Melody Birmingham: Okay. Very good. As far as the Pennsylvania rate case, which you — that we filed March 15, it’s coming along well, our team continues to engage with our stakeholders there in Pennsylvania. This is not the first time, just so you know, when we have a rate case that we began to have discussions with the stakeholders or to understand what intervenors are wanting or expecting from us. So it’s an ongoing dialogue that the team and Pennsylvania has throughout the year up until the time that we file. We, with all cases, they’re uncertain, but we do work to stay as aligned as possible with the stakeholders to mitigate any surprises. So I would say it’s going as well as we expect at this point. And then your next question…
Unidentified Analyst: The NIPSCO deferral. Just overall timing to get an outcome there? And is that something that we should think about having a financial impact or rate case timing impact or anything else?
Lloyd Yates: So it should not have an impact on the rate case. We still expect to get an order on the NIPSCO gas rate case sometime this summer. And because of the deferral mechanism, it should not have a negative impact on our financials.
Unidentified Analyst: Got it. Understood. That’s all from me. Thank you.
Operator: Next question comes from the line of Miller Travis. Your line is open.
Travis Miller: Hey everyone, this is Travis Miller. On the $1.6 billion of upside, the slide there are some of those gas-related upside numbers. Can you talk about what jurisdictions have the most upside? And again, I realize there’s a scale difference here, but just maybe on a percentage basis, which of those gas jurisdictions do you think could check a lot of the boxes here in terms of the upside?
Lloyd Yates: I mean, I think the way to think about it is think about the size of our jurisdictions, right? So you think about Ohio, Indiana and then Pennsylvania will have the broadest impact in terms of capital investment from those rules or that $1.6 billion.
Travis Miller: On a scale basis, would — are there other opportunities in the smaller?
Lloyd Yates: There are. You asked the biggest impact. I think there are opportunities in all of those jurisdictions for capital investment as a result of the new rules. But again, it will be, I’d say, allocated to be a size of the jurisdiction is the way to think about that. Michael, do you want to add anything to that?
Michael Luhrs: Yes. The only thing I would add to that is when we look across all of our territories, that’s one of the benefits of having sort of the diversified territories and what we have in our current capabilities. And so you can take things such as in Virginia, there is very constructive legislation around biofuels that allow us to look at those opportunities. If you look at many of our others, we have multiple opportunities, whether that be through what’s already been mentioned in the economic development side or AMI transitions associated with it or some of the opportunities when we’re looking at what we’re going to have to do associated with just hardening in the electric liability that Shawn mentioned earlier. Quite frankly, there’s a pretty strong pipeline of opportunities for that $1.6 billion upside.
And just as we’ve done previously, as you’ve seen with some of the full ownership on the projects as we work through those methodically, we will bring those into the plan and make sure that we announce them once we have that level of confidence, as Lloyd mentioned.
Shawn Anderson: Yes. Maybe one last point here, this is Shawn. The stakeholder alignment is critical, and so the timing to implement the rules will matter as you think about our current CapEx plan, 2023 to 2028. So we’ll need to pace that through. So what you’ll see if it moves from the upside plan to the base plan will be actionable projects within the context of the timing of this CapEx plan. But those rules could extend the amount of work into the early 2030s. And so how we segment that along the actual jurisdictions that Michael just referenced will be dictated a lot by our stakeholder engagement and the pacing set forth by PHMSA.
Travis Miller: Perfect. That’s really helpful. And then one other, obviously, the hot topic of the data center. But if you think about your mix of business in terms of gas and electric, how much upside or available upside at least is manufacturing, which you mentioned versus data centers?
Lloyd Yates: Yes. So I’d say some, I mean, I think you started thinking about the economic development in Ohio, in Indiana outside of data centers is really strong. You think about reshore and you think about the Intel project just here in Columbus, you think of some of the battery Stellantis and Indiana. I mean, reshoring or on-shoring, however you want to characterize that is, again, a great opportunity for us. We are strengthening our economic development pipeline getting more focused on that because there are more people interested in that. I mean, I think we have, I mean the — one of the strengths of the company is we did the jurisdictions we operate in, most if not all of our states provide huge economic development incentives and people are very motivated to create manufacturing jobs where possible.
That’s the one thing no matter what your politics or everybody agrees on job creation and economic development, and we’re positioned very well to take advantage of those.
Travis Miller: That’s great. Okay, thanks so much.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from UBS Securities. Your line is open.
William Appicelli: It’s Bill Appicelli from UBS. Good morning. Just going back to the technology capital deferral mechanism. I guess how much capital could flow through that? And then just to clarify, that would be a deferral on D&A and O&M.
