 Thank you so much for those kind words, Professor Wayne. And thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and just kind of share with you the high-level story of what we're trying to do in California and hopefully set a stage for a conversation for us. Awesome. So as Professor Wayne mentioned, I'm going to try and share the story of the clean energy goals of California. And within that context, ensuring that the system is reliable as well as affordable as we try to deal with the challenge of climate uncertainty, which is completely upon us. And then we're feeling the effects of them continuously since 2020, whether it's west-wide heat, wildfires, drought, and so on, and how that impacts the overall energy system. So before I jump into the actual content, I just want to kind of share it with you all. So the Energy Commission is one of the state's energy policy agency, has kind of four key areas of focus, three of which are kind of mentioned here in the slide. But just as a way of background, the War and Aquest Act established the Energy Commission in 1974 to respond to the energy crisis of early 1970s, the Cuban oil embargo that we were kind of dealing with at the time, and just really dealing with the state's unsustainable growing demand for energy resources. So the Energy Commission's efforts, earliest efforts, were obviously in making sure we have energy efficiency in the state so we don't have to build as many power plants that are expensive and seen as environmentally detrimental at that point. And over the last 45 years, since the Energy Commission has come into place, the overall population of California has doubled, and the resource mix of electricity has drastically changed. But the energy usage per capita, as most of you probably heard over many years, has stayed nearly constant. And the state has invested billions to advance R&D in clean energy. So three of the bullet points here in terms of setting, building, and appliance energy efficiency standards, that is still a core function of CEC. So CEC has one function, which is a regulatory function that both does the building and appliances standards and codes, but also has power plant permitting authority. So that's the regulatory function of CEC. And then we have a planning and policy function. Here it's captured as forecasting electricity demand. So a core function of CEC is to develop common planning assumptions for the state, whether it's a demand forecast, whether it might be what a resource mix could look like in the future. So that sets a stage for the other agencies, sister agencies, to rely on that information as we plan our work. And for a long time, CEC has had a function in R&D. And more and more over the last decade, it also has function of D&D. So it's a preferred state agency for investment in clean energy. And one is implicitly captured here, which I always think of as the fourth function is to be the state's data repository. So overall, as things change, the core statement or core function that we talk about when we think about energy commission is to really the mission of promoting a clean, affordable, and reliable energy supply for all California. And when we talk about our Californians, we'll touch on that a little bit. That's the primary function of equity and how equity should be the foundation and prioritization for all decarbonization policies in the state and really start with under-resourced communities and encourage the market to scale up the necessary solutions. So just again, this is a table setting, level setting slide. Most of you probably have seen this before. This gets regularly updated. But I think to just focus here is when we think about decarbonizing California at an economy-wide, one of the most important things to really think about that stands out there is transportation. And transportation is roughly 50%. If you take into account parts of the industrial sector, that's either refineries or oil and gas operations and such. And you have electricity at about 15%. And then between residential and commercial buildings, you have about 11%. So all those things are of core focus as we move forward. And the next slide kind of sets the stage for that. So when we think about decarbonizing the overall economy, there are multiple pathways you could take. And since 2018, and so there has been a general consensus amongst policymakers, but also broad stakeholders, that it's going to be one of these four strategies, which is high electrification. So electrify everything you can while also decarbonizing the electricity sector. Parts of the system that cannot be electrified might depend on biofuels for transportation, but also hydrogen for industrial sector. So as we think about decarbonizing, one of the things I just want to a little set for this discussion is there is a strong consensus that we are going to electrify a large portion of the economy and then decarbonize the electricity sector. And hence you have the net benefit. So as we jump into the electricity sector, I think it's kind of a fun thing to just think about this. If you look at the 1970s mix versus how it looks like now, which is on the right side of the chart, we had about a percent of nuclear in 1970s. And 60% of our electricity came from petroleum. There's a small natural gas, coal, and obviously hydro continues to play a role. But as you look towards the right side of your chart, as we move forward in time, now we have a large portion of solar wind. We almost have 11,000 megawatts of solar on the system today and another 10,000 megawatts of solar behind the meter. So you have an incredible amount of solar today. We continue to depend on our hydro for times in the summer when you need that clean resource to help with the peaking of the system. But then you also have a large portions of the wind. And we really worked hard on getting rid of all petroleum, but also coal. And then we have a small portion of nuclear today at the Avalok Canyon. But I think one of the things that it's good to think about is whether we are in 1970s or today, there was always a shared goal across the people of California, which is the energy system should be affordable. It should allow for the economic growth of the state. I know we should have energy independence and security. Equity was always a focus. Climate change came along in discussions as early as the 1970s and 80s, quality of life, reliability. So some of the core things that we talk about today have always been under consideration with different levels of focus. It's, again, just important to note some important evolution of energy space. The 1970s, you had the oil crisis in 1992. We all know the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In 2001, we had California's electricity crisis. And then recently, you have the 2021 IPCC report. And all these things play into the public consciousness and also the policies that we pursue. This might be helpful for those of you kind of just thinking about how the state functions. And there are broadly three key efforts that relate to energy. So one is kind of looking at economy-wide decarbonization. And that's what California Air Research Report does through the scoping plan activity. And our current goal is carbon neutrality by 2045. And as I mentioned earlier in one of the slides, our core strategy is electrification in buildings and transportation as much as we can do. And then clean fuels for transportation and industry. And whatever's left, we pursue through CCS, directed capture, national working lands and such. So that's kind of the overall strategy at an economy-wide. And because so much of it is based on electrification, it's vital that we decarbonize the electric grid. And that's where the CEC, the Public Utilities Commission, as well as CARB, jointly work on what is called the SB100 effort, which is 100% retail electric sales from zero carbon resources by 2045. So we're basically saying all electricity retail sales by 2045 should come from zero carbon resources. The flip side of the electricity grid is the gas transition. We had a dual fuel state for most parts. We use gas a lot, natural gas. And as we continue to electrify, the overall gas demand is going to reduce. And then you really need to think about the reliability standards that we need to think about for this transition. But also what market structures and regulations should we deploy. And also thinking about if there is a rapid electrification and how do you reduce the standard assets and hence the cost to the ratepayers? With that, I'm going to jump into the SB100 portion. As I mentioned on the previous slide, the SB100 bill, which was signed in 2018 called the Clean Energy Act, is basically setting the goal that by 2045, the powering of all retail electricity in California has to come from zero carbon resources and has the small clause in there which says state agency electricity needs also should come from zero carbon resources 100%. And second in updates the state's RPS standard to 60% by 2030 currently it stands at 50%. So we've been continuously moving forward on this goal. And finally it requires the three agencies along with court stakeholders to write a report on the feasibility, the challenges and recommendations every four years. So in 2021, the agencies put together the first report and then 2025, we're going to put together the next report. So between the intervening years of 21 through 25, what the agencies are doing right now is taking the findings of the report and figuring out how best to implement whether it's permitting, land use, transmission, all sorts of actual implementation strategies we need to do to make sure that the resource build can happen. Just for background today in California, we're approximately 60 to 65% zero carbon already. We have a large amount of solar and wind that we rely on and hydro and more and more as we move forward, the remaining gas fleet are gonna be required for a dispatch in the evening. And then we'll talk about that a little bit. The benefits of the 100% policy, obviously in a direct climate change but also improves public health. It has a huge chance to improve energy equity, especially for disadvantaged communities who have historically paid the burden of dealing with the air pollution, the particulate pollution and the chance to really electrify and clean the communities of concern. And finally, there's an opportunity for creating clean jobs. There's a large amount of resource build that we're talking about and it comes with it as a large number of jobs. So obviously the 2021 report is a first step in evaluating the challenges and opportunities in implementing SB 100. And what I'm gonna share over the next few slides is just a high level summary of some of those opportunities and challenges. So before we go into thinking about how we get there, some of the technologies we are thinking about is anything that is eligible for RPS is eligible for SB 100 purposes. So solar, wind, geothermal, some level of bioenergy and then a small hydro. But on the top of that, we also added those technologies that are zero carbon on site, which includes nuclear, large hydro and also could potentially be fuel cells and other technologies that can be really zero carbon on site. This is a good summary slide. And for those of you who are paying who kind of follow the electricity grid as a whole, we are talking about tripling or quadrupling the size of California's electricity grid. And as I mentioned today, we have about an 11,000 megawatts of solar and the SB 100 projections that we require approximately another 70 gigs or 70,000 megawatts of utility scale solar to come online by 2045. Another one that really stands out is the storage. We're looking at about 50 gigawatts of storage to come online and another four, which is for long duration storage that's beyond four hours. And there's a large reliance on wind, both in-state wind, out-of-state wind coming from Wyoming, those states and regional wind patterns that can help with our load shape. And also offshore wind, there's a huge opportunity in California. There has been a lot of work done with the Department of Defense and the federal government over the last year and a half to really open up the offshore wind conversation in California. And looking towards that, we kind of put in about 10 gigs of available wind and all of that gets picked up. And finally, nuclear, we are gonna, the current understanding is to retire it by 2025. So this kind of translates to about three X of the pace at which we have been building solar and wind and about eight X the speed at which storage is being built. We also explored, as we think through this, one of the questions comes as, if we're electrifying everything, where will the electricity come from? Is it coming from the bulk grid or could we really look at optimizing the distribution side of the grid and then really decarbonizing the distribution side and helping it support the load? One of the things we were not able to do in the first report is really look at different DER scenarios or distributed energy resources scenarios. But in 2025, we look towards developing a few scenarios on that. But what we did though, is like looked at some demand flexibility. If we were to able to shape the demand, how much would that influence the need for resource build? We also looked at some constraint scenarios, like what if we said no combustion at all, right? So one of the reasons why there is combustion left is when we talk about SB 100, it is 100% retail sales. So the retail sales portion of the electricity is roughly 95%. So the other 5% of emissions are allowed, which are typically the transmission side, transmission losses and such. So as long as you do not constrain that there is some level of gas that will be used to balance the system and make it the most cost effective system. Similarly, there are a number of zero carbon firm resources. For those of you who are tracking, we have long duration storage, a variety of long duration storage technologies. People are talking about putting modular nuclear in the western states. And then in outside of California and there are other opportunities that the technologies could come up. And so what we did was we looked at generic resources that could offer the attributes of a firm and dispatchable resource and see what happens. So in no matter how you look at it, SB 100 requires an extremely significant resource build, as I mentioned previously. And in 2045, when you look at the high level, you're adding an additional 160,000 in a megawatts. So which is a lot, which is huge. And this is not even looking at reliability as we look at, I will talk about it in a few slides. When we look at reliability, the operational way of assessing reliability is much more stringent than a policy report like this. It's a couple of high level thinking. So if we look at economy-wide decarbonization impacts and then look at different kind of resource requirements, we talked about high biofuels, high hydrogen and high electrification. As you see here, each one of them has different levels of grid sizes that we need. One of the reasons why the hydrogen is higher is because a lot of the hydrogen will be produced using electrolysis, that's the assumption. Similarly, you have differences whether you use offshore wind, out-of-state wind and such. So there's the slide there. I'll share the slides with you all, but just kind of interesting to see that as you change the technologies, the resource build changes. So the general understanding is diversity of resources is extremely helpful. And this probably is one of the critical slides in terms of if we were to have zero carbon dispatchable resources and zero carbon base load that are cost effective, the amount of resource build that we need to do will significantly reduce. And the reason why we wanna reduce that is the more solar you put on, the more land use it is and you have to get that land from somewhere. Finally, at a high level, the takeaways, the initial analysis suggests that SB 100 is actually achievable, technically achievable. Construction of clean electric generators and storage facilities must be sustained at a record setting pace. And that's really what we look at. And then as I mentioned, diversity in energy resources and technologies is really valued in the modeling. The more diverse, the more opportunity you have in optimizing the system. And finally, there will be some level of retaining natural gas for those times when you need rapid dispatch in the evening times. And finally, energy storage and enhancements and research would really help. So now that is the 30,000 foot level, SB 100 25 year timeframe. And now let's kinda look into reliability. So most of you probably know that in 2020, we had a load shed event two days in a row, August 14th and August 15th. And those days, we had about a couple of hours, about half a million customers were affected. And that's something we really try hard to avoid. And we never wanna be in a situation where the supply is not adequate. And what we really saw in 2020, and I'm gonna talk about the main reasons that we came up with that kind of really affected our ability to source is extreme heat. The 2020 extreme heat was across the West. The whole of the West felt it at the same time. And so a lot of California's electricity supply relies on imports. So when it's hard across the West, there is no imports and hence it becomes much more constrained system. And then the demand goes up. And then we can only plan for so much demand, right? And I think that's something I'm gonna talk about. We typically plan for 4% deviation from a median. That's kinda how we think about demand change. But then we were almost seeing 10%, 12% kind of departure for the regular demand. And this is just a picture of showing how 2020 was an exceptionally high temperature year. Secondly, the grid, as you kind of see here, this is an important thing. When you look at the blue and the orange lines there, the blue line is the actual demand that the system is facing. So as you kind of see there, it kind of peaks in the afternoon, kind of late evening goes down, kind of peaks again. And what you're seeing in the orange there is what we call the net demand. What it is is that it's the total demand minus the solar production, minus the wind production. So you're basically removing the intermittent resources. So when you look at that, the right, there is another peak that follows, which is later in the evening. And unfortunately at that peak, if you're relying largely on solar, there is no solar to kind of cover that because that's the evening time. That's exactly what we are in California. We've had a lot of success in getting a lot of solar online, but having that much solar online means you need to have storage to be able to kind of even that out. So this is the summary of 2020, sorry, supposed to say 2020 and 2021 grid conditions. But basically it's just a summary saying we've had a lot of flex alerts, a lot of warnings and a lot of emergency situations. 2021 was not as bad because we had more restricted maintenance operations. We were planning better. In 2020, we were caught off guard. 2021, we were better planned. So you didn't go into the actual emergency states, but still we had a lot of tight conditions. So this is now for those of you who are thinking about getting into this field. What you're seeing here is, we planned 25 years ahead, 10 years ahead, three years ahead and one year ahead. That's the time frames. And as you kind of come closer and closer in time period, you just understand the demand better, your supply assumptions are better and so on. So overall, you know, that state of play a little bit better. But so let's start off at the high level, which is the climate goal timeline, which is the 25 year timeline. Typically what we do in reliability is you look at the demand. Again, demand is, it's a scenario. It's not a forecast. You're thinking about multiple scenarios. You pick a demand scenario and you say, I'm going to construct an optimized low cost or the most cost effective resource build, meaning whatever resources I need to bring online to meet that demand. And when we think about reliability, we plan the reliability of the current industry practice, which is as long as the system is reliable to give you statistically one, less than one outage every 10 years, you're good. That's kind of what we plan. And you move into 10 years, the planning is very similar. It's still kind of dependent on what we call the loss of load expectation of one outage every 10 years. But here you have the demand forecast instead of the demand scenario. You have a much better sense of what the forecast could look like, the demands could look like. And this is where you actually authorize procurement. So you basically say, okay, this is the 10 year ahead. Let's make sure we actually procure resources to meet that based on the best available technologies today. And then come this one to three year paradigm, which is the resource adequacy paradigm where you're making sure, okay, now that I procured or authorized procurement, meaning building new steel in the ground, do I have enough of them under contract? That's what you see there. And finally, in the year ahead timeframe since 2020, what we have been doing is what we call the contingency planning. Given that climate change is upon us and it's hard to really get a sense of that, we are really putting some risk margins and figuring out if it were to extreme climate, do we have enough contingencies in our pocket to drastically reduce the demand or bring up supply? So I'm gonna skip this slide, but this is basically a summary of the emergency proclamation. The reason why I put it here is it just gives you the kind of things we do. You know, we look at increasing generator limits. We look at thinking about permitting faster and those kinds of stuff. So finally, I think one thing I wanna leave from here, the lessons from 2020 and 2021. Demand side management is critical, which is at the bottom. Reliability and equity are key to clean energy transition. If we don't have a reliable system, people would not believe that clean energy transition is feasible. And on the equity part, if we don't plan well and then we need to have emergency resources, those emergency resources like backup generators and such are usually present in communities of concern. And that's what we depend on and it's completely inequitable. So just kind of going into the 2023-2026 timeframe, which is a midterm timeframe, based on all this, the Public Utilities Commission has authorized in a building of 25,000 megawatts of new resources over the next three to five years, which is in a really big step towards SB 100 and also a big step towards relying more and more on storage. For a long time, storage used to play the role of ancillary services and more and more. What we saw in 21 is that they're actually helping shape the load, which is phenomenal. And I wanna end a little bit with the governor's budget and where we're going. So the governor has either the legislature either granted funding or the governor's budget currently has about $4 billion in clean energy funding. And that's gonna go through CEC. And as you see there, about $2 billion is going to go towards clean energy, clean transportation, broadly infrastructure, chargers and such, and also therefore hydrogen. And on the other side, it's another $2 billion is for the clean energy transition, including long duration storage and such. So out of the 1.8 billion, which is the second bucket. So a billion is going towards decarbonizing buildings and it could be weatherization of buildings in communities of concern to electrification. And then there's a large amount of money for long duration storage projects. Those which are on the cusp of being commercialized but just a little bit too expensive. Clean hydrogen grants, industrial decarbonization is very important. That's something we don't have strong policies on yet and then really thinking about it. And a lot of money for both the food processing industry but offshore wind as well. So these are the priorities. It's gonna gives you a sense when you look at the budget proposals. So I just wanna end with this and then hopefully we can jump into some questions. So we talked about just kind of setting the level kind of going back and summarizing the slide deck. The story I wanted to share was, as we think through the energy transition, we wanna start with economy-wide thinking and the economy-wide thinking, the general consensus today is to really electrify large portions of our economy where we can electrify including light duty vehicles, residential buildings, commercial buildings and then really think about for those sectors that are hard to electrify, how do we develop clean molecules? And if we can develop those clean molecules, how do we use CCS and other international processes to really help sequester that? So within that electrification strategy, the importance comes on decarbonizing the electric grid and we have a 25-year plan and then we think it's feasible to really meet the electric energy goals of California. But doing that reliably is important, other way we lose the confidence of people as a whole. And then because we are going through this climate change situation, it's really hard to predict the volatility in the demand and the supply situation and that's something we're really focused on right now. And at this point have what we call a contingency plan and hopefully as we get more and more data and historical data we plan better and better moving forward. But no matter how we go, a significant portion of the strategy as we electrify and decarbonize the electric grid is storage and being able to have those zero carbon dispatchable and firm resources that can quickly dispatch that can really follow the shape of the load, especially in the evening timeframe. As we talk through all of that, I just wanna end with this particular one which is ensuring equity. So as we think through this transition, we have to pay incredible attention to the equity. I think most of us know and we strongly believe and kind of wanna fight for, in an equitable transition that all Californians can be a part of this journey. And a part of that is recognizing the incredible disproportionate burden that has been put on communities of concern for a very long time and how do we make sure those inequities do not continue, right? So I think what we need to focus on some of the key things that come up through our community engagement is really thinking about that, how do we tackle the air quality issues and water quality issues specifically in communities of concern and rapidly. Another thing that comes up is procedural equity. Not everybody has a chance to be at the table. And a lot of times the communities of concern have low resources or do not have the necessary resources, the funding or the financial backing to be at the table. And that is a huge loss in being able to get their perspective but also have their voice in the way we shape the future. And affordability and energy burden is important. As we electrify, one of the challenges is, we need to make sure that we don't have any stranded costs. And hence, impact the affordability. And that's a huge part of a puzzle. And the Public Utilities Commission, their fundamental focus is on rates and affordability. So they have a huge role in doing that and they have a couple of proceedings going on right now. The other part is non-energy benefits. A lot of times when we optimize system, we only optimize it for some cost. We don't look at tackling the non-energy benefits as air quality, water quality. How do we put them in there as a way of modeling, some way of quantifying them? And also ensuring that the access and participation in the clean energy programs are available for everybody. For example, as we electrify the residential buildings, so there's a lot of infrastructure, gas infrastructure that will continue to stay, right? So and that infrastructure, if you're not electrifying low-income customers, those low-income customers who cannot electrify will then be stuck with an extremely large distribution network that they have to pay for. And that is just not equitable. That's just not fair. And how do you do that, right? So how do you make sure that electrification programs are accessible to low-income households as well as disadvantaged communities and communities of concern? And they have an opportunity to be a part of creating this clean economic pie. And also the benefits are shared. And so with all that, you know, the IPER, IEPR is the Integrated Energy Policy Report that CEC publishes every year. So this year, one of our core focuses is to develop an equity framework for all CEC programs. You know, what are some of the tools, metrics to assess equity and be really accountable and be intentional about all the work we do. And also creating that framework for regional engagement so that there is increased procedural equity. So that's the story I wanted to share with you all. Happy to take any questions as we move forward. Thank you. Thank you so much, Commissioner Gundel. That was very important for us. It's very good. Thank you very much. So do we have any questions in the room? We'll probably use the mic for those. I'm just gonna apologize. We're gonna keep our video off for the privacy of the students, but hopefully you can hear us. Thank you so much for your talk, Commissioner. One question I had was related to bio power. So SB 100 doesn't give a lot of consideration to bio power, which makes sense given the non-combustion pool and convention. However, if you look into the public commentary of CC documents, biomass alliances usually come in saying bio power is better releases less emissions compared to the alternatives of having wildfires or just having open burning in the CRS, for example, for its biomass. So I was wondering what is your take on the wildfire power in the future, given its wildfire benefits or reduced wildfire benefits? And then a second question was just a very short one. But I was wondering when you mentioned the high biofuels scenario, what did that imply? Did it imply imported biofuels, energy crops? Did it rely a lot on renewable natural gas? If you could just tell me about that, Senator. Yeah, absolutely. Excellent questions. Thank you. So first tackling the bioenergy, I think you've actually really summarized some of the perspectives. So I think there's a few things. One is the currently there is economic value for certain communities to not only kind of support the wildfires issues, but also support energy from those. So that's kind of currently in our modeling, we continue to put them in. The reason why it doesn't necessarily get picked up right away in modeling is at least at this point, it's a little bit expensive than alternatives. But to your point, I think it's important to create a pathway for the bio waste. And if the opportunity is really to have localized generation that can support local grid, I think it's beneficial. And then we need to kind of think through the optimal solution there. The second element that you probably mentioned in there, but I maybe not as explicitly, there is SB 1383, which is a bill that requires, for example, 75% of all organic material from waste to be converted to be used in bio juicesters and potentially convert to energy slash biochar and stuff like that. So that I think is a humongous opportunity at a high level. It is approximately $6 to $8 billion investment that could produce significant amount of R and G to be put in the pipelines. And then CPUC recently had an R and G kind of prescription for injection standards. So which is great. But then also to be able to island facilities like wastewater facilities where they're co-located and also has the opportunity to potentially produce hydrogen and other energy carriers. And as you mentioned, rightfully it's a negative carbon. It could be negative carbon given that much of the biogas is typically just burnt on location or are sometimes just leaked. So I think those are excellent points. We are thinking through those. We have at CEC a proceeding on gas transition. And one of the things we are hoping to tackle is that particular thing. So I know there was more questions than that on that one. Sorry if I didn't tackle a lot of them. I'm happy to take a follow-up question. Hi, thank you commissioner. I wanted to ask who's in charge of like making sure that these policies get implemented at the local level in terms of all the proposed climate solutions. There's money for these projects. Does it come down to like who's asking for project bids? Who's in charge of that component? Are you thinking specifically about the new generation? Yeah, it could be anything for a new generation to ensuring that all of the vehicles are zero emissions by 2030. I'm just very curious about how the policy gets trickled down into the actual implementation and whether these policies like can we ensure that they will be met? Yeah, absolutely. So local governments and local entities are critical for kind of having any of the policies really come to fruition. And I think the most important part there is most of the local governments and communities is where actually the action happens. So the kind of 10,000 foot level is just kind of taking the electricity sector first and then maybe transportation next. For example, electricity sector, when we think about the high level goals, the way it trickles down from a high level policy is within the policy landscape, you're thinking about what resource mix need to be procured for each load serving entity. And some of these load serving entities could be CCAs, some of them could be large IOUs and those CCAs then have the kind of role to both need to meet the standards but oftentimes they exceed the standards. Those are the CCAs that are really close to the communities and then thinking through, so usually tend to exceed those. So I think from an electricity side, what happens is the car kind of sets the high level greenhouse emission goals for each sector, kind of sets the high level need or like the emissions target for a sector and then that is basically divvied up to different load serving entities, whether those are CCAs, large utilities, whether they are direct taxes. And then once you have those and the procurement is done based on whether, if it's a regulated entity like the IOUs, the investor utilities, they come with their plans to the CPUC, get their permissions and so on. But if it is a non-regulated entity, then the entities can have their own local boards where they think through their goals and then do implement there. So that's kind of how the electricity system plays out. For transportation, I'm a little less knowledgeable about exactly how the transportation plays out, but what I know is there is something called the integrated resource plans. And the integrated resource plans have not only the electricity side of the goals, but also the goals for electrification. And those goals generally are laid out by local entities, again, LSEs, are publicly-owned utilities and then implemented from there. So I think the way it goes is, again, in summary policy at a high level, some high level kind of constraints on sector-wide emissions. And then it kind of really comes to bed at the local level. And the funding then, to the extent that we have funding, it really needs to be done in a stakeholder process where you're doing those competitive solicitations to support ideas across the entire state. Thank you so much. Thank you for the presentation. I'd like to ask one other struck question. So I know there are a variety of assembly deals, assembly deals which support, which have the financial incentives or which gives financial incentives or tax incentives to promote, for example, the investment on leading energy or energy storage. On the other hand, there is a kind of a variety of kind of deals to have the kind of procurement mandate about specific, for example, some utility companies need to use as a procure energy storage of a specific capacity to be developed or something. So that's my question is how to balance such kind of a procurement mandate in a national tax incentives. So is there an idea or how to balance that? I really appreciate if you could share some knowledge and information. Yeah, absolutely. So I think there's two elements to that. So one, and I just kind of starting from the planning and then implementation and procurement. So at a planning level, just at a 30,000 foot level, I think it's extremely important to have a regulatory certainty. So I think regulatory certainty helps with in a market's really providing solutions, whether they are technologies or other innovations, financial innovations that really allows for a clear signal on what is needed for the market. So this is where the integrated resource planning really plays an important role. So when you are kind of doing this 10-year, 15-year planning, whether it be on the resource mix or transmission needs and so on, it really gives you a clear signal that by so-and-so date, you would need long duration storage. And without long duration storage, you cannot really meet the goals that are set by the eight resources board and then PUC or any other regulatory entity or a POU. So once you have those, I think that the market signals really helps with that. Second, I think even though there is market signal, and sometimes they are too expensive. And so, for example, the budget that the governor put together, the 380 million for long duration storage is really a recognition of that, which is there are a lot of long duration storage technologies that we currently have beyond lithium ion, right? So lithium ion is typically four hours. You could take it to up to six, but really once you cross that six hour mark, you're really looking at other technologies. And when you're looking at them, when they're not ready to be commercialized because they're too expensive, that kind of budget element is really to subsidize them. To subsidize the initial commercialization. And hopefully the regulatory certainty and the initial kind of incentives or subsidies to deploy these technologies will, and then kind of having that opportunity for scaling really does allow a number of solutions to be entered in the marketplace. And that's gonna help me approach that. Hi there. My question is about the commission's outlook on the future of hydropower. Given that in the past couple of years, capacity for hydropower has been pretty significantly diminished due to drought. And it seems like it's relatively reasonable to assume that similar conditions may continue for the next 10 to 20 years. I hope you could walk us through how the commission sort of views a large scale hydropower and what you're planning to sort of meet the gap as hydro capacity continues to fall. Yeah, absolutely. So you're absolutely right. I think it's a really good observation. In 2020, we had decent hydro levels, but in 2021, as you are alluding to the honorable dam, for example, we did not have any generation for the first time since its construction. So what we are doing in both the near-term, extremely near-term, which is the year or like few years ahead and the long-term is really looking at a broad hydro de-rate. So part of the difficulty right now is we do not have the historical precedent for a lot of what we are observing right now. So when we model it, kind of creating the scenarios and then the reduction in hydro, we just don't have the history yet because it could be even worse than what we're seeing today. But to the extent that the history is available, to the extent that inputs are vetted amongst stakeholders and there is reasonableness, we bake that into the resource planning. And a large amount of hydro, hydro is this dispatchable resource, right? You could really ramp up or down. So as there is lower and lower levels of hydro, that means you will need more and more dispatchable resources and that comes out of our assumptions that hydro, cloud conditions are gonna persist and then hydro levels are not gonna be at the sale levels as we've seen historically. It also does another thing, which is we have a large amount of imports that we depend on and especially from the Northwest hydro. And that's something we are watching as well. And that will really change the equation on how many imports that we can depend on, not just the hydro, but also as the rest of the West begins to decarbonize their own states and their city grids. That means they won't have enough resources for a while to really support California at certain times, right? So it's an important problem. We are paying attention to it. We're trying to model it and really thinking about other ways to have those dispatchable resources in the evening period and summer periods. With that, we'll have a couple of final questions from the online audience. I'm gonna combine a large number of questions. So the first one has to do with different kind of supply options that people didn't detect in your talk feed. So I don't know if it's in the plan or in the planning that I'm asking about because you're kind of going back and forth because you're in charge of not just having a plan one year but what to do in subsequent years. So where does CO2 capture and storage distributed energy and hydrogen fuel cells fit into the plan and the plan from your point of view? Yeah, absolutely. So I'll start with fuel cells and hydrogen. So in this particular for 2022, the Integrated Energy Policy Report, one of the specific things we called out is hydrogen. So there is a large amount of federal funding on hydrogen as some of you might be tracking and there is opportunities for hydrogen hubs across the country. And so, I think a lot of people in California and a lot of groups together really are pursuing that. There's opportunities for hydrogen in large industrial sectors and the valley in LA. There is some opportunity in Sacramento area. There's also opportunity in Bay Area where you have large industrial units overall. I think, I wanna be mindful on how I kind of speak here which is, there's a personal view and then there is kind of overall public policy view which kind of continues to emerge. I think based on the data we currently have, there will be at least to the extent that I've observed the data, there is need for clean molecules. And when we talk about clean molecules then, so the immediate things are you either have, the options are hydrogen or RNG with CCS and others. So I think the discussion right now is how much do you need them? That's one. And there's a bunch of modeling that's being done to assess the amount of need for clean molecules. The second thing then is, how do you take the clean molecules to where it's needed? Do you need large infrastructure for this clean molecules? For example, with hydrogen, the current pipelines that we have for gas will not be really usable for hydrogen because of the embrittlement issues but also the hydrogen being a small. So the question then becomes how do we think about whether what levels of it is distributed hydrogen and natural gas, for example, or the RNG as we talked about with the biodigesters idea and what part of it is actually going to be in a core backbone infrastructure system. So I think it's an important question. I think it's an important question. It's a very timely question and we have efforts both at the state level, multiple agencies coordinating to figure out some roadmaps and some options for RNG options for hydrogen as well as CCS. So overall, those are a bucket of options that I think of us as clean fuels options and definitely in the works. So one final question, this has to do with, should you, could you, do you need to include climate damages in your total resource plan piece? There's even a legal question in there but I'm sure you're used to getting those questions. And how do you think about such things? The fact that fossil fuel combustion causes, land use emissions causes climate damage? Yeah, absolutely. I think that's kind of one of the things I had in my very last slide is that non-energy benefits question and then it's just the flip side of the, how do we value or put a monetary value on the cost of carbon? So there are some levels of cost of carbon that most modeling's used today. But I think, how do you really say it's a true cost? And I think there's a lot of debate on how to value that. I mean, personally, I feel as we have had an inequitable system. So I think I do not, I deeply believe in doing this together. We're all in this together. So that is, the California in a growth of California has been largely reliant on fossil energy generation. And I think so, I personally feel, you don't forget that, so right? So that is that element. But then as we transition, we do not wanna have a place where everybody has jobs. But at the same time, we don't forget the inequities that have been done on certain communities of concern and how do you value that? So it's a legal question. It's a moral and ethical question. It's a fairness question. And I personally hope that we can come up with metrics that really help value the damage and really create a fair and equitable system. Well, with that said, thank you so much for a great talk. And in particular, for answering each and every question so thoughtfully and comprehensively, we really appreciate it. And we're looking for great things from the Energy Commission and the State of California. Thank you very much. Thank you.