 Good morning, certainly a great honor to be introduced by Secretary Schultz, certainly been one of our leaders in climate for decades. And I'd like to thank Jim for inviting me here. Obviously we face a major challenge in California on climate. It's a global challenge, I should say. And at the same time, you know, I mean, first it's good to be at a place where you don't have to explain how climate is really changing the way we live now. You know, again, you can, I think the governor was using terms this week about how, you know, it's almost apocalyptic. You know, Southern California, it's a fifth year drought. If you look at wildfires, you know, or 13 of the 20 worst wildfires in California history have been in the past 10 years. If you look at the forestry at this point, you know, we have this incredible amount of dead trees in the series. You know, it's sort of the combination of the drought, the warmer temperature, the bulk beetles, you know, it's just, again, staggering in terms of the fire hazards we could have this summer. And the fire obviously has phenomenal greenhouse gas impacts, air quality impacts. It's just really climate change is affecting the quality of our lives. And having said that, it's, it's, this is really an opportune time that Jim has scheduled this and that we're coming out of, you know, incredible events in San Francisco this week with the Clean Energy Ministerial, the subnational Clean Energy Ministerial was the first gathering of the below two, under two MOU group to see how collectively we can address these climate challenges. And, you know, we're always, you know, spending a lot of time on international issues along with California issues. And certainly encourage all of you to think globally in that we're, we as a state are only 1% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. So we'll talk about what we're doing to substantially reduce that number over time, but unless we really think globally about that, you know, it's not really going to matter. And so historically we've acted more as an example of how you can get a sustainable economy and at the same time address climate issues. And that's, that's certainly being that role as a beacon is what California will continue to do. Obviously that also puts a heavy obligation upon us not to screw up in terms of our programs, but as the governor reminds me frequently on that part. But having said that, you know, just enormous business opportunities for our entrepreneurs, certainly enormous opportunities for our universities to connect to scholars around the world on these issues and work together. And certainly for venture capital, again, we need billions if not trillions of dollars of investment in clean tech in the next couple of decades. So with that context, let's start talking about California's policies and how, where we are now, how we got to where we are and where we're going. You know, unfortunately, Mary can't be here. So you will be in part channeling Mary on some of this, although we worked together very closely. So I, I think I'll get it right, but we'll see. So let's go to the first slide. Should work, right? What am I not doing? Ah, there it is. Okay, so obviously just starting out, one of the things that really has set the context for California and we're very lucky to have had a lot of policy continuity in the energy area. And this goes back to Governor Davis, certainly Governor Schwarzenegger, now Governor Brown. And one of the first steps of looking out at both Jim Boyd and Jeff Byron, who I think probably voted on this or helped in the development, is, is a notion of a loading order. We believe that we have finite resources, so we would like to put those resources at what has the highest payoffs. And so, first at the top of our loading order is energy efficiency and demand response. And as Jim noted, that's, that's certainly been a, a key part of the California success. And at the same time, renewables and distributed gen are next in the loading order. And, you know, following that are clean fossil fuel resources, infrastructure improvement, things like transmission lines. And what we've done, and that's been since 2003. So, you know, in fact, you can point to some examples of it back, going back to the first Brown administration, similar thinking. But trying to, to really focus that, and the question is, well, what's been the impact? And so, one of the things which we all, I mean, unfortunately we, programs are set up, disciplines here, certainly say government, academic disciplines are sort of siloed in part, but, you know, the bottom line are greenhouse gas emissions. You know, what's really what we're looking at. We get a lot of clutter people thinking about what's the renewable percentage, what's the gas percentage, what's the, you know. But I mean, again, the bottom line is energy efficiency, you know, how do you deal with greenhouse gas emissions? And so, going back to AB 32, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, 2006 basically set a target of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to the 2020 level, to 99 levels by 2020. But part of the message is this also shows how we've really been decoupling. And this, again, you can go back to the Rosenfeld curves back to the 70s. Basically our gross state product from greenhouse gas emissions. And these, these data are from the Air Board. Again, they are the ones really tracking greenhouse gas emissions for California. Unfortunately, the data we have here takes us to 2013. 2014 data will be available at some point next month. The bottom lines are trying to get the numbers straight. And neither Mary nor the governor could get it any faster than when it was done. But again, it's pretty impressive. We have certainly, we've had a very growing economy. We've had growing in terms of the number of people in the state, which will continue and at the same time, our greenhouse gas emissions. And our productivity are really increasing dramatically. And having said that, obviously it's not time to stop. But we need to keep doubling down on that. And so in terms of, again, looking at the 2020 goal, the bottom line is we're on track there. I think in terms of everyone's concern about what if X or what if Y, we're on track. And if you think about it and we dive deeper into the power side, this is in spite of droughts. Again, we can get into specifics there. But at this point, we have a cap and trade program that's been very effective. It's almost 100% of the covered entities complied. We have used that greenhouse cap and trade money has gone into a fund, which we're investing climate investments, which really are limited to ones which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions now. For example, we always hoped we could put some of it into R&D, but we can't. We're being sued. It's a very serious litigation at this stage. And we have to show that those dollars really go to things which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions guaranteed. But we've also set aside a significant amount of that money for disadvantaged communities. And again, politically, it's important that all Californians really share in these benefits. And I would note one of the things I'm proudest of as chair was the Energy Commission now has a formal policy on diversity. And we're trying to really make sure as we do R&D dollars, number of funds, that we really are targeting those so that a fair share of those go towards disadvantaged communities. The Cal EPA has a model called environment screen. As most models, it could get better. But that is what we use at the state level to really determine, set on a census level track level, which communities are most in need of these dollars. Now again, as we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, it's first to start with the basics. And as you go on the road, these numbers vary a lot in different locations. The reality is that California is about 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions come for transportation. And we can also talk about the air pollution impacts, or again, very much tied into transportation. In terms of the power sector, it's closer to 20%. And about half of that is in-state, and about half of that is out-of-state. If you look at the amount of power associated with those two quantities, obviously we get much less power from out-of-state than we do from in-state. So it's dirtier than our basic resource mix. Beyond that, and it gets a little bit harder to break it out. I tend to think that the numbers are about 30% for buildings, which are split somewhere between residential, commercial, and some degree industry and ag. So again, existing buildings in that will come back to on the energy efficiency side are really a huge resource. But again, thinking of our challenges is very much transportation, very much existing buildings, certainly cleaning up the grid more. And when you look at where we are on these numbers, again, basically, we're making progress. You can tell from the right-hand side, again, we're getting more data soon. But why is our grid cleaner, again, on a very high level? We have certainly energy efficiencies played a key role there. We can talk about some of the resources in just on the next slide. But again, bottom line, California, thinking about these issues, focus on transportation, focus on existing buildings. The power sector can help us by providing cleaner power for some of the buildings. But again, let's not spend all of our time talking about renewables or what the power mix is, as much as what can we do on transportation, what can we do on existing buildings. Again, our electricity sector, it is already 20% below 1990 levels. So as you go through all the straw and straws about what about this resource, what about gas numbers, what about nuclear, what about whatever. Bottom line, that was in a drought year. And we get a typical year, we get a lot of our power uptick in North California from renewables. But why between 2008 and 2014, has this occurred? We know generation is almost doubled, we're really blessed on that. Cold generation, we never had much in state cold generation, but certainly cap and trade has more or less eliminated it. A couple small exceptions we have. And our utilities are really diversifying away from the out-of-state mind-mouth coal plants, which frankly was more the way we used it. And when the 2014 data come out, I'm pretty comfortable it's going to continue that decrease. But again, it's not magic in a way. If you shift away from coal, if you shift away to certainly our gas numbers, or sort of argue about what the levels are, which in part depend on what's coming in from out-of-state. But again, the growth in renewables has just been incredible, and that's had a huge impact on this part of the problem. And again, it's got much more to go. An interesting question, I know we, I think the economist who would argue that it would be much more efficient if all sectors did similar contributions in terms of reductions. But at this point, certainly I think the electricity sector will continue to lead the way on reductions. So in terms of having said this is where we are, it's not really enough. And again, to sort of flesh that out some more. And this comes back to Governor Brown last year in a state-of-state, basically set new targets to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Obviously we have a longer-term 2050 goal, which is basically more like 80%. But in terms of really driving investment decisions and driving policy decisions, 2030 is the next milestone to really focus on. And again, in that, and a lot of this, we did a lot of analysis with E3, with the pathways model to understand basically the interaction between the different sectors. You know, we have in a state in very detailed models on transportation, very detailed models in the power sector on demand. But the scenarios were much simpler, but looked at the interaction and looked at different pathways. And the good news is there's a variety of pathways we can move forward. We have some decisions which are sort of forks in the road that we're addressing, but it wasn't like this was going to be incredibly difficult or incredibly challenging. Although, again, trying to figure out how to convert the transportation sector to what we need is not easy. For those of you who remember more than John Kennedy here, I tend to use the analogy of a moonshot, where we don't know the precise roadmap now, but we really need to bring together our intellectual capital to figure out how to do that. But in terms of the basic pieces are pretty simple. Again, where renewables were going to go to above 50%. In terms of looking at the transportation sector, we've got to reduce our petroleum use by about 50%. And again, petroleum use in California is not power, it's primarily transportation. We really have to double our energy efficiency. And our existing buildings. And again, it's sort of a huge but important goal. And then we get into a lot more focus this year on short-lived climate pollutants. I mean, frankly, when we did this, we didn't have a particularly good inventory even for short-lived climate pollutants in California. Much less the measures to address it. The airport is considering at this point rules to address this. And certainly Aliso Canyon is a good example of how short-lived climate pollutants can have a big impact, methane emissions. We also, in terms of carbon sequestration in our land, forest or ag land. And again, this is a huge issue. I think a lot of us have always presumed that our forest are a sink for carbon emissions. But as you think about the fire issues, they may well be a source. And so we have to figure out how to really reinvigorate that source or that sink for in both agriculture and forestry for greenhouse gas emissions of the longer term. And then the other part of the governor's executive order, I mean again, there was the state of the state and then there was the executive order tying all that together, is to safeguarding California, looking at resilience, looking at how we do our planning. You know, having said our world is changing, we're making infrastructure investments, which can be decades long. And the world is going to be much different decades from now. And so we need to be thinking about for infrastructure what that means. And I would point to a workshop commissioner Douglas and commissioner Randolph and the PUC and I are doing at the energy commission looking at what the utilities are doing in their planning to consider, you know, get to a more resilient system. I mean, and they make billions of dollars of investment. And at the same time, you know, I think all of us remember from Sandy that substation in New York blowing up. So the question of as we look at the impacts in California, it's warmer now, it's at least two degrees warmer than when it was 1890. It's drier. Certainly sea level rise is an issue. And frankly, subsidence is another issue. In the Central Valley, there are areas that we've had so much groundwater pumping from the drought to deal with agriculture that there are places that basically the ground is subsiding 21 inches a month. And so if you think about what that's going on infrastructure, you know, we have gas lines, we have oil lines, we have water, you know, the state water project, we have all kinds of infrastructure going through areas with that sort of impact is just sort of staggering the challenges. So in terms of again, the next steps on that is that one of the things which again, at this point, the Air Board is developing a new scoping plan. That scoping plan will be the power part of that will be the basis for California's implementation of the Clean Power Plan of compliance with the EPA regulations on the Clean Power Plan. And Mary's target is to get that filed in October, our compliance plan with the Clean Power Plan. And at this point, they're looking at the draft that will come out shortly. It certainly encouraged everyone to really look at comments on that. And so that will be in response to the governor's executive order, response to legislation, and start coming up with our road map in this area for the next steps. There's a lot of pieces there. The part SLCP is the short-lived climate pollutant plan, which is those rules are, the plan is out. Those rules are now being considered by the ARB. Cap and trade is the key part. And we're, you know, working through the issues on extending that, maintaining it past 2020. You may or may not have a, anyway suspect I have questions on that. And obviously transportation, having said transportation is a huge part of our greenhouse gas emissions and air quality implications. If you look at Southern California, at least 20% of the economy is goods movement. And so trying to figure out how to really transform that, to go to zero emission vehicles in Southern California is a huge issue. It's certainly going to be a key part of dealing with not just greenhouse gas, but also air quality, certainly a key part of the state implementation plans, moving forward there. And, you know, at this point, obviously, South Coast San Joaquin are both areas which face huge issues on air quality. Legislation, you know, certainly there are pieces of that. You know, we'll talk about that more, but one of them is the greenhouse gas funds need to be allocated this year and so we can move forward there. We talked a little bit about cap and trade. Last year, one of the things we did was come up with a plan on existing buildings. Talked about that a little bit more, but legislation in terms of 802 really tried to move forward on taking energy efficiencies the next step. Certainly in terms of, we'll talk a little bit about 350 and what that did, which is a huge, very important bill. But, you know, in California, it's obviously Southern Florida's economy, pretty complicated in terms of stakeholder interactions, but it will take everyone working together to develop strong plans and then implement those. 350, and again, this was Potam, Kevin De Leon's bill last year. And again, it took the governor's vision and then tried to really work through a lot of the details. And again, so now we have in statute the target of a 40% greenhouse gas reductions below 1990 by 2030. Certainly a 50% renewable portfolio standard mandate, the notion of really doubling down on energy efficiency. Certainly in the transportation electrification, there were some very good moves there to get the utilities more involved with that infrastructure. And again, one of the things which was very important to the administration was that having utilities focus on integrated resource plan. Again, the thing which certainly President Picker, myself, Governor Brown, Mary Nichols, all of us believe strongly, the issue is greenhouse gas emissions. That's our goal, that's our metric. And the notion in this integrated resource plan is to look at the trade-offs, you know, between electrifying the transportation sector, more energy efficiency, renewables, as how do you get a plan that fits together. And the other thing that the bill did was it opened up the opportunity to convert our independent system operator from a California-centric approach to regional. And, you know, I think all of us have been at the various meetings where people talk about how the renewable revolution is really transforming the utilities and transforming so much of what we do. But it also has to transform the regulators. And having said that, you know, part of that transformation is making the ISO more regional. And, you know, frankly, President Picker is focusing on transformation at the PUC, I've been, you know, my seventh year of transforming the Energy Commission to deal more with the challenges of the time. And obviously for all of you, thinking about how does this transform, you know, academic institutions, you know, is very important. Again, and part of it too is, and certainly with Kevin DeLion is very important, with the legislature in general, all of us, it's very important that all Californians share in this, that we're just not, you know, aiming at the innovators that are going to have the Teslas and the Graz, the PVs on the roof and the batteries in the back closet. We have to get this out to all of our citizens and not just trickle down eventually. In terms of renewables, again, that's been part of our transformation. At this stage, I have to say, wind and solar are best buys. If anything, an issue we struggle with is we have a lot of geothermal resources in California. We have a lot of biomass resources, which frankly are just not cost competitive to foldable takes on wind at this stage. I mean, we have, you know, the geysers in Northern California, which has been, you know, since 1950s really was the first project of PG&E and Unical there. And here we are, we have existing plants that are struggling to get contracts because they're not that cost competitive of new foldable takes. And so in terms of looking at the opportunities, you know, we've, Michael Picker and I have done some, some efforts, and I figured at the next stage on transmission planning, and we had a workshop recently that pulled things together, just amazing California's variety of renewable resources and the quantity and the prices. So again, they're best buys. And at this stage, we're sort of working generally with the utilities to have a focus on the next stages there, you know, and figure out how to do what our character is more optimal portfolios. Having said that, and you know, again, I always encourage everyone to put, download ISO today and put that app on your, your phone. And that shows you what hour by hour renewable generation in California, the resource mix, and shows you yesterday's renewable mix. And when you do that, and you can look at a recent talk I gave to FERC on one side at least, the implications are that we are setting new records almost every month on the level of solar generation in California. You know, and when we do that, you know, there's the, the, the famous duck curve or anyway, what I told FERC was duck, duck has landed in California. You know, there's no, no bullshit on what's going on there. You know, and the issue of our, you can see month by month that the minimum load part is going down. You can see the neck, the duck, the, the ramp rates are going up month by month. You know, and you can also see over generation periods are occurring. You know, we talk about energy and balance market soon, but that's been a part of that. We can talk about the logic, but I mean, my bottom line is that this is really, renewables are really transforming our power system. And it's just really just begun. It's just going to be much larger changes in the next 10, 20, 50 years. In terms of doubling the energy efficiency, again, that we've done so much on energy efficiency, but there's so much more to do. For existing, for new buildings, we've had the title 24 building standards about every three years the energy commission has tightened those standards since the mid-70s. And, you know, we have appliance standards. You know, we've, we have done, you know, again, when, when commissioners Boyd and Byron were there, we did TV standards. I mean, the basic theory was you didn't need to heat your house with your television. You know, we've also gone on now to battery chargers. And again, I've done the simple thing of saying the batteries charge, stop charging, period. You don't need to keep boiling the power in LEDs at this point. LEDs are a future of lighting. So we've just said, let's get there. Let's get there now for, for new construction. In terms of at this point, obviously, what's more complicated issue for some of you in the room is we're looking at computer monitors and computers and monitors. And again, it's sort of common. We're not talking about technology changes as much as making sure when things are asleep, it's really asleep, you know, and in fact, it's interesting on this question of international work where in the 80s, the Chinese sent a young gentleman to LBNL to study how we and DOE were doing building standards of appliance things, excuse me. At this point, China has 200 people working on appliance standards. They have dozens of appliance standards. And part of the basis for our computer and monitor standards are the Chinese standards. So again, it's sort of a, we have to think and look globally as we go forward. But in terms of our new buildings and we're going to get to zero net energy, not in this, we have another round to go into effect next year and then three years from then we will go to zero net energy in our buildings for residential new construction. But we have maybe a ballpark 100,000 new homes in California a year. So over a decade, there's maybe a million new homes. You know, it's certainly much higher before the crash and it's, you know, much slower after the crash. But ballpark, we have about 10 million existing buildings that were built before our first building standards. It's not to say that the standards in the 80s, one couldn't do better. But again, that's a lot of energy efficiency potential that needs to be unlocked. And if you're again thinking about all Californians, a lot of our lower income people live in rented space. And I, you know, certainly Jim can tell you the economic theory of why rented space, you're not going to get to where you need to get to. So I mean, it's a huge challenge and opportunity in terms of greenhouse gas, in terms of savings. But again, that's one which we've been trying for a long time to figure out how to crack that night. I think in terms of, I'm going to point you to Andrew McAllister's report, I think certainly new technology. We have a wealth of data from the smart meters. You know, one can do some degree of disclosure of ratings based upon that data and then try to come up with software to come up with plans for people on what their best options are going forward. But again, it's just a huge challenge. Certainly it's a great challenge for this group to be more involved in. And then certainly behavioral aspects are really critical in some of those issues. I talked a little bit earlier about the other part of 350 was renewable, making the independent system operator more regional and less California centric. You know, again, I was on the energy and balance market transitional committee. And what I heard throughout the West was they weren't willing to really join an institution where the Board of Governors was appointed by my governor and confirmed by our Senate that they needed to have a share in the authority there. And again, what's the logic again when you think about it? First of all, if you're forecasting, say, solar or wind generation for an hour, you're not going to do very well. If you're forecasting for 15 minute or five minute, you do a lot better. The amount of reserves you need are a lot smaller. That's certainly our experience. That's a German experience. It's the European experience. I mean, if you spend much time talking to them, moving to much more modern dispatch during this type of five minute, 15 minute decisions and not hour long decision is critical. But even with that, there are imbalances. You know, your wind is going to be more or less than you thought. And so the first step is trading imbalances among the different system operators. And so we started out with California and Pacific Corp and Nevada joined this year. And again, when you look, there's just lots of, it's no brainer, lots of economic benefits. And for us, when we have over a generation, it's much better not to curtail, but to trade that imbalance with other areas. And it also picks up regional diversity. You know, certainly if you think about, you know, I remember when I talked to Baja, Baja is like 15 megawatt wind projects, so the reserves they have are 15 megawatts. Now, as you have more wind projects, obviously you smooth it out, or more solar projects, you smooth it out. As you go from California specific to regional and you get more of the diversity of the wind qualities, the diversity of the solar qualities, you really reduce the variation of variability system-wide in renewables. And so that's a lot smoother. Also, frankly, if you look at Wyoming wind, there's a lot higher quality than what's left in California. And it's characteristics, we have mostly coastal wind, coastal passes, which means that when it gets very hot in San Francisco, say, when the winds are coming out of the valley, we're hitting our peak and there's no wind production, but very, very little. Same in Southern California. When the wind flips out and the passes really deltas in temperature, reduce the passes, the wind, we have very little wind on peak. While going inland, you're going to have a better correlation there. And certainly across the solar system, most of us is north-south, so getting some east-west variation. A lot of our solar, particularly the rooftop, is in our coastal areas where you have the fog coming in and out. So again, you just have a lot smoother. And then finally, just thinking about it, the west as a whole, the peak is in the winter, our peak is in the summer. So again, in terms of reserves you would need for dealing with power is lessened by going to more of that regional footprint. But having said all that, and there's been a recent Cal ISO study that sort of goes through the benefits. And one of them is obviously greenhouse gas. Again, this is a technically literate group. But the energy and balance market, which is really snowballing. I mean, there's a couple new announcements coming soon that are huge in terms of additional participation. But the energy and balance market affects dispatch. So you're operating system plants more or less. If we get to a regional market, you can start affecting commitment decisions, day head commitment decisions, which would mean that people would not turn on coal plants the day before because they could rely upon renewable power. And so again, that's a huge transformation. They save a lot of money, that money benefits California, in terms of jobs, certainly benefits low income. So again, this is sort of a no-brainer, although the political dimension of finding a way to share, I mean, for basically this regional independent system operator to respect the laws and values of each state while coming up with the sort of economic benefits is frankly a pretty tough challenge at this point that we're trying to work through with the legislature. So having said renewables, again, I can't underestimate the importance of really transforming the transportation sector. And on the one hand, we're making some significant progress. So on the other hand, it's a real drop in the bucket. So at this point, we have, and these statistics from Mary's people, we have over 200,000 electric vehicles in California. I should say CEV, I mean, there's some hydrogen vehicles now too, which is about half of the amount in the US. Now having said that, all of you know, we have millions and millions of cars in California. And so this is a very, very small percentage of the automobiles. And the mileage is a very small percentage of the miles driven in California on oil. Plus, like I said, there's all the heavy duty vehicle questions too. But having said that, the good news is that there's a variety of vehicles now being offered by the OEMs, both electric and fuel cells. And so it should cover the needs of all Californians. The opportunities are great that we're at this stage, but again, if you just think about our fleets overall and think about this number, it's depressingly small. We're obviously talking about getting to millions, you know, we probably need about 5 million at the end of the, by 2030 to get our targets. Again, they're paying up on how efficient the best of the fleet is. But again, it's a huge challenge. In terms of what the Energy Commission is doing there, and again, certainly Commissioner Boyd is sort of the father of this program in a way. We have what's a horrible name, Jim. The Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. But yeah, as I said, I keep thinking of trying to, something simpler. But we're trying to focus more on not R&D, but more on sort of commercializing. A lot of the focus is on things like the infrastructure. You know, you're seeing more and more press releases now about hydrogen fueling stations, charging stations. This is really a huge activity. Some activities in biofuels, and certainly incentives for basically alternative types of transportation. And some work on workforce diversity, workforce training. And also we really have done some really interesting things that are trying to target disadvantaged communities for this infrastructure. Now, having said that, one thing that Mary asked me to make sure I emphasized is that we're dealing with petroleum. On the one hand, we've talked about changing vehicles. The other question is changing fuel. And then the third leg of that store is basically land use planning parts. But low carbon fuel standard, and this is a particularly controversial area. But it sort of takes, I think certainly some of my economic friends would say this is not the most appropriate program. But anyway, I can just say, Mary will say no, you really need this to encourage transformation in fuels industry. You can see the prices, there's been some uncertainty on the regulatory side. The prices are certainly going up and making it more interesting. Although the volume's really small. You know, I mean, and there's a lot to be said for that piece of it. But so with that, again, we're happy to switch to questions. But you can see, we've got a lot going on in the state. A lot of connections on the international side. Really, this all builds off of California's innovative spirit. It's sort of universities have really, we need more, you know, we're looking generally at what we can do with existing technology, but certainly if you can give us more and better technology that helps. And, you know, that combined with our venture capital, you know, so we can really be creative and moving innovation out is critical at this stage. So anyway, I'd like to start taking some questions. Sure, go ahead. What do you think is the prognosis for the extension of AB 32 past 2020? Well, I mean, that's that's a great question. And it's one of the things I would have been happy to leave that question. To Mary, but anyway, the reality is that in the current legislation, there's words about maintaining the program, which and obviously, Mary Mary is an attorney. I'm not, but, you know, we certainly have attorneys who would argue that that means that cap and trade will be around post 2020. Now, having said that, you know, I think for a lot of the investment decisions, people want more certainty, so it would be great to get a legislation sort of built through the legislature during that. And frankly, you know, some degree of strengthening what we're trying to do there. At this point, you know, there's questions of whether this attacks or a fee or whatever. But I think, again, to be conservative, I think one would need a two thirds vote. Uh, we, we were very successful on 350 last year, but, you know, we weren't successful on a 50 percent petroleum. We weren't successful, you know, Fran Pavley had a bill basically to extend, uh, cap and trade further the targets that again did not, wasn't even closed it through to two thirds vote, you know, one got to the legislature. And at this point, it's also under court challenge in Sacramento on the appeals court. And so I said, it's critical. I think, again, the notion of putting a price on carbon is like very fundamental what we have to do, but that it's, it's one of the challenges the administration faces in its last two and a half years is working through that extension. Sure. Let's go there. Again, please. Okay. Yeah, I presume that renewable energies do not include at this time nuclear energy because of very real concerns for both nuclear issues and economic issues that involve all of our light water reactors. But suppose advanced nuclear design were to eliminate the concerns about light water reactors and instead be able to produce energy that was cheaper, cleaner, safer and more reliable than any fossil fuel. What would that do to the possibility of including advanced nuclear as part of renewable energy? Well, the legislature basically determines what's renewable in California. And for example, large hydro is not included. Yeah, it's not. So it's always interesting when I when I talk to people about Germany and I say, we're at 25% renewable. And they say, well, Germany's at 28. And I go, oh, shit, Germany includes large hydro, which is 3%. If I can include large hydro, which on a good year is 15 to 20% of our power makes would come from hydro or ahead of Germany. Now, the question is, would the legislature consider? I again, that's that's something which they may have to deal with. But I think the burden is on the industry to show that it can deliver on the cost and performance of the small reactors. And it has to make that pitch the legislature. How would one get advanced nuclear reclassified as a potential renewable energy? Well, again, that's that is a legislation legislative determination is saying like, how do the how do you get large hydro classified? I mean, God bless large hydro is cheaper, you know, cleaner. And it's there right now. It's not some, you know, justice is going to come. Please. Thank you very much. My name is Rod Sinks. I serve on the Cupertino City Council and chair of SVCA and also serve on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board and its Climate Protection Committee. And we well understand the concept of leakage as applied to economic activity at refineries and other things. And we're seeking to think about how we might compliment the state rather than do something that's not productive. But carbon is currently trading at an artificial floor in this cap and trade system. And my understanding is we're not going to get to the ceiling for the next few years. Could we be either scrapping this to look at a carbon tax at on consumption or thinking about more aggressively raising that artificial floor to more appropriately be driving a change in the transportation sector that you think is critical as again, those are tough issues. I mean, actually our last cap and trade auction, which I remember was last week or the week before, actually was undersubscribed, you know, and there's a lot of discussion on why was it undersubscribed? Was it undersubscribed because of the legal uncertainties? Was it undersubscribed because we're just doing so well in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, say, from the utility sector that, you know, that's weakening the market? Financial, again, that part I don't know. But, you know, so the cap and trade program is really at some critical milestones. Now, having said that, there's been a lot of debate. I think I was here at Stanford a couple years ago with Secretary Schultz on a panel trying to figure out the tradeoff between a cap and trade program and a tax. You know, and I think and certainly there were legislative proposals last year, maybe for the fuel plot to go to a tax. I know Mike Rossi and I and Mary Winst at the notion of trying to mix the two in one economy, but, you know, there are tradeoffs. Obviously, with cap and trade, you know you're reaching your target, but you don't know the economic impacts to get there. With a tax, you know the precise economic impacts, but you don't necessarily know what level you're going to come up with. At this point, looking at the world seems to be moving towards some sort of, well, let's put it where we're putting it. China is now preparing to go to a mission trading system. They've had trials in eight provinces. They're trying to go to national, I believe it's next year, although it's slid back a little bit. If China goes in that direction, it's certainly going to, I think, pull a lot of the world, but all of us I think are caught up in the question of, you know, how good are they going to be on verification? Obviously, the ETS system in Europe has been a flop. So over, you know, the inventory wasn't accurate to too much an allocation of offsets before the trading started and just the prices are dismal. So anyway, I think new moving in that direction, although again, if you look at British Columbia, British Columbia has a tax on carbon and certainly they would say that's been a key part of their activity responding to the carbon challenge, you know, in San Francisco. So bottom line is that's a huge issue. We need to figure out how to really get all the stakeholders involved in the next stage on that, on the cap and trade program. And certainly that's going to require significant action by the legislature.