 Thank you for having me today. As was already mentioned, I am very fortunate to have had a fellow from Stamford, Madalsa Singh, I don't know if she's in the room, but she has contributed tremendously or maybe she's virtually actually because I think she's still at home. But I'm very excited about the prospect of all of you really joining the space and considering it for your careers and really excited about all the solutions you're going to bring forward. So I welcome you to this arena, you're much needed, and there's lots of work to do. I'm going to share my screen here. Okay, so I want to just kind of start off with some, you know, EJ101. I'll go through that quickly. I'm not really sure where everyone's coming from on this. So we'll just do a little level setting. Then we'll talk about some of our recent programs that are really focused on disadvantaged communities and then talk a little bit about that being one strategy as we look towards a equitable transition to our clean energy future here. And then I'll delve into one of the pilots that I've been very focused on and talk about some of the hard truths with that. And then kind of bring come back out and talk about some of the different approaches we're taking and some of the risks that we can encounter if we're not very intentional at the forefront here. Okay, so again, if I'm not sure about where everyone's coming here, so we're going to start really basic. And I know over the last couple years, we've had a real national discussion and reckoning with our history here in this country. And so we have had the privilege of talking about the differences amongst all of these efforts. But just to really level set, I think it's important to really talk about what the differences are in this nomenclature. I'll let you read it for yourself here, but really focusing in on what equity means. And sometimes that really means acknowledging where people are starting from and what the history is. And when we talk about energy, that's a really important thing because people are not starting in the same place. And so as we head towards a clean energy economy, we have to acknowledge that and acknowledge that there might be different costs and strategies to get to a place of equity. This is a great graphic. I'm sure many of you have seen this on the differences that we're talking about here. And as you'll see the little stools that are underneath some of the folks in the middle graphic really represent what we're talking about when we're talking about equity. And of course, justice is really that systemic change that most often we search for. Not always attainable. But equity is really something that's very often attainable with a lot of intention. And certainly justice is, but it is far more comprehensive and difficult. Okay. This is just a little bit of some of the work I did in my previous role. This was a big example I used when we were distributing money. And a lot of what we do at the commission also comes down to a distribution of money. And that can come in the form of infrastructure. It can come in the form of technical capacity. But just to really give an example here. So equality we all know everybody, everybody's, when you take the approach that everybody's equal, then everyone should get the same amount. And that's the equal and fair thing to do. That's what people really talk about when they talk about equality. We talk about equity. We really acknowledge that burden that we're talking about. And I'm going to share, I'm sure something that many of you are familiar with, which is a indicator tool that was developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard and Assessment, which should be something that you should become very familiar with and build upon and use in your work. And it's that acknowledgement that some communities and individuals will need more funding because they're dealing with a higher level of burden. And they've come from a place of a lack of wealth. And of course, justice. That is certainly the end goal. Okay. So this is, that was an exercise graph, but we don't have too much time for that. This is the enviro screen, maybe by show of hands as I can see your, I can see your hands if folks can tell me if they're familiar with this tool. Okay, just a few it looked like. Yeah. Well, good. And this is a great opportunity to share this fantastic tool. As I said, one of the state agencies here, they're often called OEHA. And I'm seeing that I don't give them proper credit. Sorry for not mentioning it might be in this little screen down here, but the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assess and Assessment, they are one of the agencies under the California Environmental Protection Agency. And they are all the scientists, really some of the top environmental health scientists in the country and possibly the world. And they do everything from setting risk assessments on, you know, chemical exposure levels, including pesticide exposures to drinking water levels. And they also have taken on this tool that was first used within the climate realm by the ARB primarily on the distribution of the greenhouse gas reduction fund, the cap and trade revenues. And one of the earliest policies that was adopted under that program was that a minimum threshold that has been increasing over the years, I think now they're up to 35% of the funds minimum, much more than that goes to disadvantaged communities. But this was a tool derived of a set of indicators, I think there's about 12 core ones and 20 overall that looks at everything from air quality, you know, all exposure levels, water quality, and accumulates, toxics, all of those puts that together. And some of key demographic information like income to come up with the most environmentally and health vulnerable communities and the term that is used is disadvantaged communities to capture who are the most disadvantaged communities and in need of further investment. And as you can see, the Central Valley unfortunately has a large portion of these. And you can't really tell because sorry for my background noise for the geography here, but Los Angeles, San Bernardino counties have a tremendous amount of high poverty and high environmental hazard communities that deal with that. So this presentation, I encourage you to learn so much more about this, it's constantly updated. And it's really driven fact driven. So it's a very useful tool. And we have used it at the PUC and many of our decisions. Most recently, we've required that 50% of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure be in disadvantaged communities. So that's when you talk about equity in practice, equity in our clean energy transition. That's what it means. We have limited funds, where do we put them? I would support 100% of our investments being used in these communities. And I would just acknowledge there's often a tension with you, you want to be transformative, you want the whole market, the whole populace to really take on something like an electric vehicle. And so there's a tension between you want it accessible to the most folks that could make that transition most quickly, which are the wealthier Californians, with the fact that you want to make sure the transition is equitable. So you want to make sure those are proportional. And that's not easy. It's really not easy because the market drives to no criteria. And so you're in many occasions, you know, in conflict with the market transition that you want to see. Now, I don't personally think conflict is the right word for it, but it is true. Okay, this goes into some of those indicators. So I won't go through them, but as you can see, and all of these, they have existing databases that they were able to pull from. So it's not anything that we have necessarily develops on their own. Okay, so here's another example. We talk about solar. In general, the biggest tool for distributed solar has been the tariff itself, the rate structure that a solar customer is under. And many of you know that as the net energy metering program. All utilities, public and private will require to establish a net energy metering tariff, and that essentially set the rules for how much you are paid for the energy, the excess energy you put on the grid, and how much you pay for the energy you consume. And the net is really, obviously, the benefit, the net savings in many occasions. And this is a proceeding that is being updated, the rules, we have a proceeding open to update the rules for this program, and really the whole structure of that tariff. And once again, a call out to Medalsa for all her work on this exciting program. But to date, I think the highest number I've seen, I've seen a range, depending on how they're looking at it, only 9% of low income Californians are participating in them. So today, it is primarily not benefiting the poor. And so these programs were developed to attempt that attempt to get and see a benefit of distributed solar may not be rooftop and we'll get into those, but seeing a benefit to customers that don't necessarily own their home or don't necessarily have the disposable income to finance a storage project on their rooftop. The first program is actually a program that was continued. It used to be called just sash single family homes. And the focus became not just low income, but in disadvantaged communities. And it's a big important, it's a big, big thing to be you know, benefiting particularly not not just low income, but again, poor people that live in environmentally difficult communities, and are really burdened by pollution. So that was one program that was expanded. And the other program that was developed that were really in the last year and a half that really started to see take full effect is a disadvantaged community green tariff program. And this is a program where you can benefit from distributed generation that is not on your rooftop. There are certain rules about the generation that could be up to 20 megawatts. So you see this little picture on the side here. Really, that generation is then allocated to customers. And that allocation derives a 20% discount. And it's very different than the net intermediate net energy metering structure. And so this is a utility contract, the utility goes out and contracts for this distributed solar has to be in a disadvantaged community, but not necessarily the same community where the customers will be benefiting. And it's become, like I said, quite a popular program. And another thing that we did for the utilities is we targeted which customers would be receiving the benefit of this distributed energy. And we targeted the chronically disconnected customers. And so with the with the presumption being that those customers who deal with two or three disconnections annually is that they're having an affordability issue. And so seeing a 20% discount could help with that. Finally, the the program that is still being developed and I think there may be one project approved now. I can't confirm that, but I but this one is much more in the community. So this is a project that's would be about the same size, possibly even smaller, because that one looks like it's a few megawatts, but probably looking at a one megawatt project could be at a community center at a church and in the same community where the folks would receive once again that 20% bill discount. So the goal of the community solar green tariff was really to not only benefit from that generation, but benefit from the building of the project and and some of the economic development that comes with that within these same disadvantaged communities. Okay, so another program that was a legislatively mandated program is the what we call the SOMA program solar on multifamily affordable housing. Again, recognizing that many renters are not able to do their own because they live in multifamily housing or other reasons but this was particularly targeted to those renters. And this has also been a very successful program. Actually getting an update on it later this week. And it's interesting because all of these installations have to happen on affordable housing so not just multifamily that's market multifamily but affordable housing. And what we've seen so far is actually that you know, a good amount I see here that is taking place in disadvantaged communities but not quite enough as I'd like to see personally. So it's one of those questions where you start to really kind of step back and ask about these equity questions. Is it is it enough to just to be investing in low income, you know, there's affordable housing in many wealthy areas across the state, or do we really want to target low income in disadvantaged communities where you see the cumulative benefit and and obviously dealing with some of the more cumulative harm. So that is a very successful program in terms of development. Okay, let's see here. I talked a little bit about this already that we are revisiting the tariff. I know I live here in Sacramento Sacramento just recently the municipal utility districts mud just last week updated their tariff. So it is a recognition that there has been a pretty significant cost shift from ratepayers to subsidize what looks to be a benefit that at least thus far has not gone to low income customers. So there's a bit of an equity issue within this program in and of itself. And I could talk a lot about that but we'll go on. Okay, another major evolution I would say that we've seen in the climate policy over the last decade is the acknowledgement that some of our short term climate pollutants like methane are causing a much greater heating effect than previously anticipated. And as you all know, one of the major emitters of methane is natural gas. That's what it is. And so there has been an increased focus California policy to switch fuel switch what we call to really incentivize communities turning off the gas heater the gas water heater the gas stove and switching that to electric. And that is a tremendous cultural and economic shift that will have to take place for us to meet our climate goals. And one of the things that is going to be difficult is making sure that the reduction in our dependency on natural gas and that transition off of natural gas is not regressive. And there's so many pieces of this but one of the strategies is the strategy of investment. And just like we talked about is the strategy for electric vehicles, as we just talked about with solar, also with the transition off of our use of natural gas. And so there was a bill in 2007 I believe that directed us to look at clean energy alternatives for communities in the San Joaquin Valley. Originally when the bill was introduced, it was to require us to require the gas company to connect these communities to the natural gas system. And as time evolved by the time we got working on this proceeding, it was clear that that that's not the most sustainable solution. And in fact, it was more costly of a solution. So here's a bit of history again on the legislation that required us to look at communities in the San Joaquin Valley that were on propane, that were on wood burning, using mostly propane for their heating needs, and what the clean energy options were. So there's 170 communities, most of these communities have some natural gas infrastructure at the core of the community, the older part of the community. And for whatever reasons, the outskirts didn't get that extension. And I'm sure there are many reasons, including in the 70s, there used to be a pre-fracking notion that we were going to run out of natural gas. But this is not a situation where the homes were built all electric. This is just a situation where development happened in a very unorganized way. Okay, so the other big component we had in this is we decided to do a pilot. And we went through a process where we decided to focus on the 11 communities that had no infrastructure. They weren't kind of those typical communities that had some infrastructure, but not a lot in the outskirts. So these 11 communities really, we wanted to hear from them, what were those clean energy alternatives that they wanted? And many of them wanted gas. You know, gas is what they knew, gas is what their cousin in the other town has that's really a lot more affordable than propane, certainly less contaminating than wood. And so, you know, what we ultimately decided was a per household budget. And that budget lent itself to electrification. So this is just a little bit more detail. And some of these communities in the Valley have really been historically just so disinvested in. There was one project that we did allow for natural gas. And it was one of those, it was very much those instances where there were main lines going through the streets, but no connections. And there's just each one of these communities has a history as to why they stopped being invested in why the infrastructure stopped to be invested in. One community that I really encourage you all to learn about is the community of Allensworth. And the community of Allensworth was one of the first communities settled by some of the you know, slaves that left the south. And it was a thriving community, one of the, so it's one of the utopia communities is what they're known as huge history. There's now a state park there in Allensworth that really provides the history. And of course, what happened through the years is as that community thrived, different interests came and destroyed it much as we heard. We've all learned of course of what's happened in Black Wall Street in Oklahoma, something similar not as violent happened in Allensworth where they removed access to the railroad. So all trade was stopped. And the community, as you know, you need transportation to make the economy run. And it's tremendous to see the impact, unfortunate impact there tremendously unfortunate. So anyway, many of these communities have similar stories. And so that, you know, the racism that led to what they are today. And many of them are farm worker communities with a different history. But wanting, wanting to really see as we do this transition, as we say that we're committed to equity and the clean energy transition, clean economy transition, we must look at these communities first. And so we have learned many things recently an organization called GridWorks did a review of how we're progressing in the project. And they highlighted a few important barriers and struggles and recommendations, of course. The first is, as we do this transition, we of course need the technology and the science to lead us. But we also need to be in touch with people, we need to be in touch with whatever their cultural necessities are, and be respectful of that. And so that's really something I'm sure you all understand, but something that needs to be really invested in, it has to be part of our strategy of really knowing that. And particularly when it comes to natural gas and how much it is ingrained in our daily lives, just as oil is and our dependency on gasoline. So it will be no different. And in fact, potentially more difficult to make that transition. The other thing that was not anticipated and this goes with the disinvestment the historical disinvestment that already existed in the communities, with really, you know, all distribution systems. So all that as the communities grew, the distribution upgrades did not grow with them. And so in many of these communities, you know, the actual distribution infrastructure as it is today is really not ready for the tripling of the energy use as people want to go all electric. And it's become a factor because that's an upgrade that needs to happen at the utility side. So that's become an issue we've been having to deal with work through. But also is an opportunity for distributed energy because although we have been focused on the fuel switching of the appliances, the question is really, now should we be coupling it with distributed energy that can really help with foregoing distribution upgrade costs. So this is kind of an opportunity to make perhaps meld those two areas. And then just to mention the uniqueness of the needs of mobile homes. And all of the mobile homes that I've heard of in this area have lack proper registration, you know, they came together. It's not that they squatted, they do own the land. But much of what how they evolved wasn't properly permitted. And so when we go to seek an upgrade for these homes, they're dealing with a backlog of that lack of proper registration. And so that's a burden because if you have to go back and pay those fees and potentially taxes and things like that, it becomes too much. And so this is a real thing. Again, just talking about communities that have lacked infrastructure, lacked wealth, lacked any sort of knowledge in there coming out and then trying to get them to a place to be, you know, fully electric, all of these become barriers because it's not just about today, it's about the historical path that has brought them here. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about where we're headed with these as we started to distributed energy and micro grids. Micro grids has become a much more popular topic now with the unfortunate advent of more power shutoffs. Also with the recognition of having local generation, either for backup purposes, or for resiliency for other reasons, certainly, you know, there's never a full proof energy source. We've learned that many times over the last two years from what happened in the freeze over in Texas, where natural gas plants were off as well as wind was off. And there's an interesting report that just came out on that showing the percentages of that. And it was a largely natural gas. And although that's not what the Texans wanted to say. And but so I want to just talk about the interesting thing from my perspective is that micro grids can provide solutions for emergency situations. There's been in lieu of, you know, diesel generators, essentially, you could develop a infrastructure to have solar and storage most most most importantly storage to really provide for some continuity and certain locations. And that's where the equity issue comes into place. Because not everyone will have their own micro grid, just like not everyone will have their own rooftop solar. So where there is a micro grid today, based on the rules we have today, there will be a cross subsidy. And all of us in our bills will pay for that because those customers will not have will not be paying into the electricity that was purchased for all of us, not to mention all of the distribution charges. So from my perspective, we should be investing in more local distributed generation. But it should be tied to substations, because substations are already programmed to serve the whole area downstream from it. And not necessarily. So that's the optimum to me. Do we need micro grids at community centers at areas where, you know, folks go for emergency situations? Yes, of course, that's also a no brainer. But if we talk about a distributed energy future, we really want to match it up to the substations. And right now the policy isn't quite there. The policy is being driven by a variety of folks, folks like I said that have gotten their power shut off one too many times, but also large entities like, you know, much of Silicon Valley would like to have their own micro grids, your neighbors there. Okay, so I just wanted to just note here that we're trying to put a framework around this so that we can foster, continue to foster distributed energy development, but also make sure that we're benefiting customers at large, and particularly if there's an opportunity to benefit disadvantaged communities. Okay, let's see here. I think this is just putting some numbers behind what I've already said. And I think that's it. So, you know, high level. Many of these investments are good. And we certainly want to be more dependent on localized generation for resiliency purposes. Although we also want to foster, you know, large scale renewable generation that is not in our backyards, because of the benefit it has to us economy wide. But in terms of how we do this, we have to make sure not only is it most importantly, is it benefiting everyone? Is it benefiting everybody? We can say, as we learned earlier, is it an equal benefit? Or isn't it equitable benefit? And I think what we're striving for here is a more equitable benefit. And that's really hard to do with distributed generation. It's doable. But it's very hard to do because we don't want to fall back into the rooftop solar dynamic, where we're not getting enough equity out of those investments. We have to be more intentional. And we have to really not leave it all to the market. So that's where our rules are important. And that's where many other agencies are important in that development. So that's just one piece of getting to equity is proportional investments. There are many other pieces. But I think this highlights one of the lower hanging fruits, which is identify those communities that have had the disparities and invest in them and be conscious of it as we transform our economy. Okay, I can talk a lot more about the regressive gas policy. But but I appreciate you guys being here. And I think it's a good time for some questions. Thanks very much for having me. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you all cities for that and engaging in informative talk. And for all the work you do on behalf of all of us Californians. As is our tradition in this seminar, we give first priority for questions to students. And since you're here and they're not, it's going to be pretty easy to see this here. So we have about 15 minutes. So I'd like to know if we can end in the room and if you have good questions. Thank you. We do have some questions coming in over the internet in the general audience. That was good. Yeah. So you see people. If you just speak up, you should be able to hear. Any questions that people have about the programs as a commissioner? My question is, you were talking about how around out of the county, and I think that it's like hard to allocate because of pollution and all these stuff. So what is the measurement to quantify like this number? So when you see the graph, it is basically marking red. But what is the algorithm on how this measures to make it, to make it conclude that I think that region is especially based on you. So did you get it? How do you measure the burden of pollution specifically in LA on the Central Valley? How do you get the data in what form and how do you use it? Yeah, that's great. I see Pilata's on here, one of my staff, and I wonder if she could just pull up the WIHA website and put on the chat. I did have a slide on this. It has about 20 key indicators. It's everything from some of the key air quality indicators, like PM particulates and ozone and also has so they're all all of these are just environmental indicators that exist through different state and local agencies that are aggregated and then basically weighted appropriately. I think Aaron Water probably have the highest weight there. There's also toxic indicator from and they have and they come up with a rating and those that are receiving the highest pollution obviously have the higher rating. And so I think I'm answering your question, but the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, you can go on their website and viral screen. It is a great and they go through a public process of updating it. So as an example, some of the burden communities in the Bay Area have said that their weighting is not really captured as appropriately as it could be. And so they'll advocate for you know, instead of using income as just as income, they would want to weighted income based on affordability of the region. So those are the types of things that people advocate for to get a more balanced weighting as an example, but that tool has been around for some time now. And so it gets more refined by the year. I hope I'm answering your question. Yeah, thanks so much. I think one thing that's probably helping you work is the technology is a lot better. So we're able to measure if this is apart from what you do with the information, we probably have some big data people I predict with probability one in the audience. So there may be some help you can get from both the technologists and the big data. It doesn't make it more equitable, but it gives you the ability to put forward regulations. I'm afraid you have to actually talk back to this laptop, everyone. It's very unnatural because she's up on the screen. I'll go like this, maybe. Thanks for joining us today. I think questions we just look at and them and want to make that process more equitable or how much to look into the financing structure, especially around ITCs and how the tax credit is applied to income. Because I think from what I've seen, there's a lot of the funds are structured in a way such that the IPPAs will only go towards people that own their home have higher than 650 picos for things of that nature. And I don't know if you guys have boards at all with federal government and looked into making it maybe a tax rebate instead of as we've had like maybe 10 years ago. I'm just wondering how much time that you guys spent looking into that aspect of how that is actually happening. Yes, it's a very good question. In fact, one of the other areas that I just all the work we do, we didn't put it all on the side here. But another area I've actually spent a lot of my time on is consumer fraud issues with men. And unfortunately, putting aside the renter issue, which is what I focus on today, the issue with those, the 9% that are low income homeowners, there's been a tremendous amount of fraud. And it has a lot, a lot of it has to do with financing. I'll get to your ITC question, but the fraud issue is very prevalent with certain types of financing, in particular pace financing, which is essentially an assessment on your property. And there's nobody really that says you can't charge more than X amount for this solar, the solar arrays, because it's all free market, of course. And the financing has put people into really atrocious positions, particularly with the pace financing, some folks have been at the verge of losing their homes, because it becomes a property assessment, and they can put a lien on your property. And that's happened. So it's a big concern. And for that reason, I personally favor a less generous NAMM tariff and a more generous upfront incentive. And for that very reason, and I do see this is a great reason why your guys's minds are needed in the space. The ITC is currently being evaluated as part of our cost effectiveness analysis. And so it's more about setting what the right level of export rate of payment compensation, it's kind of pulled into that whole formula that ultimately be derived into what is the tariff look like. But on the financing, I agree. I think part of what we're looking at is there's two proposals right now really on the table as we're looking through the proceeding on how to be more targeted to low income customers. Some people say keep a more generous tariff. That's how you'll get more benefit to low income customers. But the reality is you can't guarantee that the benefit of that financing is going to the customer. That financing structure often doesn't lend itself to particularly an unsophisticated customer. And so the other solution is to do an expansion of those very programs that I just mentioned that are upfront incentive based programs and or the utility administered ones as the third option. Great. So now you need lawyers, finance, people and tax accountants for sure. It's been really building up a little demand for services here. Any other questions in the room at this point? Sir. Hi, so some of these projects move around a lot of money. I'm wondering what the process is like to get those large amounts of money from the government, state, federal. Could you hear that? I think so. Some of the projects use different funding sources and well, they involve a lot of money. And how do you actually get the, what does the money come from and under what conditions from federal government, state government, local governments, private sector? Yeah. Well, the majority of the of the current, there's two strategies that are used right now. One is a strategy that allows the market literally Wall Street and, you know, some of the solar developers, Sun Run, Solar City, now Tesla, you know, they come up with financing mechanisms based off of leveraging the tariff itself, the rate structure. So they come up with power purchase agreements, just regular sales agreements, and they put products together and they themselves leverage the ITC. Sometimes that is transferred to them as part of the deal. And so many of the solar companies, the developers are really finance, financers, and they sub out to contract it, you know. So that's one model. The other model is we allow the utilities to spend money on this. You know, we allow the utilities to spend a lot of money on transportation, charging, electric charging, infrastructure, hookups. So we have allowed them to spend hundreds of millions over over a billion cumulatively on elective infrastructure. Some of the more exciting stuff is happening with freight, where they're establishing charging infrastructure at the ports. And so we authorize that. We say you can spend that money. Utilities sometimes can gain further benefit off that from from the tax side, but not not not as much as end users. You know, so I think project developers when it comes to like more traditional generation and distributed generation is a is, you know, a little bit in the space, but the most common bread and butter is, you know, somebody's developing a hundred megawatt solar facility, and they're definitely leveraging the ITC, and they're getting the, you know, price per kilowatt hour down to a level that they incorporate that into their contracts to bid to the utilities. And so as part of the utility customers were paying that generation cost, but it's really the developer that can bundle it and come up with a rate to sell back to the utility. And that happens at the wholesale level. It happens at the retail level with them as well. Any other questions in the room? Too much time left. I'd like to ask the question of the top of the student that I'm working with all of that, which fits into your program. I think she'd be delighted to talk to you about that. And you said, do you think the community choice aggregation programs here in California have been equitable from your point of view? The incidence has been equitable? Well, so one of the other fun things I get to work on is this power charge and difference assessment that we do PCA. And basically, those are the rules that say, if I'm a PG&E customer that lives in San Jose, and then tomorrow San Jose forms a community choice aggregator, what's my contribution? What's my responsibility to the energy that PG&E already purchased to serve me? And so, you know, when you have a million customers leave, the utility has already bought energy for them. And there's a process that we have where the utility then sells that energy back to the market. And whatever difference exists that they didn't, they weren't able to recover. Most of the time, they're not able to recover because you've got to remember, one big dynamic is we force the utilities to buy renewable energy early on. So they have a lot of expensive projects, you know, the price of solar has gone from like 40 cents a kilowatt hour to three. So when they sell it today, it's not selling for what they bought it for. So that difference, that gap is passed on to the CCA customers until those contracts expire. And that's our attempt to try to deal with the equity issue is that, you know, the concern is you have a sophisticated local government, you know, San Jose, the peninsula has a CCA, you know, Los Angeles. There are a few in the inland part of California. And unfortunately, one of those few just recently filed for bankruptcy during COVID. So it's only an equity issue if we burden the customers that are still with the investor on utilities, the PG knees, the Edison's, it's only an equity issue if we don't do the math right. And those customers that remain with utilities are burdened with the energy that was consumed, purchased to be consumed by those customers that left. We think we got the formula pretty good. It's definitely a science and art type of thing. We can talk about prices of energy. But, you know, CCA customers, they're, they're only, they're still paying for all the distribution and transmission costs at the same rate as the non CCA customers. So, you know, I think, I think actually, every year we have more and more CCAs. And with this more recent bankruptcy, it's been the only major hiccup on the road. But most likely than not in the future, most areas will have their energy purchased by their local government is that's a very likely scenario. And maybe not, maybe it's going to continue to be a hybrid for some time. But there's a lot of benefit I see in the CCAs procuring that generation, because as local governments, they're inherently interested in some of the other co benefits of generation, like maybe if it's distributed, there could be an economic development harm to that. They certainly want to see more transportation electrification. And they're putting in a lot of charging infrastructure. So, you know, they're the permitting agency, they could see a lot more nexus with that, you know, building whatever rules they put in place for that. So there's a lot of opportunities with local governments being involved. But, you know, it could have equity issues if we allow for some of that cost shifting. And today, we haven't done that. But every year, there's legislation to try to that the CCAs would like to eliminate the obligation that they have to those old contracts. There's a full disclosure of CCA customer. I wanted to make sure I'm doing a good thing. And I thought you could tell me, at least I'm not totally going in the wrong direction. So that's it. I see we're out of time here in the room. And elsewhere, I'd like to thank you very much for this very engaging and inspirational seminar. We do hope you're in the market for more interns next summer. Oh, yes. I actually know Madalsa pretty well. So if you need an intro to Madalsa, to find out what her experience was, which before I knew that you were the her supervisor, she said she had a terrific experience. I think, sir, can back me up on that as well. Great. So thank you. Once again, now we're going to break to a close session with Marley's, our CA for some of the students, lucky students, to be able to talk to you a little bit more up close. And personally, thanks for doing this and for dealing with our very first hybrid energy seminar. Thank you so much. Okay. Good luck, everyone.