I wish it was, but it is not.
1. Electric universe has stars being mutually exclusive of "planets".
2. They have no evolutionary understanding of stars.
3. They have no understanding of planet formation.
4. They ignore the role of thermochemistry and electrochemistry in stars.
5. They base their ideas on mythological interpretations
6. Stresses electrical/catastrophic events could have formed what we observe
1. Has stars as being new planets and planets as ancient/older/evolving stars.
2. Has an evolutionary understanding of stars (since all "planets" are ancient stars that is a given).
3. Has a understanding of planet formation (since all "stars" evolve into what are called planets which is also a given.)
4. Does not ignore the role of thermochemistry and electrochemistry (the source of heat from all evolving stars is not thermonuclear)
5. Does not base itself on mythological interpretations, as a matter of fact completely ignores mythological interpretations.
(I cannot stress this enough, events in stellar metamorphosis take thousands of eons, we can call this deep time, or time that happens beyond our daily perception of reality.)
6. Stresses all naturally occurring phenomenon are important.
(Focusing on one phenomenon to explain all is having a hammer and looking at everything as if it were a nail. In natural philosophy we have to consider all possibilities, as nature is very complex and stepped in more ways than one.)