 Good afternoon, everyone. This is Diane Grunick and I have been associated with Stanford for quite some time and actually a Humbio graduate many years ago. But the reason I'm here today is to introduce Carla Peterman, who is our speaker who I've known. I think now about two decades she is absolutely one of the most terrific leaders in California nationally and internationally on clean energy and energy regulation. She is currently an executive vice president for corporate affairs and the chief sustainability officer for PG&E Corporation. But before that she was with Southern California Edison from October 2019 to June 2021, where she was a senior vice president of strategy and regulatory affairs. And before that she served a six year term as a commissioner with the California PUC. Unfortunately, our terms did not overlap that we stayed in touch but I too was a commissioner. And while there she made absolutely international news by the adoption of the first utility requirements for storage, which all of you who are now getting to learn about clean energy know without storage, we don't have much of a system. So this was groundbreaking but she also oversaw electric vehicle charging over structure, utility energy efficiency programs, something near and dear to my heart. And the implementation of California's renewable portfolio standard. And then what's amazing is before that she was a commissioner with the California Energy Commission. She's also been on the board of one of our leading consumer advocate organizations in energy turn and has so many other things we couldn't even begin to list them, but her academic credentials are sterling. She graduated from Howard University summa cum laude. She then went on and got a PhD and energy and resources from UC Berkeley. And I believe Carla you're the only sitting commissioner to complete your PhD, while you were actually a commissioner. So for all the students out there set your sights high given what Carla has done and then not but least she's got MS and MBA degrees from Oxford University where she was a Rhodes scholar. This is Carla's third appearance at the energy seminar, and we're just thrilled to hear from her and update on what's going on. Carla. Thank you Diane and hello everyone is great to join you today. I have appreciated always invitation to come back from from Stanford to come and talk about the things that I'm working on. A real hallmark for me for my career has been to go places where I think I can have impact and California is definitely a place where you can do that and I've been privileged to work in lots of different institutions but are all focused on the same thing figuring out how do we deliver clean affordable safe power and heating to all of our customers in California. I also just want to highlight and share the role that Diane personally played in my life in graduate school so I came out to California for graduate school. My late 20s and that first summer I interned at the public utilities commission, and I had the opportunity to one day shadow Diane when she was a commissioner, and shadowing her and seeing her opportunity and her ability to go broad and deep on policy issues while being mindful of the politics and the equity impacts. I just thought it seemed like a really great job, something that I hope one day I could do. So I was really inspired by Diane, and just thank you for paving the way for me and many other commissioners have come down the line and just grateful for the friendship we've been able to maintain over these years. So, you know it was interesting reflecting on the first talk I gave I think it was maybe on distributed energy resources and really thinking about how in California we can be advancing the dialogue around climate mitigation and clean energy supply. And as you hear from my comments we're still doing that, but we also, as a state utility sector are also having to turn our attention to increasing climate risk, because as a nation and as a globe, we have not yet really address climate change the way we should. So we're focusing now on mitigation as well as adaptation, and I'm at specific gas and electric, which has been a leader on clean energy for many years, and now we're a leader in the fight against climate change, and particularly increasing climate risk like wildfire. So looking forward to sharing that with you, and as well as looking forward to your questions. So a bit of a background, you know Pacific gas and electric is one of the largest combined natural gas and electric companies in this in the country. Our company employees 25,000 people and nearly 15,000 contractors, and we serve 16 million customers through the northern industrial California service areas. We are more than anything, you know I say we're really driven by our purpose to make sure that we're providing safe, reliable, clean and affordable energy to everyone in California. We really see ourselves as having an important part of everyday life and really driving the economic engine for California. Our company has gone through some changes and so I wanted to share with you our revised that purpose statement because that'll give you a sense of what we're focused on. So this year where we find what our purpose statement is, and it is three parts, delivering for our hometowns serving our planet and leading with love. I wanted to share that with you, especially the last part leading with love, because it's what attracted me to PG knee when I started four months ago is you don't hear utilities talking about love typically right. But what leading with love means is having a commitment to working through difficult problems. And we have a set of difficult challenges that we need to work through with our customers with our policymakers with other industry, as we're working to deliver power safely and responsibly. And I think leading with love really ties well to our focus on being a safety leader, and also leading in the fight against climate change. Because to lead with love you have to be patient, you have to be thoughtful you have to trust, and you can't do it alone. And if anything that I've learned in my you know several years working in this space is that everybody needs to be a part of the solution. We're no longer in a place where one company can do it all or one policy, we all have to work together. And so I will say that there's room at the table for everybody. So I don't know what you're interested in or you're working on. But if you care about climate change and the energy system, there's a place for you. So a little bit again more about our background and clean energy. PG&E has over 35% of our power comes from renewable portfolio standard eligible resources, like solar, wind and biomass. And then when you add the nuclear we have in our portfolio and the hydroelectric facilities we have over 85% of our power is low carbon. We also have one out of every five rooftop solar systems is with any PG&E service territory, as well as one in five electric vehicles, and we're a leader in battery storage. We are in an era that's been following a decade that has included several tragic and troubling events for PG&E and our customers including a natural gas pipeline explosion and multiple wildfires. To help ensure these tragedies of the past are never repeated. We've undergone significant change and progress at PG&E, and that's why I've been attracted to the company. We're really focused on strengthening our operations and programs to face climate risks, and in particular reduce the wildfire risks that we're seeing and doing everything we can to harden our infrastructure. I'll speak more about wildfire later, but just to give you some perspective. Just this year, we implemented new safety settings on our lines that have reduced ignitions by 90% since late July compared to previous years. And we're using technology to both limit the impact of wildfires and limit the scope when we have to do intentional power shutoffs designed to prevent wildfires. So I'll speak a little bit more about the risk, but every day we're adapting and innovating and putting new solutions to manage it. But let's just take a second and talk about some of the climate change trends that we are seeing. Our service territory is wide, and we are seeing increased climate risk, and we're also modeling what risks we think we'll see in the future. So we are ready and will continue to see heat waves, more frequent and extreme storms and wildfires, drought, subsidence and rising sea levels. In our territory, average and extreme temperatures are projected to increase over the course of this century, and our coastal areas will still remain cooler than inland areas. Sea level rise in storms are a concern for the region. For example, in Sonoma County, we estimate that in 2050, the chances of a large rain event increased by 50%. So at the same time, we're predicting more extreme storms, we're also predicting bigger droughts. So droughts are likely to become longer and more severe due to increases in temperature and decline in the Sierra Nevada snow packs. Much of our region is also within high wildfire threat. So by 2050, we expect that the average annual burn in our territory could increase by 31%. We're very focused on reducing wildfires, but utility wildfires are 10% of the ignitions that we see. They have been some of the more catastrophic fires, but we're supportive of doing everything we can to reduce wildfires from all sources. And then when you have wildfire scarred landscapes, they are more susceptible to precipitation driven landslides, especially in Marin, Sonoma and Santa Clara counties. So we are expecting to see these impacts in the future, but we're also seeing them now. Don't have to tell you that we are currently in a significant drought situation. Drought is affecting 100% of our service territory. Almost 50% of the state falls into the top two intense categories for drought right now. When we look at our hydroelectric system, which is the largest investor owned hydroelectric system in the nation, I think it might only be second to vulnerable power. When we measured precipitation and snowpack were expected to be the highest level back in April, it was under half of normal conditions. So again, we're seeing drought, not just impact the terrain in which we operate, making it more dangerous to provide electricity, but also impacting our supply from our hydroelectric facilities, which are a big part of our low carbon supply. So to manage the physical risk from climate change, we are working to integrate climate change projections into our planning process, our risk models and our engineering standards, just to give you a sense of what this actually means. So I have the corporate fairs organization. So I had the sustainability team amongst many teams. I also used to have the climate resilience team as well. As we were working through a lot of the state and regulatory policy about climate resilience, but we recently decided to move our climate resilience team into our engineering and planning organization. They were already working very closely together, but this move further reinforce the importance of integrating climate modeling and climate risk into the everyday utility models. It also leads to a change over the scale in which you do this work. So typically utility resource planning will look at out 10 years, but when we're looking at climate risk, we're now looking at 10, 20, 30, 40, up to 50 years about what the impacts to our system will be. We have long lived assets. So it really is important to start preparing them now for the risks that we anticipate seeing. PG&E and all the investor-owned utilities in California are conducting climate vulnerability assessments. These are assessments that we're doing to look at what risks there is to our infrastructure from climate change, and then working with local communities to make sure they're able to adapt to any of those risks. So we're just at the beginning stages of that, but we're doing our climate assessment in a regional manner. And so we're focused right now on the Bay Area region. And our early findings are consistent with what I shared earlier in terms of some of the risks that we expect to see. Our electric assets are more at risk than our gas assets, and the highest threats are high heat events, flooding, and wildfire. So part of what we're going to do as well as I was mentioning is we're going to be working directly with communities to help them understand what climate risks we see and understanding what their adaptive capacity is if there are stresses to the electric and gas system from these climate risks. And the point of this is to give them that visibility early on and to really help co-create solutions with them, as well as empower them with data as cities and counties in the state go about doing their own planning to manage climate change. In addition to providing communities with information about climate change, we're also directly working with them to ensure climate resilience. We're especially building climate resilience capacity through our grant programs. One of the other cool things that I get to do in my job is that I have our charitable giving program and our PG&E foundation is within my organization. And one of the grant programs we have is called the Better Together Resilient Communities Grant Program. It's in its fifth year, and this program provides four different $100,000 grants to support local initiatives to build greater climate resilience. Each project addresses the needs of disadvantaged and or vulnerable communities. I'll just give you a couple of examples of types of projects that we fund. So the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, an environmental environmental justice organization, use their grant to meet the needs for cooling and related health services during extreme heat events for the low income underserved and disadvantaged community of West Oakland. Another grant we provided to the We Yacht Tribe near Humboldt Bay, and they're using their grant to fund a climate change adaptation planning project, which will identify cultural and natural resources within the tribe's ancestral lands and waters vulnerable to climate change and at risk from flooding. And we have another project with Ag Innovations, who are working to launch a fire safe council in Calistoga that will mobilize residents to protect their homes, communities, and their environments from wildfire. So we're focused on climate resilience broadly with an acute focus on wildfire risk, as that is the biggest risk that we currently see in our system. So I wanted to do a click down about our work in this area. So first is a little bit more about the nature of the risk. According to Cal Fire, eight of the 10 largest wildfires by acreage and state history have occurred in PG&E service area, and seven of these fires have occurred since July of 2018. So significant amount of catastrophic fires caused by many sources of the last few years. Last year alone in 2020, Cal Fire records show that more than 4.2 million acres burned during wildfire season, and more than 10,000 structures which are buildings were destroyed. That amount of acreage is bigger than the state of Connecticut. That is how much burned statewide in 2020. And it's estimated that 4% of our states roughly 100 million acres of land burned during last year's fire season, making it the largest wildfire season recorded in California's modern history. 2021 has also been an active year. We've seen more than 1.9 million acres burn and over 7,000 structures destroyed. And that's just through the first. 8,000 structures destroyed during the first nine months of the year. There was over 7,000 fires already this year. So many of them you don't hear about. Thankfully, many of them are put out before they have significant damage. But we've also seen some catastrophic fires this year as well. When I do my work and I look at PG&E service territory, I'm amazed about how much of our territory is now in a high fire threat area and condition. A decade ago, 15% of our territory was considered high fire risk. And again, these are areas that are high fire risk because of the amount of fuel there, the dryness, so it's a combination of both temperature, vegetation, precipitation. That 15% a decade ago has grown to 50% over our service territory. And we think it's an upwards of that. A third of our electric lines that serve PG&E customers are now in high fire threat districts. About 10% of our customers live in significant high fire threat areas, but due to the way the network is designed, we have transmission distribution lines that must span significant parts of the state they're at risk. So given this threat and the real possible harm to our, you know, to our fellow Californians, we have taken a stand at PG&E that catastrophic wildfires will stop. Not just catastrophic wildfires associated with utility equipment, but all catastrophic wildfires. And we are doing our part to lead the way in demonstrating advances in technology, as well as forest management. We spend now annually 5 billion a year in mitigation efforts, and within that we spend 1.3 billion a year on managing vegetation. So that means that we prune or cut more than 1 million trees annually to maintain clearance from power lines. This year we anticipate we'll have cut down 300,000 trees. There are almost 8 million trees that are within strike distance of our line. And so what's what I reflect on a lot is that the relationship between power lines and trees have fundamentally changed with climate change, and we have to adapt to that. We have a responsibility to provide power to all folks in our service territory. And so we are looking again about how do we live up to that obligation while doing it in a safe manner. And I'll talk about some of the things that we're thinking about that are pretty innovative in a minute. But I do in addition to veg management, just want to highlight some of the areas where we've been investing in technology, technology that's really focused on grid design and system hardening, situational awareness and forecasting, asset management and communications, veg management already mentioned. So what this looks like in practice, all the utilities have invested in a high definition camera network. So all across our territory, we've got greater visibility to what's happening on the ground. And this has made it easier and faster to identify when wildfires and sparks are starting. We also are very much focused on understanding the weather in real time and understanding wind conditions, since in the past many fires have been driven by high wind events. So we have an extensive weather station network. I can't imagine that any other state has extensive one as we do now, given the investments that have happened across the state by the utilities in this area. We're doing a lot to upgrade the system in a way that other states have not had to do in terms of covering our lines, vegetation management. But we also understand in the PG&E's territory that there may be some areas where simply is not safe or cost effective to keep lines above ground. So we made a commitment this summer to underground 10,000 miles of overhead power lines, which will significantly reduce the risk we face in the years to come to both reduce the risk, as well as reduce our need to do proactive power shutoffs. This is a significant investment. It represents the largest effort in the US to underground power lines as a wildfire risk reduction. 10,000 miles is almost halfway around the world, just to give you some perspective in terms of the scale and scope. We've been doing undergrounding of wires, but that process has been 30, 50 miles a year. So this is going to require a massive ramp up. But we believe we can do it. We've had some recent undergrounding projects where we've been able to see the cost go down. So, for example, back in 2019, we announced that we will rebuild all of our power lines underground in the town of Paradise, as we help the community recover from the campfire. We're also rebuilding power lines underground within the 2020 North complex fire footprint in Butte County. And we're already seeing the benefits in reduction of power safety shutoffs in Sonoma County, where we recently completed an undergrounding project that will prevent 11,000 customers from being repeatedly impacted by these power shutoff events. Through these projects, we've been able to see the real opportunities from partnership and coordination with permitting agencies, with telecom and internet providers, with natural gas projects. Our gas team has said, you know, we've been doing things underground forever, right? And so we're learning, we're borrowing techniques from the gas side to think about how do you, for example, do horizontal drilling and different things to help lower the cost of undergrounding. It's not going to be this cost-effective solution for every part of the state or even part of the country, but given our terrain and what we are seeing with the forest, we do think that it's going to make sense. This comes with a cost, and the challenge right now is how quickly can we do this while still keeping power bills affordable. One of the things that I'm really excited about that I get to do is I chair an undergrounding advisory group where we've got participation from state agencies, local and county officials, anyone who does permitting environmental organizations, firefighters, and we're coming together meeting monthly and saying, how can we coordinate on this massive infrastructure project? What do we need to do to help the community accept these projects? What are people looking to do? How can we take advantage of this initiative to also provide, for example, better service in broadband? So that's the conversation we're happening, and I do think it's another area where we are going to set leadership for the nation and show how this can be done. We probably won't be in a place where we're ever going to transmit power without wires completely, but we do think we can do it with a lot less wires. In addition, we're also looking at microgrid opportunities. We've done some remote microgrids already in areas with few customers that are hard to serve and seeing some of those pencil out as well. We're doing a lot of investment obviously in infrastructure, but there still are times when our safest course of action is to shut off power for a period. Many of you have probably experienced or may have experienced some of these proactive power safety shutoffs, and we recognize, I truly recognize that this is very disruptive. We're not in the utility business to not provide power, and so it has been a hard but important tool for us to use, and our protocols are getting better. We're getting more surgical. We risk is really driven by when we think that the conditions for wind and the fuel load is so significant. We will shut off the power in advance de-energized so there's not a risk of the line igniting a fire. Our protocols get better every year. And what I wanted to share with you is that if our 2021 PSPS protocols were in place from 2012 to 2020, we would have prevented 96% of the structures damaged or destroyed by wildfires due to overhead electrical equipment in our service territory. So the grid hardening plus using selective thoughtful use of power shutoffs has had a significant impact in reducing and could have had a significant impact in reducing wildfires on the system. Where we are very focused now as well is on that 4%, where that 4% includes situations where you have, well, we did not have significant wind. And so we did not have triggered or triggered a power shutoff, but the heat and the fuel loads were such that there was extreme risk of wildfire. So that's where we're targeting as well. We're also doing all we can from a customer perspective to help mitigate the impacts of these safety shutoffs. So for example, we provide backup batteries to any of our customers who have medical issues. We also provide food vouchers and hotel stays for these customers as well. We're partnering with community based organizations to provide rebate programs as well for well water for purchase generation, no replacement options. I know none of these things are perfect but we're doing what we can to make the power shutoffs as invisible as possible to our customers. I wanted to just also hit what's happening at the federal level, because again, we can't succeed with our partnership with our federal agencies, as well as Congress and the administration. We've been advocating for legislative proposals that prioritize federal investment and extreme weather related grid resilience. I'm thankful that some of these proposals have been included in the bipartisan infrastructure deal that passed the Senate, and we're hoping to see them further progress. Nearly one third of PG&E service area is on federal land, which is why it's incredibly important that we have good partnerships, for example, with the US Forest Service. And we're working cooperatively. We've accelerated renewals of assisting right a ways on certain federal lands incorporated master use permits so that we're able to execute our veg management in a timely manner. We are really supporting thoughtful frameworks for the work that we're doing while being mindful of the need to preserve these areas for other uses by Californians as well. No, just, I know you all may have some questions so I'll just wrap up by saying that adapting the electric and gas sector to climate change does require significant amount of investment at unprecedented speed and scale. We're going to need capital markets, we're going to need government funding, and we're going to need a lot of thought leadership. The more tools we can have in our tool set, the better. I'm proud of the opportunities I've had to increase that tool set, for example, by working on energy storage. We need continued research and development, including on things like carbon capture sequestration, hydrogen building electrification, as well as behavioral work about how do we design incentives, rates programs in a way that customers will want to adopt them. We really need to be moving with a faster pace. We have a sense of urgency, but we've got to translate that into even faster action in order to meet our climate commitments. And I'll just end with an example of some of the public private partnership work that is important and underway that we need to continue. So not far from Stanford, we partnered with the city of Menlo Park, and the San Francisco Creek Joint Power Authority and Facebook to submit a grant application to FEMA. And FEMA has a program called Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, and this grant is called the Menlo Park Safer Bay Project seeks to protect critical infrastructure and communities from flooding associated with sea level rise. And by partnering together, we were all able to pool our resources and leverage them to get a bigger source of funding for building a sustainable seawall than we otherwise might. And these types of projects, they do take, they take some time and collaboration, but what was really cool is that it's going to be a win-win for everyone. And so this is something where instead of us just going out and protecting our infrastructure in the area by partnering with the city and Facebook, we were able to look more broadly at protecting the community. These types of partnerships are going to be critical moving forward. So whatever you do when you leave Stanford, wherever you're going to work, I think there's going to be, there is a role for you to play in helping Californians adapt and respond to climate change and actually in helping us continue to be a global leader in this area. So with that, thanks for the time and looking forward to our discussion. I'm going to call you Commissioner, Secretary Seedleman for the great talk and ending with a plea for all of you to follow out with all of these challenges she's taking on, which seems to be just about everything currently confronting society. Thank you. So probably up any unlikely, but you can get first priority to register students. We've got about 70 of those in the room. So does any student might pick up the questioning period. I like about how your day to day work looks like it seems like there's something. I was afraid to ask that. So the question was, how does your day to day work? I was afraid to ask that. So is the question is what is my, how is my day to day work look. Yeah, it seems like there's an awful lot in there you're responsible for. I am I'm thankful that you know, continue to work on my leadership to work through people so I'll say in my day to day work begins with making my five year olds lunch. Because we're all multitasking so he's the first customer I have to have to please. And then, you know, one of the, you know, share something that we have been instituting in PG&E over this year and it's going to be a multi year process but share with me as I explain this but we're implementing something called lean, and it's a lean operating system. And this is something that was developed in the auto industry as a way to be able to manage one's work and time in a manner where the highest priority issues get attention and visibility. One of the challenges historically for PG&E and companies of this size has been there is so much going on. It's hard to always identify what needs attention. Right. And very quickly you can be on to the next thing the next thing. I mean, neglecting something fundamental. And we need to be able to, you know, build the plane as we fly it so to speak. So one of the things that our new CEO brought to the company this year was this lean architecture and in lean, you quickly use visual management tools, like a PowerPoint slide or piece of paper to understand and really track and have a conversation about every day. What are the most important things you need to be looking at and being able to visually see are you on track or off track. So we have been employing this across the company and including a corporate affairs and every day I meet with my team for 15 minutes, and we go over are we on track with these important matters are we on track with our sustainability plan. Are we on track with our wildfire mitigation plan. What issues are coming up. What are we hearing from customers they're concerned about. What are we hearing from regulators that they're concerned about. And every supervisor in PG&E is having one of these daily operating reviews 15 minutes. And after a supervisor has theirs, they take the most important pressing issues, and they go share them in another DOR with their supervisor. So, by the time 1015 comes every morning, I'm in a meeting with the other EVPs and our CEO, and we have gotten through the organization already. A sense of what are the biggest priority issues facing us this day. And so there's 1100 plus of these meetings happening before 10 in the morning. And so, when I go into that meeting with my team at 945, and then with my colleagues at 1015. I have a good understanding about what we think is the most pressing issue facing us that day, and understanding what I have to do to help solve it. So that's one part of my day is just keeping track of that. But in terms of what my day normally looks like, I gotta admit it's kind of fun. Like, I've got meetings with, I've got a couple of standing meetings on things around sustainability on, on regulatory. And I spend a lot of my time actually having ideation sessions around who do we, what is our contribution going to be on carbon reductions. What are we going to do in terms of environmental leadership, because we are what is our strategy going to be, because the work's getting done every day, but part of what my job is to help set the clear vision going forward. And so, we have these substantive conversations. And sometimes it seems like you're not making progress, but ultimately, every conversation is tackling something challenging, and we're committing ourselves to to come forward with plans in different ways. So, my day is a mix of things. And it's also sometimes responding to angry phone calls from people but usually I get someone else to handle that. And I try to read to I'm trying to fit more time into read to like read academic literature. One of the things that I thought made me a good CEC commissioner was I knew how to look up something and read an article and we was happening in the academic community. And so, I try to get away from that. And so, I trying to spend more time also just talking to people outside of the utility world to make sure we're not missing good stuff. Great question. Thank you. Other questions in the room here. So, we have one here and two over there. Thank you so much for sharing a little bit about your day and it sounds like you're Santa being to like text from meetings every morning so very cool. I wanted to ask a little bit about the politics of what's happening behind the scene. For example, when you use your revenue to do, you know, fire resilience and some mitigation of disasters, for example, carrying overhead lines in these towns like paradise, etc. You seem like really logical and great things to do to get pushed back from other residences and other communities saying you're using our money to benefit this one town. They're getting the benefit of crime resilience and, you know, aesthetically, they're making the town without the lines up what are you doing in our town and things like that. So how do you balance the revenue and where the resources actually go to benefit certain communities. Great questions and questions that will come up even more as we talk about scaling this so I'll I'll share it a couple ways one. You do an enterprise risk management exercise every year to identify what our top risk are as a company and what our top risk are for our customers. And the public utilities commission so we are we are regulated by the public utilities commission and they approve all of our increases and rates and they approve our plan for spending so we do our plan for spending. It's a four year plan our general rate case. And there's also a separate plan for wildfire mitigation where the wildfire we submit an annual wildfire mitigation plan we're not third year now where we lay out everything we're going to do related to wildfire. And then we get approval for those costs and our general rate case. And so, as a part of the general rate case process at the PUC. How about, gosh, maybe six or seven years ago, they introduced something called a process where all the utilities provide information on their top risk, and that's discussed and a part of the formal process of the general rate case so that interveners and the regulators can see how what you're asking for funding for ties back to what we've identified as our top risk. So I give you that context to say, there's a real regulated formal process for talking about what are the risks that we're facing, and then how are we going to address them. What I think of the utility model is that we socialize big costs amongst a large customer base. So are things sometimes that we do that benefit the central valley and don't event benefit the Bay Area, but all customers pay for them. Same with wildfire. If we only had customers and wildfire threat areas pay for the cost of mitigating the system. It would not be affordable. So one of the tenets is that by socializing these costs power essential service becomes affordable for everyone. The risk of wildfire is really testing this model, because these expenses are so significant, you know, in order to reduce the risk that electricity might provide here. Significant spend. And so we do hear from communities who are asking hey why am I paying for this right and what we're focused on is showing it here is the value to everyone to be able to have this that this is a risk. This is one climate risk we're dealing with now we're going to deal with others in the future we're going to deal with drought and do a subsidence, and we're also going to socialize those costs so I think it's about really helping people understand the broader situation. I think also what we are focused on to is are there some costs that should not be in the electric bill right are there costs that should be paid through taxpayer money for example so that we don't see electricity rates rise as we're fighting climate change. This is a really active discussion right now, and I think it's only going to increase with time, but we are trying to balance a lot of competing factors, and the reality is, even if climate change wasn't happening. And wildfires weren't happening grid costs. We're going to be going up, because we're a company that's a bit over 100 years old, we have infrastructure some of it the useful life is 50 years 100 years. So across the economy, electric and gas companies are having to invest in their infrastructure. We're having to do that at the same time, we're having to make it resilient to climate change. Again, which is driving some of the cost increases. Okay, thanks. You talked about all these issues facing PG right now, the droughts and what are affecting generation. But you also have the closure deal with getting on the horizon in 2024, which, you know, is a significant portion of California's generation so I'm wondering what's PG's plan to reconcile all those issues with the closure of the all looking in a climate conscious way. So three external questions the same subject. So thank you for that. Right. So, yeah, thank you for the question. It is one that's top of mind. A few years ago, I think it was probably 20 2018 maybe before that, there was a decision by the PUC supported by a host of stakeholders environmental groups PG and the labor to not seek real licensing of Diablo Canyon. There are other environmental concerns related to the facility, particularly the impact on aquatic life from the hot water that flows from plants on the coast. So we have a state policy around addressing generation plants that do once through aging so there's several gas plants that have now closed on the coast, because of this, and then it's also an aging generation source so it's very expensive to operate as well and so looking at this combination of factors it was decided not to This was several years before we saw some of the reliability shortfalls and challenges that we are seeing, but the commitment there and it is now is to move forward and replace that power and still stay on track to meet our state rps goals and our carbon neutrality goals for 2045. The replacement of that power is not only or even mostly PG&E's responsibility, because what's happened since then so we own Diablo Canyon, but we also in the last several years have seen a growth and community choice aggregation. And these are local providers of energy, and they supply the energy while PG&E continues to supply the transmission distribution. So replacing the power from Diablo now is going to be replaced by several different low serving entities. PG&E is one of them, but it also was a resource for the entire state. So Edison, San Diego, Marin, all of these different energy providers are going to pay for their share of replacing the power. So what exactly will look like, I don't know, but I think you have highlighted something which is Diablo's 15% of our low carbon energy in the state. And so it will have some impact on the state's carbon emissions as we ramp up to replace that power in the years to come. Great. Any other questions in here? Thank you so much for your talk. I was just curious. It's watching a recent talk by Jesse Jenkins and he was talking about the need for expanding US transmission capacity by 60% in your by your 2030. And so you talk a lot about transmission capacity in the context of moving lines underground for improved resiliency, but I was wondering if you could speak to actual expansion of grid connectivity to enable higher penetrations of renewables on the grid. And what does that look like and what is PG&E's role in that transmission infrastructure bill? Sure, really important question. And depending on what there's various pieces of analysis out there that talk about what our power supply will need to grow to in 2030 or really 2050 people talk about a lot in order to reach like carbon neutrality goals, you know, in terms of the power supply. And we're expecting electrification to be a big part of how the electric and the energy sector is going to meet some of the carbon reduction is typically for transportation. And so no doubt we're going to need an increase in transmission in order to meet that need, no matter how much you think we already need transmission now. The challenge around transmission just is it takes a while to permit is expensive. 10 years or so as the average length of time it takes to build a permanent a large transmission project. And it becomes more complicated when you're starting to go across different state lines and different territories and so it is an active question that we're involved in with utilities all around the west, which is how can we do more coordinated transmission planning, you know, each utility each RTO, you know, Kaiso's RTO does its own transmission planning, but it needs to be more integrated. So in terms of our direct role, we both own transmission, as well as their third party sitting on transmission as well. You know, we work with the Kaiso on supporting their transmission planning, where we make them aware of what transmission needs are coming. And we continue to advocate for faster approvals. So we can go about doing the investments. There's a need to not just invest in transmission to bring clean energy in the state, but we also need to invest just to upgrade the existing transmission. And some parts of it which need upgrades as well so we have seen an increase overall in the cost of transmission that's going into our customer bills from this combination of a need to build more as well as to do the upgrades. This is an area where I think you're going to see more focus. So we had SB 100 is passed by the state a couple years ago, targeted 100% of electric sales come from clean energy in 2045. And so the energy commission put out a report, maybe six months ago now times passing me about what that might take. And one of the areas flagged is we're not yet building the transmission needed. So it's a conversation aspect is going to ramp up. I don't have an easy answer. I think it's going to be really is there the will, right, because you do have to figure out a way to streamline the permitting process and also be willing to accept the cost. One of the last things I'll share is that Edison did an analysis showing just how you might go about meeting the electric demand, if it's trying if you have transmission constraint or not or land constraint, because the trade off is if you don't build transmission, you've got to do more in state. And so then you've got to look at what is the capacity for land and state, including using rooftops, the reality you can't just do that you're going to need some combination. But I anticipate also, there'll be support for doing more distributed generation as well, given some of the transmission challenges. I'd like to sneak in for that great question. How much of the underground you're doing transmission lines is high voltage lines. I don't think the answer is wrong. So good catch the 10,000 miles I'm talking about is almost as distribution line is not going to be chivalrous transmission lines. And that's because we see the risk on our system. We're not seeing the risk. It's the risk is limited at the transmission level where we're seeing the risks is on the distribution system. Great. So a couple of questions, a personal question for me and probably the audience might be wondering this. Do you see Southern California send PG differently now than when you were a commissioner for all those years. In what ways. Yes, I know. I would say the no in the sense that I mean I got the question when I went to utility about. Yeah how's it different than the public sector like what's it like over there right, and I had to laugh because the people are pretty much the same I mean literally the mission statements. This is mission statement is just like the PUC is the words are a little bit ordered differently but everyone's really committed to making the system better and I think people just have strong perspectives about how much they they do to contribute to that so I have found it very mission driven to be at a utility it's private sector but just frankly over the line from public sector, and that's so much as being driven by public policy and regulation. What I think differently is, I have a better appreciation of what it takes to implement projects. And that's why I wanted to come to a utility. I love policies my love, but I wanted to see what happens after I made a decision right like how do you actually get the work done. What does it look like to mobilize labor and workforce, and that has been insightful. The most insightful thing I've appreciated is the importance of funding billing systems and it infrastructure. The type of stuff is not sexy policy, but so much of the clean energy future is dependent on digitization and automation. And as we are talking about real time pricing let your vehicle rates and solar rates. The ability to have a billing system that can handle all those permutations should not be underestimated and utility billing systems like 50 years old so PG knees redoing it's ours now. And just redid their San Diego as well. And this can be billion dollar projects, and not the type of thing that people automatically jump to funding, but I think are so critical to actually making sure there's a better customer experience so we're just trying to modernize these things out of the 1900s and preparing for this, you know, 21st century 22nd century world. And that's where I'm probably keeping up at night the most. Great as a transition to your close and personal session with marlies and a smaller group of students. You have touched on this a couple of times what advice would you offer the students in the audience including you have any internships or jobs that you might be interested in students number one and number two, which areas do you think are going to be the most productive to get into to help solve the problems that you described. All good questions I mean this is not a, this is not a cop out but every area, just like when you think even things that we're really mature and like power procurement are changing and energy efficiency so we need folks working on things that we've been doing for a couple of decades to new because everything's got to scale and evolve. So that's one to my advice would be, don't underestimate the contribution you can make right away. When I was in graduate school as a, when I was an intern at the PUC, I had the opportunity to work on a proceeding and got to suggest some things that actually got into the policy, and the reality is at public institutions and the utilities. You've got 2526 year olds running billion dollar programs, and it's exciting the impact you can have. And the policies are really early on, like when I started working on energy storage. We didn't know what the policy should be we're figuring it out so it's not like studying Shakespeare where there's been, you know hundreds of years of writings and experience, we're all just figuring this out. And frankly you all are so close to the latest science and engineering that you can go somewhere and have a major impact. And that's why I began a utility like if you like doing cultural resource issues, you like community engagement like engineering. It's really a microcosm of the different skills that you need. And so it's just a great place to work. In terms of internships and jobs, yes, all of those types of things are available. I'm still getting up to speed on what that looks like at PG&E being for a few months. But if anyone's interested in something, just shoot me a note on LinkedIn and I'll connect you to the right person or you can shoot me an email at CJPS at PG&E.com. Well, Commissioner VP, CEO, Secretary Peter and thanks very much for that inspiring and pleasingly hopeful talk. My pleasure. I'm sorry I can't be there in person that you have beautiful campus and I'm always inspired to. Hopefully when COVID leads you'll be able to visit us in person. I would love that. Thank you for your time.