Angie Storozynski: Okay. And then lastly, this point that you brought up about retail choice. So it’s kind of an interesting time, right? Because if you think — I mean, I’m assuming that you guys had procured electricity ahead of time, so you had likely locked in elevated power prices. So wouldn’t actually retail choice makes sense to residential customers in this power price environment where power prices have fallen pretty dramatically, as such that there should be a positive differential between what a retailer can offer versus what the incumbent utility offers, no?
Vince Sorgi: Yes, you would think so, Angie. So our price to compare is about $0.0145. There are suppliers out there that are below $0.10 exactly to your point. We’ve had to procure that power over six, 12, 18 months time horizons in accordance with the PUC process. So yes, so we’re not necessarily getting the immediate impact of the precipitous decline in energy prices over the last month or two. Some of our suppliers are, which they’re able to provide, like I said, $0.10 contracts, it makes it interesting that many of our customers were paying $0.20 and over $0.30 in December for their third-party supplier energy. So great point.
Angie Storozynski: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for taking my questions.
Vince Sorgi: Sure.
Operator: The next question comes from David Arcaro of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
David Arcaro: Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. A couple of minor questions here. I just wanted to check on the reallocation of the Kentucky Holdco drag, I was just wondering, are there any implications there either from a regulatory perspective or from like a debt refinancing perspective as you shift that into corporate and other, or is it really just as simple as moving around that EPS drag?
Joe Bergstein: Hey, Dave, it’s Joe. It’s — there’s no implications to either of those. It’s really just the reallocation of those costs that we were — we had been allocating to the Kentucky segment to and really from an investor perspective to align the Kentucky segment to the similar way that we had been reporting Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. So no implications there.
David Arcaro: Okay. Got it. Great. That’s helpful. And then I was just curious, would you expect any ongoing elevated costs or personnel activity or anything like that on the back of the billing issues in Pennsylvania in terms of the call center resources or anything like that, or is it going to be just temporary in terms of response there?
Vince Sorgi: Yes. No, that will be temporary, David. We do have third-party contracts that we can lean on in times of need, which we’ve done. We’ve also reallocated some of our existing folks in other departments and train them up on the call center activity. So, yes, of course, the third-party contracts, we could dial those up and down as needed and then our internal resources — they’ll just go back to their other departments when we’re through with the call center duties that we have been doing.
David Arcaro: Okay, understood. That’s all I had. Thanks so much.
Operator: The next question comes from Greg Orrill of UBS. Please go ahead.
Greg Orrill: Yes, thank you. Just with regard to the CPCN, how does the impact of inflation play into that with inflation/supply constraints?
Vince Sorgi: So, those price estimates that are in our CPCN are all based on current pricing. And we ran the RFPs in the summertime. So, those RFP prices are included for solar projects. And again, we’re using our internal cost estimates for the combined cycle units and any of the solar that we’re proposing that we build. So, I would say cost estimates are up-to-date there. No major issues with having to adjust those with what’s in the CPCN.
Greg Orrill: All right. Congratulations.
Vince Sorgi: Thanks Greg.
