Greg Ebel: Yes. Look, it’s a great question. And we’re obviously very much focused on it. As you know, we’re not new to building projects, but this is an interesting environment. Several things that I think probably put us in a bit of a unique situation particularly in Western Canada. So the projects that were just secured last year. First of all, they are on existing right of way. That is an important issue that cannot be underestimated in terms of us understanding what we’re doing. And remember, we’ve been through one company or another have been running that system since 1950ish type timeframe with lots of expansions. Secondly, they are split up over a long period of time, right? So you’re talking about brownfield projects, of which the capital is spent over multiple years, and much of it not for several years ahead.
So unless you believe there is going to be a very long time period of inflationary pressure on us. I think really, we should be in a good spot from a €“ from an inflationary perspective. And then, of course, these are brownfield projects. I think it’s very different when you’re building brand-new projects. And this will go €“ this was very similar to the whole system. Where there is a greenfield project, it’s not a linear project. So Cynthia and the team from a Woodfibre perspective, obviously, that’s a big project, but not a massive project and it’s not a linear project and one that’s been worked for the better part of 20 years, and now coming to a good fruition. So I’d say not just in Western Canada, this is something we’re focused on, on all fronts.
I know the power team is focused on that, obviously, right across North America, this is something that we’re hypersensitive to. But I like our positioning from the perspective, as I said, existing right of ways, largely brownfield. Our timing and capital spend should put us in a better spot than maybe some others are dealing with right today.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. Got it. That’s helpful. Thanks. And just want to pivot towards, I guess, floating interest rate exposure. It seems like there is some locking in for this year. But just thinking on a longer-term basis, is there any thoughts to kind of terming out more of that and reducing the amount of exposure to floating rates at a given point in time?
Greg Ebel: Yes. Good question, Jeremy. I’ll turn to Vern for that. The other thing I probably should have mentioned, as you know, it’s not the case in every location, but definitely in Western Canada, we are under a cost of service structure, too, which is definitely different than a lot of other people in terms of their contract structures and infrastructure. But Vern, do you want to speak to the floating rate debt issue.
Vern Yu: Okay. Thanks, Greg. Jeremy, as you know, we run our debt book with percentage of floating rate debt in each and every year. And over the long run, we create shareholder value by having some floating rate debt out there. Our target is to run between 10% to 20% of the book and floating rates. And as you’ve seen, obviously, interest rates go up, we’ve gone to the shorter or the smaller end of the target range. We’re highly hedged on new issuances as well. So there is obviously some interest rate exposure, but we will carefully manage that. And I think you’re right, there is some value in the shape of the curve right now, and that will be part of how we manage our debt portfolio as we go forward because, obviously, in today’s market, a 5 or 10-year bond is actually cheaper than floating rate debt. So you raised a good point.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That’s helpful. I leave it there. Thanks.
Greg Ebel: Thanks, Jeremy.
Operator: We will take our next question from Rob Hope with Scotiabank. Your line is open.
