Ralph LaRossa: I’m going to give Dan a crack at some of this, too, but I just want to reinforce — I apologize if I said we were at the low end. I definitely is in that — I did not mean to say that if I said it earlier, it was not my intention. So we’re within the range. We’ve said that. And I would agree with you that there’s a lot of positive momentum here, but nothing is firmed up yet. And so that’s why we’re where we are. And we will give you that information when we get later in December for the two items that I mentioned, the GSMP and then we’ll give you some more in January. But Dan, do you want to add anything to that?
Dan Cregg: No, I think that says Joe. There was not an update with respect to those numbers today. We have reaffirmed those numbers today. As we do step forward, it has and it continues to be a range. And so we’ve gotten some indication from PJM that there could be some incremental transmission spend is in the $400 million range. We’ve gotten some indication by going through that BPU triennial that EE could see a little bit of a lift frankly, the GSMP was a higher run rate, but was not as much as GSMP I was filed for. So, there’s going to be puts and takes. And I think what we’re saying is that you’re going to see that update in full and some of those ranges having a little bit more color around that because we’ve stepped through another series of months as we approach the end of the year and move into year-end.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. A couple of clarifications there. If you don’t mind, I was saying earlier, 6% to 7.5%, at least the — the low end of 6% seems like it needs to come up through ’27 — would you be rolling forward the plan to ’28? And then even more specifically within that, how do you think about the linearity if we’re going to bring up this term again in terms of earnings, not just off of ’23, but maybe off of a ’24 baseline, if you will, if you don’t mind?
Dan Cregg: Yes. Look, Julien, we said 6% to 7.5%, and that is where we still are. So if you’re talking me up from that number, we’re at the 6% to 7.5% — what we’re trying just to do is as we do step forward, we will give the indication as to what these things start to look like. The filing for EE has not been made. And we don’t have that final answer from PJM with respect to that transmission. So I think those will follow. And as we do step forward, that base will move up and will some incremental capital as we extend the years of our forecast. We need to come up a little bit. These are the kind of things that we’ll do that. So, I think you ought to Think about it as exactly how we presented it, that we’re affirming those numbers as we step forward. We’ll give you a little bit more color in ’24 come December and then we’ll move into a longer-term update on the other side of our overall finalization of our plan.
Operator: Our next question is come from the line of Michael Sullivan with Wolfe Research. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Sullivan: Sorry to belabor, but just to tie it up on the year-end call update. So fair to say that the earnings CAGR will be 2024 to 2028, is that right?
Ralph LaRossa: That will be in the January time frame. That’s what we said in the prepared remarks, and we will be giving that update at that time, exactly.
Michael Sullivan: Okay. And kind of consistent with how you laid it out at the Analyst Day on the nuclear side of things. We should assume the nuclear PTC 4 level with anyone else being…
Dan Cregg: Yes.
Michael Sullivan: Okay. And then last, just on the credit side of things. So I think I saw earlier this week, Moody’s took a favorable action or outlook on the power side of things. And any potential resource to the consolidated view there and how they might be thinking about your metrics and thresholds?
Ralph LaRossa: Yes. Nothing that we’re aware of on the parent level, but I will tell you, I was getting some good work by Dan and his team treasury department to explain what’s going on in our — on the power side. And we were very happy, and I appreciate you recognizing Moody’s letter it went out. So, thanks on that front.
Dan Cregg: Yes. I think what they did, Michael, made sense, right? If you think about what nuclear has been and what it is now, that PTC does provide that exact floor that you’re referencing. And so, we do intend to continue to talk about that within our numbers and nothing beyond that. But certainly, that stabilization is supportive of exactly what Moody’s did.
Operator: Next question comes from the line of Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.
Carly Davenport: Most of might have been answered, but just two quick sort of housekeeping questions on nuclear, if I could. First one, are there any updates in terms of nuclear PTC in terms of your view on when we might get clarity there? And then the second one is just, is there anything to flag so far on the Salem 1 refueling outage in terms of how that’s been progressing from both a timing and a budget perspective?
Ralph LaRossa: Yes. Look, I’ll take the last one. The team continues to perform excellent work there, and there’s nothing that we have there to discuss other than a normal average consistent with our business plan, so just a great opportunity for me to give kudos to the team down there. So thank you for that and Dan will give you the PTC piece.
Dan Cregg: Yes. I presume treasury is also doing excellent work down there, but they’re not reporting now to it’s not exactly when. So we don’t have any particular color on timing other than to continue to reinforce that, but sooner is better than later, but we’ve not heard anything back yet.
Operator: Next question comes from the line of Travis Miller with Morningstar. Please proceed with your question.
Travis Miller: Real quick to go — just touch on CapEx. That $200 million — is that — could you characterize that as new projects? Is that inflation on existing projects pull forward? I wonder if you could clarify that real quick?
Dan Cregg: Yes. Travis, I think what that really is, is the team has been doing a great job of knocking out the work that we have in front of us, and there are a couple of things that, that is think of it as just getting some of the work done a little bit quicker than anticipated, and we’ll follow up with a more fulsome update as we go forward.
Travis Miller: Okay. So would that pull out of 2024 at all or not a relationship there?
Dan Cregg: No. Well, I would argue that you may be able to think about it that way. But as we give you an update, you’ll be able to see what happens because 2025 could get pulled back into ’24. It’s a little bit fluid as they go forward. And if they’re ahead on where they are right now, you can see some other things coming back into ’24. So I wouldn’t think about it as a reduction in ’24. I think about it as just getting a little bit more work done early, and we’ll continue to true that up as we go forward.
