Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. And related here with their second New Jersey stakeholders. Any update in the how you’re thinking about treating it? There any changes in that construct, as you think about like a belt and suspenders of the federal program here? And we heard some comments from your peers here.
Ralph LaRossa: No, I mean, look, I think the upshot is that to the extent that PTC is a payment for the attribute, and ZEC is the payment for the attribute, we will net back that amount to the state. And that was in the original ZEC legislation that was put together. And so I think if that’s net over the long run, this is going to be a very good thing for New Jersey because the payment for the attribute that’s going to help nuclear ensure that it does have financial backing is going to be borne by the federal government rather than just New Jersey, and that’ll be a positive thing on the bills over the long run.
Dan Cregg: And I would I would just support that by just saying from a belt and suspenders standpoint, I think anything we do here we be enough and policymakers in New Jersey would be for next generations. It’s not something that would be belt and suspenders for anything near the near term.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. Understood what you mean by that. Appreciate that. All right. Excellent. Thank you guys very much. Appreciate it. Actually one last quick one on power, just if you don’t mind with respect to all the commentary from the governor’s office, etc. are you thinking about updating investments around power and the opportunities to maximize value of those assets here? And we’ve seen some commentary again, from some of your peers there but again, given what’s going on with the governor, etc. I’m just curious if that is even more of an opportunity.
Dan Cregg: Yes, I think that was the PTC and that’s in my opening remarks a little bit there Julian was all about hey, we potentially do some upgrades to Salem some change in the fuel cycle at Hope Creek and then long term extension of the licenses themselves. Not to mention everybody’s talking about hydrogen element. But we’ll talk a little bit more about that all on March 10.
Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. All right. That’s what I thought. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Good luck.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please proceed with your question.
Paul Patterson: Hello good morning.
Ralph LaRossa: Good morning Paul.
Paul Patterson: Just really quick just the extension of the licenses. Is that already reflected in the depreciation schedule of the assets?
Ralph LaRossa: No.
Paul Patterson: And how much might that lower the level of depreciation?
Ralph LaRossa: Yes. So the depreciation runs through 2036, 2040, 2046 for the New Jersey, and 2053, 2054, for the Pennsylvania units, and so those are presumptive of the extensions that gets you to those dates. But we’ve talked about those two things going on we talked about is the potential for another extension in New Jersey. That is not what is in place right now. And also, you may recall, point had some questions raised by the NRC about their existing license extension, which has not changed what we have done. We believe that that will be restored without any change. And so with respect to the incremental 20 years, I don’t have a number off the top of my head as to what that would do to us. But we can, that’s easy math, I think that’s all available. We could get that to you Paul.
Paul Patterson: Okay. Just over the years, we’ve seen different companies recognize these depreciation changes because of license extensions at different times. Some do it even before they file with the NRC. Some do it only when they get the NRC is official ruling on it. Any thoughts about when we might see the depreciation benefit show?
Dan Cregg: Yes. I think it’s most likely what we have in hand, the extension.
Ralph LaRossa: And Paul let me just reiterate what Dan said about the timing. You got 36, 40 and 46 on these units. And normally, you would apply in about 10 years in advance. So just to kind of set the timeframe for you as to when the application going, we’re just talking about it because it would be within the five years of our business plan.
Paul Patterson: Okay, got you. Thanks so much.
Ralph LaRossa: For the work done. Probably not for the receipt of the extension.
Paul Patterson: Okay, thank you.
Ralph LaRossa: Sure.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Travis Miller with Morningstar. Please proceed with your question.
Travis Miller: Hi, everyone. Thanks for taking my question.
Ralph LaRossa: Morning Travis.
Travis Miller: On the transmission, the onshore of the offshore transmission, any update on solicitations or development there anything along those lines?
Ralph LaRossa: No. We’re waiting on that as well. I don’t expect anything in the very near term on that. I think the BPU is committed to seeing through the work that they’ve approved so far, but we have not. There’s no indication at this point on the timing of any new solicitations.
Travis Miller: Okay, is a gating factor is the development in future off for when or would there be additional transmission for current?
Ralph LaRossa: I think a bunch of it has to do with the IRA and understanding how the tax treatment would be for a wire whether it’s a wired it’s deemed a generator lead or a wired deemed offshore transmission. So once they get through that process, I think there’ll be some better idea of five times.
Travis Miller: Okay, makes sense. And then I said I mentioned about the rate case at the end of the year. Anything unusual about that that would come out or just typical operating costs, capital updates?
Dan Cregg: No, just typical. Okay, that’s all I had. Appreciate it.
