Good morning and welcome to the Fourth Quarter PG&E Corporation Earnings Conference Call. All lines will be muted during the presentation portions of the call with an opportunity for questions-and-answers at the end. At this time, I would like to introduce your hostess, Ms. Janet Loduca of PG&E. Thank you and enjoy your conference. You may proceed, Ms. Loduca. Janet C. Loduca - PG&E Corp.: Thank you, Jackie, and thanks to those of you on the phone for joining us. Before I turn it 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 presentation. The slide presentation also includes a reconciliation between non-GAAP and GAAP measures. We encourage you to review the 2016 annual report on Form 10-K that will be filed with the SEC later today and the discussion of risk factors that appears there. With that, I'll hand it over to Tony. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - PG&E Corp.: Thank you, Janet, and good morning, everyone. I'm glad you could join us. 2016 was a really pivotal year for PG&E. We continue to deliver strong operational and financial results and resolved a number of important regulatory and legal matters. We also announced that next month, Geisha Williams will be taking over as CEO and President of PG&E Corporation and Nick Stavropoulos will be taking over as President and Chief Operating Officer of our utility, Pacific Gas & Electric. Both Geisha and Nick have done an outstanding job over the last several years and have established proven track records…

Certainly. Our first question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS. Please proceed.

Hey, good morning, everyone. Well done. I wanted to follow up on the... Anthony F. Earley Jr. - PG&E Corp.: Thank you.

...cost cutting announcement of late. I wanted to just understand a little bit on how that's gets factored into not just 2017 guidance but beyond, and your ability to kind of earn at or above your authorized or your new authorized ROE sort of during the pendency of what should be new rates in effect? Geisha J. Williams - PG&E Corp.: Hi, Julien, this is Geisha. How are you? So...

Good. Geisha J. Williams - PG&E Corp.: ...you should think of those first $300 million cost efficiency measure that we've put in place as being part of our plan to actually meet our guidance in 2017. So I wouldn't really expect there to be additional sort of upside from that. What you should also expect though is that like any other great company out there, we're going to be really focused on managing our costs. We're going to be looking at how to improve our processes and you should think of this $300 million first initiative as just that, a first step in what's going to be a long term affordability journey. We're really proud of the fact that our customer bills are below national average and we want to work really hard to make sure that that continues to be the case, because we have a strong capital plan and that could put upward pressure on customer rates. So we're doing everything in our power to keep our bills affordable and to drive efficiencies as we move on.

Great. And then a quick second question. I'd just be curious, Geisha, obviously you've had a few months here. In terms of hard asset acquisitions outside of the kind of core rate base utility, what's your latest thinking on that prospect? And maybe more importantly the parameters to the extent to which you are looking at something that you would evaluate looking outside of rate base? Geisha J. Williams - PG&E Corp.: I think as you look at where we are today, we've put a lot of things behind us. We have a very strong balance sheet. Our focus is really on executing on what we think is a strong growth plan. We've got a lot of work to do and with $6 billion or so in capital additions every year, we think that getting that done, getting that done efficiently is really going to serve us well. Notwithstanding, though to answer your question, we're building the muscle, we're building the discipline internally so that should something come up that frankly is accretive, that makes sense, that makes sense for our shareholders, that's consistent with our core operations, et cetera, that we'd be ready to be able to act. But I wouldn't expect us to sort of come out of the gate, looking for M&A activity. We don't feel like we need to do. We really have a strong growth profile and our focus is really going to be about executing and doing a great job for our customers.

Excellent. Well said. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Hey, guys. I just wanted to see if you wouldn't mind kind of framing some of the things on slide 13 that maybe aren't in your current rate base guidance. For example, can you talk a little bit about the first two items, kind of directionally where you see FERC Electric Transmission spend needing to go over the next couple of years, and getting out to the 2019, 2020 timeframe were GT&S spend. I mean I know you're not going to put hard numbers on this, but I'm just trying to think about it, is it flat, up or down? Jason P. Wells - PG&E Corp.: Good morning, Michael. This is Jason. As it relates to the electric transmission business, there's a couple of competing pressures on that business. One, load is moderating in the state. And so that would sort of reduce the need for incremental capacity projects. That being said, we are increasing our renewable portfolio standard, so there will be more large scale utility renewable projects coming online and need to be connected to the grid. And so we think currently today, our conservative assumption around holding 2018 and 2019 spend flat to what we've received in the 2017 rate case and what we've requested in the 2017 rate case appears reasonable. In the Gas Transmission and Storage business, we've really stepped up our spending quite a bit in the 2015 rate case that we just received. And so, when I look at 2019, there's still a lot of work that needs to be done on the system. The drivers that we see supporting that CapEx spend are very much longer…

Thank you, Mr. Lapides. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Please proceed.

Yeah, hi. Just a couple of quick questions, first on the cost of capital settlement. Are you getting any indications, if anyone will be opposing the settlement? Steven E. Malnight - Pacific Gas & Electric Co.: Hi. This is Steve Malnight from the Regulatory team. The settlement was actually conducted with most of the active parities in that proceeding. So at this point in time, we expect that we've addressed most of the parties. We don't think we've actually lapsed the full time for others to potentially raise their hand, but we feel pretty good about the coalition we've put together there.

Okay. Great. And then also there was a, I think at the last meeting there was I think some stories about Commission meeting and some press stories about just people complaining about their bills. I assume that's probably just the GT&S case having been delayed and over time, kind of hitting bills. Is that what it would be and is there anything that you're doing to kind of address concerns there? Steven E. Malnight - Pacific Gas & Electric Co.: Yeah, just to give a little clarity to that, we have definitely seen an uptick in concerns around winter bills, particularly for gas usage, for some of our customers. Just to give a little context for that, in August of last year, we actually implemented an increase in the Gas Transmission rates to incorporate the Phase 1 decision from GT&S. That accounted for about a 19% increase for the average residential customer. As we've talked about, that was a substantial step-up in spending in that case and it was delayed pretty substantially from the initial time period when the rates would go into effect. To help to kind of moderate that, in January, we actually implemented a reduction in rates of about 8%, which is the reflection of the Phase 2 decision where they then implemented, the San Bruno penalty and the ex parte fine in that proceeding. So we really think that will help to moderate it. Obviously, we've had a stronger winter here in California this year than prior years, which has also led to increased usage. It's something we pay a lot of attention to. We're very focused on it. We are really committed to, as Geisha said, make sure we keep our bills affordable for our customers. So we work with them when there are concerns to help them understand how they can reduce their usage through efficiency programs and other things and help save, so something we pay a lot of attention to.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Fleishman. Our next question comes from the line of Praful Mehta with Citigroup. Please proceed.

Thanks so much. Hi, guys. Jason P. Wells - PG&E Corp.: Morning.

Hi. So, quickly on the electrification, just wanted to understand a little bit more in terms of context. I know the near-term programs you've talked about on transportation, electrification, longer-term, how do you see growth coming from that and how do you offset that against either energy efficiency or behind-the-meter storage that may shave peaks, so, some context would be helpful? Jason P. Wells - PG&E Corp.: Yeah. So from a load standpoint, in terms of kind of the puts and takes there, in our service territory, an electric vehicle sort of represents an average household of consumption, about half an average household of consumption. So you can think of for every two electric vehicles we add to the system, essentially we're offsetting the decline that we see from distributed generation. So that's sort of I think an easy rule of thumb to think about load from that standpoint. And I think from a growth standpoint financially, the state has a goal of having 1.5 million electric vehicles on the road in California by 2025. That would equate to about 600,000 vehicles in our service territory. We think and the state thinks that we need distributed charging stations for every four vehicles that are on the road. So that would be a need for approximately 150,000 charging stations in our service territory. We think we're best positioned to facilitate that build-out and provide that service to our customers in our service territory. And so, just initial application, which we just recently had approved, that was only for 7,500 charging stations. So we see the opportunity for fairly significant growth over the next several years to help enable the state to meet its overall policy goals.

Got you. That's really helpful context. Thanks. And then secondly on CCAs, I know this is a topic that keeps coming up. I think Chairman (sic) [President] Picker was talking about 40% targets or potentially 40% that could be reached in terms of loads served through CCAs. How do you see that transition of CCAs and is there any risk of stranded assets sometime in the future? Geisha J. Williams - PG&E Corp.: Hi. This is Geisha. So, I think, when I saw the same number, the 40% from President Picker, I think he was thinking about it in a state-wide context. Our service area is a little bit different. Our service area is made up of many small municipalities and counties. So, in our case, we think that that transition to higher levels of CCA adoption are going to take a little bit longer. But we think the number is generally right. It's just going to happen over a longer period of time. What we're doing in terms of preparing for that, of course, is the first and most important is we have a really flexible energy supply portfolio. So, for example, about 55% of the energy that we deliver to our customers is actually procured from third parties. And those contracts tend to be a combination of both long-term and spot market purchases. So, of the 55% that we have now under contract, nearly 40% represents megawatt hours that we do not have a contractual obligation to take in 2021. And the reason I bring that up is as CCA adoption grows, we're really executing on our very flexible energy portfolio. So, we believe, we've got the triggers that we need to be able to meet the load over time. And I hope that answers your question?

Yeah. That's really helpful. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mehta. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please proceed.

Good morning. How are you? Jason P. Wells - PG&E Corp.: Morning. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - PG&E Corp.: Hey, Paul.

There was a transmission complaint case that was filed by the California PUC and others, regarding Order 890 on the transmission planning process. Just wondering if you could maybe address your thoughts about that complaint and this apparent desire to have input on transmission planning to a greater degree on the part of the California parties? Steven E. Malnight - Pacific Gas & Electric Co.: Yeah, hi. This is Steve Malnight, again. Let me give a little context for that. So, in early February the CPUC and other parties, as you said, they filed a complaint at FERC seeking really to establish a process for stakeholders to be more involved in the portion of our transmission planning spend, that's not subject to the ISO review here in California. So, just to give – to help clarify that. So, the ISO currently reviews our planned work for capacity and reliability projects, but they don't review other work such as our normal maintenance activities and things like that. So this is a complaint that the parties are filing. We're going to replying to that here shortly in a few weeks, and we'll see how that proceeds. I think, as we said, we had gone through several TO cases over the last several years, and continued to put them forward under the current framework and settle those cases. So we'll work our way through this issue as well.

Okay. And I don't want you to necessarily preempt your filing. I just was wondering if you had a general sort of response to sort of the questions that were raised and it seems a little bit more than what the TO cases were in the past and that's all I was trying to get at. Again, I don't mean to ask you to tell us what you're going to file in response, but if you could follow what I'm saying, just any sense as to what's necessarily driving this other than of course the PJM complaint that we saw in the summer or anything else? Steven E. Malnight - Pacific Gas & Electric Co.: Well, I guess I would say this. I mean, the cost components that are at issue here in this complaint, these are cost components that we have sought recovery for through the TO case and settled for multiple years. So I think I'm kind of going to leave it at that. I think we'll just see how this plays out at FERC as we move forward.

Okay. Fair enough. And then Tony, is this your last earnings call? Anthony F. Earley Jr. - PG&E Corp.: It's the last one where I'll be speaking, I'll be listening in.

Okay. Well, congratulations and good luck on the future. Thanks. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - PG&E Corp.: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Our next question comes from the line of Travis Miller with Morningstar. Please proceed.

Good morning. Thank you. I was wondering real quick, the ROE settlement, how would that, if at all, impact the transmission earnings and allowed ROE? Jason P. Wells - PG&E Corp.: From an earnings standpoint, it's our objective to earn the CPUC authorized return on equity on a whole for the enterprise The reason why we say that it's because the FERC rate cases have historically been settled. And as part of the settlement, it's essentially a black box. So we don't specify directly the return on equity in those rate cases. So I think it's a fair assumption from a modeling standpoint just to apply the CPUC authorized return on equity across all of our rate base. We separately, we'll look at when we file the next TO rate case, kind of the support for the cost of capital at that time, particularly the return on equity, and we'll have to see what the factors are at that point.

Okay. And then, if you're able to say here, in terms of that black box, how much do those negotiations and FERC's view depend on kind of a state level ROE plus adder type of framework there? Jason P. Wells - PG&E Corp.: In the last filing we filed for 10.4 as the base with a 50 basis point adder. And we continue to believe that 50 basis point adder is appropriate. We'll continue to file for that. That obviously return on equity is a component that is negotiated as part of the overall settlement. But again, we don't individually negotiate final settlement terms. It's just an overall black box settlement.

Okay. Got it. And then a broader question, given work that you guys did, the success and you had resolving things in 2016, what's the next big regulatory hurdle for you guys? Does it go all the way out to the next GRC or is there something here that presents some material risk on the regulatory side in the next two years or so? Assuming all the settlements go through, right, and that's obviously still a risk. But assuming those go through, what's the next big risk? Jason P. Wells - PG&E Corp.: Assuming that all – and we do assume that all the settlements will go through – our next big rate case filing will actually be the Gas Transmission Storage Rate Case for 2019. And we typically file most of our rate cases sort of late summer, kind of early fall. So from a rate case standpoint that's the next big one on the horizon. I will say we need to close out the OII associated with our ex parte violations. And so from a standpoint of a risk that that is one that we need to resolve here and are actively in settlement negotiations to resolve that here hopefully shortly.

Okay. So, it sounds kind of like 2018 is, I hate to say it, I will use it in my words not yours, but it's kind of in the books, if you don't have any pending rate cases, right and other regulatory activities, if all of that is resolved, the settlements resolved in 2017 then it's really not a whole lot, right, that would jeopardize 2018. So... Jason P. Wells - PG&E Corp.: I won't say that we have, we do file with the FERC annually, but I do believe we have good clarity on our plan, given the fact that we have either settled rate cases or all-party settlement supporting the majority of our spend over the planning horizon, as well as the settlement that we discussed with the cost of capital proceeding. So, we think we have really strong line of sight to the rate base growth that we've articulated today, and we have a strong path the dividend payout ratio of 60% by 2019. Anthony F. Earley Jr. - PG&E Corp.: So this is Tony. This is kind of the theme that we've been talking about over the last couple of months and why I said, 2016 was really a pivotal year. We now are able to focus on the future far more intensely than we have been in the past, where we were just dealing with the various cases. Now, as Jason said, we still have one OII, we've got our Diablo Canyon settlement case. They are still out there, that has to be resolved. But yeah, when you're talking about a revenue stream coming forward, we've got the two big cases and hopefully we'll get the rate case settlement approved. We now are focusing on the changes that are going on in the industry and the opportunities that we have to invest in the clean energy future in California, which is clearly part of this Governor's objective and the legislators objectives, and the Commission's objectives. And that's why I think, we're really well set up to align with those desires.

No, that's great, appreciate it. Janet C. Loduca - PG&E Corp.: Okay. This is Janet. I just want to thank everyone for participating today and we'll be talking to you in the future. Thanks.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending the fourth quarter PG&E Corporation Earnings Conference Call. This now concludes the conference. Enjoy the rest of your day.