I will say there that we continue to believe that the work that they’re doing point to an overall portfolio that would be larger than what they approved in part of Tranche 1. And that’s really because, as they’ve gone through this analysis, one of the things, obviously, that’s come to fruition is the IRA legislation in D.C., which means that we expect more renewables than had previously been expected. And so, MISO is planning towards something that’s between sort of a Future 2 and Future 3. And again, we expect that they’ll continue to work through that. It’s premature to say exactly how large that portfolio will be or exactly what transmission projects may fall into our service territories in Illinois or Missouri. But MISO continues to believe that they’ll approve those projects in the first half of next year.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. Excellent, thank you for the thoughtful response, guys. Really appreciate it. Take care [Multiple Speakers]
Marty Lyons: Thanks, Julien.
Michael Moehn: Thanks, Julien.
Operator: Our next question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please proceed with your question.
Paul Patterson: Hey, good morning, guys.
Marty Lyons: Good morning, Paul.
Paul Patterson: So, just to follow up on Julien’s questions about the ROFR, I know that you guys are involved in — I apologize, but what I was wondering is that the Supreme Court and this Fifth Circuit decision regarding the ROFR in Texas, do you think that could have any wider implications in the country if it’s allowed to stand?
Marty Lyons: Julien — or, sorry, Paul, I apologize. Paul, it’s a — yes, it’s okay. I apologize, again. But look, it’s — some of the actions that have been taken in various states seem to be particular to the way that legislation was passed or — and so, look, we’re going to continue to pursue it. We think that if the Governor were to sign this into law, it would be applicable and applicable too, as we’ve said before, both to MISO Tranche 1 projects, as well as Tranche 2 projects that are approved in 2024. So, look, I guess, time will tell, but I think that as we sit here today, we think this would stand.
Paul Patterson: You think it would stand. So, I got you. So, in other words, if the Fifth Circuit, which is a Texas situation, you don’t think would apply to Illinois because of the individual walls that were — because of the differences — if I understand you correctly, tell me if I’m wrong, because of the differences between the Texas law and what passed in Illinois assuming that it’s signed. Is that right?
Marty Lyons: I do believe that.
Paul Patterson: Okay. That’s great. Thanks so much.
Marty Lyons: Thanks, Paul.
Operator: Our next question comes from Jeremy Tonet, J.P. Morgan. Please proceed with your question.
Jeremy Tonet: Hi, good morning.
Marty Lyons: Hey, good morning, Jeremy.
Michael Moehn: Hey, Jeremy.
Jeremy Tonet: Hey. Just wanted to dial into Illinois a little bit more if we could, and I know that you touched on your commentary. But just wondering if it’s possible to provide any more color on updates in the Illinois electric rate case. And just maybe how the tone of conversations with regulators and stakeholders have been trending recently.
Marty Lyons: Yes. I think that maybe I’ll start and perhaps Michael would want to tack on here as well. This is Marty. I think what you heard in our prepared remarks, again, is that we really feel like we’re working constructively with stakeholders as we work through this process. Of course, this is the first multi-year grid and multi-year rate filing. And so, as to be expected, you’re going have to work through some of the mechanics. But ultimately, I still believe that we’re going to get to a constructive outcome, something that accomplishes the policy goals that [CEJA] (ph) had for the state. And you’ll notice that when we started this — down this path and direct testimony, the ICC staff’s recommendation was about 56% of our overall ask.
And through the rounds of testimony and additional support that we’ve been able to provide with the staff, we’ve been able to work constructively with them to were there suggested revenue increase now is about 70% of our request. So, we’ve made positive progress there. In our slides, we detailed that there’s still a difference between our recommended — or, requested cumulative increase in that recommended by the staff. And that difference is about $131 million over that four-year period. And we broke down some of the components for you. So, look, we’re going to continue to work constructively with stakeholders. And like I said, I think we’ll be able to get to a constructive outcome. And importantly, that accomplishes the policy goals of CEJA.
So, I don’t know if you have any more specific questions, or Michael, you want to add something?
