 Let me start by introducing our speakers and panelists today. I'll start with Ann Pramajuri. Ann is the CEO of Exelon Utilities, formerly CEO of Commonwealth Edison in Chicago, one of the largest utilities in the country, something like $33 billion in revenues. 10 million customers scanning all the way from Chicago to Philadelphia to DC. Some of the key initiatives that Ann has focused on, grid monetization, a smart grid program, as well as really investing billions into monetizing the distribution and transmission system. Kind of separate sister companies, the generation side of Exelon, one of the largest generators in the country, about 30,000 megawatts of capacity across really all of the fuels, nuclear, gas, wind, solar, and hydro. I believe a Chicago native, that's really where your roots. Been there many, many years on the Midwestern. So I like to say Commonwealth Edison really was the source of the first major electric utility revolution. We're now talking about the next revolution. I started in the sector 35 years ago, and the book they gave me to read was Samuel Ensel. And so all roads lead to Thomas Edison's disciple, Samuel Ensel, and what he did to electrify Commonwealth Edison. And it all went from there. It's interesting. Some of the dynamics we're seeing are sort of going back to pre-insul and sort of pulling the system apart. He pulled it together. So it's just kind of interesting to see how history comes around. I suggest if you become fascinated with everything electric utility, read about Samuel Ensel, read his biography. Thad Hill, the CEO of Calpine, about 10 years with Calpine, recently led a $17 billion take private transaction of Calpine. I'm proud to say that we put $2 billion into that transaction, so we like it very much. This is one of the largest independent power producers in the United States, 26,000 megawatts of generating capacity, serving about 21 million homes. 80 power plants in 17 states, about the largest generator here in California, about 7,500 megawatts in California, owns the largest renewable facility. I call it kind of the backbone of the renewable program here in California, about 10%. The geysers, big baseload renewable. We love baseload renewable, geothermal, up in the Napa area. And then 22 natural gas facilities here in California, almost 7,000 megawatts of natural gas. I suspect some electrons finding their way into this building very well may be coming from Calpine, also about the largest natural gas purchaser in the country as well to serve all these facilities. You might be surprised the independent power sector has been one of the best performers in the market this year, up almost 50% from their lows. So we're gonna dig. I should mention we actually help serve Stanford as an energy supplier to Stanford, providing a lot of the services that Stanford needs to meet their energy needs since we're here. Well, let's kick it off. I read it, there was a NERC, the Reliability Council in the country, put out a report yesterday. Warning that the accelerated shutdown of coal and nuclear plants could lead to power outages, shortfalls of surplus generation and transmission problems. We've already had about 45 gigawatts of coal shut down over the past few years. We've got another 20 or so coming in the next five years. We've had six nuclear plants shut down. We've got another 14 nuclear plants slated to be shut down. That's about 20% of our nuclear facilities in this country. So with that backdrop, the utility of today that we talked about yesterday focused on reliability, cost and carbon footprint versus the utility of tomorrow, where we really wanna talk about reducing that carbon footprint and doing it while keeping reliability high and keeping costs down. And I hope we talk a lot about cost today. So maybe if we can start and go a little bit through the fuels and we had Governor Brown talk about the aspiration of 100% renewables. So maybe let's start with the proliferation of renewables and the ramifications of 100% renewables, feasible ramifications, coal and nuclear coming out. So let's start there and that if you wanna kick that off. Sure, that was a very large topic that was just introduced. Solve it all in three minutes. Yeah, you did. So I'll start with the renewables and then I look forward to getting to the broader fuel mixes where Ann and I may have a disagreement actually but maybe not, we'll see. But on the 100% renewables, look 100% renewables shouldn't be the goal. The goal is about carbon in my view, right? It's climate change. So it's not about how many renewables, it's about lower carbon. And so let me kind of phrase the question, how about 100% carbon-free generation? And that is incredibly unlikely and unbelievably expensive for a long, long time. And I actually think that a little bit of the focus on that right now, I believe is misplaced because while certain areas of the country are pursuing this incredibly rapidly, it is at extraordinary cost. And there is a huge potential to decrease a lot more CO2, which is what we believe in at a much lower cost by thinking a little harder about the public policy pursuits that are going. I mean, as a quick example, it's pretty easy to do the math that behind the meter of solar, it costs several hundred dollars a ton of carbon reduction where you can reduce carbon for $5 a ton in the Midwest with a little bit of a carbon price by shifting coal to gas or other type of generation. So I think we should probably redefine the problem which is how do we get as much carbon out as fast as we can at a reasonable price to get on your cost? I mentioned, I don't think it's viable almost regardless of economics. And we've got a study that a third party has done that we're still working on. But to kind of touch on it a little bit, we've kind of taken, we've taken to California the governor's mandate for carbon reduction by 2045 and said, how can we solve for this CO2 mandate in California? It involves, you know, massive electrification but you actually get to numbers very quickly that you need 200,000 megawatts of solar and 100,000 megawatts of batteries. And you start piling all that together, you still need more gas generation than there is today, albeit at a very small capacity factor because to actually chase that last CO2, ton of CO2, you're spending well north into the four and even five digits a ton of carbon. So I really do think we should focus on how can we get as much carbon out and do it in the most economic way for now. And maybe because you're, you know, on the customer side of the business and we heard expensive, I think the average retail rate here in California is something like 24 cents, a lot higher than your customers are paying. You've got nuclear in the mix and there's a lot of discussion of subsidizing nuclear as a zero carbon and I bet the two of you may have different views on subsidizing carbon. I have a home in San Diego. My marginal rate that I pay, believe it or not, is 55 cents and my average rate is 54 cents a kilowatt hour. That's crazy rate design here in California. You can just do the math on kilowatt hours of what that bill might look like. So when does the pushback come from customers and just talk about costing customers and their focus a little bit? Yeah, I think, we think about that a lot. First of all, I'll start by saying that I completely agree with that in terms of how we frame the question and our vantage point is we're trying to get to a decarbonized end state, which is not just looking at the power sector but at the transportation sector, at the industrial sector and we're spending a lot of time looking at how you get there and what you need from each sector in order to get there and it's quite complex and it takes a lot of strong policy to get there and that's something we're considering. So I think our view of the world is very much aligned on that and our thought is you wanna get there as cheaply, as quickly and with the least disruption as possible and when I say least disruption, we run the world's largest economy on the power grid and so we don't have the luxury of sort of breaking and disrupting and not managing what we've got. We've got to be able to innovate while we keep the system we've got running and that's one of the big challenges is sort of making that innovation and that switch on a system that exists and has certain physics associated with it today and I do think we wanna think about the largest toolbox we can in terms of getting there timely, cheaply and with the least amount of disruption. So when we think about affordability, one of the things that, one of the dynamics of what technology is driving and what is creating among customer in terms of wants and behavior is if you look at any digital transformation, there is a great desire, so customization becomes much more choice, becomes much more available to consumers and they know that and they want that and we've got a model, a financial or a pricing model that actually holds everything together and as you start to pull off portions of customers to certain unique uses, whether it's solar and storage or some other sorts of unique use, you start to disrupt that common pricing model and one of the things we think of serving major cities where the poverty rates run from 19% to 26% depending on the city, how do we serve, we're a universal service provider, that's the business that we've been in for 100 years. How do you maintain that balance? How do you maintain social equity? How do you assure that the benefits of the clean energy system get out to everyone and the costs are fairly allocated and it's a big question. We're thinking a lot about that and we think the pricing model is one of the biggest questions on the regulated side of the business that we have to tackle going forward. And if I could on the pricing model, I mean the way I describe it, again in complete agreement, is 120 years ago, I don't know what the right number is, 90% and 95% of the entire cost and capital structure of energy delivery is actually fixed and 120 years ago when the first grapes were designed, it was designed to pretend they're variable and charge the customer on a variable consumptive risk. What's happened now is that it's misrepresented the cost of actually the variable component and you've gotten all kinds of disintermediation going on. And so we're in full agreement, you can't create a enormous fixed cost as a variable cost and think you're gonna get rational economic outcomes. And because of that, that's driving a lot of the issues you're 50 cent bill in California. I mean, again, to use an example, in California there's a lot of rooftop solar if it costs 16 or 17 cents a kilowatt hour and you're paying 50 cents on the margin, of course you deploy it. If you're in ComEd or in Texas and you're paying nine cents or 10 cents, of course you don't deploy it. It's not that you don't want to do what's right for the environment, it's that you're charging less but the real variable cost to that 50 cents is very, very small for the disruption. And I think one of the biggest challenges we have is not to preclude innovation and unique uses but how do you redesign a system that allows for that but also maintains a balance on sort of the universal service concept and it is a really tough economic and policy question that we have to tackle. Well, you used the word balance and we used to focus in fuel diversity and fuel mix on balance. We now seem to all roads natural gas, natural gas, natural gas. So a couple of questions about this bridge fuel that I guess we're calling it but is natural gas generation being fairly compensated for the role that it's playing as backing up renewables almost it's our storage of today? Is it a good idea to become so leveraged to one fuel? We have low prices today but I've seen disruptions before. I just saw that the Cameron LNG facility was just commissioned, they finished construction of something like a $10 billion project that's 1.7 BCF a day of new demand that's gonna be exported. So talk about this all of a sudden rage of this low price fuel that we're going all in on. What are the ramifications, good idea? Talk about that. Well, look, I'm gonna, the shale revolution has obviously changed everybody's life has anything to do with energy. And although I'll probably make some the positive statements in a minute I also wanna do those with all the humility that in 2008 I nor any of my colleagues or friends in the industry ever saw the shale revolution coming. So to your point, you don't know what's around the corner no matter how hard you try. But that being said, it has changed our lives and there's a lot of natural gas out there in this country. And it is a cleaner fuel. It has become a mining operation not an EMP type operation. And it's out there for a while. And we as a country need to make sure that we take advantage of it because it's such an opportunity to have cheaper industrial base than anywhere else in the country. Doug, you started off asking about natural gas generation being compensated for renewables. So I'll just maybe start there and then hand over to Ann and I think we'll get into maybe a broader fuel debate. But to start, generally around this country nothing's perfect, but in the competitive markets certainly the regulated markets are different. You got to pay a regulated rate of return. So I think the real question is in competitive markets. And while it's not perfect, things are working reasonably well. It's a little different by region. But we're actually seeing a few issues are emerging and I'll take and I'll use California as an example but there are other markets too where there's been a public policy push and for heavy renewables and storage our gas generation fleet gets paid for two things. There's some smaller items, two things generally. One is providing energy. The other is making sure there's capacity there if there's backup need. All right, energy margins go up or down. Over time, I fully expect here in California to use the local example. Our capacity factors will drop. However, there is no scenario I see certainly in the rest of the natural life of our fleet and which is megawatts are not gonna be needed as a secure part of the great critical infrastructure. Today for that capacity, and this is an example on California, you get paid if you're available for four hours. And we've actually got a bit of a chaos emerging here again regionally because there are a lot of generation units that can provide a lot more than four hours. Other resources are coming in. They're driving gas plants out but the independent system operator is saying, wait, you're not allowed to go anywhere because we need you. So there's a disjoint between what's getting paid for in the market versus what's actually needed for reliability. And if anybody thinks that's kind of questionable, I'll go back to the bomb cyclone this winter in New England, plenty of snow on top of solar panels and every peaker in the market ran for a week. In the West, a dry year versus a wet hydro year, 5,000 megawatts of sling of supply coming in, cold, dark winters. You cannot cover that stuff with lithium ion storage. So I do think the models and it's different region by region are gonna have to continue to evolve. I think people get it, I mean it's happening but it's gonna have to be an explosive conversation. And you're telling them maybe your region a little bit? Yeah, so I was just sort of taking it from the grid side, which is where I spend my life. One of the things we think about is, we don't have a grid that's ready for the intermittency and can deal with the inertia issue. It's just not there yet. And so, when you think about bringing on more and more renewables, we're preparing for it, we're thinking about it, we're designing for it, but it will take us a while to get there and back to my sort of point before, we don't get to disrupt the system we've got in order to build the new one, we've kind of got to do it at the same time. And so there's an evolution here that I think we have to be very planful about. And we all, I think most people have the same goal in mind, how you get there is a question. And so we're looking at how we redesign the grid, how do we create a grid that has enough automation and dynamism in it when you no longer, as an industry, control the supply inputs. It's in the hands of many. It's not within your control either from a sort of natural resource standpoint. You don't know when the wind's gonna blow and when the sun's going to shine and you don't control it from just an institutional standpoint. And that requires a tremendous amount of automation in the grid, which is not there. We have a long way to go on that and there's a cost to that. And one of the things that we spend time on is just trying to work on design and technology around that, but also have the discussions with consumers, with policy makers about what is needed and what that will take. So again, I think there's an evolution. We're gonna need time to get there. And I think there's solutions along the way that move us faster and cheaper. So maybe let's bring the storage piece out of that a little more. I think we're gonna follow with some discussion of batteries here, but are we ready for prime time with batteries? There's been, I'll call them a lot of experimental projects out there that a lot would love to extrapolate that we have the solution. California's got RFPs for storage in the marketplace. So talk a little bit of that if you wanna go first. Talk a little bit of how you think about storage, batteries, where are we in that area? So, you know, storage obviously, there's just getting cheaper. It cannot be supported by purely market economics in any market. You can argue some modest chancellor services, but it cannot be supported. We'll continue to get cheaper over time. However, and I'm just a few minutes ago, I mentioned it's an energy play or it's a capacity play. I would argue the current short duration storage is nothing but an energy play because it will do a very effective job if everybody knows the California duck curve. As solar came in, the load in the middle of the day got pushed down, but there's this very peak storage would be able to be very effective at time shifting energy for one part of the day to the other. And eventually it may be deployed economically to do that, although I honestly believe it's a true market test. It's probably late next decade before it gets anywhere close, at least. Doesn't mean it won't happen in California. California can certainly make its own economic calls, but it'll be a long time out. However, the physics of it are the storage cannot provide the reliability benefits that are needed when you have a transmission line go out in a constrained area. When you have a bomb cyclone in New England, when you have a dry hydro year in the West, it cannot be a real true capacity resource. And so I think storage is gonna be an energy type product over time and I think that will be how it's generally treated with some small exceptions. Otherwise we'll end up having to just place other units out of the market and then come back around and subsidize them because they're gonna be needed when there's a dry hydro year. So I think there'll be a realization over time, Doug. So ready for prime time, it works. It's been tested, it can time shift. It is not economically ready. I think it's 10 years away. And I don't think it was the current battery technologies that are anywhere near commercializable can ever supplant capacity. I think the challenge is duration and cost. But we're doing some testing of we've got a small community size battery that can use bring a small neighborhood up for backup in the case of an outage of storm for three or four hours. So we're looking at options to use storage that way. But the cost needs to come down. Argonne Labs is doing a lot of work on this. They have a three by five program in five years. They want at one fifth the price and five times the amount of energy density and so there's a lot of effort sort of pushing in that direction. But there's still some work to do, I think. The cost will come down, the issues, the duration, I think for how, I mean, it will be very useful, but how much of a role can it play? Let's maybe shift a little to regulated utilities and maybe talk about the integrated utility model. Is that a viable model? How's that model changing? A lot of questions about distributed generation being a threat to your business. To me, I look at the sector, it's been a nice run of rate-based growth. Boy, especially here in that electric bill of mine, I think a lot of it has to do with transmission, bringing in renewables from remote locations, grid monetization, smart grids. There's been a lot of ways to grow the rate base of a regulated utility. So talk about where we are. How are you feeling about that business and where we headed? Sure. I think the regulated utility model, the integrated utility model is still a really, really strong model. And in fact, in the era of networks, it's a classic network. And in the era where the platform business model is becoming the predominant business model, eBay, Amazon, it's kind of the original platform business. And Amazon uses their flywheel kind of metaphor where they talk about how they can drive down costs, provide a more economic system because they have providers that they put onto their platform that attracts customers. The customers attract more providers, more customers. And so you get this reduction of cost by this flywheel kind of concept. And that was Sam Insell's concept. When he started the electric business, we had disaggregated small businesses all over the place with little dynamos serving small neighborhoods and he sort of combined them all and figured out how to make the machines more efficient and bring more and more people on. And then you had more rural electrification that brought more and more businesses and customers on and you drove down the cost. It's kind of the original platform or the original flywheel. So I think it's a really, really useful, physical and economic tool for the future. I think you can think about incorporating distributed generation and the grid actually I think optimizes that. I mean, if you think of platforms, rationalizing assets, making markets more efficient, animating markets, those are all the things you think about platforms and I think the integrated utility can do that. One of the things that we're doing in Illinois is we've created a path for solar growth, distributed generation, community, rooftop, all the above. And we said to ourselves, well, what can we do to facilitate this if we think of ourselves as a platform business? So we put together an online service that allows customers to come on, they can pull down their usage. We have maps of all the housing in our service territory. You can run the economics on what solar would look like on your home. If that doesn't work, you can go to a community solar kind of project and figure out the economics of that. So we're looking at ourselves as being able to animate that market. So I think the grid is really, really valuable as we move forward. I think it does all the things that a platform does and I think you don't wanna lose it and I think you can coexist. I think we can coexist. I think there is a way to bring the distributed model together, to give customers more choice, allow for innovation and still maintain some of the benefits of having that foundation of the network and the platform. And that's how we're thinking about going forward. Thoughts on the regulated financial model. I think that we, I think the fundamental model is still pretty good. If you think about a model that creates a low cost of capital when you've got a heavy infrastructure job ahead of you, build out. And we do, if we wanna decarbonize, if we wanna and use the grid to do that and I think it's the most cost effective way, we've got a big job modernizing the grid to be able to do that. So you've got a big infrastructure build out ahead of you. I think the model in terms of lowering cost of capital for that project works really, really well. It has for a hundred years. We have to modify it. We've gotta modify it for, I think the questions that are being raised when you look at what's happening in policy debates are around what are you spending your money on and is it delivering value? So you see things like performance metrics or performance standards being thrown into the regulatory model. You see mechanisms along the lines of, we wanna have a public discussion about what your investment plan looks like and those are all questions about, we wanna know that the investment that's being made is going to generate value. So that's one piece of the model that has to evolve and the other is the pricing piece of it that I talked about earlier to allow for some customization, some innovation, but also maintain some social equity and that's a really tough question. But I think the fundamental model for the grid holds pretty well. But I think you gotta evolve it in a couple ways, as I said. Yeah, I don't think I disagree with that, but I'm gonna kinda come at it from a 30 degree different angle, which is I don't think I'm plugging from the grid for a long, long time is a realistic expectation. The grid's gonna be out there. So we need our utilities helpful, healthy and they need to be a wires business, which is what CommEd is. And then kind of, and this may be somewhat pejorative, but more or less, wires need to be the wires and they need to get out of the way and let innovation and competition happen. Innovation is gonna happen behind the meter and in front of the meter because they're profit seekers that are out there looking to deploy capital and develop technology. So in my view of the world, let's make sure we change the pricing model, which to be a little ever simplistic is a lot more fixed based on your need to hook to the grid and a lot less variable. Put a price in carbon and let competition blossom, whether it's behind the grid or in front of the grid and get regulation and out of the way and let it happen. To make the point on the deregulated versus regulated and this is not the form I'm a very much a fan of competition, it looks better results and smart people and the profit pursuit are gonna innovate faster than any other model. Two stories. One, we sold a power plant once to a regulated utility, not that terribly long ago. We staffed the plant with a number of people, the regulated utility took over the plant, they staffed it with 65% more people, same power plant and it's actually not operating as well as when we owned it. Because we cared about every megawatt and they have a different model. I think you see some of the biggest things in the energy news right now on their three words that argue against the regulated capital decision making which was an agency problem. Other people are deciding how to invest your money. The grid has to be healthy, generation I don't think falls into that. And they are Sumner, Vogel and Kemper. They're supposed to be funny for those of you who follow that but those are the disaster of some IDUCC and nuclear projects in the South East. We're over 20 billion on those three, probably well over. Well over 20 billion on those three and it's what happens when you actually have other people trying to invest your money. Plenty of people are, I mean smart people is price carbon is the externality. Let's get subsidies out of the way but a price on carbon, whatever it needs to be, make sure that the grid is healthy and then let innovation occur whether it's behind the meter or in front of the meter. We're, a lot of questions are coming in and a whole bunch around electric vehicles. I like to, I get in trouble around here. I refer to it as the not so emissions free vehicle as 70% of our electricity roughly in most regions still coming from fossil fuels. That you recently took me on a joy ride. I'm gonna call it in your Tesla but let's do you did. Let's talk about just a good thing, bad thing for the whole electric system and how do you think about where we're headed with the electric vehicles? Like you can't, I don't think you can hit carbon reduction targets that are needed over the coming decades without a massive shift in more electrification. I think any numbers that you run and I won't bore you all statistics already done that. But any way you run the numbers you've got to have heavy electrification of transportation to make it happen. The batteries are getting cheaper. As Doug said, it was a joy ride. He was impressed by the acceleration. And so I think it will play a larger and larger role and actually lead to load growth. Now the economy is going well right now but we actually saw for the last quarter load growth. I'm not saying this is because of Teslas but we're actually seeing load growth in all of the competitive markets for the last quarter we're seeing load growth. There's a lot of electrification going on more generally in the industry and it's gonna happen. And I think it has to happen if we're into your goals. So we in the industry and particularly the utilities we're gonna have to be ready for. But it's exciting to me. Yeah, I agree. We're very excited about it. I think it's, Patti Poppy was up here yesterday from CMS, former GM executive but talking about it's gonna happen faster than we think. And it's probably gonna happen differently than we think. And the one thing that she raised was the idea of autonomous vehicles and the impact of that. And we're gonna see probably more of that more quickly than we expect. And I think she's absolutely spot on with respect to that. One of the things we think about is again going back to serving cities, urban centers that have high populations of people in poverty. So how are you gonna change the public transportation sector because the people in our cities many of them rely on public transportation. They're not individual vehicle owners. And New Jersey has, there's an interesting bill pending right now where they look into the public sector and create standards for public buses and for state-owned vehicles and really get at the sort of beyond the individual ownership kind of paradigm. And we think that that's very interesting and that's something that we're thinking about is how do you ensure again this idea of social equity, equitable distribution of the benefits of clean systems and equitable fair allocation of costs. And that's something that we think about is looking on the public side as well. But we're very excited. The grid probably doesn't need as much sort of change on that front as people think in terms of sort of the two-way flows there's some work to be done there but in terms of capacity for the most part we think our grids are pretty well situated on that unless you get sort of really heavy usage in one area. But the capacity issue, the grid capacity as opposed to the energy capacity doesn't look to us to be as much of a challenge. The communication and how you sort of manage and balance in that world will be that's where the automation comes in that we're gonna need in the future. Let me switch some questions around regulatory reforms as we try to evolve to a more of a carbon light footprint out there. What would you prioritize in your minds? And a lot of your career has been on the legal and regulatory side. Talk a little bit about some of the reforms you would think you would put towards the top of the list that you'd like to see. Well, I think the price on carbon is clearly as that said an important component of this. One of the challenges with our electric system is they're regulated in 50 different ways, minimum by 50 different states and then you've got a federal overlay for some parts of the business. It's quite complex and you have very different dynamics in very different regions. You have different economic interests. You have different social interests. You have different cost structures. When we talk about innovation and innovators and competitors, you're asking these entities to come in and figure out how to do business 50 different ways. It's almost untenable. So doing some things sort of across the board and I think that a carbon price is step one in at least getting some commonality on some aspects of this. I don't think you ever get away from the 50 state regulatory model. I just don't think that will happen, but if you can get some certainty and stability on the energy side, I think that's a big start. And then I think the kind of elements that I talked about in terms of the fundamental, if we think about, and I agree with that, on wires companies, when we think of ourselves as a platform, we don't sell energy. We don't have a financial interest in that. We facilitate the sale of energy between providers and customers and see ourselves doing more of that when there's more providers and more customers and some doing both. But really being able to support with the model that we have, driving cost of capital down, building out the system is important and having policymakers and customers understand why we're making these investments and doing what we're doing. But evolving the pricing model becomes important, and again, that understanding and buy-in on the investment and ensuring the investment creates value through some regulatory mechanisms seem to be where the action is happening. I agree with that. I agree with Secretary Schultz last night for anybody who's at dinner, which is what's price carbon? And it should be economy-wide, and so this is pie in the sky. If you ask me what I want out of the Texas legislature next year or I want the PUC in California to do or PJM, it's different. So if you kind of give me broad sleigh, we need to have an economy-wide national cost of carbon. That's really that simple. And all of the one-off mandates that are out there, whether it's RPS or the investment tax credit for the production tax credit or other things need to be cleared out. We'll get much better outcomes. This country is producing more carbon than it should and we're spending way too much money to do that. And with the price of economy-wide cost of carbon and clear out the underbrush, we'll get to exactly where we need to be. But we can only hope. In the meantime, we spend our time a lot more tactically worried about how you prevent distortions to competitive markets and from the problem getting worse in the meantime. Good. Well, a few minutes, a bunch of questions back. We haven't talked about coal very much, still the fuel most used globally for electricity. We were 70% coal and nuclear in this country not too long ago and there's a big debate. Where are we headed? Are we going to zero? Can we go to zero? And I like to say our greenest source of energy, nuclear. Is that going to zero as well here domestically? So just we'll maybe wrap up with that one. Yeah, so I mean, you know, coal is, I believe, clearly on its way out. I honestly don't think, without major technological innovation, that there's probably room for it. I mean, you know, you can, I mean, look, I don't think there's any data about climate, debate on climate, but let me suspend disbelief on CO2, the criteria pollutants, the NOx, the SO2, the mercury. You know, that stuff's real and you don't have it. And there's no reason, given how cheap natural gas is cleaner and it's cheaper and it's out there. This coal debate, we were a long way past it until the new administration actually came in. And there were campaign promises made and now there've been DOE efforts around coal, but that is absolutely political. And I don't think there's a strong basis for it. I think the grid over the last several years, the competitive grid and parts of the country we're talking about, the prices have gone down for customers, billions of dollars have been invested, the air is cleaner and the grid, we actually have more fuel diversity than we used to have. So let's argue with this. So I think that's on the way out. Nuclear is a harder problem. There are benefits from low-carbon generation. However, there are nuclear companies, including ANS, that are asking for usage subsidization, the term I use is bailout, to be a little provocative. But nuclear bailouts that are occurring, I'm deeply sympathetic to the carbon benefit of the nuclear generation. I think our right of return on investment of twice paid for assets is probably a little more of a reach, which is kind of what's being asked for. But the sooner we get to carbon, the sooner that issue will be resolved because some of that stuff needs to stick around. Not all of it, but some of it. Yeah. Excellent. You're out of coal, right? Used to be. Yeah, no, no. Yes, we are. So we have interests in all the other fuels, but certainly nuclear is the predominant fuel in our mix. And we believe that it's important. It will get us to a decarbonized goal faster and more cost effectively than wanting to move the nuclear plants out. We think it's really important. Getting back to the idea of you can't break this system and build a new one. You gotta work with what you have and try to get to the end state while holding together a system and an economy. You want nuclear in that mix. And we also feel that we would like to see reflected in the pricing that we see, the value that it brings to the environment and a cost of price on carbon would certainly do that. But in the meantime, we seek other ways to sort of have that value reflected in the price. But we think nuclear is really important in this evolution. Good. Well, Anne, thank you very much. Thank you. Thad, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.