Chris Foster: No, Anthony, I think it’s really a couple of considerations. First, there’s a phase 2 piece of this to keep in mind. So the commission is examining both the trigger itself and its treatment as well as an issue rerate, which is the yield spread adjustment in particular. So those are two that will be considered in the phase 2. There’s not actually a specific time frame around it. Stepping back and looking at the core of your question, I think you should assume from our standpoint that we would be filing for the upward adjustment, really consistent with that mechanism, Hard for me to predict where other interveners would come in. But at this stage, that would be our intention. From a planning standpoint, you can imagine if there is the potential for that trigger to trigger to the upside, that could actually just strengthen our plan further and provide us more capability to put more into the system.
Anthony Crowdell : Great. And then lastly, Patti, it’s on your, I guess, story of the month, I think you framed it as — or savings a month of the undergrounding. And I understand the savings that you get by not having to bury the conduit, whatever, 36 inches and now you’re at 26, but if I think of the — probably a large component of the cost of undergrounding, maybe labor. And if I think of PG&E is probably on their gas side has been burying gas pipe for 100 years. Like I don’t — can I expect any efficiencies in the digging trenches and putting a conduit down, that great considering you’ve been — you probably have mastered the trenching of a conduit from the gas side of the business?
Patricia Poppe : Anthony, that’s a great question. And first of all, I do remind people that all the time that we’ve been burying pipe for a long time. However, I would say the synergies that exist are that we can deploy our workforce. We actually have a program called GTE, gas to electric, where we’re enabling our gas workforce to do a lot of the civil work. All that to say, this undergrounding of electric lines has new technologies that we can deploy today that we’re pretty excited about. And you’ll get a chance to see those at our Investor Day, the actual equipment, whether it’s a rock wheel or a plow-type piece of equipment or even at grade conduit in what’s something called K rail, which we’ll be able to show you all these things at Investor Day.
There’s still much, much efficiency that we can gain, and we’re really excited about all of the progress and the ideas that we’re getting both from our partners as well as from our own work team in our gas division. So there’s definitely a great synergy there to leverage.
Operator: And we’ll take the next question from Ryan Levine at Citi.
Ryan Levine : I guess to follow up on the waste elimination center comments, can you expand what type of projects or initiatives you’re tracking beyond mail postage? I mean how material are some of these opportunities? Or any way to frame the scale?
Patricia Poppe : Yes. Well, the scale is really massive, Ryan. It starts — I think the book ends of the mailing, which is $4 million of potential savings with just 1 mailing, all the way up to the story that I shared about the undergrounding, that’s all borne out of waste elimination. Some other important focus areas for us in the waste elimination center are things like our new customer connection process improvement. I know that’s an area of interest for a lot of people, and we’ve been making significant progress there in identifying waste in that process that we can eliminate and make a better outcome, a faster outcome for customers at a lower cost as well as other things like just bundling work. We have work often done in silos.
So on one week, a crew might go out and change a cross arm and two weeks later, they might go out and change that very same pole. And so bundling work so that we get out there once and do it at the lowest cost possible and least disruptive for customers. The potential here, Ryan, I cannot describe is almost infinite. And when we get 26,000 of my co-workers all being proficient in being able to see waste for what it is and then eliminate it on a daily basis, this thing just runs itself. That’s a — it’s a great future that lies ahead for this team and therefore, our customers.
Ryan Levine : Good to hear. In terms of the CEMA exposure in the early part of the quarter, where is the balance for that as of the end of the quarter? And any time line for recovery through the regulatory process?
Chris Foster: Sure. Just to help give you a feel for that. What we had filed earlier, Ryan, was a little over $300 million in impact so far. I will offer to you that’s early. That number is going to go up. I would assume we’re going to be in total — if you look at all the storm impacts, we’re talking about 13 atmospheric rivers of impacts here, this is probably going to be over $500 million in impact. The CEMA related account, though, is a very consistent recovery mechanism. But as you go forward, we would typically complete the work, audit the work, make that filing, and you typically get around an 18-month to two-year time line for resolution but been used really here in California for many years.
Operator: And that does conclude our question-and-answer session. At this time, I would like to turn the conference back over to Patti Poppe for closing remarks.
