Good morning, everyone. This is Janet Loduca, and thank you for joining us for the Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation's Third Quarter Earnings Call. Before I turn over to Tony Earley, I want to remind you that our discussion today will include forward-looking statements about our outlook for future financial results, which is 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 hand it over to Tony. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Thank you, Janet, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. Our key focus areas remain unchanged. California continues to lead the U.S. in driving clean energy policies and PG&E will play a critical role in helping to achieve the state's goals. We also know that safety must be at the core of all of our decisions and our commitment to that is unwavering. We continue to make progress towards resolving outstanding regulatory and legal issues, while strengthening our safety and compliance programs. We believe that executing our strategies in these focus areas will provide the foundation for both operational and financial success. So I'm going to touch on some of the key developments this quarter before I turn it over to Kent, to discuss our financial results. Geisha Williams and Nick Stavropoulos are also with us today and they'll be available to take any questions that you have. In terms of our focus on clean energy, PG&E has a long…

Our first question comes from the line of Jonathan Arnold with Deutsche Bank.

Good morning, guys. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Good morning, Jonathan. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Good morning.

A quick question, just on the CapEx and I guess therefore the rate base ranges. Could you talk to what it is in the base, the bottom-end of the range? Is that just authorized spending? And then the other things that you mentioned are what defines the shaded sections, or is there some other way of being a little more clear about what exactly is in and out of the two pieces, two different levels? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: So, Jonathan, this is Kent. Let me kind of go through by parts of the business, which really relate to the regulatory proceedings. So, for the electric and gas distribution and generation, which is our General Rate Case, the high end reflects the amounts that we've requested in the 2017 General Rate Case. For gas transmission, the high end in 2017 reflects the amount that we requested in the gas transmission rate case. And then in 2018 and 2019, we've just kept that amount flat with the 2017 request. And then for electric transmission, which is our TO Case, we've really only requested an amount through 2016, our TO17 case. And so, our 2017 through 2019 levels are flat at the 2016 request. For the low end basically, it's consistent with the low end that we've had out there already for 2016 across the board.

Okay. And how about your distributions resource plan, for example? Where does that fit into this – the range? Is that in the high end or not? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: We did not have a specific ask in that proceeding, but a lot of those types of investments for automating the system and so forth, are included in our General Rate Case. So those components are included in the overall ask, and therefore in the overall range, the upper end of the range.

Okay. So put simply, if you got everything you've asked for in both of the big outstanding cases, you would come in at the high end? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: That's correct. And then of course, we'll have updates because at some point we'll file another gas transmission case for beyond 2017, and we'll also file additional transmission owner cases for beyond 2016.

Great. Thank you, Kent. That was my question. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Dan Eggers with Credit Suisse. Daniel Eggers - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Hey. Good morning, guys. Can I just ask about with the El Niño concerns about the storms in the preparations there? How do you guys address cost recovery if you end up with some disproportionally high storm costs this year, I guess, next year? And how would that affect the numbers as we think about ongoing earnings estimates? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: This is Kent. We do have the balancing account treatment in our current General Rate Case for major storms. In addition, for things like the wildfires, we just had where – in cases where the Governor declares a disaster area, we also have the ability to seek recovery through a catastrophic event memorandum account. So, there is a few different mechanisms that are in place in California. Daniel Eggers - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Okay. Thank you. And I guess the next question, Tony, with the electric vehicle charging station decision it was kind of a deviation from what you guys seem have been messaged from the Governor as far as his priorities are concerned, A, how do think this is going to work out from meeting the Governor's rules on vehicles? But second, when you look at the DRP is there a disconnect between the goals of the Governor and what the Commission's proving to be supportive of you guys investing in? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Well, obviously, we thought that our initial proposal was totally consistent with the Governor's goals on electric vehicles. I think the Commission felt it was overly aggressive and wants to phase…

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research.

Yeah. Hi, good morning. So, first of all, Kent, I guess an early good-bye. We will miss you. Secondly, on the similar question regarding the Edison PD on their GRC. Is there any policy issues there that concern you at all, relative to your case? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: The major issue we've seen has been the repairs issue, which Dinyar just addressed and we do think we are in a little bit different situation. That's the biggest one that we've been watching.

Great. And then the – maybe just on the criminal case. I know there has been a lot of activity. Can you maybe just give us an update on whether any of the allegations have been thrown out at this point and do we still have some kind of trial in March of next year? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. This is Tony. Let me start off and then I'll let Hyun jump in. Those of you who have been involved in major litigations, this is just the pre-trial motions stage, there is a lot of activity going on, there will continue to be more activity leading up to the trial. The trial is still scheduled for next spring. We'll see what happens as we get closer to it, but, Hyun, why don't you comment on where we are. Hyun Park - Senior Vice President & General Counsel: Yeah. So, Steve, we did file a number of motions, and all the motions have been submitted to the Judge, so we're just waiting for the Judge to issue his ruling on our motions.

Okay. Great. And then on the GT&S case, I know there is oral arguments today, but in terms of – is any relevant updates there in terms of potential outcomes we should be aware of? Steven E. Malnight - Senior Vice President-Regulatory Affairs, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.: Hi, this is Steve Malnight from Reg Affairs. Really, we don't have any additional updates, timing still looks like next year for the case. We'll look forward to the oral argument later today.

Okay. Thank you.

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

Hi, guys. Congratulations, Kent, by the way. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Thanks, Mike.

Hey, when do you guys think you will be in a position to discuss 2016 guidance and dividend policy? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Well, that's something that we look at every time I'm with my board of directors. We discussed that dividend policy. We've not tied it to any specific outcome at the Commission, what we are focusing on is, what is the right time to address that. I'm well aware that our investors have been very patient on this. We're committed to getting our dividend in line with our peers, but it's got to be at the right time and we continue to assess that. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: In terms of timing of guidance, I'd just say we're looking towards hopefully getting back in a regular rhythm with guidance. And I'd like to think we'll be in a position to do that in the first quarter.

Great. And just one follow-up question on the repairs deduction issue. Can you just refresh how are you guys treating it and how – is there any simple way to explain why your situation is different than the Edison's? Dinyar B. Mistry - Vice President & Controller: Yeah. This is Dinyar again. So, the rate making for repairs is that customer rates are reduced for taxes that aren't currently paid to the IRS. That's the fundamental principle of the flow through rate making, and to the extent that there is a forecast difference between what was in the rate case and what actually occur, during that rate case period, up or down that forecast difference affects the bottom line. I would say the primary difference between us and the Edison Case is that, in the Edison PD it's indicated that its previous GRC request was based on a different methodology for calculating the tax repairs than was actually applied during that period. But for us we've applied the same methodology for our actuals that we used to develop the forecast, and so I think that's probably the key difference.

That's very helpful. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Yeah, guys. Just curious when you think about longer-term, do you expect to be a company that winds up growing earnings kind of in pace with rate base growth? Is there anything structural that can make it something different than that over time? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Michael, this is Kent. I think at the levels of rate base growth and CapEx frankly that we are having right now, they do require some equity issuance. And so, generally you'll see earnings grow with rate base, but you'd have to net out whatever equity issuance you need to support that level of CapEx. At lower levels you could see that, but we're at higher levels and I do think that requires some level of equity issuance. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. Okay. Second, Tony, you made the comment about you talked to the board about dividend and dividend policy. Can you dive a little bit into the – when you think about dividend policy, are we talking a payout ratio, a growth rate, a dividend yield target relative to the peer group? I'm just going to think about what are the metrics you and the board are looking at, when you all have the discussions about dividend policy. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: This is Kent. I'll just say, generally, probably the primary metric we look at is payout ratio. We look at the industry and it's pretty nicely clumped. So it's pretty easy to see where the industry is and we're a bit below that. And so, that's the primary issue we'll be addressing. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. Okay, guys. Thank you. Much appreciated.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Hugh Wynne with AllianceBernstein. Hugh D. Wynne - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC: Hi. Thank you. Two questions. One, I was just wondering if you might bring us up to date on any developments that could shed light on potential outcomes of the Gas Distribution Records OII? And then similarly whether there been any developments with respect to the CAL FIRE investigation into the origins of the Butte bush fire? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah, let me comment on the CAL FIRE. Their investigation is ongoing, we're cooperating with it, we don't have any updates. Traditionally, those investigations take quite some time, because it's hard because all the evidence is burned up. So it takes a lot of work to figure out exactly what happened. With respect to other proceedings, Steve, you – I don't think we have any updates there. Steven E. Malnight - Senior Vice President-Regulatory Affairs, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.: No, we don't really have any updates on the OII. We saw the SED filing as was mentioned earlier, we'll file our rebuttal testimony in November, and then we'd expect hearings on that in January, first part of the year. Hugh D. Wynne - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC: Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Chin with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

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

Question on dividend, going back to that. Given some of the changes that will take place in the C-Suite over the next 12 months, does that to some degree make you think that you ought to maintain flexibility on the dividend until the next set of C-Suite executives comes in or does that not factor into your thinking about how you think about the timing of a dividend policy going forward? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: I don't think it has any connection at all to dividend policy. Dividend policy is based upon our financial situation and our assessment of what's going on on the regulatory front and doesn't have anything to do with the C-Suite changes.

Okay. Understood. Secondly, on the cost of capital mechanism and the proceedings that will come up next year, it seems like mechanically, the numbers are shaping out where an extension, perhaps, may not be too difficult of a suggestion to different stakeholders. I guess what I'm wondering is, are you aware of any issues out there that may prevent some of the stakeholders from wanting to consider an extension of the current mechanism, any issues that may need to be worked through that could prevent that and instead make a full-blown cost of capital proceeding take place? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Brian, this is Kent. So as you alluded to the normal process would have us file a cost of capital application next spring and that would be for rates effective January 2017. And I think what you are alluding to, I think everybody knows that last year we and the other parties all agreed to extend the existing cost of capital as well as trigger mechanism by one year. And so the question is will that happen again this year. And I'd just say, we are open to exploring that again given that as you said forecast bond rates haven't changed all that much since the proceeding was originally litigated, but whether or not that occurs depends on the extent to which all the parties are able to reach agreement.

So, I guess at this point you're not aware of any specific issues that may cause one or two of the stakeholders to say, we really ought to revisit this despite the mathematics looking fairly similar versus last year? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Brian, if I were, I wouldn't be talking about it with investors.

Understood. And then lastly, there has been a lot of consolidation happening in the industry. If, Tony, you could give just your quick thoughts on consolidation, how you think about it in the industry here. A lot of your peers have been using their balance sheets and I think it's safe to say that the California utilities are in a much better balance sheet position than others. Just your latest thoughts there? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. I mean generally we don't comment on specifics on M&A opportunities. I will say one interesting observation though is, everyone is buying a gas company, we've already got 4.5 million gas customers. I think we're in a pretty good shape.

Excellent. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Gregg Orrill with Barclays. You may proceed.

Yes. Thank you. You mentioned that as you get out to 2017 and 2018 your forecast for rate base on – your forecast includes flat assumptions for the gas and electric transmission. Is there maybe, since you are going to update it at some point, is there a better modeling assumption that we might use? Or with those updates maybe get you to the higher end of rate base growth that you are thinking about? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: This is Kent. We've just done that because it's a fairly mechanical way to do it, and we don't want to call future cases that we've not yet filed, so, but you can apply judgment to it, you can look at our historic track record, what we've done over the last few years, adjust that. Whatever you think is appropriate, we just try to keep it simple and objective when we present it to you for your consideration.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a follow-up question from the line of Michael Lapides. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Hey, guys. Thank you for taking my follow-up. Real quick, on the rate base chart, or exhibit, slide 12, that still excludes the incremental CWIP that actually generates some earnings. I think that is the number of around $1 billion, $1.7 billion, $1.8 billion, somewhere in that range. You have commented historically that, that earnings from CWIP, while not in rate base, would largely be offset by corporate costs that aren't recoverable in rates. Do you still see that trend or is there the potential to manage some of those corporate costs down over time? Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: This is Kent, again. No, I think nothing has really changed there. I think that's a reasonable assumption to make going forward. I think, I've said several times a lot of the stuff we do that is below the line is really important to the longer-term success of the company and our financials. It includes our advertising, a lot of our charitable contribution, just bread and butter for a utility, and we're going to continue to make those necessary investments. Michael J. Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. Thank you, Kent. Once again, congratulations. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Thanks, Michael.

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

Good morning. Thank you. Going back to the long-term outlook for CapEx and that discussion, what is the impact from SB 350? How long out and is that included in any kind of near-term CapEx or GRC? Just your thoughts around that. Kent M. Harvey - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President: Well, SB 350, really one of the primary components of it is the RPS requirements in the state. And generally, we have already been on track to meet the 33% RPS, this would now take us to 50% eventually. We do that primarily through long-term contracting. So it doesn't have a direct implication for our own CapEx, which are primarily our distribution and transmission businesses. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Although, I will add one place we may see some opportunities, is in additional transmission out there. We've been successful in the competitive transmission bidding process here in California in the last couple of years, we continue to intend to stay involved in that process. But all of that is outside any of the years that we've been showing on the slides, because recall that the current 33% is a 2020 objective. And so the new SB 350 requirements will start showing up in the 2020s and you'd see transmission in that timeframe. So, I think the only conclusion you can draw is given California's commitment to a clean energy environment, it's going to require the utilities to have continued investment to upgrade the system.

Okay, great. Thanks. And then, different subject, what is your appetite right now for ex-California, outside of California or unregulated type of investments? Obviously, the SolarCity moves you have made here seem to be a pullback on that front. What's your thoughts and appetites for that unregulated type of investment? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: We continue to look at those opportunities. I think I've said this before, the California affiliate rules make it very difficult to start from scratch, because there is – it's very hard to take your utility expertise and without taking them away from the utility and moving into a totally separate company and they can't even talk to their colleagues back at the old business, it's hard to justify when we've got so many growth opportunities in the utility right now.

Okay, great. Appreciate the thoughts.

Thank you. There are currently no additional questions waiting from the phone lines.

All right. This is Janet, again. I want to thank everyone for joining us and we hope you have a safe day. Thank you.