Good day, everyone, and welcome to today's Clean Energy Fuels First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, you will have the opportunity to ask questions during the question-and-answer session. You may register to ask a question at any time by pressing star and one on your touch-tone phone. You may withdraw yourself from the queue by pressing star, two. Please note, this call may be recorded. I will be standing by should you need any assistance. It is now my pleasure to turn the conference over to Mr. Robert Vreeland, Chief Financial Officer. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Earlier this afternoon, Clean Energy released financial results for the first quarter ending March 31, 2024. If you did not receive the release, it is available on the investor relations section of the company's website at www.cleanenergyfuels.com, where the call is also being webcast. There will be a replay available on the website for 30 days. Before we begin, we'd like to remind you that some of the information contained in the news release and on this conference call contains forward-looking statements that involve risk, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Such forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of performance, and the company's actual results could differ materially from those contained in such statements. Several factors that could cause or contribute to such differences are described in detail in the risk factors section of the Clean Energy's Form 10-Q filed today. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this release. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, or supply new information regarding the circumstances after the date of this release. The company's non-GAAP EPS and adjusted EBITDA will be reviewed on this call, and exclude certain expenses that the company's management does not believe are indicative of the company's core business operating results. Non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to results prepared in accordance with GAAP, and should not be considered as a substitute for or superior to GAAP results. The directly comparable GAAP information, reasons why management uses non-GAAP information, a definition of non-GAAP EPS and adjusted EBITDA, and a reconciliation between these non-GAAP and GAAP figures is provided in the company's press release, which has been furnished to the SEC on Form 8-K today. With that, I will turn the call over to our President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Littlefair. Thank you, Bob. It pleases me to say that we kicked off 2024 with a strong first quarter. Our base business of fueling fleets, constructing and maintaining stations for those fleets, and providing other services that keeps trucks, shuttles, and buses operating on a clean fuel performed well. We also made good progress in our business of developing renewable natural gas dairy projects. I'll expand with a few more details on both in a moment. The 8.6% year-over-year growth in RNG fuel volumes is a testament to the stability and growth in our base business. In addition, it reflects the significant RNG volume that is now flowing through the new state-of-the-art fueling stations that we have built and opened over the last two years, where we have an anchor customer in Amazon. We are also seeing other vehicles begin to fuel at these stations, which helps our fuel margins. As always, Bob will give you more details about our financial results, but I would be remiss in not calling out the $12.8 million in adjusted EBITDA for Q1 compared to -$4 million of Q1 of last year. The significant upswing is attributed to the growth in our core business that I just mentioned, as well as circumstances in which we found ourselves during the beginning of last year, with historically high natural gas prices in California that impacted our bottom line. Our balance sheet remains strong, with almost $250 million of cash and investments on hand and you should see continued improved adjusted EBITDA results through this year. I'd like to take a moment to address the environmental credit situation, because I think some might tie the ups and downs of those prices a little too tightly to our overall business. Of course, we're not pleased with where the California LCFS prices have been trading as of late. During the first quarter of 2024, the federal D3 RIN prices remained strong and positively impacted our results. We have witnessed a volatile LCFS credit price for quite some time, so we went into 2024 planning for that to continue. It's our strong view that a higher LCFS credit price is needed over time, to support the robust pace of low- carbon energy investment necessary to achieve California's emissions targets. We believe that members of the California Air Resources Board and staff understand this, and are working with all stakeholders on a solution. L ike most policy matters, it requires time and process. Ultimately, we believe the compliance curve will be strengthened and will help. Let me drill down a little further. Our fueling station and RNG distribution business generates margin from D3 RIN credits, LCFS credits, California and Oregon volumes, federal alternative fuel tax credits, and margin on the fuel sale itself, u sing RNG instead of diesel results in lowering fueling costs and lower emissions for our customers. It also contributes to a solid base margin for us. The credits are additive to this base margin. On the RNG production side, our dairy projects generate revenue from RIN credits, LCFS credits, and RNG sales. The financial return of these projects is further enhanced by credits that will be generated under the Inflation Reduction Act through the investment tax credit, and beginning in 2025, the 45Z production tax credit. These projects produce ultra-low carbon intensity fuel for customers, while also providing a solution for our partners in the agriculture sector. Let me return to the growth in our core business for a moment, which is providing fuel and reliable services to our fleet customers. Over the last few months, we have signed agreements with municipalities across the country. It demonstrates the continued confidence in the reliability, and emission benefits of operating with RNG. These agreements included everything from Long Beach Transit for about 1.5 million gallons of RNG a year to operate their fleet of city buses, to the vehicles at the Port of Seattle, and to Atlantic County Utilities Authority in New Jersey that is expected to use 0.5 million gallons of RNG for their waste collection vehicles. Another deal that we just recently signed is one that I know our sales team and myself are particularly proud of, and that is Harris County Metro, which services the greater Houston area. Houston Metro is one of the largest transit agencies in the country that operates their fleet of buses primarily on diesel. Well, that's about to change, and they're making the switch with Clean Energy. We will be building a new state-of-the-art station for up to 120 of the first buses to operate on natural gas. All told, the close to $15 million contract to construct a new station, and to modify their facilities for natural gas fueling represents one of the largest transit agreements we've made in many years. These municipalities are on the hook by their constituents to keep the buses running on time and the trash picked up. They must depend on vehicles that operate not only sustainably, but reliably as well. RNG is the cleanest fuel available, and is the most reliable performer of any other alternative. No other company in the country keeps those stations, which provides that fuel, operating better than Clean Energy. Another unique advantage that Clean Energy holds over virtually every other fuel provider, is that we now produce our own ultra- low carbon RNG at dairies. This is in addition to the approximately 78 different offtake agreements, we have with RNG suppliers that provide the largest natural gas fueling infrastructure in North America. We deliver RNG to 454 different stations daily, and RNG now represents 88% of the transportation fuel we sell. This allows us to give RNG customers the greatest level of assurance that they will receive this clean fuel without interruption. Others try to match one RNG production project with one contract fleet customer. The customers, especially national fleets, want to know that providers and operators of their stations have a portfolio of supply in case there is interruption in any one supplier. No other company provides that confidence the way Clean Energy does. In fact, we recently won the deal to service Fort Collins Transit, by beating out 12 other competitors, including two global energy majors, because of the agency's confidence in our ability to keep the RNG flowing 24/7. We apply this strength across all transportation sectors, whether it's for municipalities or the world's largest logistics operators like UPS, for which we provide RNG in over 25 states, and Amazon, for which we have constructed 19 state-of-the-art RNG stations over the last several years, that provide fast-fill and time-fill operator options for thousands of heavy-duty trucks. On a daily basis, Amazon trucks are fueling at Clean Energy stations in 26 different states. We feel good in our positioning at this critical time, as the Cummins X15N engine hits the heavy-duty truck market. The reviews of the new engine by those fleets that have been testing it have remained stellar. Pivoting to our RNG production business, we've had a busy first part of the year, completing a series of digester projects at dairies across the Midwest with our partner BP. These projects began injecting RNG into the pipeline a few months later than what we had originally hoped, but we remain pleased with the overall outcome and continue to learn with every project. 2023 was one of the worst markets in decades for our friends in the U.S. dairy business. A combination of low milk prices and high feed costs created very challenging financial conditions for dairy farms, including some of the farms we partner with for RNG projects. To that point, a dairy in Idaho that hosts one of our 50/50 joint venture projects with BP filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April. The proceedings are at an early stage, so we're not able to comment on the details of the process, but we are of course monitoring the situation very closely. Importantly, the dairy is still operating while the reorganization proceeds. O ur RNG project creates an important operational, environmental, and financial solution for the farm once the project is completed. Despite some challenges, our view on dairy RNG remains intact. These long-term projects produce the lowest carbon fuel for the customers. T hey provide an important solution for our farm partners, all while capturing methane from animal waste and removing it from the atmosphere. As an example of our commitment to adding to our low- carbon RNG supply, I'm pleased to say that we are expanding our current relationship with Maas Energy Works, with whom we have RNG offtake contracts, by signing a new development partnership to construct RNG digesters at a handful of dairies across the country. Daryl Maas and his team are some of the best developers in the business, and we're excited about this development agreement. W e just signed it yesterday, so we'll be formally announcing it with a press release early next week with more details. The other recent partnership that we have formalized is with Frank Brand, owner of South Fork Dairy in Dimmitt, Texas. You might remember, it's Frank's dairy that experienced a tragic fire last year. Frank lived up to his reputation as one of the best in the business by overcoming this horrible situation, rebuilding his barn and replacing his large herd in less than a year. He is also committed to working with Clean Energy, and building an RNG digester for all the business and environmental reasons it allows. We couldn't be prouder to call Frank our partner. I hope I've left you with the impression that we remain optimistic about our future. The fundamentals of our business of producing and selling RNG to the transportation industry is strong and growing, despite some external forces that might not always seem to go our way. We believe we've put the best team in place to execute our strategy, and they prove that every day. W ith that, I'll turn the call over to Bob. Thank you, Andrew. Good afternoon to everyone. We had a solid first quarter of 2024, with revenue of $103.7 million, a GAAP loss of $0.08 per share, non-GAAP loss of $0.01 per share, and adjusted EBITDA of $12.8 million. All the earnings metrics are much improved from a year ago, and were better than our expectations for the first quarter of 2024. Re call that the first quarter of 2023 was significantly impacted by the historically high natural gas prices in California, which ultimately was a drag on earnings, but was a big positive on revenue since much of that increase in gas costs was reflected in our pricing to customers. That's actually the main reason you see a year-over-year decline in our revenue, is because of that run up in the natural gas costs in California last year. Having said that, our net results for the first quarter of 2024 certainly got off to a better start than a year ago, which puts us in a good position to remain confident in maintaining our annual guidance for 2024. First quarter results for 2024 can be summed up by saying we had continued growth in RNG volumes. RIN revenues exceeded our expectations, which helped to offset certain LCFS credit sales that moved into the second quarter. We experienced lower net losses than expected from our RNG equity method investments, while the rest of the business, including our underlying fuel margins performed in line with expectations. To shed some light on this, in the first quarter of 2024, the upside in RIN revenue was principally due to an average RIN price realized of $3.12. Plus, we saw better net economics to us from our RNG supply offtakes. Our LCFS revenues were slightly negative for the first quarter of 2024, because we sold $2.25 million of LCFS credits in the first week of April, that we ordinarily would have sold within the first quarter. Those LCFS revenues of $2.25 million will show up in our second- quarter results. We would expect to get back into a normal LCFS credit sale timing cadence for the end of the second quarter, with a plan to transact all of our LCFS sales in the second quarter. F inally, the lower net loss than expected from our RNG equity method investments is principally related to the timing of finalizing construction, and placing the dairy projects into service and the ramp- up of operations. We ended the first quarter with approximately $249 million-$250 million in unrestricted cash and investments. We maintain our capital expenditure guidance of $60 million for our distribution business. We are raising our forecast for our dairy RNG investments to $120 million, up from $100 million, principally due to the Maas Energy RNG deal that Andrew mentioned. With that, operator, please open the call to questions. Thank you. At this time, if you'd like to ask a question, please press the star and one on your telephone keypad. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing star, two. Again, that is star, one if you'd like to ask a question. O ur first question will come from Eric Stein with Craig- Hallum. Hey, Andrew. Hi, Bob. Hi. Hey, Eric. Hey. J ust starting with the 15-liter, I know that Cummins has had some, you know, pretty nice targets out there for adoption here in 2024, 2025, and 2026. I know we're getting closer. OEMs starting to talk about, you know, production dates and that sort of thing. Just curious, you know, what your thoughts are, what you're hearing, and kind of what your expectation is throughout the remainder of 2024 and then 2025, 2026. Yeah. You know, Eric, I don't have any fuel, right at this point with the numbers, and I'm guessing you'll have to get those, you know, from Cummins. I have been recently to Cummins. I mean, and one of the things that impressed me is back in Indiana, one of the things is, they're very pleased and excited about this engine. They really feel like the technology, and what they've been able to bring this engine is really, impressive. Y eah, it makes me excited. I do know, as we keep up with customers that are testing the engines, the feedback continues to be very strong and the excitement high. Y ou know, the expectation is that that is going to be very well received as those orders begin to come in. One update is, some of the validation units is kind of a term of art in the engine business, is the next batch of trucks has been built coming down the line. T hose engines are now making their way to customers. In fact, we'll get one here shortly that we'll be using for our customers. O ur customers, if it's any indication, Eric, we booked that truck out in 1 week and 2-week, you know, tests for real loads, for real deliveries for product for, you know, our customers in those trucks for the next several months. T he excitement I think is good for this product. I'm just hoping that, you know, we'll know more here in the early part of the summer, of how these orders are going. Got it. I won't ask you, which I haven't in the past, about maybe future plans with Amazon, but maybe you could talk about, you mentioned some the volumes you're starting to see at those Amazon stations from other fleets. You know, curious again, coming back to the 15-liter, how does that play into those conversations? Yeah. You know, obviously those stations have been built with time fill, as you're familiar with, for the Amazon trucks. O f course, Amazon avails themselves to the fast fill as well, b ut each of those stations has pumps kind of on the front part of those facilities, that can fuel outside fleets. Y ou know, it's been nice to see, for instance, the other day, I have a picture that one of our salesmen sent me from San Bernardino, which is a large station, it has a I think almost 200 Amazon trucks at it, out in the Inland Empire. T here were four different unrelated heavy- duty vehicles from other fleets, s o we're beginning to see that happen. O f course, you know, the X15N will be important to this, because as those other 15-liter, you know, trucks become available to other to other fleets, these locations are all in the perfect area. That's why they've been put there by Amazon. They're in warehouse districts, and so it should be very well suited as these engines come to market. W e're glad to see that. We're beginning to see those volumes ramp up, and it's as we hoped. All right. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. Our next question will come from Manav Gupta with UBS. Good morning, guys. Congrats from the start of the year. My first question is policy- related. If RFIZ is implemented in its current form, then you with negative CI RNG could be a major beneficiary of it. Just trying to understand, I think what the E guidance is out, what the V guidance is out. A nything you have heard on 45V is the plan still, that it goes into early 2025. I f you could help us understand the impact on you, and what you're hearing in terms of when the government could be out with it. You know, you were breaking up a little bit, Manav, but if I understood your question, the 45V, yeah, [audio distortion] all about Z, nothing about 45V. No. Okay. Z, you know, in fact, I was at a conference earlier this week where John Podesta, who is, you know, responsible at the White House for kind of shepherding all of the IRA, actually talked about, you know, that they're moving through these different things at Treasury. I t's our understanding that 45Z should, you know, come out here sometime later this year. I'm hoping earlier is better, sometime maybe later this summer. W e haven't really heard anything definitive, Manav, so far. Perfect. A quick follow-up, y eah. Yeah. Go ahead, Manav. A quick follow-up there would be, can you update us on the number of dairies you already have [audio distortion], and how should we think about modeling the number of dairies online by year-end 2024? We have five dairies that are injecting gas right now, and the sixth one is completed. We 're just going through kind of a punch list with the farmers, t hat would make six. B y the end of the year, those first five should be all, you know, producing and injecting and creating credits. The sixth one could slip into 2025. Thank you. That's really f or no other reason, Manav, other than just, you know, the length of time that it takes to get through the certification process. O therwise, those first five are storing gas as we speak. Thank you. I'll turn it over. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Our next question comes from Rob Brown with Lake Street Capital Markets. Hi. Good afternoon. Hey, Rob. I was wondering, on the Maas Energy Partnership additional development, I guess, on RNG, a re they focused on different areas or different geographies, or what’s sort of the piece that that partnership adds? You know, Maas is really one of the biggest, and best developers. He’s got 60 projects, a nd so we’re very excited. We work closely with Daryl, and have for a long time. A s I mentioned in my remarks, we’re taking RNG from him. N ow, t hese projects will be scattered out in seven different states. There’s actually six projects, but the way that the dairies align themselves, they’ll actually be in seven states. I’d say for the most part, it’s Midwest and in the South. Y ou know, we’re excited about that. I'm going to try to hold off getting into all the detail on that, because we're going to talk a lot more about that next week. I t's an exciting development, and it should, you know, kind of goose our development program. Okay. Thank you. T hen on the Amazon rollout, how many more stations are sort of set to go there or in the original, I guess, first wave? There's two more to go. O ne is real close, and the other's, I won't bore you with it, Rob, but it's we're waiting on a Northern California city to approve stormwater. A s soon as we get that done, then that one will be ready to roll. W e've made good progress on that. We've completed the 17 of 19. Actually, we've completed more, b ut of the original 19, we've got 17 completed. Okay, t hank you. I'll turn it over. Thank you. Our next question comes from Derrick Whitfield with Stifel. Hey. Good afternoon, all and thanks for your time. Good afternoon. Yeah. Regarding the Maas partnership, and I get you guys want to hold off on the details, at some level. First, congrats on that because, as you mentioned, he's one of the more active developers in the industry. M aybe specific to Clean, how should we think about the partnership's implications to your development approach and cost? Like, are you guys going to do more of the covered lagoon versus complete mix? A gain, just trying to understand the application, and how it could potentially change your cost structure. You know, well, one, I think Daryl's a proven cost-effective developer. W e've seen that over time. He's a no-nonsense, tight-fisted operator, so we like that. These dairies will be smaller, and many of them will be covered lagoons. Y ou know, I think it'll be a little bit different than some of the ones that we've recently completed. Daryl, you know, has awful lot of experience on that, and we're looking forward to working with them on it. A s my follow-up, could you perhaps update us on the project pipeline? I know that it's been fairly steady, and you guys are working to convert that. A ny color that you can provide just on the depth of advanced-type developments that you guys have right now, that'll be greatly appreciated. Well, obviously, like this Maas thing factors into that. Y ou know, these projects ebb and flow. I'd say, you know, one of the things, the pipeline is robust. A lot of the projects that, you know, we've had over the last year and a half continue to be looked at, you kind of continue to wrestle with. Y ou know, look, as we look at the pricing of the low-carbon fuel credit and other sort of uncertainties that have worked into it, some of these projects don't look as attractive as they once did. Y ou know, we have to think that'll all come around. The cost of some of these projects, as we all know, and the time to market has been, you know, somewhat challenging for certain of these projects. T hese projects haven't gone away. It's just whether or not that's where we wanted to deploy our precious capital, you know, right now. W hen we get an opportunity to do like a Maas program, with the structure you'll see next week, you know, we think, you know, it kind of moves to the top of our pipeline list. Y ou know, we continue to know that we need more RNG. The industry needs more RNG. We want to be, you know, good stewards of capital though, as we as we launch these projects. You know, of course, the one that I mentioned in my remarks is Frank Brand. Now, that one, we've sort of talked about, but that's getting ready to go into production. Y ou know, we're busy. Terrific. Thanks for your time. Well, I should say production with Frank Brand. He's going into construction. Yeah, [audio distortion] was under production [audio distortion]. Yeah. Thank you. Our next question comes from Matthew Blair with TPH. Thank you. G ood afternoon. [audio distortion] You mentioned that the first quarter was better than your expectations, which we thought was pretty impressive, considering the LCFS credits that slipped into the second quarter. Was anything from the second quarter or back half of the year pulled into the first quarter? Now, a nd you reiterated your guidance. I guess all things equal, this would make you feel more confident about hitting the 2024 guidance. Is that the right read-through? Yes, we have volatility there, right? What I think it points to a little bit, especially with the LCFS going into the second quarter, is it shows the underlying business, fueling business, strong, healthy. Indeed. T hen, do you have an update on the Total JV? I believe that your six current dairy RNG projects, I think they're all with BP. Is that correct? C ould you provide an update on how things are going with the Total JV? We saw that they're working with a nother counterparty as well. W here do things stand with Total? Yeah. Y ou know, we have one project that was our first project with Total. In fact, our board of directors is going out to inspect that next week. It's in the Texas panhandle. We're pleased with that, our partner there, our dairyman, Rocky. T hat one's producing well. You know, as we just discussed earlier, a couple questions ago, you know, we have a pipeline, s o we work. We show different deals to our partners. O f course, we do that with Total. I'm sure that here in the near future, there'll be some that'll kind of go into the Total column. Great. Thanks for your comments. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question will come from Betty Zhang, Scotiabank. Thanks. Hey, Andrew. Hey, Bob. Hi, Betty. Hi. First question on LCFS. Just curious what you guys are seeing there. Is the expectation still that we'll be getting the updated program starting in 2025? Yeah. Betty, you know, look, this has been a difficult one to pin down in terms of timeline. Y ou know, our view is, and we're working very closely with CARB staff, CARB board members, and the industry, is we believe that the program that we, you know, got a preview of at the last meeting should come before the board, probably in July. Y ou know, if all goes well, then it would be adopted for implementation in 2025. W e believe that that'll include kind of the 9% step down, the accelerator in terms of rationing, down the compliance curve, depending on market conditions. S ome of the other more constructive, you know, points that we've talked about before in terms of constructive interpretations on avoided methane, and book and claim, and some of those things that, you know, used to be a little up in the air earlier in this process. W e need to get this done. I think that's the view of the staff as well. Okay, g reat. Thank you. T hen, in terms of what you mentioned about the dairy farms and how there's some challenges financially, do you think that could have any impact on your RNG volumes? Well, I mean, the Idaho situation, that could have some timing delay push out. The rest of it, no. I mean, we're proceeding. We're producing. You know, we're injecting gas. We're, you know, kind of in that early ramp-up stage on all those, so, no. You know, in fact, you know, really, as these things get going on, you're providing a revenue stream to the farmers. I mean, these are really actually a good thing for the dairies. Okay, t here may be some delay there for the one project. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question will come from Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James. Thanks for taking the question. I remember a year ago, you provided this math that for every I think it was 3,000 trucks, class A trucks running on RNG, your fuel sales would go up by 10% or something like that. Is that sensitivity still accurate, given everything that's happened since then? Wow, Pavel. 3,000 trucks is 45 million gallons. 45 million gallons on the 250-300 million gallons that we do. Y ou know, that's in that range. I mean, that's how that sort of stacks up. 3,000 trucks are important, right? We're doing not quite that many, Amazon. That volume's sort of consistent with what I just mentioned. I think what we talked about is, what Cummins has said, is that they expect that it could be in the first year of orders that the X15N, you know, could see something on the order of 3,000 orders. You know, probably what I shared with you, Pavel or others, is that, you know, we'll get a disproportionate share of that volume because of our network. W e hope that, you know, in subsequent years, the numbers go up. I mean, the way to think about it is, these heavy-duty trucks with these new engines, especially with 15-liter, will use 15,000 gallons per truck. Y ou get up to, you know, 10,000 trucks, which would be a very small penetration. Let's call that in a couple of years from now. Very small penetration on the quarter of a million class A trucks that are sold on an annual basis. That generates 150 million gallons. Y ou know, we have a very high market share of that, s o that's really meaningful for us. It's what keeps us, is we're very optimistic about our business, and why we'll need more and more RNG. Y ou know, we're just beginning to see these engines, you know, come to market. Y ou know, I'm very hopeful that we'll see the uptake like we hope. Okay, b ut let me follow up with more of a kind of a conceptual question. You know, with this AI data center euphoria, you know, there is more and more t alk about biogas going into the data center space, as gas, without being turned into RNG first. What are your thoughts on that? Well, the best use of RNG is certainly low-carbon, low-CI RNG is in transportation, which is a hard-to-carbonize market. I understand what everybody's striving for, is, obviously bringing on the power draw, the power sink of this AI is breathtaking. T hey want to have as benign fuel as they can, as low-carbon fuel as they can. It's not necessarily the most economic and the wisest place to put your most coveted low-CI gas. It should go into transportation, where it generates the most amount of credits. Y es, some landfill gas, a lot of landfill gas may end up opting into the stationary market, b ut you know, we're talking to all the different producers now. Y ou'd be surprised, of RNG, many of them that used to talk a lot about stationary sources want to bring it to the transportation market, and eventually want to bring it to the transportation market for hydrogen, not only for RNG for the vehicle. Y ou know, there'll be a lot of pressure on RNG. The good news is, there's probably 7-10 billion gallons of RNG that's I think eventually over the next decade, will come to the market. The lowest of that CI gas will come to the transportation market. It won't be going into the AI fixed power centers. I thought where you were ahead of Pavel, and I was thinking, "Wow, he's going to throw me a softball." This just puts more pressure on the electric situation. You know, we didn't already have enough power for the heavy-duty trucks to go to battery. I think the market is beginning to understand that. I'm so excited about, you know, being in the position we are with RNG that can act today in a heavy-duty truck. W hen you all of a sudden increase the demand of electricity in the United States by 20%, you just used up what you needed for heavy-duty trucks. I t's just making the situation worse for power in America to be able to do all things, every light-duty vehicle, every heavy-duty vehicle. N ow, oh, 20% for AI. You don't have the power. I mean, just read The Wall Street Journal. They had a pretty good story out yesterday. I like how we're positioned relative to using a battery in a heavy-duty truck. All right. Thanks very much. Okay. Thank you. Our next question comes from Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question. I'm Craig. Y ou know, you point out that there are higher costs. It takes longer to complete projects. Obviously, for now at least, the LCFS cash flows are much lower than anticipated 12-24 months ago. I've kind of, back- of- the- envelope, guesstimated that we're looking at projects maybe in the 7x EBITDA, when they're finally online now. T hat doesn't count, you know, cost of capital during construction. Y ou've acknowledged all this. I'm a little confused about a few things, though. The first is, obviously you're a strong hand. You have good relationships. I don't think any of us expect LCFS to stay where they are, but is this new Maas relationship taking away your interest in direct acquisitions? I t seems like in the market I just described, that there's some weaker players that just have to fold a nd they can't last another 12-24 months. I thi nk you're right. Okay, s o are you looking for that? Maas doesn't take away from that. We'll get a crack at some of those. I think you're right. Some of those will come to market. I'm just being candid, Craig. There needed to be some market therapy, which I think's going on. S ome of those projects will come forward. W e know all of them, we've looked at them, but we'll get a crack at those too. Okay, a nd then the next part to the question, because it was interesting. I t sounded like Maas was additive. I heard you say, and I forget who asked the question, but saying that basically Maas is moving to the top of the list. I'm wondering if, because of the economics, you're starting to slow-walk what you had expected to be doing with BP and Total 12-18 months ago. Nope. I mean, the activity within those JVs is constant and hasn't changed. You know, we're also able to do some of these, you know, on our own if that's the way it works. I think, you know, all of it's kind of firing on all cylinders, you know, really to get, you know, more volume. It's just, I wouldn't read any more into it other than it's additive. It's just a great opportunity. That's working with a well-known, very good, developer. We talked to him for a long time about doing it. W e finally were able to get this together, a nd we're excited about it. Y our JV partners, they have a right, but not an obligation to do the projects that you guys have kind of been circling up together. Is that right? T o the degree they'd say, "No, I think we're going to take a pass for the next six months. Y ou know, till the market settles out, you can pursue it on your own." Yeah. We're able to pursue them on our own, y eah. Are they recognizing there's a difference in where the ball is and where it's going? I s that roughly 7 x EBITDA in current market conditions after, you know, a delayed completion process versus what was expected a couple of years ago? Is that roughly where we are? G iven your stable economic position, are you comfortable independently investing on that basis, thinking there's just no way CARB is going to leave LCFS at $50-$60 18 months from now? I guess I'm not going to use your EBITDA number, okay? L et me talk about the second part of the question first. I think it would be safe to say that we believe that the LCFS price will normalize, and will be higher in the future than it is currently. W e're not modeling these projects thinking that we're getting ready to have a 20-year or $50 LCFS price. W e do believe that they're going to correct the obligation curves, which should begin to work off the overproduction, you know, the oversupply of credits and w e'll see those credits strengthen. W e've got that factored in, as do our partners that we're working with a nd so we're optimistic about the way that's going to sort out. Yeah, a ll right. I mean, all these deals, they have their own unique aspects to all of the deals that are out there in the market. You know, Craig, I think the way to look at it, and maybe I'd just do it simply is, you know, while you started out your question by saying, you know, I said that the projects were a little bit more expensive, take a little longer, etc, you know, that kind of thing, w e saw a little bit of inflation. All that's true. On the other hand, we didn't have the IRA. We didn't have the PTC. We didn't have the ITC. Y ou know, now, look, if you were to tell me that it was going to be $50 LCFS for, you know, over the long haul, then this wouldn't apply. I f you think that that's going to normalize at something higher than that, then all things kind of being equal, these projects are similar, you know, the economics are similar to what they were when we started in this. Not quite to where they were when you had $200 LCFS, but, you know, in kind of the similar ballpark. We have a threshold with our partners and with our board, of how we deploy the capital a nd it has to meet that. O therwise, we don't do it, s o you should assume that t hese Maas projects meet that threshold, a nd so that's why we're moving forward with them right now. Sounds good. Hopefully, a quick one here. In terms of the delayed coming online and actually getting cash flows, because, you know, when the carbon impact is certified, you know, you can sell LCFS and whatnot. T he timeline for major equipment procurement and availability of major equipment procurement of, you know, accreditation for the credits, connectivity of pipelines, i s this in your view say, in the last six months, is this now stable, starting to improve, or still getting worse? No. I think, well, what I was hearing you saying, I mean, the long lead items and some of the pressure that we saw because of supply chain, that's normalized. We are working really okay, s o that's one. The pathway is still too long, right? The certification process is still way too long. We are working hand in glove with the staff at CARB to get that shortened, a nd we've had meetings at the highest levels of government to talk about that. I don't think we have any pushback on that. I think all want to shorten that up, a nd it needs to come in dramatically. I'm hopeful that here in the next few months, it will become clear that they've made some changes to the process. W e'll shorten up that timeline, which will be helpful for everybody, because what we've got right now, it's not workable. I mean, you don't do that in anything else. You don't build a skyscraper, and then keep it vacant for a year and a half. It's crazy. Yeah, r ight. I think though, that's generally understood now, is just kind of getting that backlog worked off and kind of changing the process to bring that in to something that makes a lot more sense. P hysical pipeline connectivity? Oh, you know, that kind of depends on how far you are and who you're working with, and which utility and which pipeline. Y ou know, that's never as fast as you like, b ut that shouldn't be a gating factor on these projects. Can be. You're not going to change that. I mean, look, I'm looking down the table at one of my fellows that's built 200 fueling stations. We've run into that problem with utilities making meters, okay? T hat's just the way it is. I would say your pipeline connectivity is, you know, 6 months to a year. T hat's never going to change, b ut that should be within the timeline of the construction project. W hen it's way outside of that, you know, then you got a hot case. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Jason Gabelman with TD Cowen. Yeah. Hey, t hanks for taking my questions. The first one's just on upstream EBITDA cadence. This quarter was a bit better than expected, b ut you didn't change full- year guidance. It sounds like it was related to, I couldn't really tell if it was project construction getting delayed or something else. S hould we expect that EBITDA to move more negative in 2Q, as you ramp up construction activities and other things going on in that segment? T hen does this Maas joint venture have any impact to that? No. Jason, we should see an increase kind of, you know, ramping throughout the year on that, on the distribution side to the business, s o we're not [audio distortion]. Sorry. Yeah, i t not the distribution side, the upstream side of the business. [audio distortion] Yeah. [audio distortion] get worse. Yeah, w e will see some of that. Yeah, so a s we talked about, you know, on our last call, that a lot of that loss would be in the first part of the year. I t's going move out a little bit, s o you'll see some of it in the second quarter. Got it, a nd no change from this Maas joint venture to that guidance? Correct, n o. O kay. T hen my second one's just the 15-liter engine order book. I mean, it sounds like the orders aren't going to come in really until the middle of this year. I think on prior calls, you had suggested that sales could be kind of 3,400 in 2024. Maybe that was Cummins' commentary, not yours, b ut it sounds like the sales are being pushed out a little bit. C an you just maybe talk about when you expect to see those volumes materialize, on the road and in your fuel distribution segment? Is that more of a [audio distortion]? Sure, yeah. Those are Cummins' numbers. Not mine. I got browbeat around here by not using numbers anymore. Those are Cummins' numbers, but I would say this, i t was always contemplate. I mean, the production never happened till June or July anyway. I don't know that I'm sitting here saying that it's slipped or this and that. I mean, it was always the second half, a nd we always figured by the time that made its way, you know, by the way, these get produced. They get sent to the dealer. They get sent to the customer. They get stenciled. Y ou know, the vehicles take a while to hit the road. We always figured that the volume for 2024 for us would be, you know, relatively small. I t would be way back- end loaded. I mean, that we would really wouldn't see much volume till September, October, you know, November, way late in the year. I t'll really be a 20, you know, we'll get a stub. E ven if they did the 3,500 or 3,000 that Cummins has talked about, you know, we stand to gain a large part of that market share, I'd like to think. It'll be in the fourth quarter. T hat we'll see that volume in 2025. We've always thought that, b ut I still want to see those orders c ome through and those engines built. That's key. [audio distortion]. Yep, u nderstood. All right, g reat. Thanks for the clarifications. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. There are no additional questions at this time. I'd like to now turn the conference back to Mr. Andrew Littlefair for any closing remarks. Yes. Thank you, operator. Thank you, everyone for joining today. W e look forward to filling you in on our progress next quarter. Have a good day. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today's presentation. You may now disconnect.