Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Altius Renewable Royalties Corp Q2 2024 conference call and webcast. At this time, all lines are in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. If at any time during this call you require immediate assistance, please press star zero for the operator. This call is being recorded on Tuesday, August sixth, two thousand twenty-four. I would now like to turn the conference over to Flora Wood. Please go ahead. Thank you, Rudy, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our Q2 call. Our press release and filings were released yesterday and are available on our website, both on the homepage and under Investors. This event is being webcast live, and you'll be able to access a replay of the call, along with the presentation slides at arr.energy. Brian Dalton, CEO of ARR, and Frank Getman, CEO of Great Bay Renewables, are both speakers on the call. In the Q&A, we'll also have Ben Lewis, CFO of ARR, available for questions. The forward-looking statement on slide 2 applies to everything we say, both in our formal remarks and during the Q&A session. And with that, I will turn over to Brian for his opening remarks. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Flora. Thank you, everyone, for joining us. The team was very successful in the first half of the year in deploying additional capital, taking full advantage of the continuing weak market sentiment backdrop within the renewable sector. We are steadfast in our belief that this contrarian approach will reap major long-term benefits, especially when we consider that the more important fundamental backdrop that for power demand, and particularly renewable source power, is strengthening at a pace that has not been seen in a generation or more. We've recognized from the outset of this still young business that its imperatives are to generate scale and diversity. That is certainly being achieved now as we approach $500 million deployed at the joint venture level and hold royalties on dozens of projects across most of the major power regions in the U.S. We also continue to find more and more ways that our royalty-focused capital can serve the needs of the renewable sector. We still carry meaningful liquidity for additional investments that comes from a combination of cash on hand and our remaining access to debt-based financing. While this is obviously depleting as we steadily execute on attractive opportunities, that is okay and is in fact the point. We want to put it all to work. We continue to view the current public equities markets for the company, and indeed the sector, as essentially closed, at least on terms that we can accretively grow the business under. That said, we remain busy in cultivating potential sources of new long-term capital to avail of, and in the alternative, are actually quite willing to exhaust our liquidity to the full extent possible, rather than incur first year-based dilution of the assets that we have already built, and that will naturally flourish without any further capital requirements from us. So that's me on the high level. I'll gladly now turn it over to Frank to give you a little more detail on the quarter that was. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Good morning, everyone. I'm excited to share with you today an update on what was a very busy Q2 and first seven months of 2024. Our royalty portfolio revenue and cash flow continues to ramp, with GBR revenue for Q2 2024 coming in at $3.1 million, compared to $2 million in Q2 2023, an increase of 55%. Operating cash flow at GBR was $0.9 million for 2024, compared to $1 million for 2023, due to interest paid in Q2 related to our new credit facilities. We reiterate our $13 million-$16 million revenue guidance for all of 2024. So far in 2024, GBR has made new investment commitments of approximately $116 million. During Q2, we closed a $30 million royalty investment with Nokomis Energy, a top DG developer with a fantastic track record of success in the Midwest. This investment provides attractive diversification when coupled with our utility scale developer investments, as DG community solar developers are not subject to the delays and higher costs of interconnection faced by utility scale projects. We expect the cycle time for GBR to receive cash flow and royalties from Nokomis to be significantly quicker than our utility scale development partners. Also, during Q2, we closed a $6.1 million interconnection deposit loan with Reds tone for two of Reds tone's projects in PJM. While not necessarily a large investment, the Reds tone loan in PJM and the Hexagon loan in MISO last quarter serve as important test cases for GBR's ability to post interconnection deposits on behalf of third-party developers for fully refundable deposits in PJM and MISO while maintaining agency over those deposits. We are now seeking to attract a larger, lower-cost pool of capital to partner with to expand this program, hopefully later this year. We expect future deals would include a royalty component as part of the commitment to fund these interconnection deposits. Finally, we recently announced a $40 million follow-on investment with Nova Clean Energy. We were one of the founding shareholders of Nova a little over two years ago. It's been remarkable to watch Nova assemble a top-flight team and develop an attractive 6.5-GW portfolio of wind, solar, and battery storage projects. As part of this new secured loan, Great Bay will receive up to 500 megawatts of additional royalties on Nova's pipeline of projects. This is in addition to the royalties on 1.5 gigawatts of Nova projects Great Bay received as part of its initial investment. As for the overall macro environment, I'll just say that market conditions remain highly attractive for alternative sources of capital and future deployment by GBR to new royalty investments. Demand for new renewable energy and shovel-ready projects remains strong. PPA prices continue to increase across all markets, with LevelTen recently reporting a year-on-year Q2 2023 to Q2 2024, solar and wind blended PPA price increase of almost 12%. Finally, in closing, I want to thank the GBR team for all their incredible hard work. I'm so proud and appreciative of everyone's positive and supportive attitudes and all that we've accomplished thus far during what has been a busy and intense first half of the year. That's it for my update. I'll turn it back to you, Brian. Thank you, Frank. With that, we'll open the floor to questions. Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, simply press star, followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. To withdraw your question, you may press star followed by the number two. One moment, please, for your first question. And your first question comes from the line of Nicholas Boychuk with Cormark Securities. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning, guys. Good morning. For the operating portfolio and outlook, can you guys kind of give us a little bit of an update, Frank? I know you said it's still obviously a constructive environment. What are you guys seeing in terms of conversations right now, or what are you hearing from operators who are looking for capital and potentially those larger types of tickets you could maybe deploy into operating assets? Mm-hmm. Well, it's still the issues of you know, people wanting to expand or extend or stretch their equity dollars, their project equity dollars into projects, that market continues you know, unabated. And I think you know, we have a number of conversations going both you know, with a number of different counterparties on on projects, different technologies, different areas of the country. I guess I don't really think it's appropriate to get into specifics other than just say that there is still remains a significant number of folks looking for equity dollars into operating projects. The one thing I'll note is that if a project is, you know, a perfect project with a 30-year long-term busbar PPA, they're probably going to, even though debt's more expensive, they're still gonna take as much debt as they possibly can. And at some point, we need to look at how much debt are on these projects, and those are perhaps less attractive to us than ones where there's less debt on it. But that would mean that there's something, maybe their PPA is shorter, or there's maybe some merchant risk or some other component to it, which means that there's more room in the capital stack available for royalty financing, if that makes sense. It does. And should the read-through then be that if there's any additional deployments throughout the year in an operating asset, it might have some of those dynamics? And what would that mean to your risk and return profile, I guess, if you are taking on- Well, I think what we're looking at is, you know, we are the cost of capital across the board has gone up, so we're looking and, you know, days like yesterday only, I think, highlight the need for other, you know, attractive sources of capital to be available to folks. The equity markets don't seem like a great option for these renewable players right now. So, I mean, that's a bit of our conundrum, is that's, you know, could be where our capital comes from, but on the other hand, that's what's creating the backdrop for attractive investment conditions. So we're looking to, you know, press the limit on or press the return threshold, and I think it's fair to say that we've been doing that on all of our more recent investments. We're definitely at the top end, if not above the top end, of the range that we've provided previously. Okay. And last on this, just before we move on to the next question. If you're going into a conversation where an operator has either a shorter PPA or more merchant risk, are they more likely to potentially accept or be able to accommodate that royalty? I, I'm assuming that if there is that 30-year- Yes ... busbar, there's probably a dynamic where it would be harder for you to insert that capital. Are you finding it easier to do it in those other situations? Yeah, correct. Yeah. It's not like just, it's, it's less attractive for us, right? We don't, we don't want to be sitting behind, you know, a, a highly levered project that's, that's less attractive to the rest than to be higher in the capital stack. Okay, understood. Can you give us a little bit of an update on how the Hexagon interconnection facility has gone so far? Specifically, any learnings that you guys have and, and how that might relate to the deployment of other interconnection queue facilities, and what we should be thinking about from a ramping standpoint? How much could actually be deployed in that and what we should be thinking about from a material function of revenue from that one? What our experience has been is this is proving out just as we had hoped it would, that it's allowing Hexagon to continue to advance their projects and distinguish themselves in the market from other folks who maybe have less access to capital. And I think that this is, you know, they have a number of conversations ongoing about their projects and sales of their projects. And I think that it's a real advantage for folks to be able to have, you know, access to capital that allows them to continue to advance projects, where others are maybe having been forced to sell their projects early. Because your option when you come up against one of these deadlines is either I have the capital to post an interconnection deposit to continue to advance the project, or I'm gonna have to sell it to someone, and those conditions for selling the project are not ideal to get the highest best price. So it's been a real advantage to them in the market, and I think you know, we're looking not only with them, but with others looking to expand the program. As I mentioned in my comments, I think what we're trying to do is find another larger pool of capital. I'll just highlight to folks that right now we're focused on the fully refundable portions of these deposits. So this really truly is a very, very low risk capital. And I think the return that we're able to get, you know, is on a risk-adjusted basis highly attractive. And then we're gonna add, in the future, we're looking to add, and we did this with Redstone, add the option to acquire a royalty along with providing that loan to fund the interconnection deposit. So the size of the opportunity, if we're able to, you know, secure that larger pool of capital is, you know, it's, it's in the hundreds and hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars of folks looking for capital. So it, the size of the opportunity is not the issue. Okay, got it. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning, everyone. Sorry, Rupert. We're seeing this, the great, great momentum in the power markets in the U.S. today. I'm just wondering, how is that translating to visibility on moving some of your developers into construction? When do you anticipate seeing a few more of these projects starting to move to construction? Well, it's largely the interconnection, you know, backlogs. That's the number one factor holding our projects from moving forward. But PJM is, you know, they're behind, but they're moving forward. MISO is behind, but it's moving forward. So, and ERCOT is still, you know, still is probably the one of the most attractive places to be able to advance projects forward. So we're seeing those projects because you're, you know, able to continue to move those forward. They are not as backlogged. They're able to still continue to move projects forward. They don't do it on a cluster basis, so it allows things to move through more readily. And, you know, I think we have, you know, a couple projects in construction right now. We'll have a number of projects going to construction next year. And then, you know, if you look out beyond that, it's just a, you know, every year, you know, for the next number of years, we have a number of projects in construction, you know, if everything goes as planned. So the, the pipeline continues to move through. It's just a process that, you know, you can't-- It's pushing on a string when it comes to trying to, you know, accelerate projects through the interconnection process. Looking at those various markets and the dynamics that we're witnessing, has your view changed at all on where you'd like to deploy capital? It does seem like the Texas market growth could accelerate to be faster than some of the other markets, but maybe you have some concentration there. Any color you can give on how your view has changed on where you'd like to deploy capital? I think our view hasn't changed. We're gonna be led by the market, right? The market's gonna show us where the best and most attractive places to do business, you know, are in the market in the US. And I think right now, if you look at our portfolio, Hexagon has a large PJM portfolio. Hodson has a large PJM portfolio. TGE has, as you know, Panther Grove is a large, you know, phase one and phase two are very large, you know, 400 MW wind projects. So we have a lot of PJM exposure. So while it looks to everybody, it's like, oh, look at their ERCOT heavy right now, if you actually look, step back, you'll see we're actually pretty broadly diversified. So I'm not, I'm not concerned about ERCOT exposure or ERCOT concentration. And I think if you look at the load growth in ERCOT, it's just, you know, it's, it's exceptional, you know, across the entire state. So the, the demand and the need for, you know, additional renewables projects is... Remains unabated. Great. I'll get back in the queue. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of John Mould with TD Cowen. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, everybody. Maybe just going back to the Red Stone deal and, you know, interconnection loan facilities more broadly. I guess, like, what, what at this point is driving a developer like Reds tone to, you know, come to you, you know, just giving you relative cost of capital of a, of a larger lender? And then I guess secondly, you know, I think this is your first, interconnection facility in PJM, I guess. Was that a pretty similar process to MISO, you know, just in terms of getting smart on that? Or, or, you know, did that require some additional effort on your part? And, and, you know, how are you thinking about the barriers to entry for this product more broadly? Yeah, good question. I think the devil is in the details, and the larger financial, you know, money center banks, it's really difficult for them to underwrite someone like Red Stone and understand that project and understand, underwrite that developer and look at that and understand the process. And the processes at MISO and PJM are not the same. And it took, you know, months. You know, we've been at this for over a year now of, you know, sitting in their offices, literally in some cases, saying: Would this language work? Would this language work? Trying to figure out exactly how you can post a deposit on behalf of a third party. MISO has a recognized, they have a longer history of recognizing these agency arrangements. With PJM, it's relatively new, so we had to figure out the structure, which I don't want to get into, because I think it is a competitive advantage of how we went about doing that. So I think there is an advantage, and I would say that we are the ideal partner for some, you know, larger financial institution, for we'll be the front end, basically doing the underwriting, bringing the deal flow to them, and then using their capital, we'll get a, you know, some share of the return plus a royalty out of it. That's a really great opportunity for us, and it's something that I don't think that they can necessarily do on their own. Because these clusters and these rules are very complicated, and they're the devil is in the details and understanding exactly what has to happen as that project approaches the next phase, where it goes from, you know, fully refundable to partially refundable, because they actually start to build the interconnection and start, like, how do you protect yourself from that? Because the cost of capital for a fully refundable deposit is, and should be very different from that of something that's partially or fully non-refundable. So there is a lot of work behind this. I'm not saying someone else couldn't figure it out, but, I think a lot of banks and financial institutions are not set up to, one, understand the detailed rules of these, RTOs, and then also, at the same time, have the relationships with the developers. Because, you know, think about developers historically have not been going to large financial institutions for their capital. They're, you know, more, akin going to, like, the Great Bays and to developer loans, and to equity, and into, you know, other types of earlier stage capital. So it's, it's a good fit if we can, if we can pull it off. Okay, thanks, thanks for all that detail. Maybe just one, you know, clarification on Hodson. I think maybe you had about $10.6 million of capital contributions reclassified to loans now due in January 2025. Can you provide, you know, some context on that change and, you know, how you're thinking about the Hodson investment more broadly? Sure. What's happened there is, is Hodson, along with everyone else, has faced delays in getting, you know, projects through interconnection. So when we set up the tranches and we set up the criteria to unlock the next tranche, those projects, like everyone's, were not moving along, and we were faced with a situation where they were not going to achieve project sales, for example, or get interconnection agreements approved, which is one of the criteria that we have, in a timeframe before they needed capital. So we looked at the situation and said, "Okay, you know, we, we could just waive that." But, but... What we did instead is we said, "How do we structure this in a way that provides us additional protection from a structure perspective, and then also provides us a, you know, a slightly better return, which is appropriate, you know, given the delays?" I don't. We still feel great about their portfolio. Their PJM assets are. A number of them are fast lane projects, which I think are gonna have a very strong interest in the market, and they're right now in the process of going to market with a basket of projects, which we think will be well received. So it's really a case of looking at the tranche unlocks criteria that we set up when we made the investment, no longer really worked when you looked at how the market dynamics have unfolded. So we were, I think, protected in that we weren't forced to provide them capital, you know, before they were ready. So we just looked at how we structured it and put it in as a member loan, which gives us greater protection. Okay, got it. Thanks. And just maybe one last one on just the bigger picture. You know, capital allocation. I guess, how are you... When you look at the opportunity set out there, on the developer side versus operating projects, you know, how are you thinking about—I know you, you think about returns and not a rigorous split, but, like, what's, or sorry, a rigid split, I should say. But, you know, just how are you thinking about operating versus development investments right now? I guess just given, you know, we have seen, you know, kind of continued delays, as you just referenced on the interconnection side. And then, you know, I'm mindful of the delayed draw facility, you know, your, I think, prime source of capital at this point. So, how does that all feed into the projects, the royalty investments you're looking at right now? I would say that by and large, we're looking at largely at operating investments now. You know, the Nokomis opportunity came along on a timeframe and Nova, and timeframes that you know, you can't necessarily control how these opportunities present themselves and in what exact order. But I would say that we're still very much focused on deploying the remaining capital into you know, cash flowing, operating royalties. Okay. Okay, great. I'll, I'll get back in the queue. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Devin Schilling with Ventum Financial. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning, all. Just on the, the El Sauz Wind project, I see it's now expected to reach COD in, in Q3 versus Q2 previously. Maybe if you can provide just some updates or, or additional color on the status of this project and, you know, is there much left to be done to get this operational? Thank you. Yeah, I wish I had more information. But what we've been told is that the project is built and constructed. It has to do with the interface between ERCOT and the project and some of the connectivity, and that the output, I don't think it has to do with the operation of the project necessarily, but with that interface between ERCOT accepting the megawatts and those megawatts being calculated and tracked in accordance with how ERCOT wants it done. So there I think there was, you know, some issues on that interface, and they're working on that, and it's just taken, you know, way longer than anybody hoped to get that done. But the project is up and operating, is up and constructed, so it's not a question of like, oh, there was, you know, big construction delays. It's, it has to do with this interface with ERCOT. Okay. And I guess, just how does that relate to the guidance range for this year? Like, how does this project fit into that range? It's delayed, but we also had Canyon come on a little bit earlier, so net-net, we'll be fine. Okay. No, that's great. I guess my last question here would be on the Nova follow-on transaction. Maybe you can just touch on you know expected project timelines here and how this additional capital could potentially speed up this process for when royalties come online? Yeah. So, a couple of things I just want to highlight about this investment. The royalties we get from the Nova investment, both the 1.5 gigawatts as well as the, you know, up to 500 additional megawatts of royalties that we get, these are really highly attractive royalties, as they're not counted towards an IRR return like our other developer deals. It's done on a megawatt basis. So these dramatic increases you've seen in PPA prices over the last couple of years, all of that upside, because we're a top-line revenue royalty, all of that benefit is flowing through to us. Obviously, they're not operating yet, but and ultimately, if they sign a higher priced PPA, when the project comes online, our revenue will be, you know, materially higher than, than we had forecast when we made the original investment. And, you know, unlike in our other developer deals, where if there's a higher PPA price signed, that just provides that royalty with a higher NPV value at the time that we give them credit towards the IRR. So we don't necessarily, it doesn't increase our returns because the PPA prices have moved up. So that's one thing I just wanted to point, like, why we really like this investment so much. The second thing is that this was really this is a bridge financing until a larger financing that Nova is currently undertaking. They're in the market with that. This is giving them the firepower they need to get through that process, and if there was any delays in that process, not have their backs up against the wall with their finalizing that, you know, that new financing, which will be a much larger facility. We're completely aligned with, you know, Bluestar as owners of the business in maximizing the outcome on that financing, as well as being able to continue to advance the projects. And a good chunk of this capital is going to be used for interconnection deposits, which will allow them to continue to advance the projects, and to your point, bring them online quicker. They have, I think, you know, 3 or 4 projects that are, I guess we would call mid- to late-stage. They're not late stage yet, but they're, but they're... When you look at the progress they've made from where they were two years ago, it's, it's really remarkable. So, it's being a good partner and continuing to support them and basically being able to deploy additional capital with our winners. Okay, yeah, no, that's great. Yeah, thanks for the additional color there. I'll, I'll jump back in the queue. Thank you. Thank you. And your next question comes from the line of David Quesada with Raymond James. Please go ahead. Thanks. Morning, everyone. Maybe just a question from me on your comments around return thresholds and how you're sort of pushing the top end of the range there. Just wondering, if you're able to sort of parse out, does that comment also refer to operational stage royalties that you're looking at? And maybe just some comments around, like, what kind of legs do you think that dynamic has. Does it, you know, accelerate given uncertainty around the election, you know, did declining rates offset that? Just curious what how you expect in this trend there. I think you just said it. It's yeah, pushes and pulls. You got things, rates are coming down again, but the other hand, there is this uncertainty around the election. There's still interconnection delays. So you've got, you know, different forces pushing different directions. There's not a post good price for royalty financing on Bloomberg, so we're, we kind of market test every single day out in the market. I would say overall, we're looking at about a 200 basis point, you know, increase is what we're currently seeing in the market from where we were a couple of years ago on both the operating and the, you know, both at both ends. We're pushing it both on the operating stage and also on the developer stage. So, you know, it's not a magic formula, it's just, you know. And to be honest, each project is different. You know, project, depending on the PPA, depending on basis risk, depending on congestion in the area, depending on the length of the PPA, you know, depending on the counterparty, you know, those things all affect the, you know, that return threshold that we're seeking to achieve. Well, for me, just, you know, given the market dynamic with, you know, challenge for grid interconnection, I'm curious if any of your operational stage royalties, or any of those underlying projects are looking at, you know, expansions or adding storage at this point? Yeah. Like, have you heard any rumblings of that across your footprint? Not adding storage that wasn't already planned. I haven't heard that, but I think an interesting dynamic in the market is, look what NextEra is doing... obviously they had a lot of greenfield projects, but look what they're doing with their NEP division, and that they've said, "We're not doing any more greenfield or running new projects. We're looking at repowering." Well, this is way sooner than I think anybody, at least way sooner than I expected, to see a major player in the market say, "We see that as a real opportunity to go back in," because interconnection is so hard, because developing new projects and getting interconnected and doing everything it takes to get a new project online is so hard right now. It's economic for us to go back and look at our existing portfolio, which isn't, you know, terribly old, and start repowering projects. I think that's, you know, and think about, you know, from our perspective, that's every royalty we have has that upside potential. So I think that's, you know, exciting development in the market. I guess that's one indicator I've seen of how different people are reacting to these delays. Thanks. Thanks for that color. I will turn it over. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank Financial. Please go ahead. Hi, thanks. So Nokomis, wondering, can you talk to us about how you think about the diversification you're getting through Nokomis? You're talking about counterparty risk, how different will that risk profile be? Who will be the counterparties for Nokomis? It's largely programmatic, like, there's programs in Minnesota and Wisconsin where you're accepted into the program and you know, there's set PPA prices as part of the program. The utility commission in that region has set. So many- that's how many of the community solar programs are set. So, you're actually quite secure on the counterparty side, and the price is generally significantly higher than what you might get on a bilateral PPA. But they're just much smaller. You know, these are 5 and 10 megawatt projects. So, they tend to be juicier. They tend to have higher profit margins. The PPA prices tend to be higher, but they and the cycle times, as I mentioned in my opening comments, are much quicker. You know, you're talking, you know, 12-24 months to get a project, you know, through the process and into construction versus, you know, 3, 4, 5 years for a utility-scale. I would say 3 is not even reasonable anymore. I'd say it's 4 or 5 years. You know, so we would expect to see more smaller, higher-priced, you know, royalties coming through this, this investment. Do you think you could put more capital to work in that market in the future? We're looking at that. I think those are really, really local. Like, you have to be really understand the details of that particular, you know, the Minnesota program, the Wisconsin program. They're very regional, and so, there isn't, like... I'm trying to think if I know of a nationwide community solar operator. That's- it's so- stepping out from your regional market, you know, is something that's, it's not necessarily as easy and requires- these projects still require a fair amount of boots on the ground. So, you know, the people required and the local knowledge required, I think, to do that is a challenge. But you may be able to find, and we've talked to some other regional players in different regions of the country, but I think we're gonna look at it kind of region by region, rather than saying, "Oh, we'll support Nokomis to..." You know, they're, they're gonna do look at some step outs. In fact, Wisconsin is a little bit of a step out for them. They've had some success there. There's lots of good reasons why they'll have success there, but, you know, to say they're, they're gonna come to New England, for example, or something, I, I'm not sure that's really how that market works. All right, very good. I'll leave it there. Thank you very much. Yeah. Your next question and a follow-up question from Nick Boychuk with Cormark Securities. Please go ahead. Thanks. Last one here, guys. Angelo Solar, you've got that in the updated MD&A starting potentially, October of 2024. Can you just kind of run through again what the expectations are for revenue recognition for this calendar year? Sure. Oh, for this calendar year, I don't have—I know it's annualized. I think we're looking at $4.7 million a year for the first five years. I don't know, Ben, have we provided that information about what it would be for this calendar year? But I know that, you know, we're still on track, you know, to, for the first five years to $4.7 million, approximately $4.7 million a year for the first five years. But- And I would say- that delay to October, Nick, just I don't mean to cut you off, but just that was purposeful, okay? So, you know, it's not like, oh, like we purposely put in a bit of a cushion from when we expected to COD to when our royalty kicks in. Because if there was delays, so you got delayed one or two months, and we had our royalty, we had forecasted for that royalty to come online then, that's lost revenue. That actually does affect our return. This way, it gives us a cushion, so that gets any startup issues, get handled before our royalty actually kicks in. So we think it's a smart way to structure these things, and that's why there's a delay between COD and when the actual royalty cash flow starts to kick in. Right. Right, that makes sense. But I, I guess, the what I was trying to figure out was if, kind of like Titan Solar, there could be a potential delay where there's, like, an interconnection holdback or anything. Like, you're not expecting a scenario like that? No. where you won't be able to recognize revenue as soon as it turns on? No. Okay. Thank you. No. All right. Thank you. There are further questions at this time. I would like to turn it back to Flora Wood for closing remarks. Thank you, Rudy, and thank you, everybody, on the call. It was really a great set of questions, and we'll look forward to talking to you for our Q3 reporting. Thank you, presenters. Thank you, everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.