Good afternoon, and thank you for joining NorthWestern Corporation's financial results webcast for the quarter ending June 30th, 2022. My name is Travis Meyer, I'm the Director of Corporate Finance and Investor Relations Officer for NorthWestern. Joining us today to walk you through the results and provide an overall update are Bob Rowe, Chief Executive Officer, Brian Bird, President and Chief Operating Officer, and Crystal Lail, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. All participant lines are currently muted. After the presentation, we have allowed time for a Q&A session. I'll provide instructions for asking questions at that time. However, if you intend to ask a question or are joining us by computer, please set your Zoom identity to your first and last name and firm so we can call on you by name to let you know when your line is open. NorthWestern results have been released, and the release is available on our website at northwesternenergy.com. We have also released our 10-Q pre-market this morning. Please note that the company's press release, this presentation, comments by presenters, and responses to your questions may contain forward-looking statements. As such, I will direct you to the disclosures contained within our SEC filings and the safe harbor provisions included in the second slide of this presentation. Please also note this presentation includes non-GAAP financial measures. Please see the non-GAAP disclosures, definitions, and reconciliations included in this presentation today. This webcast is being recorded. The archive replay of today's webcast will be available for one year beginning at 6:00 P.M. Eastern today and can be found in the financial results section of our website. With that, I'll hand the presentation over to NorthWestern CEO, Bob Rowe. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. The photograph on the cover of the deck you're looking at is taken from the rimrocks above Billings in Yellowstone County, Montana. That's appropriate because, as you know, we're working very hard to ensure adequate delivery and generating capacity in the Billings area, particularly the Yellowstone County Generating Station, but also other work as well. In fact, our board meeting is in Kalispell in Flathead County, over in the northwestern corner of Montana, where we're seeing really exciting growth on the natural gas side as well. Had a great visit with our local team here, board and employees in our Kalispell, Montana office. It was particularly nice because yesterday we concluded the last open contract we had, and that was with our represented Kalispell employees. As a result of that, now we have multi-year labor contracts with all of our represented employees, providing some real stability. I would say that we all came out of that much more united with a sense of shared purpose. I'll start off with some highlights, turn it over to Crystal for the financials, and then to Brian for operating results and coming attractions. Then we'll come back to visit just a little bit about the other big news of the day that we're all really very pleased with. Recent highlights. Starting off, financial results are in line with our expectations for the quarter. That includes net income of $29.8 million or $0.54 diluted EPS, and a non-GAAP EPS of $3.01 or $0.54 diluted EPS per share. Our expected long-term annual EPS growth rate is between 3% and 6%, and we're reaffirming our full-year non-GAAP guidance of between $3.20 and $3.40 per diluted share. Our $582 million capital plan for 2022 remains on track. Our folks do an excellent job managing our capital work despite all the challenges that are being thrown at them. In May, we went live with the 58-MW Bob Glanzer Generating Station in Huron, South Dakota. Neat story there as while we were cutting the ribbon, the generating station was called on by SPP at that moment, and we had to all go outside. It's been working wonderfully well and typically has been called on by the power pool multiple times every week. It's doing just what it was intended to do. We had really a great employee response in both Montana and South Dakota to some severe weather. Probably you all saw the photographs from Yellowstone Park and the Yellowstone River, and you should know that our employees were very much in the middle of every part of that, working to restore service in the park and the communities along the river. Really even bigger storms hitting South Dakota, two derecho storms in particular. We track major events, but this was the rare catastrophic event, and we define catastrophic as seven times as significant as a major. In both the Montana and the South Dakota events, our employees did a great job. We heard stories of customers just watching in tears, really grateful for the work they were doing. Very importantly, all of that work was done very safely. Our folks were doing just what they were expected to do. In terms of the dividend, our quarterly dividend of $0.63 per share will be payable on September 30th, 2022 for shareholders of record as of September 15th. Crystal, off to you. Thank you, Bob. As Bob noted, an operational quarter with some significant events there, and then as we look at results from a Q2 perspective, you'll see on slide four, as Bob mentioned, lower at the net income line by $7.4 million, coming in at $29.8 million. The thing I would mention is after adjusting for non-GAAP items, which I'll get into in a little bit more detail here, that is actually an improvement at the net income line of $30.1 million in Q2 2022 versus $29.2 million in Q2 of 2021, or $0.54 as compared with $0.56. Turning to slide five to give you a bit more detail on our earnings here. Really solid performance from retail volumes. You'll see that on the left side of the page, offset by items really favorable in Q2 of 2021. The absence of those is affecting the comparative results here. Also, we had a penalty associated with some [PURPA] litigation, driving unfavorable results. I would also mention the higher operating and depreciation there in line with our expectations, and then of course, the share dilution based off the equity that we issued in late 2021, all leading to $0.18 lower on a GAAP basis versus 2021. A bit more detail on the margin line at page six, down $2 million, primarily again driven by some of those favorable items that occurred in Q2 of 2021, offset by solid customer growth and usage, and then weather on the natural gas side. I'll take it from the left side of the page to the right here. The first column is the adjustment to our liability that we have for out-of-market QF costs. This is my favorite thing. It was my favorite thing when I was an accountant to go through this every year. Last year in Q2, that was $9.2 million favorable to us. This year, $5.1 million favorable, so you see a lower impact there, negative of $4.1 million. The next column here is our transmission, electric transmission margins. The thing I would mention there is last year we had the release of $4.7 million of margin related to prior deferred revenues. You remove that, and we actually are continuing to see solid transmission revenues and a slight improvement over Q2 of 2021. Again, the absence of that $4.7 million favorable in 2021 is impacting the results there. Moving to our fundamental natural gas and electric volumes for the quarter, you'll see natural gas was favorable, really on the backs of cooler April and May weather there contributing. On the residential side, weather not quite as favorable on the electric piece, I should say, but solid residential and commercial usage offset a bit by the industrial side. Margin there together on natural gas and electric volume, $6.7 million favorable. I would comment that weather was $3 million favorable to us versus normal and $1 million favorable versus the prior period. Again, I would mention that's driven a lot on the natural gas side by cooler weather in April/May. That did reverse a bit on us in June. The other thing that I would mention is, as we talked in April, we mentioned quite a bit about weather and snowpack conditions, and that, as Bob started us off with, has turned dramatically in Q2 with wet weather in Montana, helping our hydro conditions broadly. All of that leading to, again, $2 million lower in margin, driven really by the absence of some favorable items in the prior year or 0.9%. Moving on to the next slide seven, operating expenses. You'll see a continuing increase or headwinds on the operating side, but consistent with our expectations of the guidance that we laid out for 2022, an increase of $2.8 million overall for the quarter that falls to the bottom line, driven by higher insurance costs and higher depreciation, but again, in line with our expectations. Then slide eight gives you the GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliation. Again, I would highlight, starting from the left side, working in $29.8 million in net income or $0.54 on a GAAP basis. We're adjusting out favorable weather here of $2.2 million, and then also adjusting the PURPA penalty that we recorded in Q2. The reason I would comment on that we're adjusting out that penalty is that related to litigation from prior periods, and legislation that indeed no longer applies to us. Because this is related to prior periods and the legislation is no longer applicable, we've added that back. Obviously our weather adjustment is typical. That gets us to a non-GAAP net income basis of $30.1 million or $0.54 as compared to the prior period. Again, Q2 of 2021 impacted by weather, but certainly by a QF liability adjustment there, significant. After removing those, it's $30.1 million in Q2 of 2022 versus $29.2 million in the prior period or a slight improvement on the net income line, but offset by dilution at the share line, $0.54 there versus $0.56, but does show improvement. With that, I would move to slide nine from a cash flow basis. At Q1, we had talked about solid improvement from a cash flow perspective, and that trend has continued into Q2. Much of that driven by collecting prior period energy costs, both electric and gas. Think Winter Storm Uri costs, think about the slowness of collection in our Montana PCCAM. Those are favorable, also driven by favorable revenues and strength of that line as well, and also the absence of some refunds that occurred in the prior period here. We continue to see strong cash flows here. I would also comment that, on the backs of some of that in our equity issuance, we were taken off of negative outlook by Moody's during the quarter. With that, I would lead you to slide 10 and note that, obviously we noted in our press release and Bob noted at the open that we are reaffirming our guidance, based off the performance in the first half of the year, in line with our expectations and no changes to this slide as to the items that we expect to impact us in 2022. With that, I'll turn it over to Brian. On slide 11, we've shared this slide before in terms of capital investment. First and foremost, over the last five years, we have invested about $1.8 billion or had a 12% CAGR in terms of growth rate over that time period. When we look forward to the next five years, that $1.8 billion increases up to $2.4 billion. Of that $2.4 billion, 2/3 of that will be in the T&D side of our business. I think grid modernization capacity, those types of things, and obviously maintaining our existing system. Remaining 1/3 is really in the generation space. Of that, half of that is associated with really the Yellowstone County plant. Even though that's a significant investment for us from a percentage of our total CapEx over the next five years, it's relatively small. Last thing I'd say on this slide, as Bob pointed out right up front, we're still on track for our capital plan for 2022 of $582 million. We're doing that in spite of the fact we're seeing challenges, of course, from a supply chain perspective. We're seeing increasing prices and certainly longer timelines in terms of materials that we receive, but still holding tight in terms of that capital plan and making that happen. Speaking again to the next five years, that $2.4 billion of investment, we expect, as a result of that, we'll see a 4%-5% annualized rate base growth for the company. Moving on to slide 12, really looking forward, and because of that significant investment we've made over the last five years, matter of fact, going back as far as 2015 on the natural gas side, and 2017 on the electric side, the result of that investment, primarily, we're gonna need to file a electric and natural gas rate case in Montana. We expect to file that sometime in August, so obviously very, very soon here. In addition to the investment that we've made, we're trying to reduce regulatory lag. That's what's certainly important for us is not only trying to earn closer to our authorized rate of return, but improve our cash flow to support our credit ratings and enable us to continue to invest and compete for capital. In addition to that, making progress on the 175-MW Yellowstone County Generating Station in Montana. As we mentioned previously, the Bob Glanzer Station, I think 58-MW station in South Dakota is up and running. Yellowstone County plant is effectively the same plant, just three times bigger. Our hopes to complete that in advance of the 2023-2024 winter season. We've already invested approximately $54 million towards the total investment of $275 million in the plant. Lastly, a big year for us in terms of resource plans. We expect to file here very shortly or, in the second half, our South Dakota resource plan, and then by the end of the year to do the same thing for Montana. With that, I'll hand it back over to Bob. Thank you. I never thought of earnings calls as having a cold open, but makes it sound almost fun. Well, when Brian became the president and COO, we talked to you about the company's approach to succession. We've got obviously a deep bench and some extraordinary leaders. Brian has been doing a fantastic job for the last year and a half as COO, spent a lot of time getting out in the field. Our employees as well as managers know and respect him. You will see the results of that good work as we continue to talk about our plans over the coming months and into next year. We are a very efficient operation. We're good at execution, and I think we're all extremely excited about what comes ahead. Yesterday, the board accepted my resignation, both from the board and as CEO, effective at the end of the year. Brian then will step into the role of CEO. I'd said all along that one of the measures of my success or failure would be whether or not eventually my successor would come from inside the company. Brian, as you all know, is a good friend of mine, has been a mentor when I started with the company and has been a tremendous leader. He will be leading I think as good an executive senior management team as any in the industry, truly. I'm gonna be leaving at the end of the year. I'm still gonna care deeply about this company. You all will still have me to kick around, paraphrasing you know who, for the rest of the year. Brian, I guess I'll still have you to kick around for the rest of the year too. Again, thank you all for your support for the company. Brian, congratulations, and now we'll do our best to avoid your questions. Thank you for that, Bob. If you're joining us by computer today and would like to ask a question, please signal your intent by using the raise hand button that's typically found at the bottom of the toolbar on your screen. You can also simultaneously press Alt and Y on a PC or option and Y on a Mac to raise your hand. Please ensure your microphone is unmuted, and if you're in the queue to ask a question, and you're dialed in by phone, you can press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute your line to ask a question. Again, star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute your line. If you have not provided your name and your Zoom ID and are dialed in by phone, please be listening for us to announce your Zoom ID or your last four digits of your telephone number to identify that your line is open and we're ready for your question. Again, please be sure to unmute your line. We'll give it just a moment to gather some questions. It looks like we have a few people in the queue already queued up. We will take our first call from the line of Shar Pourreza. There we go. Can you hear me? Sure can, Shar. All right. There you go. Travis, you're a little technological for me. Sorry about that. Hey, guys, there's been a lot of articles coming out of Talen's bankruptcy proceeding in Houston which suggests there's now maybe an August 11 deadline for Talen to produce a plan or else the judge would require Talen to commence Colstrip arbitration. Can you maybe shed some color on, one, if what's being kind of written is actually correct about the arbitration being forced? And two, what sense you may have of whether the other parties have displayed an interest in engaging if arbitration was, let's say, forced to begin next month? I'll say a couple of things, but I know Brian is going to want to speak to this. Yeah, the Pacific Northwest owners had filed a motion. We filed separately. There was a hearing on the motions on July 12th. Yeah. We were essentially requesting relief from the state. Talen was ordered to submit a proposal addressing specifically whether the plants will operate or close and how costs will be borne with respect to any of those alternatives. That will be filed on August 11th, and a hearing on August 15th. We don't know the specific outcome. Obviously, we would like to be moving towards arbitration. Beyond that, what I would just say, and it's one of the reasons I mentioned the opening slide, this is an incredibly important resource to serve our customers at this time and to maintain grid stability in Billings. I think, as you all know, Governor Gianforte is really committed to seeing Colstrip remain open. We want to work with him and other parties to find good solutions. Whether it's inside the arbitration or outside the arbitration, we are quite committed to working to come to resolutions that meet what they need to do. Got it. I'll just add. Sorry, go ahead, Brian. My fault. Oh, no problem. I think the other thing I would just say is, you know, all parties in Colstrip are unhappy with this uncertainty. Mm-hmm. Obviously, for utilities to move forward, we need a time period from a planning perspective. Not knowing the outcome on Colstrip is difficult on all parties. There are discussions that are happening, and hopefully we will resolve this, as Bob says, either within or outside of arbitration at some point in the near future. Our job is to continue to provide the services Bob pointed out, not just to the Billings area, but to our total system, and that resource continues to be a great resource for us, and we're working extremely hard to make sure it stays in place for some time in the future. Got it. Where does the 2021 securitization legislation stand, I guess, in terms of the PSC adopting and kind of formalizing it into rules? If you were to need it sooner rather than later, let's say for Colstrip, do you expect it would be available? Yeah. We've really followed the rulemaking. The commission has in fact moved ahead with that as you note. Our focus at this point really is on continuing to operate. Even in terms of meeting our net zero goals, we need that resource available while other resources become cost-effective. Brian? Okay, Bob. Got it. No, that's all the questions I had. Bob, Brian, seriously, congrats on phase two. Bob, I just have a real important question for you, is do you think Brian's actually gonna start buying the beers now that he's been promoted? See you, guys. You're welcome, Brian. See you. That'd be a hard no. See you. Thanks a lot, Shar. We'll take our next call from Ryan Greenwald at Bank of America. Ryan, your line should be open. Hey, can you hear me now? Yep. Bob, Brian, warm congratulations to both of you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate all the updates here. As we think about the upcoming August filing, how should we kind of think about the magnitude of the revenue asks that we should be expecting? Crystal? Ryan, I think we might have even talked about this one before, and obviously we can't give too much information until we do file, and then we'll have lots to talk about. We have a slide in the appendix that gives you a view on rate base. I think it's 39, I'm being given an assist on, that shows you a bit of where we ended the year. It is an electric and natural gas filing, so the thing I would say is we have a lot of investment that's serving customers that we need to go in and earn on. Gotcha. I mean, seems like a pretty complex filing overall. Any initial thoughts on what could be more contentious based on initial conversations with staff and the commission ahead of the filing? I would just say we've been having, I think, very productive conversations with both staff and the commission. They obviously know we plan to file. You know, one of the things that we talked about last year was the PCCAM and where market prices have went there. They've already seen, I'll call it a preview of that filing since we filed it last year. That'll be a piece to the rate case. They know. You know, we make annual filings with the MPSC where they see details of some of those things as well. When you say, you know, what you think will be contentious, I just think to your point, there's a lot of things in there. We've been out since 2015 on the gas side, 2017 on the electric side, and regulation is complicated. I think lots of things in there for the commission and staff to review and take hold of. At the basics, it's just coming in and asking for recovery of our costs and what really is already serving customers. Hopefully, we'll work our way through it. I would unpack it in three ways. First, the flow-through costs, particularly, supply costs, those arguably could have been handled separately, but that's significant. It should be quite straightforward. Second piece, just exactly as Crystal mentioned, bringing forward rate base. There's a significant gap between what we've invested that is reflected in rate base and our actual rate base on both the gas and the electric side. That's primarily just basic infrastructure to serve our Montana customers. That's extremely important. That just has all the elements of a rate case. The third bucket would be some policy proposals that I think just better align how regulation would be done in Montana with the ability to make those investments. There's nothing you will see there that is really out of the mainstream in terms of what many other states are doing. Last comment is the team that is working on the case is just exceptionally professional. It's gonna be a very high-quality filing with contributions from folks all across the company. Great. Appreciate that. Then maybe just lastly, with respect to the outstanding litigation around the air quality permit, can you talk a bit about your confidence there in reaching a constructive outcome and potential scenarios if you know, things don't really go your way? Yeah. It's too early to say what the outcome actually will be. But yeah, the question goes to litigation in a state district court in Billings, challenging the DEQ's granting a permit and arguing that, in fact, climate effects outside the borders of the State of Montana ought to have been considered in the Department of Environmental Quality's process. Parties are going to be making their post-hearing filings this Friday. Obviously, we will, and then we'll see what the judge does. If the case is remanded, then the department will have to follow whatever instructions the court provides or court review and appeal. The interesting thing is litigation brought under a provision of the Montana Constitution that provides both a right to a clean and healthful environment, and we certainly in our environmental programs I think are a big part of that stewardship. In the same sentence also ensures the right to pursue your living and livelihood. I'm paraphrasing. You can't really have one without the other. The consequences of an adverse district court decision here would be really pretty profound on the Montana economy overall, not just on one facility located near Billings. Great. I will leave it there. Thank you again. Bob, Brian, congratulations again to both of you. Thank you. Thanks, Ryan. Thanks, Ryan. Well, it's not a full-fledged Elvis sighting. We do have an Ellinghaus sighting. Chris Ellinghaus from Siebert Williams Shank has the next question. It's Chris who taught Elvis his moves, I'm sure. I beg your pardon. Congratulations, Bob and Brian. We'll really be sorry to see you go, Bob. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Mostly 'cause Brian's coming. Can you give us a little bit of color on what you're seeing on regional capacity issues? Boy, a couple comments. It continues to be an extremely challenging market. I'm answering more in terms of the West, although in SPP there are some pretty big concerns too. Yeah, it's a challenging, tight market, and our customers are more exposed than any, as you know. That will be reflected, among other things, in the supply costs that we put in front of the commission as part of the PCCAM. But at the same time, there's an awful lot of very good work being done on regional market approaches. The board spent quite a lot of time this morning talking about the imbalance market and the day-ahead market, what's happening with CAISO, what's happening with the Western Power Pool. There's a lot of work being done. We're participating in that. Long- term, I think there are some good outcomes there. The near- term is still pretty hairy for us. We've already talked on this call about the Yellowstone County plant, we talked about Colstrip. We need those resources. We need other resources on a contract basis until we're through the next Montana supply plan and moving on to implementation there. Near- term, what I would say, the last thing I would say is that the warnings that we and others have been sounding for a number of years were right on target. I wish we were several years ahead of where we are in closing that gap. Brian, can you- Yeah, Bob, thanks. I would add, I think, you know, within the state, we've demonstrated on a slide for you our ability to help close that capacity gap on the supply side, but everything has to kind of happen within that slide to be helpful to us. By the way, a lot of that are short-term measures. On a long-term basis, we still have a sufficient gap that we need to close on the supply side. Obviously, traction on our existing projects, and that is slide 37, by the way. Traction on existing projects certainly makes sense, but we're going to need to make more investment within the state to control our needs, if you will, from a supply perspective. Bob's primarily chatting about the supply side. In addition to that, we have capacity constraints on both the gas and electric transmission side of our business, and we certainly have upward pressure on investment needed there to address that. You know, Montana continues to grow, and as it continues to grow, it is eating into our latent capacity associated with both electric and gas transmission. We're gonna have to help Montana grow by being able to provide sufficient capacity going forward. There's investment needed there as well. If you turn over to South Dakota, partly just as an example of the Bob Glanzer Generating Station is being called on quite actively by SPP, that's to the benefit of our customers. As you move into a market and take advantage of a market, you need to have resources to be able to do that. The other notable thing in SPP is they have raised their reserve requirement to 15%. Brian, what's our reserve in Montana? Well, it was at -46 at one point in time, and obviously we closed that in a short-term basis, but we still have a lot of work to do to climb out from that negative reserve margin perspective. Yeah. Bob, I wanted to ask you, is Glanzer being dispatched more or less or, you know, sort of on your expectations at this point? I'd say on or possibly even more, but certainly on. Yeah, I would actually, Bob, I would say a bit more. I mean, I know we knew it would be drawn upon, but how much? A little bit higher than we expected and right on the blocks. Okay, great. Crystal, you mentioned hydro conditions. Can you give us a little bit more color on, you know, how the precipitation's affected you recently? I'll jump in on that, actually, since I was on site when the river was cresting. We had 3 ft- 4 ft of snow. Here's a good example. 3 ft- 4 ft of snow fell at Big Sky after the lifts closed in April. That turned into too much of a good thing. We went from being quite concerned about snowpack at one point in the year to being full pond all up and down the Missouri River. You do have a slide in the appendix that shows both weather and hydro conditions. That's lots of blue across the basins. You've heard us say this before, but one of the things we like is that we pay attention to snowpack and three basins. You can see some real variation in snowpack from basin to basin. That's a little bit of risk mitigation just built into the Montana hydro system. Okay, great. One last question. Crystal- Just one thing I just add there from hydro condition basis, obviously going back to full pool from a hydro perspective, I think the capacities provided by hydro this year should be better than we certainly saw last year. So that's helpful to us. Secondly, you know, Montana was in sufficient drought conditions throughout the state first quarter when you looked at maps for Montana. That's changed dramatically. Though we still expect to have a fire season, of course, in Montana, but we feel we're in a much better position this year than we were at this time last year. Okay, great. Crystal, question about the adjustments for the quarter. What's your thought process about not excluding the QF year-over-year? Certainly, Chris. I think the key piece of that is that QF liability is the gift that keeps on giving, but there's different pieces of that. There's a couple of pieces to that, which is each year we have an adjustment to the actual. Obviously the model has an expectation, so you have actual output and pricing. That's something that we leave in each year. Crystal, can I just interrupt quick? Slide 25, Chris, maybe is something to look at in the appendix as Crystal's talking about this. Yes. Right. Travis has done a nice graphic for you to show you exactly when we've adjusted it out, when we've left it in, and what the pieces are. The first piece is you have your annual adjustments for that piece of it. There's also a piece that we adjust then the expectation of the model to future escalation for variability and pricing there. The third piece, which is what we adjusted out last year, was an adjustment. In the first two pieces that I just referred to on an annual period, we do typically adjust those during second quarter. The adjustment last year, which was unique in the sense of when the contract term ended for one of the contracts within the model, we did adjust out as a non-GAAP item. We try to be thoughtful about that. I think also if you go back in time, we had previously adjusted that periodically, so you wouldn't have seen adjustment from us on an annual basis. Once we went to that, we've kind of left those numbers in and let them flow through. Okay. Very clear. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, guys. Congratulations. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Take your next call from Sophie Karp at KeyBanc. Hello? Hello. Can you guys hear me? Yep, we can hear you, Sophie. Oh, great. Bob and Brian, congratulations to both of you. Bob, you will be missed for sure. Thank you very much. Thanks, Sophie. We're not off the hook yet, right? You're still around for the rest of the year. My question is about the inflation bill, I guess that we call it now, which is the energy bill, effectively, right? It appeared. I'm not sure how much you guys have dug into it yet, but it appears that it makes a carve-out for an extra tax credits for similar properties located in what they define as energy community, which appears that a brownfield former coal site would qualify for that, right? That's just me reading it. I wonder if you have given it a read and how you think about that as it might apply to Colstrip, and if that would affect your thinking about your position here in any way. Yeah. We're actually looking forward to doing that. You're right, there are brownfields related provisions. We've set up internally with the infrastructure bill a pretty good process of identifying where we should focus, how we'll gather information, whether or not we might participate. My expectation is because those folks are already up and running and doing a great job, we would just fold this bill if, when and if it passes into that process. All right. If you could maybe discuss a little bit, your joining the Western Markets Exploratory Group. I understand that you joined. How do you see this group evolving over time and your role there? Well, there are a number of different organizations active in the West. In fact, you can fill up a slide. I think we did fill up a slide identifying all of those. There's CAISO with the imbalance market, the day-ahead market. The other important initiative that we've been talking about all along is what had been the Northwest Power Pool, now is the Western Power Pool. Mm-hmm. They are leading the resource adequacy effort. We think that's incredibly important for multiple reasons, in terms of understanding what resources exist in the region, evaluating them with a common set of metrics and then identifying strategies. Those are two major efforts. In addition to that, Southwest Power Pool, which is a contractor, effectively for the Western Power Pool, also has its market initiatives. There are a couple of other groups who are having conversations around what would a governance structure look like? How should we be thinking about transmission in the West? We're a pretty small shop on the far eastern edge of the Western Interconnect, but we're participating in as many of those as we can, and we're contributing. What I would say is that the West has not been successful and the federal government has not been successful imposing a top-down market structure. Where we have been successful is very collaboratively working with one another on specific strategies that are in all of our interests. That, I think that's the spirit in which so much work is getting done. Do you think we're gonna see a Western RTO in our lifetime, or is that a bridge too far? Well, if you're a transmission planner, you might ask if the line is the line I'm working on gonna get built in my lifetime. There's a lot of hard work to be done there. I don't know if it will be a full formal RTO, but I absolutely do believe that the Western market is gonna continue to evolve and get more organized. That might, you might have to break that down into pieces. Will it be entirely West wide? Will it be north on the one hand, south on the other? Will it be coastal and interior? The good news is people are talking and working together, and there really is a good culture in the West and the Northwest of working together to get things done that make sense for your system and for your customers. All right. Thank you so much. Thanks, Sophie. Take our next call from Anthony Crowdell at Mizuho. Hey, good afternoon. Congratulations, Brian. Congratulations, Bob. Thank you. Thanks, Anthony. Mike, I just have two questions. One of them is on the pending rate filing or the rate filing in August. I'm not trying to run the filing, so I understand if you don't wanna answer the question, but if I just think about some of the, I don't know if policy is the right word, but maybe some of the mechanisms that you would like changed, you know, the potential for decoupling, maybe PCAM. You have the Yellowstone plant under construction right now, maybe testing some known and measurable in a rate proceeding. Just your thoughts on are you approaching this rate filing by maybe trying to fix one or all of those issues, or like, how are you thinking about this rate filing? I'll just say that was a pretty good list you laid out. Crystal, anything you want to add to that? I think Bob's an expert at answering these questions. I think you laid out a decent summary of all the things we're thinking about and approaching this case in mind with. I guess if I can take another crack at it, then. Is the thought of maybe doing one each filing if you're gonna have, you know, a filing this year, maybe a filing next year for Yellowstone or the company still thinking about do you do, you know, that list in this one filing? Well, our filing will include a set of proposals to, you know, to modernize and we think make more efficient, the overall regulatory system. We just have to see what parties and what the commission ultimately do with that. We really won't even know their initial views until we start to see discovery. We are gonna be very interested, as we always are, in having discussions with the parties to see, to answer questions, to see where we can agree to narrow disagreements, things like that. That's just a standard part of the process. Great. Just lastly, on Yellowstone, I know you had it on those slides, but I forgot the amount, the number of expenditures so far year to date. How are you earning on that right now? Are you booking that as non-cash AFUDC? Right. Non-cash AFUDC is correct. Great. Thanks so much again. Congratulations and, looking forward to the invite for the going away party. Thank you. Thanks, Anthony. Maybe Brian will buy that round. We'll see. With that, we've exhausted our queue, so I'll hand it back to you, Bob. I guess we've exhausted the analysts. Yeah, we have. Well, again, thank you for your support, and we really do look forward to visiting again in October and at the various conferences and don't let Brian get out of the bar unscathed. Thanks, everybody. Take care.