Victory for mobilehome park residents and owners

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) authorized the continuance for the next 10 years of the program that converts ownership of privately-held utility systems in mobilehome parks to that of investor-owned energy utilities, including Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Gas. Of the 400,000 mobilehome spaces in California, over 300,000 are currently served by “master metered” systems that are owned and maintained by the park owner.

Most of these systems were built more than 40 years ago, although many have been replaced periodically. This program aims to transfer all of these systems to standard utility service. Due to the age of these systems, some engineered to only last a dozen years initially because these parks were intended as “transitional” land uses, concerns about safety have been paramount. This program will bring these systems up to the standards of other California ratepayers.

Along with improved safety, residents will gain greater access to energy efficiency and other energy management programs that they already fund at the utilities, and smoother billing. Residents also will have access to time of use rates that has been precluded by the intervening master meter. Park owners will avoid the increasing complexity of billing, system maintenance and safety inspections and filings, and future costs of system replacement. In addition, park owners have been inadequately compensated through utility rates for maintaining those systems, and have resistance in recovering related costs through rents.

I have been working with one of my clients, Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) since 1997 to achieve this goal. The momentum finally shifted in 2014 when we convinced the utilities that making these investments could be profitable. First athree-year pilot program was authorized, and this recent decision builds on that.

 

Is PG&E really a “recidivist felon”?

TURN, the residential ratepayer intervenor group, submitted a comment letter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) bankruptcy investigation proceeding (I.19-09-016). TURN has some harsh statements asking for denial of recovery of some large expenses, including wildfire victim payments and legal fees. One particular passage caught my attention:

The stark truth is that PG&E is a recidivist felon that has caused multiple
major catastrophes within the space of a decade.

I looked up the definition on Wikipedia. (There are other definitions that differ some.)

Recidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been trained to extinguish that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offense.

But does “recidivist” apply in this situation for this reason: Has PG&E really suffered negative consequences from its previous behavior? So far, despite being convicted of felonies twice in the last decade, PG&E has been fined a total of $6.5 million for the San Bruno gas line explosion and the Camp Fire, which is equal to just over 4 hours of revenues for PG&E, and no one has gone to prison. PG&E continues to hold its franchise with few restrictions over most of northern California, and it appears headed for exiting bankruptcy by June 30 with a favorable finance plan in which current shareholders still hold most of the equity. It’s also not obvious how PG&E has been “trained” to extinguish its behavior, although the CPUC has instituted more oversight.

So, it’s not clear where and how PG&E has suffered significant negative consequences for its criminal acts, unless you consider “flea bites” as real punishment.  To the contrary, PG&E has turned each of these events into money making enterprises.  The first was by catching up on its deferred natural gas pipeline maintenance that it should have been spending on for decades. Instead, the CPUC could have simply ordered that the deferred spending be taken from past revenues. The second is the added investment of billions in hardening the rural distribution system and setting up back up generation in danger areas. That will add hundreds of millions or even a couple billion to annual revenues, all delivering a 10%+ return to company shareholders. Instead of negative consequences, PG&E has been able to turn these convictions into positive financial gains for its investors.

Should CCAs accept a slice of Diablo Canyon power?

The northern California community choice aggregators (CCAs) are considering a offer from PG&E to allocate to each CCA a proportionate share of parts of its portfolio, including the Diablo Canyon nuclear generation station. Many CCA boards are hearing from anti-nuclear activists to deny this offer, both for moral reasons and the belief that such a rejection will somehow pressure PG&E financially. The first set of concern is beyond my professional expertise, but their reasoning on the economic and regulatory issues is incorrect.

  • CCAs buy a substantial portion of their generation (the majority for many of them) from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) energy markets. PG&E schedules Diablo Canyon into those CAISO markets and under the current CAISO tariffs, nuclear generation is a “must take” resource that the CAISO can’t turn back. So the entire output of Diablo Canyon is scheduled into the CAISO market (without any bidding process), PG&E is paid the market clearing price (MCP) for that Diablo power, and the CCAs buy that mix of nuclear power at the MCP. There is no discretion for either the CAISO or the CCAs in taking excess power from Diablo. There is no “lifeline” for Diablo that the CCAs have any control over under current legal and regulatory parameters.
  • CCAs already pay for a proportionate share of Diablo Canyon equal to the CCAs share of overall load. That payment is broken into two parts (and maybe a third): 1) the purchase of energy from the CAISO at the MCP and 2) the stranded capital and operating costs above the MCP in the PCIA. (CCAs also may be paying for a share of the resource adequacy, but I haven’t thought through that one.) Thus, if the CCAs receive credit for the energy that they are already paying for, the energy portion essentially comes as “free”. In addition, because CCAs currently pay for the remaining share of Diablo costs, but get no energy credit for that in the PCIA calculation, then that credit is in the PCIA is also “free”. In addition, the CCAs gain credit for Diablo’s GHG-free generation (as recognized in the Air Resources Board GHG allowance program) as LSE’s for no extra cost, or for “free.” The bottom line is when the CCAs gain credit for products that they are already paying for, receipt of those products is for “free.”
  • Accepting this deal will not solve ALL of the CCAs problems, but that’s a false goal. That was never the intent. It does however give the CCAs a respite to get through the period until Diablo retires. One needs to recognize that this provides some of the needed relief.
  • Finally, there’s never any certainty over any large deal. Uncertainty should not freeze decision making. The uncertainty about the PCIA going forward is equally large and perhaps offsetting. The risks should be identified, discussed, considered and addressed to the extent possible. But that’s different than simply nixing the deal without addressing the other large risk. Naively believing that Diablo can be closed in short order (especially with the COVID crisis) is not a true risk management strategy.

From these points, we can come to these conclusions:

  1. Whether the CCAs accept or reject the nuclear offer has NO impact on PG&E’s revenue stream. The decisions that the CCAs face are entirely about whether the CCAs can lower their costs and gain some additional GHG reduction credits that they are already paying for (in other words, reduce their subsidies of bundled customers.) Nothing that the CCAs decide will affect the closure date of Diablo. If the CCAs reject the allocations, it will simply be business as usual to the full closures in 2025. Any other interpretation doesn’t reflect the current regulatory environment at the CPUC which are unlikely to change (and even that is unknown) until enough commissioners’ five-year terms roll over.
  2. The system can only be changed by legislative and regulatory action. That means that the CCAs must make the most prudent financial decisions within the current context rather than making a purely symbolic gesture that is financially adverse and will do nothing to change the BAU practice. A wise decision would consider what is the true impact of the action on
  3. Finally, early closure of Diablo will NOT remove the invested capital cost from PG&E’s ratebase, which is what drives the PCIA. After the plant is closed, activists will ALSO have to show that the INVESTMENT in the plant was imprudent and should not have been allowed. Given the long history on decisions and settlements in Diablo investment costs and the inclusion of recovery of Diablo costs in both AB1890 and AB1X at the beginning and end of the energy crisis, that is an impossible task. Only a constitutional amendment through the initiative process could possibly lead to such an action, and even that would have to survive a court challenge that probably would push past 2024.

I want to finish with what I think is a very important point that has been overlooked by the activists: The effort to close Diablo Canyon has won. Activists might not like the timeline of that victory, but it is a victory nevertheless that looked unachievable prior to 2016. It’s worthwhile considering whether the added effort for what will be for a variety of reasons little gain is an important question to answer.

Note that Diablo Canyon is already scheduled for closure in 2024 and 2025. A proceeding to either reopen A.16-08-006 or to open a new rulemaking or application would probably take close to a year, so the proceeding probably wouldn’t open until almost 2021. The actual proceeding would take up to a year, so now we’re to 2022 before an actual decision. PG&E would have to take up to a year to plan the closure at that point, which then takes us to 2023. So at best the plant closes a year earlier than currently scheduled. In addition, PG&E still receives the full payments for its investments and there’s likely no capital additions avoided by the early closure, so the cost savings would be minimal.

How to choose a water system model

The California Water & Environmental Modeling Forum (CWEMF) has proposed to update its water modeling protocol guidance, last issued in 2000. This modeling protocol applies to many other settings, including electricity production and planning (which I am familiar with). I led the review of electricity system simulation models for the California Energy Commission, and asked many of these questions then.

Questions that should be addressed in water system modeling include:

  • Models can be used for either short-term operational or long term planning purposes—models rarely can serve both masters. The model should be chosen for its analytic focus is on predicting with accuracy and/or precision a particular outcome (usually for short term operations) or identifying resilience and sustainability.
  • There can be a trade off between accuracy and precision. And focusing overly so on precision in one aspect of a model is unlikely to improve the overall accuracy of the model due to the lack of precision elsewhere. In addition, increased precision also increases processing time, thus slowing output and flexibility.
  • A model should be able to produce multiple outcomes quickly as a “scenario generator” for analyzing uncertainty, risk and vulnerability. The model should be tested for accuracy when relaxing key constraints that increase processing time. For example, in an electricity production model, relaxing the unit commitment algorithm increased processing speed twelve fold while losing only 7 percent in accuracy, mostly in the extreme tail cases.
  • Water models should be able to use different water condition sequences rather than relying on historic traces. In the latter case, models may operate as though the future is known with certainty.
  • Water management models should include the full set of opportunity costs for water supply, power generation, flood protection and groundwater pumping. This implies that some type of linkage should exist between these types of models.

Public takeover of PG&E isn’t going to solve every problem

This article in the Los Angeles Times about what a public takeover of PG&E appears to take on uses the premise that such a step would lead to lower costs, more efficiencies and reduced wildfire risks. These expectations have never been realistic, and shouldn’t be the motivation for such an action. Instead, a public takeover would offer these benefits and opportunities:

  • While the direct costs of constructing and repairing the grid would likely be about the same (and PG&E has some of the highest labor costs around), the cost to borrow and invest the needed funds would be as much as 30% less. That’s because PG&E weighted average cost of capital (debt and shareholder equity) is around 8% per annum while muncipal debt is 5% or less.
  • Ratepayers are already repaying shareholders and creditors for their investments in the utility system. Buying PG&E’s system would simply be replacing those payments with payments to creditors that hold public bonds. Similar to the cost of fixing the grid, this purchase should reduce the annual cost to repay that debt by 30%.
  • And along these lines, utility shareholders have borne little of the costs from these types of risks. Shareholders supposedly get a premium on their investment returns for these “risks” but when asked for examples of large scale disallowances, none of the utilities could provide significant examples. If ratepayers are already bearing all of those risks, then they should get all of the investment benefits as well.
  • Direct public oversight will eliminate a layer of regulation that PG&E has used to impede effective oversight and deflect responsibility. To some extent regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission has been like pushing on a string, with PG&E doing what it wants by “interpreting” CPUC decisions. The result has been a series of missteps by the utility over many decades.
  • A new utility structure may provide an opportunity to renegotiate a number of overly lucrative renewable power purchase agreements that PG&E signed between 2010 and 2015. PG&E failed to properly manage the risk profile of its portfolio because under state law it could pass through all costs of those PPAs once approved by the CPUC. PG&E’s shareholders bore no risk, so why consider that risk? There are several possible options to addressing this issue, but PG&E has little incentive to act.
  • A publicly-owned utility can work more closely with local governments to facilitate the evolution of the energy system to meet climate change challenges. As a private entity with restrictions on how it can participate in customer-side energy management, PG&E cannot work hand-in-glove with cities and counties on building and transportation transformation. PG&E right now has strong incentives to prevent further defections away from its grid; public utilities are more likely to accept these defections with the possibility that the stranded asset costs will be socialized.

The risks of wildfire damages and liabilities are unlikely to change substantially (except if the last point accelerates distributed energy resource investment). But the other benefits and opportunities are likely to make these costs lower.

Davis Should Set Its Utility Reserve Targets with a Transparent and Rigorous Method

The City of Davis Utilities Commission is considering on February 19 whether to disregard the preliminary recommendations of the Commission’s Enterprise Fund Reserve Policies subcommittee to establish a transparent, relatively rigorous and consistent method for setting City reserves. The Staff Report, written by the now-departed finance director, ignored the stated objectives of both the Utilities and Finance and Budget Commissions to develop a consistent set of policies that did not rely on the undocumented and opaque practices of other communities. Those practices had no linkage whatsoever to risk assessment, and the American Water Works Association’s report that the Staff relied on again to reject the Commission’s recommendation again fails to provide any documentation on how the proposed targets reflect risk mitigation—they are simply drawn from past practices.[1]

The City’s Finance & Budget Committee raised the question of whether the City held too much in reserves over five years ago, and the Utilities Commission agreed in 2017 to evaluate the status of the reserves for the four City enterprise funds—water, sanitation/waste disposal, sewer/wastewater, and stormwater. A Utilities Commission subcommittee reviewed the current reserve policies and what is being done by other cities. (I was on that subcommittee.) First, the subcommittee found that the City was using different methods for each fund, and that other cities had not conducted risk analyses to set their targets either. The subcommittee conducted a statistical analysis that allows the City to adjust its reserve targets for changing conditions rather than just relying on the heuristic values provided by consultants.

The subcommittee’s proposal adopted initially by the Utilities Commission achieved three objectives that had been missing from the previous informal reserves policy. Two of these would still be missing under the Staff’s proposal:

  1. Clearly defining and documenting the reserves held for debt coverage. While these amounts were shown in previous rate studies, the documented source of those amounts generally not included and the subcommittee’s requests brought those to the fore. The Staff method appears to accept continuance of that practice. The Staff proposes to keep those separate, which differs from past practice which rolled all reserves together.
  2. Reserve targets are first set based on the historic volatility of enterprise net income. In other words, the reserves would be determined transparently with a rigorous method on the basis of the need for those reserves. The method uses a target that is statistically beyond the 99th percentile in the probability distribution. And this target can be readily updated for new information each year. The Staff report rejects this method to adopt a target that refers to the practice of other communities, and none of those practices appear to be based on analytic methods from research done by the subcommittee.
  3. Reserve targets are then adjusted to cover the largest single year capital improvement/replacement investment made historically to ensure enough cash for non-debt expenditures. Because the net income volatility is a joint function of revenues, operating expenditures and non-debt capital expenditures, the latter category is not separated out of the analysis. However, an added margin can be incorporated. That said, the data set for the fiscal years of 2008/2009 to 2016/2017 used by the subcommittee found that setting the target based on the volatility has been sufficient to date. The Staff report appears to call for a separate, unnecessary reserve fund for this purpose based on annual depreciation that has no relationship to risk exposure, and implicitly duplicates the debt payments already being made on these utility systems. This would be a wasteful duplication that sets the reserves too high.

The Finance and Budget raised at least two important issues in its review:

  1. Water and sewer usage and revenues may be correlated so that the reserves may be shared between the two funds. However, further review shows that the funds have a slight negative correlation, indicating that the reserves should be held separately.
  2. The water fund already has an implicit reserve source when a drought emergency is declared because a surcharge of 25% is added to water utility charges. I agree that this should be accounted for in the historic volatility analysis. This reduces the volatility in fiscal years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016, and reduces the water fund volatility reserve from 26% to 21%.
  3. Working cash reserves are unnecessary because the utility funds are already well established (not needing a start up reserve), and that the volatility reserves already cover any significant lags in the revenues that may occur. This observation is valid, and I agree that the working cash reserves are duplicative of the other reserve requirements. The working cash reserves should be eliminated from the reserve targets for this reason.

Finally, the Staff proposal raises an issue about the appropriate basis for determining the sanitation/waste removal reserve target. The Staff proposes to base it solely on direct City expenses. However, the enterprise fund balance shows a deficit that includes the revenues and expenses incurred by the contractor, first Davis Waste Removal and then Recology. We need more specificity on which party is bearing the risk of these shortfalls before determining the appropriate reserve target. Given the current City accounting stance that incorporates those shortfalls, I propose using the Utility Commission’s proposed method for now.

Based the analysis done by Utilities Commission subcommittee and the recommendations of the Finance & Budget Committee, the chart above shows the target % reserves for each fund without the debt coverage target. It also shows the % reserve targets implied by the Staff’s proposed method.[2] The chart also shows corresponding dollar amount for the proposed total target reserves, including the debt reserves, and the cash assets held for those funds in fiscal year 2016/2017. Importantly, this new reserve target shows that the City held about $30 million of excess reserves in 2016/2017.

[1] It appears the Staff may have misread the Utilities Commission’s recommendation memorandum and confused the proposed targets policies with the inferred existing policies. This makes it uncertain as to whether the Staff fully considered what had been proposed by the Utilities Commission.

[2] The amounts shown in the October 16, 2019 Staff Report on Item 6B do not appear to be consistent with the methodology shown in Table 1 of that report.

We’ve already paid for Diablo Canyon

As I wrote last week, PG&E is proposing that a share of Diablo Canyon nuclear plant output be allocated to community choice aggregators (CCAs) as part of the resolution of issues related to the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), Resource Adequacy (RA) and Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) rulemakings. While the allocation makes sense for CCAs, it does not solve the problem that PG&E ratepayers are paying for Diablo Canyon twice.

In reviewing the second proposed settlement on PG&E costs in 1994, we took a detailed look at PG&E’s costs and revenues at Diablo. Our analysis revealed a shocking finding.

Diablo Canyon was infamous for increasing in cost by more than ten-fold from the initial investment to coming on line. PG&E and ratepayer groups fought over whether to allow $2.3 billion dollars.  The compromise in 1988 was to essentially shift the risk of cost recovery from ratepayers to PG&E through a power purchase agreement modeled on the Interim Standard Offer Number 4 contract offered to qualifying facilities (but suspended as oversubscribed in 1985).

However, the contract terms were so favorable and rich to PG&E, that Diablo costs negatively impacted overall retail rates. These costs were a key contributing factor that caused industrial customers to push for deregulation and restructuring. As an interim solution in 1995 in anticipation of forthcoming restructuring, PG&E and ratepayer groups arrived at a new settlement that moved Diablo Canyon back into PG&E’s regulated ratebase, earning the utilities allowed return on capital. PG&E was allowed to keep 100% of profit collected between 1988 and 1995. The subsequent 1996 settlement made some adjustments but arrived at essentially the same result. (See Decision 97-05-088.)

While PG&E had borne the risks for seven years, that was during the plant startup and its earliest years of operation.  As we’ve seen with San Onofre NGS and other nuclear plants, operational reliability is most at risk late in the life of the plant. PG&E’s originally took on the risk of recovering its entire investment over the entire life of the plant.  The 1995 settlement transferred the risk for recovering costs over the remaining life of the plant back to ratepayers. In addition, PG&E was allowed to roll into rate base the disputed $2.3 billion. This shifted cost recovery back to the standard rate of depreciation over the 40 year life of the NRC license. In other words, PG&E had done an end-run on the original 1988 settlement AND got to keep the excess profits.

The fact that PG&E accelerated its investment recovery over the first seven years and then shifted recovery risk to ratepayers implies that PG&E should be allowed to recover only the amount that it would have earned at a regulated return under the original 1988 settlement. This is equal to the discounted net present value of the net income earned by Diablo Canyon, over both the periods of the 1988 (PPA) and 1995 settlements.

In 1996, we calculated what PG&E should be allowed to recover in the settlement given this premise.  We assumed that PG&E would be allowed to recover the disputed $2.3 billion because it had taken on that risk in 1988, but the net income stream should be discounted at the historic allowed rate of return over the seven year period.  Based on these assumptions, PG&E had recovered its entire $7.7 billion investment by October 1997, just prior to the opening of the restructured market in March 1998.  In other words, PG&E shareholders were already made whole by 1998 as the cost recovery for Diablo was shifted back to ratepayers.  Instead the settlement agreement has caused ratepayers to pay twice for Diablo Canyon.

PG&E has made annual capital additions to continue operation at Diablo Canyon since then and a regulated return is allowed under the regulatory compact.  Nevertheless, the correct method for analyzing the potential loss to PG&E shareholders from closing Diablo is to first subtract $5.1 billion from the plant in service, reducing the current ratebase to capital additions incurred since 1998. This would reduces the sunk costs that are to be recovered in rates from $31 to $3 per megawatt-hour.

Note that PG&E shareholders and bondholders have earned a weighted return of approximately 10% annually on this $5.1 billion since 1998. The compounded present value of that excess return was $18.1 billion by 2014 earned by PG&E.

Underlying economics of polarization

Matthew Kahn, USC economics professor, writes about a new book, Why We’re Polarized,

Rising polarization is taking place because there is now a fundamental disagreement across our society concerning who has the property rights to different resources.

While Kahn is correct about property rights being at the core of the dispute, he glosses over the real issue by going off to discuss game theory and bargaining. That real issue is how different groups in society gained those property rights, whether its entitlement to jobs or use of natural resources or control of social mores. Much of these property rights were gained through coercion of some form, such as slavery, land grabs or paternalistic social structures. Resolving these requires agreeing first on basic societal morality and ethics, and then turning to how to resolve the redistribution of those rights, rather than just plunging straight into bargaining.

Calculating the risk reduction benefits of closing Germany’s nuclear plants

Max Aufhammer at the Energy Institute at Haas posted a discussion of this recent paper reviewing the benefits and costs of the closure of much of the German nuclear fleet after the Fukushima accident in 2011.

Quickly reading the paper, I don’t see how the risk of a nuclear accident is computed, but it looks like the value per MWH was taken from a different paper. So I did a quick back of the envelope calculation for the benefit of the avoided consequences of an accident. This paper estimates a risk of an accident once every 3,704 reactor-operating years (which is very close to a calculation I made a few years ago). (There are other estimates showing significant risk as well.) For 10 German reactors, this translates to 0.27% per year.

However, this is not a one-off risk, but rather a cumulative risk over time, as noted in the referenced study. This is akin to the seismic risk on the Hayward Fault that threatens the Delta levees, and is estimated at 62% over the next 30 years. For the the German plants, this cumulative probability over 30 years is 8.4%. Using the Fukushima damages noted in the paper, this represents $25 to $63 billion. Assuming an average annual output of 7,884 GWH, the benefit from risk reduction ranges from $11 to $27 per MWH.

The paper appears to make a further error in using only the short-run nuclear fuel costs of $10 per MWH as representing the avoided costs created by closing the plants. Additional avoided costs include avoided capital additions that accrue with refueling and plant labor and O&M costs. For Diablo Canyon, I calculated in PG&E’s 2019 ERRA proceeding that these costs were close to an additional $20 per MWH. I don’t know the values for the German plants, but clearly they should be significant.

CCAs don’t undermine their mission by taking a share of Diablo Canyon

Northern California community choice aggregators (CCAs) are considering whether to accept an offer from PG&E to allocate a proportionate share of its “large carbon-free” generation as a credit against the power charge indifference adjustment (PCIA) exit fee.  The allocation would include a share of Diablo Canyon power. The allocation for 2019 and 2020; an extension of this allocation is being discussed on the PCIA rulemaking.

The proposal faces opposition from anti-nuclear and local community activists who point to the policy adopted by many CCAs not to accept any nuclear power in their portfolios. However, this opposition is misguided for several reasons, some of which are discussed in this East Bay Community Energy staff report.

  • The CCAs already receive and pay for nuclear generation as part of the mix of “unspecified” power that the CCAs buy through the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The entire cost of Diablo Canyon is included in the Total Portfolio Cost used to calculate the PCIA. The CCAs receive a “market value” credit against this generation, but the excess cost of recovering the investment in Diablo Canyon (for which PG&E is receiving double payment based on calculations I made in 1996) is recovered through the PCIA. The CCAs can either continue to pay for Diablo through the PCIA without receiving any direct benefits, or they can at least gain some benefits and potentially lower their overall costs. (CCAs need to be looking at their TOTAL generation costs, not just their individual portfolio, when resource planning.)
  • Diablo Canyon is already scheduled to close Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025 after a contentious proceeding. This allocation is unlikely to change this decision as PG&E has said that the relicensed plant would cost in excess of $100 per megawatt-hour, well in excess of its going market value. I have written extensively here about how costly nuclear power has been and has yet to show that it can reduce those costs. Unless the situation changes significantly, Diablo Canyon will close then.
  • Given that Diablo is already scheduled for closure, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is unlikely to revisit this decision. But even so, a decision to either reopen A.16-08-006 or to open a new rulemaking or application would probably take close to a year, so the proceeding probably would not open until almost 2021. The actual proceeding would take up to a year, so now we are to 2022 before an actual decision. PG&E would have to take up to a year to plan the closure at that point, which then takes us to 2023. So at best the plant closes a year earlier than currently scheduled. In addition, PG&E still receives the full payments for its investments and there is likely no capital additions avoided by the early closure, so the cost savings would be minimal.