Linda Apsey: Yeah, Dave. They have not yet released specifically their updated assumptions in 2A. However, we do know directionally, it’s being updated to assume a greater level of renewables penetration to update for utilities carbon reduction goals, as well as increased load projections based on electrification. So I would say, from a directional perspective, it’s all pointing in the direction of a more probably ultimately a more realistic scenario of what the future looks like, which ultimately, I think from a transmission perspective, I think, would directionally result in the need for more transmission to interconnect more renewable generation resources.
Richard Sunderland: Got it. That’s very helpful color. And just one follow-up on the MISO front. Again around the Tranche 2 process, you hearing anything from MISO on how they might tackle kind of the greenfield versus brownfield split or how they’re baking that into their analysis. Obviously, spent a lot of attention over the past few years on that some of the headwinds on greenfield transmission development. So just curious if you hearing anything from MISO on this front for the latest tranche.
David Hutchens: Go ahead, Linda.
Linda Apsey: Dave, yeah, thanks. I wouldn’t say in any great specificity. I think there is recognition that, yes, I mean certainly, as we drive to build out more and more transmission investment, the siting becomes certainly more challenging to get the necessary land. So I would say, at a high level, directionally, certainly, there’s a lot of encouragement to the extent that you can kind of upgrade existing infrastructure or upgrade the infrastructure on existing rights, ways that can certainly help to facilitate the realization of those projects. But in terms of MISO being sort of, I would say, directive or assuming those things in their planning process, it does not really emerge. I think they leave that more to the specific transmission owners to identify and determine kind of the specific routing, citing and ultimately, the necessary siting requirements.
But I would say, just thematically, just given the transmission is getting more difficult to build and land is getting more difficult to acquire yeah. I mean I think solutions that would look at utilizing existing rights-of-way structures, towers would be certainly beneficial in realizing the investment.
Richard Sunderland: Great. Thank you for taking my questions.
Linda Apsey: Absolutely.
David Hutchens: Thanks, Rich.
Operator: Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Patrick Kenny from National Bank Financial. Please go ahead.
Patrick Kenny: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Just back to BC on the wood fiber gas pipeline. I know it’s relatively small in the grand scheme of things, but just with respect to the 20% increase and the total cost up to $420 million, I believe. Is the expectation that you’ll be able to earn on the full final price tag whatever that ends up being by 2027 or it just the original $350 million and then you have to absorb any excess costs above that on the balance sheet?
David Hutchens: No, we wouldn’t absorb any excess costs. There’s a bit of a complicated formula in the course and contribution in native construction that the wood fiber would pay for and the remaining part, all of our investment would go into rates.
Patrick Kenny: Okay. Perfect. Thanks for that. And then in Alberta, just given how high power prices have been here, I know you’ve received approval for a 5% increase in distribution rates for 2023. But just wanted to check in on how you’re thinking about managing or perhaps smoothing out future rate increases? And for getting any pushback from the regulator on the pace of rate base growth, at least until power prices settle back down?
