You look at the progressive moves that are taking place up in New Hampshire as we collaborate with those folks and they really understand it. And it’s going to take that type of collaboration as we look to electrify our system and move away from carbon fuels. But if we don’t collaborate, it makes it very, very difficult. I mean, we’ve operated this way. In my 40-year history, we’ve always had strong working relations. So, it’s a disappointment to me and it’s a priority to me as we try to focus on Connecticut and to see if we can’t get aligned and get on the same page so that we can move the agenda. Connecticut has a phenomenal opportunity to be really a leader in clean energy. We built that port down there. We collaborated. That clean energy port down there should put them on the map for clean energy.
But unfortunately, it’s been a real challenge. But I just want to assure you and all of our investors that this is something I take very seriously and I will continue to work at it seven days a week until such time as we can get some constructive change.
Steve Fleishman: Okay. Appreciate that. And then lastly on the New Hampshire solar opportunity, I know, you know, so, you know, solar in in New England tends to be, you know, decent amount, you know, kind of, you know, capital cost, just not as much available land, all that stuff. So just any sense on kind of size and investment opportunity there for the New Hampshire Solar?
Joseph Nolan: Yes. I got to tell you, one of challenges first of all, we don’t really have a sizing at this point. We’re really in the first inning of this game. But the fact that they are interested around utility on solar, I take great comfort in. But I will tell you the one thing there’s no shortage of in the State of New Hampshire is land. And so that’s where I see great opportunity. And I also see the proximity to our infrastructure. It makes it very easy as well. One of the challenges that a lot of folks early in the solar days was folks would want to build, but they’d be in rural areas where there wasn’t any load. But we have opportunities in New Hampshire with sizable tracts of land that would allow us to obviously collaborate.
It has to be a partnership. It has to be a community that’s interested in this. But I do see great opportunity up there. So, we’re really in the first thing. I think we’ll be able to update you probably on the second, third quarter calls around how that’s going. But I think the most important thing for us is to get a model in place in New Hampshire for utility owned solar. That is fair for us and is fair for the customers.
Operator: Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Andrew Weisel with Scotiabank. Your line is now open.
Andrew Weisel: Hi. Good morning, guys. In Connecticut, another question here. I agree that state policies and regulatory environment are not aligned, so I understand you’re reluctant to put capital to work. My question is, what exactly is it that you’re looking for? What would it take to get you more comfortable with the regulatory setup? Is a qualitative good faith kind of conversation or you are looking for something more explicit like preapprovals for spending on AMI and EVs.
Joseph Nolan: Yeah. Well, we’re looking for preapproval. We’re looking for a Yeah. Well, we’re looking for preapproval. We’re looking for a regulatory recovery, a roadmap for the recovery of our dollars that we have spent. As you know, the RIM filing that we just got approved there for $800 plus million. That was money we spent on behalf of the customers in Connecticut. These were state mandated requests that we did. And so we expect to get paid for that. And if the State wants to have AMI, we expect to have a audibly recovery process for our investments just like we have in Massachusetts. And that’s all we’re looking for. That if we spend dollars, we want to know we’re going to get the dollars back. We don’t want to be chasing those dollars.
We don’t want to have uncertainty around it. And I know that everybody on this call doesn’t want uncertainty. And so you can have my assurance that we will not spend dollars until such time as we have a constructive regulatory environment that allows us to get fair treatment in the recovery of our dollars that we’ve spent on behalf of the customers in Connecticut to bring better service.
Andrew Weisel: Okay. Is that something you think could be done in the regulatory arena or would that require legislation?
Joseph Nolan: No. I think we can do it in the regulatory arena. Certainly, I mean, we’re aligned with the governor. We’re aligned with these other agencies. So, we can have a collaborative effort that we submit a filing for all on the same page. Even the Attorney General, we have very, very strong relations there. But we just have to get PURA aligned with all of the other interests around the State, so that we can get a constructive roadmap to move forward.
Andrew Weisel: Alright. Sounds good. Then on FFO to debt, if I could elaborate, I know this has been asked a few times and I appreciate the details in page 9. Maybe this is a silly question, but if the $600 million from under recoveries adds 2%, you triple that to $0.8 billion how come the impact to FFO to debt goes up by double or less? What dumb guide math might suggest it would be a 3 to 1 ratio in the dollars and the percentages. So, what are the offsets there?
John Moreira: Well, keep in mind that, in that 300 to 400 basis point movement, it does include other cash flow items that we have not quantified in that $1.8 billion Andrew. And then additionally, when the cash comes in, it’s going to impact both the numerator and the denominator accordingly. So, it’s not a one for one.
Operator: The next question comes from the line of Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho. Your line is now open.
Anthony Crowdell: Good morning, Joe. Good morning, John. How’s it going? Congrats on your Celtics last night. Maybe some positive news to the floor.
Joseph Nolan: Thank you. Maybe the Bruins tonight. Maybe the Bruins tonight.
Anthony Crowdell: Maybe not. Just quickly on Slide 12, you had issued some parent debt already of in the year for the year. Do I think that’s going to that’s for the maturities at the bottom of the slide or the maturities you may also refinance and that’s going to be incremental debt? And let me know if that sounds fair.
John Moreira: No, you’re thinking about it correctly. So it’s for the maturities listed on that slide. We do have $900 million that’s due on June 27, and then we have another $450 million in the fall. Also in January, early January, we have another $300 million coming too. So, it’s more of the prefunding. So, with the proceeds from the transactions that I highlighted, we should be out of the debt and capital markets for quite some time.
