So that’s probably the first major impact of the newly elected officials. But I – what we’re hearing some noise about fair market value, at this point all indications would be that, that those statutes will stay in place, without too much trouble.
Travis Miller: Okay. Any states where you think they can they the legislature or Governor whoever is in charge of doing that might institute it?
Christopher Franklin: Well it’s good question beyond our stage. In all eight of our water states, we have one statute – no, it’s not always called fair market value, but we’ve got the ability to use a tool like fair market value. But beyond our states, there might be others, I’m just not – I’m not familiar with where that might be added.
Travis Miller: Sure. Okay. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Daniel Schuller: Thanks, Travis.
Operator: The next question comes from the line of Ryan Connors from Northcoast Research. Please go ahead.
Brian Dingerdissen: Hi, Ryan.
Christopher Franklin: Good morning, Ryan.
Ryan Connors: Hi. Good morning. Good morning. So, I’d wanted to ask you about the interest-rate environment from a different perspective in terms of returns on equity and the outlook in some of your rate proceedings and whether there is any appetite among these commissions especially with the larger cases in North Carolina and Texas. But I guess also your early read in Pennsylvania too. Is there any appetite to move ROEs up as interest rates go up? I know they held up pretty well when interest rates went down but what’s your outlook there from what will happen with ROEs going forward?
Daniel Schuller: It’s a good question, Ryan. I think that to your point, ROEs were sticky on the way down as interest rates fell. There likely to be somewhat sticky on the way back off. Now if we saw a consistent period with high-interest rates and that’s a higher cost of equity capital when you calculate that. We would obviously be making the – making the case for higher ROEs. I don’t think and we think that’s a justifiable case if that is the economic situation of the time. I think the other thing that’s important for all of us is utilities, we think about it. As we talk to our commissions is that, the utility industry is not immune from the inflation that everyone else is experiencing. And so you will see that those conversations need to be had with regulators as well as utilities filed cases going-forward.
Christopher Franklin: Yes. I think to add to that, hopefully what we continue to see is additional regulatory mechanisms put in place that address lag, because if you don’t have future test years what they’re going to find is, just in addition with rate cases in all these commissions. And so we need to continue to focus on how do we address inflation, reduce lag, so that the case load isn’t overwhelming to these commissions.
Ryan Connors: Got it. Okay. And then kind of a follow-up to the prior question there by, Travis. on the electoral scene. Specifically the Pennsylvania, the Water Quality Accountability Act, there the SB 597, that seemed like it had some momentum, seems like it’s kind of stalled. I don’t know that it’s actually come to fore and is that something that – is there any key leaves here suggesting that might move forward based upon the early read on the election here?
Christopher Franklin: Yes. It’s good question, Ryan. I think probably that Bill has passed out of the senate now, now sits in the house, probably need some amendment to it, to get it advanced further. I think, we’ll have to see what the committee chairmanships look like in the reformed house. But I think that bill is going to take some amendment. We’ve got some thoughts and we are still hopeful, we can get it passed both the House and the Senate next year.
