Kimberly Fontan: Sure. As you pointed out, we are targeting to be above 14% by the end of 2023 and closing out the securitization for Louisiana that was approved in January is a significant help to enable that. As far as longer term, we are targeting 15% and we’re targeting that over the outlook period. So you’ll see us continue to focus on strengthening our balance sheet over the outlook period to get to that target of around 15%.
Anthony Crowdell: Great. Thanks for taking my questions.
Drew Marsh: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question is a follow-up from Constantine from Guggenheim. Your question, please.
Constantine Lednev: Hi. Thanks for taking my follow up. Maybe just to elaborate on the O&M targets and conditions that you’re seeing, you kind of mentioned some of the costs escalating, but just trying to get a sense on what percentage of O&M is subject to some of these external factors, and how do those elevated costs play into regulatory relief just given the FRP revenue increase caps?
Kimberly Fontan: Sure. Thanks for the follow up. As far as inflation, we do have some inflation costs in our 2023 guidance. We’ve talked about costs like commodity costs and chemicals that have increased. We’ve seen some labor cost increase in our vegetation contracts, for example. But as I said, we have seen some relief on that, particularly on the commodity side as it relates to either the resources that go into our capital plan. Things like copper, nickel, steel, all these are down year-over-year. So there are some — it’s a blend, if you will, but we do think we have some flex levers in 2023 to help us manage both our O&M and our overall — where we are in the guidance range.
Constantine Lednev: So, no kind of impact on the regulatory relief just given some of that flex that you have. I think the early outlook has like a 9% utility book ROE, any change in thinking around there?
Kimberly Fontan: Yeah. So as far as Louisiana and Arkansas where Arkansas certainly has an FRP, we continue to work to manage within that cap. Increased sales which U.S. Steel will come in over the outlook period will certainly help us in that regard. From a Louisiana perspective, as you know, in June is the last filing of our FRP in the current cycle and we would expect to have either a rate case or new FRP filing. Those modifications out of those outcomes would help us move up — but you’d see their ROEs move up hopefully depending on the outcomes associated with those rate mechanisms.
Constantine Lednev: Great and quick follow-up on the question around credit metrics. Just are capital market conditions changing your thoughts around the process or kind of capital allocation or dividend decisions? And kind of more broadly, how are you thinking about optimizing those financing needs, especially with CapEx ramps up in the second half of the decade?
Kimberly Fontan: Yeah. We certainly — as we noted from an equity perspective, we’ve met our needs through 2024 largely. We have about $130 million left. We’ve talked about a total need between 2025 and 2026. We haven’t broken that out, but as we accelerate capital investments and we see additional renewable growth in the back half, we’ll definitely have to look at how we are financing that most effectively. But we continue to watch interest rates as well as other mechanisms to finance, but we don’t have anything as far as alternate financing or anything like that, that we have that’s executable at this point.
