David Campbell: Well, we had hearings this week and obviously we’ve been in discussions with staff in advance of the hearings, so I do think it’s in the commission’s hands at this point. We’re always–as I mentioned, we’re always seeing the work constructively towards approval, we think it is clearly a great option. It’s a well-placed option that drives the best overall benefits for our customers in terms of costs, in our view, and so we think we’ve got compelling arguments for adding it. If we can settle, it’d be great, but it’s in the commission’s hands given that it’s likely to be an issue the commission resolves.
Paul Patterson: Okay, great. Then with respect to the ROFR bill, I’m sure you guys are familiar with the Fifth Circuit ruling, I guess dealing with the Texas law and NextEra. I’m wondering, is there anything different about this law versus that, or how should we think about the Fifth Circuit ruling, and I’m sure it will be appealed to the Supreme Court or whatever, but how should we think about how that law may or may not interact with that court ruling?
David Campbell: It’s a good question. I was actually in Texas at the time the Texas law was passed, so it has some unique elements reflecting the unique elements of the Texas market. There are ROFRs in place – right of first refusals in place in dozens of jurisdictions around the U.S., and they’ve stood the test of time in those markets and been beneficial and remain in place. Most of our neighbors have them, most of the states in the SPP have them, so we’ll track, it may be narrow to the Texas law, it may not. We don’t have ROFR in place in Kansas and Missouri, so one step at a time, but I do think the ROFRs that are in place across multiple states, they’ve been resilient. We’ll obviously have to follow how those cases go, but some unique features, as you know, in that Texas law.
Paul Patterson: Okay. Then just finally on transmission, there a number of FERC proceedings, they seem rather small to me but there are a number of them, I guess, and they’re very technical – frankly, over my head to some degree in terms of the formulas and what have you. How should we think about just cumulatively those proceedings and how you feel about any potential exposure there, or not there, if you follow me?
David Campbell: I do, and we’ve resolved a couple proceedings, and one was ruled on by the FERC last year, so I think that we–our go-forward guidance reflects our view of the impact of the overall regulatory framework, is probably the easiest way to frame it. Some of it is complicated, but probably the most complicated one that was pending, because it related to a formula that was in the tariff that was under review, and so we had to follow the tariff but obviously when you get a formula that’s related to the transmission delivery charge, and the transmission formula rates to FERC level, and that was resolved last year. Our forward guidance that we’ve discussed reflects the impacts of that case. There are a lot of technical ones. I guess the easiest way to describe it is that we–our view of their impact is reflected in our forward plan.
Paul Patterson: Okay, thanks so much and have a great one.
David Campbell: Thank you, you too.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ashar Khan of Verition. Please go ahead, Ashar.
