiaries.

This overview is presented in five sections:

•

Highlights of operating results;

•

SCE capital investment plan to maintain reliability and expand the capability of SCE's distribution and transmission infrastructure, support initiatives in California to increase renewable energy, construct and replace generating assets and deploy advanced metering capability;

•

Environmental developments, including compliance activities at EMG's Midwest Generation and Homer City plants, and legislative, regulatory and legal developments related to greenhouse gases and once-through cooling;

•

Update on EMG's renewable programs; and

•

Information regarding Edison International liquidity.

62

---

Table of Contents

Highlights of Operating Results

Edison International's earnings are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles used in the United States. Management uses core earnings by principal operating subsidiary internally for financial planning and for analysis of performance. Core earnings by principal operating subsidiary are also used when communicating with analysts and investors regarding our earnings results to facilitate comparisons of the Company's performance from period to period. Core earnings is a non-GAAP financial measure and may not be comparable to those of other companies. Core earnings are defined as earnings attributable to Edison International shareholders less income or loss from discontinued operations and income or loss from significant discrete items that management does not consider representative of ongoing earnings, such as: settlement of prior year tax liabilities; exit activities, including lease terminations, asset impairments, sale of certain assets, early debt extinguishment costs and other activities that are no longer continuing; and non-recurring regulatory or legal proceedings.

SCE's 2009 core earnings increased from 2008 primarily due to higher operating income associated with the CPUC and FERC 2009 general rate case decisions, partially offset by higher income taxes. In addition, core earnings were favorably impacted from lower than planned financings during the year, primarily from cash received for tax-related timing differences and other benefits.

63

---

Table of Contents

During 2009, SCE received general rate case decisions from the CPUC and FERC, as follows:

•

The CPUC issued a decision in SCE's 2009 GRC, authorizing a $4.83 billion revenue requirement for 2009, an increase of $512 million from SCE's 2008 revenue requirement, effective January 1, 2009. The CPUC also authorized a methodology that would result in an approximate revenue requirement of $5.04 billion in 2010 and $5.25 billion in 2011.

•

The FERC approved a settlement to the 2009 rate case effective March 1, 2009. The settlement provides for a transmission revenue requirement of $448 million, an increase of $136 million over the previously authorized amount.

EMG 2009 core earnings were significantly lower than 2008 primarily due to the following:

•

Lower wholesale energy prices reduced revenues from EME's merchant coal-fired generation and trading operations. The effects of the economic recession and mild weather during the summer months contributed to declines in electrical demand for the Northern Illinois and PJM West locations during 2009. Electrical load, calculated from data published by PJM, for these locations declined 5% and 3%, respectively, during 2009 compared to 2008. In addition, the price of natural gas, which often serves as the marginal fuel source in the region, declined significantly. The reduction in natural gas prices together with lower electrical demand resulted in significantly lower wholesale energy prices. The average 24-hour PJM real-time price for energy at the Northern Illinois Hub and the PJM West Hub declined to $28.86/MWh and $38.31/MWh, respectively, during 2009 as compared to $49.01/MWh and $68.56/MWh, respectively, during 2008.

•

Lower electrical load contributed to decreased transmission congestion in the eastern power grid, thereby resulting in $115 million lower trading income in 2009 as compared to 2008.

•

Higher costs were incurred at Midwest Generation to comply with the CAIR annual NO_x emission program that began in 2009 and new mercury emission controls. Partially offsetting these higher costs were cost reductions at Midwest Generation and Homer City due in part to the deferral of plant overhaul activities.

•

Lower earnings occurred at Edison Capital primarily due to a decline in lease income following the termination of cross border leases, which occurred as part of the Global Settlement with the Internal Revenue Service.

Consolidated changes in non-core items for Edison International include the following:

•

An after-tax loss of $254 million in 2009 resulted from the Global Settlement with the Internal Revenue Service and termination of Edison Capital's cross border leases. The 2009 loss is net of a $19 million tax benefit recorded in the fourth quarter from a revised estimate of federal interest related to the settlement. The Global Settlement resolved federal tax disputes related to Edison Capital's cross-border, leveraged leases through 2009, and all other outstanding federal tax disputes and affirmative claims of Edison International for tax years 1986 through 2002.

•

An after-tax non-cash benefit of $46 million was recorded in 2009 from the transfer of the Mountainview power plant to utility rate base pursuant to approvals by the CPUC and FERC.

64

---

Table of Contents

•

An after-tax charge of $49 million in 2008 from a decision by the CPUC disallowing certain amounts and imposing penalties under its performance-based ratemaking program for the period 1997 – 2003.

See "SCE: Results of Operations" for discussion of SCE results of operations, including a comparison of 2008 results to 2007. Also, see "EMG: Results of Operations" for discussion of EMG results of operations, including a comparison of 2008 results to 2007.

SCE Capital Program

SCE's capital program is focused primarily in five areas:

•

Upgrading and constructing new transmission lines to expand capacity to utilize renewable energy, including the Tehachapi, Devers-Colorado River and Eldorado-Ivanpah projects;

•

Maintaining reliability and expanding capability of SCE's transmission and distribution system;

•

Developing and installing up to 250 MW of utility-owned solar photovoltaic generating facilities (generally ranging in size from 1 to 2 MW each) on commercial and industrial rooftops and other space in SCE's service territory;

•

Replacing steam generators at San Onofre intended to enable operations until at least the end of its initial license period in 2022; and

•

Installing "smart" meters in approximately 5.3 million households and small businesses referred to as Edison SmartConnect™.

SCE plans to utilize much of the cash currently generated from its operations and issuance of additional debt and preferred stock for its capital program. SCE's capital expenditures in 2009 totaled $2.9 billion. SCE projects that capital expenditures will be in the range of $3.3 billion to $4.0 billion in 2010 and that the 2010 - 2014 total capital investment plan will be in the range of $18 billion to $21.5 billion. The rate of actual capital spending will be affected by permitting, regulatory, market and other factors as discussed further under "SCE: Liquidity and Capital Resources—Capital Investment Plan."

Environmental Developments

Midwest Generation Environmental Compliance Plans and Costs

Midwest Generation is subject to various requirements with respect to environmental compliance for the Midwest Generation plants. In 2006, Midwest Generation entered into an agreement with the Illinois EPA, which has been embodied in an Illinois rule called the CPS, to control emission of mercury, NO_x and SO₂ from its coal-fired plants. During 2008 and 2009, Midwest Generation installed equipment to reduce its mercury emissions. During 2009, Midwest Generation also conducted tests of NO_x removal technology based on SNCR and SO₂ removal using flue gas desulfurization technology based on dry sodium sorbent injection that may be employed to meet CPS requirements. Based on this testing, Midwest Generation has concluded that installation of SNCR technology on multiple units will meet the NO_x

65

---

Table of Contents

portion of the CPS. Capital expenditures for installation of SNCR technology are expected to be approximately $88 million in 2010 and $70 million in 2011.

Testing of flue gas desulfurization technology based on injection of dry sodium sorbent demonstrated significant reductions in SO₂ emissions when using low-sulfur coal employed by Midwest Generation; however, further analysis and evaluation are required to determine the appropriate method to comply with the SO₂ portion of the CPS. Use of flue gas desulfurization technology based on injection of dry sodium sorbent in combination with Midwest Generation's use of low-sulfur coal is expected to require substantially less capital and installation time than dry scrubber technology, but would likely result in higher ongoing operating costs and may consequently result in lower dispatch rates and competitiveness of the plants. Midwest Generation may also combine the use of dry sorbent injection technology with upgrades to its particulate removal systems to meet environmental regulations.

Midwest Generation does not yet know what specific method of SO₂ removal will be used or the total costs that will be incurred to comply with the CPS. Any and a decision regarding whether or not to proceed with the above or other approaches to compliance remains subject to further analysis and evaluation of several factors, including market conditions, regulatory and legislative developments and forecasted capital and operating costs. Due to existing uncertainties about these factors, Midwest Generation may defer final decisions about particular units for the maximum time available. Accordingly, final decisions on whether to install controls, the particular controls that will be installed, and the resulting capital commitments may not occur for up to two years for some of the units and potentially further out for others. Midwest Generation could elect to shut down units when required in order to comply with the SO₂ removal requirements of the CPS. Midwest Generation continues to evaluate various scenarios and cannot predict the extent of shutdowns and retrofits or the particular combination of retrofits and shutdowns it may ultimately employ to comply with CPS.

Midwest Generation New Source Review Lawsuit

In August 2009, the US EPA and the State of Illinois filed a lawsuit against Midwest Generation in Illinois federal court based on claims contained in a 2007 NOV regarding alleged violations of the New Source Performance Standards of the CAA, the CAA's Title V operating permit requirements and applicable opacity and particulate matter standards. Midwest Generation is contesting such claims. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, substantial monetary penalties and an injunction requiring Midwest Generation to install controls sufficient to meet BACT emissions rates as determined by the court at all units subject to the lawsuit. See "Item 3. Legal Proceedings—Midwest Generation New Source Review Lawsuit" for further discussion. Should liability of Midwest Generation be established, remedies ordered by the court could go beyond what is required for compliance with the CPS.

Homer City Environmental Issues and Capital Resource Limitations

Homer City operates SCR equipment on all three units to reduce NO_x emissions, operates flue gas desulfurization equipment on Unit 3 to reduce SO₂ emissions, and uses coal-cleaning equipment onsite to reduce the ash and sulfur content of raw coal to meet both combustion and environmental requirements. Homer City may be required to install additional

66

---

Table of Contents

environmental equipment on Unit 1 and Unit 2 to comply with environmental regulations under the CAIR and Pennsylvania mercury regulations. If required, the timing of such compliance remains uncertain. Homer City projects that if flue gas desulfurization equipment becomes required, it would need to make capital commitments for such equipment three to four years in advance of the effectiveness of such requirements. Homer City continues to review technologies available to reduce SO₂ and mercury emissions and to monitor developments related to mercury and other environmental regulations. Restrictions under the agreements entered into as part of Homer City's 2001 sale-leaseback transaction could affect, and in some cases significantly limit or prohibit, Homer City's ability to incur indebtedness or make capital expenditures. Homer City will have limited ability to obtain additional outside capital for such projects without amending its lease and related agreements. EME is under no contractual or other obligation to provide funding to Homer City.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation Developments

The nature of future environmental regulation and legislation will have a substantial impact on Edison International. Edison International believes that resolution of current uncertainties about the future, through well-balanced and appropriately flexible regulation and legislation, is needed to support the necessary evolution of the electric industry into using cleaner, more efficient infrastructure and to attract the capital ultimately needed for this effort. Legislative, regulatory, and legal developments related to potential controls over greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are ongoing. Actions to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions could significantly increase the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuels as well as the cost of purchased power. In the case of utilities, like SCE, these costs are generally borne by customers, whereas the increased costs for competitive generators, like EME, must be recovered through market prices for electricity.

Recent significant developments include the following:

•

Legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions continues to be considered by Congress; however, the timing, content, and potential effects on Edison International and its subsidiaries of any greenhouse gas legislation that may be enacted remain uncertain.

•

In December 2009, the US EPA issued a final finding that certain greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, threaten the public health and welfare. The US EPA has issued a proposed rule, known as the "greenhouse gas tailoring rule," under which all new and major modifications of existing stationary sources emitting 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually, including power plants, would be required to include BACT to minimize their greenhouse gas emissions. Since the current proposal affects only new or modified sources, it is not expected to have any immediate effect, if adopted, on existing fossil-fuel generating stations of SCE, Midwest Generation or Homer City, but it could affect the cost of new construction or modifications. US EPA could also use its authority in the future to regulate existing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. If controls are required to be installed at the facilities of Edison International subsidiaries in the future in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to regulations issued by the US EPA or others, the potential impact will depend on the nature of the controls applied, which remains uncertain.

67

---

Table of Contents

•

Three recent court cases addressed the question of whether power plants that emit greenhouse gases constituted public nuisances that could be held liable for damages or other remedies. In one case (in which Edison International is a named defendant): a California federal district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. In the other two, federal courts of appeals permitted the suits to go forward. Each of these differing results remains subject to appeal and thus the ultimate impact of these cases remains uncertain. Edison International cannot predict whether these recent decisions will result in the filing of new actions with similar claims or whether Congress, in considering climate legislation, will address directly the availability of courts for these sorts of claims.

•

Governor Schwarzenegger issued an executive order to increase California's renewable energy goals from 20% to 33% and has directed the CARB to adopt a regulation consistent with 33% of retail sellers annual electricity sales being obtained from renewable energy sources by 2020. Achieving a 33% renewables portfolio standard in this timeframe is highly ambitious, given the magnitude of the infrastructure build-out required and the slow pace of transmission permitting and approvals. The CARB is also considering a number of direct regulations to reduce greenhouse gases in California, which requirements could go beyond those ultimately imposed by Congress or the US EPA.

Once-Through Cooling

Last year, the California State Water Resources Board released a draft policy, which would establish closed-cycle wet cooling as required technology for retrofitting existing once-through cooled plants like San Onofre and many of the existing gas-fired power plants along the California coast. If the policy is adopted by the Board, it may result in significant capital expenditures at San Onofre and may affect its operations. It may also significantly impact SCE's ability to procure generating capacity from fossil-fuel plants that use ocean water in once-through cooling systems. It may also impact system reliability and the cost of electricity to the extent other coastal power plants in California are forced to shut down or limit operations. The policy has the potential to adversely affect California's nineteen once-through cooled power plants, which provide over 21,000 MW of combined, in-state generation capacity, including over 9,100 MW of capacity interconnected within SCE's service territory.

EME Renewable Program

EME has a development pipeline of potential wind projects with projected installed capacity of approximately 4,000 MW at January 31, 2010 compared to approximately 5,000 MW at December 31, 2008. The decline in the pipeline is primarily due to the transfer of projects into construction and cost containment efforts resulting in the reduction in the number of projects funded under our joint development agreements. EME had purchase contracts for 512 MW of wind turbines for future projects as of December 31, 2009. EME plans to deploy these wind turbines when projects meet acceptable financial thresholds, have long-term power sales agreements, and can attract long-term project financing. If EME is unable to develop such projects on acceptable terms and conditions, certain turbine orders may be terminated. Such an event would likely result in a material charge.

At December 31, 2009, EME had two projects under construction: the 240 MW Big Sky wind project, and the 150 MW Cedro Hill wind project, which are scheduled for completion in

68

---

Table of Contents

early 2011 and late 2010, respectively. EME has obtained financing for the Big Sky wind project ($206 million). During the first quarter of 2010, EME commenced construction of the 130 MW Taloga wind project located in Oklahoma and executed a power sales agreement for an 80 MW project located in Nebraska, referred to as the Laredo Ridge wind project. After designating turbines for these projects, EME has reduced its available turbines for future projects to 302 MW.

The pace of further growth in EME's renewables program will be subject to availability of projects that meet EME's requirements and the capital needed for development, and it may be affected by future decisions about capital expenditures for environmental compliance by its coal fleet.

Parent Company Liquidity

The parent company's liquidity and its ability to pay operating expenses and dividends to common shareholders have historically been dependent on dividends from SCE, tax-allocation payments under its tax-allocation agreements with its subsidiaries, and access to bank and capital markets. During 2009, Edison International paid common dividends of $404 million to its shareholders. Given its subsidiaries' plans to use their current cash flow for their respective capital needs, Edison International (parent) expects to incur additional borrowings to fund its own activities.

At December 31, 2009, Edison International (parent) had approximately $18 million of cash and equivalents on hand. The following table summarizes the status of the Edison International (parent) credit facility at December 31, 2009:

Edison International has a debt covenant in its credit facility that requires a consolidated debt to total capitalization ratio of less than or equal to 0.65 to 1 to be met. At December 31, 2009, Edison International's consolidated debt to total capitalization ratio was 0.53 to 1.

69

---

Table of Contents

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

SCE's results of operations are derived mainly through two sources:

•

Utility earning activities, which mainly represent CPUC and FERC-authorized base rates, which allow a reasonable return, and CPUC-authorized incentive mechanisms; and

•

Utility cost-recovery activities, which mainly represent CPUC-authorized balancing accounts, which allow recovery of costs incurred or provide mechanisms to track and recover or refund differences in forecasted and actual amounts. Balancing accounts do not allow for a return.

Utility earning activities include base rates that are designed to recover forecasted operation and maintenance costs, certain capital-related carrying costs, interest, taxes and a return, including the return on capital projects recovered through balancing account mechanisms. Differences between authorized and actual results impact earnings. Also, included in utility earning activities are revenues or penalties related to incentive mechanisms, other operating revenue, and regulatory charges or disallowances, if any.

Utility cost-recovery activities include rates which provide for recovery, subject to reasonableness review, of fuel costs, purchased power costs, public purpose related-program costs (including energy efficiency and demand-side management programs), nuclear decommissioning expense, certain operation and maintenance expenses, and depreciation expense related to certain projects. There is no return for cost-recovery expenses.

70

---

Table of Contents

Electric Utility Results of Operations

The following table is a summary of SCE's results of operations for the periods indicated. The presentation below separately identifies utility earning activities and utility cost-recovery activities (including Big 4).

71

---

Table of Contents

Utility Earning Activities

2009 vs. 2008

Utility earning activities were primarily affected by:

•

Higher operating revenue of $514 million primarily due to the following:

•

$485 million increase resulting from the implementation of SCE's 2009 CPUC GRC decision, which authorized an increase of $512 million ($27 million of which is reflected in utility cost-recovery activities) from SCE's 2008 revenue requirement effective January 1, 2009.



•

$114 million increase resulting from the 2009 FERC approved rate case settlement effective March 1, 2009.



•

$85 million decrease primarily due to the revenue requirements for medical, dental, and vision expenses and SCE's share of Palo Verde operation and maintenance expenses, which beginning in 2009 are reflected in utility cost recovery activities.



•

In December 2009, the CPUC approved a payment of $26 million (compared to a $25 million payment in 2008) on SCE's 2006-2008 energy efficiency risk/reward incentive mechanism. SCE expects to recognize a final payment of approximately $27 million in 2010. The final payment, if any, may be reduced as a result of the final verification and review of the entire program cycle savings.

•

Higher operation and maintenance expenses of $60 million primarily due to:

•

$105 million of higher transmission and distribution expenses primarily due to higher costs to support system reliability and infrastructure projects, increases in preventive maintenance work, as well as engineering costs;



•

$50 million of higher expenses related to regulatory and performance issues including the NRC requiring SCE to take action to provide greater assurance of compliance by San Onofre personnel with applicable NRC requirements and procedures. SCE is currently implementing plans to address the identified issues (See "Item 1 Business—Regulation—Nuclear Power Plant Regulation" for further discussion);



•

$50 million of higher expenses associated with new information technology system requirements and facility maintenance to support company growth programs;



•

$30 million of higher expenses resulting from the transfer of the Mountainview plant to utility rate base in July 2009, previously recognized in cost-recovery activities; partially offset by



•

$175 million of expenses which, beginning in 2009, are recovered through balancing accounts and are reflected in 2009 cost-recovery activities. SCE's 2009 GRC decision authorized balancing account treatment for medical, dental and vision expenses and SCE's share of Palo Verde operations and maintenance expenses.

72

---

Table of Contents

•

Higher depreciation expense of $80 million primarily resulting from increased capital investments including capitalized software costs.

•

Lower net interest expense and other of $118 million primarily due to:

•

Lower other expenses of $71 million primarily due to a final charge of $60 million ($49 million after-tax)recorded in 2008 resulting from the CPUC decision on SCE's PBR mechanism as well as a $14 million decrease in civic, political and related activity expenditures, primarily related to spending on Proposition 7 in 2008, partially offset by a $8 million increase in donations. See "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 12. Other Income and Expenses" for further detail of other expenses.



•

Higher other income of $63 million due to an increase in AFUDC – equity earnings primarily resulting from:



•

$50 million increase in AFUDC – equity earnings in the third quarter of 2009 related to the transfer of the Mountainview power plant to utility rate base. The 2009 CPUC GRC decision granted the authority to transfer the assets and liabilities of Mountainview Power Company, LLC to SCE, which was subsequently approved by the FERC and transferred in July 2009.



•

$12 million increase in AFUDC – equity earnings resulting from an increase in construction work in progress related to SCE's capital investment program.

See "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 12. Other Income and Expenses" for further detail of other income.

•

Higher interest expense of $8 million primarily due to higher outstanding balances on long-term debt partially offset by lower interest expense on short-term borrowings. Due to an increase in cash flow from operations, including the positive cash impact from the Global Settlement and other tax timing differences, SCE was able to defer some of its expected financings in 2009 to support its growth programs.

•

Lower income tax expense primarily due to an interest benefit related to the Global Settlement, partially offset by higher pre-tax income, higher 2008 software deductions resulting from the implementation of SAP, and lower property-related tax benefits in 2009.

2008 vs. 2007

Utility earning activities were primarily affected by:

•

Higher operating revenue of $289 million primarily due to rate base related revenue growth, and authorized energy efficiency incentives. SCE recorded $25 million of energy efficiency revenues in 2008 in connection with the energy efficiency risk/reward incentive mechanism.

•

Higher operation and maintenance expenses of $154 million primarily due to $60 million of higher generation expenses related to maintenance and refueling outage expenses at San Onofre and higher overhaul and outage costs at Four Corners and Palo Verde and $50 million of higher customer service expenses and administrative and general expenses

73

---

Table of Contents

primarily related to higher labor costs, increased uncollectible accounts and higher franchise fees and higher maintenance costs.

•

Higher depreciation expense of $95 million primarily resulting from increased capital investments, including capitalized software costs, and a $17 million cumulative depreciation rate adjustment recorded in the second quarter of 2008.

•

Higher net interest expense and other of $56 million primarily due to:

•

Higher other expenses of $79 million primarily due to a final charge of $60 million ($49 million after-tax) recorded in 2008 related to a decision received regarding SCE incentives claimed under a CPUC-approved PBR mechanism. The 2008 variance was also due to an increase of $8 million for civic, political and related activity expenditures primarily related to spending on Proposition 7.



•

Higher other income of $24 million primarily due to $10 million of proceeds received for corporate-owned life insurance policies and an $8 million increase in AFUDC – equity earnings resulting from an increase in construction work in progress related to SCE's capital investment program.



•

Lower interest expense of $21 million primarily due to lower balancing account over-collections and lower interest rates applied to those over-collections. This decrease was partially offset by higher interest expense resulting from higher outstanding balances on long-term debt.



•

Lower interest income of $22 million primarily due to lower balancing account under-collections and lower interest rates in 2008 compared to 2007 partially offset by higher interest income due to higher cash and equivalents and short-term investment balances.

Utility Cost-Recovery Activities

2009 vs. 2008

Utility cost-recovery activities were primarily affected by:

•

Lower purchased power expense of $1.1 billion primarily due to: lower bilateral energy and QF purchases of $1.3 billion primarily due to lower natural gas prices and decreased kWh purchases; and lower firm transmission rights costs of $65 million due to implementation of the MRTU market. Realized losses on economic hedging activities were $344 million in 2009 and $60 million in 2008. Changes in realized losses on economic hedging activities were primarily due to settled natural gas prices being significantly lower than average fixed prices.

•

Lower fuel expense of $679 million primarily due to lower costs at the Mountainview plant of $230 million and lower costs for the SCE Big 4 projects of $445 million, both resulting from lower natural gas costs in 2009 compared to 2008.

•

Higher operation and maintenance expense of $81 million primarily related to $185 million of expenses which beginning in 2009 are recovered through balancing accounts and are reflected in 2009 cost recovery activities. SCE's 2009 GRC decision authorized balancing account treatment for medical, dental, and vision expenses and its share of Palo Verde operation and maintenance expenses. In addition, SCE recorded

74

---

Table of Contents

higher pension and PBOP expenses of $60 million due to the volatile market conditions experienced in 2008. These increases were partially offset by $50 million of lower energy efficiency costs, $85 million of lower transmission access and reliability service charges and $30 million of lower Mountainview expenses resulting from the transfer of the Mountainview plant to utility rate base in July 2009.

2008 vs. 2007

Utility cost-recovery activities were primarily affected by:

•

Higher purchased power expense of $610 million due to: higher bilateral energy and QF purchases of $495 million, primarily due to higher natural gas prices and increased kWh purchases and higher ISO-related energy costs of $165 million. These increases were partially offset by $30 million of lower firm transmission rights costs. Realized losses on economic hedging were $60 million in 2008 and $132 million in 2007. Changes in realized losses on economic hedging activities were primarily due to significant decreases in forward natural gas prices in 2008 compared to 2007.

•

Higher fuel expense of $209 million primarily due to higher costs at SCE's Mountainview plant of $85 million and higher costs at SCE's VIEs of $104 million, both resulting from higher natural gas prices in 2008 compared to 2007.

Supplemental Operating Revenue Information

SCE's total consolidated operating revenue was $10 billion, $11.2 billion and $10.2 billion for the year-ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively, of which $9.5 billion, $9.3 billion and $9.2 billion related to retail billed and unbilled revenue (excluding wholesale sales) for the same respective periods. In 2009, retail billed and unbilled revenue increased $184 million compared to the same period in 2008. The increase reflects a rate increase (including impact of a tiered rate structure) of $564 million and a sales volume decrease of $380 million. Effective April 4, 2009, SCE's overall system average rate increased to 14.1¢ per-kWh due to the implementation of both revenue allocation and rate design changes authorized in Phase 2 of the 2009 GRC and the FERC transmission rate changes authorized in the 2009 FERC rate case. The sales volume decrease was due to the economic downturn as well as the impact of milder weather experienced in 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. Retail billed and unbilled revenue increased $94 million in 2008, compared to the same period in 2007. The increase reflects a rate increase (including impact of tiered rate structure) of $92 million and a sales volume increase of $2 million. The rate increase was due to minor variations of usage by rate class.

Due to warmer weather during the summer months and SCE's rate design, operating revenue during the third quarter of each year is generally higher than other quarters.

Amounts SCE bills and collects from its customers for electric power purchased and sold by the CDWR to SCE's customers, CDWR bond-related costs and a portion of direct access exit fees are remitted to the CDWR and are not recognized as revenue by SCE. The amounts collected and remitted to CDWR were $1.8 billion, $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

75

---

Table of Contents

Effective Income Tax Rates

SCE's effective income tax rate was 16.3% in 2009 compared to 31.8% in 2008. The effective tax rate decreased due to 2009 benefits related to both the Global Settlement and recognition of additional AFUDC – equity resulting from the transfer of the Mountainview power plant to utility rate base. Partially offsetting these items was an increase from higher 2008 software deductions related to the implementation of SAP and lower property-related tax benefits in 2009. The effective tax rate for both periods was lower than the federal statutory rate primarily due to these items as well as other property related flow-through items and state income expense. The CPUC requires flow-through rate-making treatment for the current tax benefit arising from certain property-related and other temporary differences, which reverse over time. The accounting treatment for these temporary differences results in recording regulatory assets and liabilities for amounts that would otherwise be recorded to deferred income tax expense.

SCE's effective income tax rate was 31.8% in 2008 compared to 30.8% in 2007. The 2008 effective tax rate included tax benefits from higher software deductions related to the implementation of SAP. The 2007 effective tax rate included tax benefits from reductions in liabilities for uncertain tax positions to reflect both the progress made in an administrative appeals process with the IRS related to the income tax treatment of certain costs associated with environmental remediation and to reflect a settlement of state tax audit issues. The effective tax rate for both periods was lower than the federal statutory rate primarily due to these items as well as other property related flow-through items and state income tax expense. See "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 4. Income Taxes."

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

SCE's ability to operate its business, complete planned capital projects, and implement its business strategy is dependent upon its cash flow and access to the capital markets to finance its business. SCE's overall cash flows fluctuate based on, among other things, its ability to recover its costs in a timely manner from its customers through regulated rates, changes in commodity prices and volumes, collateral requirements, dividend payments made to Edison International, and the outcome of tax and regulatory matters.

SCE's continuing obligations and projected capital investments, both for 2010, are expected to be funded through cash and equivalents on hand, operating cash flows and incremental capital market financings of debt and preferred equity. SCE expects that it would also be able to draw on the remaining availability of its credit facilities and access capital markets if additional funding and liquidity are necessary to meet operating and capital requirements.

Available Liquidity

As of December 31, 2009, SCE had approximately $3.3 billion of available liquidity comprised of cash and equivalents and short-term investments and $2.9 billion available under credit facilities. As of December 31, 2009, SCE's long-term debt, including current maturities of long-term debt, was $6.7 billion.

76

---

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the status of SCE's credit facilities at December 31, 2009:

Debt Covenant

SCE has a debt covenant in its credit facilities that limits its debt to total capitalization ratio to less than or equal to 0.65 to 1. At December 31, 2009, SCE's debt to total capitalization ratio was 0.45 to 1.

Capital Investment Plan

SCE's capital investment plan for 2010 – 2014 includes a capital forecast of $21.5 billion. The 2010 – 2011 planned capital investments for projects under CPUC jurisdiction are recovered through the authorized revenue requirement in SCE's 2009 GRC or through other CPUC-authorized mechanisms. Recovery of planned capital investments for projects under CPUC jurisdiction beyond 2011 and not already approved through other CPUC-authorized mechanisms, is subject to the outcome of future CPUC GRCs or other CPUC approvals. Recovery of the 2010 planned capital investments for projects under FERC jurisdiction has been requested in the 2010 FERC Rate Case. Recovery of the 2011 – 2014 planned capital investments under FERC jurisdiction will be requested in future FERC transmission filings, as appropriate.

The completion of the projects, the timing of expenditures, and the associated cost recovery may be affected by permitting requirements and delays, construction schedules, availability of labor, equipment and materials, financing, legal and regulatory approvals and developments, weather and other unforeseen conditions.

SCE capital investments (including accruals) related to its 2009 capital plan were $2.9 billion. SCE's capital investments for 2009 were approximately 15% less than the original forecast, primarily due to timing delays resulting from a later than expected 2009 GRC decision and delays in other regulatory approvals. The estimated capital investments for the next five years may vary from SCE's current forecast in a range of $18 billion to $21.5 billion based on the average variability experienced in 2008 and 2009 of 16.5%. Applying the two-year historical average variability to the current forecast, the estimated capital investments for the next five years would vary in the range of: 2010 – $3.3 billion to $4.0 billion; 2011 – $3.7 billion to $4.4 billion; 2012 – $3.9 billion to $4.6 billion; 2013 – $3.6 billion to $4.3 billion; and 2014 –

77

---

Table of Contents

$3.5 billion to $4.2 billion. SCE's 2009 capital spending and 2010 – 2014 capital spending forecast is set forth in the following table:

Distribution Projects

Distribution investments include projects and programs to meet customer load growth requirements, reliability and infrastructure replacement needs, information and other technology and related facility requirements for 2010 – 2014. Of the total investments, $3.8 billion are recovered through rates authorized in SCE's 2009 CPUC GRC decision, and $7.1 billion are subject to review and approval in the 2012 CPUC GRC proceeding.

Transmission Projects

SCE's has planned the following significant transmission projects:

•

Tehachapi Transmission Project – An eleven segment project consisting of new and upgraded transmission lines and associated substations built primarily to enable the development of renewable energy generated primarily by wind farms in remote areas of eastern Kern County, California. Tehachapi segments one, two and a portion of segment three were completed and placed in service in 2009. The remainder of segment three is under construction and expected to be placed in service over the period 2011 – 2013. SCE continues to seek the necessary licensing permits for Tehachapi segments four through eleven, which are expected to be placed in service between 2011 and 2015, subject to receipt of licensing and regulatory approvals. SCE expects to invest $1.7 billion over the period 2010 – 2014 on this project. In November 2007, the FERC approved a 125 basis point ROE project adder, a 50 basis point incentive for CAISO participation, recovery of the ROE and incentive adders during the CWIP phase, and recovery of abandoned plant costs (if any) on this project. SCE's requested 100% CWIP cost recovery is still pending FERC approval.

•

Devers-Colorado River Project – A transmission project, also known as the California portion of the DPV2 project, involving the installation of a high voltage (500 kV) transmission line from Romoland, California to the Colorado River switchyard west of Blythe, California. The project is currently expected to be placed in service in 2013, subject to final licensing and regulatory approvals. Over the period 2010 – 2014, SCE expects to invest $658 million for this project in California. The DPV2 project includes the transmission line through a portion of western Arizona, although SCE has deferred the Arizona portion while it continues to evaluate its transmission needs in western Arizona.

78

---

Table of Contents

In November 2007, the FERC approved a 125 basis point ROE project adder, a 50 basis point adder for CAISO participation, recovery of the ROE and incentive adders during the CWIP phase, and recovery of abandoned plant costs (if any) on the DPV2 project. Various parties have challenged SCE's ability to receive the DPV2 incentives.

•

Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project – A proposed 220/115 kV substation near Primm, Nevada and an upgrade of a 35-mile portion of an existing transmission line connecting the new substation to the Eldorado Substation, near Boulder City, Nevada. The project is currently expected to be placed in service in 2013, subject to necessary licensing and regulatory approvals. SCE expects to invest $469 million over the period 2010 – 2014 on this project. In December 2009, the FERC granted conditional approval of incentives on the project which included 100 basis point ROE project adder, a 50 basis point incentive for CAISO participation, recovery of the ROE and incentive adders during the CWIP phase, and recovery of abandoned plant costs (if any) on this project. The approval was conditioned upon the approval of the CAISO and its finding that the project ensures reliability or reduces the cost of delivered power.

•

Other capital investments consisting of $2.7 billion for other transmission to maintain reliability and expand capability of its infrastructure over the period 2010 – 2014. Included in these capital investments are other renewable projects in support of the 33% renewable procurement target.

Generation Projects

San Onofre Steam Generator Replacement Project – In February 2010, SCE installed the first two of the four planned steam generators. San Onofre Unit 2 is expected to be back online in March 2010. The steam generator replacement project is intended to enable San Onofre to operate until the end of its initial license period in 2022, and beyond if license renewal proves feasible. SCE expects to spend $270 million over the period 2010 – 2011 on this project.

EdisonSmartConnect^TM

SCE's EdisonSmartConnect^TM project involves installing state-of-the-art "smart" meters in approximately 5.3 million households and small businesses through its service territory. In March 2008, SCE was authorized by the CPUC to recover $1.63 billion in customer rates for the deployment phase of EdisonSmartConnect^TM. In 2009, SCE began full deployment of meters to all residential and small business customers under 200 kW and anticipates completion of the deployment in 2012. SCE expects to spend $1.1 billion over the period 2010 – 2014 on this project, with expenditures in 2013 and 2014 primarily related to post-deployment customer additions.

Solar Rooftop Program

In June 2009, the CPUC approved SCE's Solar Photovoltaic Program to develop up to 250 MW of utility-owned Solar Photovoltaic generating facilities generally ranging in size from 1 to 2 MW each, on commercial and industrial rooftops and other space in SCE's service territory. The decision allows SCE to recover its reasonable costs in customer rates and its CPUC-authorized rate of return on its investment. SCE expects to spend $1.0 billion over the period 2010 – 2014 on this project.

79

---

Table of Contents

Regulatory Proceedings

Cost of Capital Mechanism

In 2009, the CPUC granted SCE's request to forgo an expected 2010 cost of capital increase under the annual adjustment provision and extended SCE's existing capital structure and authorized rate of return of 11.5% through December 2012, absent any future potential annual adjustments. The revised mechanism will be subject to CPUC review in 2012 for the cost of capital set for 2013 and beyond.

2010 FERC Rate Case

On September 30, 2009, FERC issued an order allowing SCE to implement its proposed 2010 rates, subject to refund and settlement procedures, effective March 1, 2010. The proposed rates would increase SCE's revenue requirement by $107 million, or 24%, over the 2009 revenue requirement primarily due to an increase in transmission rate base and would result in an approximate 1% increase to SCE's overall system average rate. SCE is currently in settlement negotiations with the FERC staff and multiple intervenors.

Dividend Restrictions

The CPUC regulates SCE's capital structure and limits the dividends it may pay Edison International. In SCE's most recent cost of capital proceeding, the CPUC set an authorized capital structure for SCE which included a common equity component of 48%. SCE may make distributions to Edison International as long as the common equity component of SCE's capital structure remains at or above the 48% authorized level on a 13-month weighted average basis. At December 31, 2009, SCE's 13-month weighted-average common equity component of total capitalization was 49.8% resulting in the capacity to pay $271 million in additional dividends.

During 2009, SCE made a total of $300 million of dividend payments to its parent, Edison International and declared a $100 million dividend to Edison International which was paid in January 2010. Future dividend amounts and timing of distributions are dependent upon several factors including the actual level of capital investments, operating cash flows and earnings.

Income Tax Matters

SCE is included in the consolidated federal and combined state income tax returns of Edison International and participates in tax-allocation payments with other subsidiaries of Edison International in accordance with the terms of intercompany tax allocation agreements among the Edison International affiliated companies. Significant activities occurred during 2009 that will have an impact on SCE's future cash flows.

Global Settlement

On May 5, 2009, Edison International and the IRS finalized the terms of a Global Settlement that resolved all of SCE's federal income tax disputes and affirmative claims through tax year 2002. See "Edison International Parent and Other—Liquidity and Capital Resources" for further discussion.

80

---

Table of Contents

Repair Deductions

During the fourth quarter of 2009, Edison International made a voluntary election to change its tax accounting method for certain repair costs incurred on SCE's transmission, distribution and generation assets. The change in tax accounting method resulted in an initial $192 million cash benefit realized in the fourth quarter of 2009. This benefit was based primarily on an estimated cumulative catch-up deduction for certain repair costs that were previously capitalized and depreciated over the tax depreciable life of the property. Additional information and analysis is required to determine the actual deduction that will ultimately be reflected on the 2009 income tax return (due to be filed in September 2010) which may result in additional cash benefits. The current income tax benefit from the change in accounting for repair costs represents a timing difference which will reverse over the remaining tax life of the assets. This method change did not impact SCE's 2009 results of operations. Recovery of the future increase in income taxes related to this matter is expected to be addressed in SCE's 2012 GRC. Due to the uncertainty over this recovery, SCE did not recognize an earnings benefit or regulatory asset in 2009.

Margin and Collateral Deposits

Certain derivative instruments and power procurement contracts under SCE's power and natural gas hedging activities contain collateral requirements. SCE has historically provided collateral in the form of cash and/or letters of credit for the benefit of counterparties. Collateral requirements can vary depending upon the level of unsecured credit extended by counterparties, changes in market prices relative to contractual commitments, and other factors. Future collateral requirements may be higher (or lower) than requirements at December 31, 2009, due to the addition of incremental power and energy procurement contracts with collateral requirements, if any, and the impact of changes in wholesale power and natural gas prices on SCE's contractual obligations.

Certain of these power contracts contain a provision that requires SCE to maintain an investment grade credit rating from the major credit rating agencies. If SCE's credit rating were to fall below investment grade, SCE may be required to pay the liability or post additional collateral. The table below illustrates the amount of collateral posted by SCE to its counterparties as well as the potential collateral that would be required as of December 31, 2009.

81

---

Table of Contents

In the table above, there was zero collateral posted as of December 31, 2009 related to derivative liabilities, and $4 million of incremental collateral requirements related to derivative liabilities.

SCE's incremental collateral requirements are expected to be met from liquidity available from cash on hand and available capacity under SCE's credit facilities, discussed above.

Historical Consolidated Cash Flow

The section of the MD&A discusses consolidated cash flows from operating, financing and investing activities.

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

Cash Flows Provided by Operating Activities

The $2.4 billion increase in 2009 cash flows provided by operating activities over 2008 was primarily due to the following:

•

$875 million cash inflow due to the receipt of tax-allocation payments due to Global Settlement related to the settlement of affirmative claims; a portion of which is timing and will be payable in future periods (See "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 4. Income Taxes" for further discussion).

•

$468 million net cash inflow due to the increase in balancing account cash flows comprised of:

•

$1.3 billion net cash inflow due to the increase in ERRA balancing account cash flows (collections of approximately $450 million in 2009, compared to refunds of approximately $840 million in 2008). The ERRA balancing account was over-collected by $46 million, under-collected by $406 million and over-collected by $433 million at December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively; partially offset by



•

$820 million net cash outflow related to all other regulatory balancing accounts which was primarily due to increased spending in 2009 compared to 2008 for public purpose and solar initiative programs and increased pension and PBOP contributions. In addition, a $200 million refund payment was received in 2008 related to public purpose programs.

•

$250 million cash inflow benefit related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 50% bonus depreciation provision.

•

$192 million cash inflow benefit related to the change in its tax accounting method for certain repair costs incurred on SCE's transmission, distribution and generation assets.

82

---

Table of Contents

•

Higher cash inflow due to the increase in pre-tax income primarily driven by higher authorized revenue requirements resulting from the implementation of the 2009 CPUC and FERC GRC decisions.

•

Timing of cash receipts and disbursements related to working capital items.

The $1.3 billion decrease in 2008 cash flows provided by operating activities over 2007 was primarily due to the following:

•

$295 million net cash outflow due to the decrease in balancing account cash flows comprised of:

•

$745 million net cash outflow due to the decrease in ERRA balancing account cash flows (refunds of approximately $840 million in 2008, compared to refunds of approximately $95 million in 2007). The ERRA balancing account was under-collected by $406 million, over-collected by $433 million and over-collected by $526 million at December 31, 2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively; partially offset by



•

$450 million net cash inflow related to all other regulatory balancing accounts which was primarily due a $200 million refund payment received in 2008 related to public purpose programs, $100 million refunded to ratepayers as a result of SCE's PBR decision, and a net $150 million in other balancing account overcollections.

•

$240 million cash outflow due to the elimination of amounts collected in 2008 for the repayment of SCE rate reduction bonds. These bonds were fully repaid in December 2007. The bond payment is reflected in financing activities.

•

Timing of cash receipts and disbursements related to working capital items, including tax-related items.

Cash Flows Provided (Used) by Financing Activities

Cash provided (used) by financing activities mainly consisted of net repayments of short-term debt and long-term debt issuances (payments).

Cash used by financing activities for 2009 was $2.0 billion consisting of the following significant events:

•

Repaid a net $1.9 billion of short-term debt, primarily due to the improvement in economic conditions that occurred during the second half of 2008.

•

Paid $300 million in dividends to Edison International.

•

Purchased $219 million of two issues of tax-exempt pollution control bonds and converted the issues to a variable rate structure. SCE continues to hold the bonds which remain outstanding and have not been retired or cancelled.

•

Repaid $150 million of first and refunding mortgage bonds.

•

Issued $500 million of first refunding mortgage bonds due in 2039 and $250 million of first and refunding mortgage bonds due in 2014. The bond proceeds were used for general corporate purposes and to finance fuel inventories.

83

---

Table of Contents

Cash provided by financing activities for 2008 was $2.0 billion consisting of the following significant events:

•

Borrowed $1.4 billion under the line of credit to increase SCE's cash position to meet working capital requirements, if needed, during uncertainty over economic conditions during the second half of 2008.

•

Issued $600 million of first refunding mortgage bonds due in 2038. The proceeds were used to repay SCE's outstanding commercial paper of approximately $426 million and for general corporate purposes.

•

Issued $500 million of 5.75% first and refunding mortgage bonds due in 2014. The proceeds were used for general corporate purposes.

•

Issued $400 million of 5.50% first and refunding mortgage bonds due in 2018. The proceeds were used to repay SCE's outstanding commercial paper of approximately $110 million and borrowings under the credit facility of $200 million, as well as for general corporate purposes.

•

Paid $325 million in dividends to Edison International.

•

Purchased $212 million of its auction rate bonds, converted the issue to a variable rate structure, and terminated the FGIC insurance policy. SCE continues to hold the bonds which remain outstanding and have not been retired or cancelled.

•

Paid $36 million for the purchase and delivery of outstanding common stock for settlement of stock based awards (facilitated by a third party).

Cash used by financing activities in 2007 was $438 million consisting of the following significant events:

•

Repaid $246 million of the remaining outstanding balance of its rate reduction bonds.

•

Paid $135 million in dividends to Edison International.

•

Paid $135 million for the purchase and delivery of outstanding common stock for settlement of stock based awards (facilitated by a third party).

•

Issued $500 million of short-term debt to fund interim working capital requirements.

Net Cash Used by Investing Activities

Cash flows from investing activities are driven primarily by capital expenditures and funding of nuclear decommissioning trusts. Capital expenditures were $3.0 billion, $2.3 billion and $2.3 billion for 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively, primarily related to transmission and distribution investments. Net purchases of nuclear decommissioning trust investments and other were $199 million, $7 million and $133 million for 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

84

---

Table of Contents

Contractual Obligations and Contingencies

Contractual Obligations

SCE's contractual obligations as of December 31, 2009, for the years 2010 through 2014 and thereafter are estimated below.

Contingencies

SCE has contingencies related to FERC transmission incentives and CWIP proceedings, the Navajo Nation Litigation, nuclear insurance, and spent nuclear fuel, which are discussed in "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies."

85

---

Table of Contents

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, operations and maintenance, monitoring and site closure. Unless there is a probable amount, SCE records the lower end of this reasonably likely range of costs (classified as "Other long-term liabilities") at undiscounted amounts.

As of December 31, 2009, SCE identified 23 sites for remediation and recorded an estimated minimum liability of $39 million of which $5 million was related to San Onofre. SCE expects to recover 90% of its remediation costs at certain sites. See "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies" for further discussion.

MARKET RISK EXPOSURES

SCE's primary market risks include fluctuations in interest rates, commodity prices and volumes, and counterparty credit. Fluctuations in interest rates can affect earnings and cash flows. Fluctuations in commodity prices and volumes and counterparty credit losses may temporarily affect cash flows, but are not expected to affect earnings due to expected recovery through regulatory mechanisms. SCE uses derivative financial instruments, as appropriate, to manage its market risks.

Interest Rate Risk

SCE is exposed to changes in interest rates primarily as a result of its financing and short-term investing activities used for liquidity purposes, to fund business operations and to fund capital investments. The nature and amount of SCE's long-term and short-term debt can be expected to vary as a result of future business requirements, market conditions and other factors. In addition, SCE's authorized return on common equity (11.5% for 2010, 2009 and 2008), which is established in SCE's cost of capital proceeding, is set on the basis of forecasts of interest rates and other factors. Variances in actual financing costs compared to authorized financing costs impact earnings either positively or negatively.

At December 31, 2009, the fair market value of SCE's long-term debt (including current portion of long-term debt) was $7.2 billion, compared to a carrying value of $6.7 billion. A 10% increase in market interest rates would have resulted in a $345 million decrease in the fair market value of SCE's long-term debt. A 10% decrease in market interest rates would have resulted in a $380 million increase in the fair market value of SCE's long-term debt.

Commodity Price Risk

SCE is exposed to commodity price risk which represents the potential impact that can be caused by a change in the market value of a particular commodity. SCE's hedging program

86

---

Table of Contents

reduces ratepayer exposure to variability in market prices related to SCE's power and gas activities. SCE recovers its related hedging costs, through the ERRA balancing account, subject to reasonableness review, and as a result, exposure to commodity price is not expected to impact earnings, but may impact cash flows.

Electricity price exposure arises from the following activities:

•

Energy purchased and sold in the MRTU market as a result of differences between SCE's load requirements versus the amount of energy delivered from SCE's generating facilities, existing bilateral contracts, and CDWR contracts allocated to SCE. In March 2009, SCE began participating in the MRTU day-ahead and real-time markets which uses nodal locational marginal prices and is subject to price caps. The volume purchased in the MRTU market may vary due to outages at SCE's generating facilities, new or expired bilateral contracts and changes in customer demand resulting from, among other things, growth or decline in customer base and weather.

Natural gas price exposure arises from the following activities:

•

Natural gas purchased for generation at Mountainview and peaker plants. The volume purchased may vary due to outages and dispatch based on SCE's management of its load requirements.

•

Bilateral contracts where pricing is based on natural gas prices. Contract energy prices for some QFs are based on the monthly index price of natural gas delivered at the Southern California border. Approximately 37% of SCE's purchased power supply is subject to natural gas price volatility.

•

Power contracts in which SCE has agreed to provide the natural gas needed for generation, referred to as tolling arrangements. Volume may vary due to dispatch based on SCE's management of its load requirements or if the existing CDWR power contracts, which have related natural gas supply contracts, are novated or replaced and SCE becomes a party to such contracts. SCE is currently unable to predict which or how many existing CDWR contracts will be novated or replaced. However, due to the expected recovery through regulatory mechanisms these power procurement expenses are not expected to affect earnings.

Natural Gas and Electricity Price Risk

SCE's hedging program reduces ratepayer exposure to variability in market prices. As part of this program, SCE enters into energy options, swaps, forward arrangements, tolling arrangements, and congestion revenue rights (CRRs). The transactions are pre-approved by the CPUC or executed in compliance with CPUC-approved procurement plans. In addition, SCE's risk management committee monitors exposure related to these instruments.

SCE records its derivative instruments on its consolidated balance sheets at fair value unless they meet the definition of a normal purchase or sale or are classified as VIEs or leases. The derivative instrument fair values are marked to market at each reporting period. Any fair value changes are expected to be recovered from or refunded to customers through regulatory mechanisms and therefore, SCE's fair value changes have no impact on purchased-power expense or earnings. SCE does not use hedge accounting for these transactions due to this regulatory accounting treatment.

87

---

Table of Contents

Fair Value of Derivative Instruments

SCE follows the authoritative accounting guidance for fair value measurements. For further discussion see "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 10. Fair Value Measurements." The following table summarizes the fair values of outstanding derivative instruments used at SCE to mitigate its exposure to spot market prices:

SCE recognizes realized gains and losses on derivative instruments as purchased power expense and recovers these costs from ratepayers. As a result, realized gains and losses do not affect earnings, but may temporarily affect cash flows. Due to expected future recovery from ratepayers, unrealized gains and losses are deferred and are not recognized as purchased power expense, and therefore do not affect earnings. Realized losses on economic hedging activities were primarily due to settled natural gas prices being significantly lower than transactional average fixed prices. Unrealized gains on economic hedging activities were primarily due to changes in the expected forward prices of the CRRs, the rising volatilities related to SCE's contracts from the new generation contracts, and settlement of gas contracts during the period.

88

---

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the increase or decrease to the fair values of outstanding derivative financial instruments as of December 31, 2009, if the electricity prices or gas prices were changed while leaving all other assumptions constant:

Credit Risk

As part of SCE's procurement activities, SCE contracts with a number of utilities, energy companies, financial institutions, and other companies, collectively referred to as counterparties. If a counterparty were to default on its contractual obligations, SCE could be exposed to potentially volatile spot markets for buying replacement power or selling excess power. In addition, SCE would be exposed to the risk of non-payment of accounts receivable, primarily related to sales of excess energy and realized gains on derivative instruments. However, all of the contracts that SCE has entered into with counterparties are either entered into under SCE's short-term or long-term procurement plan which has been approved by the CPUC, or the contracts are approved by the CPUC before becoming effective. As a result of regulatory recovery mechanisms, losses from non-performance are not expected to affect earnings, but may temporarily affect cash flows.

To manage credit risk, SCE looks at the risk of a potential default by counterparties. Credit risk is measured by the loss that would be incurred if counterparties failed to perform pursuant to the terms of their contractual obligations. SCE measures, monitors and mitigates credit risk to the extent possible. SCE manages the credit risk on the portfolio based on credit ratings using published ratings of counterparties and other publicly disclosed information, such as financial statements, regulatory filings, and press releases, to guide it in the process of setting credit levels, risk limits and contractual arrangements, including master netting agreements. SCE's risk management committee regularly reviews and evaluates procurement credit exposure and approves credit limits for transacting with counterparties. Despite this, there can be no assurance that these efforts will be wholly successful in mitigating credit risk or that collateral pledged will be adequate. SCE anticipates future delivery of energy by counterparties, but given the current market condition, SCE cannot predict whether the counterparties will be able to continue operations and deliver energy under the contractual agreements.

The credit risk exposure from counterparties for power and gas trading activities is measured as the sum of net accounts receivable (accounts receivable less accounts payable) and the current fair value of net derivative assets (derivative assets less derivative liabilities) reflected on the balance sheet. SCE enters into master agreements which typically provide for a right of setoff. Accordingly, SCE's credit risk exposure from counterparties is based on a net exposure under these arrangements.

89

---

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2009, the amount of balance sheet exposure as described above, broken down by the credit ratings of SCE's counterparties, was as follows:

The credit risk exposure set forth in the above table is comprised of $7 million of net account receivables and $299 million representing the fair value, adjusted for counterparty credit reserves, of derivative contracts.

The CAISO comprises 72% of the total net exposure above and is mainly related to the CRRs' fair value (see "—Commodity Price Risk" for further information).

90

---

Table of Contents

EDISON MISSION GROUP

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following section includes a discussion of the results of operations for the "competitive power generation" (EME) segment and the "financial services and other" (Edison Capital and other EMG subsidiaries) segment. Included in the competitive power generation segment are the activities of MEHC, the holding company of EME. MEHC's only substantive activities were its obligations under senior secured notes which were paid in full on June 25, 2007. MEHC does not have any substantive operations.

Competitive Power Generation (EME) Results of Continuing Operations

This section discusses operating results in 2009, 2008 and 2007. EME's continuing operations primarily include the fossil-fueled facilities, renewable energy and gas-fired projects, energy trading, and gas-fired projects under contract, corporate interest expense and general and administrative expenses. EME's discontinued operations include all international operations, except the Doga project.

91

---

Table of Contents

The following table is a summary of competitive power generation results of operations for the periods indicated.

Adjusted Operating Income (AOI) – Overview

The following section and table provide a summary of results of EME's operating projects and corporate expenses for the three years ended December 31, 2009, together with discussions of the contributions by specific projects and of other significant factors affecting these results.

92

---

Table of Contents

The following table shows the AOI of EME's projects:

The following table reconciles AOI to operating income as reflected on EME's consolidated statements of income.

93

---

Table of Contents

Adjusted Operating Income from Consolidated Operations

Midwest Generation Plants

The following table presents additional data for the Midwest Generation plants:

AOI from the Midwest Generation plants decreased $348 million in 2009 compared to 2008, and increased $105 million in 2008 compared to 2007. The 2009 decrease in AOI was

94

---

Table of Contents

primarily attributable to a decline in realized gross margin, partially offset by an increase in unrealized gains related to hedge contracts (described below), and lower plant operations expense. The decline in realized gross margin was primarily due to a 21% decline in average realized energy prices resulting from lower energy prices and higher fuel costs to comply with the CAIR annual NO_x emission program that began in 2009 and to implement new mercury emission controls. This decline was partially offset by higher capacity revenue primarily due to higher capacity prices from the RPM auctions. Plant operations expense was lower in 2009 as compared to 2008 due to cost containment efforts and the deferral of plant overhaul activities.

The 2008 increase in AOI was primarily attributable to higher realized gross margin, an increase in unrealized gains related to hedge contracts (described below) and a $15 million gain recorded during the first quarter of 2008 related to a buyout of a fuel contract. The increase in realized gross margin was due to an increase in capacity prices as a result of the RPM auctions. The increase in generation and slightly higher average realized energy prices was partially offset by higher coal and transportation costs.

Included in operating revenues were unrealized gains (losses) of $30 million, $(6) million and $(25) million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Unrealized gains in 2009 were primarily due to hedge contracts that are not accounted for as cash flow hedges (referred to as economic hedges). In addition, $14 million was reversed from accumulated other comprehensive income and recognized in 2009 related to the power contracts with Lehman Brothers Commodity Services, Inc. Unrealized losses in 2008 included a $24 million write-down of power contracts with Lehman Brothers Commodity Services, Inc. for 2009 and 2010 generation. These contracts qualified as cash flow hedges until EME dedesignated the contracts due to nonperformance risk and subsequently terminated the contracts. The change in fair value was recorded as an unrealized loss during 2008. In addition, unrealized gains (losses) included the ineffective portion of hedge contracts at the Midwest Generation plants attributable to changes in the difference between energy prices at NiHub (the settlement point under forward contracts) and the energy prices at the Midwest Generation plants busbars (the delivery point where power generated by the Midwest Generation plants is delivered into the transmission system) resulting from marginal losses. Unrealized losses in 2007 were also attributable to energy contracts that were entered into to hedge the price risk related to projected sales of power. During 2007, power prices increased resulting in mark-to-market losses on economic hedges.

Included in fuel expenses were unrealized gains of $15 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 due to oil futures contracts that were accounted for as economic hedges. The contracts were entered into in 2009 to hedge a portion of a fuel adjustment provision of a rail transportation contract. For more information regarding forward market prices and unrealized gains (losses), see "EMG: Market Risk Exposures—Commodity Price Risk" and "EMG: Results of Operations—Accounting for Derivative Instruments," respectively.

95

---

Table of Contents

Homer City

The following table presents additional data for the Homer City facilities:

AOI from the Homer City facilities decreased $16 million in 2009 compared to 2008 and $19 million in 2008 compared to 2007. The 2009 decrease in AOI was primarily attributable to a decline in realized gross margin partially offset by lower plant operations expense. The decline in realized gross margin was primarily due to a 13% decline in average realized energy prices, partially offset by an increase in capacity revenues and lower coal costs. The decline in plant operations expense was due to cost containment efforts and the deferral of plant overhaul activities.

The 2008 decrease in AOI compared to 2007 was primarily attributable to lower realized gross margin and higher plant maintenance expenses, partially offset by an increase in unrealized gains related to hedge contracts (described below). The decline in realized gross margin was due to lower generation from higher forced outages, lower off-peak dispatch and extended planned overhauls in 2008, partially offset by an increase in capacity revenues and the sale of excess coal inventory.

Included in operating revenues were unrealized gains (losses) from hedge activities of $15 million, $21 million and $(10) million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Unrealized gains (losses) were primarily attributable to the ineffective portion of forward and futures contracts which are derivatives that qualify as cash flow hedges. The ineffective portion of

96

---

Table of Contents

hedge contracts at Homer City was attributable to changes in the difference between energy prices at PJM West Hub (the settlement point under forward contracts) and the energy prices at the Homer City busbar (the delivery point where power generated by the Homer City facilities is delivered into the transmission system). For more information regarding forward market prices and unrealized gains (losses), see "EMG: Market Risk Exposures—Commodity Price Risk" and "EMG: Results of Operations—Accounting for Derivative Instruments," respectively.

Non-GAAP Disclosures—Fossil-Fueled Facilities

Adjusted Operating Income (Loss)

AOI is equal to operating income plus other income (expense) for the fossil-fueled facilities. AOI is a non-GAAP performance measure and may not be comparable to those of other companies. Management believes that inclusion of other income (expense) is meaningful for investors as the components of other income (expense) are integral to the results of the fossil-fueled facilities.

Seasonal Disclosure—Fossil-Fueled Facilities

In 2009, the seasonal fluctuations in electric demand normally occurring for the fossil-fueled facilities were minimized by milder winter conditions and cooler than normal summer months. Normally, due to fluctuations in electric demand resulting from warmer weather during the summer months and cold weather during the winter months, electric revenues from the fossil-fueled facilities vary substantially on a seasonal basis. In addition, maintenance outages generally are scheduled during periods of lower projected electric demand (spring and fall) further reducing generation and increasing major maintenance costs which are recorded as an expense when incurred. Accordingly, AOI from the fossil-fueled facilities are seasonal and have significant variability from quarter to quarter. Seasonal fluctuations may also be affected by changes in market prices. For further discussion regarding market prices, see "EMG: Market Risk Exposures—Commodity Price Risk—Energy Price Risk Affecting Sales from the Fossil-Fueled Facilities."

97

---

Table of Contents

Renewable Energy Projects

The following table presents additional data for EME's renewable energy projects:

AOI from renewable energy projects decreased $7 million in 2009 compared to 2008, and increased $29 million in 2008 compared to 2007. The 2009 decrease in AOI was primarily attributable to mild wind conditions, which reduced the revenue increases relative to the increased operating costs associated with additional projects coming on line. Expenses incurred for projects under construction also contributed to the decrease in AOI. New projects that commenced operations were the primary drivers for increases in the revenues and operating costs and AOI in 2008. EME's share of installed capacity of new wind projects that commenced operations during 2009, 2008 and 2007 was 223 MW, 396 MW and 292 MW, respectively.

98

---

Table of Contents

Energy Trading

EME seeks to generate profit by utilizing its subsidiary, EMMT, to engage in trading activities in those markets in which it is active as a result of its management of the merchant power plants of Midwest Generation and Homer City. EMMT trades power, fuel, and transmission congestion primarily in the eastern U.S. power grid using products available over the counter, through exchanges, and from ISOs. AOI from energy trading activities decreased $115 million in 2009 compared to 2008, and increased $22 million in 2008 compared to 2007. The 2009 decrease in AOI from energy trading activities was attributable to lower transmission congestion in the eastern U.S. power grid. The 2008 increase in AOI from energy trading activities was primarily attributable to increased transmission congestion and market volatility in key markets. In addition, energy trading included favorable results for load service transactions in 2009 and 2008.

Adjusted Operating Income from Unconsolidated Affiliates

Big 4 Projects

AOI from the Big 4 projects decreased $41 million in 2009 compared to 2008, and $60 million in 2008 compared to 2007. The 2009 decrease in AOI was primarily due to lower natural gas prices affecting electricity and steam revenues. The 2008 decrease in AOI was primarily due to $60 million in lower AOI from the Sycamore and Watson projects as a result of lower pricing in 2008 than previously applied under a long-term power sales agreement that expired.

Sunrise

AOI from the Sunrise project increased $13 million in 2009 from 2008 and decreased $9 million in 2008 from 2007. The 2009 increase was primarily due to higher availability incentive payments in 2009 and lower maintenance expenses. The 2008 decrease was primarily due to lower availability incentive payments in 2008 and higher maintenance expenses due to unplanned outages in 2008.

March Point

In 2009, EME recommenced recording its share of equity in income from the March Point project and recorded $11 million for the year. Although EME's investment in the project was determined to be fully impaired in 2005, declining natural gas prices reduced fuel expenses and returned the project to profitability. To the extent that cash is received from the project in excess of EME's investment, such amount will be included in equity in income from unconsolidated affiliates on EME's consolidated statements of income. In February 2010, EME received an $18 million equity distribution from the March Point project. EME subsequently sold its ownership interest in the March Point project to its partner.

Seasonal Disclosure—Unconsolidated Affiliates

EME's third quarter equity in income from its unconsolidated energy projects is normally higher than equity in income related to other quarters of the year due to seasonal fluctuations and higher energy contract prices during the summer months.

99

---

Table of Contents

Other Operating Income (Expense)

Other operating income (expense) in 2009 included a small gain on the sale of a portion of EME's solar project development pipeline, offset by a write-down of capitalized costs related to a development project during the fourth quarter of 2009. Other operating income (expense) in 2008 resulted from a charge of $23 million related to the termination of a turbine supply agreement in connection with the Walnut Creek project and a $7 million write-down of capitalized costs related to U.S. Wind Force. These amounts are reflected in "Gain on buyout of contract, loss on termination of contract, asset write-down and other charges and credits" on EME's consolidated statements of income.

Interest Related Income (Expense)

Interest income decreased $19 million in 2009 from 2008 and $59 million in 2008 from 2007. The 2009 decrease was primarily attributable to lower interest rates in 2009 compared to 2008. The 2008 decrease was primarily attributable to lower interest rates in 2008, compared to 2007, and lower average cash equivalents and short-term investment balances.

EME's interest expense to third parties, before capitalized interest, increased $4 million in 2009 from 2008 and $14 million in 2008 from 2007. The 2009 increase was primarily due to higher debt balances under EME's credit facility in 2009, compared to 2008, and EME's wind financing in June 2009. The 2008 increase primarily resulted from EME's refinancing activities in May 2007.

Loss on early extinguishment of debt was $241 million in 2007 related to the early repayment of EME's 7.73% senior notes due June 15, 2009 and Midwest Generation's 8.75% second priority senior secured notes due May 1, 2034 and MEHC's 13.5% senior secured notes due July 15, 2008.

100

---

Table of Contents

Income Taxes

Competitive power generation (including MEHC) effective tax rates were 5%, 33% and 34%, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. The effective tax rate for 2009 was impacted by lower pretax income in relation to the level of production tax credits and estimated state income tax benefits allocated from Edison International. Production tax credits for wind projects of $56 million, $44 million and $29 million were recognized for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Estimated state income tax benefits allocated from Edison International of $15 million, $5 million and $10 million were recognized for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. For further discussion, see "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 4. Income Taxes."

In May 2009, Edison International and the Internal Revenue Service completed a settlement of federal tax disputes and affirmative claims for open tax years 1986 through 2002. As a result, state tax years for the same periods are now open pending review by state taxing authorities of agreed final federal adjustments. The settlement includes the resolution of issues pertaining to EME which were largely timing in nature. During the second quarter of 2009, EME recorded an income tax benefit of $6 million due to the settlement and related estimated impact of interest and state income taxes. The amount recorded is subject to change based on the final determination of interest and state taxes and items affected under the tax-allocation agreement.

Results of Discontinued Operations

Loss from discontinued operations, net of tax, increased $8 million in 2009 compared to 2008. Results in 2009 and 2008 included foreign exchange gains (losses) and interest expense associated with contract indemnities related to EME's sale of international projects in December 2004. In addition, EME increased its estimated liability for a tax indemnity by $6 million during the second quarter of 2009.

Related-Party Transactions

EME owns interests in partnerships that sold electricity generated by their project facilities to SCE and others under the terms of power purchase agreements. Sales by these partnerships to SCE under these agreements amounted to $366 million, $686 million and $747 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

Accounting for Derivative Instruments

EME uses derivative instruments to reduce its exposure to market risks that arise from fluctuations in the prices of electricity, capacity, fuel, emission allowances, and transmission rights. For derivative instruments recorded at fair value, changes in fair value are recognized in earnings at the end of each accounting period unless the instrument qualifies for hedge accounting. For derivatives that qualify for cash flow hedge accounting, changes in their fair value are recognized in other comprehensive income until the hedged item settles and is recognized in earnings. However, the ineffective portion of a derivative that qualifies for cash flow hedge accounting is recognized currently in earnings.

101

---

Table of Contents

EME classifies unrealized gains and losses from derivative instruments as part of operating revenues or fuel expenses. The results of derivative activities are recorded as part of cash flows from operating activities on the consolidated statements of cash flows. The following table summarizes unrealized gains (losses) from non-trading activities for the three-year period ended December 31, 2009:

At December 31, 2009, unrealized gains of $47 million were recognized from non-qualifying hedge contracts or the ineffective portion of cash flow hedges related to subsequent periods ($40 million for 2010 and $7 million for 2011).

Fair Value of Derivative Instruments

In determining the fair value of EME's derivative positions, EME uses third-party market pricing where available. For further explanation of the fair value hierarchy and a discussion of EME's derivative instruments, see "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 10. Fair Value Measurements" and "—Note 2. Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities," respectively.

Non-Trading Derivative Instruments

The fair value of outstanding non-trading commodity derivative instruments at December 31, 2009 and 2008 was $215 million and $375 million, respectively. In assessing the fair value of EME's non-trading commodity derivative instruments, EME uses quoted market prices and forward market prices adjusted for credit risk. The fair value of commodity price contracts takes into account quoted market prices, time value of money, volatility of the underlying commodities and other factors. The decrease in the fair value of commodity contracts at December 31, 2009 as compared to December 31, 2008 is attributable to the settlement of contracts in 2009 that were entered into in 2008 at higher prices than contracts outstanding at December 31, 2009. A 10% change in the market price of the underlying commodity at December 31, 2009 would increase or decrease the fair value of outstanding non-trading commodity derivative instruments by approximately $102 million. Since these non-trading commodity derivative instruments are economic hedges, an increase or decrease in fair value would be offset by an increase or decrease in the cash flows of the underlying asset. The change in the fair value of the derivative and the change in cash flows from the economically hedged item may not be recognized in operating revenues in the same periods.

102

---

Table of Contents

Energy Trading Derivative Instruments

The fair value of outstanding energy trading derivative instruments at December 31, 2009 and 2008 was $122 million and $112 million, respectively. The change in the fair value of trading contracts for the year ended December 31, 2009 was as follows:

A 10% change in the market price of the underlying commodity at December 31, 2009 would increase or decrease the fair value of trading contracts by approximately $1 million. The impact of changes to the various inputs used to determine the fair value of Level 3 derivatives would not be anticipated to be material to EME's results of operations as such changes would be offset by similar changes in derivatives classified within Level 3 as well as other categories.

103

---

Table of Contents

Financial Services and Other (Edison Capital and other EMG subsidiaries) Results of Operations

The following table sets forth the major changes in financial services and other net income (loss):

Lease Termination and Other

Pursuant to the Global Settlement with the IRS, Edison Capital terminated its interests in cross-border leases during the first half of 2009 (see "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 4. Income Taxes" for further discussion). The net proceeds and loss, before income tax, from termination of the cross-border leases were $1.385 billion and $920 million, respectively. The after-tax loss on termination of the cross-border leases, including the federal and state income tax impact of the Global Settlement, was $614 million. In addition, Edison Capital sold its interest in another leverage lease transaction, Midland Cogeneration Ventures, during the second quarter of 2009 and recorded a pre-tax gain on sale of $33 million ($20 million after tax).

In March 2008, First Energy exercised an early buyout right under the terms of an existing lease agreement with Edison Capital related to Unit No. 2 of the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant. The termination date of the lease under the early buyout option was June 1,

104

---

Table of Contents

2008. Proceeds from the sale were $72 million. Edison Capital recorded a pre-tax gain of $41 million ($23 million after tax) during the second quarter of 2008.

Income Tax Expense

The composite federal and state statutory income tax rate was approximately 40% (net of the federal benefit for state income taxes) for all periods presented. The lower effective tax rate of 33% realized in 2009, as compared to the statutory rate, was primarily due to the impacts of the Global Settlement. The lower effective tax rates of 32.6% and (2.9)% realized in 2008 and 2007 respectively, as compared to the statutory rate, were primarily due to low income housing tax credits.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

Available Liquidity

At December 31, 2009, EMG and its subsidiaries had cash and equivalents and short-term investments of $808 million, excluding approximately $378 million at Edison Capital which is expected to be used to meet tax, debt and other obligations of this business segment. EMG's subsidiaries had a total of $960 million of available borrowing capacity under their credit facilities. EMG's consolidated debt at December 31, 2009 was $4.1 billion, of which $127 million was current. In addition, EME's subsidiaries had $3.2 billion of long-term lease obligations related to their sale-leaseback transactions that are due over periods ranging up to 25 years.

The following table summarizes the status of the EME and Midwest Generation credit facilities at December 31, 2009:

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. A subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., a lender in EME's credit agreement representing a commitment of $36 million, in September 2008 declined requests for funding under that agreement and in October 2008, filed for bankruptcy protection.

EME intends to focus on a selective growth strategy, focusing primarily on the completion of renewable energy projects under construction and the development of similar projects which deploy current turbines in storage and on order. In 2010, EME anticipates capital expenditures of $1.3 billion (as described in the proceeding table) to be funded with a

105

---

Table of Contents

combination of project-level financing, U.S. Treasury grants, cash on hand, and cash flow from operations. EME intends to negotiate turbine payment deferrals, where possible. EME has secured financing of $206 million through vendor financing and anticipates funds from U.S. Treasury grants filed during the first quarter of 2010 totaling $92 million. EME intends to seek project level financing for wind projects in construction during 2010.

EME may from time to time seek to retire or purchase its outstanding debt through cash purchases and/or exchange offers, in open market purchases, privately negotiated transactions or otherwise. Such repurchases or exchanges, if any, will depend on prevailing market conditions, EME's liquidity requirements, contractual restrictions and other factors. The amounts involved may be material.

Redemption of Edison Capital Medium-Term Loans

In January 2010, Edison Capital redeemed in full its medium-term loans. As a result of the redemption, Edison Capital is no longer subject to the minimum net worth covenant set forth in the financial covenants.

Capital Investment Plan

The actual capital expenditures for 2009, and the currently estimated capital expenditures for 2010 through 2012 by EME's subsidiaries for existing projects, corporate activities and turbine commitments are as follows:

106

---

Table of Contents

Project-Level Financing

In October 2009, EME, through its subsidiary, Big Sky, entered into turbine financing arrangements totaling approximately $206 million for wind turbine purchase obligations related to the 240 MW Big Sky wind project. For further details, see "Item 8. Edison International Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 3. Liabilities and Lines of Credit."

Estimated Expenditures for Existing Projects

Plant capital expenditures relate to non-environmental projects such as upgrades to boiler and turbine controls, replacement of major boiler components, mill steam inerting projects, generator stator rewinds, 4Kv switchgear and main power transformer replacement.

Environmental expenditures at Homer City relate to emission monitoring and control projects. Midwest Generation is subject to various commitments with respect to environmental compliance. Midwest Generation continues to review all technology and unit shutdown combinations, including interim and alternative compliance solutions. For more information on the current status of environmental improvements in Illinois, see "Edison International Overview—Environmental Developments" and "Item 1. Business—Environmental Regulation of Edison International and Subsidiaries."

The preceding capital expenditures table includes the following projects that commenced construction or were awarded a power sales contract subsequent to December 31, 2009:

Taloga Wind Project

The Taloga wind project is a 130 MW wind project in Oklahoma scheduled for completion in late 2010. EME commenced construction activities in February 2010. EME plans to use wind turbines currently in storage to complete the Taloga wind project. The remaining costs to complete the project, including construction and turbine transportation and installation, are expected to be approximately $89 million. In January 2010, the project entered into a 20-year power purchase agreement with Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.

Laredo Ridge Wind Project

The Laredo Ridge wind project is an 80 MW wind project in Nebraska scheduled for completion in late 2010. In February 2010, EME allocated turbines under one of its existing turbine supply agreements for 53 wind turbines to complete the Laredo Ridge wind project. The remaining costs to complete the project, including turbine payments, construction, and turbine transportation and installation, are expected to be approximately $177 million. The Laredo Ridge wind project is being developed under a joint development agreement. EME intends to purchase the project in the second quarter of 2010. The project has contracted to sell power to the Nebraska Public Power District under a 20-year power sales contract.

107

---

Table of Contents

Estimated Expenditures for Future Projects

EME had a development pipeline of potential wind projects with projected installed capacity of approximately 4,000 MW at January 31, 2010. The development pipeline represents potential projects with respect to which EME either owns the project rights or has exclusive acquisition rights. EME has wind turbines in storage and on order for wind projects under construction and to be used for future wind projects (turbine commitments are reflected separately in the preceding capital expenditure table). Successful completion of development of a wind project depends upon obtaining permits and agreements necessary to support an investment and may take a number of years due to factors that include local permit requirements, willingness of local utilities to purchase renewable power at sufficient prices to earn an appropriate rate of return, and availability and prices of equipment.

Walnut Creek Project

Walnut Creek Energy, a subsidiary of EME, was awarded by SCE, through a competitive bidding process, a 10-year power sales contract starting in 2013 for the output of a 479 MW gas-fired peaking facility located in the City of Industry, California, which is referred to as the Walnut Creek project. In July 2008, the Los Angeles Superior Court found that actions taken by the SCAQMD, in promulgating rules that had made available a "Priority Reserve" of emissions credits for new power generation projects, did not satisfy California environmental laws. In a November 2008 decision, the Los Angeles Superior Court enjoined SCAQMD from issuing Priority Reserve emission credits to Walnut Creek and other projects. Legal challenges related to the Priority Reserve emission credits are continuing. Legislation that passed the State Assembly and is currently pending in the Senate would provide access to the credits for Walnut Creek, subject to further regulatory steps and litigation risk. In the air basins regulated by SCAQMD, the need for particulate matter (PM10) and SO₂ emission credits exceeds available supply, and it is difficult to create new qualifying credits. Construction on the Walnut Creek project will not begin until its access to the Priority Reserve emission credits is restored or another source of credits is identified. The capital costs to construct this project, excluding interest, are estimated in the range of $500 million to $600 million.

108

---

Table of Contents

Historical Consolidated Cash Flow

This section discusses EMG's consolidated cash flows from operating, financing and investing activities.

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

Consolidated Cash Flows (Used) by Operating Activities

The 2009 decrease in cash provided by operating activities from continuing operations was primarily attributable to:

•

The impacts of the Global Settlement which resulted in net tax allocation payments to Edison International of $1.1 billion by Edison Capital related to the termination of Edison Capital's interests in cross-border leases.

•

Lower realized revenues due to lower market prices in 2009, compared to 2008 and a decrease in margin deposits received from counterparties at December 31, 2009.

The 2008 increase in cash provided by operating activities from continuing operations was primarily attributable to $225 million in margin deposits received from counterparties at December 31, 2008, partially offset by the purchase of annual NO_x emission allowances in 2008 by Midwest Generation.

Consolidated Cash Flows (Used) by Financing Activities

The 2009 increase in cash used by financing activities from continuing operations was attributable to repayments of $376 million and $475 million under EME's corporate credit facility and Midwest Generation's working capital facility, respectively. These repayments were partially offset by proceeds received from the issuance of a $189 million term loan as part of a $202 million project financing completed in June 2009.

The 2008 increase in cash provided by financing activities from continuing operations was attributable to an increase in borrowings in 2008 under EME's corporate credit facility and Midwest Generation's working capital facility. In addition, EME received $12 million from the minority shareholders of the Elkhorn Ridge wind project.

109

---

Table of Contents

Consolidated Cash Flows (Used) by Investing Activities

Cash provided by investing activities was primarily due to $1.385 billion of net proceeds from termination of the cross-border leases at Edison Capital. Excluding this impact and the impact of changes in short-term investments (described below), cash provided by investing activities is related to capital expenditures and investments in other assets (primarily turbine deposits and pre-construction costs). The amount of capital expenditures and investment in other assets were $562 million in 2009, $894 million in 2008 and $838 million in 2007. The changes in the level of expenditures are primarily due to investments for renewable energy projects. Included in investments in other assets were turbine deposits for wind projects prior to the commencement of construction of $265 million in 2009, $213 million in 2008, and $271 million in 2007.

The change in short-term investments is reflected as investing activities in the cash flow statement. Investments with maturity dates less than 90 days are considered cash equivalents and are classified as part of cash and cash equivalents in the consolidated balance sheet. Maturities of short-term investments are included as a source of cash from investing activities and have decreased during the past two years primarily due to EME curtailing its purchase of short-term investments.

Other factors that impacted investing activities included:

•

payments of $22 million and $19 million during 2009 and 2008, respectively, toward the purchase price of wind projects;

•

proceeds of $28 million from the sale of 33% of EME's membership interest in the Elkhorn Ridge wind project during the second quarter of 2008; and

•

payments of $22 million during 2007 towards the purchase price of new wind projects, payment of $24 million during 2007 to acquire an option to purchase specific projects, and payments of $11 million towards the purchase price of the Wildorado wind project during 2007.

Credit Ratings

Overview

Credit ratings for EME, Midwest Generation and EMMT are as follows:

The S&P and Fitch ratings are on negative outlook, while the Moody's rating outlook is stable. EME cannot provide assurance that its current credit ratings or the credit ratings of its

110

---

Table of Contents

subsidiaries will remain in effect for any given period of time or that one or more of these ratings will not be lowered. EME notes that these credit ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold its securities and may be revised at any time by a rating agency.

EME does not have any "rating triggers" contained in subsidiary financings that would result in it being required to make equity contributions or provide additional financial support to its subsidiaries, including EMMT. However, coal contracts at Midwest Generation include provisions that provide the right to request additional collateral to support payment obligations for delivered coal and may vary based on Midwest Generation's credit ratings. Furthermore, EMMT also has hedge contracts that do not require margin, but contain the right of each party to request additional credit support in the form of adequate assurance of performance in the case of an adverse development affecting the other party. For discussions of contingent features related to energy contracts, see "—Margin, Collateral Deposits and Other Credit Support for Energy Contracts."

Credit Rating of EMMT

The Homer City sale-leaseback documents restrict Homer City's ability to enter into derivative activities, as defined in the documents, with EMMT to sell forward the output of the Homer City facilities if EMMT does not have an investment grade credit rating from S&P or Moody's or, in the absence of those ratings, if it is not rated as investment grade pursuant to EME's internal credit scoring procedures. These documents also include a requirement that Homer City's counterparty to such transactions, whether it is EMMT or another party, and Homer City, if acting as seller to an unaffiliated third party, be investment grade. EME currently sells all the output from the Homer City facilities through EMMT, which has a below investment grade credit rating, and Homer City is not rated. In order to continue to sell forward the output of the Homer City facilities through EMMT, EME has obtained a consent from the sale-leaseback owner participants that allows Homer City to enter into such sales, under specified conditions, through March 1, 2014. Homer City continues to be in compliance with the terms of the consent; however, because EMMT's credit rating has dropped below BB-, the consent is revocable by the sale-leaseback owner participants at any time. The sale-leaseback owner participants have not indicated that they intend to revoke the consent; however, there can be no assurance that they will not do so in the future. An additional consequence of EMMT's lowered credit rating is that outstanding accounts receivable between EMMT and Homer City have been reduced to zero, as required under the terms of the consent. Revocation of the consent would not affect trades between EMMT and Homer City that had been entered into while the consent was still in effect. EME is permitted to sell the output of the Homer City facilities into the spot market on the terms set forth in the Homer City sale-leaseback documents. For further discussion, see "EMG: Market Risk Exposures—Commodity Price Risk—Energy Price Risk Affecting Sales from the Fossil-Fueled Facilities."

Margin, Collateral Deposits and Other Credit Support for Energy Contracts

To reduce its exposure to market risk, EME hedges a portion of its electricity price exposure through EMMT. In connection with entering into contracts, EMMT may be required to support its risk of nonperformance through parent guarantees, margining or other credit

111

---

Table of Contents

support. EME has entered into guarantees in support of EMMT's hedging and trading activities; however, EME has historically also provided collateral in the form of cash and letters of credit for the benefit of counterparties related to the net of accounts payable, accounts receivable, unrealized losses, and unrealized gains in connection with these hedging and trading activities. At December 31, 2009, EMMT had deposited $85 million in cash with clearing brokers in support of futures contracts and had deposited $35 million in cash with counterparties in support of forward energy and congestion contracts. Cash collateral provided to others offset against derivative liabilities totaled $49 million at December 31, 2009. In addition, EME had received cash collateral of $124 million at December 31, 2009, to support credit risk of counterparties under margin agreements; $68 million of which is classified as restricted cash. The liability for margin deposits received from counterparties has been offset against net derivative assets.

Future cash collateral requirements may be higher than the margin and collateral requirements at December 31, 2009, if wholesale energy prices change or additional transactions are entered into. EME estimates that margin and collateral requirements for energy and congestion contracts outstanding as of December 31, 2009 could increase by approximately $90 million over the remaining life of the contracts using a 95% confidence level. This increase may not be offset by similar changes in the cash flows of the underlying hedged items in the same periods. Certain EMMT hedge contracts do not require margin, but contain provisions that require EME or Midwest Generation to comply with the terms and conditions of their credit facilities. The credit facilities contain financial covenants which are described further in "—Dividend Restrictions in Major Financings."

Furthermore, the hedge contracts include provisions relating to a change in control or material adverse effect resulting from amendments or modifications to the related credit facility. EMMT also has hedge contracts that do not require margin, but contain the right of each party to request additional credit support in the form of adequate assurance of performance in the case of an adverse development affecting the other party. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features is in an asset position on December 31, 2009 and, accordingly, the contingent features described above do not currently have a liquidity exposure. Future increases in power prices could expose EME or Midwest Generation to termination payments or additional collateral postings under the contingent features described above.

Midwest Generation has cash on hand and a credit facility to support margin requirements specifically related to contracts entered into by EMMT related to the Midwest Generation plants. In addition, EME has cash on hand and a credit facility to provide credit support to subsidiaries. For discussion on available borrowing capacity under Midwest Generation and EME credit facilities, see "EMG: Liquidity and Capital Resources—Overview."

Intercompany Tax-Allocation Agreement

EME and Edison Capital are included in the consolidated federal and combined state income tax returns of Edison International and are eligible to participate in tax-allocation payments with other subsidiaries of Edison International in circumstances where domestic tax losses are incurred. The right of EME and Edison Capital to receive and the amount of and timing of

112

---

Table of Contents

tax-allocation payments are dependent on the inclusion of EME and Edison Capital in the consolidated income tax returns of Edison International and its subsidiaries and other factors, including the consolidated taxable income of Edison International and its subsidiaries, the amount of net operating losses and other tax items of EMG's subsidiaries, and other subsidiaries of Edison International and specific procedures regarding allocation of state taxes. EME and Edison Capital receive tax-allocation payments for tax losses when and to the extent that the consolidated Edison International group generates sufficient taxable income in order to be able to utilize EME's or Edison Capital's consolidated tax losses in the consolidated income tax returns for Edison International and its subsidiaries. Based on the application of the factors cited above, EME and Edison Capital are obligated during periods it generates taxable income to make payments under the tax-allocation agreements. In connection with the Global Settlement with the IRS, EME made a payment of $18 million and assigned a tax receivable of $125 million to its parent, Mission Energy Holding Company, in satisfaction of its obligations under a tax-allocation agreement in the second quarter of 2009. In addition, EME received net tax-allocation payments of $166 million in 2009 and made net tax-allocation payments to Edison International of $95 million and $112 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively. In connection with the Global Settlement, Edison Capital made net tax-allocation payments of $1.1 billion in 2009. Edison Capital made net tax-allocation payments of $15 million in 2008 and received net tax-allocation payments from Edison International of $17 million in 2007.

Debt Covenants and Dividend Restrictions

Credit Facility Financial Ratios

EME's credit facility contains financial covenants which require EME to maintain a minimum interest coverage ratio and a maximum corporate-debt-to-corporate-capital ratio as such terms are defined in the credit facility.

The following table sets forth the interest coverage ratio for the 12 months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008:

The following table sets forth the corporate-debt-to-corporate-capital ratio at December 31, 2009 and 2008:

113

---

Table of Contents