Edison International Unit Gets CPUC Nod for Pilot Program - Yahoo Finance
Summary: "Edison International’s EIX wholly-owned subsidiary, Southern California Edison (“SCE”), won the approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) to start a $22-million pilot program which will support an increase in the number of electric vehicle charging stations within its service territory by almost 1,500."
I read the whole article, and didn't gleen from it what kind of charging stations they are. But they say that they will also promote the advantages of owning an EV. This might be a compliance thing that SCE is doing, but they seem to be doing a lot of pro-environment things, which got my attention earlier. For instance, I noticed some signs from them that they don't consider fossil fuel peaker plants the safe bet that they once were, by the fact they said they're installing peaker battery storage.
Battery peaker storage + Solar/Wind/Geothermal/everything else that isn't coal + EV = better for the environment, if done right.
For some reason, their stock price is rated poorly in that article. I know that's based upon accounting. What I don't know is whether that accounting took into consideration the peaker plant profile, i.e., is that evening peaker generation in battery storage or in fossil fuels? More importantly for accounting, what is the future cost (depreciation of assets, built in returns of investments, adjustments of same, etc.) of both of those options and how much they're going to be paid for in the future, or whatever mathematical words I'm supposed to use that mean hey did they do it right? That could have an effect on accounting that either the accountants DID take into consideration or DIDN'T, and I don't have the resources to look that up (or is it just a few clicks away and I'm lazy?) Edit: OK, I clicked on the link, and I wonder, is Zach's research into accounting good, i.e., do they tell you what they did, so you can see if they did it right and what flaws they introduced or copied?
Summary: "Edison International’s EIX wholly-owned subsidiary, Southern California Edison (“SCE”), won the approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) to start a $22-million pilot program which will support an increase in the number of electric vehicle charging stations within its service territory by almost 1,500."
I read the whole article, and didn't gleen from it what kind of charging stations they are. But they say that they will also promote the advantages of owning an EV. This might be a compliance thing that SCE is doing, but they seem to be doing a lot of pro-environment things, which got my attention earlier. For instance, I noticed some signs from them that they don't consider fossil fuel peaker plants the safe bet that they once were, by the fact they said they're installing peaker battery storage.
Battery peaker storage + Solar/Wind/Geothermal/everything else that isn't coal + EV = better for the environment, if done right.
For some reason, their stock price is rated poorly in that article. I know that's based upon accounting. What I don't know is whether that accounting took into consideration the peaker plant profile, i.e., is that evening peaker generation in battery storage or in fossil fuels? More importantly for accounting, what is the future cost (depreciation of assets, built in returns of investments, adjustments of same, etc.) of both of those options and how much they're going to be paid for in the future, or whatever mathematical words I'm supposed to use that mean hey did they do it right? That could have an effect on accounting that either the accountants DID take into consideration or DIDN'T, and I don't have the resources to look that up (or is it just a few clicks away and I'm lazy?) Edit: OK, I clicked on the link, and I wonder, is Zach's research into accounting good, i.e., do they tell you what they did, so you can see if they did it right and what flaws they introduced or copied?
Last edited:
