Brian Van Abel: Yeah. We take everything that happened in this year from a regulatory perspective rate case perspective taking into account as we give 2024 guidance. When we think about O&M, we’re down for this year our guidance for this year is down 1% to 2%. So as we think about next year up 1% to 2% we did some management actions in this year. And so really when I put the 2 years together it’s about essentially maintaining flat O&M. It’s a big focus from a long-term perspective is investing in technology to improve processes and take cost out of the business. We have innovation and transformation arm focused on eliminating waste and improving processes. We call it One Xcel Energy Way that we’ve deployed at the start of this year.
And also as you go longer term we start to see tailwinds from coal plant shutdowns as we start to shut down a unit of the year almost. So next year is just a little bit of a balance in this year and next year but over flat is how I’d look at it overall.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That makes sense. On the other side of the coin, as it relates to the sales outlook you talked about the data center opportunity in supporting the 2% to 3% growth. Is that kind of like the right base to think about beyond 2024? Do you anticipate some further acceleration over the five-year plan? Just trying to calvary, if like the environment is just different now given some of the tailwinds as you talked about. And clearly, as well oil and gas a Delaware Basin really click on all cylinders here a lot of activity that we see on the pipeline side. So just I guess curious for those drivers and how that could carry out over time.
Brian Van Abel: Yeah. And I think really next year as you mentioned in the Permian Basin, significant growth down in SPS as we’re supporting electrification and working closely with our large customers there. From a data center perspective, and thinking about the longer-term growth, I do think right now our five-year sales growth is — we’re projecting 2% to 3% over the five years. So kind of think about 2024 and that will continue over the next five years. And I think there’s even opportunity beyond that as you start to look at what generative AI means from a load perspective, and a data center perspective. So pretty excited, we think about – obviously, there’s investment opportunity when we think about loan growth helping us keeping customer bills low and affordable and that’s really important as we look to invest significantly into our system.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That’s very helpful. Thanks. Real quick last one, if I could just kind of rounding things out here. Any updates on the ongoing Marshall wildfire litigation? Any update on whether total liabilities we go to reach the 560 insurance coverage? Or any color you could provide there?
Bob Frenzel: Yeah. Hey, it’s Bob. I don’t think we’ve seen a lot of material updates in Marshall, I think in our disclosures in our Q and in our earnings release are up-to-date. We’ve seen 675 plaintiffs. To put it in perspective we think there are about 1,100 structures that had some amount of physical damage and estimated by the by the state of Colorado at about $2 billion worth of damage. None of that’s changed or been updated. The cases into 14 complaints and has been consolidated into a single case right now. The statute of limitation ends at the end of the year. So we think it will be pretty quiet until then maybe a couple of other plaintiffs trickle in through the process and then we’d expect to get a litigation calendar sometime in early next year.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. Very helpful. Thank you for the time. I will leave it there.
Operator: Thank you, Mr. Tonet. We’ll now move to Anthony Crowdell of Mizuho. Please go ahead.
Anthony Crowdell: Good morning, Bob. Just hopefully easy one everything has been answered. Great news on Colorado, but just following up on Jeremy’s question. You talked about I think the company is going to file a wildfire mitigation plan I believe in 2024 in Colorado. Is there a potential for even additional CapEx associated with wildfire mitigation like magnitude is that similar to what we’ve seen in the Steel for Fuel 2.0?
Bob Frenzel: Hey, Anthony. Good morning. Look we’ve been operating under WMP in Colorado for the past four years. I think that plan was around $400 million in total. We are looking at more capital investments as we roll forward. I think a lot of that’s going to be built into the base plan already. I don’t think it has anything of the magnitude of Steel for Fuel 2.0. Obviously, the big needle in there would be if we did something very dramatic on undergrounding. I don’t see a proposal that will move the needle necessarily in capital expenditures going forward, but something worth looking at.
Anthony Crowdell: Great. Thanks, again. Great quarter.
Bob Frenzel: Thanks, Anthony.
Operator: Thank you, sir. We’ll now move to David Arcaro calling from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
David Arcaro: Hey, Good morning. Thanks very much for taking my question. I was wondering this is — it’s clearly a step change in the renewables aspirations and opportunity for Colorado. Could this also apply to Minnesota in terms of potentially seeing an acceleration and a step change in renewables there as you fully realize the benefits of IRA going forward?
Bob Frenzel: Maybe — David it’s Bob. Thanks for the question. When I think about my prepared remarks I made the comment around 15,000 to 20,000 gigawatts of – 15,000 megawatts of generation by the end of the decade. If you think seven of that’s in Colorado then the balance eight to 13 is a combination of SPS and NSP. There’s very little in our capital plan our Steel for Fuel plan that’s included for those two regions in our capital plan or in our Steel for Fuel 2.0 that Brian laid out. So we have real generation upside investment opportunities. They’re a little longer dated. So I think 2028 to 2030 maybe outside of the plan period. Some might creep into this five years but I think it’s really more backdated. But that’s a substantial amount of generation in each of those two — to those jurisdictions.
We did go through a resource plan in Minnesota the 1,200 megawatts that we referenced in terms of RP for next year as part of that program. But there’s probably 4,000 to 5,000 megawatts of that is in the Upper Midwest largely approved as part of our last resource plan that we need to go execute upon.
Brian Van Abel: Yes. And we have — as we mentioned we have the 1,200 megawatts of wind RFP in flight. We actually have Wisconsin RFP, solar RFP in flight that we’re working on. we think we’ll file another resource plan, but also significant opportunities in Minnesota longer date is around our wind repowerings. And the assets that we put in service in the 2018 to 2021 timeframe, we’re requiring a couple of older ones that we brought forward to the commission and it’s a great way to increase output and save our customers’ money. And so we’ll look at those as we get closer to the time period as another opportunity in terms of being able to buy savings for our customers and invest in steel in the ground.
