Michael Moehn: Might agree with all those comments. And just Shar, remind you, I think you know this, I mean, it’s about 18% of our rate base today. And again, as we sort of step back and just look at our overall capital plan, we got the $19.7 billion out there over the next five years and $48 billion over the next 10. I think we have really constructive jurisdictions to continue to allocate that. We’ll continue to be thoughtful about that. As Marty said, I think where we are from a rate base and capital addition standpoint and that rate review process is a positive at 95% or so. But we have some flexibility to pivot if needed.
Shahriar Pourreza: And then just to confirm, just the equity ratio going into it, no block equity. So just I guess how do we think about juicing of that?
Michael Moehn: Yes. I mean again, as I think as we sit here today, really just kind of stand by the comment I just made about the ATM itself. I think it provides us a great deal of flexibility. It’s cost-effective. It’s not to say that we wouldn’t entertain something if we needed to. But again, just the way that capital is being laid in over time. It’s been a pretty effective way to do it.
Marty Lyons: Yes. And Shar, just to build on sort of the answers that I gave and Michael gave. I think as it relates to our overall plan, and Michael mentioned this, I mean, we obviously have robust portfolio of capital expenditures that we can make across all of our segments. And we really feel very confident as we sit here today and our continued ability to grow at 6% to 8% in terms of our EPS CAGR. As we’ve laid out before, we’ve got $48 plus billion of infrastructure pipeline out through 2032. And we remain very confident in our overall ability to execute as a company.
Shahriar Pourreza: Perfect, thanks very much guys and big congrats to owner but I have a sense that he is going to be as busy as ever anyway even in Phase 2. Appreciate it guys.
Marty Lyons: You’re probably right. Thanks.
Operator: Our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey guys, good morning. This is Darius on for Julien. Appreciate you taking the question. Maybe just to start with, you alluded to this, and I appreciate that you don’t have formal ’24 guidance out there. But with the drivers and the visibility that you have now and the known of the ALJ rex in both the Illinois cases, can you comment on maybe just how you see that 6% to 8% shaping up on a year-over-year basis? Does the ALJ sort of give you a basis to still hit that range in ’24?
Michael Moehn: Hey Darius, Michael here, thanks again for the question. Look, again, as we sit here today and we updated and provided guidance in February, that’s we feel good about that 6% to 8%, thinking about that midpoint of 435. We gave you some select drivers here, right, in terms of what we see sort of impacting us kind of year-over-year. But again, feel good about the situation that we again feel good about the 8.4% rate base growth that we have. We’ve had obviously the updated IRP that we released in September. We talked about an incremental $1.5 billion of capital that could come into the plan over time there. So again, as we sit here today, feel very good about that 6% to 8% earnings per share growth.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. Excellent. Thank you for the detail. And maybe if I can ask one on the competitive transmission projects. Just looking at your updated slide, it looks like the — and I appreciate these are MISO’s estimates, but it looks like the overall competitive opportunity is unchanged at a little bit under $1 billion, but there was — maybe within that, the content, including Orient, any Fairport was slightly lower than in our previous — or in the previous estimates. So just curious if you guys can comment on maybe the other projects within that set of competitive opportunities, do you see anything moving up or down as the estimates get for the refined.
Marty Lyons: Yes, happy to answer that question. This is Marty again. So again, with respect to the projects that were signed to us in Tranche 1, the $1.8 billion, as we’re getting underway with those, which is fantastic. And then there were about $700 million of competitive projects. And the first one that we bid on was the Orient to Denny Fairport project. And we’re very pleased that we were selected as the winning bidder on that project. As you mentioned, the ultimate price that we bid was lower than the MISO’s original planning estimate. And I think our bid is indicative of the kind of work we do to partner with others, whether those be co-ops and munis in the area or vendors to really deliver a low-cost project. And as I mentioned, MISO’s numbers are planning estimates and don’t necessarily have the rigor that goes into the formal bids that we provide.
But I wouldn’t read too much into where that project came out relative to MISO’s estimates. Each project is going to be different. Each project has its own routing issues, land acquisition requirements, partnering opportunities, et cetera. So you really can’t extrapolate that outcome to the entirety. But again, I think we’re very pleased with where we are. We are very pleased that we were selected as the winning bidder on that project. And we submitted another bid on another project, the Denny to Zachary Thomas Hill Maywood project. And we’ve got one more that we plan to bid on as well the Skunk River.
Unidentified Analyst: Great, thank you very much for the color. Appreciate it.
Operator: Our next question is from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.
Jeremy Tonet: Hi, good morning.
Marty Lyons: Good morning.
Jeremy Tonet: Just want to come back to Illinois Electric, if I could, realized questions have been asked, but maybe just to put a finer point on some of the questions here. Why do you think the ALJ’s ROEs came out so different than your proposal? Or are there any specifics in the ALJ filing that you see that justifies this difference or why they view the electric ROEs less than the gas ROEs as you see kind of justifying this delta?
Marty Lyons: This is Marty again. I really can’t comment on why, if you will, they got to that. They used some discounted cash flow and capital asset pricing model kind of calculations that used some data that was in the record. But again, in our reply briefs, we note certain data that alternatively should be used in our view, in those calculations if they were used. And of course, staff use similar calculations and came up with a little over 10%. So again, I can’t say why, but we again feel like inappropriate data points were used in those calculations, which again, in our reply briefs we addressed, and I’d refer you there in terms of our thoughts in terms of those calculations.
