With a combined revenue of $21 trillion and $2.1 trillion in profits, the 2026 Fortune 500 is the definitive list of America's largest companies.

Fortune 500

This ranking evaluates how Fortune 500 companies are deploying AI, and how technology leaders value those investments relative to industry peers.

Fortune AIQ 50

Almost $20 trillion in revenue—and a record-breaking $1.87 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2025 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

Industries included in the sector are mining, oil and gas exploration and services, pipelines, refining, and utilities.

Fortune Sector Leaders: Energy

The Fortune 500, in its 70th year in 2024, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

The Fortune 500, in its 69th year in 2023, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 68th running of the list.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 67th running of the list.

F500-2021-226-Edison International

The 135-year-old public utility holding company operates powerhouses like Southern California Edison and Edison Energy. More recently, Southern California Edison debuted an ambitious plan dubbed Reimagining the Grid, detailing how energy infrastructure and management needs to adapt in order meet California’s greenhouse gas reduction goals. In 2020, its revenues grew 10% to some $13.6 billion.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 66th running of the list.

F500-2020-259-Edison-International

The parent company of Southern California Edison generates and distributes electric power, energy services, and renewable energy.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 65th running of the list.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2018 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

World's Most Admired Companies

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 64th running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 63rd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 62nd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Fortune Global 500

Company Info

Industry

Location

Industry Rank

Previous Industry Rank

Website

Overall Score

Key Attributes Of Reputation

Innovation

People Management

Use of Corporate Assets

Social Responsibility

Quality of Management

Financial Soundness

Long-Term Investment Value

Quality of Products/Services

Global Competitiveness

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

Edison International, a public utility holding company, is the parent company of Southern California Edison (SCE). It generates and distributes electric power, energy services, and renewable energy, serving approximately 15 million people within about 50,000 square miles in California. SCE operates an infrastructure that includes approximately 125,000 circuit miles of distribution and bulk transmission lines and 1.4 million power poles. It has a stated goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 95% between 2005 and 2045. Edison International's other subsidiary, Trio, was formerly named Edison Energy and is an advisory company that helps other organizations navigate sustainability and clean energy transition goals and requirements.

Q2 2026

Q1 2026

Q4 2025

Q3 2025

Q2 2025

Q1 2025

Q4 2024

Q3 2024

Edison International (EIX): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

Edison International

edison international

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Edison International Third Quarter 2024 Financial Teleconference. My name is Sheila, and I will be your operator today. When we get to the question and answer session, if you have a question, press star 1 on your phone. Today's call is being recorded. 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, Sheila, and welcome, everyone. Our speakers today are President and Chief Executive Officer, Pedro Pizzaro and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Maria Regardi. Also on the call are other members of the management team. Materials supporting today's call are available at www.edisoninvestor.com. These include a Form 10 Q, 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.

Well, thanks, Sam, and good afternoon, everyone. Edison International's core earnings per share for Q3 2024 was $1.51 bringing year to date core EPS to $3.88 With this strong year to date performance, we are confident in narrowing our 2024 core EPS guidance to $4.80 to $5 Additionally, we remain confident in our ability to meet our 2025 EPS guidance and delivering a 5% to 7% EPS CAGR through 20.28. My remarks today include 3 important takeaways. First, SCE continues to demonstrate its ability to navigate the regulatory landscape and is in the final stages of 2 key regulatory proceedings, reaching a settlement agreement in the TKM cost recovery application and awaiting a proposed decision in the 2025 GRC, which will solidify our financial outlook through 2028. 2nd, our team has achieved remarkable success over the last years, managing unprecedented external risks, making our operations more resilient and positioning us strongly for the growth ahead.

3rd, we recently reaffirmed our net zero commitment in our latest white paper. Reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2,045 is a core pillar of our climate related risk management. Starting with a couple of constructive updates on the regulatory front, SCE is in the final stages of resolving the legacy wildfires. We have provided an update on Page 3. You saw that in August, the utility reached an agreement with Cal Advocates to settle the TKM application.

Once approved by the CPUC, the settlement would authorize recovery of 60% of the costs or $1,600,000,000 This settlement marks a significant milestone and is a good compromise all around. Customers and the state benefit from the demonstration of a strong regulatory framework and constructive negotiations with interveners, as do you, our owners. It is also another clear indication of the utility's ability to navigate the complex regulatory landscape. SCE recently filed the Woolsey cost recovery application, which we expect to take about 18 months to complete. SCE made a strong case supporting the prudency of its operations and the claims settlement process.

But with the proceeding just underway, it is premature to speculate about the ultimate outcome. As a reminder, we have not factored cost recovery for these legacy events into our earnings targets. Thus, the TKM settlement and the eventual outcome in Woolsey will be additive to our core operational growth. SCE's rapid response to mitigate wildfire risk also resulted in numerous regulatory applications. These included 2021 GRC Tracks 2 and 3, a couple of WEMA applications, several SIMAS, 3 AB1054 seconduritizations and several others.

SCE has achieved strong regulatory outcomes, recovering substantial amounts of prior spending in rates and expecting another $3,000,000,000 of incremental cash flow over the coming years. Upcoming on the regulatory calendar, our decisions on the TKM settlement and the 2025 GRC, both of which we believe could happen in the first half of next year. The decisions will solidify our financial outlook for 2028. Capital investment enabled by the GRC is the driver for the growth and customer benefits necessary to ensure the grid is reliable, resilient and ready to achieve the clean energy transition. We are confident in getting a strong outcome SCE's customers that will also enable us to deliver on our commitment of a 5% to 7% EPS CAGR through 2028 with minimal equity needs.

Staying with the California regulatory environment, a couple of weeks ago, the commission changed the cost of capital mechanism and the investor owned utilities' 2025 ROEs. While it only applies to 2025, we believe the decision is unfortunate and the process was disappointing. That said, this is just one of numerous business and regulatory outcomes that we manage in delivering on our commitments. I reiterate our confidence in delivering on our 2025 EPS and long term EPS growth commitments. Moving on to SCE's core operations.

I am proud of our team's ability to manage unprecedented climate challenges and navigate the numerous associated regulatory applications over the last several years. As you can see on Page 5, we have made remarkable strides in reinforcing our operational resilience and financial stability. Our robust performance is a testament to our strategic initiatives and the dedication of our workforce, my teammates. To address the climate challenges, you have seen the results of SCE's industry leading wildfire mitigation plan for several years now. Wildfires will always be a part of California, exacerbated by climate change.

And the number of acres burned so far this year is roughly in line with the 5 year average. What is important though is that SCE has adapted its operations and managed the risk. To drive this point home, page 6 shows the significant reduction in ACRES burn from SCE's ignitions in high fire risk areas since 2017 and that this has happened while ignitions have been relatively flat, despite several of these years having been extremely high fire risk periods. This is due to SCE's strong wildfire mitigation plan execution and increased state fire suppression. Importantly, none of the ignitions are from the failure of covered conductor, the cornerstone of SCE's grid hardening strategy.

Now with more than 6,100 miles of covered conductor deployed, SCE has physically hardened 85 percent of its distribution grid in high fire risk areas. Consequently, SCE's grid is more resilient, reliable and well positioned to focus on the growth ahead as we lead the clean energy transition. California will also continue to benefit from improved state fire suppression support and as other utilities in the state increase their grid hardening action. Moving to the bigger picture. Wildfires are just one way that climate change is impacting California's health, economy and quality of life.

Edison International is acting to create a safer, more affordable future with cleaner air and reduced risk of climate disasters. Reaching net 0 greenhouse gas emissions by 2,045 is a core pillar of our climate related risk management. We recently unveiled our latest white paper, Reaching Net 0, which builds on our previous analysis of what is needed for California to reach carbon neutrality. The publication focuses on Edison International's net zero plan and reaffirms our net zero commitment. As you see on Page 7, this plan is centered around delivering 100 percent carbon free power to SCE's customers as 85% of enterprise wide emissions are associated with power delivery.

In addition, we will reduce operational emissions, primarily by reducing those from the supply chain. Lastly, we project about 2,000,000 tons of emissions will remain across all scopes in 2,045. To fully decarbonize, we will need to neutralize those emissions, preferably through high quality carbon removal solutions or offsets. As always, we take a pragmatic approach to our analysis and findings. A key point of emphasis is that the state will need substantial deployment of clean firm generation to safely, reliably and affordably supply power 20 fourseven in any weather.

So one of the big and maybe surprising conclusions is that California must retain its existing natural gas generation fleet as insurance against delays in new technology development and deployment, though the generators will run significantly less often. The bottom line is that to reach net 0, nearly every sector of the economy will need to incorporate clean electricity. It will take much investment and cooperation between industry and government. The effort will be worth it for customers who will see a projected 40% reduction in their total energy costs by 2,045. With that, let me turn it over to Maria for her financial report.

Thanks, Pedro, and good afternoon. In my comments today, I would like to emphasize 3 key financial messages. First, we are very pleased with EIX's year to date financial performance, which reinforces our confidence in delivering yet another year of solid results. 2nd, on the regulatory front, SCE continues to generate cash flow by recovering past costs tracked in memo accounts and is making strong progress to the final stages of resolving the legacy wildfire. 3rd, we remain confident in our ability to deliver on our commitments for 2025 and beyond.

I will note that we plan to update our projections next year following a final decision in SCE's GRC. Let's start with a brief review of our Q3 results. EIX reported core EPS of $1.51 As you can see from the year over year quarterly variance analysis shown on Page 8, core earnings grew by $0.13 This EPS growth was primarily due to higher CPUC revenue authorized in track 4 of the 2021 GRC and higher authorized rates of return. Partially offsetting these drivers was higher interest expense associated with debt for wildfire claims payments. EIX, parents and other was in line with the same period last year.

Our quarterly results bring year to date EPS to $3.88 and this strong performance is largely driven by O and M benefiting from a combination of efficient execution and timing. Pages 9 and 10 show SCE's capital and rate base forecasts, which are consistent with last quarter's disclosures. We expect our next major update to the capital plan will follow a final decision in SCE's 2025 GRC. In addition to the capital investment supported by the GRC, the utility is working on the standalone application for its next generation enterprise resource planning system, which is expected to be filed in the next 6 months. Further, SCE expects to file the advanced metering infrastructure 2.0 application 2025.

Combined, these represent over $2,000,000,000 of CPUC jurisdictional capital investments. SCE also has more than $2,000,000,000 of FERC transmission projects in development. Both the incremental CPC and FERC spending are upside to our current capital plan. Turning to Page 11, following strong regulatory outcomes in recent years, SDE has recovered about $4,500,000,000 since 2021. In this quarter's update, you will notice one new item, the securitization that we expect will follow approval of the TKM settlement agreement.

After a final decision on the settlement, SCE will file an application to request approval to securitize the $1,600,000,000 recovery, targeting completion of a financing by year end 2025. In total, the cash flow already received and expected over the next couple of years significantly strengthens our balance sheet and credit metrics. Not only that, but we should also see the amounts recovered through memo accounts decline over time as these activities are built into SCE's GRCs going forward, simplifying the regulatory process. I would now like to expand on the status of fully resolving the legacy wildfires. SCE has now received demands for 95% of TKM and 94% of Woolsey outstanding individual plaintiff claims and the utility continues to work swiftly to resolve them.

Under the settlement agreement, the same 60% recovery ratio will apply to the remaining TKM costs, net of a previously agreed to disallowance. For Woolsey, SCE also proposed a process to recover claims paid after the date the application was filed. The best estimate of total losses remained unchanged this quarter as additional settlements have been in line with expectations. Turning to EPS guidance. Page 12 shows our 2024 core EPS guidance and modeling considerations.

We are pleased with our very strong year to date performance, which also gives us the opportunity to continue pulling forward O and M for the benefit of customers. With 9 months of results behind us and based on our outlook for the remainder of the year, we are very comfortable with narrowing our EPS guidance to $4.80 to $5 Turning to Page 13, we have refreshed the modeling considerations for 2025. I'll note a couple of items. First, we've updated rate based EPS to reflect the CPUC decision on cost of capital that Pedro mentioned. Secondly, continuing the trend, we see favorable cost management flexibility driven by the pace of O and M reinvestment and financing benefits.

Lastly, I want to emphasize that we have not incorporated the benefits from the TKM settlement agreement into this refresh, which would be incremental to our forecast. I will now discuss the plan for updating our guidance and long term outlook. At a macro level, let me note that the moderating interest rate environment removes the financing headwind we have faced in recent years. Additionally, cost recovery in the legacy wildfire proceedings provides a tailwind. Looking at our core operations, SCE's GRC is the driver for our high quality earnings growth.

As Pedro mentioned, we are hoping to see a CPUC decision in the first half of next year. Once SCE gets a final decision from the CPUC on the GRC, we will update our capital plan, financing plan, 2025 EPS guidance and EPS growth forecast factoring in the TKM settlement. So what gives us confidence in achieving our 2025 core EPS guidance of $5.50 to $5.90 and growing earnings by 5% to 7% through 2028? There are 2 key factors. First is the strength of SCE's GRC and progress throughout the proceedings.

SCE made a strong case and even based on intervenor's positions, SCE's rate base growth would still be in line with its range case forecast of 6%. 2nd is our ability to manage the numerous variables in the business as we've demonstrated year in and year out over the last 2 decades. Additionally, it is important to reiterate that our guidance does not incorporate the upside from the TKM settlement. As you saw on Page 3, that total upside to 20.25 core EPS is about $0.44 and the ongoing annual benefit beyond 20.25 is 0 point 14 I'll conclude by saying that our strong financial discipline enables us to deliver not only on our financial targets, but also to continue SCE's cost leadership for customers, given that affordability is a key component of the clean energy transition. That concludes my remarks and back to you Sam.

Sheila, please open the call 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.

Our first question will come from Mike Lonergan with Evercore ISI. Your line is open.

Hi, thanks for taking my question. So on the general rate case,

you could share your latest thoughts on it in the context around affordability concerns in California. We've seen the change in the formula for the cost of capital trigger mechanism and a proposed decision in SG and G and E and SoCalGas rate case that cut attrition to your revenues.

Yes. Thanks, Michael. Appreciate having you on the call. And let me start by reminding folks of the comments we've made in other places. As we look at the rate trajectory for Southern California Edison, we, I think, said in the last quarter, we see that going back to levels at or below local inflation from 24 on to 28.

So we think affordability is key. We are fortunate that the increases embedded in the general rate case are offset by a number of other items so that we can end up delivering that around inflation performance in terms of rate trajectory over the next several years. Looking beyond that, the point that I make quickly in my remarks and that I know we stress at other times is that as we look at the continued investments needed over the longer term beyond our 20 28 guidance period for driving the clean energy transition, We see those, continue to put pressure likely around inflation levels for the electric rates. We see electric bills increasing because people will be using more electricity. But as you look at the total energy bill of electric gasoline plus natural gas, we see that total bill for our average customer going down 40% in real terms to 2,045.

And importantly, their share of wallet, the amount of their household income that they're spending on that total energy bill, which today is 7% goes to 3% in our analysis by 2,045. So all of those can give you a near term answer and a long term answer and both are important as we make the case and help educate our customers and our policymakers.

Yes. Michael, maybe I'll just add on a little bit. So you definitely referred to affordability being a theme. And you're right. Every rate case is different, every proceeding is different, but that affordability theme is consistent through all of them.

When SCE filed its application, it had that affordability lens in everything that it asked for and all of its justifications. In fact, they introduced savings into the GRC that they had already accumulated between GRC periods. I think one really important factor to note is that even intervener positions in response to our application still have about a 6% growth rate on rate base. So we've had this focus on affordability for a long time. We've integrated it into our rate case and we think you're seeing that sort of responsiveness from interveners.

And we'll get the general rate case decision as we noted early in the 1st part of next year.

Thank you. And then secondly from me, you've been talking about load growth materializing sooner than expected. You've mentioned potentially reprioritizing CapEx in the GRC or pursuing alternative funding approaches through separate applications. Just wondering what you're alternative funding approaches through separate applications. Just wondering what your latest thinking is around this.

Well, we have the benefit of having prepared the GRC forecast in a time period when we're already seeing some of that acceleration in load. And so I think that as we look at certainly 2025, we have a pretty good beat on what is needed. As we look into the later years of their rate case, we'll see 1st and foremost what final decision we get and what capital levels embedded in there. We continue to have the ability to reprioritize capital to deploy it against the most pressing needs. And if we were to determine later on that we need more capital support beyond the GRC decision, there's a couple of different avenues, including the SB410 mechanism or mechanism into the rate case process.

So it's come up in the high distribution high distributed energy resource proceeding. So a couple of different avenues. But right now, I think we're focused on continuing to press for a good rate case outcome and prioritizing from there. Anything to add, Maria? Thanks, Michael.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. You may proceed.

guys. Hi. So Pedro, just in terms of the TKM settlement, beyond the $0.14 of run rate EPS improvement, does kind of the balance sheet flexibility from the memo account recovery plus TKM leave room for taking out some of the maybe the equity like instruments that were supporting wildfire claims like the prefs and the junior subordinated. So your metrics are improving. Could you take down some of the equity?

Would that be accretive to sort of your plan right now? Thanks.

Hi, Shar. Thanks for the question. Yes. So I think 1st and foremost, we have the framework of 15% to 17% FFO to debt. I think the first thing that we would look at is the $100,000,000 a year of equity that we've said is in our plan because as long as we're solid on the balance sheet, that might not be necessary.

As we move forward in time, we will be looking at the hybrids. I think those don't actually really come into play until 2026 and then even beyond that. But that's definitely an opportunity that we will be looking at.

Got it. Incremental to the plan, right? So that's not something that you're embedding in the plan right now.

Yes. We'll take a look at that as we get closer and closer to those reset dates.

Okay, great. And then as you guys note the assumption changes for ROE in 2025 in the slides, Can you clarify if the offset in operation variance is driven by pulling back some of the reinvestment that was originally planned? How much of the financing benefit that you're kind of calling out contributes to that $0.20 positive there? Thanks.

Yes. So when we obviously got the final decision on the ROE, we wanted to update the rate base math for that. That's something that we've done in the past few cycles because since we've given this guidance, we've gone through a number of cost of capital situations. At the same time that we did that, we thought it would be appropriate to update sort of those high level modeling considerations that we provided. But remember, those are high level considerations.

We operate the business at a much more granular level. So we took a look at many, many things and many, many factors across the business. One aspect of what we did was we looked at financing costs. We put those assumptions out there a number of years ago. We've obviously worked through a number of different interest rate environments at this point, both in terms of the underlying rates as well as spreads.

And we do see cost benefits across the board, including in the operational variances area, but across the other elements as well. The other thing that we looked at, which is really a lever that we have every year, is that reinvestment rate. I mentioned earlier that even in 2024, we have the flexibility to pull forward O and M costs into 2024 to the benefit of customers and that gives us further flexibility as we move forward. Did the same thing with 2025. We're not quantifying every penny down to the net, but I think that that's the sort of work that we did as we went through the process for the quarter.

And I would just stress, Maria, you covered it well. Shar, hopefully, you walk away with a sense of our commitment to managing the business well for our customers and meeting our commitment to all of you around our 20252028 targets.

Perfect. No, that's loud and clear. I appreciate that. Thank you. See you in a couple of weeks.

Our next question will come from Anthony Krowdow with Mizuho. Your line is open.

Hey, Anthony. Hey, good afternoon, Pedro. Good afternoon, Maria. Just I guess, two quick questions. I think you talked about giving or providing an update once you get a GRC decision in 2025.

At that time, do you think we'll have clarity on Techem and Woolsey and the update you provide will incorporate GRC plus the 2 wildfire proceedings?

So the schedule for TKM and the GRC, we're thinking in the first half of the year. So hopefully, we'll have the ability to do both incorporate both of those. Woolsey, it's early in the process, Anthony. I think we just filed the application relatively recently. Interveners haven't yet filed their response.

That will bring us through we won't have a pre hearing conference until later this year. So we're going to work through the process. But what I want to emphasize is the same way that we treated TCAM where we weren't incorporating any benefits from a settlement or a litigated process until we saw it happening and we get a decision. Same thing for Woolsey. I think it's just much more straightforward if we keep that out and you'll just see the strength of the underlying business in our numbers.

Great. And my last question, maybe challenging to answer, but just some of the investors were concerned as the change in the cost of capital happened in year 3 of a 3 year mechanism that we thought was kind of set, even though there wasn't a triggering event. And as you look forward to the next cost of capital period or cycle, I guess the right word, I mean, how do you give investors assurances that we may not see another mid cycle change? Again, we don't know what happens on the macro environment, whether there's a cost of capital trigger, but just the uncertainty that this was really a unique event and that we shouldn't expect something mid cycle unless there was a trigger going forward.

Anthony, maybe let me start on that one and I'll take a bit of a broader aperture on it. I mean, you did hear me say in my comments that we were disappointed with that specific decision, but then we put it in the broader context of the regulatory environment in California, right? And so I know as I sit down with investors and talk about this, I always point to making sure we're looking at the whole broad picture of the framework here and the remarkable strengthening of the framework we have lived through over the last half decade, And so when you think about when the wildfire period started and the uncertainty around that and you saw us work through that, you saw the state work through that and importantly, you've seen the CPUC work through implementation of AB1054. You've seen the CPUC work through a number of other proceedings. Maria talked about the past number of memo accounts where we've been recovering cash from them.

There are a number of things that have been highly constructive in this environment. And I'm not a big sports guy, but since baseball is a big thing right now, nobody bats 1,000, right? And so you're going to get a few misses here and there. But I think overall, we're seeing a CPUC in a state that is committed to having a robust regulatory framework that maintains the financial health of utilities that gives certainty to investors. We're going to disagree with a few of the things that they do and that's a bit of life.

But we would expect as we turn to the 26 to 28 cost of capital proceeding, I think you've seen the table set in terms of some clarity and what came out of 25%. We will come in with very strong arguments for why we see a continued need for the California premium that has been supported over the last couple of decades and we'll take it from there. And in the meantime, we're going to be looking for constructive regulation out of the general rate case decision. You saw the very constructive set outcome with Cal Advocates on the TKM settlement. So again, a number of other proof points around the continued strengthening of the environment here.

And since I said, since I use a sports analogy, which I really do, but since I know a number of you are in New York at the risk of impairing what you write about us, go Dodgers.

Thanks so much for taking my question, Pedro, and see you in Hollywood.

Our next question will come from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. You may proceed.

The so just maybe a little more color on the GRC timing and just because both PG and E and Sempra's cases kind of went well into the toward the end of the year. Just are you hopeful on timing of first half just because there's less differential in positions? Or maybe just a little more color on timing? And I guess also, is there a chance to settle more of the issues before we get to an order?

Yes. So Steve, I think, as we've worked through the proceeding, we've seen the ALJ and all the parties meet every deadline. There are a few days here and there where people got extensions, but it's been very much according to the schedule. At this point, all of the documents are submitted, everybody is finished with their written briefs, etcetera, and we're really waiting on the ALJs to write the proposed decision. We think that, there certainly is time to get a decision in the first half of the year with the other GRCs now sort of moving past or through to resolution, we think that also that helps a little bit with the staffing issues.

Not everybody works on everything, but it's always more helpful when you're clear of that. So we do think that, the first half of next year right now looks like a reasonable time frame for us. In terms of additional settlements, procedurally that is actually behind us now in terms of settling different things. These are very complex cases and to have an overall settlement is typically reasonably difficult. But as you know from some of the discussion last quarter, we have settled a number of different items, which helps to streamline, sort of what is remaining for the proposed and final decision.

So we do think that we've moved through a fair amount of items, but we'll be waiting for a final decision in the first half of next year.

Okay. And then I guess the one missing piece would be the cost of capital for the next 3 years, which I guess that won't affect 25, but just that won't be decided probably till the end of 25 for the

Yes. So we will file in March and typically the commission has a very long track record of getting those decisions out before the end of the year. So you kind of know what you're dealing with as you get into the 1st year of the 3 year cycle. We're going to file the same kind of cost of capital proceeding we have in the past, which is to really look at all the issues both from a quantitative perspective as well as a qualitative perspective. And we will be continuing to emphasize the California premium, the thing that the commission has talked about in the past as well and may in fact coin the phrase.

Because of all the differential work that we that the IOUs in California do relative to other jurisdictions. I'll note though that as we think about the longer term and we've talked about the 5% to 7% compound annual growth through 2028, We've said that consistently in different ROE environments. And so it has moved around a little bit over the past few years. Some have been less than where we are today, some have been more than where we are today. We've given some sensitivities, so folks can understand sort of the magnitude change, but we're confident that we can manage the business along those lines regardless.

Our next question comes from Brian Levine with Citi. Your line is open.

Hi, everybody. Hi, Brian. A couple of quick ones. In your Q, you highlighted that there was a change to the nuclear decommissioning trust estimate to $2,300,000,000 net to Edison. What drove that and what are the impacts to the financing plan?

Sure. So every 3 years, we do update the cost to decommission. That's part of our regulatory process. And as we do that 3 year look, we will be refreshing everything. Some of the things that change are just what's the expectation about when the federal government will remove the spent fuel from the site.

So all of those things go into the mix. The trust fund is very well funded and it does that change in the decommissioning trust has no impact on our financing plan.

Okay. And then maybe a follow-up or related in terms of 2025, is there any additional color you could provide around the some of the offsetting items to the cost of capital benefit outside of rate case outcomes?

Sure. So in terms of how we managed through and looked at all of those granular issues, it's a little bit, akin to what I said earlier on the call. So we took a look at, as an example, we had a lot of assumptions built in there around financing plans. And over the past 4 years, the time from which we first announced the numbers to now, we've actually done a good job at managing through various interest rates and environments. And from a portfolio perspective, we do find that we are doing better than we had originally assumed we would.

As we look forward into next year, we don't have too much left to finance for 2025, but we think that we can manage that as well through both timing of when we go out to market as well as again some more positive expectations about what the market will look like next year. When we think about more about the levers on the reinvestment side, we are always evaluating the timing and the quantum of what we're investing in the business. And that could range from anywhere around projects like inspections and maintenance. So can we pull some forward into 2024? Things like some telecom enhancements that potentially we can move around and that that will create some headroom.

And frankly, when we first announced changes related to the increase in the cost of capital, We were accelerating some things into 2025 to create benefit faster in the next rate case cycle. We can manage the timing of that as we like.

Next, we will hear from Greg Orrill with UBS. You may proceed.

Yes, thanks. Maybe a detail oriented question. What's involved in the next filing for the Generation Enterprise Resource Planning System? And maybe just another question on top of that, just your view in terms of the role of gas in California and how long that would be around if you could scale that at all? Thank you.

Thanks, Craig. Why don't we start with Steve on the ERP?

Edison International (EIX) Q3 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants