Edison International (EIX) — Q1 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

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 Maria Rigatti. 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, prepared remarks from Pedro and Maria, 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 GAAP 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.

Thank you, Sam, and good afternoon everyone. It has only been three months since the devastating wildfires, and we at Edison continue to keep those affected in our thoughts. We are coordinating closely with state and county leaders and the communities of Altadena and Malibu to rebuild the wildfire-impacted areas stronger than ever. I will provide more updates shortly after discussing our earnings highlights. Today, Edison International announced core earnings per share of $1.37, up from $1.13 a year ago. However, this year-over-year comparison has limited significance because SCE is still awaiting a decision in its 2025 General Rate Case. SCE has recognized revenue from CPUC activities for both the first quarter of 2024 and 2025 based mainly on the 2024 authorized base revenue requirements, while the 2025 figures have been adjusted for the lower authorized CPUC ROE. Looking forward, we are confident in our ability to meet our 2025 EPS guidance and deliver a 5 to 7% core EPS CAGR through 2028. Maria will cover our financial performance in her comments. We recently provided Governor Newsom with SCE’s initial comprehensive plan to rebuild the electrical distribution infrastructure in the Palisades and Eaton Fire areas. This plan includes undergrounding over 150 circuit miles, mostly all distribution power lines in High Fire Risk Areas within the burn scars of affected communities. This grid hardening will enhance reliability and make our electrical distribution infrastructure more resilient to high winds and other severe weather events, better protecting our communities. Regarding the Eaton Fire, SCE’s investigation is ongoing. Since our last update, the utility has completed additional inspections of electrical equipment in Eaton Canyon, working closely with stakeholders. Analysis of images, videos, and equipment continues. The utility has also begun removing portions of idle facilities in Eaton Canyon for further expert review. While SCE has not definitively linked its equipment to the ignition of the Eaton Fire, there is also no evidence clearly identifying another source of ignition. Without additional evidence, SCE believes its equipment could be associated with the fire's ignition. Consequently, pending litigation could lead to material losses for EIX and SCE in connection with the Eaton Fire. We remain committed to transparency throughout this process. With significant media attention on the Eaton Fire, we have observed many instances of misrepresented facts. To clarify these errors, we have launched a new page on our website titled Edison for the Record, which I encourage you to visit. I want to stress that we still believe SCE operates its electric system reasonably. If it's determined that SCE’s transmission equipment was involved in starting the Eaton Fire, based on our current review, we trust SCE can demonstrate that its conduct concerning its transmission facilities in the Eaton Canyon area aligns with what is expected from a reasonable utility. On the legislative front, we continue working with legislators and the Governor’s office to ensure the safety of our communities and enhance California’s AB 1054 regulatory framework. Our discussions have shown that stakeholders recognize the importance of addressing these issues and the role investor-owned utilities play in California's growth and economic development. We are confident policymakers are focusing on strengthening and rebuilding trust in California’s wildfire framework. On the regulatory side, I am pleased to report that SCE has reached significant milestones this year. The CPUC’s unanimous approval of the TKM settlement agreement indicates a constructive regulatory environment in California. Last month, the ALJ issued a scoping memo for the Woolsey cost recovery, adopting the schedule proposed by SCE and intervenors. The forthcoming major filings include intervenor testimony in early June and rebuttal testimony by mid-July, with a motion for settlement consideration or joint statements due in mid-August. As previously mentioned, SCE is open to settlement discussions if a fair outcome benefiting customers and shareholders can be reached. We will keep you updated as the utility makes progress toward resolution in this matter. Maria will highlight additional milestones in her remarks. For SCE’s 2025 General Rate Case, the ALJ has recently extended the statutory deadline, which is typical based on previous calendars. Nevertheless, we remain optimistic about seeing a proposed decision in the first half of the year, with a final decision potentially 30 days later. The GRC will support SCE’s commitment to delivering reliable, resilient electric service that meets customer needs. The utility’s substantial investment plan focuses on restoring a traditional level of infrastructure replacement needed for system reliability and ongoing wildfire mitigation programs that ensure public safety. SCE’s full GRC request includes approximately $1.4 billion in annual capital spending for wildfire mitigation, which involves hardening an additional 1,800 miles of the utility’s overhead distribution infrastructure. SCE will submit its 2026 Wildfire Mitigation Plan in May, reflecting our priorities of risk mitigation, public safety, and affordability. This plan will continue the deployment of covered conductor and targeted undergrounding. The utility is eager to implement its integrated wildfire mitigation strategy, which prioritizes industry-leading practices such as grid hardening, asset inspections, and vegetation management. Before I hand it over to Maria, I want to express gratitude to some special members of our team. Last week, Vanessa Chang retired from our Board of Directors. We celebrate her 18 years of dedicated service and leadership on the Board. I also want to acknowledge our former general counsel, Adam Umanoff, who will retire in July. Adam has been an outstanding general counsel, a leader who is also an expert in legal matters. He has been a loyal friend to many within our organization and stands out to me. On behalf of our board and management team, we thank Adam for his great service. At the same time, I am pleased to welcome Chonda Nwamu, who has joined us this month as our new general counsel. Chonda brings significant expertise in our sector and a strong understanding of California's legal, political, and regulatory landscapes. We are excited to have Chonda on board and look forward to her leadership and collaboration. Now, Maria, I will pass it to you for the financial report.

Thanks, Pedro, and I echo the appreciation for Adam and Vanessa and welcome Chonda. Now my comments today will cover first quarter 2025 results, provide additional insight into key regulatory proceedings, and update you on other financial topics. Starting with the first quarter, EIX reported core EPS of $1.37. Page 4 provides the year-over-year quarterly variance analysis. As Pedro mentioned, the year-over-year comparison is not particularly meaningful because SCE has not received a final decision in its 2025 General Rate Case. SCE is booking revenues at 2024 authorized levels, adjusted for the change in ROE and will record a true-up when it receives a final decision. First quarter core EPS includes about $0.30 associated with the TKM settlement approval, partially offset by higher interest expense at EIX Parent and others. On the regulatory front, I want to echo Pedro’s comment on SCE making significant progress across numerous proceedings. Let me highlight a few. First, SCE recently reached a settlement agreement with intervenors in its WMCE proceeding related to wildfire mitigation and restoration. The settlement, which is awaiting CPUC approval, would authorize 100% of the capital expenditures along with 96% of the O&M. It would also contribute about $0.10 per share of true-up earnings and about $700 million of rate base, both of which are embedded in our 2025 guidance. Second, on SCE’s 2026 cost of capital application, summarized on page 5, SCE requested an ROE of 11.75% and proposed updating the embedded costs of debt and preferred equity. The request also recommends the continuation of the cost of capital mechanism and to reset the benchmark. The utility made a strong case for its ROE based on risks that differentiate California utilities from their peers in other jurisdictions. SCE’s proposed schedule calls for a PD in November, which would allow for a final decision by year-end. Historically, the CPUC has issued timely decisions on cost of capital applications. Third, SCE filed its NextGen ERP application with the CPUC, seeking total capital investment of about $1.1 billion. The utility expects this program will provide substantial benefits to customers and enable business improvements. As a reminder, this program is not currently embedded in our capital and rate base projections. Lastly, with the $1.6 billion TKM cost recovery settlement now approved, within the next few weeks, SCE will file an application requesting authorization to issue securitized bonds. Moving to SCE's GRC, the utility's request provides the foundation for advancing critical customer objectives—reliability, resiliency, and readiness—as well as supporting our growth outlook through 2028. As you can see on page 6, we will refresh our guidance following a GRC final decision. We wanted to be proactive in sharing with you that six weeks after a final decision, we will provide our updated capital and rate base projections, 2025 Core EPS range, long-term Core EPS growth, and financing plan. Turning to SCE’s capital expenditure and rate base forecasts, shown on pages 7 and 8, the utility continues to execute against a capital plan that targets key programs while maintaining flexibility in later years to adapt to what is ultimately authorized in the GRC. As I highlighted in comments going into 2025, we continue to see substantial additional capital opportunities that are incremental to the plan. This includes investments to enhance our distribution system and more than $2 billion of FERC transmission spending. In addition, SCE plans to file an application for its advanced metering infrastructure program to request funding to replace its smart meter fleet, the majority of which were installed more than a decade ago. This program will address technology obsolescence and offers a chance to incorporate future capabilities that benefit customers. The program is expected to provide insights into energy usage and enable smarter energy management, thereby enhancing grid efficiency. Turning to financing activities, I will highlight two recent transactions. In March, EIX issued $550 million of senior notes, which successfully addresses our parent debt needs for 2025. Additionally, SCE issued $1.5 billion of long-term debt as part of its planned financings for the year. Both of these offerings saw strong investor support and were significantly oversubscribed. Moving to EPS guidance on pages 9 and 10, we are confident in affirming the 2025 range of $5.94 to $6.34 and reaffirming our long-term EPS growth expectations of 5 to 7% from 2025 to 2028, which translates to $6.74 to $7.14 of 2028 EPS. Let me conclude by reinforcing our confidence in delivering on our financial targets. With a strong regulatory backdrop and robust rate base growth, coupled with the significant need for incremental grid investment, we are well positioned to deliver on the company’s near and long-term growth expectations. That concludes our remarks, and back to you, Sam.

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

Thank you for taking my questions and for all the disclosures today. I appreciate the new material loss disclosure you mentioned. What led you to release that now instead of waiting for the fourth quarter update? Also, now that you're in this situation and have had more time to assess it, how do you view the potential liability compared to the $21 billion fund referenced in the disclosure? Thank you.

Thank you for the question and your comments. As you can understand, this is an ongoing process, and we are only three months into the aftermath of the fire. The community is still in the recovery phase, which will take a considerable amount of time. The investigation is still ongoing. While we have not yet determined whether our equipment caused the fire, there are several circumstantial factors to consider. However, we are also not uncovering any other plausible explanations for the cause of the fire. Combining these two points led us to disclose this as a probable event this quarter. Regarding liability, it is still very early, and we cannot estimate it at this time, nor can we predict when it may become estimable. Some third parties have provided various estimates, suggesting that liability might align with the fund's range, but it's definitely too early for us to provide any estimate on the size of the liability, so I cannot fully answer your question. Maria or anyone else, would you like to add anything?

No, I think you covered it, Pedro.

Thanks, Maria.

Certainly appreciate the moving factors, and I appreciate that color there. And then just in regards to the financing plan refresh six weeks after the GRC decision, can you just remind us or kind of give us color on how you're thinking about how you would reflect any liabilities from the Eaton Fire? Like how that would go into the financing considerations at that point?

Yes, Nick, that's a great question. It's Maria. So when you think about potential and the probable losses that Pedro talked about. Remember that now at this point in time, unlike when we were dealing with TCAM and Woolsey, we have the wildfire fund that we will be accessing. So when it comes to it, we'll take our first $1 billion of customer-funded self-insurance; we would be paying claims from that initially, and then we would access the fund. And the benefit of that is that we will not need to be issuing debt in order to pay claims as we did for TCAM and Woolsey; there will be another avenue for that. And that not only benefits sort of the financing plan, but obviously, that's there to protect the community that suffered the loss. So when we do our financing plan, we will be basing it on the normal course things that we'll be looking at, which is our capital plan, etc. So that is how we will be refreshing a plan and that's what we'll be communicating once we get the GRC final decision.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. Just wondering if you could share more color about the latest options being considered for updated wildfire legislation in California. What should we be confident the legislation will give investors more certainty about effective financial backdrop in the state? And then also are you confident the legislation will get past this session ending in September?

Thank you. Your phone line was a bit unclear, but I believe I understood most of your question. If you’re inquiring about the potential for legislation and what builds confidence, I can share that the governor's office and our legislative leaders are actively involved. They are addressing a very complex issue, but they are committed to it. We are in discussions as people seek information, although it is still early in the process. What gives me confidence is that we believe they recognize the necessity to expand the AB 1054 framework and take action. While there seems to be a lot of goodwill toward addressing this in the current session, we need to allow things to develop and maintain constructive engagement on our part. There are no guarantees, but I am very encouraged by the dedication and involvement I see from key leaders in the legislature and the governor's office.

Thank you. And then I think last disclosure on your Moody's risk management model, you said you had reduced the probability of catastrophic wildfire by 88%. And obviously, wildfire mitigation has been focused on distribution assets, and this one could potentially have been on transmission. Just wondering, have you had discussions with Moody's about updating that probability? And if so, where you stand now?

I can rephrase that for you. To start, I'll let Steve Powell share his thoughts as well. The Moody's RMS model is quite thorough and examines our different risk areas. Historically, we've found that distribution has been the source of ignitions, while we haven't encountered issues on the transmission side. It's important to note that we always understood that the risk would never be completely eliminated. Steve, do you have any additional insights to share for Mike?

I'd just say that the grid hardening that we've done as well as all the other mitigations we've deployed really are the driver of that risk reduction. And so that from the modeling perspective, that doesn't really change. I'll say we'll continue to evaluate other models. I know RMS will mature their models. And we look at other models as well to see if there's more to learn about wildfire risk and how that's evolving and can be modeled to continue to evaluate that risk reduction. But the fact is that the work that we've done on the system has lowered the risk of ignitions and, frankly, of catastrophic wildfires being associated with our equipment, both on the distribution and the transmission system. So that's all incorporated into that analysis. And so we'll continue to focus on reducing the risk further, but also paying attention to the tail risk that exists.

Great. Thanks for taking my questions.

Thanks, Mike.

Yeah, thanks so much for taking the questions. Maybe just a follow-up on the last one there. Just as you continue to investigate Eaton with the potential of the idled facilities to have been involved. Can you just talk a bit about your wildfire mitigation plans related to any other idled or abandoned lines that could potentially pose risk going forward?

At a high level, we maintain idle lines because we believe they may be useful in the future. These lines are inspected and maintained. Each year, as we update our wildfire mitigation plans, we assess any new insights that can help strengthen the system. For instance, we've identified ways to enhance clarity in our transmission operations manual regarding the grounding of idle lines. This is handled on a case-by-case basis, and Steve’s team has provided more detailed guidance on grounding procedures in the field. This is just one example of our ongoing commitment to improving all aspects of our operations.

Got it. That's really helpful. Thank you. And then maybe just as you think about the current capital plan, can you talk a little bit about if you've done any work quantifying exposure to tariff risk and how you might be working to mitigate that?

Yeah. Carly, like many companies in the U.S., we've been considering this situation. When we take a step back, only about 5% of our total purchases consist of foreign materials, which is a relatively small proportion of our overall program. In dollar terms, that's approximately $125 million annually. We will keep monitoring this and will be looking for any secondary impacts that might arise, but that's our current stance. The customer impact should be somewhat reduced because this primarily relates to capital, and the capital will be influenced by interest rates and the recovery of that capital over the long life of most of our assets. So that's where we are regarding the tariff evaluation.

Great. Thank you so much for your time and color.

Thank you, Carly.

Good afternoon, thank you for taking my questions. To start, can you provide insight on the shifting deadline for the SCE rate case? Do you expect any offsets in the new rates during the first half of the year? Also, do you have enough visibility to continue with capital expenditures, or will there be more emphasis on critical projects versus discretionary ones as clarity develops?

I'll address the second part of your question regarding the capital plan first. Since the general rate case operates on a four-year cycle, we can implement our plan and maintain our priorities while waiting for the final decision. We have the flexibility to adjust our spending over the next two to three years and beyond the decision timeline. This is how we view the capital plan. Regarding offsets in rates, we're currently charging rates that reflect the 2024 revenue requirement adjusted for the return on equity. As we approach the final decision, any adjustments to the revenue requirement will be spread out over time in the bills. We feel confident about managing our rates and can reference our analysis that examines the general rate case. This includes the full request, potential additional capital expenditure, and recovery from TKM and Woolsey. Even considering these elements, we anticipate our rates will grow in line with local inflation.

Thanks for that. And as you're working on the incremental CapEx items, like the ERP and AMI among the other item transmission how investors think about financing alternatives on the incremental CapEx, just in terms of maintaining capital efficiency and the potential need for any capital structure waivers or any of that sort?

Yeah. So we typically, at SCE finance capital in line with the authorized capital structure. I don't think you would really see a need for any capital waivers that came about during the TKM and Woolsey process, but the capital plan is very different than that. As we think about just more generally the financing plan, we've run a lot of scenarios. I think you've seen our financing plan right now through 2028, very minimal equity, largely debt financed between the parent and the utility. As we get the final GRC decision, we can rerun all of those numbers. But again, I think we have a lot of capacity to fulfill our capital needs.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you team. Following up on Nick's question a little bit on the Eaton disclosures around a potential material loss. Just does that indicate like you think there could be a reimbursement back to the wildfire fund? Or just is there any kind of signal around that? Because if it's contained within the fund, I would think there wouldn't be a material loss if you were found to be prudent. So if you could just help unpack that disclosure a little bit, it would be helpful.

Sorry, let me explain how to account for it. You need to consider the two components separately. First, you evaluate the loss or liability and provide information about that. Then, you focus on the recovery aspect. We will record receivables from insurance or regular insurance procedures. Additionally, we will note receivables from the wildfire fund. This doesn't serve as a signal regarding our stance on prudence or the fund's refunding. Based on all available information, we believe that SCE will demonstrate that it acted prudently, but from an accounting standpoint, we break it down into individual components rather than presenting a net figure.

I want to focus on what Maria just said, which conveys our belief that SCE is a reasonable operator of the system based on our current knowledge. The shift to probable indicates that we now foresee a material loss due to the lack of a likely alternative cause emerging so far. However, we view this as a fire issue, and if we determine it is related to Edison, we will have access to the fund. Regarding prudency, we are confident that SCE will be able to demonstrate good faith and reasonableness in this matter. I want to clarify this point.

Yes. No, thank you for clearing that up. I appreciate it.

I appreciate you asking the question. Thank you.

I understand that it may take some time to gain more clarity on this matter. You mentioned litigation strategies, so I'm curious if there might be a point where you consider engaging in settlement discussions with the involved parties.

Yeah. You would have heard this answer from us regarding fires. They're all case by case, right? Specific factoring circumstances in each fire causation make it really difficult to extrapolate any timing for this one based on other experiences. One timing item we pointed to is that when it comes to the core formal investigation materials, right, coming out of the fire authorities, this can take 12 to 18 months, right? There seems to be a broad timeline that we've seen elsewhere. But beyond that, timing towards making decisions about engaging with plaintiffs settlements, etc., that's still very difficult to handicap at this point.

Okay, understood. Thank you very much, team.

Thanks, Paul.

Hey, good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you great.

Great thank you. Just following up on the last one there. It sounds like this hasn't changed, but do you have any revised timing expectations on the investigation just as your own progresses here?

No, we haven't been able to provide an estimate, and we still can't provide an estimate.

Understood. And then I know we've unpacked the material losses disclosure a bit, but just have you ruled out any third-party potential sources of ignition at this point? I mean I know you said you haven't ruled out your own equipment and there's still some others out there, but just trying to understand if that impacted the language coming this quarter.

Yeah. I guess I'd refer back to the way I said it in my prepared remarks; at this point, we are not aware of any evidence that conclusively points to another source of ignition. So looking, obviously, if someone has information, we would be very interested in hearing it or seeing it. But based on where we are today in the absence of evidence pointing conclusively to something else. That was one of the factors in changing our designation to probable.

Understood. Thanks for the time.

Yeah, thanks, Rick.

Yeah, hey, good afternoon. Just regarding the expectation of losses disclosure again. Just is there anything about the nature of the type of the lawsuit that would make it unrecoverable by the wildfire fund that you're seeing? Whether it's not economic damage or something else?

No. Gregg, this is Maria. The wildfire fund is available to pay damage claims. So period full stop. We have a safety certificate, so we also have the benefit of the liability cap. So there's nothing in the way we've provided disclosure or any of that that would preclude us from accessing the funds. And there's no limitation on those types of claims that are paid by the fund, which might be more directly your question.

Okay. Thank you. Just one other, just on the interest expense driver for the quarter. Is it possible to break that up into TKM one time and then ongoing and anything else?

The interest expense is impacted by approximately $0.30 related to the true-up for TKM from the previous period. Additionally, there's an annualized benefit of $0.14 that will begin to be visible as we enter the second quarter, now that we've completed the prior period.

I want to ask about the legislative efforts happening in Sacramento. Specifically, I’m curious if you engage with parties beforehand to discuss plans. Could you share any insights on your meetings with policymakers? Are there any potential solutions for modifying AB 1054 that you think resonate with them, such as a replenishment mechanism or a larger fund?

It's still quite early in the process. Many legislators are still familiarizing themselves with the situation, particularly since many are new to Sacramento after 2019. There are various ideas being discussed, but it's premature to delve into specifics at this stage. We are committed to staying engaged and helping educate policymakers about the implications. Ultimately, the focus is on ensuring community safety while minimizing costs for customers. It's important for everyone to understand how actions taken by shareholders can affect costs, credit ratings, and consequently impact customer expenses. We're still in the initial phase of addressing this topic.

Hi, thank you for taking my question. I have a quick inquiry regarding the losses and the potential losses you may recognize. Will there be any considerations from a balance sheet perspective related to the CPC or credit rating agencies and how that might impact the financial statements?

Yes. So David, the way it would be recorded as we would have the loss, again, so that's one piece of the puzzle, but we would also have offsetting receivables or regulatory assets, if you will. So there will be a balance on the balance sheet. So it wouldn't have an earnings impact and you'd be grossing up the balance sheet, but it would be offsetting on each side. So from a regulatory capital perspective as well as from sort of a rating agency perspective, we've got the bases covered.

Yeah. Got you. Okay, understood. You made it pretty clear that it's not a cash flow impact just based on the access to the fund. And let me see, Pedro, I just also wanted to clarify something. Did you mention that are you seeing third-party estimates of potential damages that suggested that the entire fund or something close to the size of the current fund could potentially be used or potentially representing the liability at that level?

Certainly. It's a bit different from what I initially suggested, but if I look at the articles, they often contain estimates from various experts or organizations. I'm not entirely sure those estimates are clear. Sometimes they might refer to insured losses, but I'm uncertain if that's what I'm addressing. I haven't seen any of those figures total $21 billion yet. It’s also difficult to assess because of the various components involved. This is a significant fire, and if it's linked to Edison infrastructure, it could indeed affect a substantial portion of the fund. However, we cannot make any estimates at this time, so it's unknown whether it would consume a percentage of the funds or deplete them entirely. It's just too early to determine. Many of those estimates seem to be somewhat aligned with the overall context, but you would need to analyze what they are considering and the validity of those estimates. I acknowledge that you might be seeing the same reports and numbers that we are.

Got you. Okay, absolutely. That makes sense. Appreciate the color. Thanks so much.

Thanks.

Good morning, everybody. Have there been any changes to the wildfire mitigation plan preparation work or approach to forming the updated plan post the January events?

Yeah. Let me turn it to Steve and just remind you, as I mentioned earlier, this is something that every year the team looks at what else are we learning, what else we'd be looking at it. Steve, let me turn it over to you.

Pedro, you addressed the main point, which is that our strategy is always adapting. However, the core focus remains on effectively implementing our grid hardening initiatives. This includes work on covering conductors and undergrounding. As you pointed out, in the areas affected by burn scars, we are actually increasing the amount of undergrounding compared to our original plans due to the extensive damage. It's crucial that we rebuild those communities stronger and leverage the opportunity presented by other ongoing projects. Additionally, we are reviewing all aspects of our inspection and vegetation management programs to identify any new risks or insights gained from recent fires that could alter these programs. Overall, the nature of our programs has remained consistent, and we are committed to executing them as effectively as possible. The wildfire mitigation plan we are developing is an evolution of our previous plans, incorporating lessons learned from the past couple of years.

And then one follow-up from a previous question. In terms of the timetable to access the wildfire fund, recognizing that there's a number of moving pieces. Is there any early indication of when you may start to full capital from that front?

I think that's quite early to determine, Ryan, because we are still in the midst of the investigation and analysis. We need to complete that phase before entering any potential settlement process. If you assume that we can bypass these steps and start thinking about accessing the fund right away, it's important to note that we have $1 billion set aside for customer-funded self-insurance. Any claims that arise would first be covered by that amount. After that, we would turn to the wildfire fund. The fund administrator has established a process that has generally been smooth for others who have accessed it, where you gather the claims and then seek reimbursement. It appears to be a streamlined and straightforward process once you reach the point of needing access.

Thanks for taking my questions.

Thank you for joining us. This concludes the conference call. Have a good rest of the day. You may now disconnect.