Hello, and welcome to Xcel Energy First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Melissa, and I will be your coordinator for today's event. Please note this conference is being recorded, and for the duration of the call, your lines will be in a listen-only mode. However, you will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the presentation. This can be done by pressing star one on your telephone keypad to register your question. Questions will only be taken from institutional investors. Reporters can contact media relations with inquiries, and individual investors and others can reach out to investor relations. If you require assistance at any point, please press star zero and you will be connected to an operator. I'll now turn the call over to Paul Johnson, Vice President, Treasurer, and Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Good morning, and welcome to Xcel Energy's 2024 first quarter earnings call. Joining me today are Bob Frenzel, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Van Abel, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. In addition, we have other members of the management team in the room to answer questions if needed. This morning, we will review our 2024 first quarter results and highlights, discuss recent wildfires and our mitigation efforts, and share recent business developments. Slides that accompany today's call are available on our website. Please note that we've changed our presentation. As a result, we no longer refer to electric and natural gas margin. Instead, we will discuss changes in revenue and cost of goods sold from the income statement. Please note that most fluctuations in cost of electric fuel and natural gas are recovered through regulatory mechanisms and are generally earnings neutral. As a reminder, some of the comments during today's call may contain forward-looking information. Significant factors that could cause results to differ from those anticipated are described in our earnings release and SEC filings. Today, we'll discuss certain GAAP and non-GAAP measures. Information on the comparable GAAP measures and reconciliations are included in our earnings release. With that, I'll turn over to Bob. Thank you, Paul, and good morning and welcome, everyone. It's been two months since wildfires impacted our Texas neighbors, and before Brian walks through our financial results, I'd like to discuss the actions we're taking to protect the public and to strengthen our system's resiliency in the states that we serve. In February, multiple wildfires were ignited in Texas, and from the outset of those fires, our focus has been on the people and the communities in the Panhandle and on the safety and the well-being of our coworkers and their families there. I want to thank all the first responders, emergency personnel, state and local employees, and our own SPS employees who worked tirelessly in support of our customers and our communities during and after the event. They provided wildfire response, community assistance, relief services, and worked tirelessly in the field to restore essential services. I've been to the Panhandle, and I've witnessed the impacted areas, and I can speak for the entire Xcel Energy team when I say that we are saddened by the losses, and we will stand with the Panhandle community as we recover, rebuild, and renew that area, as we have for over 100 years. Xcel Energy has acknowledged that our distribution poles appear to have been involved in an ignition of the Smokehouse Creek Fire and the smaller Reamer Fire, which quickly burned into the Smokehouse Creek Fire footprint. We assume claims that Xcel Energy acted negligently in maintaining and operating its infrastructure. In addition, we do not believe that our facilities caused the Windy Deuce or the Grapevine Creek Fires, and believe that their ignitions were caused by distribution lines owned by other companies. In an effort to expedite relief and recovery in the community, we've established a claims process for those who have property or livestock lost in the Smokehouse Creek Fires and are actively settling a number of claims. So far, 46 claims have been submitted, and as of April 22, Xcel Energy and SPS have been named as defendants in 15 lawsuits. Based on the most current information, we believe it's probable that we incur a loss due to the Smokehouse Creek Wildfire and accrue a liability of $215 million, which is offset by an insurance receivable, since it's lower than our approximately $500 million insurance. Please note that the $215 million dollar loss is a preliminary estimate, which reflects the low end of a range and is subject to change based on new information. More information on Smokehouse Creek, please see our disclosures in our earnings release and our Form 10-Q. Like all utilities, we're experiencing profound changes in weather and climate-related impacts on our operations. As a result, we must continue to evolve our operations for these unparalleled dynamics. Risk mitigation and system resiliency has long been a priority for Xcel Energy and continue into the future. Our strategy consists of three phases. First, immediate near-term response. Second, regulatory activities needed to address comprehensive wildfire mitigation and resiliency plans. Third, additional state and federal legislation that could be valuable. Part of our first phase, we've accelerated risk reduction initiatives across our system, including accelerating pole inspections and replacements, as well as operational actions such as proactive de-energizing the lines and adjusting recloser settings, known as public safety power shutoffs and enhanced power line safety settings. While we've been operating under an approved wildfire plan in Colorado since 2020, as part of our second phase strategy, we will file updated wildfire mitigation plans in our respective states, beginning with an updated Colorado WMP later this quarter. The plans incorporate industry learnings that are tailored to our unique geographies and risk profiles. Newly expanded actions include increased vegetation management, accelerated pole inspections, hardening and replacements, distribution, underground segmentation, and covered conductor programs, transmission line hardening and/or rebuilds, enhanced recloser settings and proactive de-energizing of lines, and situational awareness programs, including weather stations, cameras, and other monitoring software. Later this year, we intend to file a system resiliency plan that will include wildfire mitigation at SPS, contemplated under recent Texas law. And the third component of our strategy is to continue to step up our efforts to innovate and plan for evolving climate and wildfire risk. We know that our ability to enable a clean energy transmission and to deliver an affordable product to our customers is predicated on maintaining a reasonable cost of capital. We believe that proactive legislation at a state and federal level is a potential vehicle to ensure that our customers continue to receive affordable, reliable, sustainable, and safe power service. We aren't doing this alone. We're working across the industry with peer utilities, industry groups such as EEI and EPRI, Department of Energy, federal, state, local agencies, first responders, our labor partners, and countless others. While we need to reduce wildfire risk, our core operations remain strong and our investment opportunities robust. During the first quarter, we made significant progress on our clean energy transmission and resource plans. In February, we filed our resource plan for the NSP system, which proposes to add 6,400 MW of new resources and extend the lives of our Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear facilities past 2050. The proposed plan reduces carbon emissions by more than 80%, while increasing customer bills by approximately 1% annually. We anticipate a decision on our proposal by the Minnesota Commission in 2025. In New Mexico, the commission accepted our resource plan. We proposed approximately 5,000-10,000 MW of new generation by 2030. We anticipate issuing an RFP for these resource needs this summer. And finally, the Minnesota Commission recently approved our updated transportation electrification plan, and we filed an updated transportation electrification plan in New Mexico in April. We've also made continued progress with several economic and commercial development projects. In February, we announced we're working with Microsoft to bring a new data center to our retiring Sherco coal facility. The proposed data center is positioned to be one of our largest customers in Minnesota and is projected to bring jobs and investment to the community. In March, Meta broke ground on its previously announced data center that will be powered by NSP Minnesota. Meta will provide funding for new infrastructure upgrades, including transmission lines, to support the project, and the facility is slated to open in late summer 2025. Xcel Energy proactively worked with data center developers, communities, and stakeholders across our states to ensure that we can reliably and affordably serve this new demand while providing benefits to our other customers. With several additional opportunities in the pipeline, we expect data centers to drive further growth for the foreseeable future. Our employees are at the heart of these many accomplishments. Our team is composed of dedicated, hardworking, and courageous employees who are committed to serving our communities with safe, clean, reliable, and affordable energy. For the eleventh year in a row, Xcel Energy was honored as one of the world's most admired companies by Fortune Magazine, placing second overall amongst the most admired gas and electric companies in the country. For the fifth year in a row, Xcel Energy has been named one of the world's most ethical companies by Ethisphere. Xcel Energy is one of only five energy companies in the United States recognized this year. Xcel Energy also joined the Economic Opportunity Coalition, a public-private partnership with the U.S. government, where we committed to allocating 15% of our U.S.-based contract spending in the areas of energy supply, distribution, transition, and clean energy, small and underserved businesses by 2025. With that, I'll turn it over to Brian. Thanks, Bob, and good morning, everyone. Turning to our financial results, Xcel Energy had earnings of $0.88 per share for the first quarter of 2024, compared to $0.76 per share in 2023. The increase in earnings reflects our investment of approximately $8 billion over the last five quarters to improve resiliency and enable clean energy for our customers, while delivering economic growth and vitality for our communities. The most significant earnings drivers for the quarter included the following: The impact of electric and natural gas rate reviews to recover our capital investments increased earnings by $0.12 per share. Lower O&M expenses increased earnings by $0.06 per share, reflecting lower labor and benefit costs, lower bad debt expenses, and gains from a land sale for a data center. Non-fuel riders recover capital investment, increased earnings by $0.05. Offsetting these positive drivers were higher depreciation and amortization, decreased earnings by $0.05 per share, reflecting our capital investment programs. Higher interest charges decreased earnings by $0.05 per share. And in addition, other items combined to decrease earnings by $0.01 per share. Turning to sales. Year-to-date, weather and leap year-adjusted electric sales decreased by 0.3%, and natural gas sales increased by 1.7% as compared to 2023. Please note that we have revised our projected electric sales growth to 1%-2% for the year, largely due to declining use per customer and timing delays for expansions for some of our large C&I customers. However, we conservatively expect long-term electric sales to grow 3% annually. During the quarter, we also made progress on a relatively light rate case calendar. In April, the Texas Commission approved our electric rate case settlement without modification. The settlement reflects a rate increase of $65 million based on a black box settlement, which includes a ROE of 9.55% and an equity ratio of 54.5% for SPS purposes. In our Minnesota natural gas rate case, we received intervener testimony last week. Hearings are scheduled for July and expect a commission decision by year-end or in the first quarter of next year. In our Colorado n atural gas rate case, procedural schedule has been established that reflects intervener testimony in July, hearings in September, and a commission decision in the fourth quarter. Please see our earnings release for more details on our regulatory proceedings. We are reaffirming our 2024 earnings guidance range of $3.50-$3.60 per share, which is consistent with our long-term EPS growth objective of 5%-7%. In addition, we've updated our key assumptions to reflect the latest information, which are detailed in our earnings release. With that, I'll wrap up with a quick summary. We are proactively enhancing our operational and wildfire mitigation actions to manage the risk to our systems and protect our customers from extreme weather. We continue to expect to deliver 2024 earnings within our guidance range, as we have for the past 19 years. We are executing on our capital investment plan, including clean generation, transmission and distribution to support reliability and resiliency, and economic development to support our communities. We remain confident we can deliver long-term earnings growth at or above the top end of our 5%-7% range starting in 2025, dividend growth at the low end of our 5%-7% objective range. This concludes our prepared remarks. Operator, we will now take questions. Thank you. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question for any reason, you may press star two. You will be advised when to ask your question. Our first question is from Nick Campanella with Barclays. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks for all the information today. I guess maybe a couple of questions. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I guess a couple of questions to kick it off. You know, you have a lot of resource plan activity going on across SPS, and the RFPs, you know, seem like they're coming out this summer. Just how are you kind of thinking about competition for capital within the current CapEx plan now that you're seemingly, you know, accelerating some resiliency plans at SPS and PSCO? Maybe you can kind of remind us of what's incremental versus not, and then also just touch on your financing plan and equity needs. Thanks. Yeah, certainly, Nick, and good morning. You know, if I don't touch upon all that, the multiple parts of that question, just, please feel free to follow up. Absolutely, we're pretty excited about the upcoming RFP and SPS. You know, we've talked about them before, seeking a range of generation between 5,000 and 10,000 MW of combination of renewables and dispatchable firm capacity. And we'll look to launch that RFP in July. It's a little bit of a longer timeline, so, I'll help you understand in terms of how we'll launch that in July. We would expect to file CPCNs in the summer of 2025, so summer of next year, with decisions in Q1 of 2026. So that capital really will be kind of in the 2027 to 2030 type spend timeframe. So I think a lot of it is elongating, adding to the some of the back end of our five-year, but elongating our growth opportunities beyond our five-year, what we're seeing there. So that's how I think about that capital, but really great opportunity. Excited to get started on that. We, we touched a little bit on, you know, absolutely, we're looking to continue to invest in resiliency and risk mitigation spend. Just a reminder, we have about $10 billion in our current CapEx plan, around distribution and transition resiliency. But as we look to file our Colorado WMP here later in this Q2, there are certainly incremental investment needs related to reducing overall wildfire risk. So we'll evaluate all of that within our kind of current normal cadence when we come back in October of this year to provide a kind of roll forward for a 25-29 plan. And, you know, as you think about competition for capital, you know, I think as we sit here today, we're, you know, very comfortable, comfortable with, you know, I reiterated, you know, we'll be at or above the five, the top end of the 5%-7% range. I think that's looking at all the opportunities we have in front of us, with rate base growth opportunities above 9%. And we, we'll let the finance that as we've always have been. You know, I think it's important to maintain a strong balance sheet and, and important to, to keep that going forward. So we'll look at it, you know, financing incremental growth with the creative equity at that kind of 64% range. So hopefully I'm touching everything you're asking about. And Nick, I'll just add on one thing on to Brian's comments. I think you asked about sort of relative competitiveness of the company. We would expect to offer in, you know, our own development projects into the SPS proposal, and we've proven that we with our scale and utility-owned wind and our growing expertise in solar and storage, we think we'd be very competitive for some of the generation in Southwestern Public Service RFP process. Got it. That's really helpful. And then I guess just and you did hit all the points. To put a finer point on the equity needs, I guess, do you just see really kind of no change to current plans, even with the multiple a little bit lower here? Thank you. Yeah, so the way we think about it, obviously, like I said, and reiterated where we expect to be within the growth range. And that takes into account our lower multiple impacts over the past quarter, certainly. You know, as I mentioned, and we think about, there's significant investment opportunities going forward. And it's important to have a strong balance sheet, and we plan to maintain that strong balance sheet. But obviously, we'll look at what is that. That strong balance sheet gives us some timing flexibility from an equity issuance perspective, and obviously, we evaluate that. And obviously, we'll evaluate whether there's some potential timing flexibility around capital in the near term. But I think overall, as we think fundamentally, everything's intact from a long-term perspective in terms of maintaining a strong balance sheet, and funding, the investment needs for the clean energy transmission with equity as we need to maintain that balance sheet. Thanks a lot. Really, really appreciate the time. Thank you. Our next question is from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Thank you. So just on the Texas fire, you mentioned the legislative report coming out in May. Just what should we expect to be coming out in that? Is that who caused it, or what - how should we think about what's going to come out in that report? What, like, we focus on? Thanks, Steve. Good morning. Look, you know, at a macro level, I was pretty encouraged by the process we went through with the Texas House and the committee. You know, I think one of the tenets of good risk mitigation is involving all the stakeholders who have a hand in doing that. And I think the committee hearings were a pretty good example of getting all, mostly all of the interested parties and participants in a room, proactively talking about, you know, the issues. And on balance, you know, I think the sessions were productive. I feel the committee was looking to be prospective in gathering information about for future solutions, and I think that's how I'd expect the report in May to come out. You know, I think we'll see stuff on recommendations for utilities, emergency responders, proactive things we can be doing in the counties to mitigate fire risk. You know, I think there's already a Texas A&M Forest Service report on causation. I'm not certain we'll see something else from the committee on that. But look, I think the report's gonna be in line with the sessions themselves, with you know, constructive recommendations for how to proceed going forward. Okay. And then just on the damage estimate that you took, because you noted, I think in your release, a lot of kind of what's in there, what's not in there. One clarification just is, how about not punitive damages, but non-economic damages? Is that in your estimate or not in your estimate? Hey, yes, Steve, I'll handle this one, and I'll give you, you know, first, obviously, we'll point to our disclosures, but I'll give you a little bit more color in terms of, you know, that $250 million is the lower end- Yeah, that would be great. Here's some of the large pockets it includes: residential properties and related losses, cattle and feed, agricultural structures and fencing, non-economic damages, and then a number of other items. So obviously, this is subject to change as we gain additional information since we're still early in the process. That's helpful. Thank you. And then, just on a follow-up on the question about equity, just given some of the overhang that's been caused by this, are you kind of revisiting, like, other options of getting equity than just issuing it? Are there, you know, asset sales or other things that you might consider, or is that just not, you know, not as attractive as just funding with equity? You know, obviously, it's something you'd expect Bob and I to evaluate in the normal course. You know, what other options are there? I think what you've seen from us is we were a pretty straightforward, conservative financing plan from a company perspective. So, I think right now, that's our current plan of action, and I think I've been on record about not only interested in minority interest sales in the pipeline. So that's our current plan of action as we sit here today. Okay. And then last thing, on the data center growth. So just on the facility at the old Sherco site, how is that being served? And then just, Bob, you mentioned talking to a lot of others. Could you just talk to kind of how they're viewing your territory? And just making sure you're able to kind of do this in a way that is kind of good for the broader customer base? Yeah, no, that's a great question and conversation, and Steve, and it's very topical, both inside the walls of the building as well as around the industry. On your specific questions with regards to the Sherco site, you know, the site getting powered with, you know, grid energy. And as you know, we're the first company to commit to being 100% carbon-free electricity. So we already have a significant importance in the renewable value system, and, you know, they'll benefit from all our system actions. More broadly, as we look across our footprint as a company, we think depending on the operating company, we have really attractive dynamics for super scalers and other data center and high energy use customers, and whether it's, you know, very low cost C&I energy in the Southwest, or cooling weather and higher renewables in Colorado, or a similar footprint here in the upper Midwest. You know, I think that we're having conversations across our footprint, and I think we've got both accesses to water, transmission, infrastructure, land, and energy, and clean energy that they find attractive. So, we've got a significant amount of interest from super scalers and others and look forward to sharing more of that as we develop our forecast. Yeah. And Steve, I just want to just add a little bit of color to that because I think you kind of hinted at, you know, how do we think about it from a current customer perspective? You know, I think, you know, as we bring on new data centers, and this is something we did with Meta and approval of Meta in Minnesota, it's, we made sure it's a win-win for our existing customers. That's really important as we continue to move forward with this significant opportunity. And I think there's an opportunity there to work with our policymakers and regulators to help drive that economic development within the right context, and then also ensuring that we can move quickly because you will need to build out infrastructure, both on the generation side and the wire side, to ensure that we can serve some of these significant opportunities that we're seeing over the next 5-10 years. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question from Jeremy Tonet of JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Hey, Jeremy. Hi, thanks. Just want to continue with the data center question with one more finer point here, I guess. As it relates to SPS, you know, just given the need for power and given the very cheap natural gas in that area, wouldn't necessarily think of SPS as a place that data centers would target, but just wondering if what you're seeing there, if cheap power is a draw, just any thoughts in general? Yeah. Hey, Jeremy, and I think, I mean, as Bob mentioned, we're seeing data center interest across all of our service territories, and each service territory there, but maybe a little different point of attractiveness. And then you hit it at SPS as one of the lowest C&I rates in the country. So, interest there, but I would say the other significant growth that we continue to see in SPS, and this is really what you're seeing come through our numbers now, when you look at, you know, the year-over-year growth from the C&I perspective, is the oil and gas expansion in the Permian Basin there, and everything they're doing from an electrification perspective. So right now, that's the near term growth in SPS with longer term data center opportunity. We're discussing this with some data centers down there. We also have fantastic renewable resources down there from a wind and solar perspective. And a little bit leads to that when we talk about that RFP coming out in SPS and our Resource Plan, there's a reason why we have a range of 5,000-10,000 MW, and the range is to ensure that we enable some of the growth that we're seeing. Got it. Certainly, New Mexico, the low end of the cost curve for production in North America there. Yep. So, maybe continuing with Texas a little bit more and following up on the wildfires, just wondering if Texas caps non-economic damages or just any other details you could provide there? Yeah. Right now, there is no cap on non-economic damages in Texas. There is a cap on punitive damages. There's 2 times economic damages, plus up to $750,000 cap for non-economic. Got it. Thank you for that. And then, looking forward to the Colorado Wildfire Mitigation Plan filing, there's been some press in the state around recent de-energization in Colorado. Can you speak to the opportunity for sectionalization or other efforts to reduce customer impact? Any other nuances to the filing you could share with us? Yeah. Hey, Jeremy, it's Bob. Thanks for the question. You know, first, I'm really proud of what the team did in Colorado in executing on behalf of public safety during a volatile weather event. If you can imagine, the second filing of our wildfire mitigation plan is gonna have a lot of continuation of the existing plan and probably incremental areas that we'd be looking for. But as I think about the big buckets of opportunity there, really early warning capabilities. We've already installed 21 Pano cameras, but I think there's a real opportunity for increased early warning capabilities with AI-powered cameras as well as weather stations in and around our territories and our equipment. Obviously, we have opportunities to improve our operating capabilities in public safety power shutoffs, as well as even the power line enhanced power line safety settings. But we're executing those today, and then we're doing a pretty good job. We have more work to do there. I think on the third bucket, and where your question leads to is sort of asset resilience capabilities, and we can continue to inspect our poles and wires, replace stuff, and maybe accelerating some of that. But I think also system resiliency, and this gets back to your comment on sectionalizing. We've done some of that. We have real opportunity to do that more. Both our intelligence at a granular level of weather and what's happening in weather, as well as our ability to control our system at a more micro level to mitigate customer impact is a real priority for us in this plan. And lastly, you know, part of the plan is other public policy opportunities that we might have to protect our customers. So, big buckets there, but hopefully I got to your sectionalizing question as well as, you know, asset hardening, like undergrounding, covered conductors, and other pieces of the both transmission and distribution systems as we think about protecting public safety is a priority for us. Got it. Very helpful there. And just a last one, if I could, as it relates to gas cases in Minnesota and Colorado. Any updates there that we should be thinking about or conversations with stakeholders and regulators on those cases and how you feel about those cases? Yeah, and just let-- I'll get on first the Minnesota Natural Gas case, because that's probably the one that, that's furthest along, given that we just received intervener testimony. And the Department of Commerce recommended a $44 million increase of the 9.4% ROE. We have hearings in mid-July, but we'll certainly look at an opportunity to engage with our stakeholders to see if we can reach a settlement, which we did in the last Minnesota gas rate case. So, we'll look to engage that. Like I said, hearings are July, so from now until July, we'll look to engage there. On the Colorado side, we're still pretty early in the process. We haven't received intervener testimony yet. The procedural schedule just came out, so for us, it'll be there's a settlement. We get intervener testimony in mid-July. We get opportunity, there's a settlement deadline at the end of August, and then if we don't reach a settlement, there'll be hearings in mid-September with a decision in Q4. Got it. Very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Thanks for all the details so far. Maybe just on the resiliency plan filing at SPS that you expect in late 2024, can you just remind us of the timing to getting that ultimately approved and when that spend would come into play? And then, I guess, any early views on kind of the sizing of that potential filing, or in addition to the wildfire mitigation piece that you flagged, what other buckets of spend do you think will be important there? Thanks, Carly. It's Brian. You know, as you said, we're just looking to, we're looking to put that filing together. It'll be late in Q4. So, from a timing perspective, you're probably, you know, into Q3 of the following year, for it to get approved. So I think from an overall perspective, I think you look at some of our kind of just distribution spend into SPS, and you look at our five-year capital plan and what could be eligible for it. Obviously, we're currently focused on the Colorado WMP, and we'll take a lot of those programs and apply it to SPS, but tailor it because SPS is a very different geography than Texas, a very different geography when we think about what, what should we be doing to have risk mitigation from a wildfire perspective. We'll tailor it, but I think we'll give you more color as we get further development of that resiliency plan later this year. Got it. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And then, the follow-up is just on O&M, you know, nice benefit during the quarter there. Is that just a function of kind of year-over-year timing, or is there potential downside to that annual guidance on O&M being up 1%-2% for the year? Yeah, good, good question. I think from, from our perspective, we haven't, as, as you kind of noted, we haven't changed our, our guidance for, for the year-end, even though we had a, a significant quarter-over-quarter change. So I look at it more from where we are from a budget perspective, which you don't see, and we're slightly ahead of our budget for the first quarter. But from where we sit, I think it's early in the year, and our goal is just to land within that 1%-2% O&M guidance range, as, as we sit here. Got it. Great. Thanks so much for the color. Thank you. Our next question is from Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Just two quick ones. One is, any major change in the company's cost to insure, the company's operations? Hey, Anthony. Yeah, that's, that's a good question as we think about it. So I assume you're, you're asking specifically about wildfire insurance or excess liability. Yes. You know, I think, yeah, all our other programs, I would say, are relatively stable or, or don't have significant challenges. As I think about wildfire insurance, and just let's focus on wildfire insurance versus overall excess liability, because they're two different things. I think this is a, a very key industry issue, both at the state and federal level. And, and if you've been following EEI, this is one of their top priorities this year from a federal perspective. In, in terms of how do we think about getting a, a focus on damage limitations, you know, is there insurance backstop or solution at a federal level, and, and think about specific criteria for wildfire mitigation plans? In exchange for liability protection. So some, those are some of the broad buckets EEI is thinking about. You know, obviously, one thing you all from a state perspective, as we look forward, our legislation, legislative sessions are wrapping up here or have already wrapped up this year. So what we'll do is we'll look to work with our policymakers in our states, kinda from here forward as we think about next year's leg session, to see if there's any state level solutions as we think about it. Now, specifically from a company perspective or a commercial insurance perspective, even prior to Smokehouse Creek, we were seeing, or understanding that from some of the commercial carriers, they were already looking to reduce their capacity, and not just for us, but overall, their exposure from a wildfire insurance perspective. And so that's going into the next policy cycle. These are annual renewals, so our renewal isn't until Q4. So we'll get more visibility into it, but, you know, I'll give you some little bit of a sense of where we sit today. We have about $500 million of coverage, and we're paying about a $40 million premium for that coverage. And that's full excess liability, including wildfire. But I would expect that, that coverage, that capacity to come down, and I expect premiums to be pressured. Absolutely. So but, you know, like I said, we're still a ways away from our renewal. So again, we'll provide more color as we get closer, but that's, that's where we sit today. Great. And then just one last one. I think Bobby had mentioned pursuing some proactive legislation for wildfire risk. Would you be willing to list, like, hey, the maybe top three things, or what are your goals in getting the legislation passed? Like, what's, you know, would you like to be included in your maybe first wave of legislation passed, whether it's, you know, limits on non-economic liability or... I'm just curious, any color on that you would provide? Yeah. Hey, good morning, Anthony, and thanks for the question. As Brian said, this is a big and emerging national issue, and we've seen pressure both on the retail side of insurance, homeowners struggling to get homeowner insurance that protects from wildfire risk. And you're seeing it in the commercial side and the wholesale side as well. So we've been active at the federal level, in particular, talking about sort of the national opportunity we might have here. You know, I think about there are precedents at the federal level. You see stuff like where goods are really important for everybody, like the FDIC or FEMA or for flood insurance or other type programs, or even, you know, nuclear backstop insurance from the Price-Anderson Act. There's several precedents around, you know, protecting, you know, like banking access, like access to affordable electricity. So as I think about federal, where the federal government could help, and this probably applies at the state level too, which is having an approved wildfire mitigation plan that can be reviewed by an agency of a state or federal level, and then if you're in compliance and current on that plan, then you have access to some form of backstop insurance program that provides protection and maybe access that maybe the commercial carriers aren't providing at an attractive or an affordable cost as that group of entities, you know, comes up to speed on risk and risk mitigation. So I think those are the big parameters that I would think about. And certainly, there's state precedents. You know, you can take Utah or Nevada or California laws and see programs where, you know, insurance companies, along with their regulators and legislators are coming up with programs that provide more cost-effective backstop for companies to bring down the risk. And as I said in my prepared remarks, at the end of the day, you know, we have an enormous energy transmission that we need to fund, and making sure that our cost to capital is attractive to fund that keeps the transition affordable for our customers and for the country. So I think it's important that we manage this risk, we manage the financial cost of this risk, and those are some of the areas that I would think are most important for us to go after. Yeah. Thanks, my questions. Yeah, just to add a little bit to that, I think as Bob talked about the importance of kinda that insurance backstop and following a WMP, but I think there's also an aspect there is, now, if you're following in compliance with a WMP, there's a presumption of prudence, which I think is important too, and also looking at a limit on liability or a limit on damages. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is from Sophie Karp with KeyBanc. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. I have a couple of questions today. Morning, Sophie. Yeah. So on the Texas fire, can you clarify how, I guess, the claims system and the litigations that's been filed against you are gonna, well, work together, for lack of a better word? Like, are people who are litigating not filing claims, or can they do both? Like, how does it work? Hey, Sophie, good morning. Yeah, I mean, so first of all, let's talk about the claims process, and still early on, we actually encourage people to submit claims. We've received 46 so far. But how it works is, you know, anyone can submit a claim and, you know, when they submit that claim, they don't waive the right to pursue a lawsuit. But if they, if there's a claim settlement, then that absolves or relieves any other potential lawsuits that they could file. So that's how it could work, but also, if someone files a lawsuit, you know, it certainly could be an opportunity to settle through that lawsuit, too. But like I said, we're encouraging people to enter the claims process, and we've, we've settled with a couple already and are in active settlement discussions with others. Got it. Got it. Thank you. And then my other question is on Colorado, and like, sort of gas, got this clarification from the commission there that, you know, they want the utilities to pursue non-pipeline alternatives, I guess, for gas, in Colorado. Could you comment on that and just sort of how that will impact your investment in that state, particularly with gas? Hey, Sophie, look, we've got a number of gas proceedings in Colorado over the last year. I think you're referring to our Clean Heat Plan, and look, we think that that was an industry-leading or very unique filing, and proactive on the company and the commission's part to move forward with that. Big picture, I think they're sitting there looking at the gas system as an effective delivery of energy, but making sure that if we've got capacity needs from a growing customer base out there, that we're looking at something other than pipeline alternatives. And we're actively engaged in that. It's something we've always, as a company, looked at, but I don't think it's gonna affect necessarily us going forward in terms of significant changes in capital forecasts from where we sit today. But maybe a more proactive approach with stakeholders and communities about finding maybe different types of solutions to solve the similar issues, whether that's more beneficial electrification, more powering of homes for home heating and other needs, and we're certainly engaged in that process with them. The non-pipeline alternative is basically a word for electrification, or could that be something like increasing, like, compression station output or something like that? Like, just kind of... What, what is that? It's yeah, so I mean, sure, and so, you know, you bring up increasing compression station, certainly an opportunity. I think generally it's thought of, you know, what are the electrification opportunities? Say there's going to be a new neighborhood built, what is the alternatives? You know, it's okay, serve that neighborhood with gas and expansion of a pipeline, or what are the alternatives from an electrification perspective. So that's probably the best way to think about it. I'd say just by one other bucket out there, and it's a very important project for the governor and it's geothermal, whether at a district level or a residential level or community level, exploring the possibilities of geothermal in the state are something we're willing to work with or we're going to work with our customers and our stakeholders in the state. So it's not necessarily just electrification, it could be more different forms of heat for homes and communities. Got it. Thank you so much. That's all from me. Thank you. Our next question is from Ryan Levine with Citi. Please go ahead. Good morning. What role do you see PSPS having in terms of your wildfire mitigation plans? And are there any initiatives that you could take proactively to gain more stakeholder support to be able to implement that on a go-forward basis? Hey, Ryan, it's Bob. Certainly we think of PSPS as a kind of a tool of last resort. But public safety is our priority in making sure that our communities are protected in volatile wind events, and wildfire risk days is really important to us as well. So are there opportunities for us to gain more public support? Of course, there are, and there's ways that we can improve our own performance as we... You know, I hate to say gain more muscle here, cause it's something that I don't love to do, but when we have to do it, I think there's areas of improvement that we, as a company, have identified and are working with our Colorado commission to do so. That includes, you know, early notification, excellence in outage maps, something I talked about earlier on segmentation. All this comes as, as a function of our wildfire mitigation plan. If we have better early warning devices like cameras, weather stations, our ability to affect on a more localized level, where the risk is and where the outage would need to be, can get better. But that's gonna take some time, some effort, some partnership with our agencies and stakeholders in Colorado for sure. Then shifting gears on the financing plan, as security prices continue to move, how do you look at maybe assessing a time to come to market for capital raises? I think in an earlier question, you suggested avoidance of asset sales, but any color around response to maybe different security prices and how that can impact your financing plan? Hey, Ryan, I think a little bit as the color I've provided before is obviously, you know, overall, we believe our growth plans from an investment perspective, a long-term EPS growth perspective is intact and, and same in our stance in maintaining a strong balance sheet. When I talk about not necessarily an avoidance, but, but, a how do we look at the timing, of equity and the timing of capital, particularly on the timing of equity, given that we have a strong balance sheet, is, is we can look at being flexible there. But as I would expect it, you know, when we're investing $39 billion of capital at a 9% rate base growth, that does come with the financings, and generally, you'll require financing year in and year out, that's aligned with the, the capital spend. That's the best way to think about it. But obviously, you know, we'll understand what happened to the cost of equity here. And also, with the cost of debt, where that's gone up over just the short term in terms of our trading rates have gone. So, but that's factored into all of our plans as I sit here today and talk about reiterating, being at or above our 5.7%. Okay. And then just last question. In terms of CapEx outlook, given maybe acceleration of infrastructure build-out in North America, are you seeing any indications that maybe costs will come higher for what's already slated to be built in the coming years? Any call you could share on that? Yeah, Ryan, Bob, look, I think as we see re-industrialization, as we see data center build-out, certainly there can be cost pressures that come from, you know, basic materials and construction materials like concrete, steel, and things like that. I think we take our best estimates when we put our capital forecast out, but something we watch pretty closely. You know, labor is another area of opportunity there. I think that, you know, one of the things we're very focused on is we see an energy sector transition, making sure that there's a pipeline of talent, starting early on in trade schools and partnering with our labor unions and business partners there to make sure that the pipeline of linemen and pipefitters and welders are capable of keeping up with the demand. So, we try to send early demand signals to them and help them in recruitment processes across our territories and really partner on a national level to make sure that we're seeing enough trade come into the business, broadly, that we don't see immense amount of labor pressure. Great. Thanks for taking my question. Thank you. Our next question is from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Good morning, Paul. I apologize if you guys have gone over this, but just on the nuke life extension, could you remind me what the impact financially is? Have you guys already— It varies from company to company, how the depreciation impact is recognized, et cetera. I was just wondering if you could review that for me shortly, quickly, if it's not a problem. Hey, hey, Paul, and I'll answer this. Yeah, in your-- you're referencing the, the resource plan that we just filed here in Q1 related to the extension of Monticello. So Monticello, we already extended to 2040, and we've recognized that depreciation in terms of lower customer bills. So we're looking to extend Monty from 2040 to 2050, and then Prairie Island, both units, 20 years. So it'll go from the early 2030s to the early 2050s. We have not recognized those three call lower depreciation, depreciation rates in the customer bill or into rate base. We'll have-- We'll wait until we get through this proceeding to get approval, then likely we'd wrap it into our next rate case. So this proceeding is probably going to take 18 months to play out at the very least. It's going to be a couple of years before we can pull that back into customer rates in terms of lower depreciation. Okay, great. But just, is there any potential for regulatory sort of positive regulatory lag, or are you guys planning on having it immediately impact customer rates? No, this would likely just be captured, either have a deferral here or likely if we're in a multi-year plan, we have a true-up mechanism for it. Okay, awesome. Thanks so much, guys. Thank you. As we have no further questions in the queue, I'd like to turn it back over to CFO, Brian Van Abel, for any closing remarks. Yeah, thank you all for participating in our earnings call this morning. Please contact our investor relations team with any follow-up questions. Thank you very much. That concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect.