So I think we’re in a really good place and this is a capital case, capital case largely. I mean, there’s an inflation element no doubt, but this is largely a capital case. And I think our rates are in a pretty good place.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. Excellent. Sorry, last quick one just maybe to bring it home. Year-to-date obviously, employee is trending well here in terms of cost benefits? And then also tax. I mean how are you tracking against full year here just to flag the big deltas there that are favorable for you, especially tax?
Dan Schuller: Yeah. Well, certainly, we’ve had — and as you know we had a warm winter. So the first quarter was tough in terms of the gas business. We’ve had some nice pick up since then some things are broken in our direction in terms of operating expenses, in terms of weather later in the call it the second quarter for the gas business, a little bit of a pickup there. We had a purchase water pass-through pickup in Texas that I think I talked about on the last call. And then, certainly, this natural gas safe harbor has been beneficial because what it’s done is really increased the eligibility of the pipe that we put into the ground. So the more of that pipe is eligible for the tax repair benefit and that’s certainly been helpful here as well in terms of making up for what we saw in the first quarter, and helping us to get into that guidance range for full year. Presuming again, as Chris said that we’ve got normal weather here in November and December.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Really appreciate it. Appreciate the time guys.
Chris Franklin: Thanks, Julien.
Dan Schuller: Thanks, Julien.
Operator: Durgesh Chopra from Evercore. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Chris Franklin: Hey, Durgesh.
Durgesh Chopra: Hey, good morning, team. Thanks for taking my questions. Just can you give us maybe a bit more clarity on as you file this rate case, how should we think about disclosures, whether it’s long-term earnings growth guidance, when to expect that — will that be in December or on the Q4 call? Just anything that you can share there in terms of timing?
Dan Schuller: Yeah. I think what we’ll do on that Durgesh is provide guidance consistent with what we’ve done over the past few years which is sort of a January February timing there.
Chris Franklin: Yes. As I mentioned, Durgesh, our Board meets in the next couple of weeks actually mid-December and we don’t approve the budget until then. So we’ll provide guidance as Dan said on our normal schedule.
Durgesh Chopra: Okay. Got you. I just want to make sure there was no changes there, given the rate filing. It sounds like even if you’re going to follow basically what you’ve done in past years. Okay.
Chris Franklin: Yes.
Durgesh Chopra: Okay. Perfect. And then just – can you talk about the PFOS, PFAS? I think the – in the last call you might have highlighted $350 million in incremental capital opportunity, if I captured that correctly. How has that view evolved or changed? Do you see that as potentially raising your capital like your $1.1 billion run rate capital going forward? Just any color that you can share there, please?
Chris Franklin: Yes, sure. I mentioned that we’ve now upped our estimate from $350 million to $450 million. And so it will increase our spend. However, what we’ve also said we continue to look at our capital budget and opportunities to displace other projects that maybe don’t have the same level of urgency as the PFAS mitigation does, and so we don’t see it as a material change to our capital guidance and spend over the next few years. Having said that, listen $450 million to mitigate PFAS is a big deal. And it’s several sets of projects right as you do it across the company. So it will be time energy and cost but we just don’t see it as a major adder to the capital budget.
Durgesh Chopra: That’s perfectly clear. Thanks, guys. I appreciate you giving me time.
Chris Franklin: Take care, Durgesh.
Operator: Gregg Orrill from UBS. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Chris Franklin: Hey, Gregg.
Dan Schuller: Good morning, Gregg.
Gregg Orrill: Hey, good morning. Yes. Following up there on PFAS just has anything changed about the timing of potentially getting proceeds from the legal arena to offset the PFAS investments that I guess the consequence of that would be that you’re thinking about PFAS as more of a rate base eligible investment at this point?
Chris Franklin: Yes. So as we think about the recoveries from lawsuits again call it the 3Ms and so forth, we have some key decisions to be made. The whole industry actually does early in December here. And those decisions are you stay in with the group, with the class action or do you separate and assuming you can do better on your own. Those decisions are currently under discussion in all other companies we’re no exception. And then I think the prevailing thought is that should we stay in and get our piece of some of those settlements, it would be paid out over a 10-year period. And so the capital that we would spend Gregg, would be largely done and invested and recovered before the main portion of the proceeds of a settlement would come through. And so whether that would be – end up being an offset to operating costs or how we would account for it I think yet to be decided but I think that’s generally how we think about it.
Gregg Orrill: And how does the PFAS capital investment relate to your capital budgeting plan and guidance…
Chris Franklin: Yes, it’s embedded and will course, we’ll update it. But we don’t see a material change to our overall capital budget. We’re always measuring ourselves against affordability. And so, we may spread some of the projects that are in our current plan out, a little bit further not bad for investors, but short term focus more on PFAS in that capital budget. I’m not saying there won’t be any increase, but it won’t be material.
Gregg Orrill: Okay. Thanks for your update.
Operator: Jonathan Reeder from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead with your question.
Chris Franklin: Hi, Jonathan
Dan Schuller: Good morning, Jonathan.
