Okay, great. My name is Mark Delaney, and I have the pleasure of covering ChargePoint at Goldman Sachs. I'm very pleased to have with us Pasquale Romano, the President and CEO of the company. Thanks so much for joining. Thanks very much for having me. A lot to get into, but the company reported earnings results yesterday after the market closed. I thought to kick us off, maybe you could comment a little bit on what you reported, in particular, maybe some of the bigger end market trends that you're observing. Yeah, I mean, I think in general, the headline is quarter in line with our top-line guidance. From a guidance perspective, there was one distorted development in there, and that we took an impairment charge on some hangover inventory that we had from back in the supply chain crisis. We had some commitments on components for one first-generation product, actually, that we still had on the inventory line that we had to correct to current standards. So we did that in one quarter. But net of that distortion, generally a very good quarter for us in line with where we expected it to come out. And we did a small restructuring yesterday. Part of it was, as we continue to evolve our organization for scale, it was planned, not financially motivated, and then part of it was to put some insurance policy in place so we can guarantee that we can get to that adjusted EBITDA profitability target that we've set and continually reiterated in Q4 of next year. Yeah, you know, a lot for us to dig into on those things. And maybe talk a little bit on your outlook between the key end markets, commercial, fleet, and residential. Yeah, I mean, t here's always puts and takes on a quarterly basis, but in general, all performed inside the envelope that we generally expected. A little light on the residential side, we kind of saw that coming. I mean, I think overall in the industry, I think there was, there was lightness on the residential side. We expect that to be back. There's some seasonality in the residential business as you move into fall. So, you know, we expect that to kind of return to general norm. On the commercial side, it on a percentage basis, percent of billings basis, performed well for the quarter. But what we talked about yesterday on the call is, in general, we see on the discretionary charging infrastructure, which most of it is, most is businesses. Any business that has a parking lot is a ChargePoint customer or potential ChargePoint customer. When they respond to the need for charging or expand the charging infrastructure in their parking lot, has a bit of time discretion, and given the general hesitancy in the macro, every time you we're all listening to CNBC when we're brushing our teeth in the morning, or Bloomberg, or whoever you like to listen to in the morning. You know, one morning, it's a soft landing, and the next morning, it's a crash, and that tells every CFO to conserve capital until there's visibility. And that's just knocks right on into our business. What buoys the business, though, what keeps it, what backstops it pretty solidly are a lot of construction programs. There are building codes, or it's so generally inexpensive to wire for EV charging at the time that you're doing construction, that all the construction projects that we see that are continuing, those all go with no interruption, from a purchasing perspective, because at that point, you know, you might as well just, you know, put the charging infrastructure in, and then there are building codes that make it mandatory, depending on the jurisdiction. So there's a lot of that going on. There's utility and incentive programs that have time fuses. So that stuff sort of backstops even on the discretionary side. And then there's the less discretionary stuff on the fueling and convenience side and such, where that's becoming a focus. So, that's the kind of puts and takes in the commercial business. The fleet business, great progress on that. We continue to be successful there. Vehicle limited, which we've been a broken record on this. Please make more things that workmen and women use to go to work in the morning, because that's what's really limiting that entire space. That 's a very, very good context. On the commercial part of the business, one of the strong franchises that ChargePoint has, I mean, of course you're broad-based, but it's very strong in the commercial L2 charging area and things like work from home and maybe some of this macroeconomics, the dynamics has been a little bit of an overhang there. But eventually, right, utilization goes up, and, you know, these corporates would have to invest again. Anything you can share along those lines around what you're seeing around utilization rates? Yeah, I mean, we commented on it yesterday. Utilization rates are definitely up. If you take, oddly, workplace, we're in a very odd financial, from a market, not from a real estate perspective, real estate utilization in general, a very odd situation. Everyone seems to have agreed that three days a week in office synchronized is a reasonable stepping stone into maybe being full-time back in the office. Well, the problem is now you're three-sevenths versus five-sevenths utilized on an asset that you're paying for. The good news for us is when you're synchronized on those days, the charging infrastructure goes with the demand on those days. So it basically looks like the same utilization pressure that i f you're in the office for five days, and that's showing up in all our customers that have return-to-work programs, where they've hit the button on mandatory return-to-work on at least three days a week. So then, what they've all done, many of them have done, depending on their parking configuration, is they've used some of the software features to allow people to queue for chargers on our mobile app. And then once they exhaust that, and they're effectively at 100% utilization over the hours of operation, they're stuck, and a lot of them are getting into that red zone where they're stuck. Because before the pandemic, when the pause button was hit on going into the office at all, EVs were here, and now EVs are here. So even if only 80% of your people are in three days a week, you still have a lot more EVs showing up, and that's in spades across the board. We're seeing that parking operations, retail parking lots, workplaces, they're all sort of overcapacity at this point. I n the long- term, the pressure has to relieve because, r ight now it's inconvenient, eventually, it becomes more than inconvenient for drivers, and then it becomes a real issue. Yeah. Apt timing with the red zone analogy. The NFL season, I think, kicks off tonight. We'll track your red zone offense and hopefully, you guys can convert and have some good m oments in the commercial space. Yeah, I wanted to talk on, you know, Tesla opening up its network. It's been a highly topical point in the investing community and broader media. What does it mean for ChargePoint with Tesla opening up its network? And, you know, for you guys, you spoke a little bit about this last night on your earnings call, but how costly is it for ChargePoint to retrofit some of its sites? Well, it's actually the worst kind of revenue opportunity, in my opinion. We don't own any of the chargers on our network, right? So we don't do anything for free. I mean, we're committed to, you know, our mission, but we're not philanthropists when it comes to, we had no guarantee on a technology shift to our customers. If the technology shifts, they have to pay for the adjustment to the chargers. Now, we have very inexpensive upgrades that are going to start to roll. We said yesterday, they'll start to roll in November, and then by product line, we'll roll out, probably by the middle of next year. So we'll have it completed. We'll have upgrades and also availability on new product shipping. One of the things to point out is that it's not either/or with our products. If it's a commercial charger that's serving the public, it will support simultaneously, NACS and CCS, because we're in this difficult position. Not us, but the industry is in a difficult position where if this decision was going to get made, it should have been made a long time ago. From our perspective, what I'd love to do is make a T-shirt and sell it on our website with the two connector pictures saying, "Please just pick one." By the way, there is such misinformation out there. There is no functionality difference, aside from size and shape, right? Between the two connectors, t here isn't a benefit to one versus the other, assuming, you know, shape and, you know, ergonomics aside, right? There isn't a functionality difference between the two. We have modular cables on our system and some really nifty stuff for our duals to still be able to handle either connector type dynamically. So we've got good solutions rolling out for that. It was stuff that was in design because we had to support the Tesla, so much market share. We had to support them as a de facto standard anyway, a long time ago. But I think it's fairly criminal to have the auto industry take this long to settle. I don't care which one they picked. We have no dog in that fight, because if it ain't on the car, we don't add it. Because even if we like one versus the other, it's not our decision, right? We're the tail versus the car's the dog in that perspective. We can't make OEMs put a particular connector on their vehicle. So even if we had one that was better, that was proprietary for us, no one would adopt it anyway. So, it's one of those situations where we're in an unfortunate situation relative to Europe. Yeah. You know, it's helpful context. You know, I think you guys have commented before, too. I mean, the majority of the charging sessions on your network are actually Tesla drivers in the U.S. when you think about what the market. Well, yeah. We wouldn't exist if Teslas weren't out there. Well, we'd be much smaller, a much smaller version, which means we probably wouldn't exist without, without Teslas out there. And I, you know, I have nothing against the technology, the connector or what have you, but I also don't see it as anything more than a connector at this point. But the car itself speaks CCS protocol. A Tesla speaks CCS protocol when it's connected to a non-Tesla charger over an X cable. So it actually speaks the other standard, is how that actually works on the protocol. So it's literally a CCS connector with a shape change, is the way the charger thinks about it. Very interesting. Maybe we can talk about the industry and what's needed to support broader EV adoption, and something you and I have spoken on in the past. But, you know, what is needed for the grid to support widespread EV ownership in the U.S.? And, you know, we all, you know, see examples where it's too hot out and, you know, air conditioning causes blackouts. You hear claims from some in the media and, you know, even in the investment community, you know, will too much EV ownership, you know, cause those sorts of problems for the grid? Any thoughts you have on that topic? Yeah. So we've talked about this at length in different forms. So a car is 4% utilized. So it's 96% of the time, as I fondly say, often, it might as well be a cardboard cutout. You wouldn't know the difference. It also, if you went to college and took a remedial finance class, is a piece of CapEx you shouldn't technically own, given how little you use it relative to how expensive it is. But we've all been accustomed to owning cars because of the convenience, so 4% utilized. That means it's sitting there parked somewhere where there's power 96% of the time. And so what it says is that it's a very easy thing to dynamically charge when there's available energy, and curtail charging when there isn't, if it's plugged in not 100% of while it's parked, but in a lot of the places while it's parked. Battery sizes are at a point, much like phones, where you don't need to charge every day. S ome people might, because they have an, an outlying commute, but for the most part, you don't need to charge every day. So you've got an incredible amount of discretion. If you're plugged in at home, you're plugged in at work, with a little bit of utility integration and signaling, it's unnoticeable. You can fit it in the cracks. The first 150 million cars, you can fit in the cracks of the load curve, right? You can fit it in the dips. And that's with utility load control integration, which we've done with a bunch of utilities. It really is utility limited. It really is an investment in technology on their side more than our side. We have the API sitting there. They just have to basically create a commercial program and do the work on their side to be able to do it pervasively. We can even do some things for them on the home side. Like, for example, we, we can do some. If they wanted us to turn on, you know, dither access, so we don't start all the charging sessions at the same time when someone comes home or start them when the utility rates click over to off-peak rates, the software can do all that stuff. It's just something that they have to put the programs in place. So if 70% of the fuel or so is going to come in, and if you add workplace charging and around town charging, which is low load charging, that's going to be upwards of 85% of the fuel, maybe 90%, in some cases. You only have to deal with the fast charge infrastructure for long-haul driving. You don't do that that often. So a utility can handle those isolated little islands where you need a bolt of lightning. It really isn't that bad a problem when you break it down that way. So again, I think the technology's there. It's a question of the will on the part of what are fairly slow-moving utilities that use, in some cases, arguments to drive regulators to an outcome in the broader rate case discussions they've got going on with the regulators. That's a helpful perspective. Can you speak to some of the government programs that are out there in the U.S., things like NEVI and the IRA, and what impact that's having on your business? Well, okay, so we've been famous for this one. I think we get criticized early on in most forums that I was in when NEVI got announced, when the infrastructure bill got announced, before it was known as NEVI. You know, I was on panels and with more chairs than this, and I'd be sitting there, you know, with my colleagues from other charging companies, and they'd be, "Oh, this is great, and it's going to be." I'm like, "Yeah, you're not going to see anything until 2024." And then, you know, I'd get hisses from the audience, and people'd want to throw a bottle of water at me that I was sitting next to. And I'm like: "Guys, I mean, you know, we've been through the VW Appendix D programs. We've been through all the corridor builds in different states. We've even been through it with, like, Mercedes-Benz, of most recent history, Volvo, Starbucks. We know how long these take." We announced that Volvo Starbucks deal, I even forget how long ago it was. We're just getting to completion now, right? Because getting all the site contracts in place, just the mechanics of working with a car company and stuff take a while. Now, imagine going through federal, down to the state, RFP goes out, bids come in, right? Then, you know, permitting, construction, utility, interconnect. By the way, every four ports of charging is bigger than a U.S. grocery store's worth of load. U.S. grocery stores are, 400 kW, you know, thereabouts. You know, every four ports that you see or so is more than a U.S. grocery store. If you go see at the NEVI spec level, NEVI's overspec, by the way. You don't need 150 kW full-time per port, 'cause you can switch it, so no one car, you have to be able to give full power to a car, assuming it'll take it, but a full-time provision of 150 kW is a complete overkill and waste of money, but that's how it's spec'd. When you put that much power conversion in place, if you were to fully utilize the 150 kW per port of full-time power, be cause that's what you need the utility drop to support, because that's the way NEVI is spec, it's more than a grocery store. So if you go to a 16-port site, it's like five grocery stores, right? So just to think about the perspective of how much energy that is, right? That's why it takes a while to put those sorts of programs in place. So I sit there, and I'm like, "Yeah, it's necessary." It's going to get overbuilt, so it doesn't have to come that quickly, right? Because, right now, you don't see huge public outcry. You know, you'll get the occasional clickbait-chasing reporter that'll find the one place he can't drive to reload his Tesla during, in the winter, uphill both ways, right? But for the most part, no one's having a problem owning an electric vehicle and going wherever they need to go. And that's at current infrastructure levels, which are only going to get better. But this stuff is going to take a while. And assuming that these grant programs are going to move your needle in three years, if NEVI is moving our needle, we're dead, because it, it shouldn't be that big a percentage of our revenue relative to what the revenue should be. It says we have no market share. So important for coverage in rural areas, not saying it's not a good program, but not something that anyone should latch on to, even though we got a good win rate so far, right? I'm, I'm not saying we have a bad win rate, so I'm not making excuses for win rate. I'm just saying you should not latch on to that as an indicator at all, because it is one tiny use case, right, for charging. In three years, the market needs to be so much bigger, that if that's moving your needle, you've got no market share. See what I mean? Yeah. No, it's interesting. Well, you know, on some of these broader industry topics, you serve on the National Infrastructure Advisory Council. Yeah, got a meeting in two weeks. Oh, yeah. Well, maybe you can talk a little bit more on what that body does and any insights you can share. Well, this was kind of a reconstitution of the NIAC. I got to say, we did our first report recommendation to the administration. The way it works is, by the way, it's subject to, I'll spare you the acronyms, but it's subject to a set of rules that say everything has to be in the public domain. The way it works is, you get asked by the administration, the executive branch, to study topics and provide recommendations, and then that should inform the administration to drive policy in that direction. So the first one was information security on critical infrastructure. That's something we've done a lot of work on, on our own network. Then we have our CISO and our engineering team that's focused on security is working with the NSC on combined standards, and we're trying to make recommendations for cross-agency standards. Because even within the federal government, I'll give you an example, the USPS deal that we have requires FedRAMP compliance, but it doesn't require other security requirements that other federal agencies have. So what's interesting is it has a tight security set of requirements, but it's not consistent across federal agencies, let alone across water, you know, rail, other critical infrastructure pieces. So that's what we're trying to do. And so, you know, hopefully, people listen. You know, we're hopeful, right? We're not stopping. I mean, we're going to make our stuff as secure as humanly possible. You can never be hacker-proof, but at least make it hard. Anyway. Well, fascinating stuff. One more, you know, industry type of a question. It's on permitting, and do you think major permitting reform is needed in order to speed up charging site development? Well, yeah, I mean, I think, though, yeah, headline, yes. I mean, and absolutely. I was telling Pat in the car on the way up here, I've got my own permitting woes, and then I've got a leaky deck at home, and I'm trying to get it fixed before it starts raining, and I'm hung up. It's a deck. It's not, like, complicated. And I'm hung up because the fire department hasn't reviewed the permit yet. And this is a simple, little residential project, and I'm thinking to myself: "Oh, my God, you know, this is exactly a microcosm of what, you know, every single construction project downstream from anything, including EV charging, is subject to." So the answer is yes. But the reason for the analogy is all the other construction associated with that site also needs expediting, and so does utility prioritization of EV charging. They can't just put the interconnect ticket in the queue with other interconnect tickets, right? Which is what they do now, for the most part. So you can't solve just the permitting problem for EV charging, because if that's in conjunction with a complete hardscape reorganization of a parking lot, they're going to be like: "Well, it's really great that I got the EV charging permit, but I'm not going to have the backhoe come out and tear up the parking lot until I get these six other permits." So you really need general, you know, permit streamlining to actually happen, and then the utility interconnect streamlining also has to happen if a utility upgrade is required on the site. It's a lot more complicated than just get EV charging permitted. Okay. A final industry one, and you can take this wherever you would like. If you could design the IRA from scratch, would you change anything? Oh, the IRA from scratch. Yeah, I was talking to, actually, Mark Dieso at the DOE about this exact thing, and I would create a very simple, clean way to sell the tax equity without having to build a complicated tax equity structure. Because it effectively creates, it turns a tax credit into a rebate program, which I think would be the simplest way. Because a lot of people either can't use the tax credit or find it too complicated. But if there was a simple way, if there was a simple exchange or a simple credit system that could be made to work around that, and, you know. W e had a glass of wine, and so Mark seemed to agree with me, but I don't know if it went anywhere when, you know, the wine wore off. We'll keep an eye on how industry standards progress. Yeah, so some ChargePoint specific ones and following up on some of the topics you hopefully spoke about yesterday. You have your target to be EBITDA positive in the fourth quarter of calendar 2024. You know, talk about some of the key levers and what's needed to get there. Well, I mean, we're complicated to understand because we're in a few different businesses and on two geographies, but we're very simple financially. It's revenue times margin, less OpEx, add back CapEx, depreciation gives you adjusted EBITDA. We gave, I think, relatively pretty good breadcrumbs yesterday. We're not a CapEx-intense business, right? So there's not much CapEx depreciation, so you can even zero that line out if you really wanted to. So what you got to believe in is you got to believe in what the growth trajectory is for the company to be able to model it accurately. You got to be able to model the margin trajectory, and I don't think you have to superheat that to unrealistic levels to kind of get there. You got to look at our historical management of the OpEx, and what we did yesterday to just pull a step down, right, so that Q4 this year is still sitting down around $79 million-$82 million in that range that we guided to. There's an eight-quarter history of us managing OpEx pretty effectively. You know, if you believe the growth story, put a reasonable margin recovery story, y ou don't have to be too aggressive on that to get to the number, and you just basically drop it down. You can pretty much model what we're thinking, and we pretty much said that on the call. That's what we would have to do. There's no magic to getting there. It's not a complicated model at all. Yeah, and I think you made some comments around cash on hand and, you know, the duration of that relative to reaching capital positivity. Yeah, I mean, the one thing there that's, I think a little more difficult for investors to unpack is just because there's not enough information in the financials, you know, how much inventory is going to be needed out in that fourth quarter if you assume the revenue growth that's required to basically get to adjusted EBITDA positive. And the comments that we made, that we have made publicly, is that the composition of that inventory line is not 100% finished goods inventory. We haven't given a breakdown, but it's not 100% finished goods inventory. So as we consume the things that are more piece part-oriented or prepaid credits into CMs or things like that that are there, that we've made comments on before, t he inventory number that's there can support an incrementally bigger line. And then, as we work on other things, hopefully, we can keep the inventory requirements to not put too much pressure on working capital as we get out there. And then, if you factor in that we have an undrawn line of credit, which is sitting there at $150 million with some pretty good banks. And you know, we don't like our stock price, so we don't want to go willy-nilly with the ATM, but we do have it there to just do some balance sheet grooming, as Rex, our CFO, has mentioned on multiple earnings calls. You're sitting at $264 million on the balance sheet at the end of the quarter, you know, it's a healthy position, especially if you look at the competitive set and where that is. I think we're in an enviable position there. More cash is always better. More cash is always better, no question b ut, you know, in terms of our ability to maneuver, I think we've got some pretty solid ability to maneuver. That's a helpful context. Maybe we could talk on DC fast charging in particular. You spoke already around some of the supply chain costs. Well, that's a legacy product. Yeah. Yeah, so where do you go from here, right? And, and what is DC fast charging profitability? How does that trend and progress over time? Well, I mean, it's a more complicated product line than our AC product line, and it's younger. T he differential in margin is one of, well, mostly driven by a maturity disparity and a complexity disparity between the two, but that's narrowing really fast. And that product that we took the write down on, that was the first that we've ever built. And I can tell you that, you know, the first of anything, I mean, if you still have one lying around, you know, in a bin somewhere at home, go look at the first iPhone versus the one in your pocket, and you thought that was awesome, like, when you got that first iPhone, however, 13 years ago or whatever, 14 years ago. Man, you thought that was the space shuttle in your pocket, and the space shuttle's pretty long in the tooth now. It was a SpaceX rocket in your pocket right at the time, right? And now you look at the thing, and you're like, "Wow, I can't believe I used this thing," right? And so that first product was our first iPhone, effectively, and, you know, we're on, if you want to count it generationally, we're on third, I think. And we've got a brand-new architecture that's in development that's going to revamp the entire DC product line that won't be out this year. But it's in the pipeline. So when you keep accumulating all those learnings, and then you accumulate the volume, which gives you a lot more leverage with your supply chain and your CMs, I think, I think it normalizes before... I mean, we're at the front end of such a long growth cycle in this market. Before it penetrates, you know, very deeply at all, those margins start to uniformize. Well, I think, you know, part of the issue as well, if I'm not mistaken, was just supply chain, right? And sort of the high cost of components. So maybe we can talk on supply chain, because, I mean, last year, when we were, you know, on a stage and we were talking, that was a really big issue for you and everyone else in the industry. Where, where do you stand today with that? Oh, I mean, right now we can build at will. I mean, we can build at will. For the tough stuff, we've got capacity reservation agreements for the stuff that's still impacted. There's not much stuff that's still impacted at all. And so that's the problem, is when you optimize for assurance of supply and you don't know when the supply chain crisis is going to end, sometimes you need to make commitments on stuff and take it down, and put it in a warehouse, and it's higher-priced stuff, and then you just, you know, you've got to build it to recover the cash. And the price increases, we commented on this yesterday, the price increases that went into effect during the pandemic, which were always considered to be temporary in nature, they're sort of a scarcity premium, those are gone because everyone's got stuff, so it all's floated back down to kind of normal ASP levels. So yeah, you know, you're getting a double whammy on that, and so you just got to reset it. But again, that's contained to basically one product. We got time for one or two more questions. I can ask them. Otherwise, I wanted to see if there's a question from the audience. So, there are going to be more and more charging stations. Do you think the utility upgrade, or especially the electricity grid network, is going to be a bottleneck in the future? It depends. So for most AC charging, for most top-up charging, around town charging, you can stretch the utility drop. Ultimately, you probably need a utility drop upgrade at a site, but you can stretch the utility drop because the cars are typically parked there for a reasonable amount of time if you're looking at workplace or around, kind of around town charging. And they're not at a particularly high charging rates. I'll give you an example. Let's say, one of the charging ports is provisioned at 50 A, right? You may occupy 10 A, 50 A breakers in a panel, but we can use software to limit the entire, that'd be 500 A total, but we could set in software that the combined set of chargers can't use more than 200 A, and so you can treat it as an intermittent load. So because we can use software to basically override the permanent load, kind of peak requirement, you can stretch a utility drop at a site. So I think we're a ways away from around town charging becoming a bottleneck. On the DC charging side for a long-haul charging, a nd that's not an everyday use case. J ust to give people a data point, if you want to go back to a gas station model, where you put a bolt of lightning in your vehicle in five minutes, it's 1.5 MW-2 MW. You multiply that by 8 pumps, you get 16 MW to replicate a gas station. Gas station's footprint doesn't have enough space for the utility infrastructure. So you're not going to, and then you got the problem you're talking about in space. So you're not going to go back to the gas station, nor should you, because I think the asymptote for mileage in a battery is 300 real all-weather miles. It's not the BS ratings that you see now, especially WLTP ratings are completely overstated, right? The EPA range numbers are overstated, not as bad as the WLTP numbers. So when you get to 300 real miles in the winter, right, in a vehicle, and you can count on that, the number of times a year you need to use a fast charger is not going to be that great, and it's not going to go back to being primary fuel. So at the sites that you need it, right, if you had, say, a 15- to 20-minute dwell, to get the same throughput as a gas station that has five-minute dwell, you're going to need 3x-5 x the amount, because you probably go in and have some dead spot in your charging time because you bought a coffee or something like that. You're going to need 3x-5 x the number of stalls. So if you think 8 ports, it goes to 24-40 ports. That's why right now, EV charging sites that are fairly high, they look so big, it's so early in the market. It's because you need a lot of ports to get the equivalent throughput at peak times, because we're all synchronized as humans, right? That's the difference, is the dwell time difference, and that's why the parking configuration also can't be pull through. It says gas stations are the wrong architecture. The wrong real estate architecture. Believe this, is not a gas station business. It never goes back there, and there's also not enough traffic to basically drive enough business to the number of little depots that we have right now. So that model is going to change dramatically. It's real estate wrong, and it's, you know, it's overbuilt for what we're going to need in the long -term. So I think from that vantage point, the utilities just need to respond, and that's much more of a regulation and policy thing. They've got to respond. They've got to look the other way on fast charge. We're already driving some non-demand charge alternative rate structures in a lot of states, where demand charges have to go away. That's a distortion for a fast charger, right? That has to go away for the economics to work. Then, the utilities have to basically say, be told by the regular leaders, "You will go fast on this, and you will build out the infrastructure." Because for the other 90% of the fuel, it's a really beneficial thing for the grid if you load manage it, because you get more volumetric electrons moving through, on a percentage basis, lower percentage of lesser amount of CapEx per electron, so you win. Until that goes click, and until we get off this legacy model, you're going to have the problem that you're talking about, right? Luckily, we're at the front end of this thing, so we got a little time, right? We got 20 years. Over time, we have to fix this over 20 years. This is not a five-year problem. Speaking of time, we are out of time for this session. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. I appreciate it.