Good day, and thank you for standing by, and welcome to the PG&E Corporation fourth quarter and full-year earnings call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one on the telephone keypad. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. If you require any further assistance, please press star zero. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Mr. Matt Fallon, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Sir, please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for participating in PG&E's fourth quarter earnings call. Joining us today are Patti Poppe, our Chief Executive Officer, and Chris Foster, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. I wanna remind you that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements about our outlook for future financial results. These statements are based on assumptions, forecasts, expectations, and information currently available to management. Some of the important factors that could affect the company's actual financial results are described on the second page of today's fourth quarter earnings call presentation. The presentation also includes the reconciliation between non-GAAP and GAAP measures. The presentation can be found online along with other information at investor.pgecorp.com. We also encourage you to review our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. With that, I'll hand it over to Patti. Thank you, Matt. Good morning, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us today. Our performance in 2021 confirms my confidence in our future. One, we've got the right team in place who implemented our lean operating systems company. Two, we've established our regional service model to deliver for our hometowns. Three, we met our major commitments in the 2021 Wildfire Mitigation Plan by the end of the year and implemented programs resulting in a significant reduction in wildfire risk. Four, our federal probation period has ended. We're a safer company because of the improvements we've made in the past five years. We look forward to continuing to work closely with policymakers, agencies, and regulators to rebuild trust through relentless focus on execution. We welcome the transparency and accountability that our customers should expect. Five, on our financials, we delivered right on our EPS target, $1 a share, the midpoint of our commitment for non-GAAP core earnings on a fully diluted basis. This is $1.08 on our basic share count, consistent with reporting a GAAP loss. We met our commitment to you, our investors, not more, not less, putting every penny to work for our customers. As you'd expect from us, we'll continue to manage the business efficiently to benefit our customers and provide predictable financial results to you, our investors, every year. For 2022, our non-GAAP core EPS guidance is $1.07-$1.13, up 7%-13% with a midpoint growth at 10%. Longer term, we're focused on delivering a total return of EPS growth plus dividend yield of at least 10% per year every year. This premium total return is driven by a simple but affordable model that you can see on slide four. We're making substantial necessary investments for our customers to improve the safety, resiliency, and reliability of our service, including our aggressive undergrounding plan. To mitigate the customer impact of our higher investment growth, we're planning to reduce our non-fuel O&M expense by at least 2% every year, and we're fortunate to have sales growth that accelerates over the years ahead from electric vehicles, building electrification, and more. Of course, we're making smart business decisions focused on optimizing our generation sources, efficient financing, and minimizing the use of dilutive equity. Longer term, we expect the impact to our customers will be at or below inflation. Everything we've accomplished in 2021 reflects our focus on the triple bottom line, serving people, the planet, and California's prosperity, underpinned by a relentless pursuit of improving our performance. We'll continue to lead by that triple bottom line, driving our performance in 2022 and beyond. Speaking of performance, to provide transparency and accountability, we'll be providing you with a report card each quarter. This is something you've been asking for, and it is shown here on slide five. We'll provide you with specific metrics related to our wildfire efforts, our customers, and our financials. Specifically, we'll show the number of reportable ignitions, our progress on undergrounding, gas distribution main replacements, our non-fuel O&M cost reduction, and several financial metrics. You'll see our progress across the business as we report out each quarter. Our Clear Sky playbook works, and in 2021, we experienced how powerful it can be here at PG&E. One bread-and-butter example is an in-line inspection job that I visited a couple weeks ago. Using our daily operating reviews and visual management tools, the project team installed 14 mi of in-line inspection capability. At the ribbon cutting, two local mayors and city council members shared with me how satisfied they were with the work and how we showed up for our hometowns. Seamless cross-functional execution that is focused on our customers. Thanks to our gas team for making it look easy. It can be when we have an operating method that delivers consistent and predictable outcomes. Our lean playbook also drove the execution of our Wildfire Mitigation Plan, producing great results. Last summer, we re-engineered our distribution lines to shut off power within one-tenth of a second when an object strikes the line or a fault occurs. We refer to this as enhanced power line safety settings or EPSS. In 2021, EPSS was enabled on 45% of the lines in our high fire threat service area based on fuel risk and accessibility. To be clear, EPSS is different from our public safety power shutoff program, which is based on proactively turning off lines in dangerous fire weather conditions, primarily high winds combined with low fuel moisture levels. We're planning on expanding our EPSS program in 2022 to up to 100% of our high fire threat distribution miles. As a reminder, these settings are in place to address the risk of an ignition on a non-red flag warning day that also has dry conditions. The expansion of the program in 2022 provides a greater level of risk reduction, and we're also implementing enhancements to reduce the impact of EPSS on customers. As you can see on slide six, once we implemented our enhanced power line safety settings, we saw an 80% reduction in ignitions on enabled circuits, which translates to a 40% reduction in ignitions across all high fire threat districts. As I said, in 2022, we're planning to adjust the program so all of our high fire threat distribution miles are capable of enhanced power line safety settings. We've learned a lot from our experience last summer, and we'll use that education to guide how we engineer these settings in 2022. In addition to expanding our EPSS program in 2022, we continue to focus on our most impacted customers in our public safety power shutoff or PSPS program. As a reminder, our modeling shows that the protocols we had in place for the 2021 wildfire season would have reduced the number of impacted structures from 2012 to 2020 by 96%. Due to increased sectionalization and more localized weather forecasting, our 2021 protocols reduced customer impact from PSPS by 78% this year. While we've developed an effectively scoped PSPS program, we expect this program to be less visible over time due to our focus on our enhanced vegetation management, our inspections, our repairs, our undergrounding, and our microgrid work. On that last point, PG&E brought our first remote microgrid online in 2021. This solution means that an overhead line is removed in a high fire threat area, keeping our customers safe. We're pursuing additional microgrid opportunities as part of our comprehensive Wildfire Mitigation Plan in 2022. When removing a line is infeasible, there are even more exciting tools in our toolkit. What we're exploring is the full potential of distributed energy resources and bi-directional charging electric vehicles that will offer resilience options for our customers. We can eliminate the trade-off between being safe and having power. That's the future, and we're making it happen here in California. For the longer term, we're expanding our system hardening program. Today, we're providing the first look at the next 5 years of our undergrounding plan here on slide eight. It's big and it's bold. We're moving on our commitment to underground 10,000 mi of power lines in our high fire risk areas. Undergrounding is a strong long-term solution for PG&E to reduce wildfire risk in certain parts of our service area. As we'll outline in our 2022 Wildfire Mitigation Plan, our goal is to substantially increase our underground miles each year, ramping up from 175 mi in 2022 to 1,200 mi in 2026. Of the nearly 600 mi we plan to complete by the end of 2023, over 50% are already scoped, construction-ready, or under construction. We'll file an update to our 2023 General Rate Case along with our 2022 Wildfire Mitigation Plan on February 25th to reflect this game-changing investment. Here's the good news. Undergrounding is a great example of our simple and affordable model in action. We invest in really high-value capital infrastructure and reduce our spend on temporary repairs and annual recurring expenses. Our update later this month will reflect a minimal impact to customers relative to our previous filing. As you can see on slide nine, our capital plan is larger from 2022 to 2026 than in previous five years. The need for significant investment across the system results from many factors, including continued safety investments in our gas system, property and building consolidation, technology adoptions to make our work more efficient, ongoing grid hardening and expansions, and of course, our undergrounding plan. As I covered earlier, we will protect our customers from energy bills they cannot afford with the cost discipline that many of you would expect. Before I hand it over to Chris, I'd like to close by reinforcing that we've met our commitments in 2021. We've laid the foundation to continue meeting our commitments in 2022. We've significantly reduced wildfire risk and are making investments that serve our triple bottom line of people, planet, and California's prosperity. Now, I'll hand it over to Chris to cover financial and regulatory items. Thank you, Patti, and good morning, everyone. As Patti mentioned earlier, this is about operating results and financial results. We're hitting our stride on the financial outcomes, creating a solid path to becoming a premium utility. This means meeting our financial targets, delivering consistent regulatory outcomes, and keeping an eye on the horizon. For us, that includes an improved emphasis on customer affordability, balance sheet health, and enabling clean energy solutions for California. Today, I'll cover three topics. First, our 2021 results, which were right on target, and our 2022 guidance. Second, areas of regulatory and legislative progress. Third, key elements of our strengthened five-year plan, which balances a range of necessary investment opportunities in our hometown with a focus on affordability. Let me now start with our 2021 highlights, then move into greater detail. We met our non-GAAP core EPS guidance, landing at $1 for the year using our fully diluted share count assumed in our guidance, or $1.08 using our basic share count, consistent with our GAAP loss. We finished the year without issuing equity. We executed our first of three AB 1054 securitization transactions. We reached settlement agreements in our 2018 CEMA and 2020 WMCE cases, and we received a positive final outcome in our first WEMA application. Slide 10 shows our results for both the fourth quarter and the year. Let's start with the share count used for Q4 2021 and full year GAAP and non-GAAP core earnings per share. As you can see, we're in a small GAAP loss position for 2021 due to our grant or trust election utilized for efficient tax planning. As a result of a GAAP loss, we're required to use basic shares outstanding to calculate both GAAP EPS and non-GAAP core EPS for the full year. Our full year guidance assumed non-GAAP core EPS of $0.95-$1.05 per share using our fully diluted share count. On a fully diluted basis, we landed right on our target of $1. We were GAAP positive for the quarter, so our Q4 GAAP and non-GAAP core EPS calculation reflects our fully diluted share count. Non-GAAP core earnings for the year came in at $2.1 billion. The non-core items listed here are consistent with the full year 2021 guidance range. Moving to slide 11, this shows the quarter-over-quarter comparison for non-GAAP core earnings of $596 million or $0.28 in the fourth quarter. We are pleased with the $0.11 of improvement here, and in particular, the $0.02 represented by operating cost enhancements in the fourth quarter. These savings are reflective of our enhanced focus on implementing better long-term solutions, allowing us to reduce costs and resulting in a more sustainable and affordable plan for our customers. Now to a few updates on regulatory matters. On the debt side, we completed our initial AB 1054 securitization transaction during Q4 2021 for $860 million. You can expect a similar transaction later this year once we work through the next regulatory proceeding. Over the next couple years, we expect to issue total securitization under the AB 1054 legislation up to $3.2 billion and the cap that was previously established with the timing of issuances tied to the timing of the qualified spend. We view this as an important component of the capital plan to reduce costs for customers while we invest in wildfire risk mitigation work. Our separate rate neutral securitization has also been approved by the CPUC. As a reminder, the use of proceeds from this transaction will allow us to retire $6 billion of temporary debt at the utility that has funded those payments in the interim. We are still working through the legal challenge that has been filed, but we are focused on issuing the securitization quickly once it is resolved and are hopeful to start issuing a first series as early as the second quarter of 2022. Additionally, during 2021, we continued to make progress on settling our outstanding cost recovery requests for wildfire-related investments. As previously highlighted, we filed a settlement agreement for our 2020 WMCE case, and we received a final decision on our first WEMA application during 2021. Additionally, on November 4th, we filed a settlement with the CPUC for 90% of our request in the 2018 CEMA case. As you can see here on slide 12, we expect to start seeing cash flows from these settled rate cases starting this year. I also wanna touch briefly on the next steps in our cost of capital proceeding. On December 24th, the CPUC issued a scoping memo in the 2022 cost of capital case which narrowed the scope to a review for just this year. Specifically, the CPUC will consider whether there are extraordinary events that warrant a departure from the cost of capital mechanism and whether to leave the cost of capital components at pre-2022 levels for the year 2022. Additionally, the scoping memo clarifies that this proceeding does not replace our requirement to file a full application for test year 2023, which we'll do in April. The CPUC has not set a date for a final decision, and as we indicated in our application, we believe a reasonable outcome is to continue the currently authorized cost of capital because the COVID-19 pandemic and related government response warrants a departure from the cost of capital mechanism for 2022. Patti touched on our 2023 General Rate Case and the updated testimony we will be filing later this month in conjunction with our 2022 Wildfire Mitigation Plan. As a reminder, this is our first GRC on a four-year cycle and our first GRC to incorporate costs for our gas transmission and storage facilities. The scoping memo calls for hearings this May and a final decision in the second quarter of 2023. Let's move to slide 13 and look ahead to this year and the next five years, where we'll continue to focus on the triple bottom line. Guidance for 2022 represents consistency, including our focus on limiting equity needs while continuing to make progress to resolve legacy issues. For 2022, we are providing a range for non-GAAP core EPS guidance of $1.07-$1.13, maintaining our 10% earnings per share growth. For 2022, we estimate our equity issuance needs in the range of $100 million-$400 million. As Patti touched on, we have substantially updated our five-year plan. Let's go ahead and move to slide 14, where we provide our refreshed 2022-2026 projections. There's much to share in this improved plan, including earnings per share growth will continue on the 10% path in the near term and will transition into an EPS growth plus dividend yield of at least 10% as we grow into our dividend to $2 reinstatement. Our rate base CAGR goes from 8.5%-9%. This growth includes our current estimates over this period, including the kicking off of our undergrounding program. This plan is consistent with what will be reflected in our upcoming February 25th filing. It also includes investments in remote grids and system modernization to expand our preparedness for electrification. We also retain our commitment to reducing de bt at the holding company in the coming years, with targeted reductions of $2 billion by the end of 2023. The continued suspension of the common stock dividend will support these debt reductions. The overall financing plan has been developed with our long-term FFO to debt targets in mind as we look to achieve mid- to high-teens levels in 2024. As Patti mentioned, our capital investment program is focused sharply on critical customer needs. We can finance this and make it affordable for our customers, and we intend to manage this over time to maintain customer impacts around the level of inflation in California. Starting this year, we plan to reduce non-fuel O&M costs by 2% every year. Our O&M costs used to increase every year. Over time, we anticipate low growth due to electrification will help spread our costs over a larger base. We'll make good business decisions to more efficiently provide generation and more efficiently finance the enterprise. This enhanced approach for us at PG&E helps us deliver for our hometowns and for our investors. We'll execute against this five-year plan using our lean operating system, where we can better seek out waste elimination and make the work easier for our coworkers. There's a lot of work to do, and it can be done more simply. We've already seen success in 2021. Recall that we targeted savings of roughly $1 billion each year. The outcome for 2021 had us at roughly $1.6 billion in savings. We achieved savings well above that prior target of $1 billion, reflecting good business decisions with improved unit cost performance and transactional savings. The operational savings achieved this year include around $560 million from efficiencies gained by renegotiating electric construction contracts with third parties, among other efforts, and we're just getting started. As a team, we are determined to execute well on both the operational and financial plan we set out to benefit all components of the triple bottom line and drive prosperity for our state and investors. I'll close by reiterating that we've delivered against the financial plan for 2021. Our focus has been and will continue to be on addressing the critical need to reduce wildfire risk in the near term while running the business effectively for the long term. Our stronger five-year plan puts us on that path. We're investing in needed wildfire mitigation, improving our balance sheet, and making the right investments to deliver clean energy safely to our customers. With that, I'll go ahead and hand it back to Patti. Thanks, Chris. As we've discussed, a lot has happened here at PG&E in 2021 that creates a launching pad for 2022. As most of you know, I like to tell stories, so here we go. I have one more. A couple weeks ago, on one of my field visits, I stopped at our service center in Auburn. I heard a familiar story from one of our coworkers who lives in Placer County with a PG&E distribution line on his property. Due to various work processes that should have been coordinated, he's had inspectors on his property four times, tree crews on his property three times, and wood management crews another three times. That is 10 visits in a little over a year. Now, right after I groan in frustration, I clap and I say, "Okay, team, that's upside. Let's go." On this job, we could have reduced our cost by 20% simply by having a better work plan. Similar jobs in 2021 cost PG&E $1 billion. Just think of how much better we can do and how our customers will benefit as we reduce the waste and therefore the cost in our processes. I feel that momentum and potential every day. That's just one opportunity of many that I've encountered in my time here at PG&E. Opportunities to reduce costs, opportunities to improve our customer relationships, opportunities to deliver as the hometown team. We're excited about what we've accomplished in 2021 and where we're going in 2022 and beyond. We're further mitigating wildfire risk by expanding our enhanced power line safety setting program and launching our undergrounding initiative. We've got the right operating system in place to deliver industry-leading financial growth fueled by the important safety and resiliency-driven infrastructure investments funded by our cost savings, our growing loads, and good management practices to keep customer bills affordable. This is a new era at PG&E without trade-offs. We can serve customers and you, our investors, without a compromise. Thank you all for your time, and thank you for supporting the great work being done here at PG&E. Operator, please open the line for questions and answers. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star one on your telephone keypad. Again, that will be star one on your telephone keypad to ask a question. To withdraw your question, press the pound key. We have the first question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman from Wolfe Research. Your line is now open. You may ask your question. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Just a couple questions on the undergrounding plan. How should we think about how much you might actually be doing the work before you have approval for it? Just, you know, how you're thinking about that. Well, hi, Steve. Nice to hear your voice. You know, we have already approved filings for our hardening work, and so we're biasing the plan now to include more undergrounding. We have 211 or 14 mi done to date already this year, which we're excited about. We continue to make progress. As we look forward to future filings, we'll continue to, and you'll see in our Wildfire Mitigation Plan, which we file February 25th, what our plan is for the future of undergrounding year by year, as we've described in the deck today. That will then be approved in the coming years. We've actually been asked to update the GRC to reflect the inclusion of undergrounding. I think the part that's most exciting for people is that we can make those additional undergrounding miles when we factor it into our total capital plan with minimal impact on our original filing in terms of cost for customers. We can both make it safe and keep it affordable, and we're excited about that progress. Great. Just could you maybe give a little more color on when you look at the five-year plan on undergrounding and the, you know, years three to five start becoming pretty big numbers in capital, just how you're thinking about funding it, and are you looking at, you know, kind of something other than straight balance sheet financing? Sure. Hi, Steve. It's a couple things we're looking at there. As you can imagine, the equity driver itself is gonna ultimately depend on where we end up on that CapEx. Just stepping back, you can imagine we do have a couple levers as we look forward. First is gonna be the amount of holding company debt that we retain as one lever. That gives us some good flexibility in those outer years. I think the second would be just the assumption for how quickly we choose to ramp up the dividend. We're giving ourselves, I think, some good levers there in the out years to kind of try to manage any potential financing pressures. Okay. One other just technical question. The $5 million GAAP loss for 2021, does that mean you're not eligible for S&P 500 inclusion until we get past the next quarter? Yeah. Sure, Steve. Happy to clarify that. When we did have a GAAP loss in Q3, right? That we had pointed to was going to occur. We have a positive Q4, right? That would mean that the most recent quarter is GAAP positive as it's looked at by S&P. Really the two metrics that we've got to meet at this stage are the most recent quarter being GAAP positive and the sum of the four most recent quarters GAAP positive in terms of the ability to have S&P inclusion. Then it's really just the qualitative factor that's harder to put a timeline on, as you can imagine, which is another entity has to fall out of the S&P for us to have eligibility to go in. Okay. Just to clarify that second piece, that because this is the last four quarters this year, that you don't meet that second metric, so you gotta wait till at least maybe the next quarter, to meet that. Is that right? That's a fair assumption. Yes, Steve. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Steve. Thank you. We have the next question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold of Vertical Research Partners. Your line is now open. You may ask your question. Hi. Good morning, guys. Morning, Jonathan. Just one. I think from the footnote to the slide that says you're effectively assuming current cost of capital and equity ratio across the business in your 2022 guidance. So I wanted to verify that that's correct. Secondly, just to sort of how are you thinking about, you know, potentially different outcomes there and how that would sort of fall within the range that you've given us. Would you be able to expect to be able to offset that? Would you expect to be able to still deliver at 10% through pulling other levers? You know, maybe that's. Yeah. Great question, Jonathan. As you might expect, Jonathan, there's lots of puts and takes in any given year, and this is one, and we would expect to find another way to achieve our financial commitments. We're planning conservatively, putting together plans in the event that the cost of capital proceeding does not go the way that we think it should. We're very optimistic about our filing and think that we've made a compelling argument, but of course, we'll plan accordingly. You know, as I like to say, Jonathan, we'll ride the roller coaster, so you don't have to. Okay. Thank you for that. Just one other thing. This 2%-4% sort of longer term customer rate, I guess that's customer bill impact. I think you described that as longer term. Could we talk a little about the near term, and how that sort of calibrates against that broader target? Yeah. As you can imagine, we've got a lot of plans in place that we're working to reduce our O&M and reduce our cost structure. We do have our current rate filing already in flight for the next four years as we look at what the rate implications of that filing. It's on average about 4% per year. It tapers down in the latter half of the plan, and we expect to continue to be able to build this muscle to keep our rates affordable. You know, we do think that our rates are affordable. We believe that the value offered to customers is significant, and so it's truly on us to continue to make the business more efficient, find ways of reducing costs. One of the things I'm excited about here in California is actual load growth. That's a nice phenomenon. We see with electric vehicles and electrification as well as customer growth, you know, we've got a lot of opportunities here to continue to grow in California, and that's another offset to unit costs, for customers, going forward. This is, you know, an important muscle for us to develop here at PG&E. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, you know, I see lots of opportunity everywhere I go across the system for ways that we can improve the customer experience and reduce the cost to deliver. Great. Okay. Thank you. Maybe just one quick follow-up to something you said, Chris, to Steve. You talked about how quickly you ramp up the dividend being a lever you can pull for, yeah, financing, you know, the incremental capital. Would you... I, that would appear to imply you'd still anticipate starting it, you know, in that kind of mid-next year timeframe, assuming the, you know, earnings play out the way they versus the cumulative target, I guess. That's accurate, Jonathan. We'd still be looking at a situation where we'll hit that $6.2 billion in non-GAAP core earnings threshold that allow us to turn it back on. I just think at this stage, you can imagine I can't really get ahead of the decision we'll be making with the board on the exact level of reinstatement. We would certainly be eligible, again, roughly mid-next year and looking forward to being able to turn it back on. As you can imagine, just given the plans in front of us, we will be. It's safe to assume, right, we'd be growing into that dividend. For sure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have the next question comes from the line of Shar Pourreza of Guggenheim Partners. Your line is now open. You may ask a question. Hi. Good morning, team. This is actually Constantine here for Shar. Congrats on all the accomplishments in 2021. Morning. Thank you. Morning, Constantine. As we are thinking about the undergrounding that you're presenting today, and can you elaborate on the inputs from any kind of bids or RFIs that drove the formation of the 3,600 target and the kind of cost levels that you're presenting? How does that fit within the 10,000 mi goal previously stated? And do you see some opportunities to improve or accelerate without crowding any investment? Yeah, a great question. We have a couple things. We have current active undergrounding projects as we speak, and they range in their cost to complete. We have some that are today in the $2 million a mile range. We have some that are more than that. We're working to find the best methods and systems. We don't have a unit cost negotiated yet with a contractor for the full scope of the 10,000 mi. We're working on identifying what is that path forward. One of the things that's exciting about the RFI that we did conduct, a request for information, we got a lot of new technologies that are being deployed across the globe presented to us here. For example, some boring equipment that's being used in Germany to underground transmission lines. It's pretty exciting stuff, which gives us confidence as we ramp up and scale this program with the right equipment, with the right partners, with the right work process. We can dramatically reduce our costs every year on the undergrounding scope and scale. We have a lot more meat to put on the bones as we move forward, but again, we'll share more specifics on our cost forecasts and the near-term plans with our Wildfire Mitigation Plan we're filing on the 25th of February. If I could just build on that, Constantine, we really don't see this as crowding out the work, right? The beauty of this is that, as Patti mentioned earlier, we've already got that ability in the underlying General Rate Case and in our subsequent rate case to put forward system hardening investments. We're gonna pull out some of what would previously have been the overhead line miles we would have been putting in and are putting in better risk reduction with the undergrounding mileage we're putting in instead. The risk and efficiency is better, the safety for our customers is improved. Ultimately, what you'll see is we're also gonna have a true up that goes in alongside that Wildfire Mitigation Plan filing on February 25th. That true up will show you that in the end, this is really where the rubber meets the road, that we will be able to put forward a plan that has minimal impact to customers while still going after this aggressive undergrounding effort on behalf of our customers in the state. That's excellent color. I appreciate that very much. As you noted in the multiyear financial plan, can you elaborate on the drivers for the 10% EPS and dividend yield? How does that incorporate the new 9% rate-based growth kind of financing needs versus prior guidance? Are there any assumptions in there around reinstating the dividend? Sure thing. We do definitely have a high-level assumption that's within the details of the five-year plan. Certainly can't guide the specificity today because we have just made that assumption. Don't again want to get ahead of that decision by management and the board. What I would offer is, again, you can see this year that we certainly were already kicking off a substantial doubling or more than doubling of undergrounding mileage in terms of that effort, as well as continuing our key safety and reliability investments. Got a moderate equity need that we disclosed today, and our goal again, going forward, Constantine, would be to ensure that we're finding that right balance, and that's gonna be about making sure that we're pulling forward the work to get the work done efficiently, but doing so in a way that's from a financing standpoint, efficient as we go. Excellent. A really quick follow-up on a related note in terms of the O&M profile and the 2% target. Is there a specific cadence to the reductions, especially as you start seeing some benefits around WMP and undergrounding in the tail end versus the front end of the plan? No, we're shooting, Constantine. You know, our goal is to shoot for 2% a year. We're gonna work that every year. There's a lot of effort underway and a lot of opportunities that we see going forward. We're gonna work that every year. Though your intuition is right, undergrounding is a perfect example of that simple and affordable model. It's capital-intensive because it's the right kind of long-term infrastructure that the system needs to be resilient in these conditions here in California, and it reduces then the need to rely on annual vegetation management and other annual expenses. We really have the opportunity here to demonstrate our simple and affordable model through undergrounding. You're spot on that. Excellent. I appreciate you taking the questions today, and congrats on a good year. Thanks, Constantine. See you soon. Thank you. We have the next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith of Bank of America. Your line is now open. You may ask your question. Hey, a good morning to you. Thanks so much for the time. Appreciate it. Morning, Julien. Nice to hear your voice. Likewise. Just on this 2% non-fuel O&M cost reduction, what's the gross number? What's the starting point that you're starting with offsetting here? Just wanna understand how meaningful of a program that you've got underway. I know you threw out the $1 billion number of cost savings, at least on just work process here at the outset in the script. But just high level, how much inflation are you otherwise looking at to offset here as a baseline to result at a net -2% here? Sure. Thank you. It's substantial. Again, previously, what we guided to was taking out roughly $1 billion out of the business a year. Our target last year was $1 billion. We came through at $1.6 billion. We're pivoting now to this non-fuel O&M view, which will be all in. Think about it as roughly a total $10 billion amount that we'll be working down, right, over time. 2% year-over-year, no matter where inflation stands, right, our focus is gonna be taking out that 2%, productivity levels to improve themselves. As well as you heard us mention, some of these large contracting efforts being ones where we can take out, in some cases, as we did last year, hundreds of millions of dollars in costs as we go. That's really gonna be the focus of the enterprise, year-over-year productivity in the field, as well as making sure from a sourcing and contracting standpoint, we're really doing our best to get the best pricing possible. Got it. Speaking of getting the best pricing possible here, I mean, how much confidence, like, you know, I think about like confidence intervals in terms of achieving the new undergrounding cost metrics per mile that you've laid out, both near term and long term. I mean, you know, how much confidence can you have in those numbers, just considering the amount of inflation and inflation in some of the input commodities here? How do you think about potentially putting parameters or hedging around those, you know, especially through near and medium-term work here? Well, I think if our contracting strategy on our undergrounding work is gonna obviously be very important, and we'll be working that out in the coming months. We have confidence, Julien, because we're doing it today. We have projects that are coming in at $2 million a mile today, and that's with what I would say very rudimentary methods that we haven't deployed the best technology because we don't have the scale to deploy the technology. In fact, I was out on a job, and I was talking to one of our providers of the trenching equipment, and I said to him, "Hey, is this your best stuff that we're using?" He said, "Heck, no. I have much better equipment that we could be using." I said, "Well, why isn't it here?" He said, "Because you don't have scale. You're not running enough miles underground to make it worth for me to bring my best equipment. You scale up, and I can help reduce the cost and the speed and the time to deliver." It's pretty interesting. I, you know, I go back to my old school industrial engineering, Julien, and I know that with scale, we can improve the unit cost. Knowing that we can do $2 million a mile on certain jobs today, I know at scale, we can do that, with the right equipment, process, partners, and work plan. Sorry, just to clarify, have you run these numbers by the commission staff, et cetera, just in terms of the new cost metrics that you're talking about today? I know that this has been a gradual unveil, if you will. Yeah, you know. Any reaction? We certainly had conversations with staff about our plans and where we're headed, but our formal filing comes on February 25th, and that's when we'll get formal feedback from all the key stakeholders. All right. We'll wait for that. Thank you again. Best of luck. See you soon here. Awesome. Thanks, Julien. Thank you. We have the next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. You may ask your question. Hey, guys. Thank you for taking my question. I actually had a couple things. One is really a semantic or language question, which is in your text around EPS CAGR. This is the first time I think where you referred to it as kind of a total return proposition long term, so EPS plus a yield. If I go back and look at the third quarter decks and some of the ones previously, it was just an EPS CAGR, no mention of the combo yield. I know that's a really small difference. Can you just walk us through what drove that language change? No, absolutely, Michael, and good to hear from you. This is absolutely one of the key components of the five-year plan. I'd really think about it, and that's one I think there's probably three things we're really focused on today. First is shifting from that EPS CAGR generically to a total return scenario, where, as we turn the dividend back on, right, and we'll grow that dividend towards the back half of those years, we're looking instead of just that generic EPS guide as a CAGR, what we're saying is a consistent 10% return at least over that time period. It's a significant shift. I think the second is our increased focus on costs and cost efficiencies, right? Previously, when we had last guided on overall customer bill impact trajectory, we were talking in the neighborhood of roughly 5%. What we're talking about today, as Patti mentioned, is closer to 4%, and we're gonna keep working that down. I think the third piece is just the underlying risk reduction is what we're trying to convey today. The body of work is gonna mean better risk reduction in the near term, which is the very large expansion of our EPSS program, which is immediate risk reduction once we get that ready on the system, and two, the long-term risk reduction that comes from undergrounding. Those are really the three key components of the financial plan and operating plan. Right. I just wanna come back to the EPS CAGR portion of it, and I hate to harp on this, but if this is now including a 10% total return projection, like that's the long-term goal, but it includes a dividend yield, does that basically imply relative to what you put out at second quarter and third quarter as kind of a 10% EPS CAGR that you're basically reducing the EPS CAGR because part of that total return, if I'm kind of moving towards 10%, is the eventual future dividend yield? That's essentially correct, Michael. Again, we're really shifting ultimately to the total return model. We're gonna reinvest in the enterprise where we need to keep costs low and put ourselves in line with premium peers at a total return level. Got it. One thing just on the customer bill. Can you know, commodity prices are up. I know y'all have control over a lot of things in the bill. There are a lot of things in the bill, your tabl es in the 10-K are great on that you don't really have as much control of. Can you talk about just over the next year or so what the move in commodities has done to the total bill? Yeah. As we look at particularly natural gas, that's been a big driver. We're proud of the fact that we've been able to minimize the impact to customers on that. When some of the commodity prices are up 90%, we've been able to protect our customers closer to a 10%-12% impact of the commodity. That's because we've got good storage resources. We have a really aggressive purchasing strategy so that we prevent those big real-time spikes from hitting our customers. Got it. Thank you, Patti. Thank you, Chris. Much appreciated, guys. Thank you. Thanks, Michael. Thank you. We have the next question comes from Jeremy Tonet of JP Morgan. Your line is now open. You may ask your question. Hi. Good morning. It's actually Richard Sunderland on for Jeremy. Can you hear me? We sure can. Good morning. Hi. Thanks. Yeah, maybe just starting around the 2022 equity, can you speak to your timing expectations there and what drives the high and low ends of the range? Sure. Happy to cover it for you. At this point, nothing specific on timing just because again, as you can imagine, we're always trying to take a conservative look at this, Rich. Last year, as you recall, right, we had guided to $0-$400. Pleased that we landed at $0 last year. Ultimately, what we're looking at are a couple of drivers. First would be at its highest order, we're gonna continue to work through legacy wildfire cases, right? We've got the commitment there to ensure we're continuing to make progress with the communities on individual claims that are there. I think the other one is just gonna be assumptions on some of the recoveries that we've got here and the materials that we're showcasing today for prior wildfire recoveries as well. In line at this point for the appropriate timing on proposed decisions on prior recoveries, and we'll continue to work our way through some of the legacy claims as well. Got it. Thanks for the color there. Just thinking about the experience with EPSS, you know, how do you see an interplay with PSPS use this year? Just how do you see that, wider rollout, impacting the need to implement PSPS? Yeah, it's a great question. We're continuing to learn and optimize the use of both of those very important tools. You know, I do wanna remind and thank for the prompt here, Rich. I wanna remind everyone listening that the system is safer today because we know that we can rely on PSPS and EPSS under multitudes of conditions. Regardless of weather, regardless of drought, we can protect our customers. Now we know that PSPS is a tool of last resort, and we only use it when the conditions warrant, but we do have a model that when we look rearward and we can see our current algorithm against previous conditions, we would have prevented 96% of structures lost between 2012 and 2020. That is a significant safety mitigation. We're pretty excited about EPSS and what we learned last year and the dramatic reduction in ignitions on those circuits where we enabled EPSS. Keep in mind, EPSS is enabled even on a non-windy day, on a non-red flag day. When we know the conditions are ripe for a fire spread, we can enable those settings, and we're in the process of engineering and preparing to have 100% of our high fire threat miles able to utilize the EPSS standard. That's pretty exciting for us. I think it's an important combination of risk mitigants that really enable us to keep people safe today. Great. Thanks for the time today. Yep. Thank you, Rich. Thank you. We have the next question come from the line of Gregg Orrill of UBS. Your line is now open. You may ask your question. Yes. Thank you. Hi, Gregg. Hi Patti. I was wondering if you could come back to the rate neutral securitization and sort of how you're thinking about the steps there and the timing for implementing that. Sure thing. Hi, Gregg. Looking basically at this point is just a reminder, this is at this stage already has had two approvals at the CPUC of 5-0 votes, and so we're currently in the appeals process through the courts at this stage. Currently looking at the earliest Q2 execution timeframe, just in terms of what we're seeing, the appeals process kind of work its way through. Still intend to execute this year, allowing us to take out the $6 billion in operating company debt. Thank you. Thank you, Gregg. Thanks, Gregg. Thank you. Next question, we have the line of Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open. You may ask a question. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Hey, Stephen. Hey. Wanted to just talk about EPSS expansion in 2022, and just wanted to check in terms of whether there are any approvals or other processes, or do you feel fairly confident that that should be relatively straightforward to roll out more broadly in 2022? Well, we will obviously file it as part of our Wildfire Mitigation Plan. We are moving forward in enabling the circuits. You know, some of the challenges we had early last year when we did what we call our hotline tag process, which is different than our full EPSS engineered coordinated settings that we're installing now. They had a significant impact on a small handful of customers who had multiple outages that were long because it would take out a really long stretch of a circuit, and we'd have to patrol it to make sure that it was safe before we re-energized. We've much dramatically improved our ability to address those challenges by coordinating the settings, engineering it so that a much smaller portion of the line is de-energized when it's made contact with something, whether it's a tree or an animal that would cause a spark. We are de-energizing in a tenth of a second, which is incredible, but then much shorter spans of line, so the patrol is much faster and the restoration is much faster. Certainly we'll work with our regulators to make sure they're comfortable with our approach here, and that filing will reflect that. We're pretty bullish that this is a very important transformation of the safety and de-risking of our system on behalf of customers. That is something we're pretty excited about. Well, that's helpful color. Just one other for me, on the low growth discussion that y'all laid out. Y'all laid out 1%-3% low growth. How do you think about and how do you factor in, I guess, the impacts of potential customer loss of load from distributed generation, whether it's for commercial customers, residential, et cetera, how does that factor into your thinking on low growth? Yeah. When we're talking about load growth, we're talking about wires growth. We do see that the distributed solar actually is an important part of the mix here in California, both from a resiliency perspective as well as that a peak mitigation, particularly when combined with storage, which Stephen, you and I have talked about EVs many times, but I'm pretty excited about the bi-directional charging capacity of these new electric vehicles that are on the road today. The combination of that storage with distributed energy, and you know, certainly has an impact you could describe on load, but I think of it much more as a key enabler to the kind of supply that customers want that's resilient, that can serve a peak demand and reduce the number of flex alerts we have here in California and make our supply more reliable. At the same time, electrification and those EVs still does grow demand. Net net, that's where we come out on this 1%-3% over time of electric load growth, even with those distributed resources. It's a pretty exciting combination of technologies. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks, Steven. Thank you. Next question, we have the line of Mr. Ryan Levine of Citi. Your line is now open. You may ask your question. Hi. Good morning. Hey, Ryan. Hi. How is it determined that the target 3,600 underground mileage for undergrounding is appropriate that was laid out in the plan today? Is there any color you're able to share? Well, as we've mentioned publicly, we've announced that we're gonna do 10,000 mi, and so what we have challenged ourselves and what we're forecasting we're gonna do is essentially doubling the miles every year. In 2020, we did 75 mi. In 2021, we did 75 mi. In 2022, we're shooting for 175 mi, and then we'll grow that double, double each year until we get up to about that 1,200 range, which we think would be a reasonable level. Now, I say all that to say, we have to prove that out. We have to do it. We have to actually execute on those plans. We felt like that was the sort of ramp, given the feedback we've received through our request for information from global contractors, that we could conceivably deliver. Obviously that all has to be approved through our regulatory filings and more to come on that as we work with key stakeholders across the state to make sure that that plan is one that everyone supports. Thanks. A follow-up. What would be the timeline for PG&E to get more concrete bids on the cost of undergrounding, given the, with more information that was received at this point? Yeah, that'll be coming in the coming months. We've got to first align with stakeholders on the volume we're looking at, then we'll do the bids and we'll have a pretty comprehensive contracting strategy for how we'll complete that work and with whom we'll partner and what portions of that we'll in-source, what we'll outsource, et cetera. We're building out that plan as we speak. Appreciate the color. Thank you. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. There are no further question at this time. I would now like to turn the call over back to Ms. Patti Poppe. Thanks, Mel. Thank you everyone again for joining us today. You know, I just wanna reiterate that we have really taken very positive steps forward on our wildfire risk. The combination of EPSS and PSPS in the near term today makes the system safer. Hardening the system, reimagining it with undergrounding as our really backbone of our hardening program going forward, gives us a lot of confidence going forward on our ability to keep people safe. I think the other thing I really wanna leave you with is that our simple but affordable model is the path to both keep people safe and to deliver for investors. We think there's no trade-off here. We can have the important capital work done offset by cost savings and load growth and other smart management techniques. We'll work to deliver for customers every single day and for you, delivering predictable outcomes for investors. This is a new era at PG&E, and we can't wait to take the ride along with you. Thanks so much for tuning in today. Be safe out there. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes this conference call. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect.