Unidentified Analyst: Hi, everyone. Thanks very much for taking my question. I just had a quick one. Just about a quick couple. Just — on the eco financings that you’re planning on doing in 2023, is the drag from the $550 million of debt — is that included in the net income that’s shown for Southwest Gas — or do I have to — like how does that get treated?
Robert Stefani: Yes. So that $550 million of debt would be issued up top at the holdings level.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. So when — and then I think you answered it in response to Ryan’s question, but basically, as part of the spin and the reduction — the deleveraging at Century, one of the options could be to put maybe an additional $300 million of Hold Co debt on the pro forma Southwest Gas company. Is that right? So, you could end up with $850 million of parent debt?
Robert Stefani: Yes. So yes, we did include that as a potential option. What I would say is that we don’t anticipate issuing any equity to support that deleveraging at the holdings level. We could look at various structures, which would include issuing debt at the holdings lever to delever Century we could also look at spin-off structures that would monetize a portion of century. So that could take the form of a sponsored spin IPO, and we could also look at a retained stake that would then use proceeds to repay any kind of debt issued with the kind of the plan there. So, we’ll look at all those structures kind of as we get further along in the process. We’re not necessarily leaving things off the table as it relates to that deleveraging. We just acknowledge that we believe that a partial deleveraging will need to occur in association with the spin.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. But €“ and then I think your other comment was the ratings agencies would be comfortable even if you did have — like if all of those other more accretive options were not available, the ratings had would define with that level of debt at the Hold Co.
Robert Stefani: Yes. I mean we — I won’t speculate. We did include did include that in the analysis, and we’re comfortable with our plan and that in a — even in a worst-case scenario that based on the projections we showed the agencies that, that debt level would be supported, and we’ve maintained investment-grade ratings.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. And then the only other question I had was, I guess, just when I factor in kind of that — the higher share count from the equity that you guys have to do and kind of some of this drag, it does look like — which I think is a question that multiple people have asked, but it looks like the payout is approaching to 90% on the pro forma business. And so, is — what would you say as a competitive dividend payout ratio? Is it just the peer average? Or can you pay higher than that? Or just how do you think about that kind of period?
Robert Stefani: Yes, I would just direct you to the comp universe. I think the range that we’ve targeted and paid historically has been competitive with peers, and we will evaluate the dividend policy in conjunction with the spin later this year.
Operator: Our next question comes from Tim Winter from Gabelli Funds. Please go ahead.
Tim Winter: Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. I wanted to talk — ask about the holding company drag. It looks like about $0.63 for ’22. I’m assuming most of that is debt that’s going to go away. But how do we think about the holding company expense post spin?
