Good morning. My name is Julie, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Q3 2021 NiSource Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If you'd like to ask a question during this time, press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to withdraw your question, press star one again. Thank you. Chris Turnure, you may begin your conference.
Good morning, and welcome to the NiSource third quarter 2021 investor call. Joining me today are Joe Hamrock, our Chief Executive Officer, Donald Brown, our Chief Financial Officer, Shawn Anderson, our Chief Strategy and Risk Officer, and Randy Hulen, our VP of Investor Relations and Treasurer. The purpose of this presentation is to review NiSource's financial performance for the third quarter of 2021, as well as provide an update on our operations and growth drivers. Following our prepared remarks, we'll open the call to your questions. Slides for today's call are available on nisource.com. Before turning the call over to Joe, Donald, and Shawn, just a quick reminder, some of the statements made during this presentation will be forward-looking. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the statements.
Information concerning such risks and uncertainties is included in the MD&A and risk factors sections of our periodic SEC filings. Additionally, some of the statements made on this call relate to non-GAAP measures. For additional information on the most directly comparable GAAP measure and a reconciliation of these measures, please refer to the supplemental slides and segment information, including our full financial schedules available on nisource.com. With all of that out of the way, I'd like to turn the call over to Joe.
Thanks, Chris. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Hopefully, you've all had a chance to read our third quarter earnings release, which we issued earlier today. Strong execution of NiSource's significant renewable energy investments continues to be the highlight of our foundation for future growth. We continue to expect that our core infrastructure programs and renewable generation investments will drive industry-leading compound annual growth of 7%-9% in diluted net operating earnings per share through 2024. Growth driven by our commitments to safety, reliability, customer affordability, and sustainability. As we begin to refine our outlook for longer-term growth, the preferred path from NIPSCO's 2021 Integrated Resource Plan identifies additional investment opportunities while advancing the retirement of remaining coal-fired generation between 2026 and 2028.
It supports our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2030. Let's turn now to slide three and take a closer look at our key takeaways. We are updating our guidance for 2021 to target the top end of the range of $1.32-$1.36 per share in non-GAAP diluted net operating earnings or NOEPS. We are also initiating guidance for 2022 of $1.42-$1.48, and that is consistent with our 5%-7% near-term growth commitment. Our long-term diluted NOEPS guidance of 7%-9% through 2024 is now based on the expected top end of our 2021 guidance range. We reaffirm 5%-7% growth in 2023.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the preferred plan from NIPSCO's 2021 IRP advances our plans to retire remaining coal-fired generation between 2026 and 2028 as we shift to lower cost, clean, and reliable generation. Investments of up to $750 million will be required to replace retiring coal-fired generation. The NIPSCO portion of this investment will be better understood following further evaluation of the proposals we solicited associated with the IRP. Our regulatory execution progresses with a proposed order approving a settlement in Pennsylvania, a settlement filed in Kentucky, and a proposed order in Maryland. In addition, we filed a gas rate case in Indiana in September. We achieved non-GAAP diluted NOEPS of $0.11 in the third quarter of 2021 versus $0.09 in 2020.
Now let's look at some NiSource utilities highlights for the third quarter, starting with our gas operations on slide nine. The Columbia Gas of Ohio rate case continues to progress. Net of the trackers being rolled into base rates, the filing requests an annual revenue increase of approximately $221 million. Pending a decision next year from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, new rates would be effective in mid-2022. NIPSCO filed a gas rate case on September 29, requesting a revenue increase of $115 million annually. The case is focused on infrastructure modernization and providing safe, reliable service while remaining in compliance with state and federal safety requirements. In Pennsylvania, an administrative law judge issued a proposed order recommending that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approve a settlement in our rate case.
The settlement would increase revenue by $58.5 million with new rates effective December 29 of this year. The adjusted rates will help to continue investments in infrastructure upgrades, system reliability, and maintenance enhancements. We expect the Commission's final order by mid-December. In Kentucky, we have filed a proposed settlement of our rate case. The settlement includes an overall increase in revenues of $18.6 million to support continued investments in safety and replacing aging infrastructure. Columbia Gas of Maryland received a proposed order from an administrative law judge on Friday, recommending an increase of approximately $2.56 million in revenues as compared to our request of approximately $4.8 million. We expect a final order from the Maryland Public Service Commission in December.
Before we move on, I'd like to note that Columbia Gas of Ohio, our largest LDC, is ranked number 1 in the Midwest region in J.D. Power's 2021 Gas Utility Business Customer Satisfaction Study. Also, congratulations to our customer experience team for the successful launch of the Columbia Gas and NIPSCO mobile apps. They're an important step forward in building our connected digital customer experience. Let's now turn to our electric operations on slide 10. NIPSCO's electric TDSIC plan is pending before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission or IURC. This is a 5-year, $1.6 billion proposal that would replace the previous plan, which NIPSCO filed in April to terminate. The pending plan includes newly identified projects aimed at enhancing service and reliability for customers, as well as some previously identified projects.
The other items on this slide relate to our renewable generation strategy, and I'll turn it over to Shawn Anderson to give more detail.
Thank you, Joe. The selection of the preferred path from NIPSCO's 2021 IRP is a significant milestone in our transition from coal-fired generation toward cleaner and reliable forms of generation, all of which are expected to save NIPSCO customers approximately $4 billion over the long term. The preferred path from the 2021 IRP refines the timeline to retire coal-fired generation at the Michigan City Generating Station to between 2026 and 2028. It also calls for retirement of two vintage gas peaking units, 16A and 16B, which are both located at the Schaefer Generating Station site. The most viable replacement option calls for a portfolio of resources, including incremental solar, stand-alone battery storage, and natural gas peaking resources.
We estimate that investments of up to $750 million will be required to support the retirement of these units. We expect to be able to quantify the NIPSCO portion of this investment opportunity in the first half of next year after further evaluating bids and the request for proposals and completing due diligence on projects which align with the preferred path. Meanwhile, we continue to execute on the plan for retirement of remaining coal-fired generation at Schaefer. Units 14 and 15 retired as of October 1, and units 17 and 18 are on track to retire by 2023. We are making steady progress on the renewables project build-out informed by the preferred path from NIPSCO's 2018 IRP.
Our partners on these projects are some of the strongest developers in the renewable energy space, and we remain in close contact regarding the progress of these projects. We continue to expect to invest approximately $2 billion in renewable generation by 2023 to replace the retiring capacity at Schaefer. As part of the execution of this plan, construction continues on the Indiana Crossroads One wind project, which is on track to become operational in the fourth quarter of this year. Construction has also started on a pair of solar projects. Dunns Bridge Solar One is being constructed by a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources under a build transfer agreement. EDP Renewables North America is building the Indiana Crossroads Solar Project, which will be operated as a joint venture. Both are expected to enter service next year.
The IURC provided regulatory approval of the Indiana Crossroads Two wind project on September first. With that action, all Schaefer Generating Station have now received approval. In addition to the slate of renewables projects we have announced, NiSource plans to evaluate technologies. It's important for us to gain a risk-informed understanding of the options and technologies that may emerge as pathways toward further decarbonization. To Donald, who will discuss our third quarter financial performance.
Thanks, Shawn. Good morning, everyone. Before getting into the specific results, I'd just like to highlight the solid execution and progress that now has a range of $1.32-$1.36. This new 2021 expectation also serves as the starting point for both our near-term and long-term growth commitments. We have also initiated 2022 guidance of $1.42-$1.48, which at its midpoint represents a growth rate of over 6.6% from the 2021 top end. Turning to our third quarter 2021 results on slide four, we had non-GAAP net operating earnings of about $47 million or $0.11 per diluted share, compared to non-GAAP net operating earnings of about $36 million or $0.09 per diluted share in the third quarter of 2020. The 2021 results reflect our ongoing execution of infrastructure investments, offset somewhat by the sale of Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, which closed in October 2020.
Looking more closely at our segment, 3-month non-GAAP results on slide five, Gas Distribution operating earnings were about $18 million for the quarter, representing an increase of approximately $8 million versus last year. Operating revenues, net of the cost of energy and tracked expenses, were down nearly $18 million due to the sale of CMA. Operating expenses, also net of the cost of energy and tracked expenses, were lower by about $26 million, mostly due to the CMA sale, offset slightly by higher employee-related costs and outside services spending. In our Electric segment, 3-month non-GAAP operating earnings were about $130 million, which was nearly $3 million lower than the third quarter of 2020.
Net of the cost of energy and tracked expenses, operating revenues decreased slightly by about $2 million due to slightly lower residential usage, offset by increased TDSIC revenues. Operating expenses, net of the cost of energy and tracked expenses, were nearly flat compared to 2020. Now, turning to slide six, I'd like to briefly touch on our debt and credit profile. Our debt level as of June 30 was about $9.6 billion, of which about $9.2 billion was long-term debt. The weighted average maturity on our long-term debt was approximately 14 years, and the weighted average interest rate was approximately 3.7%. At the end of the third quarter, we maintained net available liquidity of about $1.7 billion, consisting of cash and available capacity under our credit facility and other accounts receivable securitization programs.
As we noted last quarter, all three major rating agencies have reaffirmed our investment-grade credit ratings with stable outlooks in 2021. Taken together, this represents a solid financial foundation to continue the support for our long-term safety and infrastructure investments. As you can see on slide seven, we've narrowed our 2021 capital investment estimate to approximately $2 billion and reiterated our 2022 capital forecast of $2.4-$2.5 billion. Our financing plan. There are no changes to our plan since April's equity unit issuance. I would highlight that this balanced financing plan continues to be consistent with all of our earnings growth and credit commitments. As I mentioned earlier, we have updated our 2021 earnings guidance, issued guidance for 2022, and reaffirmed our long-term growth commitments.
I would also remind everyone that we're planning to provide an extension to our growth plan at an investor day during the first half of next year. Please stay tuned. Thank you all for participating today and for your ongoing interest in and support of NiSource. We're ready now to take your questions.
Thank you. At this time, I would like to remind everyone in order to ask a question, press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. Your first question comes from Richard Sunderland from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Curious if you could outline the guardrails on the potential investment in any gaining items here as you progress to the update in the first half of next year. You're just in terms of the high, low, and where that could realistically fall in the $7 million-$10 million.
Yeah, thanks for that question. Good morning, this is Shawn. Ultimately, as you can imagine, the way we believe will provide the capacity. We need to step through the due diligence now to better understand those projects, and that will inform in some way, shape, or form the specifics of the range. Certainly the selection of technology, the actual projects themselves, how efficient they can be constructed, those aspects for it. I'd also note that the MISO Resource Adequacy Rules, certainly as those finalize, could come into play a bit as well, although we think that we've modeled those out, and incorporated that in the indicative pathway.
Yeah. Thanks, Shawn. Rich, let me just discuss these assets as we step through this next progression. The case and a value proposition for doing our guardrails, as you said, do include the MISO seasonal capacity factor.
Ultimate requirements and the evaluation of the proposals that's still underway, but also the federal policy landscape that is a bit unpredictable right now. That could shape timing and mix of investments as well. You know, we look forward to being able to work through that in the next quarter or two.
Thanks for the color there. Maybe just following up on the federal aspect a bit more in terms of, you know, what could specifically impact the 2021 IRP considerations, or maybe even more broadly, whether it's your financing plan, how could something like direct pay change those plans now?
I can take the direct pay question. Certainly think that provides some additional flexibility in how we finance our renewable investments. Certainly positive if it allows for external financing needs in terms of tax equity. But certainly need to understand how direct pay would be treated by our six jurisdictions from a rate base and deferred tax standpoint.
I'd just add on as it relates to how federal policy could shape the technology cost, we certainly can't speculate to that. The 750 is a derivative of what we saw come through the RFP in May related to the capacity and the technology required to meet that capacity. To the extent that the marketplace changes that efficiency, it again could get you back into a different selection of technology to comprise the capacity necessary. You'd have to see how that federal policy landscape would impact that marketplace versus the due diligence which we're performing on actionable projects that came through the RFP that we expect to be able to execute against.
Understood. Thank you for the time here. Thanks.
Thanks, Rich.
Your next question comes from Insoo Kim from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Yeah, thank you. My first question is just going back to the IRP. That $750 million potential, is that the total opportunity set, whether it's PPA or owned, or does it contemplate some percentage of ownership there? A follow-up to that is, if we're taking the more accelerated retirement options and, you know, the 2026 retirements, you know, how much of that potential investment could come in the 2025 time period?
The amount of investment expected to be able to functionally deliver the capacity once the capacity gap is created through the retirement of Michigan City and Schaefer's units A and B. It'd be everything included, also inclusive of the transmission that we anticipate necessary to construct to enable that to occur. In terms of timing, there is some flexibility because these projects in some ways could be a little bit modular in nature. It provides a fair amount of flexibility to optimize that. The transmission work, for example, is going to begin immediately, and it could take up to three years to complete the transmission work necessary to take those units offline. The other resources could be feathered in, likely starting in that 2024 time horizon.
We'll know a lot more through the first half of 2022 after we've gone through the due diligence process and started to select the exact projects that we think can deliver that capacity.
Got it. That's good color. My second question is on the dividend policy. You know, I think over the past or this time around and then the past couple of years, I think the growth in the dividend has been a little bit more modest versus history. As we get back into this, you know, more robust EPS growth cycle, you know, and I think you had a 60%-70% payout ratio target as of the last disclosure. How should we think about, you know, some of the future dividend growth trends that we could see over the next few years?
At this point. We will revisit our dividend in January, as we normally do with the board. When you look at our long-term plan and the 7%-9% EPS CAGR that we've indicated, you certainly would expect to see growth in that range. I'm saying growth along annually, because of the earnings growth in that range, 60%-70%. Again, we'll provide an update in January.
Got it. Thank you so much.
Your next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Hey, good morning. This is actually Kody Clark on for Julien. Thanks for taking my questions.
Good morning, Kody.
First, kind of a housekeeping item, and just to clarify, if I'm thinking about 2023 EPS, what base should I be using for the 5%-7% growth? Is it the top end of 2021 or the midpoint of the new 2022 guidance?
I would use the top end of 21 as the guidance going forward for 2022 and for our long-term 7%-9% EPS CAGR.
On the CapEx side of the IRP would be the breakdown of ownership versus PPA, and I certainly understand the bias to own here. Wondering if you can talk about the resources. Have you had any conversations here, or how do you think that's going to shake out?
Thanks for that question. We have not had any discussions regarding ownership percentages. We've just focused on the tranche of technology delivered to deliver the capacity the way we expect to transpire. We would need to complete the full due diligence necessary on the projects themselves to better understand that ownership percentage. Although I'd note that certain of these asset classes track towards a higher ownership percentage. For example, a Sugar Creek upgrade would make a lot of sense for us to own at our own plant. There is a bias down, and some of these asset classes could track toward that. However, we'd need to complete the full due diligence to have a final point of view, which we expect in the midpoint of next year.
Yeah. Cody, I'd only add to that. I'd note that, you know, key driver is ultimately the cost to customers over the life of the projects. You know, that's probably the first variable we look at for comparability across different ownership structures.
Okay. Looking forward to the first half update then. We've seen some of your peers to highlight kind of the runway for spending. Do you see yourself in a position to be able to provide that level of disclosure when some of these, you know, spending items around generation become a little bit more clear in the first half of next year?
Yeah, absolutely. You know, we are intending to have an analyst day, somewhere in the first half of next year. The goal of that analyst day would be to provide more clarity around the next generation investments to replace the Michigan City, as well as to extend the long-range plan for both our gas and electric businesses.
Got it. That's very helpful. Thanks so much for the time, and looking forward to seeing you all next week.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Travis Miller from Morningstar. Please go ahead.
Good morning, everyone. Thank you.
Hey, good morning, Travis.
Question on the electric side of NIPSCO, back to the IRP. How do you think about the timing and relationship between the IRP, and as you go through the process, RFPs, et cetera, and the T-DISC? Are regulators thinking about these in terms of the need for new transmission and distribution to supply and support the IRP? How does that work?
Yeah. That's a good question, Travis. The TDSIC really operates on kind of the existing transmission assets on maintenance and reliability improvements, not so much new capacity related to new generation or retiring generation. There's not a direct relationship between TDSIC. The pending TDSIC, as you note, doesn't really depend in a meaningful way on the IRP. Typically, the projects we're looking at from the RFP within the Integrated Resource Plan are tied to specific transmission investments that are inside the bids that we solicited. Those really don't cross over in a meaningful way.
We could see more transmission investment as you roll out some of the IRP steps.
That's right. Just like we have in the current cycle wherein the $2 billion includes pretty healthy transmission investment as well.
Okay. Great. On the gas side, what are your latest thoughts on all the discussion about methane emissions? Where does that fit into your CapEx plan as, obviously we've heard domestically and internationally about the methane?
The EPA methane rule is out now. We see clearly opportunities to improve the emissions profile, particularly that's focused on the upstream assets, exploration, production, transmission, storage. A little bit of a light touch on our asset portfolio. But overall, we believe the right way to drive a cleaner profile for the gas business and the gas supply chain. I would go to the other side and say, one of the provisions inside the pending legislation or the proposed legislation is the methane tax, which we think is a bad mechanism that basically just drives cost to customer without having the same effectiveness as the EPA methane rule.
Those two certainly work together, but the methane rule is a better mechanism. You know, that helps to drive sustainability of natural gas and to do that in an affordable way, which we think is the right recipe.
Okay. Is there any upside to the CapEx, gas CapEx if the government, U.S. or even international, were to come down really hard on methane emissions?
Yeah. PHMSA will handle the methane rule for the distribution entity, so it remains to be seen. We have to see how that rule plays out.
Okay. Great. Thanks so much.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from David Peters from Wolfe Research. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hey, good morning, guys.
Good morning, David.
Just [uncertain], could you know, maybe talk about some of the factors that are underlying that better outlook, you know, in the interim and then through 2024? I know you have, you know, a couple bigger rate cases pending. I mean, just wondering how, you know, sensitive the plan is to some of the outcomes there. Just related to that, maybe you could comment where you guys are at in those cases, I guess specifically Ohio.
Yeah, no, thank you for the question. Certainly as we look at our plan, it's really built on the modernization investments that we're making, gives us lots of confidence on our year-to-year earnings guidance. This year is a heavy year from a rate case standpoint, and one other in Maryland we're expecting. Then the Ohio and NIPSCO case that we filed will have significant impacts from Ohio by the middle of next year. Then gives us confidence in our earnings guidance and the strength of our overall growth plan. But that's what continues and really gives us confidence as we think about that 7%-9% EPS growth, which includes the $2 billion of commission this year.
That's the strength of our plan, and that's where really what gives us the confidence of being able to execute on that. Otherwise, it comes down to over a year ago, and our guidance. It really is intended to reduce costs to help offset thinking long term around customer affordability, but also improve the rigor of our processes in customer service to our customers.
Let me pick it up there on the related question around Ohio, the Ohio rate case, Donald touched on. It's a mid-year expectation filing itself with 221 riders. So there's a rider in play there as well. At this time, as we all know, the PUCO has been very busy. As we see the current workload of the commission play out, we'd expect momentum to pick up. No concerns with that. We're early in the schedule overall. That said, given that we're early and not a lot of recovery activities have been heavy so far, this being the first base case since 2008 for Columbia Gas of Ohio, so no surprise there.
We believe that parties to the case recognize the long duration between the cases and our strong investment history and commitment to the state across, you know, a range of different activities, including economic development. We remain confident in the mid-2022 resolutions, and that's all baked into our outlook for next year.
No, great. Thank you. I appreciate all the detail. I just had one follow-up just on the financing plan and around kind of some of the things being proposed in Washington. Just, you know, several of your peers have talked about how meaningful direct pay could be in helping fund future renewable investments and, you know, lowering equity needs. So, you know, some of the funding for that. But just in the RFP, the $750 million you've outlined, you know, I think historically you've said equity content for new generation investments. Would we, you know, effectively expect that to be materially reduced with the direct pay option?
Yeah. Let me address the equity content first. We think for the future investments, the $750 million potential investment that we've got, we would not need the same level of equity content. Our balance sheet is going to be in much stronger position by the end of 2023. Certainly, regulatory capital structure of 50/50. Having said that, direct pay does provide some flexibility and potentially reducing the need for external financing or reducing equity needs. We do see it as a positive, but we've got to get more detail and really to understand how that would impact rate bases and deferred taxes to see what the true impact would be to our financing plan.
Okay, great. Thank you, guys.
Thanks, David.
Your next question comes from Shahriar Pourreza from Guggenheim. Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. It's James Moore here on for Shar. How are you doing?
Good morning, James. It's James.
Hey. I was just curious with the IRP, if it's taking into account cost inflation for renewables, when determining what the actual project cost will be and, if the submitting parties are going to be held to a fixed cost or if there's any allowance for cost inflation. I have a second question on the gas side.
Thanks, James. I'll take that. So the estimate that we shared derives from the RFP process, which was for actionable projects towards the mid part of this decade, which align with the contemplated retirement of 16 AB and in Michigan City. We have asked for a period of time for us to evaluate those projects. When we go to the RFP marketplace, we ask for the opportunity to evaluate those for a period of time, as you can imagine. We are still within that window, so we would be able to execute against those bids for those proposals still into 2022, and then continue through the refinement and due diligence process thereafter.
Right. Once the winners have been decided, just wanted to clarify if there's any potential for pass-through for higher commodity costs, higher other input costs, anything that could delays on components, et cetera, or if the winners end up being.
Yeah.
Just curious if that's decided yet?
It's not decided yet. Generally speaking.
Okay.
You'd think about it as a fixed cost. That would then relate to that project, and that project is still executable through a window of time that it's been bid. That's really through 2024, 2025, maybe 2026. Costs related to that project associated with that technology to the extent that that bid is executed within this due diligence process. You might understand on the total investment side, most notably transmission buildout.
Got it. Thank you. Some questions on the number of times you're seeing in excess 10% rate base. First, how long should we think of that level of growth as being sustainable?
Yeah. I'll take the sort of the long view side of that question. If you look at the $40 billion of identified investments that we rolled out on Investor Day just a little over a year ago, you know, that's really predominantly on the kinds of investments that are already in flight in the gas business in particular. Electric's a little different with the transition from coal to renewables and clean energy. Those are typically long-dated programs. If you look at the underlying regulatory plan in NIPSCO, there's almost $1 billion of identified investment approved in the gas TDSIC plan that's multiyear beyond our 2024 guidance horizon. SAVE operates that way in Virginia. You know, the Gas SAVE program. These are annualized program.
Programs with trackers that support them that run beyond our current 2024 long-term guidance horizon. I'm not gonna guide to a specific point in time where 10% rate-based growth is predictable. That's the kind of update we'll give on Analyst Day next year. The core point here is the underlying.
Perfect. That's what I was hoping you'd say and was expecting there. That leads into the second part of the question. Given the recent attractive valuation data points that we've been seeing for where the gas assets have been transacting at, how do you think strategically about your 10% plus rate base growers with this long-term horizon and the potential?
Much the same long-term strategic orientation. When we look at a portfolio of companies that have that kind of fundamental growth opportunity, that we see as long-dated and constructive jurisdictions that's well supported, any rotation would have to be accretive to a plan that reflects that kind of growth engine built in across really literally each and every company that we operate has that same profile right now. So it's first and foremost. That said, we're very open-minded, very analytical about that, very objective, and work very closely with our board to continuously assess that opportunity. As it comes to capital rotation and alternative forms of financing, let me ask Donald to touch on that side of the question.
Yeah, it's a good question, and certainly one we've gotten in the past. You know, we'll continue to evaluate all forms of financing to finance our growth programs and our growth plan. It is a strategic question, and we certainly want to think about how we enhance that plan long term. Certainly as we think about that next level of generation investments here, we'll evaluate that as well to see what makes the best.
very much for the color and for taking my question.
Yep. Thanks, James.
There are no further question at this time. I will turn the call back over to the presenters for closing remarks.
Hey, thanks, Julie, and thank you. A few of the key takeaways from our release today. We are targeting the top end of our guidance range for 2021, and $1.42-$1.48. That's diluted net operating earnings per share. Our long-term growth commitments have been reaffirmed. Our plan for NIPSCO's IRP now advances our plans to retire all coal-fired generation. NIPSCO's portion of those investments needed to replace in the coming months with an expectation to roll out more clarity and precision on that at an Investor Day to be held in the latter part of the first half of next year. Our progress on the gas rate cases continues. We've got settlements on the table or orders awaited in three states and filing of a new case in Indiana along with the Ohio case that's pending.
Finally, we again look forward to the steps between now and an Investor Day at the end of the year, a key opportunity for us to extend this long-term growth trajectory. We do appreciate you today for all of you, so please stay safe and have a good day. Thank you.
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.