Agnies Storozynski: Okay. And then one other question. So you’re talking about the gas-fired new build. I mean, I was just doing some — running some simple math here. given growing supply of renewable power, right, you probably can’t necessarily count on very high-capacity factors for these assets, which would suggest that power prices need to be multiples of what we are seeing in the forward curve in order to justify construction of these new gas plants. So, I’m just wondering how you see it, even in Texas, those peakers and combined cycle gas plant that you’re pitching even with subsidized loans. It’s hard to imagine that these assets would be economic at a $60 around-the-clock north price.
Robert Gaudette: Angie, it’s Rob, again. I would tell you that the assets are economic. The way to think about the beauty of peakers or CCGTs, is that they can flex meaning they can move. And we can capture the value in the hours that matter. We’ve been trying to transfer our portfolio to something like that for a few years now. And so, when you see prices move, right? So as you see the curves go up, particularly in ERCOT, it doesn’t mean that every hour goes up by that same amount. It’s the very tight hours that go up those exponential amounts that you’re talking about. Is that cleared up? So think about the afternoon in Texas in the summer. That is going to go up 5x or 6x versus morning of that same day may have going on in one, and peakers are the things that make money in that work.
Rasesh Patel: Yes. Angie, let me just add that every one of these projects even on a sort of — without thinking about lots of rising pricing without thinking about organ insurance costs are things, pencils have to be — they all tend to not to be over our stated hurdle rate. And everything I just mentioned and the things that Rob just mentioned or upside on top of that.
Agnies Storozynski: But in light of that — I’m sorry, I’m asking for any questions. But in light of that, the fact that the new build is materializing at these prices, wouldn’t that suggest that there’s a cap on the upside to power prices because that’s usually what it suggests, right, that the new build materializes and that sort of deflate the tightness of power markets.
Rasesh Patel: Angie, I think if you look at the tightness versus the 1.5 gigawatts, the tightness far exceeded. And so yes, at some point, of course, if there’s enough new build that might exclude the tightness. But if you look at the number of projects that are on the books, not just ours, but everybody is the time it’s going to take to complete those I don’t worry about that tightness being loosened in any significant way for the next several years.
Operator: The next question comes from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Your line is now open.
Steven Fleishman: So just, I guess, following on Angie’s first question, I just want to try to reconcile kind of NRG in the old world of low prices for longer versus NRG now in this new world. I don’t recall you talking about hedges rolling off and then suddenly being exposed to low power prices. There was the integrated model and the customers kind of side to kind of hedge the low prices. So, just how do I — why wouldn’t I still not have to think about some kind of integrated model and maybe the retail margins coming down against the lower against the higher power prices? Or just how do we reconcile the two?
Dr. Larry Coben: Steve, I think what it has to do with really is the step change in the market. I mean before we have prices moved and really commodity driven, those were sort of transitory, and we were managing to — for the steadiness. I think what you’re seeing here is a step change where the flexibility of the integrated model allows us to gear ourselves in order to take advantage of the higher prices. So, the model hasn’t changed. It’s one of the things — the reason we never talked about it is we never saw a step change like this. But one of the benefits of the integrated model that we’ve been pursuing is that it allows us to gear to price increases like this.
Steven Fleishman: Got it. Okay. And then on the kind of sites opportunity and also on the new build generation, could you give us maybe a little bit more color on how you’re thinking about funding for those opportunities? And how much might come from NRG versus kind of third-party buying stakes or making the investment? Just maybe some kind of broader overlay how you’re thinking about that.
Bruce Chung: Yes. So, Steve, it’s Bruce here. First, on the new builds, Obviously, from a funding perspective, we intend to access the Texas Energy fund. So that’s going to be 60% of the capital costs related to the new builds right there. The other 40% of equity, we feel confident that we can fund that from our own cash and cash flow without impacting any of our capital allocation commitments in terms of share repurchases and deleveraging. So, from our perspective, we feel pretty well capitalized to be able to handle all of that by ourselves. Obviously, as we’ve always said, to the extent that these projects are getting built and there’s a unique opportunity to potentially attract third-party capital at a very attractive proposition, then we would certainly give that some consideration.
But right now, as we sit here today, we feel good about our ability to fund those projects on our own. As far as the 21 sites, it’s still early days, how it is that, that ultimately translates into what sort of opportunities that results in are still to be discovered. And so don’t really have a perspective on any capital need in that regard as we sit here today.
Steven Fleishman: Okay. And just last quick one. Obviously, at the higher stock price, the — you mentioned still reaffirming the 15% to 20% growth. So that, I assume means you’re expecting a better numerator there in terms of free cash flow to support that? And what is driving that? Is that mainly the higher power prices?
Robert Gaudette: I always have my opportunity to give you a warmer answer. I’ll ask Larry Coben, but — well, the first part of your answer, yes. Look, I mean I think we see, obviously, not only continued execution against our $550 million growth and cost program. But I think as you can see here, based on the sensitivities we provided you, there is going to be — we do see upside as a result of the forward curve.
Operator: The next question comes from Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI. Durgesh, your line is open.
