Good afternoon and welcome to the Edison International Fourth Quarter 2023 Financial Teleconference. My name is Sheila and I will be your operator today. When we get to the question and answer session, if you have a question, press star one on your phone. Today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Sam Ramraj, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Ramraj, you may begin your conference. Thank you, Sheila, 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-K, prepared remarks from Pedro and Maria, and the teleconference presentation. Tomorrow we will distribute a regular business update presentation. During this call we'll 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 with 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. Well, thank you, Sam, and good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us. I am pleased to report that Edison International's core EPS for 2023 was $4.76, which was above the midpoint of our guidance range despite the pending CEMA decision shifting into 2024. This strong performance demonstrates our ability to manage the business and extends our track record of meeting annual EPS guidance over the last two decades, as shown on page three. Today we are introducing 2024 EPS guidance of $4.75-$5.05. This range incorporates a planned investment in O&M for reliability-focused activities and redeploys savings from prior years into operational excellence initiatives. The spending will benefit customers and therefore shareholders in the long run. I also reaffirm our strong confidence we have in our long-term EPS growth targets of 5%-7% for 2021 through 2025, and also 2025 through 2028. Maria will discuss our financial performance and outlook later on the call. Page four shows our accomplishments in 2023. First, we once again delivered on our annual EPS guidance. Second, SCE exceeded its wildfire mitigation plan target to install 1,100 circuit miles of covered conductor, bringing the total to more than 5,580 in just five years. We are proud of this progress, which combined with enhanced vegetation management, asset inspections, and other programs, has significantly reduced the need for public safety power shutoffs. Incorporating this progress into the independent wildfire risk model managed by Moody's RMS, you can see on page five that SCE has achieved 85%-88% risk reduction as compared to pre-2018 levels. Third, SCE filed its cost recovery application for the TKM events, requesting $2.4 billion. SCE provided a compelling case that it prudently designed, managed, and operated its equipment, and that the associated costs were reasonably incurred. Lastly, we raised our annual dividend by 5.8%, reflecting the board and management's continued confidence and commitment to delivering on our EPS growth targets. Our dividend yield is in excess of 4% and remains a key component of our total return proposition. This marked the 20th consecutive annual increase in Edison International's dividend. Page six provides an update on the 2017 and 2018 wildfire resolution and our approach for 2024. I would like to emphasize 3 takeaways. First, SCE continues to make solid progress and overall claims are settling in line with expectations. SCE revised the best estimate of total losses upward by $65 million, with the majority of this based on a single settlement. The deadline in the Woolsey Settlement Protocol to provide complete claims packages was yesterday, and SCE is now evaluating the responses. Second, the utility targets resolving more than 90% of Woolsey claims and filing the cost recovery application in Q3. Third, CPUC President Reynolds issued the scoping memo earlier this month for the TKM proceeding, which largely adopts SCE framing of the issues. We are encouraged by this ruling because the issues will be handled in a single phase, allowing for a final decision as soon as Q1 of 2025. Also, the schedule provides an opportunity for parties to submit a settlement agreement. I would like to remind you that our financial assumptions for 2025 and beyond do not factor in the cost recovery applications, which would represent substantial value for the company and SCE's customers. Page seven summarizes the key management focus areas for 2024. On the wildfire mitigation front, SCE plans to install an additional 1,050 miles of covered conductor in 2024, after which this program will start to ramp down. By the end of next year, SCE will be approaching a significant milestone: 90% hardening of its total distribution lines in its high fire risk area. You can see this depicted on page eight. Also, SCE will continue its GRC advocacy for funding critical investments that will enable efficient electrification and the state's clean energy transition. I want to emphasize that distribution grid investment accounts for more than 85% of SCE's capital plan, and these investments are crucial for ensuring reliability, resiliency, and readiness. The CPUC has consistently approved this type of spending in previous GRCs, reinforcing our confidence in SCE's request. As for the legal and financial categories, I just discussed our legal approach, including filing the Woolsey application in the third quarter, and Maria will discuss her financial targets shortly. We at Edison are equally focused on the long term. As we have highlighted in several industry-leading white papers, the grid will be a key enabler for realizing California's pathway to Net Zero. To get there, it will be critical to rapidly expand the high-voltage transmission system and the localized distribution networks that serve customers. This aligns well with the underlying drivers of our investment outlook. As more and more vehicles and buildings are electrified, the electricity demand will increase by 80% over the next 20 years, which will benefit customer affordability through a 40% decrease in their total energy costs across electricity, gasoline, and natural gas. After years of flat demand, SCE is projecting an uptick in electricity usage of about 2% annually over the coming years. To accelerate the development of new markets over time, SCE has developed innovative proposals, including its nation-leading suite of transportation electrification programs. Recently, although the CPUC denied SCE's building electrification application due to their near-term affordability pressures, it acknowledged SCE's leadership in proposing programs to accelerate much-needed building decarbonization. The utility will continue to evaluate the results of other building electrification pilots it has in progress, and will also look for different ways to support the state in advancing its clean energy priorities. Another area where we continue to innovate is building our digital and AI capabilities to drive greater efficiency. We are investing in technologies to improve our data analytics skills, to enhance decision-making, and strengthen operational excellence. For example, we are using generative AI to improve inspections, customer experience, and grid planning. Today, our team is also using AI for research, workflow automations, and code development. In SCE's customer service operations, AI is enabling call center agents to retrieve information faster, performing speech and sentiment analytics, and supporting billing operations. We will continue this proactive approach to capture value using new technology. To conclude, our operational agenda is driven by safety first, reliability, affordability, and resiliency in our overall utility operations, including SCE's wildfire mitigation and industry-leading covered conductor program. Our financial agenda is very clear: deliver on our 2024 EPS guidance and achieve our EPS target for 2025. Our team and I are very committed to executing strongly, and we will continue to share our progress with you. With that, let me turn it over to Maria for her financial report. Thanks, Pedro, and good afternoon, everyone. In my comments today, I will discuss fourth quarter and full year 2023 results, SCE's CapEx and rate-base opportunities, and 2024 EPS guidance. I want to reaffirm our unwavering confidence in achieving our long-term EPS growth target of 5%-7% from 2021 to 2025. I'll elaborate on the factors underpinning this confidence shortly. Let me begin with fourth quarter results. EIX reported core EPS of $1.28. As you can see from the year-over-year quarterly variance analysis shown on page nine, core earnings grew by $0.13, primarily due to higher GRC revenue and lower O&M, partially offset by an increase in interest expense. The parent company also had a gain on preferred stock repurchases. For the full year, EIX's core EPS of $4.76 was above the midpoint of our guidance range. For context, you will recall that we identified two specific items in this guidance: the pending CEMA decision and the tender offer for EIX's preferred stock. The CEMA decision shifted into 2024, and the gain on the preferred stock repurchase was $0.04. I'm also pleased to inform you that our operational excellence initiatives are off to a solid start, and we are seeing this translate into higher operating efficiency throughout the business. This was reflected in better than expected SCE operational variances. Summing up our 2023 performance, the key takeaway is that we continue to manage the variability in the business and yet again deliver core EPS above the midpoint. Page 10 shows the components of our performance versus guidance. Turning to SCE's capital and rate-base forecasts shown on pages 11 and 12, I want to emphasize two messages. First, SCE has a robust and high-quality capital investment plan for 2023 through 2028. The utility plans to invest $38-$43 billion, the majority of which is in the distribution grid. This spending covers several critical areas, including infrastructure replacement, wildfire mitigation, load growth, new service connections, and inspections and maintenance. This type of spending has been approved in prior GRCs, so we view these as high-quality and lower risk. Moreover, they directly support California's leading role in transitioning to a carbon-free economy. Second, these forecasts do not incorporate substantial additional long-term CapEx opportunities in several areas. The utility will file standalone applications with the CPUC for the next-gen ERP and AMI 2.0 programs once they have been fully developed. On the FERC side, SCE is the incumbent transmission owner for 17 projects approved in CAISO's transmission plans, which we expect will result in more than $2 billion of investment. Turning to 2024 EPS guidance, the range of $4.75-$5.05 and modeling considerations are outlined on page 13. As you can see, rate-base earnings growth is strong, though our EPS guidance implies modest growth for the year. There are three primary reasons for this. First, interest expense on the wildfire settlement-related debt grows by about $0.16, driven by refinancing $2.1 billion of maturities and issuing additional debt to fund the balance of the claims resolutions. I want to be very clear that the utility expects to seek full CPUC cost recovery of all eligible claims payments, including financing costs. Second, SCE operational variance is $0.15-$0.34 lower year-over-year. As we've noted, this captures SCE's variations from authorized levels, including such items as AFUDC, O&M, depreciation, financing, and true-ups from regulatory approvals. Pedro talked earlier about the planned increase in O&M as SCE spends on targeted, reliability-focused activities and redeploys savings into operational excellence initiatives. This accounts for 15%-20% of the total year-over-year change. The utility continues to spend in its operations, including distribution, customer service, and IT, to support reliability and benefit customers in the long run. Third, parent and other costs are higher, primarily due to the absence of the gain on last year's preferred stock repurchase, and also having a full year of interest on the junior subordinated notes issued in excess of the amounts needed to fund the repurchase. Turning to page 14, I want to emphasize the strong underlying business growth that is being masked by the growing interest expense on wildfire claims debt. As you see on the chart, we are on track to achieve 5%-7% core EPS growth for 2021 through 2025. This is despite the burden of about $325 million of pre-tax interest, or $0.61 per share, which reduces our core EPS growth by 250 basis points over this period. On the other hand, this illustrates the substantial potential value from successful resolution of the cost recovery proceedings. I would now like to address the big increase in 2025 core EPS and share some insight into what makes us confident in delivering on our commitment. To do this, we are going beyond our typical one-year forward guidance and providing a bridge between the midpoints of 2024 and 2025 core EPS guidance, which is on page 15. The biggest contributor to earnings growth comes from an increase in rate-base earnings. You will recall that for the last several years, we've been projecting rate-base to increase by 11%-14% in 2025. This step-up has two components. The first relates to the 2025 GRC, which in total drives $0.63 of the change. The drivers for this increase are 2025 CapEx and rate-base true-ups, including differences in the timing and mix of capital deployed over the prior rate case cycle. The second component relates to non-GRC applications to recover past wildfire mitigation and other spending, as well as FERC jurisdictional investment. This represents the remaining $0.15. A significant portion of this relates to covered conductor installation and other mitigation spending above what was authorized in SCE's 2021 GRC. Outside the rate-base EPS, I want to underscore that operational variances are not a key driver, and its contribution is in line with historical levels. Further, we see wildfire interest expense moderating as the claims settlement process should be substantially complete, and SCE has only $300 million of wildfire debt maturing in 2025. Let me summarize by saying that our confidence is underpinned by these growth drivers, further bolstered by the fact that headwinds in 2024 are expected to moderate going into 2025. Turn to page 16. Following an active year of capital market execution in 2023, our planned 2024 financing activities are minimal. In December, EIX pre-funded $75 million of the $100 million annual equity need with our junior subordinated notes offering. The remains will be addressed through internal programs by the end of Q1. As for the rest of the parents' funding needs, we expect to issue $500 million of debt to refinance the maturity. Turning to page 17, we are also reiterating our core EPS growth target of 5%-7% for 2025 through 2028, which only requires $100 million of equity per year. On the right side of the page, we've now laid out the consolidated sources and uses for this period. Let me conclude by saying our confidence in meeting our 2024 and 2025 EPS targets remains strong. Additionally, there are also potential value creation opportunities that are not factored into our guidance metrics or the company's equity value. These are cost recovery for the 2017 and 2018 events, successfully executing our operational excellence program, the cornerstone for SCE's cost leadership and lowest system average rate among major IOUs in California, and incremental CPUC and FERC growth investment opportunities. We look forward to executing on our plans and sharing progress on the next quarterly earnings call. That concludes my remarks, and I'll pass it back over to Sam. Sheila, 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. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your phone. One moment for the first question, please. Our first question will come from Shar Pourreza with Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open. Shar, we're not able to hear you in conference. Please check your mute feature. Can you hear me now? Shar, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Yeah. I can hear you fine. How are you? Perfect. Sorry about that little technical issues. Pedro, just wanted to start off on the components of the 2024 drivers, in particular, maybe that $0.15-$0.20 of O&M reinvestment. When you reference redeploying the savings in the future, would that be one-for-one with the $0.15-$0.20? And I guess, what time frame would that impact? So I think I'll start, and Maria can continue here. But we're focusing on what we are investing in 2024, and we see that being an investment in systems, processes, or continued work around operational excellence that we think will accrue benefits for customers over the long haul. So it's really all about making sure that we are thinking long-term and doing good things for the business. This is not one big bang. It's multiple opportunities that I think we've discussed with investors in the past, consistent with our operational excellence work. Yeah, Shar, I think Pedro has captured a lot of it in that response. I'd also focus on the fact that the spending that we're doing, the reinvestment that we're doing, we talk a lot about affordability, but we also talk a lot about reliability for our customers. So you're seeing us put the money to work in reliability efforts, so grid remediations, generation, as well as the operational excellence initiatives that will provide value over a long-term period. So I think it's those things that we're really focused on in 2024, and you'll continue to see us make those investments as we move forward. Got it. Okay, great. And then just appreciate you calling out the wildfire debt drag that is impacting results, the $0.61 of drag. I guess, how do you plan to update your assumptions on that portion going forward, especially as we're now well in progress with the TKM recovery? Thanks. Sure. So as you know, we are not assuming any recovery in our long-term EPS forecast. We have submitted a very compelling case, and we're making progress and have the scoping memo now. But we haven't incorporated anything there in terms of the benefit. We have provided interest rate assumptions. We have some refinancings in 2024. As I mentioned earlier, we only have $300 million of refinancings coming due in 2025. But the interest rate forecast that we have today embedded there is pretty consistent with what we're seeing. So as we continue down that path, we'll just be providing sort of quarterly updates on the activity around the cost recovery application. Okay, got it. All right. Thank you very much, guys. I appreciate it. I'll pass it to someone else. Thank you. Thank you, Shar. Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. You may proceed. Hi. Good afternoon. Hi, Steve. Hi there. Hi, Pedro. So just wanted to you had talked in the past about the kind of higher cost of capital would be a lot of that would be offset with likely reinvesting in the business and the like. So just as we look at the guidance for 2024 and, I guess, 2025, could you just kind of go back to that prior comment and how to think of it from that standpoint? Sure, Steve. It's Maria. So what we've talked about in the past around the Cost of Capital Mechanism and the trigger is that, obviously, that's tied to interest rates and the interest rate environment that we're in. And as we look forward, we do view that Cost of Capital Mechanism and the trigger as being a hedge against interest rate changes on the expense side of the equation, if you will, but also an opportunity to reinvest in the business, again, looking at that longer-term affordability. So as you think about changes year-over-year, you can see as we already talked about in 2024, you can see that we're taking dollars and we're reinvesting them in the business. As you look forward to 2025, I think there's a really interesting chart, and I want to highlight it. As you look forward to 2025, we have updated the rate-base earnings in 2025. Makes sense. The cost of capital mechanism is triggered. We've updated our tariff sheets. When in our next rate change, we'll be implementing the new cost of capital. So it makes sense to update rate-base earnings. And then we've gone through the rest of the buckets in 2025 and also updated them first to reflect the changes in interest rates, the hedge aspect of the cost of capital mechanism. So you see that our cost excluded from authorized have been updated. That's largely wildfire debt interest expense. We've also taken a look at all of the other buckets, the operational variances, etc. But when you look at what's happening between 2024 and 2025, the increase in earnings is driven by rate-base growth. SCE operational variances in line with historical levels, not a significant driver. EIX parent and other, not a significant driver of year-over-year growth into 2025. Frankly, now by 2025, the wildfire debt will have also stabilized, not a significant driver. So that's how I think about the Cost of Capital Mechanism and then how it rolls through all of the different components. Okay, thank you. Just one follow-up. You mentioned the FERC transmission projects that are not in your plan. Kind of when would we have a sense of whether you're likely to get those, and would they kind of become part of your plan? Sure. So we are the incumbent transmission owner for 17 of the projects that CAISO has included in their plan. That's $2 billion plus. That is largely post-2028. So as we continue to refine the cost estimates because although we are the incumbent transmission owner, we are doing the engineering work currently. As we continue to update that and get a firmer view of the specific cost, we'll roll that out. But again, a lot of the spending is post-2028. In terms of the competitive bids that were out for bid or the competitive projects that were out for bid last year, we did bid on two projects and should know sometime in the spring whether or not we've been selected. Steve, I think a reminder beyond those projects that have been identified by ISO, if you go back to our Countdown to 2045 white paper from last year as we looked across all of California, we see this continued need to invest in the grid over the long term through 2045 with the pace of transmission additions needing to be four times statewide what it's been historically and the pace of distribution additions needing to be 10 times what it's been historically. So we see a lot of work for the utility in the two decades ahead. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Steve. Thank you. Our next question will come from Nick Campanella with Barclays. Your line is open. Hey, thanks a lot for taking the questions and all the updates today. Go ahead, Nick. Hey, good afternoon. Especially the EPS bridge. I just had a question on that, just the $0.30 of true-up in the 2025 EPS bridge, is that just very unique to 2025, or does any of that kind of continue through 2026? Because I just know there's a lot of programs and true-ups outside of traditional GRC. Thanks. Yeah, great, Nick. So you're talking about the rate-base true-up that we show on that bridge in the deck, right? And so when you think about that, there are different components to rate-base. As I said earlier, rate-base is the driver for earnings growth between 2024 and 2025. Two buckets around rate-base growth. One is related to the 2025 GRC, and the other is related to non-GRC applications, if you will. I'll break down the 2025 GRC-related item a little bit more. Some of that's just 2025 CapEx. We spend it. It goes into rate-base. The prior spending and the true-ups really reflect, as an example, over the course of a rate-case cycle, the actual mix of capital that we've deployed or assets that we've deployed is a little different than what's in authorized. So we have true-ups around that prior period spending. We also have some non-CapEx-related items that get trued up in a rate case or get, as they say, litigated in a rate case. Those could be things like taxes or the manner in which customer deposits are treated. So there's a number of things in there. Those are not atypical for a rate case proceeding. The second piece, the non-GRC piece of it, the applications there, those also relate to prior period spend, but those are things that we're going to seek recovery for outside of the general rate case, and we should be filing something relatively soon, in fact, particularly around the items that relate to prior period covered conductor spend. So that's the flavor of the rate base. I think it's really important to note also that so it's rate base growth. It's rate base earnings, but it covers actually a pretty diverse bucket of different elements. We think that that diversity also helps strengthen the move from 2024 to 2025. Okay. I appreciate the color. That's helpful. And then I guess just a little bit of a follow-up on Steve's question, just thinking through as you wrap in some of these upside factors to the plan, just what's the type of balance sheet capacity that you have to do that and sustain higher CapEx, and how do we think about incremental equity funding, if at all? Sure. So we did include a sources and uses this time for the 2025 to 2028 period. We have a very strong commitment to our balance sheet, and I think you've seen us demonstrate that commitment with the financing decisions we made in the past. But also, the balance sheet has been strengthened by all of the wildfire mitigation that we've deployed. It's really made a difference, I think. As we move forward in time and we add capital to the capital plan, SCE will, of course, fund it per their authorized capital structure. And we're in the 15%-17% FFO to debt range. So the EIX component of the financing plan, we'll just have to see where we are in that 15%-17% FFO to debt range, and we'll make our decision based on our metrics. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Nick. Our next question will come from Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho. Your line is open. Hey, good afternoon. I think I just have maybe one quick follow-up. I want to connect slide 14 and slide 6. When I look at slide 14, it looks like interest expense increase, and I believe that's just as you're funding more of the liabilities. Does the, I guess, stability in the interest expense, as you show, $0.61 in 2024, $0.61 in 2025, is that stability in the interest expense more related to hedges, or is it related to, on slide 6, that the claims are coming in slower and it's requiring less funding? It's probably not either exactly, Anthony. Basically. Both are two. Sorry. It's a third choice. We have some maturities that are coming up in 2024, so that's built into the 2024 number, obviously also built into the 2025 number. Also, as we continue to settle claims, the way we've modeled this is that we will be substantially complete with that by the end of 2024. And so you're really not seeing big increases in the debt. There is a maturity that will have to be refinanced in 2025, but it's only $300 million. So those are the drivers for why the number stays pretty constant, and we would expect that as we get closer and closer to the end. Great. And then just last follow-up on the claims. I believe in your prepared remarks, you stated that the increase of $65 million - and I apologize if I heard this incorrectly - was related to one claim. Could you give additional color on that if that was the correct way I heard that? Yeah. What I said was that the majority of it was from one claim, Anthony. What we're seeing is that as we went through that, it was one claim, and then I think just a small number of other claims made up the balance of that. We're seeing that our research modeling continues to be robust, but we had a couple unique outliers that required an adjustment this time. Great. Thanks so much for taking my questions. Good. Thanks, Anthony. Our next question will come from Mike Lonegan with Evercore ISI. Your line is open. Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Hi, Michael. A planned asset sale related to the tower attachments. Just wondering what your expectation is on when a scoping memo will be issued and if you could comment on the level of interest you are seeing from potential buyers and if you still expect to receive proceeds mid-2024 into 2025. Great, Michael. Thanks. So we are waiting for the scoping memo. We've gone through various aspects of the proceeding thus far. We know where intervenors have focused their questions. To some extent, they focused a little bit on safety, but I think that we've easily addressed that. There's no change from a safety posture due to this transaction. They've also taken a look at the sharing mechanism that's been proposed. Obviously, we embedded a sharing mechanism with customers that's already part and parcel of our tower structure around these types of assets, but they did raise some questions around that. So like you, we're waiting for the scoping memo. We're hopeful that it'll come out relatively soon, but that is the next step in the process. As you recall, the request that we made was to treat the sale in a particular manner that would not require a very large application to follow on to the first one. That will be decided as we go through, and we could see things go quickly and do something this year, but certainly could go into 2025 in terms of a sale. We won't really start marketing until we actually know what the regulatory schedule will be because we think that's more productive from a transaction perspective. Great. Thank you. And then secondly from me, just a general question. You've highlighted that by the end of 2025, you expect 90% of your distribution lines that are located in high fire risk areas to be hardened and have said that wildfire mitigation spend is stabilizing. My question is, I would think presumably, there are areas that are not currently categorized as high risk that could potentially become high risk over the long term. Things seem to be evolving pretty quickly. I was just wondering, have you done analysis, or do you have plans to do proactive work on areas that could emerge as high risk in the event that they develop that way faster than expected? Yeah. I'll give you a couple of reactions to that, and it's a good question, Michael. Clearly, we continue to monitor how the landscape is changing. We do that in partnership with fire agencies and with OEIS. So to the extent that additional areas are designated HFRA, high fire risk areas, in the future, then we would make sure that we're using the same standards that we use for high fire risk areas today. We do expect that as climate change continues to drive more extreme weather, if you go back to our Adapting for Tomorrow white paper, by 2050, we see something like a 20% increase in wildfire risk statewide. But that said, this is where we're relying on the hardening. And so certainly, if we see more areas come into that high-risk fold, then we will apply the same sort of methodology to them. The other thing I'd say is that as we progress in our normal investment, we've had this big push to do the rapid hardening in HFRA, but we've also upgraded our standards for just generic replacements. And so we'll also see hardening take place more organically as we continue our bread-and-butter infrastructure replacement throughout the system. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks, Michael. Next, we will hear from Ryan Levine with Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, everybody. Hoping to ask on AI, you highlighted it in your prepared remarks. How material do you see the cost-cutting opportunity to be for Edison? And then more broadly, given some of your role in EEI, do you see a lot of shared information to address that commercial opportunity for the industry? Yeah. I'd say I'm getting perspectives on that, not only from my EEI colleagues, but as I engage with CEOs across the economy, right, the Business Roundtable, Business Council, it is a big topic for everybody, a big focus area. I think that this is a long-term opportunity, Ryan, and we're really excited about it. I feel proud that Edison, I think, is one of the early movers, certainly in our sector. So the kinds of examples you heard me describe where we have had some pilots, we've moved from pilots to actually implementing permanent additions to things like what I mentioned in the customer call center support, it's a real long-term efficiency opportunity, but we're still very early days, right? So handicapping, I know it's going to be significant. How quickly can they really get deployed? How quickly does the technology mature? Pinning that then against more specific cost estimates, I think this is something we will continue to see in probably at least the next two or three rate cases over time at SCE. So there's going to be a curve to that, and we're moving quickly with the pieces we're working on right now, and we're seeing impact from them, but it will take a while for that to mature into long-term savings where we can say, "Here's X cents in EPS that's coming from that," or, "Here's the millions of dollars that we're able to save customers in a future rate case. Great. If I could ask one follow-up on the transmission opportunity, is there any disclosure you're able to share around rights-of-way or resources that you have to make an argument for winning the two outstanding bids that you highlighted? Ryan, I'm just going to say that the CAISO has all of our information, and we'll let them go through it before we make a lot of detailed statements about our bid. Yeah. Sorry we can't go into more detail right now, Ryan. Understood. Appreciate the answers. Yeah. You bet. Thanks, Ryan. Thank you. Our next question will come from Angie Storozynski with Seaport. Your line is open. Hi, Angie. Thank you. Hi. How are you? Okay. So can I just ask about what happened with the benefit from the cost of capital? Because I understand that there is reinvestment happening in 2024. I get that. But why doesn't it reappear then in 2025? I mean, again, it should be just a one-time offset, no? I mean, again, is it somehow the GRC truing up the costs here? Again, why am I not seeing the benefit in 2025? Sure. So we did provide sort of a bridge between 2024 midpoint to 2025 midpoint. And I think the way that we've discussed the Cost of Capital Mechanism before is that it triggered because of the interest rate environment, and so we view it as, in part, a hedge against interest rate movements. We also view it as an opportunity to make investments. And those investments could be purely around creating longer-term affordability, which then provides more opportunity to invest in rate-base, but also around reliability, which we know is a top focus for our customers as well as for our regulator. If you think about what we've updated for 2025, we took the rate-based update that's associated with the Cost of Capital Mechanism. We also took a look at where interest rates had moved, which is, again, the hedge. The other part of the cost of capital is on the expense side, and we updated our cost excluded from authorized. Those movements were largely related to wildfire claims debt. That's stabilizing, of course, post-2024, but you can see that we've updated that. We looked at the operational variances, again, as well, and we've seen that those are pretty much flat year-over-year, a little bit of increase year-over-year with 2024, so in line with historical levels. Obviously, as Pedro noted, we're working on a lot of different operational excellence efforts, and so we're going to continue to make those investments so that ultimately we get more of those benefits out on the other side. But those are the ways that we thought about the update to 2025 and really wanted to highlight that if you look at 2024 and then you look at 2025, it's that rate-based growth that is driving earnings, and that is ultimately, in the long term, the earnings growth trajectory for the company. It's always going to be tied to rate-based growth. And so I think that that really clarifies sort of the stability and the foundation for our long-term earnings trajectory. So I understand, but here's my question. So if you recall the previous couple of calls, we've always had this discussion about, "Is this really incremental to the earnings range for 2025 versus some offsets to that number?" And so I'm just wondering if the same is going to be true now with the $0.61 that your guys are showing on slide 14, which is the earnings drag associated with wildfire claims. So again, obviously, it depends on the recovery of those costs, but I'm just wondering if $0.61 is really the upside scenario here, or is there something that's going to eat into this potential benefit, assuming that you get recovery of all of the wildfire costs? Right. So I think we've been really explicit. I think there's even a chart that shows the progression even from 2001 to 2025 in terms of what that earnings drag is related to the wildfire debt. Not trying to mask anything at this point. We've laid out the maturity schedule that we have related with wildfire debt. We've incorporated basically, as I noted earlier. We've assumed that we will be pretty much done with the wildfire claims payments by the end of this year. And so all of those amounts plus the refinancings that we'll do this year and next year are baked into that number. So I don't think that we're talking about anything that is sort of an area where you would see something unexpected happen. We haven't incorporated. We're talking a little bit about offsets and the like. We have not incorporated any benefit from the cost recovery application and recovery of those claims payments. So there is nothing that would eat into that $0.61 in a negative way. Cost recovery, obviously, creates a benefit because then that interest expense would be offset by authorized revenue. So it actually, I think, in terms of your question, would go the other way. Okay. And then separately on the transmission ROE, from just the assumption about a 10.3 transmission ROE, is there any concern that there's any substantial downside to that ROE? Just if only looking at what happened with PG&E and the ISO adder, etc., how comfortable are you with that level? Well, we are comfortable. We have a black box settlement. Our settlement doesn't have references to the CAISO adder or the like, so that 10.3 is the number that we have. Intervenors can ask us at this point to go in and file another rate case or another FERC formula rate case. They haven't done so to this point. Obviously, the interest rate environment is significantly different than the last time that we settled the case. So I guess there's potential risk on both sides, right? Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Angie. Our next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Your line is open. Hi. Good afternoon. Hi, Jeremy. Hi. Just wanted to come back to an earlier point. Apologies if I missed it here, but with regards to the 2025 bridge and the prior spending true-ups of $0.37, is that a number that recurs going forward, or should we expect in 2026 that to drop off? Oh, I see your question. Sorry. And I probably didn't understand it clearly the first time. No, those are going to be rate-based earnings. So the dollars, the $0.78, is just the increase from rate-based earnings, and the next year, those things will still be in rate-base. So we'll just be if you look back at the chart that we have that shows rate-based year by year, we were bridging from the midpoint, but it's a cumulative number as you go forward. Each year, the rate base will just embed the change that happened in 2025 and then whatever incremental CapEx we have on top of that in the then-current year. Got it. That's helpful. Thank you for that. Another smaller point, if you will, just turning to slide 26 and looking at the 2025 core earnings per share component ranges and the SCE cost excluded from authorized, it seems like that goes up by a quarter or so versus 2023. And I was just wondering what would be some of the drivers there. It looked like the interest rate assumption was unchanged, so just wondering component feeding into that. Yeah. So that is largely related to wildfire claims debt. And as we've been updating the amounts that we have to pay for claims, we need to update that, and there has been volatility as we've gone in and refinanced some of the claims. So the driver in the difference relative to the prior is really about wildfire claims payment-related debt. Again, our view, and we talked about this on the last earnings call as well, is that the cost of capital mechanism, which is driven by the interest rate environment, has a corollary on the expense side, and so the CCM is really a hedge against ongoing interest rate movements. Sorry, just to clarify there, I didn't mean versus 2023. Versus the prior 2025, I think that number changed, and that's just. Right. It did. It is still related. I understood your question. Sorry. It is related to increases in wildfire claims-related debt. Got it. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jeremy. Our next question will come from Gregg Orrill with UBS. Your line is open. Hey, Gregg. Yeah. Thank you. Hi. Just sorry if this is sort of old ground, but with the deadline to file a claim for the Woolsey recovery, how does that impact, if at all, the best estimate of total losses that you have? So, Gregg, we, as you know, every quarter take a look at all of the information that we have and then tie that back to what we think about our best estimate. The process that you just referred to ended yesterday. The team is in the process now of evaluating all of the responses that have been submitted. And so over the course of the next quarter, we'll be taking a look at that, and we will update folks as we get through that onto the next earnings call. That's clear. Appreciate it. Great. Thanks, Gregg. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question will come from David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Oh, hey there. Thanks so much. Hey, David. Let me see. I wanted to get your perspective on the building electrification proposal. I guess, how are you positioning that type of an opportunity? Is that something that you could approach in a different way, refile in the future, look for maybe a different strategy or funding or affordability considerations just as you look at maybe other strategies for investing in building electrification going forward? Yeah. Thanks, David. That's a great question. And first of all, let me just probably repeat myself a little bit here, but when we think about the building electrification application, I think SCE had done a really nice job of two things. One, identifying a big gap in deployment, and secondly, coming up with a solution that basically had a cost benefit of one, right? So that is actually pretty attractive when you have an emerging technology like heat pumps. And so the second thing they did was developing this application with that cost benefit of one that would not only stand on its own two feet, but it was going to create a demand signal that would be very powerful to then help manufacturers go off and scale and capture those economies of scale that you get as you increase the volumes that you're producing. We saw this phenomenon, right, collectively in California and more broadly. We saw the phenomenon with solar. The early RPS targets helped drive down solar manufacturing costs. We've seen a phenomenon with battery cells, right, which have come down in cost dramatically. I think they're probably 10% of the costs it used to be a decade ago. That hasn't happened with heat pumps yet, hence the building electrification application. We appreciated that the commission credit SCE for creativity, and frankly, I agree. But they felt these near-term pressures, affordability, and passing the application. They also pointed, though, to some of the other funding that they thought was available and perhaps didn't think that SCE had factored in sufficiently. I can respectfully disagree with that view. I think SCE had factored that in. What's ironic about it is that that very same week, actually a few days before the CPUC voted out that final decision, the governor, unfortunately, cut out something like $200 million from his budget proposal for building electrification. And so to me, that just shows that, as we say, one of the key gaps as we identified in our Mind the Gap white paper a few years ago, building electrification, when you think about total greenhouse gas emissions in the state, buildings account for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. But we saw building electrification being able to make up about a quarter of the gap that we saw in terms of new decarbonization steps needed between when we filed that or published that white paper, I don't know, two, three years ago and 2030. So sorry for the long preamble, but it kind of gives you context of how important we think building electrification is. So what do we do now? Well, for us, let me just remind you that that denial of bee doesn't impact at all the 5%-7% EPS growth targets we have for 2025 and for 2028. That would have been incremental on top of that. And it certainly does not impact the merit of SCE's 2025 GRC application because the infrastructure investment that's called for there is absolutely needed regardless of what happened with bee. But our team will continue to look at how is that gap shaping up for the state? How is the state doing in terms of meeting its 2030 legislative target of a 40% economy-wide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels? How is the state doing in terms of getting to Net Zero by 2045? We expect we'll continue to see Building Electrification be a laggard in terms of the progress in the state. Our team is already thinking about, are there other opportunities to help the state help itself? Whether that's another application like this one, we certainly wouldn't go back out with the same thing. No point to that. We'll continue to think creatively about, is it an application that stands alone? Are there other funding sources that can be tapped that might be existing today but that maybe haven't been quite fully tapped yet? Are there things that SCE can do as a utility? Are there things that SCE can encourage others to do to help address the gap? We're thinking about the whole space right now, and we'll keep you posted. Does that help, David? Yeah. Yeah. That's a helpful perspective. It doesn't seem like the opportunity goes away. Well, the need certainly doesn't go away. The need is increasing, right? Right. Yep. Yep. Makes sense. No, great. Then I guess my only other kind of lingering question here, and maybe I'll have to follow up separately, but just on that cost excluded from authorized, sorry, Maria, to go back to this, but just are there any other moving pieces in that $0.25 versus the last slide deck? Did the amount of wildfire claims debt go up meaningfully? I would have thought that that was not changing too much kind of quarter to quarter here, and then it looked like the interest rate assumption was flat between the two slides there. So sorry, just curious if there was anything else there was missing. It's totally fine. You'll recall that in Q3, when we did have the more sizable increase in the reserve, we didn't really update every single line item in the 2025 roll-up because we knew that we would be able to manage within the range. But now that we've got the CCM sort of, as I said, integrated into our tariffs, it'll be implemented in rates, we wanted to go through line by line and provide a fresher update. So that's what's going on. Okay. Got it. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Thanks, David. Our next question will come from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Your line is open. Hey. Good afternoon, team. Thank you very much for the time. Appreciate it. Hey, Julien. Hey, hey. Thank you. So let me just ask a little bit of a follow-up from Angie here vis-à-vis the cost of capital here. When you think about it maybe in the reverse here, if you will, if there were to be further gyrations on the cost of capital, it sounds like there are puts and takes that you could manage around here to keep numbers intact, right? I get that the full extent upwards wasn't necessarily reflected in a linear fashion in the outlook for a variety of reasons. I just wanted to clarify that piece, and then I got a quick follow-up on the long-term here. Sure. Yeah. I think. I got folded into a lot. Okay. So, Julien, I think that actually, if you think about what happened in 2023 where we managed the variability that we saw in the business and came out at 476, which is above the midpoint of our guidance range, we always have things that we're managing in the business, and we would do that to the extent that we needed to relative to the cost of capital. But I want to just reemphasize the Cost of Capital Mechanism triggered because of the interest rate environment we're in. I'll reflect again that the Energy Division did disposition our advice letter and indicated that the change would be implemented. They went through and responded to all of the intervenor commentary around sort of intervenors' perspectives on why they think it shouldn't be implemented, and they did a very thorough job of responding to each point. It does now have to be resolved through the CPUC writ large, but none of the facts have changed, and we continue to move forward with it. And again, it's in our tariff sheets, and it will be implemented in our next rate change. I would just use it as an opportunity, a little bit of shameless plug, but this kind of goes back to page three in the deck. We manage the business. We have met or exceeded our guidance for the last two decades, and we plan to continue doing that, Julien. I hear you on that one. Excellent and well done. Maybe just speaking of guidance and long-term outlook, just real quickly on the EPS profile, right? So you have this 2025-2028. We've talked a little bit with Jeremy earlier about the continuity of that $0.37 from 2025 into 2026. How do you think about the earnings profile from 2025 to 2028? That might go back to some of the variances, the cadence, the GRC itself. Any comments that you'd offer? Sure. And I think I just want to reiterate that $0.37, it's part of our rate base in each year. So if you do the rate-based math the way you've always done it, you'll capture that true-up and the ongoing impact of that. So I just want to make sure I say that one more time to clarify for folks. In terms of the ongoing through 2028 trajectory, I'm going to take it back again to rate-based math. Earnings here are driven by rate base, and we see that growth trajectory all the way through 2028. We've given you the range. We've given you the numbers that relate to the request. We've given you some sensitivities around what the moving pieces are. But fundamentally, the wildfire claims debt expense has stabilized, right, because now we're getting to the tail end of all of that. So that's stabilized. It doesn't create that, not in the beginning, but in at the end sort of dynamic we had in 2021 through 2025. As we've said before, O&M efficiencies are not a driver for 25 through 28. Yeah. Julien, again, same thing for 2028 as for 2025. We've shared with you our target of 5%-7% growth rate through 2028, and our growth rate will be someplace in that 5%-7% range. For 2025, you're going to see a growth rate for us. It's going to be 5%-7%. It's not 3%. It's not 4%. It's going to be 5%-7%. So we're going to meet our guidance and deliver on our expectations for you all. Excellent, guys. Cheers. Thanks, Julien. I will now turn the call back over to Sam Ramraj for closing remarks. Thank you for joining us. This concludes the conference call. Have a good rest of the day. You may now disconnect.