XML 33 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Regulatory and Environmental Developments

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Regulatory and Environmental Developments

Regulatory and Environmental Developments

Note 10. Regulatory and Environmental Developments

Environmental Developments

Water Quality

Once-Through Cooling Issues

In March 2011, the US EPA issued proposed standards under the federal Clean Water Act which would affect cooling water intake structures at generating facilities. The standards are intended to protect aquatic organisms by reducing capture in screens attached to cooling water intake structures (impingement) and in the water volume brought into the facilities (entrainment). The regulations are expected to be finalized by July 2012. SCE is evaluating the proposed standards and believes, from a preliminary review, that compliance with the proposed standards regarding impingement will be achievable without incurring material additional capital expenditures or operating costs. The required measures to comply with the proposed standards regarding entrainment are subject to the discretion of the permitting authority, and SCE is unable at this time to assess potential costs of compliance, which could be significant for San Onofre.

In addition to the proposed draft US EPA standards, the existing California once-through cooling policy may result in significant capital expenditures at San Onofre and may affect its operations. If other coastal power plants in California that rely on once-through cooling are forced to shut down or limit operations, the California policy may also significantly impact SCE's ability to procure generating capacity from those plants, which could have an adverse effect on system reliability and the cost of electricity.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

California Air Resources Board's ("CARB") regulations implementing a California cap-and-trade program continue to be the subject of litigation. In June 2011, the CARB announced that initial cap-and-trade program compliance for the electricity sector would be delayed until January 2013.

In April 2011, California enacted a law requiring that California utilities to procure 33% of their electricity requirements from renewable resources, as defined in the statute. The law requires implementation by the CPUC. The impact of the new 33% law will depend on how the CPUC implements the law, which remains uncertain.

Greenhouse Gas Litigation Developments

In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed public nuisance claims against five power companies, ruling that the CAA and the US EPA actions it authorizes displace federal common law nuisance claims that might arise from the emission of greenhouse gases. The court also affirmed the Second Circuit's determination that at least some of the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case. The court did not address whether the CAA also preempts state law claims arising from the same circumstances.

Parties to the Kivalina case, the appeal of which was deferred before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pending the Supreme Court's ruling described above, have requested that the appeal recommence and have asked for permission to file additional briefs on the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling. The Kivalina case was brought by the Alaskan Native Village of Kivalina seeking damages of up to $400 million for the cost of relocating the village because the plaintiffs claim that the Arctic ice that has protected the village is melting as a result of climate change. The federal district court dismissed the case against Edison International and the other defendants in October 2009.

On May 27, 2011, private citizens filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, naming among a large number of defendants, Edison International and its subsidiaries, including SCE . Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' activities resulted in emissions of substantial quantities of greenhouse gases that have contributed to climate change and sea level rise, which in turn are alleged to have increased the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina. The lawsuit alleges causes of action for negligence, public and private nuisance, and trespass, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The claims in this lawsuit are nearly identical to a subset of the claims that were raised against many of the same defendants in a previous lawsuit that was filed in, and dismissed by, the same federal district court where the current case has been filed.