Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Yes. All right. And actually, as it pertains to QIP here, just €“ I know that there’s a new framework on the electric side, and that’s largely established at this point pending implementation. But QIP and its subsequent forms or iterations remains a little bit outstanding. Can you elaborate what your thoughts are, and perhaps going back whether legislatively or otherwise at this point, to get something new? Again, I’ll leave it open ended on what that might look like. I know we’ve talked about this in the past at times, but is there a window today to revisit that conversation perhaps in the slate you did before?
Michael Moehn: Julian, this is Marty again. Look, we haven’t given up some sort of replacement for QIP and really because the QIP was in our die really great rider for our customers, really allowed us to make some investments that bolster the safety and reliability of the gas system. I’d say our focus right now is really though on the gas case that you and I just discussed. And really looking to get a constructive resolution of that case. As you know, the overall gas regulatory environment, even without QIP is solid with forward test years, revenue decoupling, bad debt riders, et cetera. So we believe that going forward, without the QIP, we’d need to be thoughtful about the timing of rate reviews, but they do use forward test years, which I think is very important to think about.
And we’ll be thoughtful about the timing of capital expenditures to replace aging equipment, et cetera. So we do think the regulatory environment without QIP is something we can manage around, we can still invest, we can earn good returns. But we will look for windows of opportunity to look for something to replace the QIP. I’ll leave the door open like you did in terms of what form that may take. But right now, our focus is on that gas case.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Yes. Excellent. And then sorry, quick clarification from earlier. Boomtown, just is there anything different about this? Say, relative to Huck Finn or something like that, that might stand out in terms of that approval process? Obviously, the timing here being a little different in terms of the duration for the CCF.
Marty Lyons: Yes. I think one of the differences, Julian, is the Huck Finn project was proposed to be compliance with the renewable energy standard that we have in Missouri, and it was approved as such. The Boomtown project is really being proposed twofold. One, for customers, especially large industrial commercial customers that are looking for renewable energy as part of a consumer program for them, and as well as part of our transition under the IRP. But it’s not being proposed for specific compliance with the renewable energy standard. And so that’s a distinguishing fact between the two.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Andrew, I echo the sentiment.
Andrew Kirk: Thanks, Julien. Appreciate it.
Operator: We have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the call back to Marty Lyons for closing comments.
Marty Lyons: Well, thank you all for joining us today. As you heard, we had a very strong 2022, and we really remain focused on delivering again in 2023 and beyond, for our customers, for our communities and for our shareholders. So with that, be safe, and we look forward to seeing many of you over the coming months.
Operator: This concludes today’s conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time, and we thank you for your participation.
