ETR
#Morning, <UNK>.
The big driver is we've seen an uplift in LHV pricing so approximately, a couple dollars of KW a month, so that's probably about a $48 million impact on the positive side, so that offset some of the commodity energy price decrease we've seen.
I think that's really the main driver.
Some of the cost associated with the metering is in there, yes.
Correct.
This is <UNK> and I will just say, that's going to be a big topic at the Analyst Day here in a few weeks.
We will try to give you some framework around that.
But we are still getting our hands around our performance improvement plan.
And of course, as you know, Chris, has just been here for a couple of weeks so he is getting his hands around it as well.
But I think the important thing for us is that at the same time, we're doing that, we are also looking for opportunities to mitigate that in the business and some of them you've already seen show up.
Things like insurance rebates or lower interest cost because the interest-rate environment.
We have some O&M opportunities that we've found, that we've ---+ in the first quarter, like the fossil, outage management and stuff like that.
So there are opportunities that we have identified to begin to offset that.
Obviously, we're not done looking for those but at this point, we think we can manage those costs within a framework of the expectations that we have for guidance and outlooks right now.
They are currently the same.
We just got the report, the initial report out, I guess, on ANO and we're looking, as <UNK> mentioned, for the letter from the NRC.
Once we get that, we will have a better idea if there's any incremental risks associated with ANO.
And Pilgrim's inspection, we expect to be sometime second half of this year.
We will have better information then.
So as of now, those costs are staying pat.
Morning, <UNK>.
(multiple speakers) About the Encore and the REIT assessments.
<UNK>, at this point, we might have to get back with you and follow-up, but I don't ---+ I'm not sure it's been ---+ it's moved forward enough for us to get a, I think a perspective as to how it may impact us.
I mean, at this ---+ I don't ---+ we don't see that having any major impact on us at this point.
But again, we will follow-up with you if, in fact, that is different.
But again, it is fairly generic.
Until we get more specificity relative to that, it's ---+ we don't necessarily see it having an impact on us.
For the first thing, I would say, <UNK>, is that obviously, we ---+ from an economic standpoint, the closure of FitzPatrick is the right thing to do and we would have loved for there have been a way around that, if economics could have been different.
We've, for example, we have been promoting a clean energy standard in New York that would include nuclear plants for several years.
And the reason, obviously, that we would do that is one, it's the right thing to do from a public policy standpoint.
It's certainly the right thing to do from an environmental standpoint, from an energy price standpoint, in support of the market's reliability, the whole nine yards.
we have been promoting it for a number of years because obviously these things must take their course in the regulatory arena, and then in the legislative ---+ if it's legislative, it's regulatory or the courts.
And obviously, you can always expect there to be intervention into anything that comes up and these things just take a long time to develop.
And so right now, there is no ---+ nothing in place.
We don't know if there was something in place, what it would be.
We don't know, if we knew how it was structured, what it would provide.
We don't know if ---+ what it provided would be enough to support the economics of a plant, and we don't know that the timing of it could ever be done before we had to make the decision to go ahead and re-fuel, which then we're committing to several hundred million dollars of losses.
So we're out of time.
It's not that we're against any of those proposals in terms of on their face, other than I would say that obviously, we believe if there's a clean energy standard in New York that includes nuclear, it should include all of the nuclear plants.
But ---+ and we commend them for their efforts because that's the right thing to do and we wouldn't have been proposing it for the last couple of years, but, I mean, you hit the nail on the head on this point of no return aspect.
It's not in place.
We don't know what it is.
We don't know what it will provide.
We don't know what the economics would be and for it to run its course, again, we get to ---+ we're, unfortunately, we ---+ likely out of time.
So anything that says we are opposed to a clean energy standard and the like, we're not.
We have been full of those all along.
Again, we do think they should incorporate all plants in the state.
We would ---+ before it all plants in the country, actually, to be consistent.
But right now, there is nothing in place that we could look at that would provide us the opportunity to change our decisions.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you, and thanks to all for participating this morning.
Before we close, we remind you to refer to our release and website for Safe Harbor and Regulation G compliance statements.
Our quarterly report on Form 10-Q is due to the SEC by May 10, and provides more details and disclosures about our financial statements.
Please note that events that occur prior to the date of our 10-Q filing that provide additional evidence of conditions that existed as of the date of the balance sheet will be reflected in our financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
The call was recorded and can be accessed on our website, or by dialing 855-859-2056, confirmation ID: 854-13992.
The telephone replay will be available until May 3 and this concludes our call.
Thank you.
