Good afternoon, and welcome to the Edison International Third Quarter 2022 Financial Teleconference. My name is Dexter and I'll be your operator today. When we get to the question and answer session, if you have a question, please press star one on your phone. Today's call is being recorded. I would like to now turn the call over to Mr. Sam Ramraj, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Ramraj, you may begin your conference. Thank you, Dexter, and welcome everyone. Our speakers today are President and Chief Executive Officer, Pedro Pizarro, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Maria Rigatti. 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 our regular business update presentation. During this call, we will 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 Pedro. Thank you, Sam. Edison International reported core earnings per share of $1.48 for the third quarter, and $3.49 for the first nine months of the year. Based on our year-to-date performance and outlook for the remainder of the year, we are narrowing our 2022 core EPS guidance range to $4.48-$4.68 from our prior range of $4.40-$4.70. We are fully committed to delivering our long-term EPS growth rate target of 5%-7% to 2025. In my remarks, I will focus on three key messages. First, SCE's excellent progress reducing wildfire risk. Second, we have updated the 2017 and 2018 wildfire and mudslide events reserve. Third, I'll talk about the increasing alignment between California's clean energy actions and SCE's vision to lead the transformation of the electric power industry. SCE is making excellent progress in executing its wildfire mitigation plan. As I've mentioned before, when we look across all 17,000 circuit miles of distribution lines in SCE's high fire risk area or HFRA, over 7,000 miles are already underground. The utility's grid hardening measures are focused on the remaining approximately 10,000 miles that were above ground. SCE is rapidly deploying covered conductor and is on pace to complete 4,300 miles or 43% of its overhead miles in HFRA by year-end. As depicted on page 3, SCE plans to continue hardening the grid through its next rate case cycle, which would result in about 8,400 overhead miles hardened. Additionally, SCE has continued to reduce the impact of PSPS. With the acceleration of grid hardening activities on frequently impacted PSPS circuits this year, SCE anticipates reducing PSPS outage duration by over 44 million customer minutes of interruption. That's more than 17% compared to the last two years, assuming the same weather and fuel conditions. As analysts, investors, rating agencies, and members of the CPUC have observed from visits to SCE's emergency operations center this year, SCE has made marked advancements in its wildfire mitigation and emergency preparedness capabilities. Additionally, we continue to share extensive data on SCE's wildfire mitigation efforts on the investor relations website. Turning to the 2017 and 2018 wildfire and mudslide events. In the third quarter, SCE paid about $350 million towards settlement of claims. Driven by this significant new information obtained through the litigation process following the closing of the Woolsey Fire statute of limitations in May and our thorough evaluation of such information, the utility increased the best estimate of total losses by $880 million to a total of $8.8 billion. As summarized on page four, I would like to share with you some additional information and background on the reasons for this large estimate revision. Claims resolution is a long and challenging process, and we really appreciate your patience as SCE works through it in a prudent manner, which will ultimately support the utility's strong cost recovery applications. With the statute of limitations for Woolsey individual plaintiffs behind us, we now know the actual number of plaintiffs bringing claims in connection with that event, and we have obtained important additional information on the nature of the claims for many of these remaining plaintiffs, though still not for all of them. To give you more visibility into the process, we now have more information regarding the type of claim a plaintiff has. For example, whether a plaintiff has a claim for smoke and ash damage or damaged property or entire property loss or for a business. Based on now having a defined number of claimants and more clarity on the nature of their respective claims, the reserve was adjusted to reflect our experience to date settling similar types of claims, including higher than expected costs to settle several types of those claims. The continued progress settling claims enables us to move further along in resolving these historical 2017 and 2018 events. I want to be clear that we still expect SCE to file the application for TKM cost recovery by late 2023, and to seek full CPUC cost recovery of claim statements, excluding, of course, amounts recoverable from insurance referred or foregone under the agreement with the Safety and Enforcement Division. I will also note that our financial assumptions for 2025 and beyond do not factor in any potential upside from this cost recovery application. My final comments focus on California's clean energy actions and Edison International's vision to lead the electric utility industry through the clean energy transition. In August, the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, approved a rule requiring 100% of new cars sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The regulation codifies the light-duty vehicle goals set out in an executive order earlier this year. In September, CARB voted to ban the sale of new gas furnaces and water heaters beginning in 2030. This built on the CPUC's unanimous decision a week earlier to eliminate subsidies for new natural gas hookups beginning July 2023. At the federal level, the administration is proceeding with multiple implementation actions for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act. Just this week, the U.S. EPA announced the first $965 million tranche of funding for the electric school bus program authorized by the Infrastructure Law with about $35 million supporting school districts in SCE's area. We are pleased to see this state and federal support for electrification, which is also consistent with our vision laid out in our Pathway 2045 white paper. SCE is a leader in electrification with the country's largest suite of transportation electrification programs led by an investor-owned utility which benefit SCE in a differentiated manner. Electric vehicle adoption continues to accelerate here in California. Over the last three months, EVs accounted for roughly 20% of new car sales in California. SCE service area has about 400,000 of the 3 million EVs in the country. EV charging accounts for over 2.5 million megawatt hours or about 3% of SCE's projected 2022 retail sales. However, by 2045, this could grow to about 50 million megawatt hours. Meanwhile, we are awaiting CPUC review of SCE's $677 million building electrification application, which will help catalyze this market in tandem with California's plans to include around $1 billion in state budgets over the next five years. We are excited about working in partnership with state and federal governments and with other stakeholders, including the communities we serve, to advance policies that rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions. With that, Maria will provide her financial report. Thanks, Pedro, and good afternoon. In my comments today, I will highlight that we had strong third quarter results and have narrowed our 2022 EPS guidance range to $4.48-$4.68. Before I move to that, there are three additional takeaways for today's call. First, we remain committed to delivering on our 5%-7% growth target through 2025. Second, our near-term maturities are manageable. Finally, SCE's current operational excellence program, which we call Catalyst, is off to a strong start, and we have high expectations for the program. Let's move to third quarter results as shown on page 5. Edison International reported core earnings of $1.48 per share. Recall that in the third quarter of 2021, SCE received its 2021 GRC final decision and recorded a $0.35 true-up. This results in an unfavorable year-over-year comparison for this quarter. I will highlight two additional key variances. SCE's earnings were driven by an increase in CPUC-related revenue in 2022 due to the GRC escalation mechanism and previously unrecognized return related to the Customer Service Re-Platform Project final decision. Moving to page six, SCE's capital forecast has been updated slightly, primarily to reflect the timing of the spending related to the utility-owned storage project. The project is now expected to be online before summer 2023, and consequently, some of the capital spending has shifted to 2023. As shown on page seven, our capital forecast continues to result in projected rate-based growth of 7%-9% from 2021 to 2025. This forecast incorporates SCE's current view of the requests to be made in the 2025 GRC and other applications. With respect to 2022 guidance as shown on page 8, we are narrowing our 2022 core EPS guidance range to $4.48-$4.68 from $4.40-$4.70. Based on our year-to-date performance and outlook for the rest of the year, we are confident we will deliver results within this narrowed range. I would now like to provide a brief update on our 2022 financing plan, as outlined on page 9. We continue to expect to refinance the last $300 million of parent debt maturing this year with new debt. Recall that we completed a $400 million refinancing in August. Combined, these will complete the refinancing of $700 million of parent debt. On the equity side, we expect that internal programs will generate about $100 million of our 2022 need of $300 million-$400 million of equity content. In April, we entered into a $600 million term loan maturing in April 2023, which provides execution timing flexibility for the equity content we identified in our original guidance. If we defer into 2023, we will incorporate any remaining amount into the 2023 EIX financing plan. In all, we will share our 2023 financing plan on our Q4 earnings call. Turning to the current interest rate environment, I would like to frame the company's interest rate exposure that factors into our 2025 EPS guidance and address how we plan to mitigate the impact from higher interest rates. Page 10 shows Edison's debt maturities over the next five years. There are three categories to consider. The first category is the debt that funds 2017 and 2018 wildfire and mudslide claims resolution. Pedro and I have been clear and consistent that SCE plans to apply for full cost recovery of eligible losses. SCE's cost recovery application will also include the interest on the debt that funds the claims payments. None of this potential upside is built into our financial forecast. The second category is SCE operational debt. The interest rate exposure is minimal as we updated the estimated cost of debt and preferred in September as part of our 2023 cost of capital application. The third category is EIX parent debt. We are currently forecasting the incremental cost of debt at approximately 6.1%. To the extent rates go higher over the next several years, we have headwinds to manage. Across the organization, we are always looking for operational efficiencies underpinned by a continuous improvement mindset. Over multiple rate case cycles, the utility has a distinguished track record of implementing operational excellence initiatives focused on enterprise-wide efforts to improve performance in safety, reliability, affordability, customer experience, and quality. This has also enabled SCE to have the lowest system average rate among California IOUs. In the current program, Catalyst, the portfolio includes over 600 employee-driven ideas with capital efficiency and O&M benefits. These ideas span SCE's operations, and major themes include work planning, procurement, and technology, as shown on page 11. The expected benefits should progressively increase as we accelerate implementation through 2024, further benefiting affordability for SCE's customers. Additionally, we evaluate one-off opportunities. For instance, we have been evaluating our real estate portfolio for efficiencies. Reducing our footprint and managing these facilities costs will benefit customers in the longer term. We have high expectations for the Catalyst program and the ability to deliver value for customers. We expect to identify additional opportunities in the core areas of safety, reliability, affordability, and quality as part of a multi-year program. We look forward to sharing success stories from the front line as we go along. Moving to page 12, we have provided you with our long-term EPS guidance rooted in the significant investment opportunities aligned with our objectives of decarbonization and electrification. In this regard, I will emphasize two key points. First, we have incorporated the current interest rate environment and updated other assumptions. Second, we have identified tailwinds and headwinds that may drive variability around these ranges and provided sensitivities where applicable. As you can see from individual details on the page, we believe that the combination of drivers and strong execution will deliver the 5%-7% growth. Let me highlight a few areas. One is operational variances, which include the Catalyst work that I've described, among other items. Also, I would like to point out that embedded in our guidance is SCE's current ROE of 10.3%. In the 2023 proceeding, SCE has requested an ROE of 10.53%, which is strongly supported by SCE's analysis and the current interest rate environment. The 2023 proceeding also includes resetting the benchmark for the Cost of Capital Mechanism to about 4.4%. If the bond index rates exceed the 100 basis point deadband, the mechanism would trigger, which in turn would result in updating the cost of debt and adjusting the ROE starting with the following year. For sensitivity analysis, we expect each 10 basis points of ROE changes EPS by about $0.05 in 2025. Additionally, the range around the parent expense we've shown you in the past also incorporates a range of equity content needs of up to $250 million per year on average, and the amounts will vary with rate-based growth. To conclude, we are reiterating our 5%-7% EPS growth rate guidance from 2021 through 2025. My management team and I are fully committed to delivering on this target. That concludes my remarks. Sam? Dexter, 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. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your phone. One minute for the first question, please. Our first question comes from Shar Pourreza, Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open. Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Hi, Shar. Hey, Shar. Pedro, why don't you just start off on the legacy claims disclosures. Obviously, the estimate's going up to $8.8. What are you currently embedding for financing needs associated with the increase in the overall liability? As you guys are reiterating, the cost recovery process could be an upside to the current financial plan. I guess, what's a good way of looking at the potential range of scenarios and how and when you would disclose any potential benefits? Let me start with the last part of your question, Shar, and then turn it to Maria for the financing piece. Just to reiterate some of my comments, we wanna be crystal clear that we plan to and expect to have SCE recover full cost recovery, other than for the amounts that are already being expected to be recovered from FERC or excluded in the, you know, SCE, settlement. We, as you've noted, have not taken any sort of regulatory assets for those. You know, we leave it to investors to, you know, develop your own expectations. Certainly we expect that we'll have a very strong case for cost recovery. We'll go through the regulatory process. We cannot guarantee results under the, you know, GAAP precedent of the, San Diego Gas & Electric decision. Don't feel like we are able under GAAP to, you know, claim a regulatory asset. We think we're gonna have a strong case for prudence. You know, any recovery amounts are upside relative to the base numbers we provided you. Maria, you wanna talk about the financing assumptions? Sure. Shar, just to reiterate, we don't have anything built into our 5%-7% EPS CAGR through 2025 related to recovery on this. Rather we've actually embedded all of the liability, you know, beyond the insurance recovery, et cetera, that we have. We've embedded that in basically the SCE costs excluded from authorized. The drag in there, we've updated. The drag includes the update to the revision to the liabilities that we did this quarter, and we've assumed about a 5.3% cost of financing, which corresponds to sort of where the forward curve looks today, and we're assuming sort of a 5-year tenor on that debt. We will, of course, be as efficient as possible as we go out and finance it. You know, as the market maybe reasserts itself and you see maybe shorter term debt looking cheaper, we might decide to do some of that as well. Right now, that's what we're embedding. We're embedding five-year tenors based on a current forward curve. Got it. Just on one last thing on the financing side. You know, could you delay beyond 2023? Obviously, you guys have some generating assets and rate base. You know, one of your peers is obviously engaged in a process to split and sell equity for efficient financing. Could you envision something very similar or not? You have, I think, a little bit over 4 gigs. Yeah. I would say, you know, as part of the 5%-7% CAGR, we're assuming that we execute our financing plans. I'll say, in the normal course, so what we announced earlier this year, but we've just created additional runway to push that off into next year. We're always looking at opportunities. I think, you know, obviously, we'll be tracking the developments, that are happening in other parts of the state, looking at the regulatory outcomes, et cetera. We're also looking at other opportunities. We're always looking through our portfolio for assets that could provide a more efficient form of financing. Every company has a different portfolio, so we'll have to just keep looking. Perfect. Fantastic, guys. I'll jump back in the queue. Thank you so much. Thanks, Shar. Our next question comes from Steve Fleishman, Wolfe Research. Your line is open. Hi, Steve. Good afternoon. I think just going to the claims increase, I think your percent resolved actually went down. Could you just explain, is that just because you're now assuming just a bigger total amount? Yeah, that. Yeah, so- That's simple math, Steve. Sorry. Yeah, Okay. We resolved about 350 million claims this quarter, so we're still making progress on the claims, but it's just the math of the increase versus the resolutions. Okay. Is there any other statute of limitations left to hit, that you haven't yet? No, there is not. Okay. How are the rating agencies treating the claims here? And is there any risk of more equity needed to support the further increase in claims? The rating agencies typically treat, you know, whether we've actually spent the dollars yet or we've just reported the reserve or the liability. They treat that as either actual debt if we've financed it, or imputed debt if we haven't yet financed it. That is, you know, part of the calculation, so it'll be embedded. We do not need to change our financing plan to address this. You know, we've been, as you know, quite interested in having our metrics improve, and so we've built up a little cushion. This is eating into the cushion over the next several years now. Okay. I mean, this might be a statement of the obvious, but kind of this just seems kind of like a bit maddening. What's happening here in terms of this keep increasing and then just kinda having to wait and wait and wait for recovery. Is there anything else that can be done or any way to kind of further accelerate this so it's just kinda not just doesn't continue as it is for several years until we get an answer on any recovery. Is there any other options the company can pursue to move this quicker? Yeah. Steve, I appreciate the question, and I know it's one on a lot of investor minds. We have all hands on deck on this. The reality is that we passed a major milestone in terms of information content with the closing of the Woolsey statute of limitations period. You know, as I said in my prepared remarks, we now actually know the number of claimants, which is not something that we knew until we were able to get past that closure date and be able to evaluate the data. We said all along that, you know, we work hard to make sure we are providing investors the best estimate under GAAP, but we recognize that there's things that can change that best estimate as we proceed along. I'm not aware of something, you know, the magic tool that we could use to somehow accelerate this other than where our legal team is working expeditiously with the thousands of remaining plaintiffs, you know, to get through that process. As you might recall from prior quarters, you know, we have worked successfully to set up, you know, processes for having that be as expedited as possible with support from the respective courts. We will continue at it. I know there's some element of, you know, frustration with this for all of us, but it is the reality of having this kind of, you know, mass litigation case with thousands of individual plaintiffs still remaining in the balance sheet. Steve, maybe I'll just add one more thing. We do plan on filing our first application for recovery by late 2023. The change in the reserve has not impacted that schedule. Just one more clarification on that filing. Could you give us some sense roughly of the kind of amount that's available for recovery? You know, how much that filing would capture as a percent of that? Is it half of it? Is it 90% of it? Is it 20% of it? You know, Steve, I think because we're still in the middle of the settlement process and the litigation process, we probably don't wanna break it out in too much detail, but obviously it's a substantial amount. Okay. Thank you. To be clear, Maria, and helping out if I'm misunderstanding Steve. Steve, we plan to request for recovery of all allowable amounts. The only amount that we will not be asking for recovery for are the amounts that we've recovered already through insurance, the amounts that we'll recover from FERC, or we expect to recover from FERC, and the amounts that we agreed in the settlement with the Safety and Enforcement Division to exclude from cost recovery. That leaves the vast bulk of, you know, the reserve is, you know, we are planning to go seek full recovery of all of that. In this filing in late 2023? In between the combined filings. Again, remember, this filing in 2023 will be for the 2017 events, the TKM events, and then that'll follow later with a filing for the 2018 events. 2018 happened a year after 2017, you know, it's natural that those would not land at the finish line at the same time. I think what Maria was referring to was we have not broken out for investors what portion is TKM versus what portion is Woolsey. We've shown you a combined number. We are in active litigation, and that's just we can always find the balance point here between providing sufficient information for our investors while recognizing we're in active litigation. Making sure that we're not providing excessive information that could end up impairing our ability to defend our customers in the litigation process. Okay. Thank you. Our next question comes from Gregg Orrill, UBS. Your line is open. Yeah, thanks for taking my question. Hey, Gregg. Hey. There, I think Maria made a comment about the real estate portfolio or management and optimization there. What were you referring to? Greg, I think that real estate portfolio optimization is really about reducing the size of our footprint. Like many companies, you know, we're returning to the office or have returned to the office in a different mode. We're looking at places to consolidate and reduce our real estate footprint. I'd say that has the biggest impact on customer costs over time as we get more efficient with the use of our facilities. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Gregg. Our next question comes from Jeremy Tonet, J.P. Morgan. Your line is open. Afternoon, Jeremy. Hey, good afternoon. Actually, Rich Sunderland on for Jeremy, but thank you for the time today. Just wanted to start on the operational variances. I think first and foremost, the $0.80-$0.95, your ex-parent and other, that was unchanged from 2Q. Curious if you were already embedding the current interest rate assumptions in there, if there are kind of other offsets you've adjusted over the quarter here. Yeah, we did update the financing assumptions there. Now at the parent company, we are assuming that the embedded cost is about 6.1%. Like the rest of the company, at the parent, we have opportunities for both operational and performance efficiencies, and so we're targeting some of those to help offset the increase in rates. It's a blend of things that have happened this quarter. Okay. Got it. Understood. I guess at a high level on these variances, are these recurring? Or I guess thinking about that walk, you mentioned 2024, but then the new GRC cycle in 2025. Do they reset in 2025, whatever you've accomplished in 2024? It's a variety. Some things will certainly accomplish some efficiencies over the course of the next few years, and that'll reset in the 2025 GRC. There's also things where you get misaligned over the course of a GRC. When we bring the spend back in line with authorized, or maybe vice versa, authorized back in line with the spend, we'd actually see a reduction of maybe some drag that we've been experiencing. I think across the different variances, there's just you know a variety of different inputs. Other things in that line, AFUDC, we have you know operational efficiencies. We have some other things where we'll have a catch up with the GRC. I think it's a number of things. Got it. That's really helpful. Maybe I'll just squeeze in one last one. Any rough breakdown on what those sort of ongoing are versus the resets? You know, it changes from year to year because the other thing that impacts that line item is also the timing of regulatory approvals. You saw this earlier this year, we had highlighted getting an approval on the Customer Service Re-Platform Project, and so that was a big timing difference potentially between this year and next year. We've gotten a final decision now, and so it's in 2022. You'll see some of those things over the course of the next few years. The exact timing of when they hit is impacted by when we file the application as well. It's a little bit of a mix from year to year. Got it. Appreciate the color there. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. Our next question comes from Nicholas Campanella, Credit Suisse. Your line is open. Hey, Nick. Hello, Nick. Hey, thanks for taking my question. I just wanted to ask kinda, you know, when you think about the capital that needs to be deployed for your decarbonization plan, the covered conductor plan, and then, you know, also just the fact that, you know, fuel prices have come up and we're in just a greater inflationary environment here, and then you kinda layer on the recovery of the wildfires. Just, you know, overall confidence level and just being able to kinda maintain customer rates where they are and kinda execute on this plan. Yeah, let me start with that one. It's a great question. Let me start at the end. Right? This is where the view that we have on Pathway 2045 is so important because we need to remember that this decarbonization pathway, fortunately, is one that we believe will lower customers' total energy costs. There will be upward pressure over the next couple of decades on electric rates as we make the investments that are needed, you know, to decarbonize, to electrify a lot of the economy. There will be customer-side investments that they will need to be making in end-use technologies. That's where seeing the support from things like the Inflation Reduction Act is, you know, so helpful. The punchline or one of the punchlines from Pathway 2045 was that because of the greater efficiency of the electric technologies, we expect the average customer in 2045 to be spending one-third less than they do today on their total energy bill. That's also why if you see the business update that we'll publish tomorrow and similarly the one that we did last quarter, we have started including in there a chart that shows you, the share of wallet of our customers compared to customers in other states, what share of wallet is going across all energy uses. 'Cause you really need to look at this as not just electric, but the entire pie of electric plus natural gas plus gasoline. That's what ultimately impacts the wallet and that you're gonna have some realignments in spending going from gasoline and gas towards electric. That's why you can't just be looking at the electric side alone. You need to look at the total picture. That's the long-term view. In the short term, though, I think the work that Maria mentioned around Catalyst builds on the work that SCE has been doing for over a decade and looking at how we control the parts that we can control in our cost structures to minimize rate impacts, to, like, we make more room for the capital that's needed. Every dollar that you save on O&M can allow us to invest around $7 in capital while keeping rates constant. Then the final data point I'll give you there is that we're proud of the record there because it's led to SCE's rates being significantly lower than those of the electric rates of PG&E and San Diego Gas & Electric. We've been working on this for a while. We'll continue to work at it. I think it's a combination of working on the near-term things we can control and also communicating the long-term view that these electric side items are important to not only decarbonize, but to lower total energy costs for the customer. Maria, anything you would add there? Yeah. Maybe, Nick, just maybe one more thing. I think, you know, Pedro's really focused both on the long term and the near term and recognizing that, you know, there are things that we wanna work on over the near term to help bridge to that longer term. I think it's really interesting too, from a commission perspective, that they recognize the need for affordability. They recognize the work that people need to do. In our recent cost of capital proposed decision and alternate proposed decision, you know, a lot of the intervenors actually focused a lot on affordability as the reason why the trigger mechanism should be permitted to trigger. When the PD and the APD came out, the commission recognized that if allowed to trigger, that rates would actually go down, dollars would be refunded to customers. They also recognized that if you don't set the ROE at an appropriate level that reflects the utility's risk, it'll just make it that much harder to attract capital. I think that you're seeing a balanced approach to affordability in California. That's helpful. Thanks for the context there. You know, definitely noted the strong confidence in the long-term outlook, and the opportunities you're working on to deliver this 5%-7% rate. You narrowed the 2022 midpoint. How do we kind of think about 2023 in the context of this 5%-7% range and just any drivers that are explicit into the 2023 that are known and knowable today? Thanks. We'll obviously give our guidance on our 2023 guidance on our Q4 call. We've said before 5%-7% from the midpoint of our 2021 guidance through 2025. There are some nonlinear years in there you can imagine, but we are focused on delivering that value over the longer term. Thank you. Okay. Our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith, Bank of America. Your line is open. Hey, good afternoon. Thanks, team, for the time. Appreciate it. Hey, thank you. Maybe just stepping in where Nick left off here, just to make sure I heard this right. As you think about 2023 relative to the course of the outlook through 2025, is it fair to say that there's sort of a nonlinear element to getting to that 5%-7%, i.e., nearer term pressures with respect to the refinancings, et cetera, but ultimately between the cost savings that you've identified and latitude on timing of equity, that you can get to that 2025 outlook in a kind of a nonlinear way? Yeah. I think when I was speaking with Nick, I did mention that it was nonlinear. We expect that because as you move through time you're building up, you know, more efficiencies and the like. Obviously as we're moving through time we're able to put lean in our programs even more effectively. I think that is true. There is also, as I mentioned, when I was speaking to someone earlier on the call, we also have regulatory proceedings that we are very, very focused on so that we can deliver on those decisions at the appropriate time as well. That is part of the mix too, Julien. I think it definitely is all part of the mix of getting to that 5%-7% EPS CAGR by 2025. Excellent. Just to clarify, I think this is going back to Rich's question on the 85%-95% by 2025 here. Can you elaborate a little bit on the lower total equity content issued? Is that basically pushing out the timeline into, you know, 26+, the total equity, or is there a way to actually eliminate equity from the plan altogether? I just wanna clarify. Yeah, 'cause you alluded before to multiple moving pieces and how you get there, although in the slide you specifically call this one out. Yeah. In that range for Parent and Other, you know, because that's where we're basically incorporating all of the dilution. Obviously with the lower end of the capital range, we would need less equity. That's been part of the, I think if you go back to when we first started to talk about the plan through 2025, we talked about $250 million per year on average, but that's, you know, what you get at the higher end of that range if you're at the higher end of the capital range. That's what that variability is. As well as, you know. Right. variability to various operational variances too. Right. The core point there being that you could actually structurally bring down equity content potentially depending what happens. Yep. Excellent. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Julien. That was our last question. I will now turn the call back to Mr. Sam Ramraj. Well, thank you for joining us today. This concludes the conference call. Have a good rest of the day and stay safe. You may now disconnect.