Jeremy Tonet: Understood. Appreciate the time. Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Paul Zimbardo of Bank of America. Your line is open.
Paul Zimbardo: Hi. Good morning. Thank you, team.
Drew Marsh: Good morning.
Paul Zimbardo: And first of all done on the latest series settlement progress. Very nice to say. And I was hoping, I could kind of merge Dave and Jeremy’s question and kind combine. What’s the quantum of incremental capital opportunities across the renewable efforts, as well as the hardening and resiliency programs, I know there’s been a lot of numbers and timeframes, just if you could help kind of frame the opportunity set, relative to the outlook would be helpful?
Kimberly Fontan: Yeah. Paul, we will get into all the specifics at EEI, I don’t have the details in front of me, but there is. I think we have talked historically about $900 million of resilience in the base and then incremental resilience on top of that. That’s available and assuming we get or when and if we get accelerated recovery, but looking into all the specifics on the puts and takes around capital in a couple of weeks.
Paul Zimbardo: Okay. Great. Thanks. And eagerly anticipating EEI a bigger update. And then the other one, just on Louisiana with the rate case/the FRP extension. Is this the kind of major proceeding that you think needs to be more fully litigated or is that a settlement and opportunity there?
Drew Marsh: Yeah. From our advantage point, a settlement is one an opportunity and two desire. But to be specific, a settlement in favor of continuing on with the FRP regime provides clarity for both us and customers, and certainly, promotes certainty around recovery, given the growing investment needs to support growth in Louisiana. And certainly, a smoother transition as we began to pick up on the putting capital to work for both resiliency and to fund the growth. And so from our advantage point, having the flexibility that FRP provides for both us and our customers and regulators is the optimal outcome there and avoiding the litigation certainly is an expense to our stakeholders of litigating a rate case is something we have as stakeholders who have chosen to avoid in Louisiana. So, yeah, the FRP is definitely the path that we are working towards.
Paul Zimbardo: Okay. Understood. And then to clarify quickly just setting expectations on timing, should we think about the settlement potential after the intervenor testimony? I think March 26 of next year or could we potentially see something faster than that?
Drew Marsh: Yeah. It’s a great question, but I think it’s a little early for us at this point to deem the feedback to be meaningful around timing, because discovery really has just gotten underway and we had a procedural order that was said last week that I think set the hearing for August of next year. A couple of things that might be helpful, as you think about milestones in the coming months. The procedural schedule set forth technical conferences in December, January, February. I think that framework, those technical conferences will give some insight as to the initial positioning of the parties and give us then some daylight as to the path forward around potential settlements.
Paul Zimbardo: Okay. Great. No. Thank you. That’s very helpful. See you at EEI.
Drew Marsh: Indeed.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lonegan of Evercore. Your line is open.
Michael Lonegan: Thank you. Good morning and thanks for taking my question. So on utility O&M outlook for the year, you talked about going forward spending to derisk 2024, you highlighted some of the categories. Presumably also, given the record temperatures and peak demand you had to spend more O&M for additional work crews and overtime pay to maintain reliability given the stress on the grid. Just wondering if you could break out how much of that spending was pull forward to derisk versus the amount to maintain reliability on your grid?
Kimberly Fontan: Thanks, Michael. You are right. We did have to spend more to support the hot summer and the volumes and the power gen team performed really well. I don’t have the breakout specifically between that piece, as well as the pull forwards. But, certainly, we have been able to pull forward significant spending around reliability in the transmission and distribution space and in the vegetation space as well.
Michael Lonegan: Okay. Great. Thank you for the color. I will see you at EEI.
Drew Marsh: Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell of Mizuno, sorry, Mizuho. Your line is open.
Anthony Crowdell: Yeah. Thank you. I think Mizuno sounds very good. Excuse me, just on, I guess, two quick ones. Approval of the gas system sale. I think your guidance like the 3Q 2025 close, it’s almost two years. Just curious on the length, what causes that long closure, any important milestones along the way, which keep an eye for it?
Roderick West: Yeah. It’s Rod. The experience we have and certainly the advice of additional stakeholders suggested that process given the fact that you have both the Louisiana Public Service Commission, the Northern City Council and the Baton Rouge Metro Council, all having a partner process, gives us an outlook of 20 — 18-months to 21-month timeframe. And that’s really what sort of set our expectations. That’s not any singular jurisdiction. It’s just the process of getting those approvals and if we are able to do something sooner, then clearly we would be working to achieve that objective.
Drew Marsh: Yeah. I will just add that our buyer is new to this particular business and while all the operations and everything is all going to be good to go and transfer right over. They do need to — we are going to work with them to set up some of the back-office pieces of this and that might take a little bit longer than it normally would if it was a strategic buyer, for example.
