Good afternoon and welcome to the Edison International 4th Quarter 2025 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. Today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. 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-in-Chief Executive Officer Pedro Pizarro and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigotti. 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-K, prepared remarks from Pedro and Maria, and the teleconference presentation. Tomorrow, we will distribute our regular business update presentation. During this call, we'll make forward-looking statements about the outlook for Edison International and its subsidiaries, 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.

Oh, thanks a lot, Sam, and good afternoon, everyone. Edison International's 2025 core earnings per share of $6.55 was above our guidance range. That extends our two-decade track record of meeting or exceeding annual EPS guidance. Importantly, this also marks the successful delivery of the long-term core EPS growth target that we established in 2021. Our performance reflects disciplined execution across the enterprise and continued focus on cost management, operational performance, and capital efficiency. Maria will provide more details in her remarks. Today, I'll focus on three themes, our commitments to customers, communities, and investors, our strength in regulatory visibility, and our confidence in multi-year plan. Starting with the first theme, we are committed to the customers and communities who count on safe, reliable, and increasingly clean energy. Safety remains our top value and SCE continues to carry out extensive work to strengthen the electric system and reduce wildfire risk. We are proud that in the Q4 2025 Residential Customer Engagement Survey by Escalant, SCE had the highest absolute brand trust score among the large California investor-owned utilities. Customers and public trust remain the core of SCE's mission. The utility has now installed more than 7,000 miles of covered conductor in high-fire risk areas, representing over 90 percent of its planned grid-hardening effort. This work continues to play a critical role in reducing ignition risk and strengthening reliability for the communities we serve. SCE now has fast-curved settings on 93% of its distribution circuits in high fire risk areas, a prime example of how it is using technology to reduce risk by detecting and addressing faults even more quickly. All of this work demonstrates SC's ongoing wildfire risk reduction leadership. This progress benefits not just the utility's own customers and communities who fund this critical work, but also many peers across the nation. Safety and affordability remain at the core of our commitment to customers. Earlier this year, SCE announced a 2.3% rate decrease for residential customers and a 5.3% decrease for small and medium-sized business customers. This is starting from a place of having the lowest system average rate by a margin of 20% among California's major investor and utilities. SCE has invested more than $12 billion for customer safety and reliability over the last two years. Currently, a typical non-care residential customer pays about $188 per month, which is modestly higher than the $180 paid two years ago. This reflects the utility's disciplined cost management to support customer affordability. We will continue to work to keep rates affordable for customers. We are also committed to the investors whose capital makes it possible to build the infrastructure that is essential to deliver safe, reliable, affordable electricity. Our commitment begins with a regulatory framework that enables SCE to consistently earn its authorized returns, which supports a strong investment-grade balance sheet and lower financing costs for customers. Our capital contributors, including pension funds, mutual funds, and insurers, depend on stable, transparent long-term performance. Credit rating agencies continue to evaluate California-specific risk factors, underscoring the importance of maintaining a durable and predictable regulatory environment that provides confidence for long-term investment and protects customers from higher costs. To that end, we are actively engaging with policymakers and state leaders to reinforce the value of a stable framework, And the SB254 process will be a central venue in 2026 for strengthening the regulatory durability that supports both capital contributors and customers. SCE remains committed to resolving wildfire-related claims fairly, prudently, and responsibly. To date, more than 2,300 claims have been submitted under the Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program, with associated payments underway. way. As always, we are guided by our commitment to transparency, accountability, and customer trust. Building upon this, today, SCE announced enhancements to the program, providing stronger support for displaced renters and increasing coverage for legal expenses. Regarding the Eaton Fire, as you see on page four, the investigations remain ongoing. To recap our prior statements, while SCE has not conclusively determined that its equipment caused the ignition of the Eaton fire, a viable explanation is that the energized idle SCE transmission facility in the preliminary area of origin was associated with the ignition of the fire, and SCE is not aware of evidence pointing to another possible source of ignition. Absent additional evidence, SCE believes that it is likely that its equipment could have been associated with the ignition of the Eaton Fire. Given the complexities associated with estimating damages, we currently are unable to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses. Nonetheless, based on the information we have reviewed thus far, we remain confident that SCE will be able to make a good faith showing that its conduct with respect to its transmission facilities in the Eaton Canyon area was consistent with actions of a reasonable utility. The company continues to prioritize a recovery of impacted community members. Edison International is donating $2 million to the Pasadena Community Foundation to help meet the needs of community members in the Altadena area recovering from the Eaton fire. My second theme today is our strength in regulatory visibility given 2025 was a significant regulatory year for SCE, which you see on page 5. With the GRC, cost of capital proceeding, TKM and Woolsey settlement agreements, and other wildfire proceedings concluded, SCE enters 2026 with substantially greater clarity into capital plans, revenue requirement, and operational priorities, not only for the GRC period, but into the next decade. Our team members across Edison International and SCE continue to demonstrate their ability to execute through complexity, respond to the evolving conditions, and stay focused on long-term goals. Turning to the legislative front, the upcoming session will be pivotal for shaping the next phase of California's energy and resiliency policy. A central focus this year is the SB-254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study, being authored by the California Earthquake Authority, and subsequent legislation. Our focus remains on a whole-of-society solution to mitigate and respond to catastrophic wildfires that enhances public safety, improves affordability, and supports predictable long-term investment in a clean, reliable energy system for California. In December, SCE and the other IOUs jointly submitted white papers, along with dozens of other stakeholders, providing input into the CEA's process. We continue to be actively engaged with relevant stakeholders, the governor's office, and legislative leaders about the potential for enhancements to the policy framework. Moving on to my third theme today, our confidence in our multi-year financial outlook. We are introducing core EPS guidance for 2026 and 2027, reaffirming our 2028 outlook, and extending our expected core EPS growth rate target through 2030. Maintaining the 2028 target while extending the horizon underscores the growing clarity and stability in our multi-year plan, supported by a constructive regulatory foundation, and a robust pipeline of necessary investments of the utility. With an attractive dividend yield of approximately 5% and a long-term core EPS growth target of 5% to 7%, EIX shares offer a compelling case for total shareholder returns of 10% to 12%. This combination of income and growth reflects the strength of our regulated business model and our commitment to delivering sustainable value for customers and capital providers. Let me close where I began, with commitment. Our commitment to communities and customers, and to the capital contributors whose support makes our work possible. Our commitment to strengthening the grid, enhancing safety, improving reliability, and supporting affordability. Our commitment to clarity and transparency as we move into a period of greater regulatory stability. And our commitment to deliver on the objectives we have shared with you today. We have the right strategy, the right plan, and the right team in place, and we are confident in our ability to execute that plan through 2030. With that, Maria, let me turn it over to you.

Thanks, Pedro. In my comments today, I will discuss fourth quarter and full-year financial results, our focus areas for 2026, provide an update on our refreshed capital, rate-based, and EPS growth guidance, and discuss other financial topics. For the fourth quarter, EIX reported core EPS of $1.86. Full year 2025 core EPS of $6.55 exceeded the high ends of our EPS guidance range. Pages 6 and 7 provide the year-over-year variance analysis. I would like to note two items embedded in our results. First, fourth quarter core EPS includes $0.06 of costs attributed to the preferred stock tender offers and redemption at EIX and SCE completed in December. Second, we recorded a 46 cent true-up following the final decision in the Woolsey cost recovery proceeding. Excluding the Woolsey true-up, EIX's full year 2025 core EPS still exceeded the midpoint of our guidance. I will echo Pedro's comments that this marks the successful delivery of the long-term core EPS target we established for 2021 through 2025. Over that period, we successfully managed a number of unforeseen headwinds. Record inflation, the first rising interest rate environment in over 15 years, growing wildfire claims-related debt, several changes to SCE's authorized cost of capital, and additional cost pressures. Yet, we delivered on our commitment. Today, we are reaffirming our 2028 guidance and extending our 5% to 7% EPS growth target to 2030. You should share this leadership team's confidence that we will continue to deliver on these commitments and build on your trust. You can see on page 8 that delivering strong financial results was just one accomplishment in another year of strong execution in 2025. Page 9 summarizes the key management focus areas for 2026. SCE continues to execute its wildfire mitigation plan and its focus on operational excellence to reduce costs for customers. The utility also plans to execute on its $7 billion capital plan for the year to meet customers' needs. As Pedro mentioned, the legislative process will be a major focus for the year. In the regulatory area, the utility will be driving toward a final decision on its next-gen ERP program and filing an application for its Advanced Metering Infrastructure, or AMI 2.0, program. Both of these are large programs that provide significant long-term customer benefits. Lastly, we look forward to another year of delivering on our annual core EPS guidance and executing efficient financings across the enterprise. Let's turn to SCE's updated capital and rate-based forecast, shown on pages 10 and 11. The extended capital plan of $38 to $41 billion from 2026 through 2030 continues the company's essential work in load-growth-driven programs, infrastructure replacement, and wildfire mitigation. Additionally, our updated forecast now includes nearly $1.5 billion of capital expenditures through 2030 from SCE's upcoming AMI 2.0 application. The total request will exceed $3 billion with spending expected to continue through 2033. We forecast a step up in our capital deployment opportunities to as high as $9 billion per year in the next GRC cycle. This is driven by the essential investments in the grid to meet customer needs and support California's clean energy objectives. The resulting projected rate-based growth is approximately 7% from 2025 to 2030. Page 12 shows our 2026 and 2027 core EPS guidance. We have also provided modeling considerations on page 15. Our core EPS guidance for 2026 is $5.90 to $6.20, and for 2027, it is $6.25 to $6.65. As you're aware, Edison's core EPS over the years has not been linear. Let me provide some additional insight into our outlook and trajectory toward achieving our longer-term targets. You will see that 2026 core EPS represents growth of about 3.5% at the midpoint compared to the $5.84 baseline. We have provided a bridge on page 13 to help you understand the puts and takes. This muted growth is driven by three items which amount to $0.25. First, SCE has fewer regulatory decisions in 2026 than last year. Therefore, the associated earnings contribution from recognizing prior year earnings is about $0.11 lower. Second, asset mix differences versus the original GRC forecast creates appreciation and property tax-related variances of about seven cents. Third, financing-related variances, tax law changes, and other items reduce core EPS by approximately seven cents. The drivers behind the 25-cent impact are baked into 2026 and thus are not expected to result in negative variances in later periods. Consequently, we expect EPS growth in 2027 to be at the high end of our 5% to 7% range. This is supported by SCE's 7% rate-based growth, and we do not expect any large, discrete variances from the rest of SCE's operations. Turning to page 16, we are extending our 5% to 7% EPS growth target to 2030. We are also reaffirming our 2028 guidance, and both of these are measured from the $5.84 baseline for 2025. On the financing front, I want to emphasize that we project no equity needs for the next five years through 2030. Our balance sheet remains strong, and we continue to finance the business efficiently within our 15% to 17% FFO to debt framework. Last month, the utility filed its Woolsey securitization application with the CPUC. Once approved, the utility will securitize about $2 billion in costs associated with the approved Woolsey settlement agreement. SCE's proposed schedule would allow for this transaction to close in mid-2026. As we have shared before, proceeds from this transaction would be used to offset normal course debt issuances at SCE, rather than paying down specific issuances. I will conclude by echoing Pedro's earlier comments about commitment and trust. Deploying capital for the resilience, reliability, and readiness of the grid helps deliver on our commitments to customers and maintain their trust. We are committed to collaborating with stakeholders to advance a clear, durable, and predictable framework. And to our capital contributors, you have seen us deliver consistently on our annual and long-term commitments to earn your trust. This leadership team remains committed and confident in continuing to do just that going forward. That concludes my remarks. Back to you, 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. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your phone. One moment, please, for the first question. Our first caller is Nick Campanella with Barclays. Your line is open, sir.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. So I guess just on the Eaton losses, I think you disclosed that you recorded about $1.1 billion of losses so far just from the settlements under the Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. And I guess just as you're continuing to get more visibility on the total liability, like when do you think you would potentially have the low end of losses for the total event? And, you know, what is kind of the complicating factor at this point, if you could kind of maybe expand on that at all?

Thanks, Nick, for the question. I'll start on this one. Let me reinforce some numbers for perspective. I think I mentioned that SC has had over 2,300 claims submitted so far. There are 18,000 properties that are eligible for the program. You might have multiple claimants per property, for example, if you have a multiple tenant kind of property. So we could certainly see a few tens of thousands of claims ultimately if everybody were to participate in the program. And so in that context, 2,300 claim applications that were now, I think I checked this morning, SC has now crossed the 590 offer mark. That's a really good, strong start. Those are good numbers for just three months into the program, but it's just a minuscule number compared to the potential pool here. And so in terms of when we would be able to estimate, We really don't have an estimate for that yet because it really depends on the pace of this.

And, Nick, maybe just a clarification. You referenced a billion or so that we've recorded. That's a combination of what we've paid under the WRCP program, which Pedro just described. That is a very minor part of the total. The rest of it is associated with segregation claim settlements that the company has entered into. So it's both of those things.

Thanks for the clarification, Maria. we've announced a couple of subrogation settlements so far. So that's why I'd say on the insurance side, the subrogation side, similarly, there's been two settlements at around an average of 55 cents on the dollar, but there's many more insurance companies than that. So we really can't estimate when we might have enough critical volume to be able to have even a low end of the estimable range with the confidence required by GAP.

Okay, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. And then just maybe expanding on the comments about, you know, the 5% to 7% and being at the high end in 27. I know your rate-based growth is 7% and you're not issuing any equity, which is great, but I assume you do have some financing drag. Just what are kind of the considerations and non-linearity to think about for 28 and 29, and do you kind of plan to be at the high end in those years in the 5 to 7 range, or are there just further considerations there? Thank you.

Thanks, Nick. So you can see sort of through the 28 period, again, 2026, some muted growth due to variances that are now in the year and will not create variances on a go-forward basis, which then does mean that we're at the high end of the range for the next couple of years. We don't really see any large discrete activities that are driving things in one direction or the other over the course of those years. It's really rate-based growth. Obviously, you know, we're still going to continue to see things like AFEGC come through. We're going to continue to manage the business across all the different elements and areas, similar to what we've done in the past. Then as you get out to 29 and 30, again, right back down to rate-based growth. I mean, that is really the driver here, and you can see the potential step up in 29 and 30 as we file for a new general rate case decision. That will be filed actually in May of 2027, so we're closing in on that now.

Okay.

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

Thanks so much for taking the questions. Maybe just on some of the updates on the capital plan through 2030.

On the AMI 2.0 application, just once you file that, what do you anticipate to be the timing on clarity of approvals and then just how does that interplay with the timing of the capital dollars that are embedded in the plan through 2030 sure so we'll be filing you know later next few months likely and we'll ask for a typical schedule which would get us a decision hopefully in about 18 months or so the capital that's embedded in the forecast right now the total request will be in the neighborhood of three billion dollars about a billion and a half is in the period that we have portrayed here through 2030, with another billion and a half that would get spent post that, by and large, through 2033. So that's sort of the pace of what we're anticipating.

Great. That's super helpful. And then maybe just on the SB254 processes, getting closer to the April 1st CEA report deadline, any updates that you'd call out in terms of somatics that are coming out of the updates we've gotten so far, and just how you feel we're progressing into that deadline and what that could mean for, you know, timing of getting some clarity on legislation.

Yeah, thanks, Carly. I'd say, you know, the process is certainly underway. It's good to see robust participation from so many stakeholders across the economy. The legislature set this up. They set it up to be truly a cross-economy sort of exercise. And so that engagement is important. It's been important to see the approach that the CEA is taking in marshalling the process, making sure that there's good participation, good engagement, good transparency into the various positions that different parties are bringing in. It's early in the process, so really not able to comment on specific solutions or potential solutions yet. But seeing the recognition that this is an economy-wide issue that really needs to touch all sectors, everything from upstream, securing the buildings, hardening the buildings, decreasing the risk of ignition, decreasing the risk of spread and of consequence, focusing as well on shoring up the insurance market, focusing on having ultimately solutions that if, heaven forbid, there's another catastrophic fire in the state, that there's a way to equitably socialize that impact across the economy. Those are all constructive themes that keep coming up. I would also point to the report that the CPUC issued a couple of weeks ago. We thought that that was very constructive and acknowledged that central theme that ultimately utilities and therefore their customers and shareholders simply cannot continue to be the insurers of last resort, the bearers of all of this risk that even if you have a catastrophe that starts with a utility ignition, the catastrophe has so many other components, right? The tragedy can include weather conditions, can include challenges in mitigating the fire, can include, you know, issues that led to, you know, faster spread. And so recognizing those kind of things is really important, and it was good to see that, you know, show up in the CPUC's conclusions. Maria, Mary, anything to do with that?

Maybe just one other thing, Carly, and it's really not an ad. It's just an underscoring. Pedro talked about sort of the focus on safety and risk reduction, on timely and fair recovery for the people who are impacted by an event. But also it's very important, and part of the conversation that we're having, is that you need a predictable framework that supports access to well-priced capital. Because at the end of the day, it's about affordability for customers. And so having that conversation and making sure that we are emphasizing that is a really important part of what the IOUs are doing.

Got it. Really helpful. Thank you for all those comments. Yeah. Thanks, Carly.

Thank you. And the next question comes from Paul Zimbardo with Jeffries. Your line is open, sir.

Good afternoon, team. Thanks for taking the question. The first one I had was just to follow up on Nick's question a little bit. If I have the math right, and it's late in the day so I might not, but if I have the math right, it looks like about an 8% rate-based growth from that 28 to 2030. So I don't know if there's any other factors we should be considering because kind of your rate-based growth is translating into the net income and earnings growth. But should we think about a potential faster trajectory in the back end of that plan from 2028 to 2030?

Paul, I think you know how we approach this. We definitely run a lot of different scenarios. We plan conservatively. Looking at all various outcomes and how they play together allows us to have confidence in the 5% to 7%. I would focus on that now. I think we're not seeing anything other than rate-based growth as we move out in time. we're always going to be doing things to help benefit the growth and also benefit affordability. So we'll be focusing on efficient financings. We'll be focusing on, over time, further operational excellence efforts. But I think that's how I really view the entire five-year period. It's based on a lot of scenarios, a lot of scenario planning, a lot of scenario analysis, and some conservative evaluations.

Okay. That is clear. And then I do want to follow up a little bit on the 2026 drivers and the variances you mentioned. I understand on the regulatory true-up, but could you elaborate a little bit on why we shouldn't think about the depreciation and kind of those tax other items that $0.14 is recurring? That would be helpful.

So what they are are variances in this year, like relative to 25, but now that they're built in, they're just going to, you know, they continue on a go-forward basis, but they won't actually be affecting or diminishing the growth year over year. So maybe that's a clarification that might be helpful. You know, what are they with more specificity? As you get into any rate case cycle, and I know we've chatted about this in the past, you know, you can start to deploy assets or invest in assets at a slightly different pace or in slightly different buckets than are in the GRC authorized revenue requirement. So you get those depreciation and then also property tax-related variances. Again, built in now, so on a go-forward basis, they don't affect the year-over-year trajectory. Tax and financing, there were some tax law changes last year around charitable contributions. There's a couple of pennies around that. And then because year-over-year we have more wildfire debt outstanding, you see just a variance in the financing cost, again, because the average amount outstanding changes as we continue to pay claims back in 2025. Again, now built in, we also have a lot of visibility into that with the settlements behind us, so not a variance going forward, which brings you back to rate-based growth as the driver for our earnings growth.

Okay. Very comprehensive, and thank you for giving the 2027 as well. Thanks a lot, team.

Thanks, Paul. Thank you. And the next question comes from Ryan Levine with City. your line is open. Hello, Ryan.

Hi, how are you? As the compensation program continues to execute, would you look to continue to tweak the program to achieve your objectives and any color you could share around the rationale for the recently announced changes?

I had a little hard time picking up.

Yes, so Ryan, we did, Pedro did mention earlier some small changes or some changes we're making in the program. I think all of that ties to the information gathering and the community feedback we continue to get. But I think, Majo, if you want to allow Yeah, I'm sorry, Ryan.

It was just a little bit of static when you were asking the question, so I had a hard time picking it up. Yeah, so we made a couple of modifications to the WRCP program. One is to provide some added support for tenants. The original protocol provided three months of compensation at the actual rent level that the tenants were paying prior to the event. But as we dug into this more and got more feedback, it became clear that there was at least some number of tenants in Altadena who perhaps had been longer-term tenants and were continuing to pay rents that were under market levels. So now we're making an adjustment to use the calculator, the engine that we have to, you know, calculate or estimate fair market value for rent and allowing tenants to recover three months of either the higher of their actual rent payments or that fair market value rent. The second adjustment we made was you might recall that the program provided support for attorney fees. It's a voluntary program. You can participate without an attorney, but if claimants choose to use an attorney, then the program provided 10% of net damages as an increment to help cover attorney fees. We were also hoping that the attorney community would recognize that this program represents a fairly straightforward approach and hopefully less effort for them and perhaps they could provide lower fees for clients. But as we got feedback from the clients themselves, from the claimants themselves, we decided it was appropriate to increase what we're providing for legal fees to 20% from the 10% of net damages. Both of these changes will be applied retroactively as well. So we have claimants who have already received their compensation or, you know, have already received an offer. We'll be making the adjustment for them automatically and won't require effort on their part.

And, Ryan, I think, you know, you asked about would we continue to tweak to meet our objectives. The objective here is to have fair, timely compensation, which also helps preserve the funds in the wildfire funds, you know, reducing interest costs, reducing escalation, et cetera. The objective, that is the objective. And then in terms of additional changes, we really are trying to respond to the community, but we think we've gotten a lot of feedback at this point.

Thank you. I think our advisors on this also, you know, have highlighted the importance of having a stable, understandable program. So, you know, I don't think it would be helpful to have a constant stream of changes either.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ryan.

Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Aiden Kelly with JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Hey, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Just wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on the L.A. District Attorney's investigation to determine whether criminal violations occurred. I noticed a new 10K disclosure here, so I'd appreciate any caller on how you think about the scope of this investigation. Any thoughts on the potential magnitude?

Yeah, thanks for the question. And as you might imagine, you know, investigations, I think, are often to be expected when you have events of the scale of the Eaton fire. We don't have a lot of visibility into timing, et cetera. Certainly our team will be collaborating with the attorney's office as they ask for any steps. But importantly, as we continue our own investigation, and I think as I said earlier, as we look at the events here, we continue to be confident that SCE will be able to make a good face showing that its actions were those of a reasonable utility operator. And so that gives us a lot of comfort as we look at whether it's that investigation you mentioned or just the broader investigations into the event and looking ahead to ultimately looking for the CPUC to affirm SCE's prudency in the future.

Understood. Thanks for the color there. And just one last one for me. Can you confirm whether the out-of-service transmission tower in Eaton was grounded or not?

We have shared before that that transmission line, the idle line, was grounded at both ends. We have also shared that we had photographic evidence at the far end of the line that showed some anomalies and potential issues with that grounding. And we've been transparent about all of this from early on. We have also shared that as you take a look at practices across the utility industry, there really is no common practice or standard for grounding of idle lines. In fact, we've identified at least a couple of utilities that choose not to ground idle lines at all in an abundance of caution and in the spirit of continuous improvement, and it's one of our values as a company. As we continue to learn or hypothesize, too, about what may or may not have happened here, you might also recall that probably it was a month or two after the event, we also disclosed publicly that we were going, in fact, we already did this, change SC's protocols and policies to now require the grounding of idle lines at not only the endpoints, but for longer lines at least every two miles. And that could be shorter, you know, depending on the particular topography, you know, of any line. It's probably more than you wanted on idle lines there, but I'm sure you have the complete picture.

Oh, I appreciate it, appreciate it, thank you, I'll leave it there, thanks. Thanks, Aiden.

Thank you, and that was our last question. I will now turn the call back over to Sam Remraj.

Thank you 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 now disconnect at this time, and have a good rest of your day.