 Good afternoon and welcome to today's energy seminar. Delighted to introduce our speaker today, Elizabeth Shealy. Elizabeth is the Research Division Chief at the California Air Resources Board. As many of you know, the Air Resources Board is responsible for implementing the analyzing policies designed to achieve the objectives set by our California government. We heard from the California government directly last week, so the timing is very good. In her responsibilities, Elizabeth manages the staff of over 70 people that's responsible for, as I said, planning and implementing all analyses at the Air Board and also works in her historical specialties of air quality analysis. Health impacts of climate change and greenhouse gases with high global warming potentials. I actually met Elizabeth when she was EPA prior to her 15 years at CARB and she was then working on a high global warming potentials at the Environmental Protection Agency also was a key person in writing the very timely IPCC chapter on that subject back then. She's very well prepared to do this kind of work, having degrees in earth and atmospheric sciences, public policy and public health. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Elizabeth to talk about health benefits of decarbonization, which is a big issue globally and a very big issue here in California. Elizabeth, take it away. Thanks, John, and thanks for accommodating my need to be here online instead of in person. I do wish I could be there in person to see y'all instead of speaking to my computer screen at home, but I appreciate the chance to talk to y'all about what we're doing and to hear some of your thoughts and questions as well. So as John said, I'm the Chief of the Research Division at CARB and one of the things under my purview is the health analysis for the agencies and we look at health analysis for all our rules and regulations, including doing work for the scoping plan, which is what I'll talk about here today. So let's just start on why we're here today. We know that climate change is happening and that we have an imperative to act. The evidence is clear and the changes in the physical environment are impacting public health and the economy. We also know that these impacts are disproportionately felt by frontline communities, which are often communities of color. And poor air quality has increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19. Summer after summer, the state has experienced catastrophic wildfire with results of loss of life, severe smoke incidents, destruction of property. And we also have extended periods of drought that have resulted in things from job losses and significant damages in the agricultural industry. The drought and extreme heat events also strain our energy grid, which I know is something y'all are interested in. So I'll now pivot to why the 2022 scoping plan. So for California, we develop approximately every five years, a scoping plan that lays out our plan for how to address climate change. And for 2022, we're going to be considering the draft of that scoping plan in June. So actually, the draft hits the road early next week. So this is a very timely discussion. And if you're interested after this to read it, it will be out next week for your reading entertainment. So really, there's a couple of main objectives to it. One is to assess progress towards our 2030 target, as well as lay out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. So there's a couple of different purposes to the scoping plan. And like I said, in terms of laying out our 2030 and our 2045 path, it also looks over 20 years, which is the longest planning horizon that we've ever looked at in a scoping plan. So this means we have to place a larger focus on outcomes that we have to achieve versus prior scoping plans, kind of like measure by measure. So we were looking more at clean technology, energy deployment, things like that. So for example, the rate of sales, light duty electric vehicles or electric appliances so that we can help. And that will help us track progress maybe forward out as well. And these outcomes must be considered in the context of achieving near term air quality benefits as well as our longer term greenhouse gas benefits, because we still have both of those problems. And in California, both of those are still an issue. And meeting, especially in certain districts and certain air basins meeting our air quality targets is still challenging. So we have to think about all of that in concert. So as you all probably know, fossil fuel combustion is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases. And our climate change progress is tied to a rapid transition away from combustion and towards clean energy and technology. So we know that combustion sources emitting greenhouse gases also emit criteria pollution, including ozone and particulate pollution, toxic contaminants and short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon, all linked to serious health effects. In addition, higher temperatures from climate change can amplify the production of some of these pollutants, creating a cycle of worsening effects. We know that dramatic reductions and possible fuel combustion by 2045 will have substantial health benefits and our public analysis attempts to capture those broad ranges of benefits using the best tools we have available. At the same time, we have the goal of achieving those benefits equitably across the state. So because of the different types of pollutants, they can be interrelated and California's air quality programs reflect this relationship, addressing the need to reduce all three types of pollution to achieve public health goals. The multi-plutant approach will be reflected in this upcoming skipping plan, where you'll see many efforts included in the state-wide implementation strategy incorporated into the skipping plan. And we'll focus this analysis that I'll be talking about on the contrast between today's California that is still dependent on a fossil fuel-based economy and the many benefits that will be seen with the reduced dependence on fossil fuels. So what I'm talking about today, there's a couple of different aspects of what we're looking at in the skipping plan and in the health benefits of building decarbonization. And what I will be going over mainly is our qualitative analysis and how we're really trying to bring in those things that you can't quantify always. So we do also have, and I will touch on some of the quantitative side of things, but I'll be focusing on what are some of the more, the harder things to quantify like community resilience and things like that. So just a little bit of context kind of going into the rest of the presentation. So climate change is considered one of the greatest global public health threats of the 21st century, and the health impacts of the climate crisis are already being felt by Californians, with negative health effects projected to only worsen in the coming years. Climate change-related health impacts include increased number of cases of heat-related illness and death, more air pollution-related cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, increased injury and loss of life due to severe storms and flooding, increased occurrence of vector-borne and waterborne diseases, and stress and mental trauma from the loss of livelihoods, property loss, and displaced men. All of these impacts have been documented in IPCC reports, including in this recent working group contributions to the 6-6 assessment report, and the IPCC reports examine the future impacts of climate change based on current conditions, making it clear that the time for action is now to be able to prevent increasing health impacts from climate. It's also important to consider and to remember that air pollution and climate impacts are not experienced equally. Low-income communities and communities of color are often more vulnerable to health impacts of air pollution due to conditions such as respiratory and cardiovascular disease, along with social, economic, and environmental factors. These communities who are stressed by years of inequality and a higher pollution burden are at a greater risk and have less resilience to the ongoing impact of climate change. Vulnerable groups also include children, older individuals, pregnant women, and marginalized people. So before I go into some more of the detail, I want to make sure that we're on the same page on some of the definitions that we're using in some of the terminology. I'll say climate resilience a couple of times. And so how we define that is the ability of people and communities to prepare, recover, adapt, and withstand the impacts of disruptive events. And for climate change, there can be climate change resilience, and it's the ability to ever come and really bounce back from that. And in some cases, people even say bounce forward to be really resilient so that you come out even better and healthier in the end. I also would like to talk about what health endpoints are because I'll use those terms a few times in the coming slides. So health endpoints are basically health outcomes that can be measured, such as premature mortality or asthma exacerbation. And we use those endpoints to assess the improvements that can result from regulations and policies to reduce pollution and reduce the impact of climate change. So a little bit about what we currently do and what we're doing and what you will see when we're looking at decarbonization under the skipping plan. So at CARB, we analyze health benefits expected from reduced criteria or toxic pollution, and then these health benefits are considered before we move forward with rules and regulations. We've generally been using quantitative tools based on an EPA model called the BIMAP model, as well as risk assessments for toxic contaminants when that's applicable. However, we know and we realize that these are really only a small subset of the health effects related to air pollution exposure, and much of our analysis is focused on one pollutant, which is fine particulate matter. The specific health endpoints that are routinely used are premature mortality in which pollution related illness results in early death, increased hospitalization for heart and lung causes, and increased emergency room visits for asthma. We know that air pollution can cause health effects beyond those that I just mentioned. So this pyramid here is an illustration of the varied and well-known health impacts of air pollution, and it shows the relative number of people impacted from those health effects, with more people being experiencing the symptoms listed at the bottom of the pyramid compared to the top. So the health endpoints we just discussed that CARB currently quantifies are listed in the top two segments of the pyramid, mortality and ER visits and hospital admissions. As you go towards the bottom of the pyramid, more people are impacted by these other health endpoints, including lost work and school days, asthma attacks, and lung function decrements and inflammation. So to give you just an example here shows an analysis that we did for one of our regulations showing the benefits from the regulations. So the transition to zero emissions that is spurred by our advanced clean truck regulation means substantial reductions in PM 2.5 emissions cumulatively from 2020 to 2040. So that will result as you see here in hundreds of premature fewer premature deaths, emergency room visits for asthma and hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases over this time. So I'm not going to talk too much more about about the actual numbers. We do have some contractors who are working on the quantitative impact and what I'm really going to focus on here is the qualitative side of things, but I will have a few more slides talking about the endpoints. And one thing we've really been trying to do is expand how we look at it. So just expand those endpoints as one of the ways in which we're looking to have qualitatively and quantitatively expand what we look at in the health analysis for all of our rules and regulations. So we're looking to include additional health endpoints into our analysis. And you'll actually see some of these incorporated into the skipping plan analysis. So the broader the health outcomes that we're analyzing the more we can take into account the illnesses that affect communities across the state and result in suffering and loss. The research underway are beginning on several health outcomes that can be incorporated into our health analysis, including asthma exacerbations using GPS inhalers, work loss days linked to PM 2.5, wildfire smoke exposure, birth outcomes affected by traffic pollution, and brain function decline due to air pollution. We're also just starting out some research to estimate the benefits of reduced metabolic effects, including diabetes. Our immediate plans include expanding the health endpoints to include those respiratory and disease outcomes that are listed on this slide. So my particulate matter has been found to have causal links to these health endpoints in EPA's integrated science assessment and policy assessment documents. We talked about these at, you know, discuss this proposal publicly previously as well. These health endpoints include ER visits for cardiovascular disease, non fatal heart attacks, asthma development and symptoms, lost work days, lung cancer incidents and brain health impacts, including Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. We're planning to use these health endpoints and the quantitative analysis so we'll be working with folks, incorporating these into the analysis and those were actually presented at one of our recent public workshops. A few weeks ago. So I mentioned at the beginning that we want to use the best tools available. So while we use quantitative tools and expand the assessment of health endpoints to generate information on the range of illnesses, we still need to do more. The qualitative tools provide us the opportunity to go beyond what we can do through the quantitative analysis. We can look at a broader range of benefits, and we can more clearly demonstrate the type of inequities experiencing communities across the state. While we don't have the ability to be able to look at all the possible benefits of a low fossil fuel and carbon neutral California in specific communities. We can provide a clearer picture of the ways communities can benefit. And we use both the quantitative methods that we that I just described and these qualitative methods together to cover the broad range of benefits. And the qualitative can assessment can look at directional effects and the scale of impacts and benefits will be able to look more clearly at community vulnerability and the effects of disparities in resources health conditions and other factors. So I want to emphasize that there are many similarities and what we can accomplish with both qualitative and quantitative approaches and but both have key strengths. Both methods are rooted in the strength of the science and the epidemiological literature on the health impacts of air pollution and climate change. Both can look at regional and statewide effects. However qualitative assessment allows us to look at the many impacts caused by inequities. For example disparities and pollution exposures and the experiences of communities on the front lines of climate change. We're able to look at the broader benefits of improved health and communities. We can give a more complete assessment of the large range of benefits and impacts of a reduction in fossil fuel dependence. So the next two slides are important in outlining an approach to health analysis that is different than what we at carb at least have done previously and in previous skipping plans. While we have always acknowledged the mix of factors important in creating healthy communities we have not focused on health benefits outside of air pollution benefits. And in this analysis we look at that broader set of factors that impact health in our communities and the goals of carbon neutrality and decarbonization no later than 2045. And how that will promote progress towards improved health. We also look at potential adverse outcomes and how they could be reduced. The key areas are listed on the slide and are all known to have substantial impacts on increasing health in individuals and communities. Increased green space has proven benefits including mental health improvements and benefits of increased social interactions. Economic and food security are strong factors in maintaining health. An activity and increased active transport including biking and walking is known to have substantial health benefits. And we actually have a tool in this area that can help us assess these benefits quantitatively as well. Children's health is always a priority and we know that air pollution effects and childhood can persist through adults. Similarly increased mobility options including public transit provide increased economic opportunity for community members and more opportunities for physical activity as well. The scientific evidence is clear that improvements in these areas can reduce chronic illnesses and mental health impacts. These factors leading to health improvements include reduced dependence on vehicles with with increases in transit and active transport increases in green jobs more access to food and less food waste and reduce traffic pollution and noise. There's also a strong body of health literature on the importance of building community resilience and protecting health. Community has made this a major theme of its reports on climate change and climate adaptation. CARB and other state agencies have also promoted the importance of climate resilience in the face of rising temperatures and other climate effects. The connections between reduced chronic illness and health disparities and increasing community resilience are well documented. Reducing chronic disease burden in our communities is an important factor that will help communities be more resilient to the effects of climate change. So as I've mentioned there's already a strong body of literature in emphasizing the many benefits of greenhouse gas reductions outside of impact of climate change. This slide shows results from just one of many scientific studies that confirms different health types of health benefits going beyond air pollution benefits. In this case the study is is showing benefits from reduced noise in our communities and increased biking and walking. Here we go. Understanding existing health inequities is key to our climate health analysis. And this slide shows results from a recent CARB funded study showing disparities in exposure to mobile source pollutants by race and California. These results show that low income communities and communities of color are burdened by higher levels of particulate pollution from traffic and industry sources. We'll be considering how to incorporate information from existing tools that demonstrate community vulnerabilities and health disparities into the scoping plant, including tools like Cal and virus grading. We're also reviewing new research on health disparities, including climate change and social vulnerability that demonstrates that communities of color are most likely to currently live in areas where the analysis projects the highest level of climate change impacts with level warming and sea level rise. As we attempt to chart some of the health benefits that result from fossil fuel reduction policies will also address the challenges that these existing disparities pose to communities. So our natural and working lands provide many benefits to California, both in economic opportunities and providing opportunities for recreation and increased physical activity. We also recognize the need to manage and restore our natural and working lands in ways that will improve forest and ecosystem health and reduce wildfires generating harmful smoke and other adverse effects on people in the environment. We have a tool that's under development that helps us calculate potential benefits of our forest management policies to reduce wildfire risks, and therefore the health impact of wildfires. The policies analyzed include programs such as prescribed fires and forest spending, and it will help us quantify other well known health benefits of natural working lands, including green mess such and increased physical and mental health and well being. We can use the strong knowledge we have gained on health effects through epidemiological research in many areas, including children's health. For example, the Southern California Children's Health Study spawned several papers that show the detrimental health impacts of traffic has on our children. This study, one of the largest and longest studies of air pollution on children, found decreased lung function, increased symptoms and asthmatic children, and even even increased development of asthma from traffic pollution. Recent studies have shown that a reduction in traffic pollution due to our regulations to reduce vehicle emissions has led to a bettering of lung function growth and reduced respiratory symptoms. Therefore, as we review the outcomes of reduced traffic pollution, we can consider the range of benefits to children using that knowledge. I want to bring together all the approaches I've been talking about to just give a summary and provide an overview and comparison of this analysis to what we've done previously. So we're expanding on prior work to include a more extensive health analysis and include both quantitative and qualitative approaches. We're also looking at ozone as well as particulate matter with a finer spatial analysis and the whole qualitative analysis that I've been talking about is all new. We've not really done that previously, and it will allow us to examine many new areas that are known to impact community health. And we will calculate the many benefits of increased physical activity through active transport and include information on wildfire and heat effects as we partner with our other sister agencies as well. So we have worked with our Department of Public Health as well as the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on the work that I'm showing you here. It's important to acknowledge the challenges we'll also be facing and the transition to a sustainable future. So there are a lot of benefits as we've talked about to decarbonization and to moving towards carbon neutrality. And even though we are pursuing important steps with proven health benefits, we cannot account for all the specific issues and possible adverse effects at the community level. We will include consideration of those types of impacts connected to changes in fuel changes, fuel practices, and transportation behaviors at the local level. For example, when we model increases in walking and biking, you have to consider the increase for pedestrian and bicycle accidents during that transition. But we'll also note that those challenges can be addressed. For example, with pedestrian and bicycle accidents, when you include safer lanes, safe streets, as well as just as time goes on and you kind of have the safety numbers coming out, that will be mitigated. So we try to also address how those challenges could be addressed in the future. And the scoping plan is not the end of our transition. It's really the beginning. As new programs and regulations are developed or existing ones are modified to support the transition from fossil fuels and the increase in transportation options. More detailed health analysis will be conducted and health metrics will be used to measure success. We've actually started new research to look at what those health metrics can be new ways to analyze and track health impacts in communities. New tools and improvements and existing tools can help us to expand the areas we can analyze and community health. And we'll always be looking for new ways to assess the cumulative impacts faced by communities as well. There are a lot of communities that have you have climate change impacts and you have multiple sources within a community as well. So I think this is my last slide. In summary, I just wanted to say we'll be analyzing all the benefits challenges and opportunities of scenarios to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 compared to status quo. Looking at the health effects of sustainable California with both quantitative and qualitative methods, including expanded endpoints and new tools to measure effects. So I wanted to thank you all for for listening and I really look forward to any questions comments and thoughts. Thanks so much for that great overview of where you are now where you're going in the short, medium and long term. Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. I was curious about the quantitative tools to measure the impact of say active transportation on the health impacts. So we have a tool called the healthy mobility options tool that we developed with our sister agency, the Department of Public Health. And so it looks at I can't tell you all the details of how it works, but it looks at goals for reductions in vehicles, my vehicle miles traveled, how that impacts active transport, how that impacts the amount of walking and biking. And then includes a lot of different studies in that to estimate. You know, like I talked about there are some increases in accidents as well as the health benefits from the increased activity that is expected from moving to active transport. So hopefully that answers your question was there something specific you were curious about. Pretty much it. I'm happy to also pass along links to anything if folks want to learn more about the healthy mobility option tool. I'm happy to pass that along. Cool. Yeah, another question is, like, how does this work feed into the advocacy or policy surrounding new transportation options or like what the city decides to do with their traffic or whatever. So this analysis is part of is part of our scoping plan. So I work at a state agency. So I don't necessarily advocate for for a certain policy or, or anything like that. So we provide the analysis that supports a potential pathway to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 and also also reach our 2030 goals one being mandated by legislation and the other being a goal and executive order to reach our goals. And so we provide that analysis and the different benefits and so that helps our board and it helps folks decide what path, for example, in the scoping plan, they lay out four different potential scenarios and there's a quantitative side that really shows one of the differences between those scenarios. And then this qualitative analysis shows what are the benefits of reaching carbon neutrality and the different ways and different policies you can use so folks out in the public and advocacy can pick up that information and the facts that we put in there about different approaches and how they can lead to benefits and so what are the benefits of of policies that move us to zero emissions. And, and then it's also specifically used for our board to understand the overall benefits, as well as a quantitative side really shows those differences and the scenarios so I didn't go over that, that part of it too much but we do have and it's really just on the air pollution is what we're able to quantify the most. Thank you. Thank you so much for your talk. I actually have a question about agriculture. Before that, you know, air pollution and climate change benefits can sometimes be in conflict, given the global effects of greenhouse gases and local effects of air pollutants. I was thinking about the context of agriculture. And there is a few weeks ago I attended the webinar by car. And during the public comment section, the public was convinced that while dairy digesters produced by they reduce greenhouse gases. They actually exacerbate exacerbate the air pollution effects in local communities in Central Valley. So I was just wondering how, how does carb deal with these trade-offs between air pollution and climate change in the sectors that they exist. And that's a, that's a great question. So, and I can't answer specifically to agriculture. And I'm really, at least in this setting, I'm really talking more about the health benefits and that is one aspect of what we look at. So, you know, this is a bigger planning effort. And when you go into each rule and regulation, you think about those things. So things that affect agriculture and, you know, the low carbon fuel standard and stuff like that. When they go into those rulemaking's all of that is, is part of the consideration. And we do try to do win-win because we have to meet those goals. Honestly, you know, we have to meet our air quality goals. We have to meet our climate change goals. And when it's just possible, we try to find win-win situations. And we look at what are the air quality benefits and what are the greenhouse gas benefits. But those are really each specific to that rulemaking. And there are things that are discussed in each rulemaking, each amendment that is kind of the next step after the skipping plan. So the skipping plan lays out those big issues or big path. Each rule and regulation that comes next really delves into those details and has those back and forth stakeholder discussions. And then all of those presented to our board and the board makes the decision on, on to approve or disapprove what's being presented or to modify it in some way. So I had a question. So based on what you just said. Some years ago, I was on one of the AB 32 advisory committees. And at that point, there was a desire to consider health impacts is what we used to call, we used to call it this too, ancillary benefits for climate policy. And the idea we came up with, this is actually due to the late Alex Ferrell, who I was working with at the time, was there should be some kind of reciprocity principle that if you were going to do air quality benefits and considering climate regs, you should do climate andcillary benefits when considering air quality benefits. Now, are you saying that that is going to proceed in that manner or that there'll be kind of integrated planning, I guess would be the, the overall thing where you kind of decide and regulate. I know in regulatory processes, it's probably really hard to do that. So what is your thinking on that now and in the future. Yeah, and that's, that's a great question. We have different authorities and different requirements by statute for for different authorities. So, for example, on the air quality side, we, that is done in coordination with our air districts and the Clean Air Act is where most of that authority and the, and the rules lie within that of how do we have to conform and meet those. And, and then we have things like AB 32, SB 32, and for short-lived climate plumes you have 1383 and all those lay out different, different considerations. And so, if you read through those things like cost effective maximum technologically feasible and considering when you look at AB 197 considering, you know, not making it worse in communities as well and not exacerbating air quality issues. So, try to find those win-win situations that we try to integrate our planning. There are some differences in what we're required to do and required to think about between our, our different areas as well. So, another question that we talked about before we started here and that is, let me frame it this way. We've kind of boldly gone into this qualitative metrics area. This for those of us who have tried to work with purely quantitative metrics has been a big challenge often leading to frustration because in regulatory proceedings it's hard to get non-quantitative information at. I would say, if it's going to work any place, it would be in a place like California given our politics and history of environmental regulation. So, how do you see that playing out here when you present these ideas? Can qualitative metrics be as or more influential than quantitative metrics? I personally think they, they can be, they tell, they tell the full story. So, we know and we have known that it's only so much you can quantify and we're trying to move towards that. So, I kind of view it as a spectrum as we start out with the qualitative side. We learn more and that moves, that gets pushed into the quantitative side as more and more research happens. But telling that full story of all of the potential impacts and benefits is powerful in itself. And those are things that will be shown to the board in their decision making as well as the quantitative benefits from a health perspective as well as the costs to California as well. So, all those things are part of the overall decision making and we'll play a part in that decision making by the board. I personally think that it does, you know, it tells a story that you just can't fully tell with what we are currently at least able to quantify. But we do know that those, the numbers are also powerful and that we will continue to try to quantify things as well as talking about them. It does create more levers in which to communicate with various stakeholders including the average citizen, I think. Yeah. As you may remember, the last big push on climate at the end of the Obama administration was to basically go heavy. There was a huge press conference in the last few months of that administration led by John Holdren, then science advisor on health benefits from climate action. So I think that also is a strategy that could work in California and probably already has, I would say, do you find that to be true? That legislatures on behalf of their constituents actually want to know more about these things. They'll probably urge you to quantify them, but they're probably happy to get at least some solid neutral qualitative evidence. Yeah, I mean, I do think it's helpful on many fronts, it's helpful to inform our board when they're making decisions about what all of the benefits are. And it is helpful to put that information out there for others to use. And I think understanding those things that are not as tangible is something that's helpful to the public. Climate change is hard, it's not as easy to convey as air quality. You can talk about air quality in Los Angeles and show pictures of how it's improved, and that's very powerful. And I think that this sort of description can also be powerful and can show ways in which transforming our society and moving towards decarbonization can transform society in many different ways with a great variety of health benefits that you may not be thinking about when you just think about decarbonization. But these community level benefits that you may see that are outside of that traditional, this is the decrease in air pollution. And this is just the asthma exacerbation, but just that greater variety. And I think that is a helpful tool and it is powerful to communicate that to people. As you may recall about a year ago we were involved in an event with former Governor Schwarzenegger who had two main messages. One was if you don't bring on board underrepresented communities, you're going to go nowhere fast in California. The other one more generally for both underrepresented and represented folks is we ought to start thinking of and communicating about climate change as yet another source of pollution. And we remember his Arnold line, terminate pollution was his watchword at that point. So I think that is something that's distinctive going on here. I do think that this could, so how much interaction has there been from what, between what you're doing here and the US federal level and other states and other, I know California has been very influential, particularly at certain political times influencing people more outside the US than inside the US or at least comparing and contrasting ideas. Yeah, and one thing is that when you are talking about incorporating the voices of under resourced communities. I did want to mention something I didn't mention in the presentation which is that we do have an environment environmental justice advisory committee that was developed really to put input into the skipping plan but now has been made more permanent as well. And so I think that's a really good development and having those voices heard within our process more regularly. So I just wanted to, to note that for folks. And we do often lead the way. And we, we provide a lot of information as well. And realize that California has, you know, they have more capabilities than maybe some states due to do the sorts of analysis that we're able to do so putting this out there for, for anyone who wants to take advantage of all the information out there on how moving towards decarbonization can provide health benefits on many different levels. So yes, we do, you know, we provide information publicly as well as if other states are interested and things like that. Great, with that said we're just about out of time so thank you once again Elizabeth for a great talk and answering all the questions and including some foolish ones from me. Good luck with the rollout of the scoping plan and implementation later on the year. We'll be, we'll be looking for great things from your, your group or CARB in general in Sacramento. Thank you so much. Thank you.