Good afternoon and welcome to the Edison International First Quarter 2020 Financial Teleconference. My name is Sue, and I will be your operator today. [Operator Instructions] Today's call is being recorded. And I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Sam Ramraj, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Ramraj, you may begin your conference..

Thank you, Sue, and welcome, everyone. Our speakers today are President and Chief Executive Officer, Pedro Pizarro; and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Maria Rigatti. Also in the call are other members of the management team.

I would like to mention that we are doing this call with our Executives in different locations because of California's stay-at-home order. So please bear with us if you experience any technical difficulties on the call. Materials supporting today's call are available at www.edisoninvestor.com.

These include our Form 10-K, prepared remarks from Pedro and Maria, and the teleconference presentation. Tomorrow, we will distribute our regular business update presentation. During this call, we will make forward-looking statements about the outlook for Edison International and its subsidiaries.

Actual results could differ materially from current expectations. Important factors that could cause different results are set forth in our SEC filings. Please read these carefully. The presentation includes certain outlook assumptions, as well as reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to the nearest GAAP measure.

During the question-and-answer session, please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. I will now turn the call over to Pedro..

for example, I am certain that our learnings in how we telework will lead to improvements in how we do our work more flexibly and sustainably even after we can rejoin our colleagues in physical offices.

To this end, we stood up a Future Planning Cell to consider and plan for a possible changed reality and how the company, employees and our customers can adjust and continue to thrive, both socially and economically. I am honored to serve as the only utility representative on the Governor's Task Force on Jobs and Business Recovery.

SCE is safely providing reliable power to critical facilities such as hospitals, medical labs and grocery stores.

As California begins to plan the future of work in a post-COVID-19 environment, clean energy can play a critical role in a just and equitable economic recovery with thousands of good jobs that also address the challenges of climate change and air quality. Since the implementation of statewide stay-at-home measures, SCE system load has declined by 6%.

We have seen an increase in residential load demand, but this is more than offset by decreases in the non-residential sectors. While we are seeing reduced demand for power, I would like to remind you that California has a long-standing policy of decoupling revenue from electricity sales.

We also have a mechanism already in place to track any over-or under-collections, called the Base Revenue Requirement Balancing Account, so there is no net impact on revenue and earnings.

Additionally, the Commission recently approved the establishment of a new memorandum account, called the COVID-19 Pandemic Protections Memo Account, to record costs associated with consumer protection efforts related to COVID-19, through which SCE can seek cost recovery in subsequent proceedings. Maria will address this topic in her remarks.

We remain focused on supporting our customers and our communities. SCE was one of the first utilities nationwide to voluntarily suspend service disconnections for nonpayment for residential and commercial customers impacted by COVID-19 before it was mandated. SCE has waived late fees and is offering flexible billing arrangements.

To further support our communities, Edison International has pledged $1 million to nonprofit organizations providing support to those facing economic hardship due to COVID-19. I am grateful and proud of the Edison employees who contributed more than $250,000 for COVID-19 relief, the funds they contributed will be matched by Edison International.

In addition to our own efforts to support customers, the CPUC has continued to function during the pandemic, and has itself identified initiatives to help utility customers. Some of these initiatives parallel what SCE had already implemented and which I covered earlier.

Additionally, we are encouraged that the CPUC has moved on many of SCE’s pending applications. For instance, on April 16th, the Commission issued a final decision on SCE’s Grid Safety & Resiliency Program, approving the settlement agreement without any changes.

The decision authorizes $407.3 million in capital and $119.2 million in O&M for 2018 to2020.

Additionally, earlier this month, SCE received a proposed decision on its capital structure waiver application that seeks to exclude from SCE's common equity the previously recorded net charge of $1.8 billion and any future charges associated with the 2017 and 2018 wildfire events.

The PD also excludes debt issuance for the purpose of paying claims related to these events. This waiver continues for the earlier of a two-year period or until 2017 and 2018 wildfire cost recovery claims are resolved.

The CPUC also continues to move forward in the processing of the IOUs’ Wildfire Mitigation Plans, which are slated for approval as early as June. On April 3, the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board issued its Draft Recommendations on the WMP and those were approved on April 15. Further, last month, SCE filed Track 2 of its 2021 GRC proceeding.

The filing seeks reasonableness review of $810.5 million of incremental O&M and capital expenditures incurred for 2018 and 2019 wildfire mitigation activities, and cost recovery of the associated revenue requirement of $500.1 million.

Turning to operations, SCE continues to perform critical work related to public safety, wildfire mitigation and reliability while deferring non-critical outages for as long as our communities are staying at home.

SCE has also developed a 14-day look ahead of planned outages across our service area to better coordinate with local jurisdictions and address any concerns. Additionally, SCE has made tremendous strides to mitigate wildfire risk in the last year and we also filed our 2020 to 2022 Wildfire Mitigation Plan in February.

This plan calls for SCE to continue to harden infrastructure, bolster situational awareness capabilities and enhance operational practices, all while implementing enhanced data analytics and technology.

We are executing these programs as quickly as possible, as they are critical to ensuring the safety of our communities and are viewed as essential by the State and by us. At the same time, we continue to prepare for potential public safety power shut offs, or PSPS.

This is one of the more significant areas of wildfire-related work, and SCE established another Incident Management Team earlier this year to focus on further reducing the potential impacts of PSPS on our customers.

This dedicated team is working on measures like further automating the process to provide timely information to local jurisdictions and customers, developing more detailed playbooks to re-route power and minimize customer outages, and advancing customer care programs in our high fire risk areas, including use of back-up generators.

We remain committed to EIX’s long-term strategy and its focus on clean energy, consistent with the State’s policies and objectives.

The foundation of our clean energy strategy is found in Pathway 2045, a blueprint for how California’s broader economy and our company can combat the climate change that catalyzes extreme weather events and exacerbates wildfires.

It calls for the transformation of our industry through clean energy, electrification of the transportation sector, where our deployment of electric vehicle charging stations plays a major role, and the electrification of building space and water heating.

I expect these areas will all be key elements as the Governor’s Task Force looks to reopen the California economy and position our state to prosper in the exciting decades ahead. I want to close my comments with an emphasis on the essential nature of the service we provide.

We help power the economy; we power both lifesaving machines and lifestyles; we support our employees; we serve and help protect the public. Once again, I am very proud of my 13,000 colleagues who are working so hard on doing all of this safely.

I also thank our investors for your commitment and support, and I hope that all of you and your loved ones are staying safe, well, and healthy. With that, Maria will provide her financial report..

Thanks Pedro. My comments today will cover first quarter 2020 results, our capital expenditure and rate base forecast, 2020 EPS guidance and other topics including the impact of COVID-19 on our operations and financial performance.

As we have said previously, quarterly year-over-year comparisons are less meaningful given the timing of the 2018 GRC decision. Please turn to Page 3. Edison International reported core earnings of $0.63 per share, which was flat compared to the same period last year.

Higher core EPS at SCE was fully offset by an increase in core loss per share at EIX Parent and Other, primarily due to interest expense. From the table on the right-hand side, you will see that SCE had a core EPS variance of positive $0.04 year-over-year.

This was primarily driven by $0.12 of higher EPS from SCE core activities which was partially offset by $0.08 of share count dilution. There are a few items that accounted for the majority of the EPS variance at SCE. To begin with, higher revenues had a positive variance of $0.42.

This was primarily driven by $0.37 of higher CPUC revenues mainly due to the adoption of the 2018 GRC final decision in Q2 2019. FERC revenues had a positive variance of $0.05 largely due to the increased equity layer, rate base growth and higher expenses. Higher O&M expenses negatively impacted year-over-year EPS by $0.28.

The largest component was a $0.15 increase in vegetation management costs. This is due to a combination of higher wages and training mandated by the State’s new legislation SB 247 and an increase in the number of trims. We have discussed this in the past, but I want to pause here to summarize the methodology and impact of memo accounts.

To begin, there are various expenses that qualify for tracking in the wildfire-related memo accounts. From the start of each year, we track actual costs incurred and compare that to the amounts authorized in the GRC for these same activities.

Only costs that are incremental to the amounts authorized are eligible for deferral and we have to incur the full annual amount authorized in the GRC before we record a regulatory asset for the incremental expenses probable of recovery.

As a result, when considering quarterly results or comparing year-over-year results, impacts can be quite pronounced and not reflective of future quarters. The timing of the expenditures and the point at which the deferrals begin drive quarter-over-quarter variances.

Finally, as we have said previously, we will seek recovery of costs for which we have not recorded a regulatory asset due to a lack of precedent. Next, there was a negative $0.04 impact due to the recovery of wildfire insurance expenses in the prior year which was absent in 2020.

There was also a $0.04 negative impact from costs related to short-term incentive compensation. Additionally, there was a negative $0.07 variance primarily due to an increase in the estimated allowance for bad debts related to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and higher workers' comp and legal expenses.

As Pedro mentioned earlier, the CPUC approved the establishment of the new COVID-19 Pandemic Protections Memo Account, the CPPMA to track consumer protection costs for residential and small commercial customers.

SCE will seek authority to record bad debt expense in excess of GRC authorized amounts and, once we exceed the 2018 GRC authorized amount for bad debts, we will recognize a regulatory asset for the amount we conclude is probable of recovery.

We will track these expenses and ultimately seek cost recovery in an applicable proceeding designated by the CPUC. We expect to file an Advice Letter tomorrow including the overall scope of costs to be tracked in this account. Higher interest expense related to increased borrowings had a negative $0.03 impact.

Lastly, there was a positive $0.02 income tax variance related to benefits passed back to customers, with no impact on earnings. EIX Parent and Other had a negative $0.04 core variance in the quarter. This was largely due to $0.05 of higher interest expense related to increased borrowings and was partially offset by the increase in shares outstanding.

Page 4 shows SCE's capital expenditure forecast. This includes CPUC-jurisdictional GRC capital expenditures, certain non-GRC CPUC capital spending and FERC capital spending. We continue to execute a robust capital program of $19.4 to $21.2 billion from 2020 through 2023. This forecast is unchanged from what we shared with you in February.

However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are modifying our work practices to reduce the impact on customers as they comply with stay-at-home orders. We are working with local governments to ensure they have visibility into the essential work being planned but we continue to have a strong focus on our wildfire mitigation efforts.

We are assessing the impact of this, and the broader potential impacts of COVID-19 on our 2020 capital program but are working to ensure that our customers’ needs are met in the longer term, and we continue to see significant investment opportunities as we invest in the safety and resiliency of the grid and prepare for the clean energy future.

On Page 5, we show SCE’s rate base forecast. At the capital expenditure levels requested in the 2021 GRC, total weighted-average CPUC- and FERC-jurisdictional rate base will increase to $41 billion by 2023. This request level represents a compound annual growth rate of 7.5% over two rate case periods.

To give you an update on the 2021 GRC, on April 10, California Public Advocates, Cal PA filed its intervenor testimony in response to the Track 1 request, in line with the schedule laid out in the scoping memo. Cal PA proposed a 2021 Test Year revenue requirement of $6.9 billion, a $651 million reduction from SCE’s request of $7.6 billion.

They also proposed post-test year revenue requirement increases of 3.5% for 2022 and 2023. Overall, Cal PA proposed approving approximately 90% of SCE’s capital expenditures request.

The primary difference between our request and the intervenor’s proposal was in the covered conductor program related to wildfire prevention and mitigation, and in T&D grid operations. TURN and other intervenors are scheduled to provide testimony on May 5 and our rebuttal is due on June 12.

Additionally, earlier this month, the CPUC issued an amended scoping memo on the schedule and procedure for litigating the third attrition year of the 2021 GRC cycle. The ruling sets forth a Track 4 schedule beginning with SCE’s filing for 2024 in May 2022 and concluding with a proposed decision in Q4 of 2023.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve been asked about the potential impact to revenue and earnings.

We have also had conversations on the actions to strengthen our balance sheet, liquidity enhancements and the strong funding status of our pension benefits and postretirement benefits other than pensions, or PBOP, and related regulatory recovery mechanisms. I am going to take a few minutes to address these items which are laid out on Slides 6 and 7.

For nearly four decades, California has had a regulatory construct that has been supportive of customers and IOUs, particularly in decoupling utility revenues from sales volumes through various cost recovery mechanisms.

CPUC rates decouple authorized revenue from volumetric risk related to retail electricity sales so that SCE receives revenue equal to the authorized amounts. We track over or under collections of the CPUC base rates due to variations in load in our Base Revenue Requirement Balancing Account, or BRRBA.

Annually, the differences between amounts billed and authorized levels are either collected or refunded so there is no net impact to SCE’s revenue and earnings from load changes. These adjustments address all volatility in SCE sales volumes, including from COVID-19 related developments.

Additionally, as I noted earlier, we will request to use the new CPPMA to record consumer protection costs. We will seek cost recovery of these in our annual Energy Resource Recovery Account, GRC, or other proceedings. In addition to the CPPMA, SCE has activated the Catastrophic Events Memorandum Account, or CEMA, to track other COVID-19 costs.

The costs we will be tracking include IT expenses to facilitate teleworking, employee benefits allowing employees to care for themselves and dependents affected by COVID-19, and other costs incurred to support the safety and well-being of our workers during this crisis.

This account will also record any savings realized as a result of changes in work which will be used to offset the additional costs recorded. I also want to share with you the impact of COVID-19 on SCE’s load and on customer bills, to-date, particularly given the importance of customer protections.

Through April 19, SCE has experienced a 6% decline in system load during the stay-at-home order versus the prior year. While total load is down, experience has varied across customer classes. On Slide 6, you can see the load changes within each customer class.

Given the timing of billing cycles versus the start of the stay-at-home order, we are still evaluating the full impact on customer payment behavior. However, we have seen some increases in the number of outstanding accounts receivable for both commercial and residential customers.

This is a likely leading indicator for an increase in deferred payments or bad debt expense. Please turn to Page 7 which includes some information on our pension benefits and PBOP. At the end of 2019, our qualified pension plans were 96% funded.

Also, we are well positioned with PBOP which is managed through multiple trusts that, in total, range from approximately 80% to fully funded, as of year-end. These plans have a diversified asset allocation which provided a significant level of resiliency through the volatility we have seen in the early months of 2020.

SCE makes annual contributions to its pension plans and PBOP accounts and these contributions are recoverable through a CPUC approved balancing account that allows us to true up every year to the actual contribution. Also, because we record a regulatory asset for the unfunded status of these plans, there is no impact to earnings.

Please turn to Page 8. We continue to focus on ensuring we have a strong balance sheet and maintaining financial flexibility.

As you can see from the bar on the page, as of April 15, EIX and SCE have a consolidated liquidity profile of $6.4 billion, which is a combination of cash on hand of $1.3 billion and available capacity on credit facilities of $5.1 billion.

EIX and SCE have no long-term debt maturities for the rest of the year and approximately $1 billion of debt maturities in 2021. We have proactively de-risked our financing needs for 2020 by accessing the capital market in January, March and April. This includes issuing $2.3 billion in long-term debt at SCE and $400 million of notes at EIX.

The latter funds the debt portion of the EIX 2020 financing plan. EIX also put in place an $800 million 364-day term loan to provide financing flexibility for our 2020 equity need given the recent market volatility related to COVID-19. Also, in the first quarter, SCE put in place a 364-day revolving credit facility and term loan for $1.3 billion.

This will be dedicated to capital spending related to wildfire mitigation under AB 1054 that does not earn an equity return but is eligible to be recovered through a securitizable dedicated-rate component, once authorized by the CPUC.

Our long-term financing framework is to execute our SCE capital growth plans while maintaining investment grade ratings at both SCE and EIX.

This framework drives our previously disclosed EIX 2020 financing plan which includes the $400 million of debt at EIX, which I just discussed, and $800 million in equity, out of which $600 million is in support of the growth capital needs at SCE for 2020.

The remaining $200 million is a carry-over of the equity plan we disclosed in 2019 that we expect to complete this year. As of March 31, approximately $90 million of that amount was raised through ATM and internal programs.

As I have mentioned, given recent volatility in the capital markets, we put in a term loan at EIX last month to give us flexibility as we work deliberately on executing our remaining equity financing plan for 2020. Page 9 shows our 2020 guidance and the key assumptions for modeling purposes.

We are re-affirming our guidance range of $4.32 to $4.62 per share. In light of the volatility introduced by COVID-19, let me explain our thoughts for not showing a bridge to the midpoint of this range as we have done in the past. Previously, our 2020 guidance started with rate base earnings from CPUC- and FERC jurisdictional assets.

As you can see from the information on this slide, our assumptions for rate base earnings are unchanged, but COVID-19 will have an effect on how we execute our operational and financing plans for the remainder of this year.

As I mentioned earlier, there are strong regulatory constructs in California that will mitigate the impacts of load reductions as well as incremental costs related to COVID-19. However, there may be cost savings that are realized because some activities, such as travel, have been reduced as a result of the stay-at-home order.

These savings driven by COVID-19 government directives will be used to offset new costs before additional recovery is authorized. It will be a detailed and data-intensive process to determine which costs and savings are specifically COVID-19 related.

Therefore, I expect that there will be more variability within and across the various earnings drivers that are typically part of our guidance, so it is more relevant to discuss the range rather than a mid-point.

I look forward to giving you an update on the next earnings call as we continue to deliver this essential service to our customers and gain a more specific understanding of the impact of COVID-19 in California. That concludes our remarks..

Sue, please open the lines for questions. As a reminder, we request you to limit yourself to one question and one follow-up so everyone in line has the opportunity to ask questions..

[Operator Instructions] And that comes from Jonathan Arnold with Vertical Research Partners. You may go ahead..

Thank you for all the detail. Just one thing, I saw in the 10-Q I think that the wildfire - the WEMA memo accounts are up to something like just under $950 million.

But could you just tie those to what you talked about in terms of the track to filing for - are those - is that a filing covering some of that number, or is that a separate piece? And then maybe an update on the WEMA proceeding itself..

Sure. So I think you're looking back in the notes where we show the regulatory accounts, the memo accounts, and the balancing accounts. From year-end to now that number has moved, I'll say, about $80 million. So we recorded about another $80 million in that account.

So the increment that we recorded this year is actually in the next track that we will be filing with the Commission. So, if you recall, the costs incurred in 2020 are actually part of the track that gets filed in Q1 of 2021. So we'll continue to accumulate these costs.

And that account that you were looking at, or in the notes, so it's line item that you're looking at, is not just the WEMA account. It's the alphabet soup of wildfire related memo accounts..

But the Track 2 filing you talked about encompasses some of that balance.

Is that correct?.

That's right. The Track 2 that we filed for is seeking recovery for about $500 million of revenue requirement, and we would expect to see that decision in the early part of next year..

I see. Okay..

The WEMA, which is primarily aimed at or associated with insurance costs, that proceeding is a little bit ahead of the Track 2 proceeding, and we are - the CDC is in the process of determining whether evidentiary hearings are required.

And so, we will understand whether or not those are required and could potentially - those could take place in June and then a decision will be forthcoming following that. Right now, the parties have been asked to meet and confer to see if they actually need evidentiary hearing..

Okay.

And then maybe just as my follow-up, what are the prospects to starting to work down some of these balances coming out in 2020, and then how has your view on that evolved since last quarter?.

So I think the timing is reasonably the same, in terms of where we think the proceedings will play out. The one thing I'd say is there is always the issue of trying to get on - you get a decision and you have to get on a calendar 30 days later to get the proposed decision, then we have to roll it into rates.

So there could be some variability as a result of that. But things are still a reasonably in the same place as they were last quarter..

The next question is from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. You may go ahead..

So just - I wanted to just make a clarification.

You did reaffirm your 2020 guidance, including your current view of the impact of COVID, and is that correct? And is your commentary related to all the moving pieces in the bridge, so to speak, more just about kind of dealing with just the exact way you get there, but do you think you'll be within this range? Is that right?.

Yes, on a lot of moving pieces.

But Maria?.

I agree with Pedro. I think that we reaffirmed the range. I think there are a lot of moving pieces. And so we do want to build that bridge, because I think it - I'll tell you, I think if I try to keep - if we try to keep putting things in very, very precise buckets, it would convey level of precision that I think would question.

So I think we're just trying to be straightforward with the guidance range, and that things are still moving, and we'll be able to provide maybe more specificity as we move on through the year obviously. But right now, that's where we are..

Got it. And just so I get it, because I think if you get into every detail of how California mechanisms work, it's probably - it's kind of getting too much into the trees and not the forest.

So just - if I'm going back up to the forest, the overall view, despite the timing of when you record things and all the different components of this, is that you do have tracking mechanisms that recover a lot of the volatility of revenue and cost, such that a lot of the issue is just the timing intra-quarter, and the way you account for things.

It's not the overall picture of the forest, there's a lot of these -most of these issues are recovered..

Yes, I think especially memo accounts definitely create that intra-quarter year-over-year kind of variability, just because of the way the mechanics work in methodology.

But I completely agree that there is a lot of mechanisms in California, some of them 40 years old, at this point, that allow us to recover a variety of costs that are under recovery or under collections avail..

And let me just add one piece here, just maybe even - not even in the forest level, this might be up at the clouds level.

But the reality is that when you think about all those moving pieces, if you bring it down to actual things that we're doing, there are so many decisions we've had to make and steps along the way in terms of how we are changing, how our workforce is working, what things we need to be providing our teleworking employees to do the work efficiently from home, our folks in the field, what things they need to be doing, different practices to be able to keep them safe out there, and help to our part to slow down the spread of COVID-19.

And so, it's good we have all the tracking accounts. There will come a time, obviously, when we'll need to not only have the amounts track, but we'll need to demonstrate that those were prudent decisions that we made.

That's why we have so much process around this in terms of the IND I described, and the crisis management council, and senior oversight over that myriad decisions.

But the other piece around this is, we are having discussions informally with the CPUC, with the Governor's office, with others involved, because this is not just about how we're thinking about things, but it's about how the State overall is looking at managing through the crisis, through the pandemic, and then looking at the building blocks that will allow the State, the economy, and our company to go back to whatever the new normal is after this.

And so, we're also trying to do what we're doing not in a vacuum, but consulting policymakers, consulting peer utilities in the State, outside the State. So I think that all helps bolster the case for - we're trying to do all this prudently, and it should ultimately have a good shot recovery..

The next question is from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. You may go ahead..

One easy one, which is on the BURBA.

How much lag is there? Meaning, how quickly does the BURBA true-up? So if demand is down, call it 10%, in a quarter or in two quarters, and for earnings purposes, there is no impact, but from a cash flow purpose, there is an impact, how does the mechanism work from a timing perspective?.

Michael, it's Maria. So, BURBA gets put into rates at the beginning of every year. So it's an annual true-up..

Got it.

So in other words, if you've got kind of a - I'll use the term lost revenue number, pick a number whatever it is, that lost revenue number gets put in the rates at the beginning of next year, along with any other rate adjustments?.

That is how it's been working, yes..

It's been working that way for many, many, many years..

And it's an automatic process? Or do you have to actually file for the BURBA, go through a docket, get regulatory approval to get update?.

BURBA works a little bit differently than ERA. You're thinking probably of our purchase power accounts, recovery accounts that they actually file, and go through, and kind of talk to people about, and then you had a decision, then we that into rates.

With BURBA, what happens is it just really goes into rates automatically at the beginning of the year..

Got it. And then one rate base growth or CapEx question. On your CapEx slide, you've got a list of things that are not included in that. And I think the last one on the list was transmission infrastructure.

Can you just remind us what you're referring to, or what that implies?.

So, I think you're looking at something that says what the long-term growth drivers are, and one of them is transmission infrastructure.

We do have - some of our FERC transmission projects are certainly in the rate base calculations that we've provided here, but I think this reference is to, in California, as we move to electrifying more of the economy, will more transmission be needed, when will that be needed, and it would be a growth opportunity as that plays out over time.

The CISO has not yet put out their plans for the longer-term transmission to this point..

And just to piggyback on that remember, Michael, that the [indiscernible] ends of developing the overall plan, the user based on input - develop that based on input that they get from transmission owners and other market participants to be sent in and identify brand new projects in [indiscernible] call centers are open to competition, to the extent that they identify projects that are upgrades or extensions of existing projects, then the utility, as transmission owner, has a right of first refusal.

And so, we don't know what their plan will be in the future for 2030, or 2045, or what have you.

But I think it's probably reasonable to expect there might be some combination of projects that are extensions upgrades of existing lines that we would have - or SCE would have that right of first refusal on, and some other projects might renew completed projects..

The next question is from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. You may go ahead..

So I wanted to follow up on where Steve was a second ago here and just make sure we're crystal clear about this. Maria, when you're talking about missing the forest or the trees here, and the whole conversation, I mean ultimately, the variability is pretty strictly intra-quarter.

And ultimately, when you think about this netting, this netting dynamic simply reduces the ultimate amount that you're seeking from the CPUC in this new COVID account, and to the extent to which that you're seeking some net number from them and you're not able to offset everything, that number is still going to be deferred, and that's not necessarily going to show up on your income statement as an expense.

Can you tell me how you're going to account for it, just to make sure I'm not missing the conceptual point that you're raising of added volatility this year?.

So, the variability obviously covers not just COVID things but you - probably earlier in my prepared remarks, I talked about just memo accounts, and how that's working around wildfire mitigation as well. So there is a little bit of activity going on in both of those areas. So there is some variability around more than just COVID.

In the COVID space, correct, we are going to be tracking all of our costs, be looking at whether or not those are costs that were just amplifications of things that were already authorized in the GRC. And so, we would be first recording all in the GRC authorized amounts, and then only would be able to defer expenses.

We also go through our standard process of probability of recovery, because that's part of our quarterly process as well. And then we also have to be tracking savings that relate to these categories in terms of things that are being driven by COVID-19 government directives. And I gave an example of travel.

That's a really easy one right because frankly, none of us is traveling right now. So we'll have to go through that process, and I think it could create some variability across the year. And then I think we're also going to always be looking at some of those other categories as well. And we want to make sure that we manage across all of them.

And that's why, while we're reaffirming the guidance range, we didn't want to provide that level of specificity with every piece part every component with what we know today..

Got it. And if I can follow up here, so obviously, there's a lot of earnings generations, but cash flow generations and working capital generations.

I presume, given your commentary is unchanged with respect to equity cumulatively for the year, that the quantum of working capital involved with respect to decoupling, or with respect to COVID, or the litany of other accounts that you just alluded to, that fundamentally does not drive any changes in how you're thinking about balance sheet considerations, FFO metrics, et cetera, et cetera.

And that's - even within that, doesn't necessarily change this notion of latitude on timing as well, I presume..

There's lot in there. So obviously, we're very focused on cash flows and customer payment behaviors, et cetera. We did put in an additional credit facility, but I mentioned earlier that was really focused on a certain sliver of our capital spending. So the AB 1054 capital spending, the amounts that will ultimately be securitized.

So we put that into place so that would also free up our - I'll say normal course credit facilities. We have the $3 billion credit facility down at SCE, which would be the one that was aimed at customer payment issues, et cetera.

But, yes, so we have been managing and putting into place various facilities that we think really help us manage the cash flow and liquidity impact. In terms of your question on the equity plan for the year, I think we announced that back in Q4. We still have the same plan.

The term loan that we put in place at EIX obviously gives us flexibility around timing there. But we certainly are still have the same I'll say financing philosophy, which is to create opportunity to invest in SCE's growth opportunities, as well as to maintain investment grade ratings at both the FDE and the EIX.

So we will be continuing with our plan. I think the rating agencies are very - I think find the California regulatory constructs around some of the issues we're facing with COVID-19 to be very helpful. But we're still going to be pursuing our financing plan..

Our next question is from Jeremy Tonet with JP Morgan. You may go ahead..

Just wanted to clarify here, when it comes to the earnings in not putting the bridge here that you've done in the past. Just want to clarify that not necessarily indicating the lower end of the range here, just that there is too much uncertainty right now for you to kind of provide this type of dynamic.

Is that the right way to think about this?.

I mean, and I think Maria captured well earlier, we're reaffirming the whole guidance range. We're not providing that bridge to a midpoint, and we're just pointing out that there are a lot of moving parts and pieces right now. But we've reaffirmed the range..

Got it. That's helpful there. And then just wanted to turn to equity funding real quick for a second. Just given really the unprecedented volatility we're seeing in the capital markets here, just wondering if in any way this has altered your strategy for raising equity, be it looking at blocks for ATM or timing of either.

And also, given that a portion of 2019 equity was carried into 2020, would you consider doing equity further at this point if volatility in the marketplace continues?.

So Jeremy I think kind of tying back to one of the earlier questions, the 2020 financing plan that we announced in Q4 is still our financing plan. What we've done to help in terms of flexibility is put the term loan in up at EIX, which, if you look at the quantum, is about the same. But our plan for 2020 continues to be our plan..

The next question is from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. You may go ahead..

I wanted to just touch first on the PSPS commentary, Pedro, that you gave. It sounds like there's been a lot of work that's been done, thinking about shut off approaches.

Would you mind just talking a little bit more about how that might look different this year in terms of whether it be scope duration or just approach? Any further color around sort of how that might look this year compared to last year..

Sure. Yes, happy to do that. And so, like I said in the comments, there's been a lot of work going on really all through since last year. Just to remind you of last year's performance, I think it was generally similar to San Diego Gas & Electric, when you look at the percent of customers who were out throughout that.

I'd call it 2% or so of the population was impacted at some point or other. And that I think was the product for a lot of years of investment in areas like sectionalizing our distribution circuits on average in high fire risk area. We can subdivide our circuit into four.

So there's a high fire risk portion of that circuit, but there's three portions that are non-high fire risk. You can take one part, and not the three parts, and that limits scope. So that was one major item.

And then, the other major item last year was the fact that we - particularly comparing to our colleagues at PG&E, what they have been working towards is now, we have the ability to be energized based on actual conditions, as opposed to a 48-hour ahead forecast. So, those two were really helpful last year.

You look forward, what happened since last year? I thought it's good to anchor you in the starting point. We've been working on further refining. Let me start with the forecasting piece.

There's been a lot of work that's been done to further refine our modeling capabilities, make them more granular tighter, tighter grid, if you will, that should allow us to have a higher fidelity in a mapping and modeling forecasting capability that should, we believe, allow us to just be a bit more targeted around it.

Another advancement since last year I think I mentioned was these playbooks.

So rather than having to do a fair amount of work to update the number of variables as we're getting close to the de-energization or planning for one, the team did a good job over the last year of trying to correlate the variables that are more static, things that are more repeatable, versus the ones that you really need to update in real time, and using that to have a cookbook or an instruction set on a circuit by circuit level, so that as that time approaches, we can just move a lot more quickly in terms of determining what portions of the circuit may be used to be de-energized, what customers get a heads up that they may be turned off, and where do you ultimately do that for real.

And another thing we did was that - or the team did was that they took a look at our, I'll call them the frequent flyers, from last year, circuits that were de-energized multiple times because you're in the high-risk areas. And they looked at were there ways to further narrow the scope of de-energizations on those.

In some cases, they might have been doing some re-wiring, or doing some - adding more sectionalization capability to further isolate the trouble spot, if you will, the higher fire risk spot within the circuit, so that instead - and I'm going to make up numbers here.

But if you have a circuit were taking out 500 people, 500 customers last year several times during the year, if we can narrow that down to 50 people who are in the highest interest area, that actually reduces the overall pain across that community. And then, finally - maybe I should've started with this one.

Another year means another year's worth of progress in terms of hardening the system, more covered conductor mile deployment out there. That piece in particular will continue to improve year-to-year over the course of our WMP. And so, we should see more and more risk reduction from that.

When you put all that together, Stephen, if you think about it as we look at the risk informed decision to de-energize or not, that is the product of weather conditions, of fuel conditions out there, of particulars of that neighborhood.

But it's also dependent on variables like how much bare wire do we have in high-risk areas versus covered conductor? And so, that's why the hardening of the system will continue to decrease the risk profile year-on-year and allow us to continue to decrease the number of customers impacted.

Bottom line on all that - so it was a little long-winded, but there's a lot that's gone on. Bottom line is that if we saw the same exact same weather conditions that we did last year, we would expect some proportionately smaller amount of the energy station.

Of course, we won't see the exact same conditions as last year, but it just gives you a sense that there's been some meaningful progress..

That's extremely helpful. And just one separate question on your EV infrastructure program.

Would you mind just providing a high-level update on the status of that program in terms of implementation, key milestones from here, just kind of thinking about the pace of that rollout as you try to meet the increased EV penetration in the state? How do we generally stand on the pace of that program?.

Sure. So remember - I'll summarize this as key large programs. One is the heavy - sort medium and heavy duty charge ready transport program, for which we already have full CPUC approval and the $340 million range or so and that's a multi-year program. And then the second large program is our Charge Ready program.

There, we've had approval for- we had a pilot that had been approved to the tune around $22 million or so. We had an extension of that.

Basically gave us about the same amount to continue in pilot mode or a bridge mode, while the CPUC considers our larger application for what would be around a $750 million program all ended in capital and O&M but $550 million of that I think is capital. And so that application is sitting at the CPUC.

I believe they have extended the deadline for considering it until June 30 of this year. When the extended that six months ago or four months ago when the six-month extension they - I think it's Commissioner [Virchow] who is the lead Commissioner on this docket and he said he expected that will be a PD out early in the year.

I don't think we've seen a PD out yet but certainly, understandably, there's a lot going on with the COVID impacts, et cetera, but we have not heard anything different from the June 30 deadline that they've talked so we look forward to hopefully getting that approved in that timeframe.

In the meantime, we made a lot of progress in terms of both deployments on the Charge Ready transport and the passenger vehicle Charge Ready. I will tell you through this COVID period some of that work has slowed down just because it requires working in close proximity.

Probably it's less essential than say, working on a pole to keep the lights on, and customers and sales may not be ready on the customer premise to have somebody come in and work on the installation stuff. So, there has been some slowdown in that and that's one of the pieces we're looking at.

How does that ramp back up as we follow the lead of the governor and the state and re-opening up the economy. But I think that there's a long-term need for that.

That continues unabated and in fact, some of the early discussions of the Governor's Task Force has been all about how - again as I think I mentioned, this is not just about the near-term reopening but how do you bolster the economy for the long term and clean energy and electrification are viewed as a big part of that long-term plan for the state..

Thank you. And that was the last question. I will now turn the call back to Mr. Sam Ramraj..

Thank you, Sue. And thanks everyone for joining us today. Please call us if you have any follow-up questions. This concludes the conference call. You may now disconnect..