Steve Fleishman: Okay. And then just on the payout comment, just to maybe clarify that a little better, which I know at this point in the process is purposely probably — purposely vague. Is it fair to say you’re saying that in the likely outcome your payout ratio will be above the 65% for a period of time, and then you’ll obviously get back and target to that?
Bob Blue: Yes. Steve, it’s — I apologize for not giving you a specific answer. But what we’re saying is, to the extent that the payout ratio changes as a result of the review that if they’re — an obvious point, if our EPS changes as a result of the review and the dividend remains constant as we have said it will, that changes the payout ratio. And what we’re indicating is if there is a change in the payout ratio, we’re going to get back to it, but without reducing the dividend. That’s the point that we’re attempting to make here.
Steve Fleishman: Okay. But that’s more still kind of hypothetical or theoretical for now, it’s not the likely outcome
Bob Blue: Correct. We’re in a business review. And as we have indicated in prior calls and this call as well, we don’t yet know what the outcome of that business review will be. So yes, it’s hypothetical as a good way of describing it.
Steve Fleishman: And then just lastly, the time line, the over time, is there any like time line for the over time?
Bob Blue: Again, we can’t set that until we’re finished with the review. So not yet.
Operator: Our next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.
Jeremy Tonet: I just want to pivot a little bit, if I could, towards Millstone here, interesting backdrop here. Just wondering if you could provide us updated thoughts, what’s the status of state regional discussions around Millstone, how you’re thinking about locking in more of this market upside to the asset?
Bob Blue: Yes. Thanks, Jeremy. As we’ve talked about before, we believe Millstone is a great asset, and we believe the policymakers in New England are recognizing increasingly its value for them to meet reliability and any chance to meet the kinds of decarbonization targets that they may have. Our focus is thinking about ways that we can ensure the long-term viability of Millstone. And we’re happy to have conversations with policymakers about opportunities to do that. As we noted in our opening comments, the existing Millstone contract has been very good for customers in Connecticut in recent months and over the last year. We see the possibility of being able to take action with policymakers to give us the certainty we would need in order to extend the life of Millstone and have that valuable resource for New England for some time to come. We don’t have as yet a specific approach to that. But we’re certainly interested in engaging with policymakers on that.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That’s helpful. And then kind of switching gears and realize I’m at risk of putting the horse ahead of the cart here. But as it relates to potential asset sales, was just wondering, does the solar impairment kind of a tip that you might look to sell this asset as part of the business review. And I guess, we’re at with news out of Black Hills this morning with regards to their thoughts on LDC sales. And so I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on what could potentially be or what could be prioritized in the sale process if you chose to do that?
Bob Blue: Jeremy, I would say that as part of the review, we’re looking at each and every one of our assets and Consistent with the priorities and principles that we’ve laid out on today’s call and supplement to what we provided on the third quarter call. That’s what will inform our ultimate steps as it relates to the business review to the extent that there is changes to business mix, which is, again, something we’re evaluating as part of review, but no decisions have been made. So, we’ll look at everything dispassionately to position the Company to provide the greatest long-term value to shareholders.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That’s helpful. And just a real quick last one, if I could. If you might be able to kind of parse more finally what we might expect on 2Q business review update versus the 3Q Investor Day? Is the 2Q update really just an outcome of the Virginia legislation or potentially more updates on other elements of the plan?
Bob Blue: Let me do it from the reverse perspective, which is the Investor Day, we intend to provide a comprehensive business and financial update. It will effectively be at the conclusion of the review process. The spring update, which is going to coincide with timing around the Virginia legislative session, will give us an opportunity to comment on what, if any, changes occurred during the session that would impact Virginia, what our perspective is on that, and how that informs the appropriate next steps of the business review.
Operator: Our next question comes from Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI.
Durgesh Chopra: Just, Steve, I think this may be in your wheelhouse. I just wanted some clarification on the impairment. And then how does it impact your base earnings? So, I know like that could impact your future earnings if you decide not to invest, I guess, that’s what you’re suggesting. But when I look at the Q1 €˜23 to Q1 2022 bridge on slide 8, there is a down arrow because of solar ITC. So, I’m just — is there — does the impairment impact your ongoing base business earnings?
Steven Ridge: No. So, the impairment doesn’t change the revenue we generate under those existing PPAs. The impairment does have a slight impact on the depreciable life, because — or the depreciation rather than the depreciable life, because the carrying value is now lower than previously assumed. The bridge is something different. The bridge, when we refer to that ITC, solar ITC, it’s effectively the lack of solar ITCs, consistent with the comments we’ve made on this call and previously with regard to pivoting that capital allocation elsewhere in our business. So, it’s effectively simply saying that a year ago, we would have had some solar ITC in earnings this quarter this year, we do not have that. So, the impairment is a different. It doesn’t have any impact on that bridge.
Durgesh Chopra: Got it. So basically, Q1 €˜23 over Q1 €˜22 is really lack of new solar ITCs, right?
Steven Ridge: That’s right. It’s about $0.04.
Durgesh Chopra: Thanks. And then just one quick bookkeeping question. The Q2 time line that you mentioned for the business review update, is that the Q1 call, or like are you going to do another meeting or 8-K? Just any thoughts around that?
Bob Blue: It will depend a little bit on the timing, Durgesh. We do typically have our first quarter call in early May. It may coincide, it may not. That won’t keep us from sort of advancing the discussion around the business review when we have the information necessary to actually have that discussion.
Operator: Our next question comes from Ross Fowler with UBS.
Ross Fowler: Just a couple of things to clean a couple of things up, and I apologize, the call cut out, if this is already answered. But the cap — the go-forward CapEx that you had had associated with sort of that competitive solar adjustment. Can you sort of scale that for us and sort of the cash that you wouldn’t be spending into that going forward?
Bob Blue: Yes. Ross, that’s on the order of about $800 million.
