Official Southern California Edison thread

[KeiJidosha]

"SCE says investors need bigger profits because of fire risks"

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

"Southern California Edison says it needs higher profits to keep attracting investment following a series of deadly fires sparked by utility-owned electrical equipment that have sent utility stock prices tumbling. Edison doesn’t face as much financial risk as its Northern California counterpart, PG&E. But Pedro Pizarro, president of Edison’s parent company, recently said his utility could be one big fire away from bankruptcy."

Also

"Edison CEO talks wildfires, climate change and the utility’s vanishing monopoly"

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

I'm guessing my delivery charges will be increasing.

[Boomer23]

Fascinating articles. Thanks.

I didn’t realize that the utilities were specifically constrained on the percentage of gain they are allowed to offer to investors.

One of my first thoughts is that Edison and the other two huge POUs are already going to see a large increase in revenue from the coming forced shift of customer rates into the new TOU plans with Peak rates in the evenings. At least the customers who have solar roofs are going to see a major increase in annual utility cost when those plans take effect. I’m probably seeing this particular aspect through the lens of a customer with a solar roof, though.

But I assume that Edison has already taken those increased revenues into account when they did their math and came up with a request for further rate increases to cover perceived investor risk.

As the first article that you linked to states, though, Edison’s pending request is largely designed to pressure the state into shielding the utilities from financial responsibility for damage from fires until the utilities can upgrade their infrastructure to be less prone to spark fires.

What can we customers do to shield ourselves from being fleeced in order to protect a utility that operates equipment that isn’t yet adequate to provide protection from accidentally sparking fires in extreme weather situations? Probably add more solar and home battery storage. But those solutions also carry a high capital cost to our household budgets.

[KeiJidosha]

I see two potential results. Higher delivery charges could improve the ROI of solar and storage. And if the grid is less dependable because it is preemptively partially disabled during events (wind, earthquake, etc) that might produce a spark, off-grid backup may be more useful or even essential in effected areas.

There is a major upgrade of overhead wiring going on in our area. There is a fleet of hundreds of utility trucks updating the overhead wiring, insulation, and disconnects. Originally I thought grid stability, risk mitigation, or both had stimulated the update, but the scope is impressive.

https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2018/ ... 454991002/

"The latest approval follows a green light by a division of the California Public Utilities Commission on the transmission line solution. The lines, coupled with a green energy project, is expected to meet the power needs in Ventura County. Electricity needs near Goleta could still be met by a small power plant and Edison will accept bids for gas-fired projects in Santa Barbara County.

Earlier this month Edison began accepting bids for a battery storage or solar project to meet the power needs not met by the transmission lines. The deadline for those bids closes in June. "

[smkettner]

Investors do not need a bigger return to accept risk. They can sell the stock if too risky.

I can see passing through the costs of maintaining the facilities to avoid fires. What the utilities need is not so much an exemption from liability but an exemption from additional environmental restrictions to clearing the fire risk.