Ralph LaRossa: Yes, David. Sure. Look, I would — our opinions really don’t matter as much as results. And I have to tell you, I could not be more pleased with the board and the action they took on our gas system modernization program. That quick action and decisive action to move that forward shows a couple of things. One is the work that we’re doing and how it’s helping the environment from a methane reduction standpoint is aligned with the policies of the state. And I would also say the desire for the board to continue to reach settlement was exhibited there as well, right? So, both of those things are real positives and just should reinforce that for only us, in our opinion, but for you all that we are in the same space that we were before.
Operator: Our next question is from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.
Jeremy Tonet: Just wanted to kind of, I guess, build a little bit on some of the points you laid out there. With the GSMP II extension, can you frame the settlement versus capital plan assumptions versus the longer-term goals of GSMP III? Are the state’s ongoing energy transition discussions factoring into the settlement, just kind of looking at this more holistically.
Ralph LaRossa: Yes. So look, here’s the way I would frame it. The two years that we agreed upon are at a higher run rate than they would have otherwise been based upon our filing. So that’s a real positive. I think when you look at the two areas that were of concern in the conversation they were minimal from an investment standpoint. One was the renewable natural gas piece of our filing and the other was the hydrogen blending. And those are fair policy conversations that need to take place. So, the Board wanted to move ahead from a commitment standpoint to get the work done to continue to methane reductions. So, we’re completely aligned there. The run rate was higher. And I think we just participate and see where policy wants to go on those other two items and make a decision on that.
But from a long-term strategy standpoint, our commitment to reduce the cast iron in our system remains and it’s supported at this time by the commission. So I see nothing really changing from that standpoint.
Dan Cregg: Yes. And I think against the backdrop of the capital plan, Jeremy, we had talked about the low end of the range being consistent with where we were in the high end of the range being more like what we had for this particular item more like what we had filed for GSMP III. And so, we were above our run rate, but not as high as we had filed. So, we’re firmly within that capital plan range.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That’s very helpful there. And then following up with hydrogen, if I could. What’s the latest messaging progress behind the hydrogen hub evaluation in the Northeast Mid-Atlantic there? And how should we think about the hydrogen opportunity across local industry, PEG’s nuclear fleet, gas blending, regional renewable electrification overall. What can you share there?
Ralph LaRossa: Yes. So Jerry, we — first of all, we participated on two of the hub applications. One was the Northeast hub and the second was the MACT II. The MACT II hub was the one that was selected by the DOE in this area and we’re really happy and proud of being part of that solution. I think it’s going to provide us with a lot of long-term growth opportunities in the region. And I say that from an economic development standpoint for the state. I think we’ll have a real opportunity to place an electrolyzer somewhere in South Jersey. I think we’ll have an opportunity to make use of some pipelines that exist in South Jersey and some storage that exists in South Jersey for hydrogen as well as some end users that are in that area, both in the Delaware and across the river in Southern Pennsylvania from refinery standpoint.
That’s from the generic economic standpoint. I think our play here will be really determined when we see what the rules come out from the IRA and how the PTC is going to interact with both the nuclear PTC and the — and what — so you might think of as pan-caking hydrogen credits on top of that or not. So we’ll look at that. We don’t have any of that baked into our plan. I think that’s the key for you to take away. It’s upside for us. I will also tell you that we have no expectation of being part of anything that’s going to create any commodity risk for us on the hydrogen front, so we’ll look at this. We’ll help the state achieve some economic growth that they have down in that depressed part of our state, and then we’ll see what role we specifically play within it as an enterprise.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That’s very helpful. And I think you guys have been pretty clear on no equity. So I will fully refrain from that part.
Dan Cregg: I could say it again, if you like, Jeremy.
Jeremy Tonet: No, we heard you loud and clear. But just, I guess, in December, any updates to get there. I mean, will we be getting kind of a CapEx update in December, and then would that be updated kind of later on ’24 as we kind of — some of the incremental items come through? And just clarity comes through on some of the different items. And if so, how does the expected EE filing match up with how you’re thinking about it at last year’s CapEx update?
Ralph LaRossa: Yes. So, Jeremy, so we are going to give you a partial update on CapEx through ’27, and then we will give you more in January from a capital roll forward standpoint. So that’s kind of the rhythm the December update will be a little bit of the run rate that we talked about for GSMP and the EE filings that we have to file, which will be in the beginning of December for the BPU. That said, what we’ve been indicating is that, that filing will — if you look at the triennial, you would expect it to be a little bit more than we have seen in the past from a run rate standpoint. We’re still assessing it. I personally have not seen the final product from our team, so I couldn’t give you any more details even if I wanted to. But the indication from everyone who has looked at that order that came out from the BPU is that there’ll be more opportunity for us there.
Operator: Our next question is from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: So just trying to bring the call together here, tie it up a little bit. Look, you talked about December and then January. You guys have a lot of different moving pieces coming together, right? And so you’ve got this GSMP, you got the energy efficiency. You have the rate case proposal. You got the PJM transmission. I think in your comments, you said December presumably. And again, you comment on this new load growth update from PJM December, January as well. I just want to — maybe just to ask it more directly, how do you think about that rate base CAGR? You said specifically in your remarks again today about being that run rate being the low end of that? You commented just out of Jeremy, amongst others, about seeing a new elevated run rate.
How do you think about that 6% plus rate base outlook? How does that fit into the 5% to 7%. And what pieces are we missing here to the culmination, if you will, in January here? It seems like a lot of positives, no equity, low end of rate base CAGR clearly seeing a higher run rate. Just I’m trying to tie this together, if I can. I guess…
