Maria Rigatti : Sure. And actually, it turns out that your two questions are very much related. So the capital that you’re seeing moving around is particularly in the very near term. It’s just a shift in the utility-owned storage project and the timing of those payments. So what you’re seeing related to your second question, shifts between rate base earnings and AFUDC on the slide that has modeling consideration. It’s really a shift between those two buckets. Utility on storage was in rate base before. Now it’s in construction work in progress longer. So you just see the two numbers, if you add them back together, they’ll be the same as they were last quarter. So that’s one piece of it. The other piece that’s going on in our capital program is we have shifted one of the transmission projects that we are still going through the permitting process on but that’s just shifted out each year, it shifted out just one year.
And so you’re seeing a little bit of that impact. But that’s why, overall, for the period ’23 through ’28, the capital program is still the same as it was last quarter.
Angie Storozynski : Okay. Thank you.
Pedro Pizarro : Thanks, Angie.
Operator: The next question is from Gregg Orrill with UBS. You may go ahead.
Pedro Pizarro : Hey, Gregg.
Gregg Orrill : Hi. Sorry for a detailed oriented question. Is there a temporary financing for the preferred tender before you get to the potential sub-note financing?
Maria Rigatti : Gregg, this is Maria. We can address it in different ways. I think in the opening documents, we note how we will finance the tender, and we can do that either by JSN or some other equity content security right after the offering, we could have some sort of bridge using some other securities temporarily. But I think our objective overall is — and then we’ve made it clear in the offering documents is that we will replace the equity content of preferred stock.
Gregg Orrill : Okay. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. The next question is from Ryan Levine with Citi. You may go ahead.
Ryan Levine : Hi, everybody. Just to clarify one question more for Maria. In terms of clarification of why now for the telecom asset sale? And can you walk through the mechanics of how I think in your remarks, you tested and offsetting to the equity content. How does that work? And given the benefits of customers?
Maria Rigatti : Sure. So a couple of things. So why now. I think we have been discussions before about are we looking at different things in our portfolio that might — we might consider selling. And so we have been doing that. And so the why now is that we’ve completed our analysis and we think that these are attractive assets that folks who are in this business day in and day out will also find attractive. And so that’s why — that’s the why now. I think that when you look at the overall portfolio that we have, the other thing that helps to drive this is that these are good assets. Customers do share and the benefit of this, whether we sell them or not, you’ll see in our filing tomorrow that round numbers, you can think about this as 15% of the value is for customers and about 85% of the value is for the company or shareholders.
By taking this action now, we actually, during a time of affordability concerns and constraints for customers, we’ll be able to accelerate those benefits into the near term. So another element of the why now. And I think the comment I just made probably answered the question about what part is for customers and what parts for shareholders. Was there something else in the Ryan?
Ryan Levine : In terms of the — I think in your prepared remarks, you suggested kind of offsetting equity, maybe that [indiscernible]?
Maria Rigatti : Yeah. So when you think about our equity program, you’ve said that about $100 million a year or so because we’re going to be using our internal programs. Obviously, as I mentioned earlier, this depending on the regulatory path if the commission goes down, we could see something middle of ’24, maybe into 2025, at which point we can look at the proceeds and determine what that there’s an opportunity there to offset some of the equity that we would otherwise issue under our internal program.
Ryan Levine : Hey, great. Thanks.
Operator: Thank you. The next question is from Michael Lonegan with Evercore. You may go ahead.
Michael Lonegan : Hi, thanks for taking my question. So there’s been some concerns about electric vehicle demand slowing. We recently saw Panasonic cut its battery production. Obviously, there’s a high EV adoption rate in your service territory. You have an investment program that supports the load growth associated with EVs. I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on the risks within your planning period, whether there would be a slowdown or any color you could provide on that.
Pedro Pizarro : Yeah. I’ll start. Steve Powell, you might have some additional thoughts on this too. First, you’re right, we’ve seen, I think, really significant pickup of EVs in our territory and really across California. That’s continued through the latest reporting period that I saw. I know I’ve seen some broader articles in the press, you’re probably referring to as well in terms of could there be a slowdown at a national level. There are a number of things that come together here. And I think one of the important elements is the strong support that there is in the IRA, right, for continuing not only the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicles, but also the introduction of the $4,000 used electric vehicle tax credit, which is something that, by the way, Edison really helped advance in Washington since it’s pattern after something we had here already in California.
So look, I think like with any market, you’re going to see ups and downs. And you have to guess that things like a higher interest rate environment, making vehicle loans a little more expensive, probably puts a bit of a temporary damper on that. But the long-term trend, I think it’s pretty clear here in terms of the value of electric vehicles to consumers and the role that EV deployment will play in reducing greenhouse gases. And certainly our Countdown to 2045 white paper makes clear how valuable that is for GHG reduction. But also just say that when you think a look at the total cost of ownership for electric vehicles today, it’s already — certainly for the lower-cost EV models, the total cost of ownership is lower than it is for similar combustion engine vehicles.
You asked also about the impact it could have on our infrastructure buildout and our planning. And I think right now, we’re seeing significant growth that’s been baked into our rate case. So — but we can — we’re following the customer on this, Steve, let me turn it over to you and thoughts around impacts on the distribution system or for that growth.
