Good afternoon, and welcome to the Edison International Second Quarter 2026 Financial Teleconference. My name is Michelle, and I will be your operator today. When we get to the question and answer session, if you have a question, press star 1 on your phone. This call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Sam Ramraj, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Ramraj, you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Michelle, and welcome, everyone. Our speakers today are President and Chief Executive Officer Pedro Pizarro and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Aaron Moss. Also on the call are other members of the management team. Materials supporting today's call are available at www.edisoninvestor.com. These include a Form 10-Q, prepare remarks from Pedro and Aaron, and the teleconference presentation. Tomorrow, we will distribute our regular business update presentation. During this call, we will make forward-looking statements about the outlook for Edison International and its subsidiaries. Actual results could differ materially from current expectations. Important factors that could cause different results are set forth in our SEC filings. Please read these carefully. The presentation includes certain outlook assumptions as well as reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to the nearest gap measure. During the question and answer session, please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. I will now turn the call over to Pedro.

Pedro Medina- Thank you, Sam, and good afternoon, everyone. My comments today focus on three areas, a legislation update, our continued work to make communities safer and more resilient, including wildfire mitigation and recovery efforts, and our broader progress in supporting a reliable, affordable, and clean energy future. Starting with a brief comment on earnings, Edison International's second quarter 2026 core EPS was $1.54, bringing year-to-date core EPS to $2.97. With this strong start to the first half of the year, we are confident in reaffirming our 2026 core EPS guidance and other financial targets, including our 5 to 7 percent core EPS growth over the long term. Aaron will discuss our financial performance in his remarks. On the legislative front, we're actively engaged with the governor's office, legislators, and key stakeholders on both wildfire reform and affordability. There is continued recognition that the current framework is placing increasing pressure on customers, communities, and the cost of financing the investments utilities are making to support California's climate goals. Consistent with the themes we have highlighted, discussions center on aligning risk, supporting affordability, and maintaining access to capital at a reasonable cost. But this is about more than utility finance. Moody's recently highlighted that the implications extend beyond utilities. They note that wildfire-related costs can affect electricity rates, affordability, and California's broader economic competitiveness. S&P has also observed that wildfire-related financial risks increasingly extend beyond investor-owned utilities to public utilities, local governments, insurers, and the communities they serve. That is why establishing a durable, long-term solution matters not only for utilities, but for customers, businesses, and the state's economy as a whole. While we are encouraged by Sacramento leadership's focus on this important topic, we We also recognize that the outcome remains uncertain, so we will be thoughtful about the implications of what the legislature ultimately annexed. SCE's current GRC authorization supports the utilities plan through 2028, and future investments will continue to be evaluated through a disciplined benefit-cost lens. SCE will continue to safely serve customers and maintain its unwavering focus on safety. At the same time, the clarity and quality of the legislative outcome will influence the cost of capital available to support future investment. A durable and financeable framework will help maintain access to lower-cost capital, supporting affordability for customers, and continued infrastructure investment. Conversely, a framework without sufficient predictability will increase Edison's financing costs, making SCE's investments for customers' benefit more expensive. It will also influence how we prioritize and deploy future capital. Turning to operations, SCE took the first step in the next GRC process and filed its Risk Assessment Mitigation Phase, or RAMP, application in May. This outlines the risk mitigations that guide proposed investments across wildfire risk, transmission and distribution reliability, cybersecurity, climate adaptation, and other safety-related measures. For context, the investments identified in past RAMP filings accounted for about a third of the total capital requested in the GRC. As in prior cycles, this process provides a clear safety and risk-driven framework for evaluating capital needs and supports consistent engagement with regulators and stakeholders on safety and risk priorities. A key topic in RAMP is wildfire mitigation. SCE's strategy continues to be comprehensive, as noted on page 3. What is increasingly important is execution and prioritization. SCE is using more advanced wildfire modeling, improved data, and climate-informed analysis to better identify where wildfire consequences could be greatest. SCE has developed an enhanced wildfire risk model that combines multiple data sources to improve how it identifies, prioritizes, and plans safety measures, while accounting for high-impact wildfire events that may not be reflected in historical data. The utility is also broadening the range of risks and failure scenarios it evaluates, reflecting both lessons learned and a more comprehensive understanding of how wildfire risk can develop. That includes looking beyond individual equipment incidents and assessing how multiple conditions and events can combine to influence safety consequences. All this will inform SCE's mitigation investments in the next GRC, which will include continued grid hardening with additional covered conductor and targeted undergrounding during the 2029 to 2032 period. SCE's preliminary estimates in the RAMP application for continued hardening are about 450 miles of covered conductor and approximately 190 miles of targeted undergrounding. To summarize, SCE's approach is increasingly location-specific, consequence-informed, and This builds on the substantial progress SCE has already made hardening its system, including the deployment of about 800 miles of covered conductor and about 90 miles of undergrounding, including all rebuild areas, since January 2025. Importantly, SCE has not experienced a covered conductor failure associated with the risks that that technology is designed to mitigate, combined with millions of inspections and vegetation management activities, as well as expanded situational awareness capabilities, these efforts have materially strengthened the grid and reduced wildfire risk. As a result, SCE is continuing to sharpen how it prioritizes mitigation, not only by looking at where the likelihood of ignition is highest, but also by identifying where the potential consequences to communities could be greatest. The utility is directing mitigation to areas where it can provide the greatest safety benefit, using better data and ongoing learning to adjust as conditions change, all while focusing on affordability for customers. I'd now like to highlight an initiative I'm personally really excited about as we think about Edison's future. We are increasingly combining operating experience with richer data, advanced analytics, and and AI-enabled capabilities to improve how risks are identified, prioritized, and managed. Advances in AI will be among the most important tools available to utilities over the next decade. For SCE, the opportunity extends well beyond individual use cases. AI is an important enabler of the utility's long-term transformation, helping accelerate operational excellence, improve how the grid is planned and operated, and strengthen wildfire mitigation efforts. The focus is on delivering tangible outcomes, better decisions, faster execution, lower costs, and improved customer value. As these capabilities continue to mature, SCE expects them to become an increasingly important driver of safety, reliability, affordability, and overall business performance. Aaron will provide some examples of in-flight activities shortly. Moving on to the Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program, or WRCP, there is continued community interest in the voluntary program. SCE has now extended more than 2,200 offers, totaling over $775 million to over 12,300 community members impacted by the Ethan fire. SCE remains committed to providing information to community members to make informed decisions about what is best for their situation. Taking a broader view on sustainability, we remain committed to supporting the clean energy transition while maintaining the safety, reliability, and affordability that our customers expect. Our 2025 sustainability report has details about our accomplishments, goals, and long-term commitments. Here's a couple examples. SCE delivered at least 60% carbon-free power to customers, over 70% cleaner than the national average. SCE contracted approximately 900 megawatts of energy storage, bringing the total at year end to about 9,200 megawatts owned or under contract, one of the largest storage portfolios in the nation. I'm proud of our team, and I'm proud of the progress that we continue to make toward a clean energy future that benefits everyone. We have and we will always put customers first by strengthening the grid, mitigating wildfire risk and advancing clean energy to support affordability and community resilience for generations to come. With that, I'm very excited to turn it over to Aaron for his first financial report as our new CFO. All right, Aaron.

Thanks, Pedro. Good afternoon, everyone. It's great to be with you today. During my prior roles at Edison, I've had the chance to get to know many of you over the years. As I step into this role, I'm looking forward to continuing those conversations and discussing how we are executing on our strategy, investing in the business, and creating long-term value for all of our stakeholders. My comments today, I will cover our second quarter 2026 results, capital plans, and reaffirmed earnings guidance. EIX reported second quarter earnings per share of $1.54 compared to $0.97 last year. Page six provides the year-over-year quarterly variance analysis. The quarter reflects continued stability in our core operations. Results benefited from regulatory decisions last year, including the GRC decision, as well as the ongoing reduction in interest expense associated with the Woolsey cost recovery. Let me reinforce what Pedro said. With this strong start to the first half of the year, we are confident in reaffirming our 2026 core EPS guidance. We are also reaffirming our long-term core EPS growth rate of 5% to 7%. This outlook is supported by our capital investment plan, constructive regulatory framework, and continued focus on operational excellence. At SCE, results for the quarter were primarily driven by the timing of the GRC decision last year along with continued focus on strong performance across our core operations. We continue to optimize how we approach O&M spending over the course of the year. This allows us to prioritize our work to address operational needs as they arise while maintaining overall cost control. This approach supports both near-term performance and long-term value creation for customers and capital providers. The parent and other core loss was favorable by six cents, primarily driven by the net financing benefits of the preferred stock redemptions we initiated at the end of 2025 and completed in the first quarter of this year. Turning to SCE's capital plan, we continue to see strong investment opportunities across the business, driven by infrastructure replacement, wildfire mitigation, and growing demand for electrification. Our plan is centered around these priorities and supports long-term rate-based growth of about 7%. We remain focused on optimizing these investments in a way that balances system needs with customer affordability. As part of that execution, we are pleased with SCE's progress on its wildfire mitigation investments. Of SCE's roughly 16,800 distribution line miles in high fire risk areas, SCE has successfully hardened about 90 percent, including nearly 7,200 miles of covered conductor. These investments remain a central part of our capital plan and are key to reducing wildfire risk and improving system resilience over time. Moving to financing activities, SCE successfully completed the Woolsey Fire cost recovery securitization earlier this week, generating approximately $2 billion in proceeds. We were pleased with the outcome and the strong demand we saw from capital providers. The proceeds will be used to recover claims and other costs, including retiring related debt, further strengthening our balance sheet. Now let me transition to operational excellence, which benefits customer affordability and long-term performance. This is an area where I spent significant time in my prior roles within the utility and will remain an ongoing focus as we look to enhance both efficiency and execution across the business. We are continuing to simplify processes and expand the use of emerging technologies, including targeted AI applications, in areas where they can improve productivity and quality. Our efforts are focused on high-volume, repeatable work where we see meaningful opportunities to drive productivity and quality. For example, our planning organizations produce on the order of 100,000 project designs each year, and we are deploying tools to help automate initial design generation and the validation of final designs against our standards. We expect these improvements to accelerate design cycles by 20 to 30 percent. Similarly, we process approximately 40,000 permits annually across multiple agencies and systems. We see opportunities to streamline this process, reduce cycle times by approximately 20 percent, and improve throughput. Efforts like these are intended to create additional capacity in the system, support timely execution of our capital program, and improve cost performance over time. Our focus on operational excellence is one of the important ways we deliver consistent financial results. Looking at our year-to-date performance reinforces our confidence in the outlook for the business. We see continued momentum in our capital program, strong regulatory visibility, and stable operational performance, all of which position us well for the rest of the year. Consequently, we are reaffirming our 2026 core EPS guidance range of $5.90 to $6.20. Our priorities remain consistent, delivering on our operational commitments, advancing our capital plan, and maintaining a strong cost framework, all while supporting a safe and reliable . Let me conclude by saying that we are pleased with our results. The business is performing as expected. Our capital plan remains on track, and we are well-positioned to deliver on our financial commitments for 2026 and beyond. That concludes my remarks. Back to Sam.

Michelle, please open the call for questions. As a reminder, we request you to limit yourself to one question and one follow-up so everyone in line has the opportunity to ask questions.

Thank you, sir. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your phone. One moment for the first question, please. Nick Campanello with Barclays, your line is open, sir.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for the time. So I know that everyone's working to get to a financeable solution for the fund, and you acknowledge in your comments that it's a broader state issue, obviously, with a range of stakeholders being impacted. And at the same time, you're kind of saying that future investments will be evaluated and there's some uncertainty. So can you just maybe kind of talk about what's on the table from the utility side and how are you thinking about weighing things like, you know, future securitization of capital or upfront contributions like in last year's legislation? And I know that you're in the early stage of the GRC with visibility, but is there scenarios where we could expect a new plan come third quarter? Thank you.

Yeah. So, Nick, thanks for the question. And maybe reiterating a little bit of what I was sharing earlier, we are in a unique position in that we have a GRC in hand at SCE. It's been approved. You know, we have full visibility, line-of-sight visibility through 2028 on our capital spending. You know from, you know, what we've shared with you all over the past while, that we can execute on the capital plan without any equity needs. We've gone further and extended guidance beyond that rate case to provide some insights on where we think 29 and 30 are headed and committed to guidance that continues the need for growth, capital investment for our customers, and still don't see a need for equity through that 20-30 time period. So particularly as we talk about the 30 to 28, It's just a firm line of sight, and that's already approved by the PUC. Now, we don't know what's going to happen in Sacramento. I appreciate all the efforts of everybody who's engaged there. By the way, I appreciate the efforts of investors who are weighing in and providing your perspectives. It's really important that our policymakers understand what's at stake here and the fact that they have a lot of opportunities to invest capital. And so California, those of us in California are competing with other states and we leave with other global locations. So that's a quick segue tangent to say thank you for those efforts. But we don't know what's going to happen ultimately. Ideally, we would see a comprehensive solution. We may not. There's four weeks left. We haven't seen language yet. We know people are working hard. But this is not just a utility issue. It's a big cross-economy issue. And so there's certainly a possibility that we might not see a complete answer. We might see a partial answer. We might see some work done in 2026 and then some work left for 2027 in the legislature with a new governor and a number of new legislators. So it's really hard to sit here and say, well, without understanding what the answer might be, here's what some of our reaction to that might be. Clearly, if we saw that whatever the answer in 26 is, it was not viewed favorably by the market, and that dramatically changed the inherent cost of our equity, then we would want to be thoughtful about making sure we're not, you know, making negative NPD decisions on the behalf of investors. At the same time, upholding our obligations to safety and reliability, you know, that are set in PUC regulation. So that's going to be the balancing act. That's a lot of words. I don't think I gave you the sort of specific answer you wanted, Nick, but that's where we are today, and when we see what happens as of August 31, then September 1, actually probably later that night of August 31, we'll start working on what the implications are and whether there's any near-term actions that are needed or more impacts on the longer term, and we'll keep you all posted.

I appreciate you running through that. And then just my second question is just the slight change in the 10-Q language around Eaton and that you believe the equipment was associated versus could have been. And I understand that you've previously been saying you're not aware of any other evidence, but can you frame how that disclosure fits into the context of the Wildfire Compensation program and getting greater visibility eventually on what the low end of Eaton could be from a liability standpoint?

Thanks, Nick, for the question. Just briefly, look, we always look at our language and want to make sure that it's as streamlined and straightforward as possible, both for investors and for the community. And so this is a little bit of just streamlining the language, but also recognizing that there's been the passage of time. And as the fuller disclosure acknowledges, our view on this is based on the information we have in hand today and absent additional information. The reality is since last quarter, three more months passed. There are no other – no viable alternatives have appeared. And so we thought that the slight streamlining that we did there was appropriate in terms of just saying that SE's equipment likely was associated with the events. But we also recognize that there are a number of other factors that have impacted ultimately the extent of the Eaton fire and not only the weather, but some of the factors that you saw show up in the cross claims that SE filed against a number of entities. So that's all that the language is about. Going to your question about how does this all dovetail with WRCP and the ability to estimate potential liability, again, we've said for a long time now that liability is probable, given everything here. We have taken accountability. We want to help the community by launching the WRCP. But the numbers I shared with you earlier of over 2,200 offers provided, even the claims numbers themselves, So when you think about over 12,300 individuals represented in those claims, that is still a small number relative to, for example, in litigation, we now have, and I'm looking at Sean Benoit, more GC, I believe we have over 30,000 claims that have been filed. And so we just don't have the volume to do WRCP yet to use that to provide an estimate of the low end of the reasonable range under GAAP principles. Similarly, if you look at subrogation claims, you saw in our disclosures that we repeated this from prior quarters, SE has now entered settlements with two insurers at around 55 cents on the dollar, but that's two subrogation claims that were settled out of what may likely be many. And so there again, we just don't have sufficient volume to yield an estimate. Hopefully I covered all the parts of your question there, Nick.

Thank you for the thoughts.

Thanks. You bet.

Thank you. And the next question comes from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for taking the questions. Maybe just a follow-up on the wildfire side, you know, you continue to work through the claims on the wildfire recovery compensation program. Just curious if you have any view on timing to sort of crossing that billion-dollar threshold and one you might envision sort of making first filings to tap into the Wildfire Fund for reimbursement?

Yeah, Carly, between the subrogation settlements that we've made and the WRCP settlements that we're making, we are crossing that billion-dollar threshold. So we've worked out with the PEA, who's the administrator of the Wildfire Fund, pre-funding mechanisms so that we don't come out of pocket for any of those dollars there, and we're working through with them that process to fund the claims now.

Got it. Okay. Really helpful. Thank you for that. And then maybe just as we think about the potential outcomes in the legislative session and potential action plan on the back of that, could you maybe just talk a little bit about potential options on the table in the event that reform does not move forward this session? And maybe specifically you referenced, obviously, the ramp filing for the next GRC, you know, any potential changes that you might expect to see on the next GRC filing in the event that we don't see reform move forward this session?

Just to maybe reemphasize a point I made in my prepared remarks, right, and so it's responding to Nick's questions here. We don't know what we're going to see, so it's really difficult to say, you know, what the reactions might be. I did acknowledge, though, that if whatever comes out ends up significantly impacting the underlying cost of equity, then, you know, that will have some influence on future investments. Again, there's things that are sacrosanct, right, around safety, reliability. We have obligations under, you know, the PUC code. But where there are places where there might be some more flexibility, that this could be a candidate for rethinking or, you know, factoring that into future capital programs. Erin, anything you'd add or Steve? Yeah, sorry. Carly, I know you all want more specifics, but we're just not there yet. We want to be very thoughtful when we see what we see and work from there.

Got it. No, understood. Thank you very much for the color.

Thanks, Carly.

Thank you. And the next question comes from Richard Sunderland with Truist Securities. Your line is open, sir.

Good afternoon. Thanks for the time today. I just wanted to go back to some of your comments in the script, and you talked about a number of different issues in focus around the legislature, but affordability was certainly part of that. And given there's been attention broadly on affordability called the political backdrop in light of that and then more specific to this legislation how do you think the affordability conversation stands right now you know whether in the context of that legislation or more broadly and you know how is that tone changed over the past few months yeah that's a great question rich and I would start by saying this it is a it's a topic that just colors everything not just in California, but really across the country, right?

You know, we're in a period that, you know, has followed, well, frankly, some of the pressures you saw in COVID and, you know, moving on, you see now, particularly maybe even more so in other parts of the country, you know, significant pressures as you see dramatic growth in energy consumption and that's driving infrastructure needs. You know, I think the industry as a whole is ready to meet those needs, but we recognize region by region, you know, there are pressures that are specific to this. Here in California, when you take a look at affordability, the reality is that energy in many ways is not the main driver. One of the points that we continue to make is that for the average SCE customer, their total cost of energy is in the lowest cost quartile relative to the rest of the country. The challenge here, though, is that housing costs really dominate affordability impacts for the average consumer, along with other costs, right? And so in that environment, I think there's a tendency to go look for any levers that can be pulled. When you then have a discussion going on in Sacramento around an important and very visible topic like wildfire, where, you know, there's utility cost recovery involved, where there's the connection to insurance rates and availability, right? There's just a lot around affordability that gets wrapped, you know, into all this. One of the important points that we then make to legislators is that this is really about customer affordability, because the reality is if there is insufficient action in 2026, There's a strong likelihood that the day after, or a few days after, you know, we could see credit rating downgrades for the investor-owned utilities in California, and potentially for other sectors. I referenced the various Moody's and S&P reports recently that talk about multiple sectors. And so that could be a significant cost impact through the cost of debt that gets passed to to SCE customers if we don't have a framework in the next four weeks that is credit supportive for our utility. And if you look at just the S&P ratings, it's triple B minus for the utility, so there's nowhere to go in investment grade, right? The next step is non-investment grade, which adds a lot of cost. So, you know, affordability is really framed around, you know, the impact of the absence of legislation on customer costs. And hence, I think the great point that the CEA report made around the sense of urgency Aaron, anything you would add there?

I just would say, I think there's a little bit Rich asked about affordability measures, and I just say, as part of the legislative package, we're going to evaluate the totality of the package that comes to us and figure out our response that goes along with it.

Great. I'll leave it there.

Thank you both.

Thanks, Rich. thank you and the next question comes from Greg oral with UBS your line is open sir yeah hi congratulations on the result I was just wondering if if you know there was a way to you know get a sense of of how much of the the impact was timing and how you know how much of the upside is you know in your view sort of normalized yeah Greg I'd say you know two quarters doesn't make a year and we're focused on delivering on our

guidance for the year it's a the quarter is a data point and it's important and having a strong start to the year does give us the opportunity to invest in the business to de-risk future periods and drive efficiency so we're very happy about that but we we reaffirmed our guidance at the 590 to 620 okay got it thank you thanks Greg thank you thank you and the next question comes from Paul Zimbardo with Jeffries your line is open sir all right good afternoon team thanks for taking the question but the first I was guessing just following up

on page of response to the prior question, around the rating agencies and the potential downgrades. I saw you tweak that language also. Is that something that agencies have directly communicated, like something new, or are you just referencing some of their reports where they talk about those scenarios without legislation?

So a couple of things there, Paul. One, on our ratings or the California IOU ratings, just referencing prior reports. But Pedro's prepared remarks did reference separate reports that both Moody's and S&P have issued over, I think, the past month about California, which IOUs are an important part of California, but it talks more broadly about the ramifications of wildfire across the California economy. So not quite sure what you're asking about, but neither one of those was intended to be kind of breaking news of something that hasn't been published by the rating agencies.

Okay, that's what I thought it was. I just wanted to clarify on that. That's helpful. And the other was, again, no one wants to talk about California and everything else, but I saw that you sold TRIO. I think that sold as an energy. Why make that decision now?

Yeah, thanks, Paul. TRIO, we still believe in the underlying business. But, you know, given where we are today, we thought that, you know, with the focus that we have from our laser focus in Edison and with some of the ongoing needs that TRIO may have, there's a different partner who's a better fit as an owner for them. And so the transaction made sense for us. As you know, it's not material, you know, has not been material to EIX throughout. And so you did notice it in our disclosures. And we wish the team very well. It's a great team there. And I think they can continue to be successful.

Okay. Thanks for the time.

Yeah, thanks, Paul.

Thank you. And the next question comes from Aiden Kelly with JPMorgan. Your line is open, sir.

Hey, good afternoon. Appreciate the time today. Thanks. Just wanted to come back to the RAMP application. Could you speak to the pace of mitigation span required across SCE service territories and how this might compare relative to last cycle? I know in the prepared remarks you mentioned about 450 miles of covered conductor, 190 miles of undergrounding, but if you were just to tee it up from a capital perspective, how would you frame the size relative to past applications?

Yeah, so I'd say in the past, GRC request has shown up in the RAMP application. So this time around, it's about $2.5 billion. I'd say maybe slightly more than a third would be the translation. So it ties in, the level of spending that we have here ties in with the $8 to $9 billion of CapEx that we have in our 2029 capital forecast that we share with you in the investor deck.

Got it. Appreciate the color there. And then for the Eaton Fire, just wondering if there's any update on the L.A. District Attorney's investigation. You'd be willing to share any sense on timeline or key milestones to be on the lookout for?

Yeah, no, we don't really have an update there. So you might imagine we're not privy to what their timing might be or the like. Of course, we're ready to cooperate and have cooperated when they've asked for anything from our team. We have said in the past that typically for complex fires, you might see a report out in 12 to 18 months. Clearly, it's been more than 18 months now, but we don't really have an insight on when the report might come out.

Got it. Makes sense. Appreciate the time. We'll wait for there.

You bet. Take care.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Ryan Levine. What city? Your line is open, sir.

Good afternoon. Hi. Two questions. One, to the extent you're able to comment, how's the ramp of education efforts in Sacramento compared to the last year on the wildfire bill? Is this much broader in terms of given the complexity of the bill, or any color you could share more broadly around the process?

It's a good question, Ryan. I would say this, certainly, you know, we're very focused on that education effort. When you talk about the last time, I'm kind of tempted just a little tongue-in-cheek to ask which last time. So do you mean 254? Do you mean 1054? Do you mean the effort that led to 901? And so, you know, if you don't mind, I'm actually taking a little broader aperture. I mean, I go back to 17 and 18, right? We ended up with SB 901 was in 2018. That was a real ramp-up, right, because it was a new topic in many ways for all of us, for the legislature, for the utilities, and we were really focused on helping the state develop a brand-new framework from whole cloth. I would say 254 was different because last year, right, was different in the sense that we had 1054, and so the question was, what needs improvement? How do you build from that? And you saw that with 254, you know, we were all very engaged, and the answer from the legislature was that they themselves needed more education which they then passed to the CEA to produce a report which you know I think we've heard you say before I thought it was an excellent report right so the report came out in April I tell you this year what's different is that we all are benefiting from having the basis of that report as the platform for the discussions and so that's I think that's that's helpful you know that said a lot of legislators you You know, while they were there for the 254 cycle, they may not have been for 1054 or 901, right? So you still have a range of starting points for individual policymakers. I feel for them. I think they have, you know, some of the hardest jobs in the state because, you know, listen, I think my job is hard, and I get to focus on one sector. They're focusing on every sector across the world's fourth largest economy.

So I think having the CEA report as a platform to start has been helpful to all of them and And then one more specific question around the RAMP process, how does the ongoing undergrounding cost-benefit analysis impact the decision around how much covered conductors or undergrounding you're planning to doing and to the extent that there's any upside to the 190-mile undergrounding plan that you filed in your RAMP?

Is that Steve Powell, Chip and Anderson?

Hey, Ryan. So every time we go through the ramp, you know, we're looking at the latest, I'll say, approved as well as our own risk frameworks and how that translates into the benefit-cost ratios. You know, at a lot of points, we're looking at finding the right portfolio that is, you know, above a 1.0 benefit cost, but we're looking project by project as well. So the risk models have been refined to bring in the latest intel that we have on the level of risk. Given everything we've learned in the past, we've combined a number of models to better assess the actual risk there. When it comes to undergrounding, you know, we're looking at certainly the cost of that undergrounding, and it varies segment by segment, and we use those estimates combined with the level of risk. And so there, we'll calculate the benefit costs. We're going to do projects that are above one. We'll then compare them on covered conductor versus just undergrounding. We'll look at other factors like the egress, the terrain, and other pieces to decide if where undergrounding is going to be the right solution. It has to be feasible as well. That's one of the constraints around it that also plays into cost. So based on what was in the ramp, you know, we put in about 190 miles of undergrounding in sort of a base scenario, but we'll continue to evaluate if there's other places that we need to do it, frankly, to reduce things like public safety power shutoffs and other factors. So the ramp is a good starting point. We put in our BCR analysis. We'll get feedback in the process before we actually file our general rate case. So we'll decide what actually goes into our general rate case as we get closer next year.

Great. Thanks for the time.

Take care, Ryan. Thank you. And that was our last question. I will now turn the call back over to Mr. Sam Remraj.

Thanks, everyone, for joining us. This concludes the conference call. Have a good rest of the day. You may now disconnect.

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. You may go ahead and disconnect at this time and have a great rest of your day.