The market structure for generators is quite varied across the US. In part, this is because some states and regions have deregulated their electricity markets, and other areas have not. However, even in deregulated areas, one observes a wide variety of firms participating in generation. Below are brief descriptions of some representative types of generator firm ownership structures; we note this is by no means an exhaustive list:
- Traditional, vertically integrated utilities, either publicly or investor-owned: These firms own generation assets as well as owning and operating transmission, distribution assets and serving retail load (e.g., Pacific Gas & Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, etc.). This type of firm was the default in the U.S. before deregulation, and is still the norm in areas that have not deregulated.
- Utility companies that have unregulated arms that operate generators in other territories than their own: Many of the large utility-owning companies (e.g., Duke, Entergy, etc.) operate generators, often renewables sited at prime wind and solar locations, outside of their distribution service territories.
- Merchant generators: These companies own generators in deregulated markets and operate them for profit (e.g., Calpine, NRG). As of 2017, about
- Combined heat and power owners: Cogeneration or combined heat and power (CHP) systems use a heat engine or power station to generate electricity and useful thermal energy concurrently from a single source of energy. The owners of these CHP plants may not be in the electric business primarily, but find themselves able to generate electricity profitably with this cogeneration. PURPA allows Qualified Facilities, including cogeneration facilities meeting the required criteria, to sell excess electricity into the wholesale market.
- Federally owned hydroelectric resources: The Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation own and operate approximately 50% of U.S. hydropower (in terms of MW of generation capacity), from more than 130 federally built hydroelectric dams. Power marketing administrations (PMAs) maintain transmission infrastructure to distribute the power generated to rural cooperatives, utilities, and other customers; the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is the largest U.S. PMA.
Among IPPs, there is also variations in structure and strategy. Some companies own large fleets of generators, whereas others may only own one or two. Some companies may specialize in a technology, such as geothermal or nuclear. Some might concentrate their assets in one geography, whereas others may have assets all over the world. Some may choose to build and operate new assets under long-term contracts, whereas others are willing to buy older, cheaper, perhaps less efficient resources that may not have contracts and try to generate profit with them. See Table SC.1 for details on merchant generation throughout the U.S.
Table SC.1 Generation by Independent Power Producers (including Merchant Generators)
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, net generation by source and region
|IPP percent of total generation (MWh)||Primary IPP sources|
|New England||76%||91%||94%||Natural gas, nuclear|
|Middle Atlantic||75%||90%||90%||Nuclear, natural gas|
|East North Central||28%||44%||55%||Nuclear, coal|
|South Atlantic||16%||15%||15%||Coal, natural gas|
|East South Central||4%||10%||12%||Natural gas|
|West South Central||15%||50%||57%||Coal, natural gas|
|Mountain||12%||21%||21%||Natural gas, renewables|
|Pacific (Contiguous)||40%||32%||33%||Renewables, natural gas|
|U.S.||25%||36%||40%||Natural gas, nuclear|
Notes: EIA does not specifically label “merchant generators” in their data sets; they are a subgroup of “independent power producers.” “Renewables” do not include hydropower.
Forms of Vertical Integration
There are multiple forms of vertical integration in which generation activities can be encompassed. The most common is the vertically integrated utility, in which one firm owns and manages generation resources, owns and manages transmission and distribution infrastructure, and serves load to end users of electricity.
There are also other forms of arrangements of business activities that should also be considered vertical integration. For example, power generation technology manufacturing companies sometimes invest in merchant generators or other generation projects, provide project financing for the purchase of their products, or even build and own generation resources themselves (e.g., GE, Siemens). This type of relationship is particularly notable when the generation technology itself is seen as new or perceived as risky; the technology firm may have to put some of its own resources into projects (e.g., early PV and wind projects, and concentrating solar power projects). In these cases, technology manufacturers have strong direct interest in generation companies.
Another arrangement that might not appear at first glance to be a form of vertical integration is the case in which energy consumers choose to own and operate their own generation facilities. Though not common, industrial users with large consistent loads can install their own generation equipment on-site. If they have a heat “host” process, they may even be able to operate the resource with excess (waste) heat (i.e., cogeneration). Something similar is also possible at the residential level, if a homeowner decides to install PV panels and a storage system such that they can reduce or eliminate using of grid power.
Porter’s Five Forces
In this section, we explore Porter’s five forces as they relate to generators; specifically, these are: the threat of new entrants, the threat of established rivals, the threat of substitute products or services, the bargaining power of suppliers, and the bargaining power of customers. The framework is illustrated in Figure SC.1 below and characteristics of each of the forces will be discussed in detail subsequently in the context of electric generation.
Figure SC.1 Porter’s Five Forces
- Industry Rivalry
In deregulated markets with ample transmission and generation capacity, generators are selling a commodity and will not have substantial market power. As such, during most periods of “normal” operation, the electric generation industry is very competitive. However, non-competitive situations can arise periodically. These can be short term, weather-related situations, such as a hot or cold weather event causing demand to outstrip supply in the impacted region. In another common type of situation, an outage among competing generators puts the remaining generators in a position of market power. These situations can also be longer term, when it is difficult, expensive, or time-consuming to build new generation or transmission to serve a specific region. As discussed in the Wholesale Markets and Transmission Operations section of the Power Markets value chain, wholesale markets sometimes take direct action to mitigate market power by lowering bid prices.
In addition to competing on price, generators also compete on other characteristics. For example, dispatch flexibility and low pollution or GHG emissions can be very important differentiators, particularly if these characteristics have non-market (i.e., policy) support.
Finally, though transmission and generation are normally considered complements, they are also competitive substitutes. From a generator’s perspective, transmission capacity represents the ability to transfer energy from a distant generator or to a distant load that would not be able to participate in this particular market without it.
- Threat of New Entrants
Bankruptcy is not uncommon in this business (see, e.g., Calpine, Exelon, GenOn, etc.), as are mergers and acquisitions. These typically result in investors losing out but the physical resources usually remain and continue to operate under new ownership. Generation equipment that is truly “out of the money” might be decommissioned or “re-powered” (i.e., overhauled and replaced with more modern, efficient equipment). Thus, generation capacity rarely exits the market suddenly, though ownership of a given facility may change.
There are many barriers to adding additional capacity to the generation market. The process to build a new power plant can be long and expensive, requiring such activities as:
- Performing detailed studies of market conditions to be sure a new plant can be profitable
- Finding a suitable location that has access to adequate fuel supplies or renewable resource
- Finding a location with access to adequate transmission interconnection
- Obtaining land control
- Environmental reviews and studies
- Overcoming objections (“NIMBY”) and lawsuits
- Raising necessary capital
- Obtaining firm contracts with creditworthy offtakers
- Obtaining permit / license to operate
Most of these steps are necessary regardless of the energy source of the proposed generation facility, though the difficulty of some steps will depend on business and policy circumstances. See our discussions of Project Development for solar and wind for more information on some of these requirements. [should link back]
- Threat of Substitutes
Energy efficiency and other measures of load reduction reduce demand and consequently, prices and volumes. Some measures, such as demand response, shift load from peak periods to less expensive periods, reducing overall revenue for generators. Self-generation and distributed-generation are also important threats to traditional generators, be they utility-owned or merchant. In essence, load that disappears from the market earns no revenue for generators and also depressing prices for the load remaining.
- Bargaining Power of Suppliers
Several types of firms may be considered suppliers in the context of electricity generators: facility construction contractors, technology manufacturers, fuel suppliers, and finance firms.
Construction: Regarding construction, the primary suppliers are the EPC companies building the plant and the technology firms providing the generation equipment itself. Because of the complexity of building power plants and because of the large amounts of risk-averse capital at stake, specialized EPC companies with proven track records of successful projects with fewer surprises may command higher prices, particularly if the technology involved is perceived as specialized or new (see, e.g., Bechtel’s Ivanpah solar electric generating system).
A power plant generally cannot be built or operated without skilled labor. However, a recently observed dynamic is that automation is allowing plants to be operated with less labor (though perhaps remaining labor is on average more skilled).
Technology: The ability of technology or “powergen” companies to command higher prices varies by technology. For example, in the PV industry, many firms can provide panels of similar quality and performance. [see PV value chain] On the other hand, there are only a handful of companies that can provide a turnkey new combined-cycle gas-turbine (CCGT) power plant (e.g., GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi, etc.)
Fuel: Operators of fossil- and nuclear-fueled resources must make arrangements for the purchase and delivery of fuel. Coal and gas are commodities, but their market prices can be volatile. Coal and gas also must be delivered, and adequate pipeline or rail capacity can be factors affecting the cost as well. Some of the bargaining power that fuel suppliers enjoy stems from the practice of forward contracts. A generator, wanting a reliable supply fuel supply at a reliable price, may pay a premium for such assurances.
Finance: Obtaining financing to build a generation project is a non-trivial undertaking. When a regulated utility wants to build a new generation project, they must first make a case to their governing PUC; if their PUC approves, the utility will be able to add the cost of the project to their “ratebase,” and charge customers over time to pay for it. The utility must still find investors to build the facility; as utility bankruptcy is rare (but not unheard of, e.g., PG&E in 2001), the fairly certain payback is attractive to investors.
Merchant generators must also arrange financing for their projects. Doing so requires managing the risk of their proposed investment. Techniques that merchants generators pursue include signing long-term contracts with credit-worthy customers for most of their potential output and building projects using low-risk technologies. Finance options and methods are discussed in greater detail under the Project Development and EPC segments of the Utility-Scale PV [insert link] and Utility-Scale Wind value chains [insert link].
- Bargaining Power of Buyers
When a generator bids power into an organized wholesale market, the customers appear essentially as a pool of aggregate demand. Computerized auctions clear markets, thus limiting bargaining power on both sides. However, even in areas where such markets exist, a substantial amount of energy is sold via bilateral contracts outside of the market. As such, the bargaining power of buyers has much to do with their projected needs and alternative options. If load growth is low or new transmission or generators are expected soon, buyer bargaining power is stronger. If the buyer’s load growth is high or transmission and generators are at capacity, the buyer’s bargaining power can be quite weak. This is especially true of LSEs which will pay very high prices to keep the lights on, as evidenced by the 2001 California Energy Crisis. These prices are justified by the “value of lost load” (VOLL) which usually is on the order of $1000’s/MWh.
Also, generators are geographically fixed assets, but customers are not. Large industrial energy users can and do move, sometimes leaving territories with high electricity prices for lower ones. Because power plants generally cannot move, bargaining power for buyers is usually stronger when negotiating with an existing generator than with a firm offering to develop a generation asset. We note that interestingly, exceptions do exist (see, e.g., Siemens’ floating power plant concept).
With the emergence of new forms of retail power marketing (retail service providers, CCA, etc) end-users will have an increased “say” in which resources their power comes from. This may result in load migrating from certain classes of generators to others, with associated pricing and revenue impacts to affected generators.
Overview of Geography
Geographic placement of generators is usually a function of the location of the load they intend to serve. Transmission affords flexibility; power can be conveyed over moderate to long distances, depending on the available transmission infrastructure and acceptable losses – however, like generators, building new transmission can be slow and expensive.
Many types of generators are also constrained by their technical needs. Coal-powered plants need space for coal and ash piles. Wind projects tend to be in high wind resource locations, and PV projects benefit from sunny ones. Nuclear plants, arguably, need to be far from population centers. Some nuclear and fossil plants use “once through cooling” to condense their steam, and so need access to a body of water.
Table SC.2 Generation by State in 2016 (GWh)
Source: 2016 Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906, EIA-920, and EIA-923) https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
|STATE||Wind||Solar (Thermal and PV)||Coal||Natural Gas||Hydroelectric Conventional||Nuclear||Total|
Figure SC.2 Geographic Distribution of U.S. Power Plants
Source: Figure 5 from U.S. Department of Energy (2015) United States Electricity Industry Primer.
Overview of Governance
Government plays direct and indirect roles on generator behavior. Government agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state environmental agencies and boards (e.g., Department of Fish and Wildlife, Air Resources Board, etc.) and other environmental entities directly regulate power plant air emissions, thermal emissions in rivers, and other environmental impacts of electricity generation. Cap and trade programs (see, e.g., RGGI for greenhouse gas, Acid Rain Program for SO2, etc.) force generators to buy and consume emissions credits. FERC’s oversight of the wholesale market for electricity also impacts generator incentives and behavior [link to LSE or WM/TO section on FERC].
Indirectly, government policy encouraging various forms of generation and discouraging others obviously affect the prospects for a given generator. Programs such as renewable portfolio standard (RPS) apply to LSEs, not generators, but directly favor wind and solar generation, and so are of paramount importance to renewable generators. Similarly, prices for or caps on carbon and other emissions have a negative impact on fossil fuel generators, especially coal and older natural gas facilities. Supportive policies for specific types of generation vary by state, depending on local resource availability and public opinion. Twenty-nine states have renewable portfolio standards of varying stringency and with different definitions of a “renewable” energy source. Several states provide policy incentives to support nuclear generation.
Plant siting often requires approval and/or permits from one or more government agencies, including a building permit, an electrical permit, and in some cases, a permit from the fire department. Agencies involved may include local land use board or zoning authority, and potentially the Bureau of Land Management or the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. An environmental review (sometimes called an environmental impact analysis) will be required by the state and/or the EPA before construction. The opinions and activation of the public impact such decisions and can be either supportive (e.g., optimistic about employment and economic benefits of a new generation facility) or antagonistic (e.g., concerns of public safety or property value impacts). Local agencies may also pursue policies to encourage or discourage development of local resources. One place may want to keep power plants out, whereas another might want to encourage their development (see, e.g., Marin Clean Energy’s focus on developing in-county renewable resources). Additional governance factors impacting generation siting are discussed in the Project Development and EPC steps of the Utility-Scale PV and Wind value chains [links].
Sometimes a potential power plant project’s viability is dependent on adequate transmission. Government or RTO/ISO stakeholder processes often determine if, how, and when new transmission lines are built. Even when it is decided that new transmission should be built, the process for siting and approving such lines can be as complex or more than siting a power plant (see., e.g., the process involved with San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s Sunrise Powerlink Project).
Deregulated markets, though open to a wide range of generators, are not free of rules. The ISOs and RTOs often have bid caps and market power mitigation rules that limit the ability of a generator to earn high rents, even if market circumstances would allow it. The Wholesale Markets and Transmission Operations step of the power markets value chain further discusses the role of ISOs and RTOs [link].
Table SC.3 summarizes many major U.S. regulations that impact generators, either directly by setting limitations on construction, emissions, or oversight, or indirectly by altering rules for complementary segments of the power markets value chain. We note that many other regulations of relevance to generators are discussed in the Project Development and EPC sections of the Utility-Scale Wind and Utility-Scale PV value chains (e.g., PURPA, renewable portfolio standards, etc.) [links back to wind and PV PD/EPC]
Table SC.3 Major U.S. Regulations that Impact Generators
Source: Table A-2 and A-3 from U.S. Department of Energy (2017) Transforming the Nation’s Electricity System: The Second Installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review, Appendix: Electricity System Overview.
|Atomic Energy Act||1954||Established federal regulatory authority over civilian uses of nuclear materials and facilities through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Delineated federal/state jurisdiction for nuclear material and facilities: licensing of nuclear plant construction and operation as well as waste disposal are in the federal domain, while states retain oversight of generation planning by vertically integrated utilities.|
|Price Anderson Act||1957||Facilitated the development of nuclear-powered generating capacity by establishing a program for covering claims of members of the public in case of a major accident at a nuclear facilities and providing a ceiling on the total liability for nuclear accidents.|
|Clean Air Act||1970||Authorized comprehensive federal and state regulation of stationary pollution sources, including power plants. Provided for National Ambient Air Quality Standards, State Implementation Plans, New Source Performance Standards, and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Required states to decide what pollution reductions will be required from particular sources to address National Ambient Air Quality Standards and required states to submit State Implementation Plans.|
|National Environmental Policy Act||1970||Required federal agencies to review the environmental consequences of a proposed project before granting approval. Agencies prepare Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments considering stakeholder input and make the report publicly available.|
|Clean Water Act||1972||Established regulations for discharging pollutants into water, including wastewater discharges from generation facilities (e.g., cooling water, wastewater from pollution control equipment, etc.).|
|Resource Conservation and Recovery Act||1976||Provided EPA with the authority to regulate hazardous waste, including generation byproducts like coal ash.|
|National Energy Act||1978||Passed in response to oil shortages in the 1970s and perceived national security threat of increased reliance on imported oil. Legislation included the National Gas Policy Act of 1978, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), the Energy Tax, the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, and the National Energy Conservation Policy Act.|
|Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA)||1978||Defined “qualifying facilities” and established the right of qualifying facilities to interconnect with a utility-controlled grid and the mandatory purchase obligation. Under the mandatory purchase obligation, utilities were required to purchase a qualifying facility’s energy at “avoided cost” (i.e., the cost to the utility to generate or purchase that amount of energy in the absence of the qualifying facility).|
|New Source Performance Standards||1979||EPA rule governing sulfur dioxide emissions from coal power plants, effectively requiring flue gas desulfurization on all new coal plants.|
|Clean Air Act Amendments||1990||Encouraged market-based principles to pollution control, such as emissions trading. Required EPA to regulate more than 180 specified hazardous air pollutants and set up specific procedures to determine whether the air pollution regulations would apply to power plants that run of fossil fuels. Established the U.S. Acid Rain Program, a large-scale emissions cap-and-trade system setting a cap on annual sulfur dioxide emissions from the power sector.|
|Energy Policy Act||2005||Repealed under PURPA requirement that utilities must purchase power from all qualifying facilities and small power producers at a rate based on the utilities’ avoided cost. Encouraged energy efficiency through new statutory standards, requirements for federal action, and incentives for voluntary improvements. Provided tax incentives for domestic energy production. Effectively replaced the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.|
|Energy Independence and Security Act||2007||Strengthened lighting energy-efficiency standards. Added Section 1705 to the load guarantee program, allowing subsidized loans to commercial facilities. Called for coordination to develop a framework for smart grid interoperability standards (National Institute of Standards and Technology).|
|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act||2009||Funded $31 billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy, energy infrastructure, and made other major investments in energy research and technology administered by DOE.|
|FERC Order 1000||2011||Required regional and interregional transmission planning, mandating that the planning process consider transmission needs driven by public policy requirements. Required regional and interregional cost allocation methods that satisfy six allocation principles. Eliminated the federal right of first refusal in FERC jurisdictional tariffs and agreements.|
|Cross-State Air Pollution Rule||2011||Replaced the Clean Air Interstate Rule starting in 2015. Required states to reduce power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution in downwind states.|
|Mercury and Air Toxics Standard||2011||EPA rule limiting mercury and other toxic emissions pollution from power plants.|
|Carbon Pollution Standards and Clean Power Plan||2015||Carbon Pollution Standards rule established carbon dioxide emission standards for new fossil fuel generators under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Power Plan established guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel generations, leaving states with discretion to choose the approach.|
Figure SC.3 Regulatory Jurisdictions in Electricity
Source: Figure A-5 from U.S. Department of Energy (2017) Transforming the Nation’s Electricity System: The Second Installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review, Appendix: Electricity System Overview.
Quantitative Measurement of Imperfect Competition
Four Firm Concentration Ratio (FFCR)
Table SC.4 Four Firm Concentration Ratio (FFCR) for Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (NAICS 2211) and electric power generation (NAICS 22111)
Source: 2007 U.S. Economic Census, Utilities: Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Summary Statistics by Concentration of Largest Firms for the United States: 2007
|NAICS||Firms||Number of Establishments||Number of Employees||Revenue ($1,000)||Total revenue from large firms (%)|
|2211||4 largest firms||770||67,129||66,671,244||15.0|
|2211||8 largest firms||1,176||130,510||119,303,717||26.8|
|2211||20 largest firms||3,860||259,388||238,954,814||53.6|
|2211||50 largest firms||5,784||384,056||343,709,798||77.1|
|22111||4 largest firms||130||17,047||25,495,866||21.1|
|22111||8 largest firms||411||36,148||43,541,393||36.0|
|22111||20 largest firms||768||71,187||72,750,105||60.1|
|22111||50 largest firms||1,103||97,062||101,628,228||84.0|
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)
Table SC.5 provides HHI estimates by state calculated in the context of potential market power in electricity generation ownership as it could impact emissions allowance trading programs.
Table SC.5 HHI Estimates by State (2010)
Source: Table 2 from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Electric Generation Ownership, Market Concentration and Auction Size, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491
Firm Economic Data Table
Table SC.6 lists firm revenues, number of employees, as well as location of headquarter and manufacturing facilities. More detailed firm information can be found in their annual report or company website (link provided).
Table SC.6 Major Generation-Owning Firms
Sources: Statista list of top electric firms by market value; revenue and generating capacity from company annual reports (available on company websites); net generation calculated from EIA Form 923 detailed data (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/)
|Utility/Utility-owning company||Market Value (billion $ as of May 2018)||Revenue ($billion in 2017)||generating capacity (MW)||2017 net generation (GWh)||Description||Website|
|Duke Energy||56.2||23.60||49,500||228,439||Duke utilities in NC, SC, TN, FL, KY, OH, IN, generation, commercial transmission||https://www.duke-energy.com|
|NextEra Energy||75.8||17.20||46,790||84,423||Florida Power & Light Company, as well as generating capacity covering a wide geography||http://www.nexteraenergy.com/|
|Southern Company||45.5||23.03||46,000||Alabama Power and other utilities in southern U.S., as well as generating capacity across many states||https://www.southerncompany.com/|
|Vistra Energy||12||5.43||41,000||electric utilities, generation in CA, TX, IL, New England, operates in multiple US wholesale markets||https://www.vistraenergy.com/|
|Exelon||39.2||33.53||32,700||203,838||Exelon Generation, Constellation wholesale, and numerous utilities involved in transmission and delivery in NJ, MD, PA area||http://www.exeloncorp.com/|
|Entergy||14.3||11.00||30,000||116,031||electric utilities in AR, LA, MI, TX and generation||www.entergy.com|
|American Electric Power||33.1||15.4||26,000||generation, transmission, distribution across AR, IN, KY, LA, MI, OH, OK, TN, TX, VA, WV||https://www.aep.com/|
|Dominion Resources||42.2||12.59||25,700||21,445||electric utilities and transmission in NC and VA, generating capacity across additional states||https://www.dominionenergy.com/|
|Xcel Energy||23||11.70||17,000||generation, transmission, electric utilities across CO, MI, MN, NM, ND, SD, TX, WI||https://www.xcelenergy.com/|
|Ameren||13.9||6.18||16,900||electric utilities in MO, IL, generation, transmission, distribution||https://www.ameren.com/|
|Public Service Enterprise Group||25.8||9.1||12,000||generation in NJ, NY, PA, and CT, solar facilities across the U.S., and utilities in NJ and NY||https://corporate.pseg.com/|
|DTE Energy||18.6||12.61||11,602||2,110||electric utility in MI, generation, transmission, and marketing||https://www.dteenergy.com/|
|WEC Energy Group||19.5||7.47||8,700||electric utilities in WI and MI, generation and project development||https://www.wecenergygroup.com/|
|PPL||19.4||7.45||8,000||electric utilities, generation and transmission in KY, PA, VA, TN, and the United Kingdom||https://www.pplweb.com/|
|PG&E||22.4||17.14||7,687||23,997||Pacific Gas and Electric Company, generation and transmission capacity in CA||http://www.pgecorp.com/corp/index.page|
|CMS Energy||12.8||6.58||5,759||6,347||Consumers Energy Company and generation, transmission, distribution capacity in MI||https://www.cmsenergy.com/|
|FirstEnergy||16.2||14.02||5,000||electric utilties in OH, PA, NJ, WV, MD, generation and transmission||https://www.firstenergycorp.com/fehome.html|
|Edison International||20.3||12.30||3,175||9,687||Southern California Edison, distribution and transmission||https://www.edison.com/|