Jessica Graziano: Yes. Thanks, Dave. And Phil, thanks for the question. I’ll mention Aviva in a moment, but there actually were a few really significant financial considerations within the CBA that our negotiating team did a fantastic job in making sure that are thinking of our employees and thinking of the company, right, and the approach that we took to get the CBA negotiated. So, the Veeva is one of them. So as Dave mentioned, our OPEB plan, our OPEB funding was significantly overfunded to the tune of 200%. And so, what we have been able to do is to tap into that overfunded status. It’s still significantly overfunded, right? It’s in excess of 135%, but we were able to carved out some of that overfunded amount and utilized that as a direct cash offset to active medical expenses incurred by our represented employees in the year.
So, what that’s going to translate to is, over the four-year agreement, about $300 million of direct cash offset. Think about it as $75 million a year against the active medical costs that we would otherwise have paid for with corporate cash. So that opportunity to offset some of the cash flow for the company ensures that, again, the represented employee is — the medical is still in place, but we have this offset in terms of the economic burden, right, by directly accessing that excess Veeva funding for the — across the four-year period. So that’s the first thing. I think the other thing worth noting is we were able to leveraged what was — what continues to be a very strong cash position in being able to reward our represented employees with a onetime cash bonus at ratification.
And so that $64 million onetime bonus was paid in the fourth quarter, and again, puts money in the pockets of our represented employees real-time, in addition to what we’ve negotiated as what we believe to be a fair salary increase over the four-year period as well. We also believe that negotiating what will be $1 billion of capital investment commitments over that four-year period will continue to supply supportive CapEx to maintain our integrated assets with really exceptional operating quality and reliability performance, but is at a significant advantage to some of the commitments that were negotiated by our competitor. So, we feel really good from a financial perspective about the overall considerations in the CBA and obviously are happy to get to work within the integrated mills.
David Burritt: I’d say the collective bargaining teams on both sides, U.S. Steel and USW, they were very creative to work together. I have to say I was very impressed with the outcome that they were able to come together to make sure that we — what we like to say, best for all, because this was clearly a great agreement for our employees. It was also grade for our stockholders, too, because of the cash saved and the costs that we have improved versus a competitor. So, we’re, very pleased with the relationship with USW and of course, really delighted that we’re able to give our employees such a great contract.
Philip Gibbs : If I could sneak in a follow-up here. Just can you update us on Granite City and that plan, I believe, for your relationship with SunCoke to potentially do some pig iron modules over time? Anything that you could provide there as an update would be helpful. Thank you so much.
David Burritt : Yes. Sure. I’ll turn it over to Rich here just to second. He’s providing some leadership there. I would say that the discussions are ongoing. We’re working really hard to save some 500 jobs there. And we think this pig facility would be a good solution. But there’s — we got to make sure we do this cost effectively, and we got to make sure, again, we get it best for all. We want the employees to do well, and we need our stockholders to do well, too.
