Good day, and welcome to the ONE Gas second quarter earnings conference call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Mr. Brandon Lohse. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thank you for joining us on our second quarter 2021 earnings conference call. This call is being webcast live and a replay will be made available later today. After our prepared remarks, we'll be happy to take your questions. A reminder that statements made during this call that might include ONE Gas expectations or predictions should be considered forward-looking statements and are covered by the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements. For a discussion of factors that could cause actual results to differ, please refer to our SEC filings. Joining us on the call this morning are Sid McAnnally, President and Chief Executive Officer, Caron Lawhorn, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Curtis Dinan, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Now I'll turn the call over to Sid for opening remarks. Thank you, Brandon. Good morning. Before discussing our quarterly results, I'd like to share how excited I am to have a new role at ONE Gas, to congratulate Curtis on his promotion to Chief Operating Officer, and to acknowledge the trust that our board has placed in our leadership team. ONE Gas is built on a solid foundation of core values and a commitment to our employees, shareholders, communities, and investors. We will continue our tradition of service to each of these stakeholders. Additionally, our focused business strategy, constructive regulatory environments, stable cash flow, and an unwavering commitment to safety remain central to our sustainable business model. Our values, coupled with a well-defined strategy, have guided this company since inception and will continue to keep us on the right path as we move forward. Regarding our second quarter, our results are consistent with our plan. In response to the unique challenges earlier this year related to Winter Storm Uri and the evolving COVID environment, our employees have remained focused on execution and dedicated to our strategy. Among the positive results that Curtis will cover is the fact that we continue to see robust customer growth and opportunities for investment. I'd like to turn it over first to Caron to provide an overview of our second quarter financial results. Caron? Thanks, Sid, and good morning. I'll begin with our financial results for the second quarter. Net income was $30.1 million, or $0.56 per diluted share, compared with $25.3 million, or $0.48 per diluted share for the second quarter of 2020. Our results for the quarter reflect an increase in net margin of $11.1 million over the same last year, the primary drivers of which are new rates and customer growth in Texas and Oklahoma. Operating costs increased $1.2 million compared with the same period last year, due primarily to an increase in outside services and employee-related costs. Offsetting these increases were lower bad debt expense and a decrease in expenses related to the COVID-19 pandemic. While we are still experiencing impacts from COVID-19, including lower fees and ongoing expenses, the year-over-year impacts are moderating. Looking specifically at bad debt expense, our year-to-date expense is $5.5 million. That compares with $7.6 million through June of last year and $3.6 million in 2019. As Curtis will discuss momentarily, we have resumed collections activity throughout our service territory, which is beginning to positively impact our collections and reduce past due balances. We have not recorded any regulatory assets associated with the pandemic. There was no significant change in our capital expenditures quarter-over-quarter, and we are on track to achieve our capital plans for the year. Authorized rate base, reflecting our recent regulatory activity, is approximately $4 billion as of June 30th. Authorized rate base is defined as the rate base reflected in completed regulatory proceedings, including full rate cases and interim rate filings. We project that for 2021, our estimated average rate base, which is defined as authorized rate base plus additional investments in our system and other changes in the components of our rate base that are not yet reflected in approved regulatory filings, will be approximately $4.23 billion, with 42% in Oklahoma, 29% in Kansas, and 29% in Texas. Moving on to our financing activity and liquidity. In June, we increased the capacity of our commercial paper program to $1 billion, up from $700 million. This action follows the upsizing of our credit facility to $1 billion earlier this year. We ended the quarter with $209 million of cash and cash equivalents, no commercial paper outstanding, and no borrowings under our credit facility. During the second quarter, we generated net proceeds of approximately $15 million from equity issuances under the $250 million at-the-market equity program we put in place in 2020, leaving us with $221 million of equity available for issuance. Regarding Winter Storm Uri, we had deferred just under $2 billion of costs as of June 30th, which are included in regulatory assets on our balance sheet. Curtis will describe the state of play in each state regarding the process and timeline for recovering these costs through securitizations. On July 19th, the ONE Gas board of directors declared a dividend of $0.58 per share, unchanged from the previous quarter. Lastly, we are reaffirming our 2021 financial guidance, including net income of $198 -210 million, earnings per diluted share of $3.68 - $3.92, and with capital investments remaining at $540 million. Now I'll turn it over to Curtis to update you on the latest developments for regulatory, commercial, and operations. Curtis? Thank you, Caron Lawhorn, and good morning, everyone. I'll start with an update on securitization and other regulatory activity. In all three states where we operate, legislation was passed permitting natural gas utilities to pursue securitization to finance the extraordinary expenses incurred during Winter Storm Uri. On July 30, we made securitization filings in all three states. Oklahoma Natural Gas filed its compliance report with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, detailing the extent of extraordinary costs incurred and all the required components necessary for the issuance of a financing order, including a proposed period of 20 years over which these costs will be collected from customers. The OCC has 180 days to issue a financing order. If the OCC approves the financing order, the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority will have 24 months to complete the process of issuing securitized bonds. As of June 30, Oklahoma Natural Gas has deferred approximately $1.32 billion of costs. Kansas Gas Service filed its compliance report with the Kansas Corporation Commission, which includes a proposal to issue securitized bonds and collect the extraordinary costs incurred over a period of five, seven, or 10 years. A procedural schedule will be developed to determine the timeline for evaluating Kansas Gas Service's compliance report. If the KCC approves the proposed financing plan, then Kansas Gas Service will file an application for a financing order for the issuance of securitized utility tariff bonds. The KCC will have 180 days from the date of this filing to issue an order. If the KCC approves the financing order, we can begin the process to issue the securitized bonds. As of June 30, Kansas Gas Service has deferred approximately $383 million in costs. Texas Gas Service filed an application with the Railroad Commission of Texas for an order authorizing the amount of extraordinary costs for recovery and other requirements necessary for the issuance of securitized bonds. The RRC has 150 days to consider the application and an additional 90 days to issue a single financing order for all natural gas utilities participating in securitization, which will include a determination of the period over which the costs will be collected from customers. Upon issuance of the financing order, the Texas Public Finance Authority will begin the process to issue securitized bonds. As of June 30, Texas Gas Service has deferred approximately $286 million in costs. We are pleased with the passage of securitization legislation as it represents just one example of how our company has been successful in creatively and strategically engaging stakeholders. I would also like to highlight a few other legislative achievements that our government affairs team has been working on across our jurisdictions. All three of our states have now passed energy choice legislation, ensuring our current and future customers can choose reliable and affordable natural gas for their homes and businesses. Oklahoma passed a safety bill designed to reduce third-party damages by requiring excavators to validate that facilities have been located and marked prior to commencing excavation work. Finally, Kansas passed a move over bill requiring motorists to yield the right of way to stationary public utility vehicles or workers when engaged in work activities. These recent legislative successes are just a few examples of how ONE Gas continues to utilize all available means to strengthen its long-term position by improving safety for our employees, communities, and the environment, providing customers choice to meet their energy needs, and keeping natural gas service affordable for our customers. Now shifting to our other regulatory activity. In May, Oklahoma Natural Gas filed a general rate case seeking a revenue increase of $28.7 million. The revenue requirement is based on a requested return on equity of 9.95% applied to a rate base of over $1.7 billion. The filing also requested the continuation of the performance-based rate change mechanism that was established in 2009. The filing is based on an allowed return on equity range of 9.45%-10.45% and a 9.95% midpoint. The rate case also includes a request to spend $10 million per year on renewable natural gas as part of our gas supply portfolio, the cost of which would be recovered through our purchased gas adjustment mechanism, as well as $10 million of annual capital expenditures for renewable natural gas projects that would be included in rate base. A hearing is scheduled for October 28th, and the OCC has 180 days to issue an order. In June, Kansas Gas Service completed the transition period and is now operating the natural gas distribution system at the Fort Riley military base. Kansas Gas Service expects to make a Gas System Reliability Surcharge filing in August for the period covering July 2020 through June 2021. In February, Texas Gas Service filed for a $10.7 million increase related to its Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program in the Central Gulf service area, and new rates became effective in June. In March, we completed GRIP filings for all customers in the West Texas service area, requesting an increase of $9.7 million. In July, new rates became effective for all customers except for the city of El Paso. On June 21, the City of El Paso approved a motion which found the GRIP filing to be in compliance with the statute. The city denied the increase and assessed fees associated with its review of the filing. Texas Gas Service filed an appeal with the RRC on July 2nd. The appeal is on the commission's agenda for today, and we received notification that they have granted our appeal and approved the rate increase. New rates are effective immediately. In April, Texas Gas Service made cost of service adjustment filings for the incorporated cities in the service areas of the Rio Grande Valley and North Texas. In July, the cities agreed to increases of $3.5 million and $1.4 million for the Rio Grande Valley and North Texas service areas, respectively. New rates became effective in August. Moving on to commercial and operational activities. As Caron mentioned, all collection activities were resumed during the quarter, which was a key contributor to reducing bad debt expense. The primary focus of our customer service teams is to help our customers bring their account balances current. These efforts include payment arrangement plans and contacts with social service agencies that offer financial assistance. The field operations teams have done a great job of managing the disconnect and reconnect process, as well over 50% of disconnected customers have been reconnected. At the end of July, and thanks to the efforts of these teams, we've seen a 44% decline in past due balances since March 31. We continue at a near record pace for new customer connections. We've spoken a lot recently about the growth we're seeing in Austin, but El Paso, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa continue to experience robust demand for housing and new natural gas services. We also continue to make progress on a number of initiatives around renewable fuels. In addition to the renewable natural gas provisions we requested in the Oklahoma general rate case that I mentioned earlier, collaboration with Vanguard Renewables continues to progress. We have been working with them on an in-depth market assessment across our territories and will provide updates when appropriate. Finally, Oklahoma Governor Stitt signed a new bill creating the Hydrogen Production, Transportation, and Infrastructure Task Force. The Task Force is chaired by Energy Secretary Wagner and will study issues involving the production and distribution of hydrogen, including using existing pipeline infrastructure to transport hydrogen fuel. ONE Gas will be an active participant in these studies, and the task force report is due in December. Now I'll turn it over to Sid for his closing remarks. Thank you both. Each year, the American Gas Association collects data on the safety performance of member companies. Earlier this year, we were notified that ONE Gas is in the top quartile of all three safety metrics reported by AGA. In addition, our employees received the AGA Safety Award for the fourth consecutive year, an award given to the company that has the lowest rate of serious injuries compared to our peers. Congratulations to our employees for this recognition and outstanding performance. As I close today, I'd like to thank Pierce Norton for his leadership as our CEO over the past seven years, and for setting a course that has resulted in a resilient and reliable energy delivery system while creating value for all of our stakeholders. We wish Pierce and his family well in their future endeavors. I'd also like to thank Caron, Curtis, and the members of our leadership team. They made our leadership transition seamless, and I look forward to our work together as we build on our solid foundation, focused on system modernization, pursuing growth, and driving innovation. I'll close by recognizing that our success this quarter is the result of the skill and dedication of our 3,700 employees, each one playing an important role in delivering natural gas service safely and reliably every day to our more than 2.2 million customers. Thank you for living out our core values and serving our customers and communities every day. Thank you all for joining us this morning. Operator, we're now ready for questions. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question you may signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad if you using a speaker phone please make sure you're mute function is turned on to allow your signal to return to equipment. Once again press star one for questions.We'll take our first question from Gabriel Moreen with Mizuho. Hey, good morning, everyone. Good morning. Morning. Maybe if I could start off with kind of what happened in the city of El Paso. Was that something unexpected? Maybe if you can talk about what you thought the rationale was for the city denying the increase, and if that's something you expect, I guess, going forward? Gabe, GRIP filings are, as it operated, it's very much just a process of following the statute. You make the filing. It's reviewed to see if you're in compliance with the filing and the rates are approved. It was unusual that they found that we had complied with the statute, but then denied the increase, which was the basis for our appeal that we made July second, and was granted and approved today. It's not the first time that we've had an appeal in a similar circumstance, and the outcome was the same. I don't know that I would call it necessarily a trend. The last time was several years ago. Certainly hope it's not a trend, the appeal process worked effectively and new rates go into effect today. Just to clarify my comments earlier, too, the other cities in the West Texas service area, as well as the unincorporated areas that the RRC has jurisdiction over, had already approved the new rates or allowed the new rates to go into effect under the statute. It was a bit of a one-off, I would say. Thanks, Curtis. Then maybe if I can switch gears a little bit to sort of the RNG efforts. I'm just wondering, I guess maybe a multi-part question here. One, what the survey with Vanguard of sort of low-hanging RNG fruit, what that's kind of produced around your systems, whether those projects are kind of ready to go, and should we assume that that $10 million in Oklahoma annually is kind of what you feel comfortable with, I guess, from an opportunities standpoint? Is it just, hey, this is initially what you want to seek out, but there's the potential for something greater here based on, I guess, what the Vanguard survey and kind of canvassing your system has produced? Yeah. Gabe, first on the Vanguard study, that is still in process. We've seen some preliminary results of it, we're encouraged by what we're seeing and what the opportunities may be coming out of it. Many of those will be third-party dollars that develop those projects, our role in the transaction will be as the transporter of the gas through our system because of the potential location of a lot of those facilities. We do also want to continue, though, to explore, and that's why you saw the two items in our ONG rate case, which was, number one, to be able to inject some amount of RNG into our system, and then secondly, to have some level of capital dollars that we could invest directly in that as an initial step to see how that process might work and what the benefits would be to our system and to our customers. We're still, I would say, in spring training in many ways around this process, but we're encouraged by the progress we continue to make, and we'll make more comments as we have more information to share. Thanks, Curtis. If I could just follow up real quick on that. The idea would be how you can rate base some of the investments, but as far as the cost of the RNG itself, that would basically be put through the PGA. Is that right? Yeah. You're exactly right on that from the capital request that we've made and then from the ability to purchase RNG, just like wellhead gas and run that through our cost of gas adjustments. Secondly, if it is a transport customer that's just using our system to move the product, then we would collect a transport fee for that, and those gas costs don't get accounted for through our PGA. Those just, again, they're just a balancing arrangement, a transport fee that we collect to provide that service. Got it. Thanks, Curtis, and congrats everyone on the new positions. Thanks, Gabe. As a reminder, star one if you would like to ask a question. We will take our next question from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. Hey, good morning. Good morning. Congrats on the new positions as well. Just want to echo that. A great update. I wanted to just step back on RNG a little bit and talk more broadly. We're excited about the opportunity for RNG broadly. We do sometimes get pushback about the magnitude and also just about the cost of the environmental benefits relative to your core business. As you noted, you've got really strong legislative and policy and political support for your core product. When we think about longer-term potential here, how would you sort of respond in terms of potential skepticism on how big this can be and also just on the cost of RNG broadly? Those are all fair questions, I think part of the answer depends on what problem you're trying to solve. If you're just thinking of a problem as I'm going to compare the cost of RNG to wellhead gas, well, we see that wellhead gas is cheaper and is much more abundant. If the problem you're trying to solve or the question is more about from an environmental perspective, that changes the answer because in terms of reducing the impact of emissions and the cost of doing so, RNG is a really good answer for that. You don't have to completely displace all the wellhead gas from a system to get to a point where you would be on a net zero emissions basis. There are some added costs to do that. It depends on what the goals are that you're trying to achieve. I think the important thing for us to do is to know how to be able to respond to both of those environments. We obviously already know how to handle wellhead gas, but as the focus continues to be around ESG and emissions reductions, that is a great path forward for us to be able to do that. And that's why we're being so methodical in going through evaluating the sources of RNG that are available, establishing the tariffs and the gas quality specs that would be necessary to bring that product into our system, and the interconnect agreements necessary to do that, so that we're prepared for where directionally we think things are going in the longer term. Yeah. To your question about abundance, one of the things that we often see are studies that make broad generalizations about supply rather than looking at specific footprints. I would encourage you to look at, or we'll be glad to provide additional information at some point, that speaks to the capacity in our territory. As Curtis points out, we wouldn't be pursuing the robust nature of the review that's underway if we didn't have confidence that there was substantial supply to support a meaningful RNG program. Well, that's really helpful. Yeah, I'd love to follow up, and it's a fair point. You need to really look at the specifics for y'all and how this may play out. I guess, as a follow-up on this, just when you look at federal policy support, there's a lot of interest in the broader infrastructure package, not the more narrow one, but really the broader one and what that might do. What do you think, in terms of the potential support that you might see for RNG or other initiatives that could be in that broader package? Could that be beneficial, or is it too early to tell? How are y'all thinking about that? Yeah. I would say it's really pretty early in that process. There's been a lot of ideas that have been thrown out, whether it's RNG, it's hydrogen, or it's some of the other provisions that you've mentioned. We're continuing to watch that. We're continuing to work with our industry partner, being led by AGA, in reviewing that, as well as trying to have some influence on what may or may not end up in that legislation. Too early to tell, but we continue to stay engaged to see where that bill may end up. Yeah. Also encouraging to see the conversation around resilience that is a part of the dialogue that is underpinning both of the bills. There seems to be a more general recognition after the events of earlier this year that our systems play a critical role in providing support to the overall energy system. Resilience, we think, will continue to go forward, and we look forward to being a part of that conversation. That's really helpful. That's all I had. Thank you. Thank you. We will take our next question from Kody Clark with Bank of America. Hey, good morning, everyone. Again, congratulations on the new roles. Good morning, Kody. Thank you. Kind of sticking with the CapEx theme, but maybe moving away from RNG and talking more about core CapEx, and you kind of just mentioned it in your answer to the previous question here. You've talked about the potential for additional investment and reliability and resiliency, if you could maybe just add a little bit more color on how you're thinking about that as it kind of plays into the shorter term and where you're seeing kind of the investment here as you look across your system? Let me speak to that generally, and then let Curtis come in with any specifics that he cares to add. We continue to have confidence in our system modernization strategy. It's allowed us to strategically de-risk the system. It also provides environmental benefits as we further tighten our system, we think it's good capital deployment. As you heard in Curtis's remarks, our growth profile encourages us to think about how we fully capture opportunities both now and in the future. A couple of points there. Structurally, we redefined the COO role. As Curtis came into that role, we added the operations vertical to the growth vertical that he'd been managing previously. That allows us to better coordinate the systems safety focus that we've had with the growth opportunities that we are seeing both now and emerging in the future. Second, we've really focused on developing our growth team. As we think about growth, the opportunity to pick up talent in the industry, particularly some outside the regulated utility space, has been meaningful to us, and we think that deep bench bodes well for us as we look to the future. Finally, it's important to remember, and this goes back to a previous answer, our service territory is unique in many ways. Right now, we are seeing significant in-migration of residents across the service territory. We're also seeing a lot of economic activity, both traditional economic activity and new industries coming into the areas. Maybe most significantly, there is a bias for natural gas service in the activity in our service territory. We think that is a bright future and holds promise for us as we seek to pursue that opportunity. Finally, we think there are opportunities for us around ESG. While your question focuses on capital deployment, there is an ESG element to that capital deployment that's important and is a lens that we have added to the analysis that we use going forward. Caron is leading our ESG efforts, and we've added infrastructure to that effort that we think is appropriate for our company. Focused continuity, I think, is the headline for our capital deployment. We've had a good theme. We've executed on that. We'll continue to execute on it. We do think there are some emerging opportunities that we're excited about, and we are supporting. Curtis, anything you'd add? Maybe to dig a little deeper into that. We've talked in the past that approximately 70% of our capital expenditures go towards system integrity and reliability projects. That's been consistent since we came out as a standalone company and remains consistent today in what our focus continues to be. That includes not only replacing older pipe, as Sid was talking about, that has a really good environmental story because you reduce leaks on your system and the resulting emissions as well as that being a really good safety impact as well. We also spend dollars on reliability of our systems. Connecting our systems to additional points of supply helps us lower the pressures on the system and increases the reliability that we have. Those were very key themes that we saw the benefit of during the winter storm this last year where we were able to bring in supply from different points and maintain pressures on our system and have really good performance and reliability for our customers. Just a little additional color on the question you were asking, Kody. Got it. That's helpful. Maybe shifting to the credit side, can you give some color on what the most recent dialogue has been with the rating agencies? They still have you on negative outlook, though recovery of the extraordinary cost seems largely de-risked at this point and Oklahoma and Texas, the debt will be issued by the state. Just any thoughts there, any updated thoughts on the most recent dialogue? Sure, Kody. Yeah, we had a lot of dialogue during the storm and when the rating agencies took their action. At that time, they indicated that they would be patient. Obviously, we're on negative outlook but that gives us time to work through securitization. Again, they indicated that they would watch the regulatory process and see how securitization plays out before they make any additional steps. Not a lot of dialogue since. We'll be on our annual visit with them in a few months, and we'll go from there. Got it. Okay. Just one last one from me, and it's on the Oklahoma rate case. I'm just wondering what the feedback has been so far from parties, especially as it's your first rate case in the state and is there any chance that you can settle there? Well, just a couple things. One, it's actually our second rate case since spin. We did, about a year and a half after spin, did the first one in the PBR filings that we've been doing the last five years have been the result of, or the outcome following that rate case. In the current rate case, the responsive testimony is due in the early part of September. That's really when we'll get the first read of where the commission staff, as well as other interveners, stand on the issues in the rate case. We'll have a better sense of that once we see their testimony. Great. That's all I had. Thanks for taking my questions, and congrats again. Thank you, Kody. As a reminder, star one for questions. We'll take our next question from Vedula Murti with Hudson Bay Capital. Good morning. Good morning. Let's see. In terms of given that you initiated the filings for securitization around the 180-day calendars for Oklahoma and Kansas and the 150 plus 90 in Texas, at what point will the prudence of the conduct of the activities and everything like that be addressed? It'll be within these 180-day processes such that any question as to prudence of dollars or whether full dollars or partial dollars, how should we be thinking about that? Let me take that by each state separately. You're correct in Texas that in that 150-day period is when those items are being reviewed. Similarly, in Oklahoma, it's during the 180-day period that those costs are being reviewed for prudency. In Kansas, just to clarify, the first thing that happens is the filing that we made and a procedural schedule still has to be established by the commission to evaluate our compliance report. We file the compliance report, and it begins that process. Until they review that and approve it, the 180-day clock starts at that point. There's not a set timeline in that first step to review that compliance report. We'll have a better sense here over the next few weeks as a procedural schedule gets established. Given that all the various constituencies knew that these filings were coming and these timelines were there, can you help us think about what feedback you've gotten from them in terms of addressing the issue of prudence? Or is it more about duration of recovery period? Is it more about the carry cost rate? How have people already been interacting with you in anticipation of these filings? All of those issues that you just raised are part of the considerations. At the end of the day, it's really about the impact to the customer's bill so that each of the commissions are sensitive to that. Obviously, everyone would like to have a very short period and get this behind. It's also, in some cases, not as possible to do that because of the impact that it would have on the customer's bill. There have been lots of discussions around that, the time periods for recovery. As an example of that, you saw in our Kansas compliance report that we proposed a five-, seven- or 10-year recovery period. That's really based upon what the objective is that the commission would like to see in terms of the customer bill impact once the financing moves forward. Everything you just raised are part of the discussions. We'll have to see how the next several months play out as to where we end up in each state. Well, is it maybe perhaps fair to characterize, though, that the conversation has been focused more on the duration and the carry rate and things of that nature, as opposed to the prudence of the conduct and the prudence of the dollar amounts that are being discussed here? I don't think one excludes the other, because the prudency reviews are very important. They were very important to us as we reviewed the invoices and reviewed the contracts and the NAESB agreements under which those volumes were delivered to make sure everything was in compliance. Now the commissions will go through that same process to make sure that what we paid for the gas was in compliance with those things. Just maybe as a reminder, we do have compliance reviews every year. While the dollars are much bigger, the process isn't really different from our normal prudency reviews. Okay. It does not appear, at least as far as I'm aware, that anyone has fundamentally questioned your practices or the prudence of how you dealt with your operations during this period. Is that accurate? Well, in terms of our commissions, that's why we're doing the compliance report. We're getting them the information so they can make that evaluation. That's what we file. I was thinking more about third parties and other stakeholders. Well, yeah, I don't know if I can comment on all stakeholders and other third parties and comments that they've made. The important part is that the compliance that we're doing with our regulators that have the authority to review our costs and determine the prudency of the actions that we took during the winter storm. That's really the piece that matters most to us. Okay. I guess one last thing in terms of, obviously, with the growth opportunities initiatives and other capital opportunities. How should we be thinking more about the balancing of funding those and the cost recovery of those, versus having to balance that with the cost recovery associated with Uri and these historical costs? Those are all things we consider in evaluating what our investments are going to be each year in terms of the capital dollars that we spend. We've given guidance on what to expect from a financing standpoint, Caron can certainly provide more context around that. We go through that process each year of determining what our capital spend is likely to be, where we're allocating that spending. We consider the impact. One of the things is the resources to physically get the work done. Second, the financial ability to fund the work and also then the impact that it has on the customer bill. All those things are considered. The one data point I would share with you is that an average customer on our system, their monthly bill average is about $60. That includes the gas cost as well as the return of and the return on our capital and the cost of service. That gives you some perspective of the actual natural gas bill that customers have in relation maybe to some of the other bills they have every month. Okay. Thank you very much. No additional questions. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to turn the call back over to Mr. Lohse for any additional or closing remarks. Thank you all again for your interest in ONE Gas. Our quiet period for the third quarter starts when we close our books at the end of September and extends until we release earnings in early November. We'll provide details on the conference call at a later date. Have a great day. That will conclude today's call. We appreciate your participation.