Paul Zimbardo: Okay, great. Understood there. And kind of at a high level, could you help walk from that 10.6% rate base CAGR to the 5% EPS CAGR? And I know you have the equity in there, which probably takes about 2.5% or so, but it seems like there’s kind of some cushion or conservatism? I don’t know if that’s additional regulatory lag, parent cost or something else?
Lisa Eden: Yes. Good question. So, I would say several things. You have a great regulatory construct in Texas, but it’s still based on historical test year. And so you do have some regulatory lag. The same thing, first, we have a historical test year. And then there’s also timing of rate cases. And so — and beyond that, you have the Holdco financing, both from a debt and equity standpoint. So, I think that those things are really what makes up the difference between the rate base growth down to 5% earnings growth.
Paul Zimbardo: Okay, great. So, nothing really different from the historical pattern, just regulatory lag and financing?
Lisa Eden: Correct.
Paul Zimbardo: Thank you team. Appreciate it.
Lisa Eden: Thank you.
Don Tarry: Thank you, Paul.
Operator: Our next question comes from Jonathan Reeder with Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead.
Jonathan Reeder: Hey good morning team. How are you?
Pat Vincent-Collawn: Good. Good morning Jonathan.
Lisa Eden: Good morning.
Jonathan Reeder: I was wondering if you could expand on your understanding of the Supreme Court’s options, if they do remain the order back to the PRC, can they narrowly define what issues the PRC can address or fix? Or does the PRC automatically have product launch?
Pat Vincent-Collawn: I thought you’re going to ask us if we’re in our Halloween costumes today or not Jonathan, but I’ll go ahead and answer your merger question.
Jonathan Reeder: I think that’s [Indiscernible] Halloween costume.
Pat Vincent-Collawn: Thank you because we do have some Halloween costumes on today. So, I wish I had an exact answer on what the Supreme Court can and can’t do. And if you listen to the oral argument, I think they were maybe even a little questioning what they can do. But our belief is that they either remand it back where they don’t. And again, obviously, depending on what the order on remand says, the Commission will get to determine their next step. But the Commission should have wide latitude to determine what to reopen, assuming the Supreme Court kind of gives them just as we remand it back to be fixed. I know that’s a squishy answer, but it’s a squishy process.
Jonathan Reeder: Okay. So, I mean you do think the commission does have wide latitude even if, I guess, the Supreme Court–
Pat Vincent-Collawn: Order, they have wide latitude. They obviously can’t go outside of the order, but they have wide latitude to address the order.
Jonathan Reeder: Okay. All right. Yes. It will be interesting to see how that comes out. So, then in terms of — that might be the understatement right. So, how should we be thinking about like weather-normalized EPS for 2023 then? If I’m understanding like Slide 19 correctly, it shows above normal weather year-to-date has been like $0.14 positive in New Mexico and $0.05 in Texas. So, if I subtract that $0.19 from kind of the new guidance midpoint of, call it, $2.78, it would put full year 2023 weather-normalized EPS at $2.59, which is actually below I think your initial 2023 guidance range, $2.60 to $2.75. Like is that fair? Is that how we should be thinking of it?
