I don’t expect that to be a major driver – as I said before, we’d probably get at least one done because, going back to Nick’s question previously, we want to maintain the strength of our balance sheet as well as stay out of the equity markets as long as we can to maintain that growth rate, but we do have the capacity to get one of those done and I think it would be additive. It’s not in our capital expenditure plan, but certainly as a proof of concept of moving that forward, I think the opportunities are abundant and with a lot of the renewable sales out in the market right now, there are opportunities to participate and get that done. More updates to come, can’t be more definitive than that, but certainly we’ve got a growing backlog and an opportunity set to look at with that 4,400 megawatts–or excuse me, 3,800 megawatts of PPA.
Durgesh Chopra: Got it, thank you. Just to be clear, the recovery process or the return on that 4 gigawatts’ worth of opportunity, is that through–do you have to go through rate cases or get approvals as you buy out those PPA opportunities, or how does that actually work?
Kirk Andrews: We would, yes, in certain cases. Especially in Kansas, we can pursue that through a predetermination-type process, but yes, ultimately we’d have to pursue both prudency and prosecuting that into a rate case, and obviously in the case of a simple buy-in, we’d look to do that to more or less replace the pass-through of what is existing PPA with a rate base investment that’s neutral, if not beneficial to our rate base.
Durgesh Chopra: Got it. Thanks so much, I appreciate it, Kirk.
Kirk Andrews: You bet.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski of Seaport. Your question please, Angie.
Angie Storozynski: Thank you. Just a really quick question. You have $0.21 of a drag in interest expense, and I’m just wondering–you know, I’m assuming that some of it gets trued up in the upcoming Kansas rate cases, so if I look forward, roughly how much of it would persist beyond this rate case cycle?
Kirk Andrews: That’s obviously a year-over-year increase, and I think the better way to think about that, you know, ’22 going into ’23, obviously ’22 was a little bit a tale of two rates, for lack of a more elegant way of putting it. We saw increasing rates more in the back half of the year, and that’s obviously a full year effect year-over-year. You are correct – we do have a number of items in that interest rate sensitivity we showed you before, better at the utility, so we would expect some of that, especially some of those pollution control bonds that you see there, there is a portion of those at Kansas Central, there’s at least half of those at Metro, and we’d also look–some of that interest rate exposure is obviously our short term interest rate.
Now, a lot of that gets taken up in our AFUDC mechanism, but as we look to move from our construction work in process to plant and service, we’ll look at that short term rates, which are obviously higher given the backwardation of the curve, and term some of that out. I would expect if we do that in 2023, we will do that timed–certainly in Kansas, that will probably take place in the context of our rate case, so a lot of that will get trued up at the end of the day.
