Good morning, and welcome to the PG&E Corporation Q1 2015 Earnings Call. All lines will be muted during the presentation portion of the call, with an opportunity for questions and answers at the end. I would like to introduce your hostess, Ms. Janet Loduca. You may proceed.

Thank you, Monica. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us. Before you hear from Tony Earley, Chris Johns and Kent Harvey, I'll remind you that our discussion today will include forward-looking statements about our outlook for future financial results based on assumptions, forecasts, expectations and information currently available to management. Some of the important factors that could affect the company's actual financial results are described on the second page of today's slide deck. We also encourage you to review the Form 10-Q that will be filed with the SEC later today and the discussion of risk factors that appears there and in the 2014 Annual Report. With that, I'll turn it over to Tony. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Thanks, Janet, and good morning, everyone. I'm going to start with some opening remarks, and then turn it over to Chris and Kent to provide more detail on both operational and financial issues. As you know, we received a final penalty decision in the gas transmission pipeline investigations earlier this month, which is a significant milestone. Following the San Bruno accident, we worked hard to do the right thing for the victims, their families and the community of San Bruno. We've dedicated ourselves to becoming the safest and most reliable utility in the country. We've been working to build a culture across the company that supports this mission, and we've completed an unprecedented level of work to improve the safety of our systems, much of it funded by our shareholders. So although the final penalty assessed by the Commission is the largest in state history and certainly one of the largest in the country, we've decided not to appeal. We just don't feel that prolonging the proceeding is in anyone's interest. As we move…

Certainly. Our first question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. You may proceed.

Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Morning, Steve.

Hey, I guess this is for Kent. So, on the equity issuance needs and specifically these cash flows from balancing accounts and timing, is there any way to kind of give us a sense of how much that lowered the equity need? And do those essentially kind of normalize back in future years so that – thus there's kind of like an equity need for it later on? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Yeah, Steve, and let me get to that. Let me just make sure everybody's got the overall picture clearly, which is that the range is higher than we previously said because of the impact of the final penalty decision, but these other factors, mainly cash flows, have somewhat mitigated the overall increase. And our cash flows have improved somewhat, and those do reduce our financing requirements. And really, a key factor is within our balancing account activities, and in particular, our energy procurement costs, which are lower primarily due to lower gas prices. They've stayed very low this year, lower than was reflected in previous expectations. And then the other thing is really kind of timing of our CapEx and our other expenditures. And together, those have really improved the cash flow forecast and reduced our requirement. Those will essentially normalize over time and play out over what is usually a several year period, particularly balancing account stuff gets trued up usually over a several year period.

Okay. Maybe kind of asking the question then a different way, is there a way to get a sense of, if you look at the totality of the $1.6 billion and didn't focus on the exact timing of the equity needs, but just at overall what the equity need would be to fund the $1.6 billion? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Yeah, the key thing I would rely on is slide 20 that has our equity factors. I think you'll be able to essentially take the components in the final penalty decision and translate them into financing requirements. And I'll just say, we haven't provided guidance for equity issuance beyond this year, and I don't plan to today, but I'll kind of – I can give you some observations about it overall. I think you know our equity needs are a function of a lot of variables in any one period, but two key ones are our capital expenditure levels and then our unrecovered costs and penalties, and that latter one can affect both our capital structure and our cash flow. And so it can trigger equity needs at different times, and that's really what this slide 20 helps you sort through. In terms of those two factors, I'll just make the observation on the CapEx front we expect 2016 to be pretty comparable to 2015, and you have those numbers. In terms of the penalties, we estimate that about two-thirds of our equity needs associated with the final penalty decision will be addressed this year as compared to next year, and you should be able to derive that using the equity factors that we've put in slide 20. The only other thing I'll say, I'll just remind you that all of this depends on how the disallowed safety-related expenditures end up being treated in the Gas Transmission rate case, and we just won't know that for a while yet.

Okay. One other question, I guess maybe more for Tony. Just the – there was a lot of commentary when the final San Bruno order came out about issues with management and whether the company should stay as one company; should the gas business be split. Anything – takeaways that you might have from that? And also, I'd just like any comments on just clarifying what happened with this – the fire that occurred in Fresno, and just clarifying whether you're seeing anything within your operations that concern you about that. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah, let me take the first piece, and I'll let Chris talk about the Fresno event. So with respect to the first issue, the commentary around the issuance of the OII, clearly it tells us we have a lot of work to do to build trust and a relationship at the Commission. And we've had restrictions placed on us, but it's our intent to have the maximum amount of communications with the Commission at all levels that are appropriate, consistent with all of the restrictions. And that's one of the things we know we need to work on. We're proud of the work we've done, and we think we need to spend more time sharing some of the things that we've done, and time will tell whether we're able to develop that sort of trusting relationship. With that, let me ask Chris to comment on the incident that occurred in Fresno. Christopher P. Johns - President, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.: Yeah, hi, Steve. First of all, our hearts are out for the victims – or the folks that were injured there, and we always are concerned about making sure that we're doing what we can to increase…

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Daniel Eggers with Credit Suisse. You may proceed. Dan L. Eggers - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Morning, guys. Just following up on Steve's equity questions, but if we – obviously, timing will have an effect on this in the balancing accounts and that sort of thing, but should we assume that you're going to target something like a 52%, or close to a 52% equity ratio at corporate over time? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Dan, this is Kent. Yeah, that is our requirement is a 52% minimum equity, common equity ratio at the utility. And there isn't a whole lot at the corporate level, so I think that's an appropriate assumption. Dan L. Eggers - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): So calibrating that way will probably help us get to the answer. Okay. Thank you. And then, I guess just with the... Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Dan, just one other thing. Just remember, when you do the calculations, you exclude short-term debt. That's not included as part of the authorized capital structure. Dan L. Eggers - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Right. Thank you. I guess, next question, I guess now that San Bruno is resolved, the dividend hasn't been addressed in an awfully long time. Tony, how are you going to plan to have that conversation with the Board, and what kind of advice are you going to give them as you go into that next meeting? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Well, we obviously recognize the dividend is an important piece of how shareholders value us, and it's my intention to start having those…

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Greg Gordon with Evercore. You may proceed.

Thanks. Good morning. So, just reviewing your commentary earlier on how we think about equity, if I look at page 10, I look at the different line items, what's been previously incurred versus estimated for 2015 versus estimated for future periods, and then I look at page – I believe it was page 20, and I use the equity factors, that should get me to what the equity needs are in estimated 2015 and beyond, correct? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Yeah, Greg, this is Kent. I think that's the best way to go.

Okay. So when I do that, I get the difference between what you're issuing in equity on the margin today versus your prior disclosure is smaller than that number, so presumably, the rest of that cash flow is coming in from the reversal and balancing accounts and other cash flows, correct? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Those are the two primary drivers that I've articulated on the call, so I could see how you come to that conclusion.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure my algebra was right and there wasn't some other factor to consider. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell with Jefferies. You may proceed.

Hey, good morning. Just – I feel bad not asking an equity question. If I just look at what your CapEx forecast, I think that's the biggest driver in your equity needs, the CapEx forecasts for 2015 and 2016 are near identical. Is it reasonable to assume the range that you gave not including the San Bruno fine is a reasonable gauge of what your equity needs would be, you know, a $5.5 billion CapEx in 2016? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Anthony, this is Kent. I don't want to get into providing guidance for 2016, and so I'm a little tentative about how to respond to that. But I indicated before on one of the earlier questions that the CapEx profile is the same, so that basic underlying driver will look very comparable. And then what you'll want to do is look at differences in some of the other variables that affect our equity needs, one of which obviously is unrecovered costs or fines and penalties. And I think we've laid out the data for you to do that pretty well today.

Okay, great. And just lastly, I think on Monday – and I may have this wrong – the company had filed a response in the federal indictment. Is there any color you could give on that filing that you made on Monday? Hyun Park - Senior Vice President & General Counsel: Sure. This is Hyun Park. So we made four motions for discovery of various materials. So for example, the government is obligated to provide us with what's called Brady materials. Those are evidence that are favorable to the company, and so we've asked for discovery of those materials, as well as certain portions of the grand jury transcript. And we've also asked for witness interview notes, as well as recordings of interviews. And we've also asked them to specify what other acts or incidents that they intend to introduce at trial. And so, all of this will get heard according to the current schedule on June 1 at the federal court.

Great. Thanks for taking my question, guys.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Goldenberg with Luminus Management. You may proceed.

Good morning. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Morning, Michael.

I have questions on the $1.6 billion chart; trying to understand exactly what's included and what's not included. Is rights of way in there? Is any of corrosion or hydro-strength testing is in there, or is any of the costs of GT&S delayed the five months? Are any of those things in the $1.6 billion? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: No, they're not. So these are the components that were included in the PUC's final penalty decision. I separately went through in the guidance for our items impacting comparability: the impact of the rights of way work as well as there's some remaining PSEP work. And then I also indicated in the guidance for earnings from operations the assumptions there that the additional gas-related costs that we've not sought recovery for, which are certain corrosion work as well as certain hydrostatic testing work, that we expected that to average about $50 million a year for each of the three years, that that would be embedded in our earnings from operations.

Right, right, right. I agree with all of those, I just wanted to be crystal clear that that's not included. So is there any way you can put a number holistically if we – you keep referring us to slide 20, but I guess two things that I didn't appreciate, that $200 of the $300 million fine, that will not need equity issuance, right? Because that was already – since you already took a hit for that, you don't need equity issuance, that's number one. And number two, so is there any way to put the amount of dollars for this cash flow benefit from balancing accounts? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: So let me parse through those two. In the first comment you made, which was your conclusion that we don't need equity needs associated with the first $200 million that we accrued a while back, that's actually not quite the case. And when you look at the equity factors, because to date that's been a non-cash accrual, roughly half of that essentially has been financed and...

Okay. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: ...the remaining half gets financed at the time we actually pay the fine. So there is some remaining need that comes from that fine payable, the original $200 million.

Okay, that makes sense. Okay. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Okay. Second – what was the second part of your question again?

The second part was... is there any – a way to predict the dollar amount on this cash flow benefit from regulatory from balancing? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Well, what I would suggest you think about is go to our old guidance for equity, look at – which did not include any of the equity needs associated with the final penalty decision, use the equity factors on slide 20 to estimate what the incremental equity needs are. And there'll be a difference between that and the guidance that we're currently giving you for our overall equity needs, and one of the key drivers of that will be those factors related to cash flows.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. You may proceed. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Yeah, hey, guys. One question about 2015 guidance. If you just, like, back of the envelope rate base math, I'll use Greg Gordon's algebra for an example here. If I do $31 billion at a 52% equity ratio and at a 10.4% authorized ROE using your current share count, I get a number that's actually below your guidance range. So can you just walk me through what the delta there is? And then, does that delta, does that difference, do you expect that to continue multiple years going forward, or is that something that's a 2015 event only? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Yeah, so this is Kent. I'd suggest you focus on slide 7. And on slide 7, essentially the math you just went through is for all intents and purposes the upper part of the chart and the lower left part of the chart, you did the math on it. The other part though is the lower right part of the chart, the other factors affecting our earnings from operations. And I sort of gave commentary on each of those factors. The biggest driver is related to the net benefits of the repairs, the tax benefit. And we've indicated that we would expect it this year to have an impact that's comparable, same order of magnitude to last year when it was $0.24 a share. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Okay. And then beyond this year, meaning that stops after the – in 2016, or does that carry forward into 2016 and beyond? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: That item relates to our 2014 General Rate Case, so we would expect it to be in place through 2016. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: At a comparable level, meaning at that $0.24 level? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Similar order of magnitude. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. Thank you, Kent. Much appreciated.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Hugh Wynne with AllianceBernstein. You may proceed. Hugh de Neufville Wynne - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC: Hi. I was hoping to get some clarity on the pending investigations and cases that may result in future fines and perhaps get your view on the maximum amount of those fines. Is it correct to say that we have the federal case, the ex parte withholding of GT&S revenue, the OII into the safety records on the gas distribution side, and then the investigation into the – the OII into the safety culture of PG&E, or are there other investigations and cases that we need to be aware of in addition to those four? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah, Hugh, I think that covers the list that we're aware of. I'm looking at Hyun Park, our General Counsel. I think he's accurately covered the list. Hyun Park - Senior Vice President & General Counsel: Hugh, and Tony mentioned earlier that the State AG as well as the federal prosecutors are looking at ex parte issues, so that investigation is still ongoing. Hugh de Neufville Wynne - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC: Okay. And then just kind of a, is it bigger than a breadbox type of estimates here. The maximum penalty in the federal case, I think the federal attorney said that she was seeking up to $1.1 billion. Is that correct? Is there any color you can give us on that? Hyun Park - Senior Vice President & General Counsel: Yes, so it's $1.13 billion is what they've alleged, and the color is that we disagree with that. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: And remember, the…

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Weinstein with UBS. You may proceed.

Hi, guys. I was wondering if you could talk about what's the normalized tax rate that you expect to have in the next GRC, you know, once the repair benefits are absorbed? Dinyar B. Mistry - Vice President & Controller: This is Dinyar Mistry, the Controller. We expect the repairs flow through rate making to continue in the next General Rate Case, and so it should have a similar order of magnitude on our effective tax rate. What you have been seeing in this year, the $0.24 that Kent mentioned, is the difference between the repairs that was forecasted in the last General Rate Case and the repairs that we are experiencing as we file our tax returns, but that should be trued-up in the 2017 rate case.

Right. And once it's trued-up, what will the normalized tax rate be? Dinyar B. Mistry - Vice President & Controller: So the...

The 35%, or no? Dinyar B. Mistry - Vice President & Controller: No. 35% is the statutory rate. If you go to our financial statements at the end of last year, you'll see that our effective rate was roughly 20%, and it should be probably similar. I don't know how it's going to shake out because it is a technical calculation. But it does not mean that there's a benefit to the bottom line because there's an associated reduction on the revenue side.

I see. So you will be effectively earning at the 35% rate, even if your GAAP rate is 20%? Dinyar B. Mistry - Vice President & Controller: I think the better way to think about it is that there is no benefit or harm from the effective tax rate being different from the statutory tax rate. It's just a calculation.

Okay. We'll follow up offline on that. The other question I had was about future CapEx growth profile after 2016? The Edison call, they discussed kind of having a flat profile for the next decade, at the $4 billion level, and that includes presumably the – well, it might exclude the benefits that might come from investing in the distribution resource plan that's coming out in July. So I'm just wondering if you guys have a similar view of the next decade, especially considering the EV filing that you made, that your CapEx profile will be growing, or will it be kind of flattish over the next decade, or not? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: This is Kent. We will be providing you with numbers when we get to the fall. I would say our observations is that we are doing a lot of infrastructure investment, essentially hardening our system, replacing a lot of stuff that was put in post-World War II and so forth. And we don't expect that program to finish by the time we're done with 2016, so we'll continue to see I think a healthy CapEx profile going forward. But we're not prepared to actually provide you numbers at this point until we finish up on our GRC filing.

All right. Thanks a lot.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Chin with Merrill Lynch. You may proceed. Brian J. Chin - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.: Hi. Good morning. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Morning, Brian. Brian J. Chin - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.: Is there an implied timing of the equity issuance embedded in the 2015 guidance that you can give a little more color on? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: No, there isn't. As I indicated before, we're still evaluating our options for the financing, and that's with respect to about the timing and the approach. Brian J. Chin - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.: Okay. Great. The rest of my questions were asked and answered. Thank you. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Travis Miller with Morningstar. You may proceed.

Good morning. Thank you. Obviously a lot of talk – plenty of talk about the equity side. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the credit side and the timing there in terms of issues and needs? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Well, Travis, this is Kent again. I think if you look last year, our net debt issuance was about $1.4 billion. That's net of maturities, and that's probably not far off from what we've done the last several years. So I would say similar order of magnitude, given similar CapEx program. We have a little bit higher CapEx this year. So similar profile, but we're not going to be talking about timing until we're closer to actually starting a transaction.

Okay. Remind me real quick, when do you need to have the capital structure in place for rate making purposes? What's the timing on that? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Yeah, it's essentially over the period during which the capital structure is authorized. So for us, it's over this cost of capital period which has been – essentially will end up being a four-year period right now.

Okay. One other real quick one. The talk about the tax deductions and debate there with the CPUC, if they were to disallow some of that tax write-off, how does that change that slide 20? Dinyar B. Mistry - Vice President & Controller: So, this is Dinyar Mistry again, the Controller, and let's just go through the components of the penalty that you see on slide 20. And if you look at that, the fine payable to the State general fund is not tax deductible, but we continue to believe the other disallowances included in the Commission's final decision are tax deductible.

Okay. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Goldenberg with Luminus Management. You may proceed.

Good morning again. I just wanted to confirm when you guys talk about equity issuance, do you just talk about straight equity, or are you considering other options? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Michael, this is Kent, and we are in general, as you know, for these unrecovered fines and penalties, we've been saying that primarily we're relying on equity issuance. And over the past couple years, I've had conversations with investors and certainly with you about options such as mandatory converts, for example. But I will say at this point, I think that option is probably less likely now, just given the size of our remaining equity need for this year.

Hey, Monique, I think we have time for one more question.

Our next question will come from the line of John Apgar with Balyasny Asset Management. You may proceed. John Apgar - Balyasny Asset Management, L.P. (U.S.): Good morning. Michael asked my question, but I just wanted you to elaborate a bit more on the equity needs for 2015 and your options. I mean, you have a $300 million DRIP, and can you remind us of the size of the ATM program that you have in place? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: So, yeah, the equity options that we have used in the past include our internal programs, which are both the DRIP and the 401(k) program. We typically have issued roughly $300 million a year from those programs. We have had a continuous equity offering, and we have a program there for $500 million, and I believe in the first quarter, we did approximately $80 million of that through the dribble program. So those are the two components you are relying on – or you are referencing. John Apgar - Balyasny Asset Management, L.P. (U.S.): So between the continuous equity and the DRIP program, you have $800 million of total capacity? Is that the right way to look at it? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: That's correct. Of course, the continuous equity offering is not limited to $500 million, that's just our current program, and we've actually renewed that program several times over the last few years. John Apgar - Balyasny Asset Management, L.P. (U.S.): Okay. Fair enough. And then, regarding the balancing accounts, can you quantify that at all as far as the cash impact? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: You know, I think I've had several folks take a run…

All right. Thank you, everyone, for joining us this morning, and have a safe day.