EDISON INTERNATIONAL

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Management’s Statement

In the opinion of management, all adjustments, including recurring accruals, have been made that are necessary to fairly state the consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for the periods covered by this quarterly report on Form 10-Q. The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2008 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the full year.

This quarterly report should be read in conjunction with Edison International’s Annual Report to Shareholders incorporated by reference into Edison International’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

Edison International’s significant accounting policies were described in Note 1 of “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” included in its 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Edison International follows the same accounting policies for interim reporting purposes, with the exception of accounting principles adopted as of January 1, 2008 as discussed below in “Margin and Collateral Deposits” and “New Accounting Pronouncements.”

Certain prior-year reclassifications have been made to conform to the current year financial statement presentation mostly pertaining to the adoption of FIN No. 39-1. Except as indicated, amounts presented in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements relate to continuing operations.

7

Table of Contents

Earnings Per Common Share

Edison International computes EPS using the two-class method, which is an earnings allocation formula that determines EPS for each class of common stock and participating security. Edison International’s participating securities are stock based compensation awards payable in common shares, including stock options, performance shares and restricted stock units, which earn dividend equivalents on an equal basis with common shares. Stock options awarded during the period 2003 through 2006 received dividend equivalents. Stock options awarded prior to 2002 and after 2006 were granted without a dividend equivalent feature. As a result of meeting a performance trigger, the options granted in 1998 and 1999 began earning dividend equivalents in 2006. EPS was computed as follows:

Stock-based compensation awards to purchase 83,901 and 1,731,108 shares of common stock for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, were outstanding, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the exercise price of the awards was greater than the average market price of the common shares; and therefore, the effect would have been antidilutive.

Margin and Collateral Deposits

Margin and collateral deposits include margin requirements and cash deposited with and received from counterparties and brokers as credit support under energy contracts. The amount of margin and collateral deposits varies based on changes in the value of the agreements. See “New Accounting Pronouncements” below for a discussion of the adoption of FIN No. 39-1. In accordance with FIN No. 39-1, Edison International presents a portion of its margin and cash collateral deposits net with its derivative positions on its consolidated balance sheets. Amounts recognized for cash collateral provided to others that have been offset against net derivative liabilities totaled $134 million and $ 38 million at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively. Amounts recognized for cash collateral received from others that have been offset against net derivative assets totaled $10 million at March 31, 2008.

8

Table of Contents

New Accounting Pronouncements

Accounting Pronouncements Adopted

In April 2007, the FASB issued FIN No. 39-1. This pronouncement permits companies to offset fair value amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash collateral (a receivable) or the obligation to return cash collateral (a payable) against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under a master netting arrangement. In addition, upon the adoption, companies were permitted to change their accounting policy to offset or not offset fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments under master netting agreements. Edison International adopted FIN No. 39-1 effective January 1, 2008. The adoption resulted in netting a portion of margin and cash collateral deposits with derivative positions on Edison International’s consolidated balance sheets, but had no impact on its consolidated statements of income. The consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2007 has been retroactively restated for the change, which resulted in a decrease in net assets (margin and collateral deposits) of $38 million. The consolidated statements of cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2007 has been retroactively restated to reflect the balance sheet changes, which had no impact on total operating cash flows from continuing operations.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, which provides an option to report eligible financial assets and liabilities at fair value, with changes in fair value recognized in earnings. Edison International adopted this pronouncement effective January 1, 2008. The adoption had no impact because Edison International did not make an optional election to report additional financial assets and liabilities at fair value.

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, which clarifies the definition of fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands the disclosures on fair value measurements. Edison International adopted SFAS No. 157 effective January 1, 2008. The adoption did not result in any retrospective adjustments to its consolidated financial statements. The accounting requirements for employers’ pension and other postretirement benefit plans are effective at the end of 2008, which is the next measurement date for these benefit plans. The effective date will be January 1, 2009 for asset retirement obligations and other nonfinancial assets and liabilities which are measured or disclosed on a non-recurring basis. For further discussion, see Note 8.

Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R), which establishes principles and requirements for how the acquirer in a business combination recognizes and measures in its financial statements the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed and any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date fair value. SFAS No. 141(R) determines what information to disclose to enable users of the financial statements to evaluate the nature and financial effects of the business combination. SFAS No. 141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2009. Early adoption is not permitted.

In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160, which requires an entity to present minority interest that reflects the ownership interests in subsidiaries held by parties other than the entity, within the equity section but separate from the entity’s equity in the consolidated financial statements. It also requires the amount of consolidated net income attributable to the parent and to the noncontrolling interest to be clearly identified and presented on the face of the consolidated statement of income; changes in ownership interest be accounted for similarly as equity transactions; and, when a subsidiary is deconsolidated, any retained noncontrolling equity investment in the former subsidiary and the gain or loss on the deconsolidation of the subsidiary be measured at fair value. Edison International will adopt SFAS No. 160 on January 1, 2009. In accordance with this standard, Edison International will reclassify minority interest to a component of shareholder’s equity (at March 31, 2008 this amount was $282 million).

In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, which requires additional disclosures related to derivative instruments, including how and why an entity uses derivative instruments, how derivative instruments and related

9

Table of Contents

hedged items are accounted for and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect an entity’s financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. SFAS No. 161 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008, with early adoption permitted. Edison International will adopt SFAS No. 161 in the first quarter of 2009. SFAS No. 161 will impact disclosures only and will not have an impact on Edison International’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Property and Plant

Utility Plant

Utility plant additions, including replacements and betterments, are capitalized. Such costs include direct material and labor, construction overhead, a portion of administrative and general costs capitalized at a rate authorized by the CPUC, and AFUDC. AFUDC represents the estimated cost of debt and equity funds that finance utility-plant construction. Currently, AFUDC debt and equity is capitalized during plant construction and reported in interest expense and other nonoperating income, respectively. AFUDC is recovered in rates through depreciation expense over the useful life of the related asset.

On November 26, 2007, the FERC issued an order granting incentives on three of SCE’s largest proposed transmission projects, DPV2, Tehachapi Transmission Project (“Tehachapi”), and Rancho Vista Substation Project (“Rancho Vista”). The order permits SCE to include in rate base 100% of prudently-incurred capital expenditures during construction of all three projects. On February 29, 2008, the FERC approved SCE’s revision to its Transmission Owner Tariff to collect 100% of construction work in progress (CWIP) for these projects in rate base and earn a return on equity, rather than capitalizing AFUDC. SCE implemented the CWIP rate, subject to refund, on March 1, 2008. For further discussion, see “FERC Transmission Incentives” in Note 5.

Related Party Transactions

During the first quarter of 2008, a subsidiary of EME was awarded, through a competitive bidding process, a ten-year power sales contract with SCE for the output of a 479 MW gas-peaking facility located in the City of Industry, California, which is referred to as the Walnut Creek project. The power sales agreement is subject to approval of the CPUC which SCE requested on April 4, 2008. CPUC approval is expected to be granted by late 2008. As an affiliate transaction, the contract is also subject to FERC approval, which was requested on May 2, 2008. Deliveries under the power sales agreement are expected to commence in 2013.

Short-term Investments

At March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, Edison International classified all marketable debt securities as held-to-maturity. The securities were carried at amortized cost plus accrued interest which approximated their fair value. Gross unrealized holding gains and losses were not material.

Edison International’s held-to-maturity securities, which all mature within one year, consisted of the following:

10

Table of Contents

Note 2. Liabilities and Lines of Credit

Long-Term Debt

In January 2008, SCE issued $600 million of 5.95% first and 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.

The interest rates on one issue of SCE’s pollution control bonds insured by FGIC, totaling $249 million, were reset every 35 days through an auction process. Due to a loss of confidence in the creditworthiness of the bond insurers, there has been a significant reduction in market liquidity for auction rate bonds and interest rates on these bonds have risen. Consequently, SCE purchased in the secondary market $37 million of its auction rate bonds in December 2007. In the first three months of 2008, SCE purchased the remaining $212 million of its auction rate bonds, converted the issue to a variable rate mode, and terminated the FGIC insurance policy. The bonds remain outstanding and have not been retired or cancelled.

Short-Term Debt

SCE’s short-term debt is generally used to finance fuel inventories, balancing account undercollections and general, temporary cash requirements including power-purchase payments. At March 31, 2008, the outstanding short-term debt was $400 million at a weighted-average interest rate of 3.36%. SCE’s short-term debt is supported by a $2.5 billion credit line. See below in “Credit Agreement Amendments.”

Credit Agreement Amendments

On March 12, 2008, both Edison International and SCE amended their existing credit facilities, extending the maturities to February 2013 while retaining existing borrowing costs as specified in the facilities. The amendments also provide four extension options which, if all exercised, will result in final terminations of February 2017. At March 31, 2008, SCE’s $2.5 billion credit facility supported $217 million in letters of credit and $400 million of short-term debt outstanding, leaving $1.88 billion available for liquidity purposes. At March 31, 2008, all of Edison International’s (parent) $1.5 billion credit facility was available for liquidity purposes.

Note 3. Income Taxes

Edison International’s composite federal and state statutory income tax rate was approximately 40% (net of the federal benefit for state income taxes) for all periods presented. Edison International’s effective tax rate from continuing operations was 35% for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as compared to 28% for the respective period in 2007. The increased effective tax rate was caused primarily by reductions made to the income tax reserve during the first quarter of 2007 to reflect progress in an administrative appeals process with the IRS related to SCE’s income tax treatment of costs associated with environmental remediation.

Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes

Pursuant to the requirements of FIN 48, Edison International records tax reserves for uncertain tax return positions taken or expected to be taken on tax returns. Edison International also has filed affirmative tax claims related to uncertain tax positions, which, if accepted, could result in refunds of taxes paid or additional tax benefits for positions not reflected on filed original tax returns. FIN 48 requires the disclosure of all unrecognized tax benefits, which includes the reserves recorded for uncertain tax positions on filed tax returns and the unrecognized portion of affirmative claims.

11

Table of Contents

The unrecognized tax benefits in the table above reflects affirmative claims related to timing differences of $1.5 billion and $1.6 billion at March 31, 2008 and January 1, 2008, respectively, but have not met the recognition threshold pursuant to FIN 48 and have been denied by the IRS as part of their examinations. These affirmative claims remain unpaid by the IRS and no receivable has been recorded. Edison International is vigorously defending these affirmative claims in IRS administrative appeals proceedings.

It is reasonably possible that Edison International could reach a settlement with the IRS to all or a portion of the unrecognized tax benefits through tax year 2002 within the next 12 months, which could reduce unrecognized tax benefits by up to $1.2 billion.

The total amount of unrecognized tax benefits as of March 31, 2008 and January 1, 2008 that, if recognized, would have an effective tax rate impact is $203 million and $206 million, respectively.

The total amount of accrued interest and penalties were $176 million and $162 million as of March 31, 2008 and January 1, 2008, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2008, $8 million of after-tax interest expense was recognized and included in income tax expense.

Tax Positions being addressed as part of active examinations and administrative appeals processes

Edison International remains subject to examination and administrative appeals by the IRS for tax years 1994 and forward. Edison International is challenging certain IRS deficiency adjustments for tax years 1994 – 1999 with the Administrative Appeals branch of the IRS and Edison International is currently under active IRS examination for tax years 2000 – 2002. In addition, the statute of limitations remains open for tax years 1986 – 1993, which has allowed Edison International to file certain affirmative claims related to these tax years.

During the examination phase for tax years 1994 – 1999, which is complete, the IRS asserted income tax deficiencies related to certain tax positions taken by Edison International on filed tax returns. Edison International is challenging the asserted tax deficiencies in IRS administrative appeals proceedings; however, most of these tax positions relate to timing differences and, therefore, any amounts that would be paid if Edison International’s position is not sustained (exclusive of any penalties) would be deductible on future tax returns filed by Edison International. In addition, Edison International has filed affirmative claims with respect to certain tax years 1986 through 2005 with the IRS and state tax authorities. Any benefits associated with these affirmative claims would be recorded in accordance with FIN 48 which provides that recognition would occur at the earlier of when Edison International would make an assessment that the affirmative claim position has a more likely than not probability of being sustained or when a settlement of the affirmative claim is consummated with the tax authority. Certain of these affirmative claims have been recognized as part of the implementation of FIN 48.

12

Table of Contents

Currently, Edison International is under administrative appeals with the California Franchise Tax Board for tax years 1997 – 2002 and under examination for tax years 2003 – 2004. Edison International remains subject to examination by the California Franchise Tax Board for tax years 2005 and forward. Edison International is also subject to examination by other state tax authorities, subject to varying statute of limitations.

Lease Transactions

As part of a nationwide challenge of certain types of lease transactions, the IRS has asserted deficiencies related to Edison International’s deferral of income taxes associated with certain of its cross-border, leveraged leases. For tax years 1994 – 1999, Edison International is challenging the asserted deficiencies in ongoing IRS Appeals proceedings.

These asserted deficiencies relate to Edison Capital’s income tax treatment of both its foreign power plant and electric locomotive sale/leaseback transactions entered into in 1993 and 1994 (Replacement Leases, which the IRS refers to as a sale-in/lease-out or SILO) and its foreign power plant and electric transmission system lease/leaseback transactions entered into in 1997 and 1998 (Lease/Leaseback, which the IRS refers to as a lease-in/lease-out or LILO).

In 1999, Edison Capital entered into a lease/service contract transaction involving a foreign telecommunication system (Service Contract, which the IRS also refers to as a SILO). As part of an ongoing examination of 2000 – 2002, the IRS is reviewing Edison International’s income tax treatment of this Service Contract and has issued several data requests, to which Edison International has responded. The IRS has not formally asserted any adjustments, but Edison International believes that the IRS examination team will assert deficiencies related to this Service Contract. The following table summarizes estimated federal and state income taxes deferred from these leases as of December 31, 2007. Repayment of these deferred taxes would be accelerated if the IRS position were to be sustained:

As of March 31, 2008, the interest (after tax) on the proposed tax adjustments is estimated to be approximately $557 million. The IRS has also asserted a 20% penalty on any sustained tax adjustment.

Edison International believes it properly reported these transactions based on applicable statutes, regulations and case law in effect at the time the transactions were entered into, and it is vigorously defending its tax treatment of these leases with the Administrative Appeals branch of the IRS through pending appeals of the deficiencies and penalties asserted by IRS examination for the tax years 1994 – 1999. Edison International believes the IRS’s position misstates material facts, misapplies the law and is incorrect. Currently, Edison International is engaged in settlement discussions with IRS Appeals.

The payment of taxes, interest and penalties could have a significant impact on earnings and cash flow. Edison International is prepared to take legal action if an acceptable settlement cannot be reached with the IRS. If Edison International were to commence litigation in certain forums, Edison International would need to make payments of disputed taxes, along with interest and any penalties asserted by the IRS, and thereafter pursue refunds. On May 26, 2006, Edison International paid $111 million of the taxes, interest and penalties for tax year 1999 followed by a refund claim for the same amount. The cash payment was funded by Edison Capital and accounted

13

Table of Contents

for as a deposit recorded in “Other long-term assets” on the consolidated balance sheet and will be refunded with interest to the extent Edison International prevails. Since the IRS did not act on this refund claim within six months from the date the claim was filed, it is deemed denied which provides Edison International with the option of being able to take legal action to assert its refund claim.

A number of cases involving LILO and SILO transactions are pending before various federal courts. One case involving a LILO transaction was decided in favor of the IRS in a federal district court and was affirmed in a Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued in April 2008. In April 2008, a jury in a federal district court case rendered a verdict where some of the findings were unfavorable to the taxpayer. The taxpayer has asserted in a post-verdict motion that these findings are inconsistent. This case is awaiting a final judgment. In accordance with FIN 48 and FASB Staff Position FAS 13-2 “Accounting for a Change or Projected Change in the Timing of Cash Flows Relating to Income Taxes Generated by a Leveraged Lease Transaction,” Edison International will continue to monitor and evaluate its lease transactions with respect to on-going events. Edison International cannot predict the timing or ultimate outcome of these cases or any of the other pending LILO or SILO cases or other developments.

To the extent an acceptable settlement is not reached with the IRS, Edison International would expect to file a refund claim for any taxes and penalties that are paid for the 1994 –1996 tax years related to assessed tax deficiencies and penalties on the Replacement Leases. Edison International may make additional payments related to later tax years to preserve its litigation rights. Although, at this time, the amount and timing of these additional payments is uncertain, the amount of additional payments, if necessary, could be substantial. At this time, Edison International is unable to predict the impact of the ultimate resolution of the lease issues.

Edison International filed amended California Franchise Tax returns for tax years 1997 – 2002 to mitigate the possible imposition of new California penalty provisions on transactions that may be considered as listed or substantially similar to listed transactions described in an IRS notice that was published in 2001. These transactions include certain Edison Capital leveraged lease transactions described above and the SCE subsidiary contingent liability company transaction described below. Edison International filed these amended returns under protest retaining its appeal rights.

Balancing Account Over-Collections

In response to an affirmative claim related to balancing account over-collections, Edison International received an IRS Notice of Proposed Adjustment in July 2007. This affirmative claim is part of the ongoing IRS examinations and administrative appeals process and all of the tax years included in this Notice of Proposed Adjustment remain subject to ongoing examination and administrative appeals. The cash and earnings impacts of this position are dependent on the ultimate settlement of all open tax issues in these tax years. Edison International expects that resolution of this particular issue could potentially increase earnings and cash flows within the range of $70 million to $80 million and $300 million to $325 million, respectively.

Contingent Liability Company

The IRS has asserted deficiencies with respect to a transaction entered into by a former SCE subsidiary which may be considered substantially similar to a listed transaction described by the IRS as a contingent liability company for tax years 1997 – 1998. This is being considered by the Administrative Appeals branch of the IRS where Edison International is defending its tax return position with respect to this transaction.

Resolution of Federal and State Income Tax Issues Being Addressed in Ongoing Examinations and Administrative Appeals

Edison International continues its efforts to resolve open tax issues through tax year 2002. Although the timing for resolving these open tax positions is uncertain, it is reasonably possible that all or a significant portion of these open tax issues through tax year 2002 could be resolved within the next 12 months.

14

Table of Contents

Note 4. Compensation and Benefits Plans

Pension Plans

As of March 31, 2008, Edison International had made $7 million in contributions related to 2007 and $14 million related to 2008 and estimates to make $46 million of additional contributions in the last nine months of 2008. Expected contribution funding in 2008 could vary from anticipated amounts, depending on the funded status at year-end and tax-deductible funding limitations.

Net pension cost recognized is calculated under the actuarial method used for ratemaking. The difference between pension costs calculated for accounting and ratemaking is deferred.

Expense components are:

Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions

As of March 31, 2008, Edison International had made no contributions related to 2007 and $5 million related to 2008 and estimates to make $49 million of additional contributions in the last nine months of 2008. Expected contribution funding in 2008 could vary from anticipated amounts, depending on the funded status at year-end and tax-deductible funding limitations.

Expense components are:

Stock-Based Compensation

During the first quarter of 2008, Edison International granted its 2008 stock-based compensation awards, which included stock options, performance shares, deferred stock units and restricted stock units. Total stock-based compensation expense (reflected in the caption “Other operation and maintenance” on the consolidated

15

Table of Contents

statements of income) was $7 million for both of the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007. The income tax benefit recognized in the consolidated statements of income was $3 million for both of the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007. Total stock-based compensation cost capitalized was $1 million for both three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007.

Stock options granted in 2008 do not accrue dividend equivalents.

The amount of cash used to settle stock options exercised was $13 million and $86 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Cash received from options exercised was $7 million and $39 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The estimated tax benefit from options exercised was $3 million and $18 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

Note 5. Commitments and Contingencies

The following is an update to Edison International’s commitments. See Note 6 of “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” included in Edison International’s 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K for a detailed discussion.

Other Commitments

SCE entered into service contracts associated with uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication during the first three months of 2008. As a result, SCE’s additional fuel supply commitments are estimated to be $23 million for the remainder of 2008, $31 million for 2009, $31 million for 2010, $51 million for 2011, $91 million for 2012 and $204 million thereafter.

At March 31, 2008, EME’s subsidiaries had firm commitments to spend approximately $240 million during the remainder of 2008 and $4 million in 2009 on capital and construction expenditures. The majority of these expenditures relate to the construction of wind projects. These expenditures are planned to be financed by cash on hand, cash generated from operations or existing subsidiary credit agreements.

At March 31, 2008, EME had entered into agreements with vendors securing 483 wind turbines (1,076 MW) for an aggregate purchase price of $1.3 billion, with remaining commitments of $474 million in 2008, $540 million in 2009 and $49 million in 2010. At March 31, 2008, EME had recorded wind turbine deposits of $197 million

16

Table of Contents

included in other long-term assets in its consolidated balance sheet. In addition, EME had 30 wind turbines (90 MW) in temporary storage to be used for future wind projects with remaining commitments of $3 million in 2008. At March 31, 2008, EME had recorded $84 million related to these wind turbines included in other long-term assets in its consolidated balance sheet.

In connection with the acquisition of the Illinois Plants, Midwest Generation had assumed a long-term coal supply contract and recorded a liability to reflect the fair value of this contract. In March 2008, Midwest Generation entered into an agreement to buy out its coal obligations for the years 2009 through 2012 under this contract with a one-time payment to be made in January 2009. Midwest Generation recorded a pre-tax gain of $15 million ($9 million, after tax) during the first quarter of 2008. The remaining payments due under this contract are $20 million.

Guarantees and Indemnities

Edison International’s subsidiaries have various financial and performance guarantees and indemnifications which are issued in the normal course of business. As discussed below, these contracts included performance guarantees, guarantees of debt and indemnifications.

Tax Indemnity Agreements

In connection with the sale-leaseback transactions related to the Homer City facilities in Pennsylvania, the Powerton and Joliet Stations in Illinois, and, previously, the Collins Station in Illinois, EME and several of its subsidiaries entered into tax indemnity agreements. Under these tax indemnity agreements, these entities agreed to indemnify the lessors in the sale-leaseback transactions for specified adverse tax consequences that could result in certain situations set forth in each tax indemnity agreement, including specified defaults under the respective leases. The potential indemnity obligations under these tax indemnity agreements could be significant. Due to the nature of these potential obligations, EME cannot determine a maximum potential liability which would be triggered by a valid claim from the lessors. EME has not recorded a liability related to these indemnities. In connection with the termination of the Collins Station lease in April 2004, Midwest Generation continues to have obligations under the tax indemnity agreement with the former lease equity investor.

Indemnities Provided as Part of the Acquisition of the Illinois Plants

In connection with the acquisition of the Illinois Plants, EME agreed to indemnify Commonwealth Edison with respect to specified environmental liabilities before and after December 15, 1999, the date of sale. The indemnification claims are reduced by any insurance proceeds and tax benefits related to such claims and are subject to a requirement that Commonwealth Edison takes all reasonable steps to mitigate losses related to any such indemnification claim. Due to the nature of the obligation under this indemnity, a maximum potential liability cannot be determined. This indemnification for environmental liabilities is not limited in term and would be triggered by a valid claim from Commonwealth Edison. Except as discussed below, EME has not recorded a liability related to this indemnity.

Midwest Generation entered into a supplemental agreement with Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation on February 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement. Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement. As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and Midwest Generation apportion responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or Midwest Generation locations. The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability. The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate); pursuant to the

17

Table of Contents

automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until February 2009. Payments are made under this indemnity upon tender by Commonwealth Edison of appropriate proof of liability for an asbestos-related settlement, judgment, verdict, or expense. There were approximately 211 cases for which Midwest Generation was potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at March 31, 2008. Midwest Generation had recorded a $54 million liability at March 31, 2008 related to this matter.

The amounts recorded by Midwest Generation for the asbestos-related liability are based upon a number of assumptions. Future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of claims, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than projected.

Indemnity Provided as Part of the Acquisition of the Homer City Facilities

In connection with the acquisition of the Homer City facilities, EME Homer City agreed to indemnify the sellers with respect to specific environmental liabilities before and after the date of sale. Payments would be triggered under this indemnity by a claim from the sellers. EME guaranteed the obligations of EME Homer City. Due to the nature of the obligation under this indemnity provision, it is not subject to a maximum potential liability and does not have an expiration date. EME has not recorded a liability related to this indemnity.

Indemnities Provided under Asset Sale Agreements

The asset sale agreements for the sale of EME’s international assets contain indemnities from EME to the purchasers, including indemnification for taxes imposed with respect to operations of the assets prior to the sale and for pre-closing environmental liabilities. Not all indemnities under the asset sale agreements have specific expiration dates. Payments would be triggered under these indemnities by valid claims from the sellers or purchasers, as the case may be. At March 31, 2008, EME had recorded a liability of $108 million related to these matters.

In connection with the sale of various domestic assets, EME has from time to time provided indemnities to the purchasers for taxes imposed with respect to operations of the asset prior to the sale. EME has also provided indemnities to purchasers for items specified in each agreement (for example, specific pre-existing litigation matters and/or environmental conditions). Due to the nature of the obligations under these indemnity agreements, a maximum potential liability cannot be determined. Not all indemnities under the asset sale agreements have specific expiration dates. Payments would be triggered under these indemnities by valid claims from the sellers or purchasers, as the case may be. At March 31, 2008, EME had recorded a liability of $13 million related to these matters.

Capacity Indemnification Agreements

EME has guaranteed, jointly and severally with Texaco Inc., the obligations of March Point Cogeneration Company under its project power sales agreements to repay capacity payments to the project’s power purchaser in the event that the power sales agreements terminate, March Point Cogeneration Company abandons the project, or the project fails to return to normal operations within a reasonable time after a complete or partial shutdown, during the term of the power sales agreements. The obligations under this indemnification agreement as of March 31, 2008, if payment were required, would be $67 million. EME has not recorded a liability related to this indemnity.

Indemnity Provided as Part of the Acquisition of Mountainview

In connection with the acquisition of Mountainview, SCE agreed to indemnify the seller with respect to specific environmental claims related to SCE’s previously owned San Bernardino Generating Station, divested by SCE in 1998 and reacquired as part of the Mountainview acquisition. SCE retained certain responsibilities with respect to environmental claims as part of the original divestiture of the station. The aggregate liability for either party to

18

Table of Contents

the purchase agreement for damages and other amounts is a maximum of $60 million. This indemnification for environmental liabilities expires on or before March 12, 2033. SCE has not recorded a liability related to this indemnity.

Mountainview Filter Cake Indemnity

Mountainview owns and operates a power plant in Redlands, California. The plant utilizes water from on-site groundwater wells and City of Redlands (City) recycled water for cooling purposes. Unrelated to the operation of the plant, this water contains perchlorate. The pumping of the water removes perchlorate from the aquifer beneath the plant and concentrates it in the plant’s wastewater treatment “filter cake.” Use of this impacted groundwater for cooling purposes was mandated by Mountainview’s CEC permit. Mountainview has indemnified the City for cleanup or associated actions related to groundwater contaminated by perchlorate due to the disposal of filter cake at the City’s solid waste landfill. The obligations under this agreement are not limited to a specific time period or subject to a maximum liability. SCE has not recorded a liability related to this guarantee.

Other Edison International Indemnities

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

Contingencies

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

Environmental Remediation

Edison International is subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations, which require it to incur substantial costs to operate existing facilities, construct and operate new facilities, and mitigate or remove the effect of past operations on the environment.

Edison International believes that it is in substantial compliance with environmental regulatory requirements; however, possible future developments, such as the enactment of more stringent environmental laws and regulations, could affect the costs and the manner in which business is conducted and could cause substantial additional capital expenditures. There is no assurance that additional costs would be recovered from customers or that Edison International’s consolidated financial position and results of operations would not be materially affected.

Edison International 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. Edison International 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

19

Table of Contents

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

As of March 31, 2008, Edison International’s recorded estimated minimum liability to remediate its 44 identified sites at SCE (24 sites) and EME (20 sites primarily related to Midwest Generation) was $68 million, $64 million of which was related to SCE including $29 million related to San Onofre. This remediation liability is undiscounted. Edison International’s other subsidiaries have no identified remediation sites. The ultimate costs to clean up Edison International’s identified sites may vary from its recorded liability due to numerous uncertainties inherent in the estimation process, such as: the extent and nature of contamination; the scarcity of reliable data for identified sites; the varying costs of alternative cleanup methods; developments resulting from investigatory studies; the possibility of identifying additional sites; and the time periods over which site remediation is expected to occur. Edison International believes that, due to these uncertainties, it is reasonably possible that cleanup costs could exceed its recorded liability by up to $150 million, all of which is related to SCE. The upper limit of this range of costs was estimated using assumptions least favorable to Edison International among a range of reasonably possible outcomes. In addition to its identified sites (sites in which the upper end of the range of costs is at least $1 million), SCE also has 30 immaterial sites whose total liability ranges from $3 million (the recorded minimum liability) to $9 million.

The CPUC allows SCE to recover environmental remediation costs at certain sites, representing $33 million of its recorded liability, through an incentive mechanism (SCE may request to include additional sites). Under this mechanism, SCE will recover 90% of cleanup costs through customer rates; shareholders fund the remaining 10%, with the opportunity to recover these costs from insurance carriers and other third parties. SCE has successfully settled insurance claims with all responsible carriers. SCE expects to recover costs incurred at its remaining sites through customer rates. SCE has recorded a regulatory asset of $62 million for its estimated minimum environmental-cleanup costs expected to be recovered through customer rates.

Edison International’s identified sites include several sites for which there is a lack of currently available information, including the nature and magnitude of contamination, and the extent, if any, that Edison International may be held responsible for contributing to any costs incurred for remediating these sites. Thus, no reasonable estimate of cleanup costs can be made for these sites.

Edison International expects to clean up its identified sites over a period of up to 30 years. Remediation costs in each of the next several years are expected to range from $11 million to $31 million. Recorded costs for the 12 months ended March 31, 2008 were $23 million.

Based on currently available information, Edison International believes it is unlikely that it will incur amounts in excess of the upper limit of the estimated range for its identified sites and, based upon the CPUC’s regulatory treatment of environmental remediation costs incurred at SCE, Edison International believes that costs ultimately recorded will not materially affect its consolidated results of operations or financial position. There can be no assurance, however, that future developments, including additional information about existing sites or the identification of new sites, will not require material revisions to such estimates.

Federal and State Income Taxes

As part of a nationwide challenge of certain types of lease transactions, the IRS has raised issues about the deferral of income taxes associated with certain lease and kind of lease transactions. See Note 3, for further details.

FERC Notice Regarding Investigatory Proceeding against EMMT

In October 2006, EMMT was advised by the enforcement staff at the FERC that it is prepared to recommend that the FERC initiate a formal investigatory proceeding and seek monetary sanctions against EMMT for alleged

20

Table of Contents

violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the FERC’s rules regarding market behavior, all with respect to certain bidding practices previously employed by EMMT. EMMT is engaged in discussions with the staff to explore the possibility of resolution of this matter. Discussions to date have been constructive and may lead to a settlement agreement acceptable to both parties. Should these discussions not result in a settlement and a formal proceeding commenced, EMMT will be entitled to contest any alleged violations before the FERC and an appropriate court. EME believes that EMMT has complied with all applicable laws and regulations in the bidding practices that it employed, and intends to contest vigorously any allegation of violation.

FERC Transmission Incentives

On November 16, 2007, the FERC issued an order granting incentives on three of SCE’s largest proposed transmission projects:

The order also grants a higher return on equity on SCE’s entire transmission rate base in SCE’s next FERC transmission rate case for SCE’s participation in the CAISO. SCE has not yet determined when it expects to file its next FERC rate case. In addition, the order permits SCE to include in rate base 100% of prudently-incurred capital expenditures during construction, also known as CWIP, of all three projects and 100% recovery of prudently-incurred abandoned plant costs for DPV2 and Tehachapi, if either or both of these projects are cancelled due to factors beyond SCE’s control.

FERC Construction Work in Progress Mechanism

On December 21, 2007, SCE filed a revision to its Transmission Owner Tariff to collect 100% of CWIP in rate base for Tehachapi, DPV2, and Rancho Vista, as authorized by FERC in its transmission incentives order discussed above. In the CWIP filing, SCE proposed a single-issue rate adjustment ($45 million or a 14.4% increase) to SCE’s currently authorized base transmission revenue requirement to be made effective on March 1, 2008 and later adjusted for amounts actually spent in 2008 through a new balancing account mechanism. The rate adjustment represents actual expenditures from September 1, 2005 through November 30, 2007, projected expenditures from December 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008, and a ROE (which includes the ROE adders approved for Tehachapi, DPV2 and Rancho Vista). SCE projects that it will spend a total of approximately $244 million, $27 million, and $181 million for Tehachapi, DPV2, and Rancho Vista, respectively, from September 1, 2005 through the end of 2008. The 2008 DPV2 expenditure forecast is limited to projected consulting and legal costs associated with SCE’s continued efforts to obtain regulatory approvals necessary to construct the DPV2 Project. On February 29, 2008, the CWIP filing was approved and SCE implemented the CWIP rate on March 1, 2008, subject to refund on the limited issue of whether SCE’s proposed ROEs are reasonable. In the order, SCE was also directed by FERC to make a compliance filing to provide greater detail on the costs reflected in CWIP rates for 2008. SCE made the compliance filing on March 31, 2008. On April 21, 2008, the CPUC filed a protest of the compliance filing at FERC and requested an evidentiary hearing to be set to further review the costs. SCE intends to file a response to the CPUC’s protest, which rejects the CPUC’s request for a further hearing. In addition, on March 1, 2008, the CPUC filed a Petition for Rehearing with the FERC on the FERC’s acceptance of SCE’s proposed ROE for CWIP. SCE cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding.

21

Table of Contents

Investigations Regarding Performance Incentives Rewards

SCE was eligible under its CPUC-approved PBR mechanism to earn rewards or penalties based on its performance in comparison to CPUC-approved standards of customer satisfaction, employee injury and illness reporting, and system reliability. SCE conducted investigations into its performance under these PBR mechanisms and has reported to the CPUC certain findings of misconduct and misreporting as further discussed below.

Customer Satisfaction

SCE received two letters in 2003 from one or more anonymous employees alleging that personnel in the service planning group of SCE’s transmission and distribution business unit altered or omitted data in attempts to influence the outcome of customer satisfaction surveys conducted by an independent survey organization. The results of these surveys are used, along with other factors, to determine the amounts of any incentive rewards or penalties for customer satisfaction. SCE recorded aggregate customer satisfaction rewards of $28 million over the period 1997 – 2000. Potential customer satisfaction rewards aggregating $10 million for the years 2001 and 2002 are pending before the CPUC and have not been recognized in income by SCE. SCE also anticipated that it could be eligible for customer satisfaction rewards of approximately $10 million for 2003.

Following its internal investigation, SCE proposed to refund to ratepayers $7 million of the PBR rewards previously received and forgo an additional $5 million of the PBR rewards pending that are both attributable to the design organization’s portion of the customer satisfaction rewards for the entire PBR period (1997 – 2003). In addition, SCE also proposed to refund all of the approximately $2 million of customer satisfaction rewards associated with meter reading.

SCE has taken remedial action as to the customer satisfaction survey misconduct by disciplining employees and/or terminating certain employees, including several supervisory personnel, updating system process and related documentation for survey reporting, and implementing additional supervisory controls over data collection and processing. Performance incentive rewards for customer satisfaction expired in 2003 pursuant to the 2003 GRC.

Employee Injury and Illness Reporting

In light of the problems uncovered with the customer satisfaction surveys, SCE conducted an investigation into the accuracy of SCE’s employee injury and illness reporting. The yearly results of employee injury and illness reporting to the CPUC are used to determine the amount of the incentive reward or penalty to SCE under the PBR mechanism. Since the inception of PBR in 1997, SCE has recognized $20 million in employee safety incentives for 1997 through 2000 and, based on SCE’s records, may be entitled to an additional $15 million for 2001 through 2003.

On October 21, 2004, SCE reported to the CPUC and other appropriate regulatory agencies certain findings concerning SCE’s performance under the PBR incentive mechanism for injury and illness reporting. SCE disclosed in the investigative findings to the CPUC that SCE failed to implement an effective recordkeeping system sufficient to capture all required data for first aid incidents.

As a result of these findings, SCE proposed to the CPUC that it not collect any reward under the mechanism and return to ratepayers the $20 million it has already received. SCE has also proposed to withdraw the pending rewards for the 2001 – 2003 time frames.

SCE has taken remedial action to address the issues identified, including revising its organizational structure and overall program for environmental, health and safety compliance, disciplining employees who committed wrongdoing and terminating one employee. SCE submitted a report on the results of its investigation to the CPUC on December 3, 2004.

22

Table of Contents

System Reliability

In light of the problems uncovered with the PBR mechanisms discussed above, SCE conducted an investigation into the third PBR metric, system reliability for the years 1997 – 2003. SCE received $8 million in reliability incentive awards for the period 1997 – 2000 and applied for a reward of $5 million for 2001. For 2002, SCE’s data indicated that it earned no reward and incurred no penalty. For 2003, based on the application of the PBR mechanism, it would incur a penalty of $3 million and accrued a charge for that amount in 2004. On February 28, 2005, SCE provided its final investigation report to the CPUC concluding that the reliability reporting system was working as intended.

CPUC Investigation

On June 15, 2006, the CPUC instituted a formal investigation to determine whether and in what amounts to order refunds or disallowances of past and potential PBR rewards for customer satisfaction, employee safety and system reliability portions of PBR. In June 2006, the CPSD of the CPUC issued its report regarding SCE’s PBR program, recommending that the CPUC impose various refunds and penalties on SCE. Subsequently, in September 2006, the CPSD and other intervenors, such as the CPUC’s DRA and The Utility Reform Network, filed testimony on these matters recommending various refunds and penalties be imposed on SCE. In their testimony, the various parties made refund and penalty recommendations that range up to the following amounts: refund or forgo $48 million in rewards for customer satisfaction, impose $70 million penalties for customer satisfaction, refund or forgo $35 million in rewards for employee safety, impose $35 million penalties for employee safety, impose $102 million in statutory penalties, refund $84 million related to amounts collected in rates for employee bonuses (“results sharing”), refund $4 million of miscellaneous survey expenses, and require $10 million of new employee safety programs. These recommendations total up to $388 million. On October 16, 2006, SCE filed testimony opposing the various refund and penalty recommendations of the CPSD and other intervenors.

On October 1, 2007, a POD was released ordering SCE to refund $136 million, before interest, and pay a statutory penalty of $40 million. Included in the amount to be refunded are $28 million related to customer satisfaction rewards, $20 million related to employee safety rewards, and $77 million related to results sharing. The decision requires that the proposed results sharing refund of $77 million (based on year 2000 data) be adjusted for attrition and escalation which increases the results sharing refund to $88 million. Interest as of December 31, 2007, based on amounts collected for customer satisfaction, employee safety incentives and results sharing, including escalation and attrition adjustments, would add an additional $28 million to this amount. The POD also requires SCE to forgo $35 million in rewards for which it would have otherwise been eligible. Included in the amount to be forgone is $20 million related to customer satisfaction rewards and $15 million related to employee safety rewards.

On October 31, 2007, SCE appealed the POD to the CPUC. The CPSD and an intervenor also filed appeals. The CPSD appeal requested that: (1) the statutory penalty be increased from $40 million to $83 million, (2) a penalty be imposed under the PBR customer satisfaction and employee safety mechanisms in the amount of $48 million and $35 million, respectively, and (3) SCE refund/forgo rewards earned under the customer satisfaction and employee safety mechanisms of $48 million and $35 million, respectively. The appealing intervenor asked that the statutory penalty be increased to as much as $102 million. Oral argument on the appeals took place on January 30, 2008, and it is uncertain when the CPUC will issue a decision.

SCE cannot predict the outcome of the appeal. Based on SCE’s proposed refunds, the combined recommendations of the CPSD and other intervenors, as well as the POD, the potential refunds and penalties could range from $52 million up to $388 million. SCE has recorded an accrual at the lower end of this range of potential loss and is accruing interest (approximately $16 million as of March 31, 2008) on collected amounts.

The system reliability component of PBR was not addressed in the POD. Pursuant to an earlier order in the case, system reliability incentives will be addressed in a second phase of the proceeding, which commenced with the

23

Table of Contents

filing of SCE’s opening testimony in September 2007. In that testimony, SCE confirmed that its PBR system reliability results, which reflected rewards of $13 million for 1997 through 2002 and a penalty of $3 million in 2003 were valid. An indefinite suspension of the schedule for the second phase of the proceeding pending resolution of the appeals of the POD has been granted. SCE cannot predict the outcome of the second phase.

ISO Disputed Charges

On April 20, 2004, the FERC issued an order concerning a dispute between the ISO and the Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton and Riverside, California over the proper allocation and characterization of certain transmission service related charges. The order reversed an arbitrator’s award that had affirmed the ISO’s characterization in May 2000 of the charges as Intra-Zonal Congestion costs and allocation of those charges to scheduling coordinators in the affected zone within the ISO transmission grid. The April 20, 2004 order directed the ISO to shift the costs from scheduling coordinators in the affected zone to the responsible participating transmission owner, SCE. The potential cost to SCE, net of amounts SCE expects to receive through the PX, SCE’s scheduling coordinator at the time, is estimated to be approximately $20 million to $25 million, including interest. On April 20, 2005, the FERC stayed its April 20, 2004 order during the pendency of SCE’s appeal filed with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On March 7, 2006, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the FERC at the FERC’s request and with SCE’s consent. On March 29, 2007, the FERC issued an order agreeing with SCE’s position that the charges incurred by the ISO were related to voltage support and should be allocated to the scheduling coordinators, rather than to SCE as a transmission owner. The Cities filed a request for rehearing of the FERC’s order on April 27, 2007. On May 25, 2007, the FERC issued a procedural order granting the rehearing application for the limited purpose of allowing the FERC to give it further consideration. In a future order, FERC may deny the rehearing request or grant the requested relief in whole or in part. SCE believes that the most recent substantive FERC order correctly allocates responsibility for these ISO charges. However, SCE cannot predict the final outcome of the rehearing. If a subsequent regulatory decision changes the allocation of responsibility for these charges, and SCE is required to pay these charges as a transmission owner, SCE may seek recovery in its reliability service rates. SCE cannot predict whether recovery of these charges in its reliability service rates would be permitted.

Leveraged Lease Investments

At March 31, 2008, Edison Capital had a net leveraged lease investment, before deferred taxes, of $53 million in three aircraft leased to American Airlines. American Airlines has reported net loss for its first quarter 2008 and previously reported losses for a number of years prior to 2006. A default in the leveraged lease by American Airlines could result in a loss of some or all of Edison Capital’s lease investment. At March 31, 2008, American Airlines was current in its lease payments to Edison Capital.

Midway-Sunset Cogeneration Company

San Joaquin Energy Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of EME, owns a 50% general partnership interest in Midway-Sunset, which owns a 225 MW cogeneration facility near Fellows, California. Midway-Sunset is a party to several proceedings pending at the FERC because Midway-Sunset was a seller in the PX market during 2000 and 2001, both for its own account and on behalf of SCE and PG&E, the utilities to which the majority of Midway-Sunset’s power was contracted for sale. As a seller into the PX market, Midway-Sunset is potentially liable for refunds to purchasers in these markets.

The claims asserted against Midway-Sunset for refunds related to power sold into the PX market, including power sold on behalf of SCE and PG&E, are estimated to be less than $70 million for all periods under consideration. Midway-Sunset did not retain any proceeds from power sold into the PX market on behalf of SCE and PG&E in excess of the amounts to which it was entitled under the pre-existing power sales contracts, but instead passed through those proceeds to the utilities. Since the proceeds were passed through to the utilities, EME believes that PG&E and SCE are obligated to reimburse Midway-Sunset for any refund liability that it incurs as a result of sales made into the PX market on their behalves.

24

Table of Contents

On December 20, 2007, Midway-Sunset entered into a settlement agreement with SCE, PG&E, SDG&E and certain California state parties to resolve Midway-Sunset’s liability in the FERC refund proceedings. Midway-Sunset concurrently entered into a separate agreement with SCE and PG&E that provides for pro-rata reimbursement to Midway-Sunset by the two utilities of the portions of the agreed to refunds that are attributable to sales made by Midway-Sunset for the benefit of the utilities. The settlement, which had been approved previously by the CPUC was approved by FERC on April 2, 2008.

During the period in which Midway-Sunset’s generation was sold into the PX market, amounts SCE received from Midway-Sunset for its pro-rata share of such sales were credited to SCE’s customers against power purchase expenses through the ratemaking mechanism in place at that time. SCE believes that the net amounts to be reimbursed to Midway-Sunset are recoverable from its customers through current regulatory mechanisms. Edison International does not expect any refund payment to be made by Midway-Sunset, or any SCE reimbursement to Midway-Sunset, to have a material impact on earnings.

Midwest Generation Potential Environmental Proceeding

On August 3, 2007, Midwest Generation received an NOV from the US EPA alleging that, beginning in the early 1990’s 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 Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements and of the New Source Performance Standards of the Clean Air Act, including alleged requirements to obtain a construction permit and to install best available control technology at the time of the projects. The US EPA also alleges that Midwest Generation and Commonwealth Edison violated certain operating permit requirements under Title V of the Clean Air Act. Finally, the US EPA alleges violations of certain opacity and particulate matter standards at the Illinois Plants. The NOV does not specify the penalties or other relief that the US EPA seeks for the alleged violations. Midwest Generation, Commonwealth Edison, the US EPA, and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) are in talks designed to explore the possibility of a settlement. If the settlement talks fail and the DOJ files suit, litigation could take many years to resolve the issues alleged in the NOV. As a result, Midwest Generation is investigating the claims made by the US EPA in the NOV and has identified several defenses which it will raise if the government files suit. At this early stage in the process, Midwest Generation cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the impact on its facilities, its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

On August 13, 2007, Midwest Generation and Commonwealth Edison received a letter signed by several Chicago-based environmental action groups stating that, in light of the NOV, the groups are examining the possibility of filing a citizen suit against Midwest Generation and Commonwealth Edison based presumably on the same or similar theories advanced by the US EPA in the NOV.

By letter dated August 8, 2007, Commonwealth Edison advised EME that Commonwealth Edison believes it is entitled to indemnification for all liabilities, costs, and expenses that it may be required to bear as a result of the NOV. By letter dated August 16, 2007, Commonwealth Edison tendered a request for indemnification to EME for all liabilities, costs, and expenses that Commonwealth Edison may be required to bear if the environmental groups were to file suit. Midwest Generation and Commonwealth Edison are cooperating with one another in responding to the NOV.

Navajo Nation Litigation

The Navajo Nation filed a complaint in June 1999 in the D.C. District Court against SCE, among other defendants, arising out of the coal supply agreement for Mohave. The complaint asserts claims for, among other things, violations of the federal RICO statute, interference with fiduciary duties and contractual relations, fraudulent misrepresentations by nondisclosure, and various contract-related claims. The complaint claims that the defendants’ actions prevented the Navajo Nation from obtaining the full value in royalty rates for the coal supplied to Mohave. The complaint seeks damages of not less than $600 million, trebling of that amount, and

25

Table of Contents

punitive damages of not less than $1 billion. In March 2001, the Hopi Tribe was permitted to intervene as an additional plaintiff but has not yet identified a specific amount of damages claimed.

In April 2004, the D.C. District Court denied SCE’s motion for summary judgment and concluded that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in an on-going related lawsuit by the Navajo Nation against the U.S. Government did not preclude the Navajo Nation from pursuing its RICO and intentional tort claims. In September 2007, the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court decision on remand in the related lawsuit, finding that the U.S. Government had breached its trust obligation in connection with the setting of the royalty rate for the coal supplied to Mohave. Subsequently, the Federal Circuit denied the U.S. Government’s petition for rehearing. The U.S. Government may, however, still seek review by the Supreme Court of the Federal Circuit’s September decision. The Government’s deadline for seeking such review has been extended to May 13, 2008.

Pursuant to a joint request of the parties, the D.C. District Court granted a stay of the action in October 2004 to allow the parties to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the issues associated with Mohave with the assistance of a facilitator. In a joint status report filed on November 9, 2007, the parties informed the court that their mediation efforts had terminated and subsequently filed a joint motion to lift the stay. The parties have also filed recommendations for a scheduling order to govern the anticipated resumption of litigation. The Court granted the motion to lift the stay on March 6, 2008, reinstating the case to the active calendar, but has deferred setting an overall schedule for the action pending a determination of disputes concerning the discoverability of certain Navajo documents. SCE cannot predict the outcome of the Navajo Nation’s and Hopi Tribe’s complaints against SCE or the ultimate impact on these complaints of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision and the on-going litigation by the Navajo Nation against the U.S. Government in the related case.

Nuclear Insurance

Federal law limits public liability claims from a nuclear incident to the amount of available financial protection, which is currently approximately $10.8 billion. SCE and other owners of San Onofre and Palo Verde have purchased the maximum private primary insurance available ($300 million). The balance is covered by the industry’s retrospective rating plan that uses deferred premium charges to every reactor licensee if a nuclear incident at any licensed reactor in the United States results in claims and/or costs which exceed the primary insurance at that plant site.

Federal regulations require this secondary level of financial protection. The NRC exempted San Onofre Unit 1 from this secondary level, effective June 1994. The current maximum deferred premium for each nuclear incident is approximately $101 million per reactor, but not more than $15 million per reactor may be charged in any one year for each incident. The maximum deferred premium per reactor and the yearly assessment per reactor for each nuclear incident will be adjusted for inflation at least once every five years beginning August 20, 2003. The next inflation adjustment should occur no later than August 20, 2008. Based on its ownership interests, SCE could be required to pay a maximum of approximately $201 million per nuclear incident. However, it would have to pay no more than approximately $30 million per incident in any one year. Such amounts include a 5% surcharge if additional funds are needed to satisfy public liability claims and are subject to adjustment for inflation. If the public liability limit above 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.

Property damage insurance covers losses up to $500 million, including decontamination costs, at San Onofre and Palo Verde. Decontamination liability and property damage coverage exceeding the primary $500 million also has been purchased in amounts greater than federal requirements. Additional insurance covers part of replacement power expenses during an accident-related nuclear unit outage. A mutual insurance company owned by utilities with nuclear facilities issues these policies. If losses at any nuclear facility covered by the arrangement were to exceed the accumulated funds for these insurance programs, SCE could be assessed retrospective premium adjustments of up to approximately $45 million per year. Insurance premiums are charged to operating expense.

26

Table of Contents

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Outage and Inspection

The NRC held three special inspections of Palo Verde, between March 2005 and February 2007. The combination of the results of the first and third special inspections caused the NRC to undertake an additional oversight inspection of Palo Verde. This additional inspection, known as a supplemental inspection, was completed in December 2007. In addition, Palo Verde was required to take additional corrective actions based on the outcome of completed surveys of its plant personnel and self-assessments of its programs and procedures. The NRC and APS defined and agreed to inspection and survey corrective actions that the NRC embodied in a Confirmatory Action Letter, which was issued in February 2008. Palo Verde operation and maintenance costs (including overhead) increased in 2007 by approximately $7 million from 2006. SCE estimates that operation and maintenance costs will increase by approximately $23 million (in 2007 dollars) over the two year period 2008 – 2009, from 2007 recorded costs including overhead costs. SCE is unable to estimate how long SCE will continue to incur these costs.

Procurement of Renewable Resources

California law requires SCE to increase its procurement of 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.

SCE filed its compliance report in March 2008. Through the use of flexible compliance rules, SCE demonstrated full compliance for the procurement year 2007 and forecasted full compliance for the procurement years 2008 to 2010. It is unlikely that SCE will have 20% of its annual electricity sales procured from renewable resources by 2010. However, SCE may still meet the 20% target by utilizing the flexible compliance rules. SCE continues to engage in several renewable procurement activities including formal solicitations approved by the CPUC, bilateral negotiations with individual projects and other initiatives.

Under current CPUC decisions, potential penalties for SCE’s failure to achieve its renewable procurement objectives for any year will be considered by the CPUC in the context of the CPUC’s review of SCE’s annual compliance filing. Under the CPUC’s current rules, the maximum penalty for failing to achieve renewable procurement targets is $25 million per year. SCE cannot predict whether it will be assessed penalties.

Scheduling Coordinator Tariff Dispute

Pursuant to the Amended and Restated Exchange Agreement, SCE serves as a scheduling coordinator for the DWP over the ISO-controlled grid. In late 2003, SCE began charging the DWP under a tariff subject to refund for FERC-authorized scheduling coordinator and line loss charges incurred by SCE on the DWP’s behalf. The scheduling coordinator charges had been billed to the DWP under a FERC tariff that was subject to dispute. The DWP has paid the amounts billed under protest but requested that the FERC declare that SCE was obligated to serve as the DWP’s scheduling coordinator without charge. The FERC accepted SCE’s tariff for filing, but held that the rates charged to the DWP have not been shown to be just and reasonable and thus made them subject to refund and further review by the FERC.

In January 2008, an agreement between SCE and the DWP was executed settling the dispute discussed above. The settlement had been previously approved by the FERC in July 2007. The settlement agreement provides that the DWP will be responsible for line losses and SCE would be responsible for the scheduling coordinator charges. During the fourth quarter of 2007, SCE reversed and recognized in earnings (under the caption “Purchased power” in the consolidated statements of income) $30 million of an accrued liability representing line losses previously collected from the DWP that were subject to refund. As of December 31, 2007, SCE had an accrued liability of approximately $22 million (including $3 million of interest) representing the estimated amount SCE will refund for scheduling coordinator charges previously collected from the DWP. SCE made its first refund payment on February 20, 2008 and the second refund payment was made on February 27, 2008. SCE previously received FERC approval to recover the scheduling coordinator charges from all transmission grid

27

Table of Contents

customers through SCE’s transmission rates and on December 11, 2007, the FERC accepted SCE’s proposed transmission rates reflecting the forecast levels of costs associated with the settlement. Upon signing of the agreement in January 2008, SCE recorded a regulatory asset and recognized in earnings the amount of scheduling coordinator charges to be collected through rates. SCE filed a refund report with the FERC on March 4, 2008. Subsequently, DWP filed with FERC two separate requests to extend the comment period for the refund report in order to verify that the amounts refunded by SCE to DWP are appropriate. The deadline for comments is now May 27, 2008. SCE expects that there will be no material change to the refunds provided to DWP as a result of DWP’s review of the refund report.

Spent Nuclear Fuel

Under federal law, the DOE is responsible for the selection and construction of a facility for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The DOE did not meet its obligation to begin acceptance of spent nuclear fuel not later than January 31, 1998. It is not certain when the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from San Onofre or other nuclear power plants. Extended delays by the DOE have led to the construction of costly alternatives and associated siting and environmental issues. SCE has paid the DOE the required one-time fee applicable to nuclear generation at San Onofre through April 6, 1983 (approximately $24 million, plus interest). SCE is also paying the required quarterly fee equal to 0.1¢ per-kWh of nuclear-generated electricity sold after April 6, 1983. On January 29, 2004, SCE, as operating agent, filed a complaint against the DOE in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking damages for the DOE’s failure to meet its obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from San Onofre. The case was stayed through April 7, 2006, when SCE and the DOE filed a Joint Status Report in which SCE sought to lift the stay and the government opposed lifting the stay. On June 5, 2006, the Court of Federal Claims lifted the stay on SCE’s case and established a discovery schedule. In a Joint Status Report filed on February 22, 2008, the parties agreed that a trial date should be set. SCE requested that a trial date be set as soon as practicable and the government requested that the trial not occur before November 2008, due to government resource commitments regarding other pending cases. The Court has not yet acted on the requests for a trial date.

SCE has primary responsibility for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel generated at San Onofre. Spent nuclear fuel is stored in the San Onofre Units 2 and 3 spent fuel pools and the San Onofre independent spent fuel storage installation where all of Unit 1’s spent fuel located at San Onofre and some of Unit 2’s spent fuel is stored. SCE, as operating agent, plans to transfer fuel from the Unit 2 and 3 spent fuel pools to the independent storage installation on an as-needed basis to maintain full core off-load capability for Units 2 and 3. There are now sufficient dry casks and modules available at the independent spent fuel storage installation to meet plant requirements through 2008. SCE plans to add storage capacity incrementally to meet the plant requirements until 2022 (the end of the current NRC operating license).

In order to increase on-site storage capacity and maintain core off-load capability, Palo Verde has constructed an independent spent fuel storage facility. Arizona Public Service, as operating agent, plans to add storage capacity incrementally to maintain full core off-load capability for all three units.

28

Table of Contents

Unrealized losses on cash flow hedges, net of tax, at March 31, 2008, included unrealized losses on commodity hedges related to Midwest Generation and EME Homer City futures and forward electricity contracts that qualify for hedge accounting. These losses arise because current forecasts of future electricity prices in these markets are greater than the contract prices. As EME’s hedged positions for continuing operations are realized, $149 million, after tax, of the net unrealized losses on cash flow hedges at March 31, 2008 are expected to be reclassified into earnings during the next 12 months. Management expects that reclassification of net unrealized losses will decrease energy revenue recognized at market prices. Actual amounts ultimately reclassified into earnings over the next 12 months could vary materially from this estimated amount as a result of changes in market conditions. The maximum period over which a cash flow hedge is designated is through December 31, 2010.

Under SFAS No. 133, the portion of a cash flow hedge that does not offset the change in value of the transaction being hedged, which is commonly referred to as the ineffective portion, is immediately recognized in earnings. EME recorded net losses of $13 million and $1 million during the first quarters of 2008 and 2007, respectively, representing the amount of cash flow hedges’ ineffectiveness for continuing operations, reflected in nonutility power generation revenue in Edison International’s consolidated income statements.

Note 7. Supplemental Cash Flows Information

Edison International’s supplemental cash flows information is: