The second moment of scalar mismatch that we discussed in the paper and that we talk a bit about in our report has to do with jurisdiction, which is related in some ways to the geographies of the power system, but it's distinct as well. Jurisdiction presents major issues, not just with the LA Green New Deal, but with municipal scale Green New Deal planning, more generally or decarbonisation planning more generally. So within Los Angeles, the mayor's office has actually a quite a lot of power over the utility over city budgets, city regulations, zoning planning within the city and within the county, but they're also bound by many constraints as well. The mayor is bound by term limits, and the next mayor, you know, the next mayor may not have the same priorities, the same specific vision of how decarbonisation might happen, the same focus on climate or energy at all. And I think Furthermore, and this is important for any municipal scale Green New Deal planning, the mayor is required to maintain a balanced budget, presenting limitations for the kinds of deficit spending that the federal government, for example, could be able to do to create jobs and smooth the transition. So lastly, the third major trend that we found in our interviews. And the third dimension of scalar mismatch that we look at, is the difference in the scales of political engagement between the mayor and the union. So to boil it down even further, the mayor and the Union are both engaging in climate change related politics, but they're doing so in different arenas. It was well known at the time of the Elliott Green New Deal, that Garcinia national political ambitions. There was a lot of talk at the time that he was planning on running for president. And he was, I think, importantly, operating in environmental politics at the international scale. So for one key example, Garcinia is currently the chair of the city's Climate Leadership Group, a global network that's sort of commonly referred to using the shorthand C 40. This is an international group of local politicians, a lot of mayors who have come together to try and take action on climate change sort of appealing to a higher scale. Gar study assumed the chair ship of sea 40, shortly after announcing the LA Green New Deal, and there was some speculation amongst the people we interviewed for this project, that he took this bold action in Los Angeles, at least in part to bolster his credentials, so he could assume this prestigious chair ship. So to briefly wrap all of this up, I began by posing the question, how can we understand the opposition of IBEW a team and generally progressive union and a generally progressive city and perhaps most importantly, what lessons can be drawn from the case to inform just transitions in the future and in other places? To address the first piece, I have argued that there are several critical scalar misalignments in this specific case that helped to explain why IBEW 18 had such strong opposition to the LA Green New Deal. So to remind you, these are the current and future geographies of the energy system, the limits imposed by the mayor of LA's jurisdiction, and the scales of political activism and engagement that the mayor and the Union are each respectively engaged in. So these scalar issues are front and center in the LA case, but also speak to issues that could plague other municipalities attempting to decarbonize their energy systems. I will also say that impacted communities when it comes to just transitions that all impacted communities need to be engaged and accounted for at all stages of the planning process. I think this was a huge oversight. And the you know, it's we're several years on and still trying to rectify this strong opposition from the DWP union.