 And I'm very delighted that we have two experts from Southern California, actually, they are from one and two organizations, Editing International, it's a parent's company, and also the Southern California Edison, which is a utility part of the Editing International. We're going to rapidly increase the speed and scale of investment in both existing and emerging technologies, especially interesting to me, and Erica will dive into this more, is with this new analysis, we're seeing an increase in peak demand in wintertime. The paper also makes clear the pace and scale of grid investment that we're going to need to build out to meet the anticipated electricity demand by 2045. So that looks like 90% vehicles, and nearly all buildings being electric by 2045. And as we found here at Stanford, where 80% of scope one and two greenhouse gas emissions have actually already been eliminated, getting to that last 20% of greenhouse gas emissions are the most difficult, and we're going to see that in California as well. So we have to continue to evaluate new technologies. It's going to include carbon capture. I had the start-up company yesterday to look at their carbon capture technology. So there are some very exciting things happening in the state and around the country right now. Another one of the things that really excites me as a sustainability professional is the way this all ties in to affordability. About a third of our customers are on an income assisted rate right now. And our forecast is that total out-of-pocket expenses, energy, and that includes electricity, natural gas, and gasoline will be 40% lower in 2045 than they are today, despite the increased electricity demand. So people will pay more for their electricity bill, but in total, they'll be paying less. But that requires us to succeed with this unprecedented build-out of grid infrastructure. It requires increasing flexibility with policy, amount of solar and overall throughput, and massive increases in storage capacity, transmission and distribution, and interconnection. And that's what Eric is going to go into as we talk about the analysis of Countdown to 2045. Just a quick question. How many of you here are more focused on the quantity of sides, like engineering, mathematics? Okay. And then how many are more on the policy ability kind of the whole point? All right, so few. All right, just a little more. Good to know like kind of who's listening and where to target from my comments. So, I'm not covered a lot of this slide, so I don't need to cover it again, but I do want to say there is a really massive change that needs to occur in California to hit our so Southern California Edison has been very committed to doing this and helping the state enable the state to meet the electrification that we believe will decarbonize as well as clean our grid. We released a paper back in 2017 that really focused on our 2030 goals, which is a 40% reduction from 1990 levels. Then in 2018, Governor Brown at the time signed an executive order that required that goal of California was to be carbon neutral in addition to signing the FB 100 bill. Retail sales of electricity be carbon free by 2045. So those were some really big movements from a policy standpoint. So we went back and did an analysis through 2045 back in 2019 to analyze kind of what those impacts of that policy would be. And so we found back then that we needed about three quarters of vehicles to be electrified as well as 70% of buildings as well as obviously decarbonizing our grid. But as we move forward in time last year after the legislative session, there was another bill that was signed into law, so AB 1279. So that requires actually an executive order that Governor Brown signed for carbon neutrality that made it law. So that is now a law of not just an executive order. And there's an additional requirement in that bill that requires 85% emission reductions by 2045 of direct emission. So you can't just go out and offset it. You can't use direct air to pull it out of the sky. You also can't offset it necessarily with natural working land. You have to basically make certain that you are not emitting those emissions into the atmosphere. So that's a different kind of tilt and that's really what's driving one of the additional recommendations in our current analysis. Another, so this is, I just went through this so we'll keep going. Yes, please, please. So this, in addition to the AB 1279 law that was signed, there's also been some regulations that have come out that CARB, so the California Air Resources Board has put forward. So that's really codifying and regulation the ban on gasoline vehicles. So the requirement that all new vehicles by 2035 need to be electric as well as setting schedules for medium heavy duty vehicles to be zero emission. I should say actually light duties also zero emission is just it's alternating electric at this point on the medium and heavy duty. There's still some opportunity with hydrogen looking at how that kind of plays out. So the methodology. So what exactly did we do to get at the numbers that we're going to that we're showing right now? So the first thing that we looked at was from an economy wide perspective, what are the measures? What are the carbon measures that we need to do in order to get to net zero? So that is really looking at, okay, how much of the economy do we need to electrify? How much hydrogen do we need to use in hard to electrify places? What does it look like in the industrial sector? So there's a lot of pieces here that you kind of need to make some decisions about in terms of figuring out, okay, if we believe this, then what does that mean for the electric sector? So the very first thing we do is use an economy wide GHG model. It is based off a model that was developed for for the California Air Resources Board by E3, which is a consulting group. But they really do it's the model itself is called pathways. It's a public model. So you can use it and download it, etc. In that particular version, it's a more of an accounting model. So you do have to make your own choices. We use a more proprietary model that a different consultant created called Evolved Energy. And they do have some optimization to kind of get more optimized answers, but you still have to make some choices. So I wouldn't say it's a fully optimized model. But you kind of use that to establish where you think you need to go to hit your 2045 targets from a high level. Then you get into, okay, if we have, let's say 95% of our building electrified in terms of natural in terms of space heating and water heating, so using heat pumps, or and if you have 90% of your vehicles electric, what does that mean for your electric load? So that goes into we have various proprietary models that we've developed in house of demand forecasting. So not just looking at kind of economic consumption growth, traditionally speaking, but also how these kind of modifiers layer into that. So BEs, building electrification, transportation electrification, and then also demand modifiers like rooftop solars and behind meter storage. Then we take that demand forecast and what we call our capacity expansion model. So that's looking at, okay, given this load, how many resources do we need on the system? How much solar? How much batteries? How much wind? What does this model want to select? Interestingly, when we did our capacity expansion analysis this time relative to last time, we had numbers and cost assumptions that came from the CECs to the California Energy Commission on when the technology is going to evolve over time. And because that became more affordable, even though it's still expensive today over time, we expect it to decrease. And because the generation profile of that technology is very compatible with kind of offsetting some of the solar generation, the model really wants to select offshore wind. So it basically, we put limits on the potential. Anytime we put a limit on the potential, it selects all of it because it really likes that price point we have it, as well as that the profiles that we have. There's still uncertainty there's kind of uncertainty on the price point. We'll get into that a little bit more, but I did want to kind of talk about that a bit. So after we do our capacity expansion, we do we push all those resources that we selected that we think we need, and we put it into what we call our production cost model. So we have a lot more constraints in there. It's a zonal model, but it looks at like, can these resources solve the load at an 87, 60 hour hourly time chunks for that year for 2045. In addition to that, we also incorporated a lots of load expectation study. So what we did there is we run 500 scenarios of different load profiles that really try to stress the system. And if we see that we have lots of hours that we are not able to serve load, we will go back to the capacity expansion model and we add more in order to solve for those unserved loads. Different resources or whatever that looks like, but that's what you're kind of iterating through there. And then after we get that, where we feel like we have a reliable amount of resources on the system, we then figure out, okay, how many transmission lines do we need to connect all of these resources to load, and then how much distribution lines do we need in that we're connecting those resources to load from the transmission system. So we'll go into all of this. We use Plexos. The capacity expansion is an ABB product. And so on the affordability side, the last piece of this is really looking at, okay, how affordable is this that we cross way too high? Like, what does that look like? And so that we go through that process and I'll share more of that here. So let me go to the next slide. Any questions? Yes. Yeah, so in terms of the economy ride model, if it does assume that we get to the 85% reduction threshold, and then there's 15%. So which is really about 60, I think it's 64 and a half million metric times of emissions in the economy that either need to be offset through direct air capture or through natural work out there. So it's in the economy wide model, but as we go deeper into the electric model, so once we get to the economy, so there are costs that come out of the economy wide model and they are expensive. And I will honestly say it's, I would say one of the, if you all have research projects that you want to work on, figuring out how to do a better job at estimating types of models would be amazing because it can get swing wildly based on very small changes. So that's one thing that you can think about. On the, as you get into the electric specific model, so we're required to have 100% retail sales of carbon free. So you still, because it's retail sale, you still have a little bit of carbon you're allowed to have in the system from losses. So going from your production of that generation and transmit roughly about 10% of losses there, we actually modeled it about, we allowed our system to be about 5% losses. So we have about 7 million metric tons of emissions still associated with the electric system in 2045. And that's, that's why we, when we go here, I'll go to the next one. Yeah, I think it depends on where technology is. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So yeah, you do, we do make choices around those types of technologies, but there's a big range of what that cost actually will be on the company side. Let's see, where was I on that? So kind of going back to electricity, the reliability and kind of build out piece. This is what it looks like that we found when we're going from today. So we're at basically gigawatts of capacity today in our pathway 2045 work. So that was back in 2019, when we didn't have as aggressive of a policy on the indirect emission reductions as well as the very specific regulations coming out of car. We had about 154 gigawatts needed. And you can see here too that we did not have offshore wind that was selected because the price points were so high and the model just didn't, it wasn't really choosing that. It did really, really like solar and batteries as well. And then in 2040 and our countdown work here for 2045, you see that we have about 192 resource, big watts of resources needed. Now the other piece too is we did include that loss of load expectation reliability analysis in the countdown work. So our most recent work in the pathway 2045 work, we did not have that yet. And so we were still, we were stopping at the production cost model. So there is a ability that we're modeling that we didn't model before. Any questions on that? I think the other area, so there's a lot of uncertainty around offshore wind, like is it really going to be able to be developed? Because the coast of California is very different than eastern seaboard. We have very deep waters, it's going to be floating platforms. So very different type of technology relative to what we hear about on the eastern coast. The other area is we have this little orange box that's firm. And that's a mixture of things. So that could be hydrogen, that could be advanced geothermal, that could be some other type of resource that you need that would provide firm energy. And kind of going back to, I'll go up a slide in a sec, but this is something that we see is needed for reliability purposes. It's really there to make sure that we can ride through the winter time, which is different than what we see today. So if we go back one wrong way, to electricity demand. So because of the 90% of buildings being electrified for space and water heating using heat pumps, you can see in the winter time we have a peak, at least as we modeled it, you know, might be changes that happen throughout the 20 some years, that is almost as high as our summer peak, if not matching. And so that's really where the, when we do our loss of load expectation or liability analysis, so that 500 scenarios, this is where we see the most struggle. Because when it's cloudy and the days are shortened, you don't have the solar to charge your batteries. Yes. So do you mean on the development side or actually deploying them? So that will come from right bears from the customers. So we will pay for that. Yep. It will be evenly distributed, depending on your customer class. But yeah, so all rate pairs will be paying for those those new bills and for the transmission and distribution upgrades. What we can get a little bit more in picture. I think the one thing that's a little different about how we're what's unique about the fact that we're building out all of this to electrify and account for all this new load is you're adding kilowatt hours to your to the denominator. And so you're actually getting slightly lower rates in 2045 relative to today, which enables, you know, it's actually a good thing because you're using your system more efficiently than what we use today. I think the other piece to on that, so it's obviously not equal across. So right now we're in a there's been a lot of grid investments for wildfire, so wildfire mitigation or basically climate adaptation. And you're adding infrastructure, you're doing grid hardening activity, but you're not adding megawatt or kilowatt hours to the system. And so your rates are going up because you don't have additional kilowatt hours to offset what's on your numerator. Yeah. Yeah. So let me let me get that. We will get there. I can take it now or I can wait. So, okay, all right. Sounds good. Oh yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Yeah, so the on the industrial side, at least the way that we modeled it is we didn't have it doing we did industrial electrification, mainly because it's very hard right now. It's hard to see where some of those are. We have a lot of the industrial facilities using hydrogen, especially if they're heavy in heat processing and high energy needs. That may change over time. Like there may be technologies that really do enable electrification of industrial processes. That's not how we modeled it. And we had the hydrogen. On the hydrogen side is kind of interesting too, because a lot of the hydrogen that were being or be counted as carbon free as clean is green hydrogen, which you're using electrolysis, you're using electricity to produce. So a lot of the hydrogen that we have in our modeling, we don't actually connect it to the grid. It's off. It's sitting off and being produced elsewhere. You still need to build renewables for it. You could produce it on site and you can transport it. You'd have to develop the hydrogen distribution system or transition system to figure out how all that works. We did not do a huge amount of detail in that, but we do recognize that just the hydrogen production alone could drive quite a bit of electricity demand if it's grid connected. So it could be, right? So that kind of bit of kind of clean firm energy that we have modeled that could be filled with nuclear. The issue is right now California has a band on all new nuclear. So we would have to, one, work with the legislature to remove the band and then assuming that the technology comes into play and is affordable. Like you could actually see a huge shift in how nuclear is deployed throughout the state and elsewhere. One of the biggest challenge with nuclear today, and I think going forward until it's solved, is where do you store the cement fuel? And until we solve that problem, I think at the federal level, challenging to get those small modular reactors built, even if the technology's there, because you have a whole kind of, this kind of gets the sustainability kind of the back end like end of life issues. All right. So kind of going into the reliability picture. So as I was talking about, we have a higher winter peak that we're modeling or that we're seeing because of building electrification load. One of the interesting areas, and this kind of gets to some of the market operations on the California independent system operator side, KAISO. Right now, they run a day ahead market. So they commit their units day ahead and then they move into a real time market. And so there's all these kind of pricing and signaling that happens in those two markets. If we change that look ahead from day ahead for one day and we extend it to seven days, we actually are able to resolve about 80% of our reliability issues that we're seeing in the winter time without even adding additional. And that's because you're able to manage your the discharge of your batteries very differently when you have a seven day look at the windmill. So it's something to keep in mind that in some cases you can actually get at some of these issues just from kind of your existing market rules and how you might change those into the future. It's not necessarily kind of the on the ground solution. So we have a couple of questions. Yeah. Oh, okay. We'll do this later. All right. Thanks. All right. So what does this mean for grid expansion? And this is where it gets very interesting. We have historically a gigawatts per year transition bill. It takes up 10 to 12 years, 10 to 15 years to build transmission today. We need to get from today through 2035, we need to start building at seven gigawatts per year assuming that the needs that we identified in our paper is correct, right? Seven gigawatts a year. And then from 2035 to 2045, we need to get to eight gigawatts a year. The amount of build out needed to get to where we need to go for carbon neutrality, assuming like this is what we have to work with, is unprecedented. We need to change our policies and how we permit, how we think about projects. Right now it's a very project specific process. I think it needs to be more oriented towards kind of get to do certain transmission corridors where your potential renewable resources, where do you expect bills to happen? How do you permit that? How do you time that appropriately? There needs to be a whole overhaul in how we do this at the state, as well as local level. So there's big kind of real-world implications from a licensing standpoint. That's just on the transmission side. Then you get to the distribution time and that's really just connecting all this new cars and often very much the medium duty and heavy duty sector because they require such high power needs. So currently we have about 10 planned and next 10 years for new substations and we're going to need 75. So we need to increase that by sevenfold. We have new circuits at 130 for the next 10 years and we need to increase that by 1300 on the back. Honestly, the distribution what we're talking about here in terms of new circuits, new substations is not possible and currently with how we are configured as a utility. So we really need to increase our capacity at the distribution level because one, we wouldn't even be able to find the land, get the rights to the land to do all this development. So this really gets at how do we increase the capacity of our distribution system to make certain that we're able to deliver the amount of power needed. I'm going to take some additional changes because we have certain limits on our KB thresholds, et cetera, that we just need to work with our regulators and our states and make certain that we can do that going forward. Lots of great prayers. Absolutely. Any questions on kind of the grid expansion? All right. So last slide is on affordability. So can I get into your question? So as it relates to affordability, this is looking at, so you're kind of what we call our average user. So it's not a specific user. It's taking kind of what is all across our system and averaging it from the customer perspective. When you take all of the energy that we use today in a household, so that's not just electricity, but also what you pay for gasoline, what you pay for natural gas, how much is that costing you? And then how much will that cost you in the future? Obviously, one of the biggest savings by far is gasoline, the fact that, yeah, you're going to be increasing your electricity bill because you're going to be using more kilowatt hours to fill your car. But because electric cars are so much more efficient, you're able to save a lot on your gasoline. And I will say the gasoline prices that we modeled here are not astronomical. They're very similar to today's prices. So you could imagine a world where you actually have a lot higher gasoline prices, especially given what we've seen in the past five years in terms of how the body has moved. But we were pretty conservative on that front. The natural gas piece, I do want to talk a little bit on kind of one of the interesting areas. So we're showing an average kind of a quote, average customer. If you have a non-adopter, so let's say you have someone who can't adopt, that they just don't have the funds to buy an electric vehicle, they're still on natural gas in their residence. The gas system, because their consumption is going down, because 95% of the buildings, if not more, we didn't really make any assumptions about how that gas system is going to change over time. So you could, if you don't make those changes, if you don't figure out how to make that gas system smaller to serve those fewer customers, you're going to be supporting the maintenance of the entire system, which increases your cost burden. So there's another piece in here that is not necessarily something we focus on because we don't have a gas business. We're very different than Pacific Gas and Electric PG&E as well as SDG&E, which is San Diego Gas and Electric. But we really do need to work with Southern Gas Company to figure out, okay, how does the gas system transition over this time? Other questions, yes? Yes, yeah. So the fuller and storage piece is looking at if you, so we also in our work assume about half of the households in California and stuff, or rooftops, half of the rooftops. So there's about 30 gigawatts of rooftop solar that's available to the system. And so this is the, basically your levelized capital cost of, in maintenance, basically it's all capital of solar and storage. And so you're generating some electricity for yourself, but that's that cost to have that on your house. Other questions? Yeah, so there are, I mean, this kind of gets at things that are even happening today. So we do have low income customer programs. So for instance, we have a CARE program that the bill, the electric bill is 30% reduced for certain households, depending on income level. There's also a lot of additional programs to help get capital into low income folks. So to buy, purchase an electric vehicle, as well as change out their natural gas appliances and heat pumps. It doesn't mean that it's going to happen all at once. Certainly it's something that will happen over time. And I think as we continue to transition, we need to keep track of kind of who's getting left behind and make certain that we're creating policies to help them not have that happen. Yeah. Yeah, so in terms of, yes, we do believe, and it is true that grid solar is much more cost efficient. I forget the thing is like half, half the cost of what a home solar is, but because of the incentives that we have for home solar, there is very attractive. The other piece too is we now have requirements for new builds, for new buildings to have a certain amount of solar on the rooftop. And so that is also included in our work to represent. Yeah. So it does include the upfront cost of the solar in the storage because that's something that you're at, like something that didn't really exist before when we're adding it. We do assume by 2045 that the cost differential on the capital side between electric vehicles and gasoline vehicles are at parity. We expect actually, it's not just us, it's December new energy finance. Like they expect that parity point to actually happen around 2029 where those capital prices are equal. Same on the heat pumps. So we expect price parity to occur at 2035. So by 2045, when you're making that change, you're not having a capital cost differential. So we did not include that particular capital cost in the analysis, but we did on the solar. So yeah. So the grid, the increases that you see here, so this is all $20, $23, so we're not escalating it by inflation at all. It is cost that is from increased volumes because when you look at the actual rates, they're slightly lower relative to today when you, so all the investment that we do on the grid side as well as on the generation side, and you're basically dividing that by all the additional kilowatt hours you're getting to a slightly lower rate. Now there's a caveat there. We obviously just went through a five-year period of significant investment that had no kilowatt hours attached to it because we're hardening the grid to prevent catastrophic block fires. You could have had in a situation where as climate change gets worse over time that you have more hardening investments you need to do and you do not as you're getting additional load. So if you were to get the point at which you get to price parity, so if that count down to 2045 bar basically is equal to the today total, you could double rates from the countdown. So you could double from where you are. So you have a bit or you have a quite a bit of headroom to get to where you are, back to where you are today, but it is a, you know, we're looking at numbers years from now. So yeah, so that's a really good question. So our reliability is that it does take into account the home solar. So that's embedded in kind of how we do our demand forecast. And so the different demand scenarios does account for that. In terms of our vehicles, we have assumed already quite a lot of managed load because if you don't manage the electric vehicle load you're going to even have higher costs. So it doesn't really make a lot of sense. But so it is a bulk system analysis on the reliability side. I think there are some interesting questions. If you have a lot of behind the meter batteries paired with solar or if you're able to use your your car as a kind of some resource like when the power is out maybe one or two times one or two hours a year, you know, whatever that may be, do you actually need to build so much resources because you have more functionality and flexibility on the grid side. Those are questions that we're still exploring and it's a little more difficult to figure out, but another good research project. Any other questions? I might go to the Q and A online here. So yes, we did a lot of load expectations. So on the fast ramping side, though, one of the great things about batteries is they actually serve can serve that quite well. Now you have to coordinate it, right? So you have to have that's where the some of the the incentive structure of how you what types of incentives you give for batteries. So you're going to have maybe a different like different ancillary structure than what you have today. But you'd have to make certain that you have those batteries serve that function. And then also I'm sure you'd have a lot of other batteries that you'd be charging as well. So it is a challenge and it's something that we got to figure out. But we do believe at least as we model it out, and we've done some smaller detailed assessment on the distribution side of how how that matches up. And we do see that we need slightly higher to manage some of that than what you might otherwise expect. Yeah. So yeah, no, I mean, these are those are the two on the gas. So there's a couple of different things on the gas system side, right? So one is residential customers. So that's where like, would would would the gas company have enough funds to serve them, given the amount of consumption that is coming off? So that that's a question that I don't know. And that we would that's part of like, how do you and this is going on that the public utility commission on zone electrification, like do you start electrifying by zones and start pruning your gas system? The other piece is what part of the gas system is your generation connected to? A lot of times generation is connected to the transmission system, which is a different animal. And I think you could maintain that in a very different way. And it could still be cost effective and that your industrial is now there are still some kind of what behind the city gate and the natural gas peak, where you know, you're getting served by kind of more of the distribution company. But for the most part, you're getting large industrial users or power plant, you're getting served off the transmission system. So let me go to the Q&A online. Let me see here. Please address how vehicle to grid bi-directional electric vehicle charging plus more wind and solar power can push fossil fuels and nuclear off our electric grid and need for grid upgrades by over 80%. What are each of the organizations represented doing to implement VTG universally as quickly as possible. So vehicle to grid bi-directional kind of electric and the potential there is promising. There's still a lot of work that needs to be done. You still have to, I think one of the areas that we need to be very mindful of is you still have to charge your vehicle at some point. It's it's still just a battery. It's not electricity. So you still will need a lot of generation to get the electron electrons to that vehicle. It gets to the timing of kind of the timing of the day. And you might have a lot more opportunity over time as the VTG technology gets better. I think one of the areas that we don't talk about as much because people like to skip over it because it may not be as sexy, but vehicle to buildings. Like I think vehicle to buildings is something that's probably to do because it's kind of working like your solar rooftop solar. Now it's really kind of acting as a load modifier. If you can just get the technology from your vehicle to your building, right? Like if you want to do that, great. I think the vehicle to grid gets a little more complicated because you are doing interconnections to the grid itself. And so there's more complications there. But anyway, that's my plug for V2B. Let's see here. So there's a question by the firm generation was modeled at. I don't know off the top of my head, but if you go online, it is in the appendix. So you can look that up. Will these slides be available later along with the recording? Yes, you can have these slides later. Are consumers contributing to this growth? Yes. Yes. Consumers absolutely do need to go out and buy the electric vehicles as well as the heat pump to get to this growth. Is it 25% of new car sales are electric? So that's yep, in California. Yes. Yeah, but it's pretty, pretty good. Another question. Let's see here. With distributed storage behind the meter such as V2G at home, such a boy's having batteries sitting unused 95% of the time and leads to less vehicle battery degradation when you use only. It hardly needs any upgrades as the peak load doesn't increase and almost all grid upgrades are for addressing peaks. Please comment on this belief. So on the distribution side, there you might have some of that. You will need some upgrades though to handle medium duty and heavy duty vehicles because they require a lot of power and they're not just sitting there 95% of the time. They're very much utilized. The other area is that you need the electrons, which is the comment I made before. So you absolutely, the generation as well as as transmission lines to connect it to your distribution system in order to make certain those batteries are charged. Yeah, the technology, there's definitely technology changes that need to occur. Why does hydrogen not appear in this roadmap? So hydrogen is in the roadmap and I kind of talked about it a little bit. So it does appear on the transportation side. Again, it could appear in the clean firm kind of resource side. It's more of a storage opportunity. But I think the other piece about hydrogen, and we talked about it a little bit, is just kind of your will be produced by high electrolysis, which really leads to you needing more renewables. And it's actually more efficient to use the electricity in the electric technologies versus producing hydrogen. You're actually getting more losses in that conversion back and forth. The other thing I'd like to talk about with hydrogen, so one piece that we haven't really talked about is carbon capture and storage. So we absolutely will need carbon capture and storage technology to help with kind of that industrial sector kind of the more hard to electrify sectors. That could be applied to to power generating plants. So you could see natural gas with CCS or even biofuels of CCS and generate negative emissions. So there's a whole piece of technology that is absolutely needed that we don't really talk about so much here because we're really focused on the electric system, but it really is important. The other thing is on hydrogen production. Through steam reformation. So you're either basically using natural gas and you're separating the carbon from the hydrogen and you can store the carbon. So if you put that with CCS, you could actually produce a low carbon hydrogen. It's just a question of will regulators, will the people in the climate community be accepting of that process if you really wanted to get more hydrogen in the system? I think from a lot of trolluses standpoint, it does make a lot more sense to use that electric generation in electric technologies. But there are other hydrogen production opportunities too. Yeah, so I think in terms of, I mean, we touched on it a little bit, but a lot of it really needs to happen at the policy level. We're at the state as well as at the commission. So not only here, but also through our regulators. So we have the California Energy Commission. We have the California Air Resources Board. We have the California Public Utilities Commission. We have our actual resources department. Like there's so many different agencies that we really need to work through to get this permitting and licensing kind of faster. And also do it without harming the environment, right? Like we want to, it's not because we want to push through voices and how we're planning the system. We just need to figure out how to do it faster while also meeting the needs of other stakeholders. It's honestly not, I don't have a great answer. Like I think this is a lot of work that the head of us at the state of how do we figure this out? Because it is a real challenge and something that we'll all need to work together on. Let's see here. So here's another question. I would love to hear more about the role of demand response in the 20, what is the impact that you see in the capacity expansion model and the production cost model when you include demand response? How are you planning to procure that demand response? Either directly or versus third party aggregators? Great question. So one thing I'd like to say is we actually embedded in our demand forecast. We have a lot of demand, what I would say, load shifting occurring. So we include time of use rates. So we make an assumption about 80% of the electric vehicle load is actually kind of charging it up. We do not make the same assumption for building electrification just because we believe that people are cold when they're cold, when it's cold out. So we figure that out. There is obviously on the water heater side opportunity for storage and demand management there, but for the actual heat pump for space heating, that's a whole other beast. So there is there's opportunity. We do also have I think six gigawatts of demand management assumed that we went out and procured embedded in our resources. So there's that piece in terms of answering whether we do this directly or through third party aggregators. I think it really depends on where we can find the value. So if third party aggregators are able to go out there and get the customers and they give it, we're able to get the portfolio from them. That's great. Or there might be programs that we offer with commission approval that go out. Let's see. There is one more question on here. Yeah. So building on the clean firm, Jen, do you know what price point the clean firm generation was modeled? That's right. Is it safe to interpret this as the price points, which technologies like geothermal, long duration energy storage would need to reach to be competitive market conditions? Yeah, I would say yes. I think I don't, I think when you, right now, the model really likes, like I said before, the offshore wind. So when you go in and look at our price points that we have in the appendix, you can kind of see where that is. And then also the model obviously really likes solar and battery. Like that's kind of the marginal thing that swings up and down depending on the scenario. So if you get any of these other kind of long duration kind of new technologies that are in the ballpark of that, I think you start seeing some real value in the