Jonathan Reeder: Okay. And then maybe asking the aquarium question a little differently, but just given the challenges in the Connecticut regulatory environment right now, is that a state where SJW would want to increase exposure versus Texas where growth is higher or potentially entering a new state?
Andrew Walters: Yeah. Fair question. And again, I’ll not comment specifically on the opportunity and process as it’s yet not completely defined and — but we do take a long-term view of constructive regulatory shaping and investment. And so, we’ll evaluate it very carefully once we understand fully the process and — but that’s all I have to say today, Jonathan. Thank you.
Jonathan Reeder: All right. Thanks for taking my questions. Appreciate it.
Eric Thornburg: Thank you, Jonathan.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] One moment as we move on to our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Roger Liddell with Clear Harbor Asset Management. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Roger Liddell: Thank you. Good morning, gentlemen.
Eric Thornburg: Hi, Roger. So great to hear from you. Thank you.
Roger Liddell: I’m delighted to get a report as good as this. Eric, particularly how long I’ve been concerned about the PFAS issues and other contaminants. But PFAS is as good as it comes in terms of the signal or the damage of ignoring these things. So my concern is that, generally across the country we’re seeing blowback, I think, more blowback on large rate requests than I can recall for a number of years, maybe selective amnesia. But — and here are large numbers, the $110 million in California is one thing, $120 million in Connecticut. By the way, Maine has had dreadful PFAS contamination issues. Perhaps it’s not in the Biddeford-Saco area or your other service territory. So that’s why it isn’t mentioned. But anyway, big bucks in play.
And the blowback to me just seems in most cases remarkably uninformed by the benefits, the life cycle cost versus the first cost kinds of arguments. So is there anything that you feel the shareholder owned companies in particular, but the industry, can it do more in terms of awakening the public to the return on investment in PFAS removal or control? There is going to be a big health payback, but it isn’t right away. So what can be done?
Eric Thornburg: Yeah. Thank you, Roger, and you’re right. You and I have spoken about this for many years. I think the biggest sea change is finally EPA has stepped forward with a proposed regulatory standard. Candidly, up until that point, while many people wanted it resolved from a regulatory risk standpoint, a lot of commissions were concerned about, well, why should we approve a rate increase at cost to customers when there’s, in fact, no standard for this contaminant? There’s not even completed health studies by EPA. And so now that that process is well underway, we have a proposed standard. We expect that to get promulgated in final form. Boy, then that really sets the stage and in our conversations with regulators, there’s real alignment around, hey, we need to get this done and get it done fast, and it is a very aggressive timetable.
Once that’s promulgated, we have three years to complete treatment. We’ve taken many wells offline that are above certain action levels, but we do have a lot of construction work to get accomplished over the next three years to completely resolve and remediate this thing. I will add that in Maine, we’ve been very fortunate in all the testing — the detailed testing we’ve done across all of our sources there. We’re fortunate so far not to have any PFAS hits of any substance. We do operate a utility under contract, part of our management services agreement that does have a bit of an issue, so we’ll work with them to help resolve that. But we’re committed to getting this done and behind us. And as you — as well, we’ve disclosed we also participate in the class action suit against the 3Ms and the DuPonts to help so that any costs we recover in that process, which frankly we don’t expect it to be big fully — anywhere close to fully recovering our costs, but whatever we do get, we’ll flow that back for the benefit of our customers, of course, to try to mitigate the rate impacts of it.
But I appreciate your question and your interest and support in this important topic.
Roger Liddell: Yeah. Thank you.
Eric Thornburg: Thank you, Roger.
Operator: Thank you. And I’m showing no further questions at this time and I would like to turn the conference back over to Eric Thornburg, Chief Executive Officer, for any further remarks.
