Angie Storozynski: Thank you. So the first on FERC and SERI. So FERC scheduled hearings and that’s a last challenge that talks about the prudence of the up rates of Grand Gulf, which I mean on its own frankly, it’s hard to believe that this challenge wasn’t outright rejected. So I mean, is there any read through? Are you hearing anything from FERC why those hearings were even scheduled?
Rod West: Hey, Angie. It’s Rod. You’re — I’m assuming you’re talking about the orders — the rehearing order that the FERC released today where they declined our motion to…
Angie Storozynski: Yes.
Rod West: Rehear. Yeah. So the order is procedural only as we read it. It doesn’t order any refunds or require any further actions. And they went so far as to explain that in setting the prudence complaint for hearing and settlement, it imposes no obligation on us. It doesn’t deny us any of our rights. It fixes no legal relationships, but it simply initiates further proceedings. And they’re with holding their right and ability to address anything substantive along the lines. It’s not unexpected for us, but it’s — again, it’s a procedural and not a substantive order. So there’s not anything to read from it from a subsidy standpoint.
Drew Marsh: And, Angie, to be sure we appreciate your sentiment.
Rod West: Yeah. And the next step is the settlement offer March — SERI settlement offer to the parties on March 1st, but again, Angie, taking it as a procedural matter, not a substantive one.
Angie Storozynski: Okay. And then, completely — changing topics completely here. So I mean, I was just wondering there is this discussion in the industry overall about switching from solar ITC to solar PTC. Obviously, from a regulatory utility perspective that’s helpful given no issue with ITC normalization, but is there — I mean, as you look at it, right, especially that your solar resource would be superior or above average, I mean, is this shift — would that be actually in any way EPS accretive? I mean, I’m just thinking about the earnings recognition under the — on the solar PTCs versus the ITC.
Kimberly Fontan: Yeah. Good question, Angie. The way we think about the PTCs is they provide — and any IRA in general is it provides opportunity for incremental investment. We’ll need to work with our regulators as we have over a number of years successfully to provide back the tax credits to customers in a way that provides them the value, but continues to support our credit and our balance sheet. And so, we’ve begun those conversations early, but how those play out will be a matter of discussion with our regulators. We’ve talked about using those as credits against rate base as compared to direct credit, for example, to customers as it gives us an opportunity to manage our balance sheet as well as ensure the opportunity to customers. And it also helps with the volatility associated with customers’ bills on PTCs, particularly as it relates to the nuclear PTC.
Drew Marsh: And Angie, this is Drew. I would add to Kimberly’s comments that we have a 50% planning assumption to the extent that this does help make us more competitive. There might be an opportunity for incremental investment over and above what we’re planning, but we still have to go achieve that. So we’re continuing to work to get more competitive. And this is certainly helping level the playing field for us as you said versus the ITC framework. But that’s an opportunity for us that we will have to go achieve out there in the future.
