Pat Vincent-Collawn: Well, my crystal ball is a little cloudy when it comes to the Supreme Court, just — so we’ll just stipulate that. We’re pretty confident that we should have a decision from the Supreme Court before the end of the year. I mean, in a perfect world, we have a decision from the Supreme Court. It’s very specific about what the commission needs to do and the commission has done. Possible. I don’t think it’s probable. So I think we’ll have a decision from the Supreme Court telling the commission where the court believes it aired and telling you what it needs to do to fix that. That’s where I think we’re going to be at the end of December. Now it’s possible, again, the Supreme Court doesn’t rule because, as you know, there’s no set time frame.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. And without trying to be deterministic about this, are there any specific parameters that are a red line around the deal per se as it pertains to either the court outcome or, b, the other dynamic around the rate case itself and that time line, whether or whether not it’s resolved entirely?
Pat Vincent-Collawn: I will take on the merger, I’ll let Don talk about the rate case. Obviously, if the court upholds the commission, we and AVANGRID are going to have to think about what our chances would be when that happens. But I can’t think of any scenario of any red line that they would put in there that would be an issue, so…
Don Tarry: And on the rate case side, we should have a decision by the end of the year. I mean hearings are in September. Expect a recommended decision in November and the commission has to order by, I think, it’s around January 3 to 4.
Pat Vincent-Collawn: Third or fourth, yeah.
Don Tarry: There will be a decision on the rate case by then.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Right. So you should have pretty ample clarity on a lot of things. In fact, to that end, if you can elaborate a little bit, I mean, considering that the deal is not necessarily overlapping with the timeline for the rate case, is there a potential for any kind of settlement in this case? Or just has it been too long and too many different parties involved for that to be credibly considered at this point in time?
Don Tarry: On the rate case, we would never say never, but where we’re at right now as we’re preparing for the hearings that start next month, and that’s where our focus is at, so…
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: All right. Fair enough. And then lastly, just in terms of the CapEx update, can you break down the specific piece? I know Ryan was just pushing on this, but can you break down the different buckets, A, in Texas? B, just grid mod what the different permutations might be? And C, what the — what is currently in your planning process in Texas as it pertains to generation resources. I imagine that could very well be a further aspect to your next CapEx update as it pertains to the Texas load, if I hear you right?
Pat Vincent-Collawn: You’re asking us what the upside to the upside is.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Always, come on. You know one thing.
Pat Vincent-Collawn: I’ll let Lisa answer that.
Lisa Eden: So Julien, we said that we will provide an update in Q3, right? And so we will go through and look at the — what’s available and what’s appropriate to add to our capital budget, also incorporate any timing associated with grid mod and any other updates and so we’ll just have to wait until Q3 to see what that CapEx plan looks like.
Don Tarry: And I would add to what Lisa said. We do see the legislation being extremely positive in Texas as we look to continue to create resilience in the grid. So there are opportunities there. But as Lisa said, we’ll address those in Q3.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Awesome. All right. Great. But with Q3, you’ll have the — just to clarify that on Texas, you’ll have the visibility ready to come forward with something. I know that the resiliency process itself is — could take a little bit of time here, too, right, at least for —
Lisa Eden: Yeah. So we will review what the opportunities are, and we will share that in the Q3 call.
