Carly Davenport: Hey good morning. Thanks for taking the questions and all the updates. Maybe just a quick follow-up on your comments just then on tax credit transferability, the color that you’ve done already $250 million of contracts. Can you just talk a bit about how the market’s been evolving relative to your initial expectations and how you think about the competitiveness of that space?
Brian Van Abel: Hey, Carly, thanks for the question. So it’s evolved pretty close to how we expected it to this year bilateral transactions in the pricing we anticipated. There has been significant amount of demand. The demand is much, much greater than our supply of PTCs. Now we’re still waiting for a little — for the treasury staying up their portal and additional administrative requirements. So we feel comfortable executing contracts. I think also what we found and this is the strength of us, as we are a major player in this market. We have a great tax department. And with our balance sheet strength and our credit quality, we have no issue with identifying these credits, which makes it really easy to do business with us.
And as a certain evolve, we’re getting in the longer-term discussions is not just a 2023 or 2024 transaction, but hey, let’s look at longer-term multiple years signing up a single counterparty. So we’re very pleased with how it’s developed, and the amount of interest from their counterparties there. And for us it’s great. We have almost 20 Fortune 500 companies in our backyard in Minneapolis in Minnesota. So, it is great to have those relationships at the C-suite level to drive some of these.
Carly Davenport: Got it. That’s super helpful. Thank you. And then maybe to follow up just on the Hydrogen Hub process now that that’s been awarded I guess, how should we be thinking about time line there? And is there any dependence on that investment cadence going forward, on kind of how the tax credit structure looks for hydrogen once we get that from the treasury?
Bob Frenzel: Sure. So, Carly it’s Bob. We’re really excited about our clean fuels program, but it is fairly long dated. We are at a place where we are invited to negotiate with the DOE on this upper Midwest Hydrogen Heartland hub. Negotiations, final engineering those processes are going to take probably two years. I wouldn’t say, we’d start capital deployment until probably the end of our five-year plan and runs through the end of the decade. No. I would think that parts of the hub could be activated by 2029 — 2028 2029. So it’s long-dated investment cycle. It’s a $5 billion project. About half of that was attributable to projects that we proposed. So about $2 billion of company capital paired with $0.5 billion of federal money, is sort of how I think about it, none of that is in our financial plan and that’s about the time line it’s going to go on.
So we’ll still work on — that does not include any investments, also that we would look at some of the projects in Colorado were really attractive as part of our hub application there. We still want to work with the federal offices and our state partners, to see if we can advance some of those projects as well. Again, none of that’s in our base case or in our Steel for Fuel portfolio.
Brian Van Abel: And Carly, the second part of your question you asked about kind of the guidance around. Obviously, we’re still waiting for the guidance from Treasury unless we provided our comments industry’s driver comments. One of the things important to us is on the nuclear qualifying for hydrogen PTC. So hopeful, that we get guidance here rumor is sometime in November, but it could push a little bit.
Carly Davenport: Thanks for the color.
Operator: Thank you. Ms. Davenport. We’ll now move to Jeremy Tonet coming from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Jeremy Tonet: Hi, good morning.
Bob Frenzel: Hey, Jeremy, how are you.
Jeremy Tonet: Good. Good. Clearly, an incredible update in Colorado here and just wanted to dive in a little bit more if I could. Just given the rate base growth as you outlined there, and how should we think about I guess the EPS growth relative to the rate base growth, given the higher interest rate environment here thinking about potentially greater than 10% rate base growth, do you see the gap kind of widening at that point? Or how should we think about that at a high level?
Brian Van Abel: Jeremy, good question. Obviously, we are in a higher interest rate environment, higher financing market and also have some issue equity — equity to fund accretive growth which we’re very comfortable with. It’s important to maintain a strong balance sheet. And we’ve been very consistent about how we’ll fund incremental growth. So, as you go through you do see a little bit of a divergence from rate base growth and EPS growth, but certainly, not hard to do the math, and I’m sure all of you have done that math already.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. Yes. No, good math to do there. So that makes sense. And just wanted to kind of come in on the O&M side for the guidance there. And I think, it’s been kind of flat to down, if I recall correctly but targeting a little bit of an uplift in 2024 here. I’m just wondering, if you could provide a bit more color on the increase here and how this O&M I guess, impacts how 2024 guidance could fall out particularly given Minnesota being a bit lighter than expected?
