Durgesh Chopra: Hey good morning, team. Thanks for giving me time. Michael, just staying on the topic of those — the tax equity versus rate base. Maybe can you just give us a little bit of color because I think there’s an important point for the industry as a whole? What — I mean you went ahead with the two projects, two projects you were kind of evaluate. Is there any difference project by project as we think about tax equity versus rate base ownership, is the tax equity market more tighter now? Just anything that you can share there because I think that’s going to be really important as we move forward with IRA as companies choose rate basing versus tax equity.
Michael Luhrs: So what I would say is, fundamentally, when you look at the benefits of the IRA and what we determined with the first two projects is that it produced significant additional benefits for customer costs. Both in the near term and in the long-term over the project. So we felt very comfortable, and we know that they provide a lot of benefit to customers, and that’s why we filed for full ownership with them. There are always differences associated with projects relative to what the capacity factors of them are depending on the region. There’s always differences associated with them. Some of our projects include storage versus not. That changes the different tax credits with those projects. What I would say is that we continue to evaluate those projects, the remaining two under the tax transferability provision.
And provide that customer benefit opportunity, then we’ll look at how to move forward with those. But we’re going to go through it in a very methodical and disciplined fashion to make sure that we know it provides the best benefit to all stakeholders.
Durgesh Chopra: That’s helpful color. I appreciate it. And then maybe just — I think this will be in Shawn’s view of the house. But on the remarketing, Shawn, like what are you assuming in your 2024 EPS guidance, I know it’s small, but are you assuming remarketing that’s part one. And then the language includes 200 in your slide that includes $200 million to $300 million equity with or without the remarketing. So the question is if you’re not going to remarket how you’re placing that equity content.
Shawn Anderson: Yes. Thanks, Durgesh. Appreciate the question. So first and foremost, all of our guidance range for all years of the plan reflect the full cost of financing, which is inclusive of all of the equity that we’ve shared, I think, on Slide 14. And all of our financing plan has always contemplated a full marketing in the placement of the $863 million effectively raising those proceeds here in 2023. That continues to be our assumption as we move forward. That positions our balance sheet such that we are in the 14% to 16% range for all years of the plan. But more specifically, the minority sale process concluding and closing by the end of 2023 positions us in that range. So the second half of your question is related to what if the units are not remarketing.
And we have a lot of flexibility then in that scenario, both in the timing of raising the equity as well as spending our capital expenditures plan. Therefore, we’ve got flexibility within the 14% to 16% range should that not actually execute.
Durgesh Chopra: Got it. Thank you Shawn. I appreciate the time.
Shawn Anderson: Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Richard Sunderland with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Richard Sunderland: Hi, good morning. Can you hear me?
Lloyd Yates: We can hear you fine, good morning.
Richard Sunderland: Great, thank you. Close out the Fairbanks and Gibson discussion. Just what’s the rough time line for a final decision on those projects in terms of ownership structure?
Lloyd Yates: So the IURC doesn’t have an extended time line to make that decision. We believe and hope that we’ll get a decision from them sometime early next year.
