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 Second Quarter twenty twenty five Financial Teleconference. My name is Denise, and I will be your operator today.

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, Denise, and welcome, everyone. Our speakers today are President and Chief Executive Officer, Pedro Pizarro and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Maria Riccardi. 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 a regular business update presentation. During this call, we'll 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 Peter.

Thanks a lot, Sam, and good afternoon, everyone. Today, I will address three key topics for our investors: an update on the Ethan fire our confidence that California's legislature will support healthy investor owned utilities, and an update on regulatory decisions and future actions that position SCE well to deliver on its commitments for customers and other stakeholders. Let me start with a brief comment on earnings. Today, Edison International reported second quarter core earnings per share of $0.97 compared to $1.23 a year ago. However, as I have mentioned before, this year over year comparison is not particularly meaningful because SCE has not received a final decision in its 2025 general rate case.

Nonetheless, we remain confident in our ability to meet our 2025 EPS guidance and deliver a 5% to 7% core EPS CAGR through 2028. I will touch on the GRC proposed decision in a few minutes and Maria will discuss our financial performance in her remarks. On the Eaton fire, the investigations by SCE and the LA County Fire Department remain ongoing. There are no additional disclosures on the ignition or estimated cost at this point. To recap, SCE is not aware of evidence pointing to another possible source of ignition.

Absent additional evidence, we believe that SCE equipment could have been associated with the ignition. In addition, numerous lawsuits have already been brought against SCE. If it is determined that SCE's transmission equipment was associated with the addition of the Eaton Fire, based on the information we have reviewed thus far, we remain confident that SCE would make a good faith showing that its conduct with respect to its transmission facilities in the Eaton Canyon area was consistent with actions of a reasonable utility. As we know from prior wildfire events, engaging with and helping the community is critical. That's why we announced last week the wildfire recovery compensation program, which SCE will launch this fall.

The program will provide direct payments to eligible individuals and businesses. Resolving claims quickly allows the community to focus on recovery and minimizes the overall cost by mitigating the impacts of interest expense and inflation. This will also help use the wildfire fund efficiently and have more of the cash support impacted community members instead of being spent on higher legal costs. On the legislative front, we are encouraged by the continuing discussions with the Governor's office and legislators to enhance California's industry leading AB ten fifty four regulatory framework. Given the economy wide consequences of inaction, we believe policymakers will strengthen California's wildfire framework during the current legislative session.

The issue of wildfires is not just a utility regulation issue. The full solution must include broader actions across multiple sectors and could be addressed during next year's legislative session. Separately, a number of affordability bills are being discussed. Our track record on cost management, which I will discuss in a few minutes, shows our commitment to affordability. There are good steps the legislature can consider to improve affordability, like rightsizing public purpose programs and NEM and streamlining siding and permitting.

However, provisions like securitizing capital may be well intentioned, but in fact would actually raise customer costs by deteriorating credit quality. We will continue to engage with legislators to help them make decisions that are grounded in the facts. Moving to the regulatory front, SCE continues to build on its progress across multiple proceedings, further derisking our financial outlook. Maria will expand on several of those proceedings in her remarks, but let me touch on the proposed decision in SCE's 2025 DRC issued by the Administrative Law Judge on Monday. Page three provides a summary.

The PD overall generally aligns with our range case rate based forecast. We share the ALJ's view that critical investments are needed to maintain a safe, reliable and increasingly clean electric grid. On the other hand, key areas of the PD require improvement, so SCE will seek revisions. The PD would authorize base revenue of $9,800,000,000 or 93% of SCE's requested revenue requirement. It also supports significant capital investments in wildfire mitigation, grid modernization and infrastructure replacement, while incorporating affordability considerations for customers.

The reductions from SCE's request primarily relate to scope, pacing or cost, not to the underlying need or effectiveness of the programs. Most notably, the PD finds that covered conductor has been a highly effective wildfire mitigation strategy and that no party recommended a reduction to SCE's request. It also notes that no party disputed the targeted undergrounding is an effective tool for SCE, although it would authorize fewer miles than SCE proposed. The PD affirms the reasonableness of the utility's baseload growth forecast and recognizes the importance of SCE's planning methodology, which integrates statewide forecasts with local system knowledge. This supports our long term strategy to ensure the grid is ready for California's electrified future.

However, there are some areas where the PDE is not fully aligned with customer needs and will be part of the utility's opening comments. Maria will say more in her remarks. The January wildfires underscore the importance of mitigation plans and the need for continuous and evolving tools to maintain infrastructure resiliency. SCE submitted its twenty twenty six through twenty twenty eight wildfire mitigation plan in May, outlining a comprehensive strategy to address both immediate and long term wildfire risks with new and innovative solutions. The plan reflects the utility's commitment to public safety, risk reduction, and affordability, and builds on foundational mitigations such as covered conductor, targeted undergrounding and enhanced vegetation management.

Over the twenty twenty six to twenty twenty eight period, SCE anticipates investing $6,200,000,000 The plan also supports continued use of aerial firefighting assets, including the world's largest helitankers with nighttime capabilities and aims to inspect approximately 1,000,000 trees annually. Public safety power shutoffs remain a critical tool in wildfire prevention. This year's PSPS updates include revised criteria and wind speed thresholds, expanded circuit coverage and broader boundaries around high fire risk areas. As always, SCE remains focused on customer support and outreach to enhance safety and reduce the impact of PSPS events. Additional details can be found on page four.

As you will recall, a year ago, we shared our projection that even with 100% of SCE's GRC request, the utility expects its system average rate to grow on average at an inflation like level for 2028. Based on where things stand today, that is still the expectation, which is further enabled by SCE's enduring focus on operational excellence and efficiently managing costs for customers. SCE has a more than fifteen year track record with the lowest system average rate among California's major industrial utilities, thanks to successfully executing on its operational excellence initiatives and taking proactive measures to address customer affordability. Technology is a major driver of better affordability, safety, reliability, and resiliency. For example, last month, EEI once again selected EIX and SCE as the winner of their prestigious Edison Award, recognizing distinguished leadership, innovation, and contribution to the advancement of the electric industry for the benefit of all.

Our winning project, SCE's Advanced Waveform Anomaly Recognition Engine, or AWARE for short, uses real time grid sensor data, AI, and machine learning to proactively predict potential system issues and pinpoint where failures take place within SCE service territory. Customers benefit from higher safety and reliability, faster restoration times and higher affordability through optimized crew time. I am proud of our team for their steadfast commitment to operational excellence and for creating this AI driven solution to help make the grid safer and more resilient for our communities. I will conclude my remarks by reiterating the key messages. First, SCE is continuing with its investigation on the origin and cost of the Ethan fire, and there are no new disclosures about the ignition or cost estimate at this time.

When we have additional relevant information, we will share it with you and importantly, we'll continue our transparency with our community. Second, we are confident that legislative action will ultimately enhance California's AB ten fifty four regulatory framework. Third, SCE is well positioned from a regulatory standpoint to deliver for customers and investors. With that, I'll turn it over to Maria for her financial report.

Thanks, Pedro, and good afternoon. In my comments today, I will cover second quarter twenty twenty five results, provide additional insight into key regulatory proceedings, and update you on other financial topics. Starting with the second quarter, EIX reported core EPS of $0.97 compared to $1.23 last year. Page five provides the year over year quarterly variance analysis. As Pedro mentioned, the year over year comparison is not particularly meaningful because SCE has not received a final decision in its 2025 GRC.

SCE continues to book revenues at 2024 authorized levels adjusted for the change in ROE and will record a true up when it receives a final decision. SCE's core EPS variance was primarily driven by higher O and M expense and the net impact of regulatory decisions received in each period. EIX parent and others variance was primarily driven by higher interest expense. I'd like to expand on Pedro's comments on the wildfire recovery compensation program for the Eaton fire. As SCE resolves claims, we would not expect to see actual or estimated costs run through the income statement aside from the small shareholder contribution associated with self insurance.

The cost would be offset by SCE's customer funded self insurance for the first $1,000,000,000 and then by receivables or regulatory assets associated with the wildfire fund and regulation put in place by AB ten fifty four. An efficient reimbursement process from the wildfire fund also means SCE would not have to issue long term debt to fund payments.

On SCE's 2025 general rate case, if adopted, the PD would result in base rate revenue requirements of $9,800,000,000 in 2025, dollars 10,200,000,000.0 in 2026, dollars 10,600,000,000.0 in 2027, and $11,000,000,000 in 2028. Translating the rate base numbers shown in the proposed decision into total company rate base and holding all else constant, the results would be generally in line with our current range case. Following a final decision, we will incorporate all aspects of the GRC into our long term plans and refresh our projections. In SCE's opening comments, it will outline areas where it believes revisions are warranted to deliver better outcomes for customers and ensure the decision aligns with the evidentiary record, applicable law, and established regulatory principles. Let me expand on a couple of areas.

On wildfire mitigation, the decision would authorize more than 1,800 miles of grid hardening, consistent with SEE's total hardening request. However, it shifts about 400 miles from targeted undergrounding to the covered conductor program. While the PD reflects a significant increase to the historical level of targeted undergrounding, it falls short of SCE's well supported request. This reduction limits SCE's ability to appropriately mitigate the wildfire risk in the most vulnerable areas. On infrastructure replacement, the PD would approve the majority of the proposed programs but scales back the scope.

The decision recognizes the importance of resuming infrastructure replacement after several years of wildfire focused spending, but we believe the gradual ramp up does not fully reflect the urgency of today's reliability and electrification needs. As for the next steps, oral argument is scheduled for August 11, and SCE will file its opening comments on August 18, and reply comments are due August 25. The earliest the Commission can vote on the proposed decision is at its August 28 voting meeting. During oral argument and in comments, SCE will advocate for adjustments that better align with the state's climate objectives and the safety and resiliency needs of the communities we serve. As we've said before, we understand the Commission's desire to balance safety, reliability, and affordability, and we will continue to work collaboratively to ensure the utilities' programs deliver value to customers.

Continuing on to the regulatory front, SCE has advanced other regulatory proceedings and outcomes, ultimately de risking our financial outlook. I will highlight a few updates. First, the CPUC issued final decisions in SCE's WMCE and WMVM proceedings, providing certainty on the timing of cost recovery and contribution to our 2025 earnings guidance. On the WMCE settlement agreement, the CPUC authorized recovery of more than $300,000,000 of O and M and $700,000,000 of capital for historical wildfire mitigation and restoration. In SCE's 2022 WMVM proceeding, the CPUC authorized the recovery of about $290,000,000 of O and M and $99,000,000 of capital while disallowing about 65,000,000 of O and M.

I'll note that SCE has filed an application for rehearing to address certain legal and factual errors that resulted in incorrect disallowances of costs incurred to make SCE's system and communities safer and more resilient to wildfire threats. Second, as another step toward recovering historical costs, in April SCE filed its application for authority to issue securitized bonds to finance the recovery of about $1,600,000,000 related to the TKM proceeding. This securitization allows for the issuance of recovery bonds with the highest possible credit rating, which reduces financing costs for SCE's customers. The ALJ recently issued a proposed decision which would approve the financing order, and the schedule calls for the final decision in August. Third, on the Woolsey cost recovery application, SCE recently filed its rebuttal testimony.

The schedule includes a motion for consideration of a settlement agreement or joint statement of stipulations of issues due on August 12. As always, SCE is open to settlement discussions if a fair and reasonable outcome can be achieved, benefiting customers and shareholders. Lastly, the 2026 cost of capital proceeding continues to progress, with intervenors submitting their testimony yesterday evening. During the quarter, the ALJ also issued a scoping memo with a schedule that calls for a proposed decision in November. Turning to pages six and seven, SCE's capital expenditure and rate based forecasts remain unchanged while we await a final GRC decision.

The utility continues to make investments in safety, reliability and resiliency. The rate case request supports investments that are essential to meet customer needs both today and through the 2028. This includes critical work in infrastructure replacement and wildfire mitigation, as well as investments to meet the growing demand in our service area. As we have highlighted before, we continue to see substantial additional capital needs beyond the GRC that are incremental to the plan. Moving on to our EPS guidance outlined on pages eight and nine, we are confident in reaffirming the 2025 range of $5.94 to $6.34 and our long term EPS growth expectations of 5% to 7% from 2025 to 2028.

As a reminder, we will refresh our financial guidance six weeks after SCE receives a final decision in its 2025 GRC. This will include our capital and rate based projections, 2025 core EPS range, long term core EPS growth and financing plan. That concludes my remarks and back to you, Sam.

Denise, can you 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.

Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, And our first question comes from Nicholas Campanella with Barclays. Your line is open.

Hey, good afternoon everyone. Thanks for taking my questions.

Hi. Hey, I know that AB ten fifty four, a lot in flux right now. Legislature is on recess, but just we had news last night about the proposed $18,000,000,000 fix. And I just wanted to get your view if half of this is coming from utilities, how would you kind of define what is or what is not an acceptable structure and whether you're open to shareholder debt or equity contributions upfront or through a certain period in order to participate in that solution? Thank you.

Thanks, Nicholas. Very fair question. Look, I'll start by saying that we saw the Article II. There's a lot of work going on between the Governor's office and legislative leaders. As I mentioned, we've been in discussions, but still a long ways through the summer recess and into hopefully seeing legislation this session.

So at the end of the day, we will be looking at the balance of everything that is in a package and the devil's always in the details. So really impossible to comment right now on this one element or that one element. I will say and I think you've heard me say before that from a policy or principles perspective, we do believe that the investor owned utility framework makes a lot of sense and that calls for shareholders making capital investments, having the opportunity to earn an authorized rate of return and having full recovery of all prudently incurred costs. So in that context, AB ten fifty four itself was a departure from that and having shareholders do an upfront contribution to help seed the fund. And so we've been vocal that moving forward an expansion of AB ten fifty four that was purely being done along investor owned utility rate making principles would not have a shareholder contribution.

That said, it's a complex environment, it's a lot going on. And again, we will need to see the balance of an ultimate package. We don't foresee and frankly don't see a need for having upfront contributions like they were in AB ten fifty four previously. There is cash in the fund and you probably saw the comments by the fund administrator, the California Earthquake Authority, that the current capacity of the fund, they estimate something like $22,000,000,000 even taking into account the amounts that have been called for, for the Dixie and Kincade fires. And as we know, unfortunately, the process of going through claims can take quite a long time.

And so we don't anticipate that there would be a very rapid depletion of the fund. We don't know how much Eaton would deplete it if Eaton ends up being a cease fire. But whatever that amount is, it will take multiple years. And so that would suggest that there isn't a need for an upfront piece. Beyond that though, we'll have to take a look at what's the package and then make a determination as to whether that package is in the interest of both our customers and importantly our shareholders.

Okay. No, that's very that's helpful. I appreciate it. There's a lot of volatility in the background too. So I guess just you kind of mentioned that once you have greater visibility into the cause of the EN or even the damages and liabilities that you would disclose those promptly?

Should we be expecting that to be more kind of one off as you know you're going to communicate to the market? Or do we have to kind of wait for earnings calls and 10 Qs to get your best assessment of that liability? Thanks.

Nicholas, great question. And I guess the way I would answer that would be our normal process, right, is to try and provide information or provide information during the quarterly earnings calls. That is certainly the time period when we take a look at potential reserves, etcetera, right? You've seen that experience with the 2017 and 2018 fires. However, if we had a piece of information that we thought was sufficiently material not only for investors, but also for the community, I could certainly foresee a case where we might do something off cycle.

So long winded way of answering it, it depends, right? And we'll make sure that we're doing ultimately the right thing in terms of disclosure and transparency.

Okay. That's very fair. Thanks for taking the time. Thank you.

Thank you. The next question is from Richard Sunderland with JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for the time. Turning to the GRCPD, could you provide finer detail on this versus the range case in your forecast? I guess, should we assume that if the PD stands, that range case would essentially become your outlook? Or are there opportunities to bring capital back in beyond what you already flagged as upside potential on the right hand side of that slide?

Hey, Rich, thanks for the question. So, we are going to file comments on the PD, just as a reminder from the comments that Pedro and I have already made, because we do think there are some areas there that warrant some revisions. We have given you a range case before, the PD is aligned with our range case outcome, but as you know from other information that we share, there are other opportunities above and beyond what we've already included in our forecast. So as we work through and get the results of the final decision, we'll be working through all of those other elements as well, and we'll be sharing those with you after the final decision is issued.

Okay, understood. Just to be clear on that, the six week post final decision update could also offer a view on those other opportunities?

Got it. Got it. Super helpful. And then, turning to Woolsey, just following rebuttal here, how are you feeling about the ability to reach a settlement in that over the next few weeks?

Well, I think you know that we are always open to settlement discussions as long as they're fair and reasonable discussions. We have filed our rebuttal testimony. We think we've put a good showing in for that as well. I think the, commentary from the testimony from interveners was really focused on our various programs and how we executed on those, and we think we have demonstrated both in our original testimony as well as in our rebuttal that we have acted as a prudent operator.

Thank you. The next question comes from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks so much for taking the questions.

I wanted to just ask on some of the affordability legislation that's been proposed in California, specifically on the provisions around securitization. Just could we get your thoughts on perhaps other alternatives that you think could still support affordability in a more constructive way? And then if you've done any work to kind of quantify the potential impacts if the securitization provisions were passed as written, I would be curious if there's anything to share there as well. Thank you.

Yes, let me start on this one and Maria may have additional comments. I alluded to, in a high level in my remarks, to some of the other alternatives out there to try and work on affordability for customers. First and foremost, Carly, it really starts with the utility being an excellent operator. And so that's why I spent time on my comments is to make sure that investors understand the hard work that this company has taken on over multiple years to continue to look at opportunities to increase O and M efficiency as well as capital efficiency. We talk about making sure that we are capturing customer value across all colors of money.

And so that's work that continues and we're excited about the opportunities to use technology and continue process improvement to attack that. And that's frankly something that I know our Sacramento team and I personally have spent time making sure we share with policymakers so that they understand that starting point. Secondly, there's a number of areas like public purpose programs, right? You've heard not just us, but you've heard other thought leaders across the industry including academics talk about how there are programs like the subsidies that support low income customers that today are carried in on the electric bill. But from a policy perspective, it would make more sense being borne on the taxpayer bill.

And so that's another kind of broad category. Yet another one is net energy metering, right? So we're looking at provisions around that and you've seen some bill activity in Sacramento trying to address that. Finally, and maybe this leads to the back part of your question, It's important that policymakers and legislators understand how the numbers end up working, particularly when you look at something like securitization. As I mentioned in my remarks a few minutes ago, I'll say it a little differently.

There is no free money here. There's no free lunch. And from a customer perspective, I appreciate and in fact I've had very candid discussions with legislators around this. I appreciate they're looking to address affordability by reducing the amount of the bill that's going towards shareholder earnings. And what we are making sure that we're conveying is that in doing that you're altering the overall balance of the regulatory framework.

As for example, the rating agencies look at this, they are going to see that that lease a utility that has less credit quality and that translates into cost of debt, which that higher cost of debt gets passed through to the customer. We try to come up with some estimates. They're not quite ready for prime time, but we are pretty confident that if you see $1 of foregone earnings and that you might think that that's $1 of customer savings that will actually lead to more than $1 of added customer cost over the long run. And so we've been very clear about that. Final point I might make is that you often hear in Sacramento, concerned about utility profits in general.

And so when we post the business update tomorrow or the next couple of days, you will see a chart there from new analysis that our team has done that is looking at a comparison of SCE's average bill for an average residential customer and comparing it to an average municipal power bill in our territory. And I have a lot of respect for our peers in public power. So it's not about better or worse, but it's looking at what are the differences here. And just using speaking qualitatively, you'll see numbers when the chart posts in the business update. You'll see that, yes, SCE's average bill or bill for the average residential customer is higher than that for public power.

But the reason it's higher is primarily around elements that are not in municipal power's bill. For example, taxes that they don't pay, but ultimately somebody in society has to pay. Public purpose programs, subsidies that we're required to carry our bill that they are not. Wildfire mitigation expenses that I would think any utility in our area whether public or investor owned will have to ultimately be bearing in the long term. When you then take a look at the pieces that are truly comparable, which is most of the bill, right, the operational costs for T and D and generation and purchase power with financing costs fully baked in there.

So those utility profits are part of that analysis. You'll see that when we compare to our good friends at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the SCE bill, that portion of the bill, which is the majority of the bill is actually a few dollars cheaper every month than it is for our colleagues at LA. And that in spite of the fact that we have a system that should be more costly to run because we serve something like 3,100 customers per square mile, whereas I think LADDVP has around 105 customers per square mile. And again, that is with profits embedded in that analysis. So I think it just goes to show that the investor owned utility model is one that has stimulated innovation, stimulated efficiency by providing frankly a capital market signal to our team.

So I know there was a lot to fill out you, but that's a way another way in which we're trying to quantify what's really what matters in the end, just the impact on total bills. Marie, know you said a lot there, but anything else you would add or correct?

Yes. I think Carly had one other question. And I think in terms of how do you think about the math, obviously, the utility is all about rate based math. So you can look at it from that perspective. We continue to see a tremendous amount of customer need and opportunity to support that need that is supportive also of our long term growth trajectory.

So I think those were the two parts of your question.

Thank you. The next question comes from Angie Storzynski with Seaport. Your line is open.

Thank you. How are you? So just, I mean, we're waiting for a number of regulatory decisions for you and your California peers. And I'm just looking at especially at the cost of capital filing, given the backdrop, a very challenging backdrop for an electric utility in your state, it doesn't seem like there is that much support in giving you a higher ROE in order to recognize the risk.

All of the other fixes that we're hearing about from the legislature seem temporary to me at least patches, right, with equity contributions from utilities. So again, like if you take a step back, one could argue what's the incentive really to as an investor to support California utilities given the headaches that I just mentioned and the fact that you're not really being remunerated for the higher risk that you are accepting. Again, just being blunt here.

I appreciate it, Angie. Listen, I'll leave you a short answer to this one. California has ultimately generally gotten it right. And so right now we're seeing proposals in Sacramento, but we haven't seen a final bill. We've seen, I think, supportive action at the PUC at the end of the day after you go through a lot of process.

Not a guarantee that they'll get it right again in this decision or that decision, but overall, we have a state that is committed to serving customers, committed to the load growth that's coming across the state from electrification and data centers, etcetera. And it's committed to the clean energy transition for which they need our infrastructure. So would maybe what I qualify your thesis, Angie, by saying, yes, it feels bumpy right now, but it's felt bumpy before. And ultimately, we've seen policymakers do the right thing.

One thing, Angie, you said fixes seem temporary, and I think maybe just to follow-up on something that Pedro said in his prepared remarks. I think when you think about the things that are challenging California right now, portability, yes, but also enhancing wildfire protections, etcetera, I think there are things that are, as Pedro mentioned, will happen this year, this session, that really go to the foundation of stabilizing the IOU framework, and from that more stable foundation can move on and really address what is a societal issue. So there will be more work to come in the future around homeowners insurance, around building codes and standards, around hopefully liability reform. So all of those things, you're right, they're not all going to happen overnight, but we're starting from the foundation of build on the framework of AB ten fifty four, stabilize and enhance that, shore up people's confidence in that approach, and then we can move on and take a longer term view of other things that need to happen.

Okay, and again, I appreciate that we have few details about the story that broke last night. But the contribution, the IOUs contribution to the fund, I mean, is it fair to assume that, SCE would have a disproportionately large contribution versus other utilities just like we saw what happened with PG and E at the first time around with this, wildfire fund?

Angie, it would be really tough to comment on that right now. I would say we're advocating to make sure there's a fair allocation across all the customers involved and the shareholders involved across the utilities. But as I said earlier, we're going to look at not just this term or that term, we're going to look at all the terms together when they come together into a package and then make a decision as to whether it's a supportive piece of legislation for our customers and for our shareholders. And again, I'll reinforce what Maria just said here. We said it many times before.

This is a big, big societal issue. So right now, I'm grateful that there's a lot of focus on getting the first step around the utility piece done in this legislative session. But equally important will be that work that Mario was mentioning for next year's session because the state really needs to work on protecting homes more and reducing fire spread and continuing the great work we've done on fire suppression, redoubling that and fixing the insurance market, all these other things that add up to the wildfire issue writ large for California. California.

The next question comes from Greg Orel with UBS. Your line is now open.

Greg, you're almost going to deliver packages there.

Yes, yes. Thank you. I had two questions, possibly. Regarding the Eaton investigation, can you remind us of kind of where that stands and who's involved in running that and when you expect an outcome? And then where do you stand on the idea of issuing equity to fund contributions to the $18,000,000,000 wildfire replenishment?

Okay. I'll take the first one and Ria On can take the second the Ethan investigation, I think I shared this in my comments already, but let me just recap here. Really think about it as two separate investigations. Just the official investigation that has the involvement of LA County Fire being led by them and the work with CAL FIRE and others.

Provide support to that when they ask us for details, etcetera, but that is an independent investigation. Separately, you have Edison's own investigation, which we are doing frankly in close engagement with a number of stakeholders, including attorneys for plaintiffs, as well as communities, local governments, etcetera. And the reason for that engagement is that that way that there is clarity about how we're proceeding. There are all the questions get addressed upfront in terms of how should you touch this piece of equipment or how should you remove that bracket from that tower or what have you. That does mean that it adds time because every time that you're going to do a piece of work, there's collaboration involved in developing protocols that everybody will be in agreement with.

So that's why that is taking a while. We have shared in terms of timing, Rick, that while we can't predict or forecast what the ultimate timing will be for either of the investigations, typically in these complex fire cases, we have seen the official investigations take twelve to eighteen months from the start of the fire. And then we don't have an estimate on how long ours will take, particularly since then there's this collaborative process that just adds time to every step.

Greg, I'll address your second question. So I think first, again, want to, as Pedro said before, understand the entire package that is potentially in any piece of legislation that comes along. And frankly, from that perspective, something that had a large upfront payment would actually drive our cost of capital higher and would ultimately not benefit customers. And we are very, very aware and sensitive to where our share price is changing and what that valuation discount is. That's one piece of it, top of mind for us.

The second piece of it is, just from an efficiency perspective, the fund doesn't need to be shored up with cash today. Pedro already discussed that, previously. If you think about the process that one has to go through in order to, get to a place where you're actually accessing the fund, If an event happens, then you have people making claims, you have to go through a claims process. As we know from our own experience on prior events, that takes a long time. So at this point in time, we don't actually see a need, and it would be inefficient for the fund itself to have cash upfront.

So those two pieces, how it affects overall our capital structure and our cost of capital and what the ramifications would ultimately be then for customers, as well as the actual needs of the fund, I think bring together the point that it doesn't feel necessary to us right now. But again, we will look at an entire package when it becomes available to us.

Thank you. The next question comes from Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies. Your line is open.

Hi team, thank you. To follow-up a little bit on the prepared remarks comment, you stated that PD and about the rate case specifically, the PD general line with the range base rate base forecast is also fair to say it aligns with the EPS growth rate considering the proposed attrition increases in the later years?

Yes, so it does align with the range case forecast and rate base is the driver for earnings. We will have to, as we get through this final decision, run through all of that and give you more granularity around places where we might see additional capital opportunities, etcetera, to really inform sort of the more detailed analysis that we'll be providing, but it is aligned with the range case forecast, yes.

Okay, Understood. And then just as we think about that roll forward that you referenced six weeks afterwards, should we think about the base for that as the I think it's $5.84.20 25 ex the TKM? Should we think about a different year? Just any color you can provide on the leap off point would be helpful. Thank you.

Yep. We will be, I'll say, replicating what we have there today, which is our '25 through '28 analysis.

Thank you. The next question comes from Anthony Crodell with Mizuho. Your line is open.

Hey, guess that's better than the package delivery for but they do have nice brown uniforms. Just, I guess, if I could ask a question, maybe it's in the same vein as Angie and Nick's question earlier. And I understand it's just, we're just all going by a Bloomberg story last night and there's no framework out on the legislation. But it seems that in all the discussion that everyone having, maybe the core of all the discussions or what the legislature is working on is AB ten fifty four. And AB ten fifty four had some really good aspects to it, but also it's a shared risk model between rate payers and investors.

I'm curious if and maybe it's in line with Angie's question. I'm curious if we're still going to use AB ten fifty four going forward as an anchor for the solution that's going to be required? And what I'm concerned over is that it continues to be a shared risk model between customers and investors? And I have one follow-up.

Edison International (EIX) Q2 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants