Travis Miller: Okay. And then just real quick on that, how many partners are in those two proposals, Rocky Mountain, Midwest proposals?
Brian Van Abel: I think we’ll get back to the specific number, Travis, but I’m going to guess it’s in the five to 10 in each region.
Travis Miller: Okay, let’s just looking for a rough number. Okay, very good. That’s all I had. Thanks.
BobFrenzel: Appreciate it.
Operator: Thank you very much, sir. We’ll now take questions from Mr. Paul Patterson from Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Paul Patterson: So, I hear you on the Minnesota regulatory environment, it’s pretty much what I’ve been hearing. But one thing I was little surprised by or I just — it’s hard to keep track of everything, there were some articles about some sort of state goal being below the national average by 5% and I think industrial’s made a filing about this sort of saying that the rates are in danger or what have you about being in line with that policy. And I was just wondering, could you just refresh my memory about what is state policy goal is and sort of following-up on Julien’s question, that’s just sort of the trajectory — how you see those performance within that thing going-forward because we have changes and moderation in fuel prices are going forward, just you’re do not moving pieces I guess I’m just sort of wondering if you could — and frankly I’m just not up to speed on the wall that they’re talking about?
Christopher Clark: Hi, Paul, this is Chris Clark. I’m the President of our Minnesota company. Yes, there is a goal in statue that seeks to have our prices for our commercial and industrial class, be within 95% of the national average. I think the starting point here is really that we provide our customers a great value and I think the look that got some attention is simply a look at the rate. But if you actually look at our total bills for our C&I class, you’ll see that over a 10-year period, they’ve been relatively flat and that’s because the EIA data that gets pulled for rates is only one component of the bill. So I think when you look at what we achieved for our C&I class, if you take into account the conservation programs that have been really nation leading here in Minnesota and other credits, and things that those customers have done to be successful, you’ll see that our C&I class rates are competitive, and in fact, we do a great job of attracting new business to our state.
So, I think it’s important when we look at the picture of how we’re doing with our C&I rates and really take that into account. And as Brian and Bob have said, when we look at the plans for our clean energy transition, we’re confident that we can deliver those results in line or less then CPI. And I think over the long-term, we’ve shown that we can continue to be a successful company in navigating this, keeping rates affordable for our customers and delivering great value.
Paul Patterson: Okay, also a great answer that. The second question, I have — and I apologize if I missed this I got just interrupted here. The iron battery deployment, I apologize if you’ve already discussed this but are you guys going to own these and what’s the cost of them or could you just give a little bit more flavor of the economics associated with these two projects?
Brian Van Abel: Yes, good question. No, we haven’t disclosed the cost of these batteries, yet. We haven’t made the regulatory filings yet and we are looking forward to having a discussion on our stakeholders and the commission, but we certainly will O&M, we think there are a valuable grid asset and important to us O&M as we think about how do we start to deploy these new technologies as we look to decarbonizing into harm’s and carbon-free. So obviously, with any new technology the cost of more expensive, but this is a $100 battery that we don’t see other solutions out there that are viable and it also iron oxide, right, if you think about rare metals, this is something that’s readily available as we think about supply chains and what’s the ability to scale.
So overall, we’re pretty excited about this. I think it demonstrates our leadership as an innovative clean tech company and we’re excited to work with our commissions, but certainly more to come in terms of disclosing the cost.
Paul Patterson: Okay, great. Just any idea when you guys might make regulatory filing roughly speaking?
Brian Van Abel: Later this year, it will be this year.
Paul Patterson: Okay. I mean, you guys are deploying in 2025, right, so?
Brian Van Abel: Yes.
Operator: Thank you so much, sir. Our next question is from Mr. Anthony Crowdell of Mizuho. Please go ahead, sir.
Anthony Crowdell: Thanks for squeezing me in here. Just hopefully two quick ones. I guess when you look at the four major rate filings you guys have, they’re all asking for a forward test year. When we look at 2023 and beyond, what do you think is a reasonable assumption for structural like, can that be reduced from say 90 to a 100 basis points or 50, 60?
Brian Van Abel: Hi, Anthony, good question. As we think about it from an earned ROE perspective, that’s always been a goal of ours, right, we had a goal in 2015 to hold it from 150 bps and we’re successful. And then in 2018, ’19 and then had some COVID hit and we scale back on regulatory filings. I think as we look forward, our goal is to close that and we had some success from 2021 to 2022, albeit modest about 15 bps. And so our goal is to continue to focus on closing that and probably that 50 basis point range as you mentioned is a good goal as we think about it going forward and something that we’re always focused on improving the regulatory constructs in getting now as we think about either multiyear plans or longer-term plans really providing the benefit of price near customers, I think is really important something we’ll continue to work through.
