NET Power Inc. Q4 FY2025 Earnings Call

Greetings, and welcome to NET Power, Inc. Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Bryce Mendes, Director, Investor Relations. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to NET Power's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Conference Call. With me on the call today, we have our Chief Executive Officer, Danny Rice; and our President and Chief Operating Officer, Marc Horstman. Yesterday, we issued our earnings release for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2025, along with an updated investor presentation. Both are available on our Investor Relations website at ir.netpower.com. During today's call, our remarks will include forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those stated or implied by forward-looking statements due to risks and uncertainties associated with our business, which are discussed in our SEC filings. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. With that, I'll turn the call over to Danny Rice, NET Power's Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks, Bryce, and thanks, everyone, for joining us this morning. Marc and I are glad to be here, and we have quite a bit of ground to cover. So I'd ask you to pull up the investor presentation and follow along as we walk through it. After our prepared remarks, we'll open the line for questions. So let's start on Slide 3, and I want to set the stage with a bit of framing before we get into the specifics. When we look at the executive summary on Slide 3, what you're seeing is a company that made a decisive strategic call at the end of last year and is now executing against it. We pivoted away from oxy-combustion as our primary near-term commercial vehicle, and we did so deliberately. Oxy-combustion is a remarkable technology, and we're preserving that work carefully. Meanwhile, there's a pathway to the same destination, natural gas power with greater than 90% carbon capture that can be executed with equipment that exists today on a timeline that matches the urgency of the market. That path is a combined cycle gas turbine paired with post-combustion carbon capture, GT plus PCC. Proven turbines, proven solvent-based capture technology and with the right partner, Entropy, the integration of these two proven systems into a single bankable project is now within reach. So this is not a retreat from our mission. NET Power's mission has always been to transform natural gas into the lowest-cost form of clean firm power. That mission is unchanged. What changed is we found a more direct route to get there in the intellectual honesty required by us to take it. Now let me turn to Slide 4, which covers the macro backdrop because I think this context is essential to understanding why we believe the timing of this decision is exactly right. We're in the early innings of what may be the most significant build-out of power generation infrastructure in American history. AI data centers are the proximate cause, but it's bigger than that. You have AI-driven hyperscale compute demand. You have industrial re-onshoring. You have electrification of transportation and industry. All of this converging simultaneously on a grid that hasn't had meaningful baseload capacity in decades. In ERCOT, the Texas grid, it's ground zero for this collision. The load growth being projected in West Texas alone over the next 5 to 10 years is staggering. It's not a theoretical forecast. You can see it in the permitting activity, in the interconnection queues and in the conversations we're having. And what every one of those conversations comes back to is the same thing: speed and reliability. Power buyers are not sitting around waiting for the perfect clean solution. They are racing to secure any electrons they can trust to show up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. What we're seeing is a pragmatic reordering of priorities. Environmental idealism hasn't gone away, but it's being subordinated to an immediate physical reality. You cannot run a hyperscale data center on intermittent power. You cannot build a $10 billion compute campus and hope the wind is blowing or that new nuclear can be built at a price never achieved before and certainly not in this hyperinflationary cost environment for new infrastructure. But natural gas is different. The U.S. has among the lowest-cost natural gas reserves on earth. Fifty-plus years of supply in proven basins from Appalachia to West Texas. The honest question is whether we can advance technology that reduces the environmental impact of natural gas combustion because natural gas is what we have and is what we need right now. That's where we live. If there was any doubt about how central domestic oil and natural gas are to this country's economic security and physical safety, the last three months have been about as clear a reminder as you could ask for. We just came through one of the harshest winters on record, and the U.S. kept the lights on without missing a beat, not because of solar, not because of wind, but because we have an abundant, reliable supply of natural gas and the generation infrastructure to dispatch it on demand. At the same time, we are actively engaged militarily and diplomatically to ensure that global oil supply chains remain in reliable hands because the world does run on oil and the U.S. understands the consequences of that supply falling under the control of adversarial actors. These are not abstract geopolitical concerns. They are a direct expression of how important domestically produced fossil fuels remain to our national security and economic prosperity. And they reinforce in the starkest possible terms why the answer to our energy challenge is not to wish away natural gas or oil, but to figure out how to produce more of it domestically and use it more responsibly and more cleanly. That is what we are doing. The good news is that the policy environment is beginning to confirm this view. The 45Q tax credit now provides parity between CO2 sequestration and CO2 utilization for enhanced oil recovery, and that's significant for us. EOR or enhanced oil recovery is the process by which captured CO2 is injected into oil formations to recover additional oil. Beyond the incremental production benefit, the CO2 stays underground permanently. You get a direct economic credit for the carbon capture. It supports domestic oil production and U.S. energy security, and it enables a meaningful reduction in the cost of clean power. In West Texas, where we have both the Permian Basin's vast oil formations and abundant low-cost gas, EOR is what makes the economics of our first project genuinely compelling. It's not a workaround. It's an integral part of the value chain. The bottom line in the macro is this. The need for clean firm baseload power has never been greater. The policy support for CCS has never been stronger and the geography we're developing in West Texas is exactly where load growth and energy resources are converging the fastest. We believe NET Power is in the right place with the right solution at the right time. So with that, let me turn it over to Marc to walk you through what we've been building.

Thanks, Danny. Good morning, everyone. I'm going to take you through the business progress across three areas: the status of our product development, where we stand on Project Permian and how our commercial pipeline is developing. So let's start with Slide 5. The foundation of everything we're building is the integrated Clean Power product: two Siemens SGT-A35 gas turbines prepackaged by Relevant Power Solutions paired with Entropy's post-combustion capture system designed for greater than 90% CO2 capture. Our integrated clean power product represents something the market hasn't seen before, a fully pre-engineered power plant that combines a natural gas combined cycle with post-combustion carbon capture into a single standardized design. By working directly with Entropy, WSP, and our OEM partners to deliver modular pre-engineered components, we will have systematically reduced the execution risk that has historically plagued first-of-kind projects. The plant is entirely air cooled, eliminating water dependency, which dramatically expands the addressable geography and significantly relaxes a traditional siting constraint. Because our product is built on commercially proven technology configured to a repeatable standard, we enter Project Permian with high confidence in performance, reliability and availability. And with each deployment, our design matures, our procurement leverage grows and our cost curve improves. We're not building one plant; we're building a product. This is the product that will be deployed at our first project called Project Permian in West Texas. We passed our conceptual design review, CDR, and we're now working with WSP Engineering to advance the detailed design. Major equipment packages are progressing as well. We have the two modular gas turbine packages on order. Delivery is targeted for early 2028, and we're working through the commercial selection and structure of our EPC. The product design CDR milestone is a meaningful de-risking event because it confirms that the integrated system can be engineered to specification and that our cost assumptions are grounded in real engineering, not just estimates. On the Entropy partnership, this is a critical work stream. Entropy is a global leader in solvent-based post-combustion carbon capture. Their technology has been deployed commercially in Canada at their Glacier facility, and we expect the Glacier Phase 2 commissioning this summer to provide real-world validation data for the performance assumptions underlying our clean power product. We are in the final stages of completing our joint development agreement with Entropy. We expect to finalize definitive agreements in Q2. Upon signing, NET Power will make a strategic equity investment in Entropy, and we will structure a joint venture for Project Permian with Entropy as a co-investor. Securing Entropy as an equity partner, not just a technology licensor, is an important structural element of how we design this partnership because it aligns their incentives and performance directly with ours. I also want to spend a moment on product economics because this is an area where I think the market may still be underappreciating what we put together. When you benchmark our integrated GT plus PCC solution in West Texas against every other clean firm power alternative—nuclear, geothermal, solar plus storage—our product is cost competitive across a wide range of capital cost and gas price assumptions. That's not a promotional statement. It's the output of rigorous independent benchmarking we've done. With West Texas gas prices and utilizing the 45Q EOR credit pathway, the LCOE of this plant is in a range that makes sense for power buyers and delivers returns that make sense for equity investors. On that note, I want to flag an important upgrade to the plant design that occurred through fourth quarter. When we last spoke with you in November, the plant was configured for approximately 60 megawatts of net electrical output. Through our design efforts and product engineering with Entropy, we restructured the configuration and now have approximately 80 megawatts of net electrical output, a roughly 33% increase in generation capacity from the same site footprint and roughly the same capital envelope. Equally important, the redesign also reduced performance risk on the carbon capture side. We now have higher confidence in the capture rate assumptions underlying the project economics. That's a meaningful step forward on both the revenue side and the risk profile of the project. Turning to Slide 6 and the path to our financial investment decision, our FID target is the second half of 2026 with a targeted commercial operations date of early 2029. If we hit that date, Project Permian will be the first commercial natural gas plus CCUS project in the United States. That's a milestone that the industry and our customers will notice. To get to FID, there are four major work streams running in parallel right now. First, product and project engineering. We need to advance the detailed design to a point where we can execute our EPC contract and provide lenders with an independent engineering report they can stand behind. Second, long-lead equipment commitments. There are line items that require commitments well before FID in order to protect the COD timeline. We're targeting approximately $50 million in pre-FID long lead commitments by midyear, and we'll be coming back to update you on that as the year progresses. Third, project financing. We are in the process of selecting a financial adviser to run the project finance process, and we have engaged with prospective lenders and co-equity investors. The project economics are strong, and we believe Project Permian is financeable. The project is designed to meet the return thresholds required by institutional infrastructure investors. Fourth, offtake, which I'll cover on the next slide. And it is important to note site control is in place. We have an executed ground lease with Oxy. Grid interconnection is progressing with Oncor with a targeted interconnection date of 4Q 2028. The basic project infrastructure is established. Turning to Slide 7, the commercial picture. Securing offtake is the most important thing we'll do this year. Let me give you a sense of where we stand. Our most advanced discussion is with Oxy, our site landlord and a natural commercial partner. Oxy takes the CO2 offtake for enhanced oil recovery. That's the core of the EOR economics Danny described. And we are in active negotiation on the power purchase structure as well. Beyond Oxy, we have a growing pipeline of prospective offtake relationships across industrial, utility and data center verticals. There are discussions progressing with a hyperscale data center developer in West Texas for a potential behind-the-meter arrangement that could be significantly larger than Permian Phase 1 on the order of 300 megawatts. The breadth of this pipeline validates the thesis that our market for clean firm dispatchable power is real and growing. The conversations we're having today are categorically different from the conversations we were having even a year ago. Customers are not asking us whether they need clean baseload power, they're asking us how fast we can deliver it. Our goal for this year is to have a signed offtake agreement or MOU at pricing at or above $100 per megawatt hour, which is the level that supports project bankability and delivers returns we believe are appropriate for the risk profile of a first-of-a-kind project. We're working hard to get there, and we expect to be able to share more on this front in coming quarters. Before I hand it back to Danny, I want to make one more point that I think is important context for how we've been thinking about the longer-term value of this site. Permian Phase 1 is an 80-megawatt project, but this is not an 80-megawatt site. This location with its land, its gas access, its CO2 offtake infrastructure with Oxy and its interconnection has the capacity to support a much larger power complex. We believe this single site can scale to approximately 800 megawatts as we replicate and expand the plant configuration. That means the infrastructure we're building, the relationships we're establishing and the operational knowledge we're accumulating with Permian Phase 1 are not just the foundation for one project. They're the foundation for what could become one of the largest clean firm power campuses in the country. That scale potential is a meaningful part of how prospective customers and co-investors are evaluating this opportunity. Danny will say more about it. I'll hand it back to Danny.

Thanks, Marc. I want to cover two things before we open for questions. First is our financial position and second is how we're thinking about the financing of Project Permian, and then we'll close with a few broader thoughts. We ended the fourth quarter with approximately $379 million in cash, cash equivalents and investments, which came in above our internal targets for the quarter. I think that really reflects the disciplined capital management through the transition. We wound down work streams that were no longer core. We right-sized our cost structure, and we kept our powder dry. So we have the financial runway to execute the Permian Phase 1 FID process deliberately, and that matters when you're making a first-of-its-kind investment decision. On project financing, I want to give investors a clear picture of how we're thinking about this because it's an important dimension of the Project Permian story. There are essentially three ways to fund a project like this. The first is 100% equity, which is we and our co-investors write the full check, no external debt. It's simple, but very capital intensive. The second option is equipment financing. A meaningful portion of this plant's components, particularly the power island—the gas turbines, the HRSG, the steam turbine, the electric equipment—are proven commercially marketable assets that lenders understand well. You can finance against them much like you'd finance a fleet of industrial equipment without requiring a full project finance structure. That gets the equity requirement down to roughly $0.75 to $0.80 on the dollar. The third path is full project financing, nonrecourse debt secured against the project's long-term contracted cash flows. And that's really what we're pursuing. If done right, project financing gets the equity requirement down to roughly $0.25 to $0.35 on the dollar. The difference in capital efficiency between option one, 100% equity financed, and option three, project finance, is enormous. And it's the difference between Project Permian Phase 1 being a use of our balance sheet and being the launch of a capital-efficient, scalable platform. Now I'll be direct about where the work is. Post-combustion carbon capture at this scale on a U.S. natural gas power project is new. PCC is a bit like the Loch Ness Monster. Everyone has heard about it, but project finance lenders haven't seen it operating at scale in the U.S. power sector before. Entropy has been doing this commercially in Canada for years, so the technology itself is not speculative. But getting infrastructure lenders fully comfortable with PCC performance assumptions requires education, it requires data and it requires some handholding. So that's part of the work ahead of us. And it's precisely why the Glacier Phase 2 commissioning that Entropy is doing this summer matters so much. Real operating data from a live commercial plant accelerates that conversation dramatically. The other piece that unlocks project financing is strong offtake. Creditworthy long-term power purchase agreements are what give lenders the cash flow certainty to underwrite the debt, which is why, as Marc said, signing offtake is our single highest priority for the year. Marc's point about scale is worth reinforcing because it directly informs the financing strategy. When a prospective lender or equity partner looks at Project Permian Phase 1 as the anchor of a 500 to 800-megawatt campus, they're not just evaluating a small first-of-its-kind project, they're evaluating the first chapter of a major clean power platform in the fastest-growing power market in the U.S. That framing changes the risk/reward conversation meaningfully. Every major data center developer we speak to is thinking in terms of gigawatts, not megawatts. The fact that we have a site that can grow into that demand with established infrastructure and a proven operational model is genuinely differentiating. So to close, the mission is clear, the strategy is decided and the execution is underway. This year's milestones—the Entropy JDA, long-lead equipment commitments, signed offtake and project financing—are what stands between us and FID. We're working every one of those work streams with urgency. We look forward to updating you on our progress in the quarters ahead. So with that, let's open the line for questions. Turn it over to the operator.

Our first question is coming from Martin Malloy of Johnson Rice.

Just on the pricing on the offtake, I think you mentioned $100 a megawatt hour. Can you maybe give us some perspective for out in that area, what the competitive landscape looks like?

Martin, it's Danny. If you look at what's transpired over the last few years, we've certainly seen prices start to move up, not just on the merchant side of ERCOT. If you go back a couple of years and you look at the forward curve for '28, '29, '30, that strip was at $40 to $45 per megawatt hour. If you look at the curve now, you're talking about $65 to $70. This is just merchant unabated power from the grid. So you've seen almost an 80% increase in wholesale power prices in West Texas towards the end of this decade, which is when this plant is going to come online. That's what's actually there on the commercial merchant side. Where things are really interesting is contracted capacity for firm delivery. We're hearing chatter of those conversations north of $100 per megawatt hour if you're trying to get new capacity online before the end of this decade. That reflects the importance of reliability, speed and scale. What we haven't seen is what people are willing to pay if it's fast, scalable, reliable and lower carbon intensity. That market hasn't yet been established. We aim to be the first solution that establishes what that market is. Compared to where we were on the oxy-combustion pathway, which needed a power price well north of $130 to $150 per megawatt hour to pencil out, we don't need that price point with this clean gas solution with Entropy. We expect to be in a price range that is compelling for counterparties and that pencils out on project economics for us, both on the equity side and for project finance on the debt side.

Okay. That's helpful. And then for my follow-up question, I just wanted to ask about the potential for government support on the financing side. Anything to maybe mention there regarding the DOE?

I won't get into specifics, but if you look at what this administration is pushing for, it's shoring up domestic energy supply across the board. Solutions that align with the administration's priorities—utilizing domestic energy supply, unlocking new domestic energy supply, firming the grid, bringing down grid prices and doing so responsibly for the environment—are highly supportive. This solution uses domestic natural gas to firm up the grid in a scalable way that supports the AI build-out and boosts domestic oil production. There are very few solutions attempting to accomplish that combination. We think it aligns with what the administration wants to see succeed. That means potential governmental support could be both verbal and financial, whether via grants or loans. It's a pathway we'll pursue because this solution comprehensively aligns with the administration's energy objectives.

Our next question is coming from Wade Suki of Capital One.

Just to expand a little bit on Marty's question on Project Permian. Could you give us an updated sense for project costs, total project costs there?

We can give some rough numbers on what we're seeing right now. Wade, I'll turn it over to Marc to give you his approach to it.

A little background: in the last couple of months we've moved through the conceptual design of the product. As we continue to work with Entropy, EPCs and major OEM vendors, we've been able to spec out and understand the overall plant design. Many factors go into the TIC and into the competitiveness of the LCOE. Having passed conceptual design, we're sitting in a range of approximately $475 to $575 million in total installed cost. That range supports the economics we discussed in the presentation today. As we advance through the design ahead of FID, we'll get a firmer view on cost. We're in a good position because we've secured the gas turbines and the gas turbine packages, and we look to begin to secure other long-lead equipment this summer, even in advance of FID.

To add to that on the CapEx piece: the CapEx is a bit higher than what we were projecting before. Some of that is inflationary; some is design changes. Marc mentioned we increased capacity from 60 megawatts to 80 megawatts, so there's CapEx associated with that, but the intent is to drive down the LCOE. When you look at things on an LCOE basis, they're still in the same range. More importantly, how CapEx translates into equity needs of the project is where the rubber meets the road. If you're in that $550 million range and secure the project on offtake, we should be able to secure project financing at roughly 65% debt. That would be around $350 million of debt and leave roughly $200 million of equity. Assuming Entropy and Brookfield participate alongside us for their equity share, our equity share for the first project would be around $100 to $105 million. We have the capital on the balance sheet to fund that. But again, it requires the PPA and project financing to come into place.

That's really helpful. The second question: is there any update on the MISO project or even beyond MISO? Or are you just focused on Project Permian for now?

We have our blinders on West Texas for now, focusing on that first site. The first phase is the 80-megawatt project Marc described. That site can accommodate 800 megawatts. West Texas is where we can generate the lowest cost clean firm power, more so than MISO. We still have optionality around the MISO site, but we pulled out of the MISO queue late last year because interconnection costs made it uneconomic. We prefer to reallocate that capital to West Texas where we see better opportunities. The focus for the foreseeable future will be on West Texas, driven by economics and opportunity.

The next question is coming from Noel Parks of Tuohy Brothers.

One thing I was interested in was you've been talking with these different potential customers around offtake. I'm wondering if you could characterize the parties you're talking with and why they are particularly interested in the NET Power solution as opposed to other often gas-related generation options they might have.

Noel, I'll take a first crack and Marc can add color. If you step back a few years, many thought we didn't need new natural gas generation—that we'd go to nuclear, renewables, storage. NET Power's mission has always been that the best way to decarbonize is to capture CO2, not to abandon natural gas. Today, it's accepted that we need new natural gas generation to meet load growth. There's some reluctance to embrace natural gas, but if you don't, you won't win the AI race or meet the load demands. Customers see natural gas as the most reliable, scalable, affordable source for power generation. The question is how to introduce decarbonizing solutions that don't compromise speed to power, affordability or reliability. That's the opportunity we address. Entropy is one of the few proven PCC solutions operating commercially. Pair that with available gas turbines and we can deliver the same speed you'd expect from an unabated gas plant, but with 90% carbon capture, which dramatically reduces emissions. In West Texas, with our partnership with Oxy for EOR, this setup is compelling. It isn't a one-off project; it can be the cornerstone for many gigawatts of clean gas power installed in West Texas over the next 5 to 7 years. So speed, scale and reliability, combined with the clean component, are why customers are interested.

Related to that, some vendors have talked about contract terms for data center or hyperscaler customers—timeliness and price are top of mind, but there's also consideration of eventual interconnection to the grid. If an interconnection becomes available five years down the road, customers are thinking about how to integrate into the grid then. Has that come up in your discussions?

Yes. Many of these large campuses need extremely high reliability—three-nines or five-nines. The grid can provide that, which is why customers want grid power. Well-designed behind-the-meter solutions can achieve high reliability as well, but you can't do it with a single large frame turbine; you need to fill in the holes. Our design is compatible with both applications: we can put power onto the grid via a PPA or do a behind-the-meter solution, which is often the fastest go-to-market for customers who want to avoid the interconnect. Marc can discuss the behind-the-meter configuration in more detail.

Our product design philosophy guided our equipment selection. We selected reliable gas turbines that can load-follow and paired them with proven PCC technology. That allows us to meet speed-to-power and deliver clean power within the timeframes customers need. The product size—an 80 to 90-megawatt block—is attractive to data center customers and matches their phased growth. This allows them to phase construction and, if a grid connection becomes available later, our solution can provide firming power or load following alongside intermittent renewables on the grid. We believe we have the right mix to address current demand and supply the firming service needed by the grid based on the project location.

Our next question is coming from Wei Jiang of Barclays.

First, on the offtake conversations, given it's so important: Marc, you characterized the conversations as very different now than a year ago. Can you give more color on what specifically hyperscalers are looking for? What's perhaps holding them back? Is it confidence in the technology, scalability, timing? What do you need to address in the coming months to get them comfortable?

Wei, it's many of the points you mentioned. From a practical standpoint, bringing projects together is complex. NET Power is in a unique position given our land relationships and the work we've done on the site, which helps bring solutions together. The fact that our technology is existing, proven technology that meets speed-to-power demand makes this viable. Being in West Texas means access to abundant, competitively priced gas, which helps the economics and the clean power story. As we continue to work with hyperscalers, the product size, the ability to match data center growth and the use of EOR for CO2 are all reshaping the conversation. Our solution fits into the narrative of shoring up U.S. grid capacity while enabling clean power that very few others can provide.

On Slide 7, the different phases—does that refer to a single project? Is that an extension of Project Permian?

Yes. The top row is Project Permian Phase 1, the first-of-kind proof of concept. Subsequent deployments can be sized to fit offtakers' needs—whether that means 320 megawatts in deployment 2 or 3, we would size accordingly. The product is gas turbine agnostic, giving us flexibility to select turbines that are available to meet timelines.

One more on financing: you mentioned a target around 65% debt. Earlier commentary noted a best-case equity requirement closer to 25% to 35%. What derisks that equity need, and what could push the equity component lower?

We are targeting roughly 65% debt and 35% equity. On a $550 million headline CapEx, that implies about $100 million of equity to NET Power for our share after partners participate. If you secure a very strong PPA and achieve a higher debt service coverage ratio, you could reduce the equity requirement further. We're targeting 65% debt as a middle-of-the-fairway figure to be conservative while pursuing favorable project finance terms.

Our next question is coming from Nate Pendleton of Texas Capital Bank.

For Marc, going back to Slide 7 on larger deployments: when designing these modular plants, can you talk about potential cost reductions in larger deployments? Would savings be primarily on the site front end, or could there be material reductions from integration between modules?

It's both. Designing and developing a product allows minimal engineering for follow-on units—reduced engineering costs because you're redeploying the same product. As you deploy more of the same product, your supply chain leverage increases and field productivity improves. The EPC gets better at installation, and start-up and commissioning gain efficiency. By treating this as a product, we can capture lessons learned from Phase 1 and ruthlessly apply them to drive costs down in later phases.

Got it. I wanted to touch on oxy-combustion. Given the prior partnership with Baker Hughes and their pursuit of industrial-scale oxy-combustion plant designs, can you provide detail around whether that use case is still being pursued and what the suspension of the JDA means for future development of oxy-combustion plants?

Both partners have suspended the work as we continue to evaluate the viability of the industrial oxy-combustion product. We continue to support that evaluation as appropriate, and once we have a determination, we'll communicate it.

At this time, I'd like to turn the floor back over to Danny Rice for closing comments.

Thanks, everybody. We appreciate the questions, the support and the trust you place in this team. Commercializing natural gas power with full carbon capture at scale has never been done before, and we're doing it in a market that's grown faster than anyone anticipated. There will be challenges ahead, but this team comes to work every day with a deep sense of purpose because if we get this right, we'll have helped solve one of the most important problems facing our country and the world: how do we keep the lights on affordably and reliably while leaving a cleaner planet for the next generation. That is important to us, and it's worth every ounce of our efforts. We're grateful to have partners and shareholders who believe in that mission alongside us. We will talk soon. Thanks again.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's event. You may disconnect your lines or log off the webcast at this time, and enjoy the rest of your day.