Good afternoon and welcome to the Edison International Fourth Quarter 2015 Financial Teleconference. My name is Mary and I will be your operator today. Today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Scott Cunningham, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Cunningham, you may begin your conference.

Thanks, Mary, and welcome, everyone. Our principal speakers today will be Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ted Craver; and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Jim Scilacci. Also here are other members of the management team. Materials supporting today's call are available at www.edisoninvestor.com. These include our Form 10-Q, Ted's and Jim's prepared remarks, and the presentation that accompanies Jim's comments. Tomorrow afternoon, we will distribute our regular business update presentation. During this call, we will make forward-looking statements about the future outlook for Edison International and its subsidiaries. Actual results could differ materially from current expectation. Important factors that could cause different results are set forth in our SEC filings. Please read these carefully. The presentation includes certain outlook assumptions, as well as reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to the nearest GAAP measure. During Q&A, please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. I'll now turn the call over to Ted. Theodore F. Craver, Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Thank you, Scott, and good afternoon, everyone. In my remarks today, I will touch briefly on our 2015 performance and then focus on Southern California Edison's and Edison Energy Group's, long-term growth opportunity. Closing out one year and starting a new one is a natural time to reflect on some of the longer-term themes. Full year 2015 core earnings were $4.10 per share, $0.23 above the high end of our core earnings guidance range. We also introduced today our 2016 core earnings guidance range of $3.81 to $4.01 per share which reflects SCE's strong rate base growth, a continuing focus on improvements in operational efficiency and ongoing energy efficiency incentives. We believe that SCE's rate base is the best proxy for long-term earnings growth potential. As Jim will soon describe in more detail, we have updated…

Thank you. Our first question coming from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Your line open.

Hi, good afternoon, and congratulations. Theodore F. Craver, Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Thanks, Julien.

Great. So first, Ted, let's start with your opening comments on the call at the services side of the business. I'd be curious, as you see that scaling, you've done some acquisitions here, what kind of earnings power could we'd be looking at over the years? What kind of contributions and when do you see that happening? Theodore F. Craver, Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: It's a great question and words were chosen pretty carefully to indicate. At this point, we want to try to do more in the testing side, make sure that we actually think that we've got a business here that really makes sense and that is scalable. It's that last part that I think we're spending most of our time on now. Assuming it's scalable and assuming we can make those kinds of investments that would really allow us to fully capture the opportunity, to be relevant to a company our size, we've generally thought that the suite of businesses on the Edison Energy side, so not just energy services stuff I spent a lot of my comments on, but really the whole group of companies there, this probably got to be, just as a general rule of thumb, I'd say it's got to be somewhere in the 10% to be significant or meaningful to a company our size. So I think, we want to see steady progress in that direction. We want to see that these things are capable of actually scaling to that size. But assuming that things continue on in the path at least we see in these very early days, that's the type of magnitude that we would be looking for.

Got it. Excellent. And turning to the numbers a little bit, just as a follow-up quickly, can you elaborate a little bit more, Jim, on the rate base offset here on 2015, just as you think about the number being supposedly less than you had initially supposed or at least thrown out there? What's the exact accounting there? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: So, there's a couple of things going on. Bonus depreciation did not have impact in 2015 because of the items that I ticked through. There's a number of things that really offset it, the biggest piece being the proration bonus depreciation in the first year and the overlap of those that float from 2014 into 2015 that we had already accounted for. And the biggest thing here is the pole loading program. We picked up a little over $300 million of rate base from pole loading that was not included in our prior forecast that we included now based on our year-end review and that's the biggest offset for 2015. And you can see bonus growing in 2016 and 2017 as you expect. It would be at 50% and it reaches up to $700 million impact by 2017. But really what's happening in the pole loading program in a sense is offsetting the bonus depreciation and it gets up to – pole loading gets up to $700 million. And so, the only changes really going on are the small changes in and around what's happening with FERC and a little bit of the CPUC. So, we do have an increase in rate base, ultimately through 2016 and 2017, but the bonus depreciation is offset by the pole loading program. So, page 8, if you don't have it there, really kind of describes the full details of how rate base changed over this three-year period and I think it's probably the most helpful tool.

Indeed. Thank you. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: All right, Julien.

Thank you. Our next question coming from the Jonathan Arnold of Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.

Yeah. Good afternoon, guys. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Hey, Jonathan.

Just a quick one, follow-up on the pole loading. And I think you mentioned the year-end review, Jim. Can you just talk us through a little bit how that processed and it seems like you would have known about this when we can kind of met you at EEI, for example. So, I was just curious kind of how it sort of changed so much. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: It's a darn good question. In going through the general rate case decision, there was some confusion over how it actually operate and it came after further review in discussion that we were picking up – there was no limit to capital expenditures from the inception of the program through 2015. And the actual final decision included, really for all intention purposes, an estimate of pole loading based on some preliminary work. And because we were able to true up for actual capital expenditures, that delta fell out when we went through and reviewed it in more detail. So, as you recall, as we were going through the guidance as we got into the third quarter, I think for all intention purposes, we are so focused on repair deductions in getting all that accounting right and understanding it, that we didn't fully appreciate what was happening with pole loading, and so we picked it up as far as our fourth quarter accounting enclosure.

Okay. Thanks for that. And then just on the $0.18 drag, the parent and other for 2016, would you – in terms of getting a sense of how much these other businesses are a drag on numbers today, obviously, hopefully, there'll potentially be an opportunity at some point, how much of that $0.18 is associated with investments you're making in early stage businesses? If you weren't making them would be there... Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yeah. No, it's a good question. And what's happened in the last couple of year, Edison Capital, the sell down on that portfolio has been masking some of the ongoing costs that are occurring at the holding company. And for all intents and purposes, the change, I mentioned in my comments that we've guided people that the holding company cost on an annual basis taking out Edison Capital had been running at about $0.15 and that we bumped that up to $0.18. And the delta is primarily financing cost, not Edison Energy.

Okay. And do you see the Edison Energy costs kind of ticking higher before the net kind of comes – moves in the other direction, I guess? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: We're going to grow the businesses, but we also expect earnings from the businesses, too. So that, we'll have to see how it plays out going forward, and you can see we didn't have growth year-over-year from Edison Energy and we acquired three businesses. They have ongoing earnings. So our goal ultimately would be a source of earnings not use. So we'll have to see how things develop as we move down the road here.

Okay. Great. And one other topic, we read recently that there is kind of a new resource planning regime coming at the PUC out of SB 350 requiring integrated resource plans. Could you talk a little bit about that and how you see it changing how you've operated, if at all? Theodore F. Craver, Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: I'd like to turn that question over to Pedro. Pedro J. Pizarro - President & Director, Southern California Edison Co.: Hey, Jonathan. It's Pedro Pizarro. How are you?

Good. Thank you. Pedro J. Pizarro - President & Director, Southern California Edison Co.: So, SB 350, the bill that implemented the 50% renewables by 2030 for the state along with some actions on electric transportation calls for an integrated resource planning process. It's early days for that, Jonathan. It will work its way through the CPUC. Our view of that and view of the legislative intent in it is that it will help provide the PUC and state agencies a macro view, a planning perspective of how all the pieces fit together. We don't see necessarily they're significantly changing the nuts and bolts of the procurement process that we have because it's a pretty well prescribed process for that. I think as we understand the intent, it's more of a macro view on how the pieces will fit together across different kinds of renewable resources, transmission, et cetera, but in reality, the details will be worked out through the PUC process.

Any sense of when you would have to file (38:43) such a plan? Pedro J. Pizarro - President & Director, Southern California Edison Co.: I don't know, Jonathan. I know that that's just beginning to work its way through the PUC. I believe there's been some scoping work there. So, probably within a year or so will be the likely timeline.

Great, all right. Thanks a lot. Pedro J. Pizarro - President & Director, Southern California Edison Co.: It's not a next month kind of item.

Perfect. Got it. Thank you. Pedro J. Pizarro - President & Director, Southern California Edison Co.: Sure.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Hey, guys. Congrats to a good year and start to 2016. One question for Jim, one for Ted. Jim, just curious the $0.17 at SoCal had in guidance for 2016 for what sounds like a combination of O&M management as well as some financing benefit, how should people think about the that longer-term, meaning after 2016, whether you'll be able to keep that in 2017 or 2018, whether we should assume some of that continues in the 2017, but eventually that all kind of flows back to customers? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: You're correct. In 2017, it's the third year of the rate case cycle, the three-year rate case cycle, so you would expect us to hopefully retain some portion of that going forward. And 2018 is the general rate case, the test year. So the benefits we've derived over the prior rate case cycle flows to the customers. But again our goal would be to seek additional operational savings. There's more work to be done and we'll continue to focus on that, so we would hope to achieve some level of savings. I'm not going to predict what those might be. And the other piece here, the embedded cost of debt, we wouldn't file a general – our cost of capital proceeding would be effective and we'd litigated in 2017 for 1/1/2018 effectiveness assuming we don't extend it again. And so we would expect in 2018 that we would true up the embedded cost of debt at that time, unless we extend it again. So there is a... Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it....…

Thank you. Our next question coming from Steve Fleishman of Wolfe Research. Your line is open.

Yeah. Hi, good afternoon, guys. Just, Ted, on the dividend commentary, just wanted to clarify, obviously it's the same payout range of 45% to 55%. I think, the language you used was through the payout range and kind of I think you at some point even said targeting more over time toward the industry averages. Are you kind of implying that you're now targeting at least the high end of this range and may be looking to raise the range over time? Theodore F. Craver, Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. In probably, as Jim likes to say, my usual way trying to be clear, but vague. I guess I would – what I'm trying to point out are a couple of things. One, just the rate base mechanism that converts into earnings suggests to us this kind of 7-ish, 7% kind of a growth opportunity that would translate through to dividends, but we're at the bottom end of the range based on the midpoint of the 2016 earnings guidance range that we just gave. Depending on where earnings actually come out depending on how we would look at moving our way through the 45% to 55%, we would kind of view that 7% as more of a floor than anything else. So that was the principal point that I was trying to insinuate in there. In terms of whether we're trying to get to a specific point in the 45% to 55%, I clearly was not trying to give a specific point that we were targeting there. 45% to 55%, we feel, has been the appropriate range, given that we have a higher than industry average rate base growth and higher than industry average earnings growth rate. These things kind of ultimately balance together, but for the foreseeable future, we think we'll have a – we'll continue to have a higher than industry average rate base in earnings growth and so the 45% to 55% seems to still be about the right range.

Okay. Great. And then one other question on the productivity and financing savings. Should I assume this is the just ongoing efforts that you guys keep having to reduce costs in the business, if not kind of like one-time in nature in 2016? And thus, all else equal that should continue at least until we get to the next rate case? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question coming from the line of Praful Mehta of Citigroup. Your line is open.

Thank you. Hi, guys. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. So a quick question on growth rates and it's good to see the 7% through 2017, I guess the importance of DRP is what I'm trying to get to from the 2018 timeframe. What I'm trying to figure out, what proportion, I guess, of your CapEx spend will be DRP related and is there any concern that that DRP component can get pushed out or delayed in terms of CapEx spend for the next cycle? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: It's a darn good question. We've said repeatedly that we think the capital expenditures are going to be in that $4 billion plus or $4-ish billion range for the foreseeable future and all I can give you until we file our 2018 GRC is a sense that part of the component that could push the spending higher is DRP, but this year will be important – the balance of this year gathering from the PUC, what they're thinking about the DRP we will include in our GRC an appropriate level. And there are some other things that are pluses and minuses. Ted mentioned it. I had it in my script. We've got the Charge Ready program. It's flowing through. That's on a separate track and we need to get through the Phase 1 before we can add the additional – potentially up to $300 million of capital expenditures for that program. I also said, we didn't have any storage-related expenditures in there. So, there's a number of things that are in the mix, and when you get into a GRC, you take a look at all the factors, you want to make sure that your rates are appropriate that you're not putting up – pushing out the other edge for what you can afford from an affordability perspective. So, we'll take all those things into consideration, and, of course, we're going to pass back the benefits that we've realized in the current GRC cycle, and so we will have to see how all things work out. So it's hard to predict beyond that 4-plus-ish range going forward until we actually file the GRC in September.

Got you. Thanks, Jim. And just quickly a much more detailed question, but one of the offsets, I guess, you mentioned the bonus depreciation with this working cash. Can you just give us some context of what it is, and how do you see that like in future years? Is that a component in like 2016, 2017 as well, and what's the kind of size or order of magnitude of working cash? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Well, that's a long answer. But if I could simplify, as a company, we invest cash and it has to do with when you make ultimately payments and we have this part of the GRC, if you'd like to read all about it, there's a section in the GRC filing that's called the lead-lag study. And as a result of changes, as a result of bonus, it affected the lead-lag study and provided essentially more rate base for us. And I'm going to stop there, unless you want the gory details, which I'm going to lose my ability pretty quickly. But if you want more details, we'll be happy to take you through it after the call and we'll give you some more information.

Got you. That'll be helpful. Thanks, Jim. I appreciate it. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Okay.

Thank you. Our next question coming from the line of Ali Agha of SunTrust. Your line is open.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Good afternoon, Ali.

Hey, Jim or Ted, when you talk about this potential run-rate of CapEx $4 billion plus annually going forward. If you kind of reverse that with the cash flow benefits, I guess, from bonus depreciation, how do you look at your capacity to wrap up that CapEx before you run into, say, issuing new equity or before rate impacts get too big in your mindful customers? What kind of, I guess, cushion do you have, if you had the opportunity to go above $4 billion and still not have to issue equity and still keep the rate impact? What do you think is fairly reasonable? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Well. It's a tough question. That's really a financially modeling one. And you have to take in other factors, too. You have to look at debt capacity at the utility, how much short-term debt you could use. You can look at debt capacity at the holding company and there are just factors that you're balancing accounts, how it changes your cash. As you know, now we're fairly over collected in our balancing accounts. So you have to look at all these things and then crank that through the model in terms of what you're trying to do in terms of capital expenditures and then how you're targeting rate base and then rate growth. So it's a very complicated set of factors that the important thing the management team here will do between now and September is try to get all these dials just right and as we prepare for and file our 2018 GRC. So it's not a satisfactory answer, but there is just so many components to go into it. Theodore F. Craver, Jr. - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Hey, Ali, this…

Okay, very helpful. Second question, with regards to where we stand on SONGS, just to understand the process, now it appears we're really waiting for the ALJ decision and that sets the clock with regards to the Commission or Board, et cetera. Is that it or are anything else pending or anything else you can point to for us to try to monitor this from our vantage point? Adam S. Umanoff - Executive Vice President & General Counsel: This is Adam Umanoff, the General Counsel at EIX. There really isn't anything else we can point you to. There is a request for rehearing and their petitions for modification that are pending. Until the ALJ rules on the petitions for modification, and that goes up to the Commission, and until the Commission rules on the request for rehearing, there is really no other action to consider.

Understood. Thank you. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Okay, Ali.

Thank you. Our next question coming from the line of Ashar Khan of Visium. Your line is open.

Good afternoon and congrats. Jim, as I guess one thing which we are trying to fathom is everything is now trading on 2018, and if I'm correct, you mentioned you will provide the 2018 rate base in September when you file the rate case, but I just wanted to get a couple of things right. So, you said, if you spend about $4 billion, that adds to approximately like $2 billion of rate base and that should allow you to keep your 7% EPS CAGR or rate base CAGR going from 2017 to 2018. Is that correct, that's what I heard? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: So, just a clarification, the 7% CAGR was from 2015 through 2017.

Okay. Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Since we don't have any other numbers out there, we're just giving you the indication of $4 billion-ish is the appropriate level of capital expenditures going beyond 2017.

But $4 billion is equal to $2 billion in rate base, right? That's the correct math? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: It is a rough rule of thumb, yes.

Okay. And secondly, you also alluded to, I just want to mention, if I got it right is that, you do expect the efficiency savings, the savings that you have like $0.17 right now, productivity and financing benefits, you don't expect them to go to zero in 2018. You expect there to be some level, you don't know what, probably not as high as $0.17, but there should be some level of those savings still there in the next rate cycle, is that fair? Jim Scilacci - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: That would be our hope.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. That was the last question. I will now turn the call back to Mr. Cunningham.

Thanks very much, everyone, for participating. And don't hesitate to call us, Investor Relations, if you have any follow-up questions. Thanks and good evening.