XEL
#Thank you.
Okay, you got me stumped on that one.
Anybody around the room.
<UNK>, you got it.
Pardon me, I'll double check on that.
But I think (inaudible) it's right now, frankly.
<UNK>, this is <UNK>.
I think that, after concluding our Texas rate case that was approved by the commission, we had negotiated the ability to file the CTRF filing immediately.
You should expect to see that from us sometime this month.
Well, I would say, we're not seeing it now, but we certainly have saw it in past years.
That's why we had some of the issues we had a few years ago is, we pushed through a significant amount of capital particularly associated with the re-licensing of our nuclear plants.
The bottom line is, I think it's very difficult to justify more than a 2% to 3% increase in rates.
And that's why we've been very cautious as we ---+ you heard in my remarks before, we have a lot of money we can spend in the grid and we'll go as fast as our customers and our regulators want us to go.
And typically, that means an inflationary-type pace of rate increases.
This is why we're so excited about steel-for-fuel, because it pays for itself.
I absolutely ---+ we're very mindful of that, and our capital plans respect that.
You're welcome.
Hey, <UNK>.
Yes, it would start to give details around that $1.5 billion, correct.
Are you talking about ---+ the upside, I think, that you're referring to would be the $1.5 billion of renewables that we didn't have specifically identified projects for, <UNK>.
Is that what you're talking about.
The only thing that we had to ---+ we were confident in, that's why it was in the forecast ---+ but that we had to actually solutionize, if you will, was the $1.5 billion.
Everything else is pretty much identified.
<UNK>, it's <UNK>.
The construct you're talking about was something we were talking about through most of 2016.
When we gave you new capital guidance at EEI or on the third-quarter earnings call, we rolled all of the upside capital from that into what I call our base capital plan and that's reflective of the $18.2 billion capital plan that we now talk about.
So it's all in there.
That's correct.
I think our rate base growth rate has us 5.5% rate base growth rate over the next five years.
Well, I think, <UNK>, every time we have significant changes either to the upside or the downside, we're always going to take a look at what that means for our long-term growth rate, and update accordingly.
And so as you get more time and more certainty ---+ and certainly what you're talking about would be execution.
As I mentioned, we'll take a look at it, and we'll take a look at it if there's any tailwinds ---+ or headwinds, rather, that might have surfaced as well.
So look for us to ---+ we'll continue to review that long-term growth rate.
And if it needs to change, we'll change it.
Well, I'm not going to get specific on the timeframe.
We just continue to look at what's happened, and what we think will happen in the future.
Well, I appreciate that <UNK>, because you're right, it is.
And again, I think, as I've said before, our rate base growth is going to increase.
But when you have things like steel-for-fuel, the pace of rate increases is modest.
And that's really important, we think, to long-term success.
Yes, absolutely.
You're trailing away, <UNK>.
Well, it sounds like you like or story, <UNK>.
We appreciate that.
We'll keep working on it for you.
All right.
Good morning, <UNK>.
Good.
This is <UNK>.
Yes, we've been working closely with other ---+ like I mentioned, other CEOs in the industry, with EEI, the trade group, as you know and so yes, we've had some preliminary discussions, but I would emphasize the word preliminary.
I think there's a long way to go with tax reform, I really do.
And again, I think when we're talking about tax reform a year from now, we'll be talking about something that looks, I believe, a lot different than what's on the table now.
I mean, it's just ---+ our industry's impacted, we think there's a way to address that.
We think normalization might be that pathway.
But when I think of other industries, the retail industry, et cetera, there's major potential disruption.
So I'm optimistic about tax reform, but I think it will probably look a lot different than what we're talking about today.
I do think the Senate is going to weigh in, and we've heard that.
Well, I don't think ---+ if you read the commentary from key members of the Senate, I think they're saying that they appreciate what the House has done, but they're going to have their own version of what tax reform should look like.
It's early.
I think you'll see the House version get passed.
Then the Senate will take up what I believe will be their own version.
Which, my personal opinion, and based upon conversations we've had, will look a lot different than the House version.
We haven't even talked about transition rules and I think there will definitely be transition rules because of the potentially disruptive nature.
So I think <UNK> said in his remarks, give us a couple more quarters, let's see how things go.
Things are moving fast in this Administration, but I really do think, to get it done, unless you try to jam it through in a budget reconciliation process ---+ and even then, I think you would be hard-pressed to get a majority of senators voting on that.
I do think this is going to take some bipartisan work and I certainly hope it is a bipartisan product, because I think that's better for the country, in my personal opinion.
All right, thank you.
Thank you all for participating in our call this morning.
Please contact our investor relations team if you have any follow-up questions.
