Jonathan Reeder: Got you. No, I appreciate that additional clarity there. Maybe trying to ask Durgesh’s one question a little differently. Can you talk about the prospects of reaching a settlement in the Peoples Gas case, as well as just more broadly the challenges or inability on the water side for you? And now it appears Pennsylvania American to reach settlement in the cases because historically, settlements seem to be the norm in Pennsylvania?
Christopher Franklin: Hi, listen, I can’t give you any details because for obvious reasons. But I think it’s often about the healthy exchange between the parties. And we’re not going to agree on everything. That’s why I call it a settlement. I would – I’ll just leave it at this, Jonathan, it is a constructive discussion that’s taking place right now. And I can’t predict whether we’re going to have a settlement or we’ll litigate it, it’s a constructive discussion.
Jonathan Reeder: Got you. Okay. So I mean you don’t think it’s like there’s anything more broadly in the Pennsylvania regulatory construct or regulatory environment that’s, I guess, leaning parties not to settle anymore?
Christopher Franklin: I do not.
Jonathan Reeder: Okay. And then I know you said you expect the commission will vote shortly on the final revisions to the fair market value framework. Do you have any insight regarding the potential like significance of any changes from Chair De Frank’s original proposal? And then are you still of the opinion that the only changes to the framework will be from the commission and not legislatively?
Christopher Franklin: So yes, let me answer it too, two separately. There was over 30 commenters, right? A lot of comments about Chairman’s (c) motion. And I know that they are carefully considering all of those comments and we’ll think about how they might impact. But – and those are all public, right? So we’d be able to see those. I wouldn’t say there’s anything new in those comments from what we’ve seen and heard to the (c) motion. So all those opinions, I think are – there are no surprises there, let’s say that. And so I would be hopeful that the Chairman would be pretty close to his view initially. But there’s five votes and five opinions up there. So we’ll have to see what that looks like as they kind of push through. Now the second part of the question about legislation.
No, I think there is a series of pieces of legislation that moved through the House of Representatives on the committee level and those are on the floor. And there is an ongoing discussion with the leadership in the House of Representatives about what might we accomplish because the bills that were released from Committee are not things that we would want to see passed and we understand that they would probably not be successful in the Senate. However, if there was some compromised language that could be reached that would be similar to Chair De Frank’s motion at the commission, I think there are real possibilities there. And that discussion in the House of Representatives is ongoing. And I think there’s a lot of stakeholders that are involved.
So we’re – and we’re participating. But I would hope that it would come out similar to the motion and the commission, and this would really give us all a clear path as to how this is going to work moving forward.
Jonathan Reeder: Okay. No, that’s really helpful to know that. Yes, like if something – you think if something comes out of the legislature, it’s not, I guess, in the current like kind of penal form or like removing Act 12 and the draconian kind of stuff. It’s how do we tweak fair market value to still promote the consolidation of the fragmented industry and everything like that.
Christopher Franklin: That’s right. I’m told that in the Senate, there’s not an appetite for repeal that they believe that municipal leadership, as elected officials have the right to transact if that’s what their decision is. And so – and that’s been made pretty clear by the Senate. So I think if there’s a compromised language, we could all work together. If not, I don’t think much will happen at all, at the legislative side.
Jonathan Reeder: Great. No, that’s excellent color. So thank you so much. Good luck with the fair market value, good luck with the rate case. And then you said on the waterside, you’re going to be filing, I think, next week for the new water rate case in PA, is that right?
Daniel Schuller: Later in the month of May, the third full week in May.
Jonathan Reeder: Third full week. Got you. I missed that little one. All right, thanks a lot guys. See you at AGA.
Daniel Schuller: All right. Yes, take care.
Operator: Thank you, Mr. Reeder. We’ll now move to Ryan Connors calling from Northcoast Research. Please go ahead.
Christopher Franklin: Hi, Ryan.
Ryan Connors: Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. So yes, I actually had a couple of big-picture questions. One came to mind as you were discussing the PFAS kind of potential bottlenecks in equipment purchasing and that sort of thing, and you’re talking about making mass purchases, been on some of the earnings calls for these vendors of this equipment lately, and it’s the real gravy train. They’re talking about not giving back any of the pricing that they took the last few years and continuing to raise prices above and beyond inflation. And so it kind of comes to mind that, that’s all happening at the same time, your industry is seeing greater concern about affordability. And if not yourselves, at least some seeing some real pushback on rate cases and that sort of thing.
I mean, are you – are the Water utilities going to just kind of get squeezed in between the manufacturers and the ratepayers here? Or is there some – at what point does the pushback on the pricing of the equipment? Or what construct is in the regulatory framework for – to account for sort of price gouging, or just curious what your thoughts are on that. It seems like you’re caught in the middle there.
