Steve Coughlin: Yes. So, the primary portion of that relates to the increase in the tax credit. So, a portion of the $0.27 is related to just that base of projects from 2022 coming into 2023. So that’s part of it. But I would say the largest component is the increase in the tax credit to the range of about 500 million recognized this year, which is a little more than double what we recognize that last year. So, that’s the largest component of the $0.27.
Cameron Lochridge: Okay. Got it. I guess No, no, go ahead. I’m sorry.
Steve Coughlin: Yes. I was also just going to say, and that’s partly why we’re calling out this additional 600 megawatts because it’s largely €“ in fact, it’s all investment tax credit-based projects. So, as Andres described in the most extreme, even if you just had a project that was commissioned on January 1 instead of December 31, you would move that tax recognition over a calendar year. So that’s why we’re calling out that as potential upside and the sensitivity to the tax credit, and it’s just timing is all it is.
Andres Gluski: Yes. The other thing I’d point out is, when we sell the tax credits, we also get the cash.
Steve Coughlin: Exactly.
Andres Gluski: So, there is lumpiness in the cash as a result of this. So, the cash and the earnings go together.
Cameron Lochridge: Got it. Okay. That would do for us. Thank you guys, both.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Richard Sunderland of JPMorgan. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
Richard Sunderland: Hi, good morning. Thanks for the time today. Just one last one on this 2023 versus 2024 . It sounds like if the $0.10 looks to 2024, this clearly should be additive to the prior growth outlook attitude to the 7% to 9% CAGR. Is that the right frame of reference for whether the 600 megawatts in 2023 and brings you kind of back to the original range or 2024 pushes you above?
Steve Coughlin: Exactly. So, that’s exactly right. It doesn’t change the 7% to 9% through 2025, but all else being equal, 2024 would go well above the 7% to 9% as a result of these projects moving into next year. That’s exactly right.
Richard Sunderland: Okay. Got it. Very clear. Thank you. Turning to Ohio, you asked before, any sense on the backdrop in conversations there after all the time and engagement around the rate case?
Steve Coughlin: Yes. So at this point, as Andres said in his remarks, the ESP 4, we’re expecting to be decided this summer. So that was filed last fall. The did issue the order on the distribution rate case back in December, which was very favorable to us. And so, really those rates are just pending the approval and finalization of the ESP 4. So €“ and keep in mind, the ESP 4 has a couple of things that are very additive. So, one is that it will catch up the investment that’s occurred between the last rate case filing in 2020, up close to the point in which the ESP 4 was filed last year. So, there’s a catch up there. There’s also a new framework for investment going forward, including a distribution investment rider, as well as some additional riders that will result in faster recognition of investment going forward.
So, our expectation is that we’ll see the new structure in place that sets Ohio in the course for new investment for the second half of this year, and then it becomes a growth driver going forward into the next several years. We see in total our net rate base increasing close to 1.5 billion across both utilities from now until 2025.
Richard Sunderland: Understood. Understood. Thank you. And then you reference changes around the Vietnam requirements for sale and relaunching that transaction. Could you just parse that a little bit more in terms of what you’re expecting there now? Do you see a quicker path to divestment under a second go, anything else would be helpful here?
