Good day, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Clearway Energy, Inc First Quarter 2023 Earnings Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press star one one on your telephone. You will hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I'd now like to hand the conference over to your host today, Chris Sotos, President and CEO. Please go ahead. Good morning. Let me first thank you for taking the time to join Clearway Energy, Inc's first quarter call. Joining me this morning are Akil Marsh, Director of Investor Relations, Sarah Rubenstein, CFO, and Craig Cornelius, President and CEO of Clearway Energy Group, our sponsor. Craig will be available for the Q&A portion of our presentation. Before we begin, I'd like to quickly note that today's discussion will contain forward-looking statements which are based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable as of this date. Actual results may differ materially. Please review the Safe Harbor in today's presentation, as well as the risk factors in our SEC filings. In addition, we will refer to both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. For information regarding our non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures, please refer to today's presentation. Turning to Page three. The company had a soft quarter, driven primarily by weak renewable resource due to the heavy rainfall in California and the West Coast. CAFD was $-4 million for the first quarter. Clearway is announcing an increase in its dividend of 2% to $0.3818 per share in the second quarter of 2023, or $1.5272 on an annualized basis, keeping us on target to achieve the upper range of our dividend growth objectives for 2023. We are also reaffirming our 2023 CAFD guidance of $410 million. Clearway continues its focus on growth at all levels of the enterprise. Our sponsor's pipeline has grown to 29.3 GW, including 6.9 GW of late-stage projects expected to reach COD in the next four years. We're excited to announce our commitment to the Cedro Hill repowering project. We will go over the project in more detail in a couple slides, but this repowering will deploy approximately $63 million in capital while extending the PPA duration to 2045, significantly de-risking the value of the asset. Focusing on the five-year CAFD yield starting in the 2027 period of over 9%, Cedro will create accretion beyond the assumptions embedded in the $2.15 of CAFD per share when fully repowered. Clearway Energy, Inc continues to work on commitments from the October 2022 drop-down offers and expects to have them completed by the end of the second quarter. Clearway Group now has visibility into nearly 600 MW of additional projects that will also continue growth in the future beyond the $2.15 of CAFD per share. Too early to update anticipated capital deployment and CAFD creation for these new asset additions, Clearway considers the projects far enough along to start adding them to our growth profile. The capital market volatility of recent months, I wanted to take a moment to remind our investors that we have enough capital to fund our line of sight drop-downs that underpin our $2.15 CAFD per share long-term target. At our 2023 guidance, we generate approximately $100 million of excess cash that can be deployed toward investments in the business as well. As an additional source of liquidity, we recently increased our revolver size from $495 million- $700 million, creating internal liquidity for drop-downs, third-party acquisitions, or LC issuances to support the business, particularly as we seek to add RA capacity contracts on certain of our California natural gas assets. This significant internal liquidity is further strengthened by the fact that our long-term corporate leverage will be at the low end of our targeted range with some capacity for additional corporate debt before there'd be a need to issue any additional equity. In summary, Clearway feels we are well-positioned to manage this period of capital market volatility and continue our growth trajectory without needing to access the capital markets. In summary, Clearway continues to execute its growth plan with a very strong internal liquidity profile that is well positioned to grow beyond the 215 of CAFD per share, combined with the DPS growth rate at the upper range through 2026. Turning to Slide four. Here are more details on the financial results of the first quarter. Clearway is reporting Adjusted EBITDA of $218 million and cash available for distribution, or CAFD, of $-4 million. In the quarter, results were below expectations, primarily due to weaker results in the renewables segment. Our California solar assets were impacted by above-average rainfall, which led to lower solar irradiance and thus production coming in below expectations. Our wind portfolio experienced lower than expected production for the quarter, which impacted CAFD generation. A less significant driver to the quarterly results was from the conventional fleet's extended spring outages and preventive maintenance ahead of the summer merchant energy period. We continue to believe the conventional fleet is well-positioned to provide critical grid reliability services as well as generate additional revenue from dispatching to the merchant power market in the second half of 2023. As discussed earlier, our liquidity and balance sheet are well positioned to execute on growth with no equity or debt issuance need to achieve our 2026 DPS growth objectives, significant undrawn revolver capacity, and strong credit metrics. While the first quarter results came in below our expected seasonality for the quarter, we want to remind investors that achievement of full year results is highly weighted on both the second and third quarters, where the revenue contribution from renewable resources and the conventional fleet is typically highest. Given the seasonality of the portfolio, the conventional fleet starting merchant dispatch in the second half of the year and only 1/4 of the year complete, we are reaffirming our 2023 guidance of $410 million. Turning to Page five. I want to highlight our Cedro Hill repowering project. This repowering is a great success for extending the asset's useful life, improving its risk profile, and driving our CAFD per share growth profile. As part of the repowering, Cedro Hill will be upgraded with new GE technology, increasing its nameplate capacity by 10 MW and its projected annual production by approximately 14%. We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with our customer to amend and extend the existing PPA by 15 years, providing the asset with 22 years of remaining price certainty. Given the locational value of this resource, this outcome will be a win for both our customer and for Clearway. It will also let us deploy a turbine repowering technology that has been proven very technically efficient elsewhere in our fleet. Importantly, the Cedar repowering is projected to have a healthy average CAFD yield of approximately 9% beginning in 2027, which will create accretion beyond the assumptions embedded in the $2.15 of CAFD per share. Cedar will soon reach its repowering commercial operation date in the second half of 2024, and is anticipated to be funded by excess cash generation. This repowering continues our strong track record of accretively upgrading our wind fleet, having successfully repowered over 650 MW of assets to date. Page six provides an update of progress of the previously discussed drop-downs from our sponsor. The left side of the page represents our pro forma CAFD outlook, inclusive of Victory Pass, Arica. We are currently not including Cedro Hill repowering, as the move in CAFD is relatively small. We will modify our pro forma CAFD outlook and line of sight CAFD more comprehensively later in the year when we have more assets committed. The remaining drop-downs that we are currently working on with Clearway Group represent anticipated additional $180 million of capital deployment, which are expected to turn into binding commitments by the end of the second quarter. This would then be followed by the next drop-down offer of approximately $220 million. Importantly, these assets have a strong CAFD yield on a portfolio basis, so that Clearway can continue to generate accretive full returns for our shareholders. Our $440 million of potential line of sight CAFD does not include any contribution from the roughly 600 MW of newly identified drop-down assets. When the capital deployment and CAFD generation of these assets is more well-defined, we will update our $2.15 CAFD per share number to account for this additional growth. Page seven provides some details around additional advancement in Clearway's long-term growth. While these projects are not far enough along to provide updates to capital deployment and CAFD, development has progressed far enough that Clearway Group feels confident enough to add them to the list of assets that will eventually be offered. These assets represent nearly 600 MW of additional opportunities that will have funding dates in the first half of 2025 and support growth in CAFD per share beyond the $2.15 target we have discussed previously. The projects highlighted are not the full extent of growth that is being developed at Clearway Energy Group, but are anchor tenants in a 1 GW portfolio of diversified assets that will provide additional growth. As we work through all the opportunities of the IRA, we will continue to analyze ways to optimize our fleet through repowerings and opportunities to add storage to existing facilities. As I have discussed on previous calls, a key component of achieving value for this optimization option is customer interest. We are now seeing evidence of this in multiple markets across our fleet. The table provides some sense of scale of these opportunities with approximately 2.3 GW between 2025 and 2028. As always, we'll be cognizant of exercising these options in a way that manages capital formation and value optimization for Clearway shareholders. Turning to Page eight. Our goals for 2023 have not changed. To deliver on our CAFD guidance, grow our dividend at the upper range of our objectives, and continue to execute on our growth plan. Clearway continues to work through commitments for the remaining drop-down offers from October of 2022 by the end of the second quarter of 2023, and receive the next offer on further commitments to continue our growth path as well. Clearway is focused on demonstrating the visibility to CAFD per share growth through 2027 and beyond in its $2.15 of CAFD per share long-term objective. We are working to achieve this by investing additional growth projects beyond the drop-downs already discussed with repowering such as Cedro Hill, as well as third-party M&A, and also continuing to work at originating and/or extending the RA contracts on our California natural gas assets. In summary, Clearway Energy, Inc continues its focus on prudent growth and has confidence in its ability to meet its long-term growth objectives, due in part to strong sponsor support to ensure Clearway's success. Operator, please open the line for questions. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question at this time, that is star one one. Our first question comes from Noah Kaye with Oppenheimer. Thanks so much. Good morning. Maybe just start with a health check on the operating environment. Can you comment what you're seeing in terms of flow of panels and batteries? Are we starting to see some easing bottlenecks here? Just how that plays into expectations for some of the timing of these drop-downs? Thanks. Sure. That phenomenon has kind of been taken into account with the timings of the drop-downs we have in our appendix. Craig, you're obviously closer to that. I'll let you speak to that. Yeah. Thanks for the question, Noah. We're really pleased with our execution in an environment which I think you're right to note has been challenging for some. In our case, for the projects that underpin current committed growth expectations for Clearway Energy, Inc, we're ahead of schedule on module deliveries. That's true for both Daggett and for Victory Pass and Arica. And that reflects the success we've had for those projects over really the time since we've been in execution and some of the cluttered policy issues that you're referencing have impacted module deliveries for others. We're really quite pleased with the decisions we've made, the support we've gotten from our suppliers, and how the procurement strategy we've had to underpin growth for CWEN is playing out. Okay, great. You know, it's great to see some of the repowering opportunities start to materialize. As you'd mentioned, over 2 GW of potential opportunities, interest across the fleet. When you bucket that into, you know, opportunities where it seems like the CAFD yields might pencil out similarly to this one. I mean, is that broadly true for all the opportunities you identified? Have you sharpened your pencils on that yet? Is there a subset that you have high conviction in? What can you share with us? I think it's frankly too early to say to pencil in a CAFD, you know, yield that we anticipate. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they're going to be, you know, 4% or something like that. I do think it's too early to the point I tried to raise on the 600 MW and the like. These are pretty early stage. We've gone through the one that we think we're in late stage on. I don't wanna kind of like level set that all of them will be at this range. As I've talked about on other calls, it's got three different types of repowering. Like one, like Cedro Hill, where you have an asset that's performing really well and kind of like the CAFD, the improvement in CAFD generation, while strong, may not be that high because the asset's performing well today. There's a second type where you basically have an asset that's performing well, but maybe has significant maintenance CapEx coming up in the future or additional volatility and, you know, degradation or O&M that's needed. In that sense, you may not really see the uplift because it's kind of at a further stage. You know, the third and the easiest one to demonstrate value on are assets that are performing poorly. Fortunately, we don't have a lot of that third category. I think in terms of CAFD uplift, don't wanna... You know, the reason I don't wanna kind of get out ahead is it's really dependent on the individual circumstances of the asset we're dealing with. Yep. Maybe just thinking one more. You know, I think double-clicking on the point that you don't need equity, incrementally to fund the growth through 2026. Can you just walk us through a little bit more, you know, your thoughts around additional leverage capacity at the project level? Then just, you know, what's a comfort level for you in terms of an upper bound for consolidated leverage? Sure. A couple different questions there. In terms of non-recourse debt, we kind of, you know, have certain pockets. For example, we didn't lever on a non-recourse basis the other half of our Utah purchase, when we basically got thermal proceeds. There's kinda elements like that within the book. I do think the bigger lever, though, that we might use before that, depending on exactly the nature of the asset, is that corporate debt. I think just to give you kind of a range finder, your corporate debt overall is obviously about $2.125 billion in terms of the bonds that we have. At our $410 million CAFD guidance, you've got between $90 million and $95 million of corporate interest. You know, that ratio gets you to kind of low 4%, 4x plus minus, and the upper range is about 4.5x, at least from the rating agencies. Obviously, it's focused on one metric. They look at things like FFO to debt, interest rate environment matters. Just to give you a quick calc, that's the rough calc. Very helpful. Thanks. Our next question comes from Angie Storozynski with Seaport. Good morning. First, just one more question about project-level debt and its availability and cost. I mean, you show the allocation of thermal proceeds to finance growth, but I'm assuming that, you know, there is obviously an assumption of project-level debt that is being added to these assets. Could you comment on, you know, any increase in the cost of that debt and how that impacts your expected cash flow generation from these assets? Sure. I'll maybe answer your second question before the first. It doesn't affect the expected cash flow generation that significantly, because obviously the corporate capital we're putting in is after those costs, and that's pretty well defined. I think to your point, the credit spreads aren't really showing that much, you know, volatility. I think it's more, you know, a SOFR swap to fixed type of phenomenon that may increase the cost there. I don't think we've seen a significant increase in the credit spread on non-recourse debt. Chris, if I could add to that, Angie. Sure. What we do as a business practice, Angie Storozynski, is at the same time that we execute major revenue contracts for projects that will become part of the growth profile for CWEN, we also put in place long-term interest rate hedges of some kind and secure major equipment for the projects. We do that so that we can largely fix the stream of expected cash flows for a project when it is commercialized. That might not have been industry practice some years ago, but given what we've all observed around a more complex supply chain environment and also a more complex interest rate environment, we find it useful to try to fix all those things simultaneously. we do that, and that allows us to be confident in the CAFD per share contribution from any given asset, even before a commitment is made by the YieldCo, but certainly as of the date that the commitment's made. Okay. Okay. Probably even more importantly, we are increasingly scrutinizing the quality of CAFD of different yield costs, you know, how it's financed. You guys have a pretty substantial debt amortization on an annual basis, especially associated with the California assets. I mean, is there, you know, as you think about the future, is there a certain mix between hold co non-amortizing debt and project-level debt that you're comfortable with? Is there any deferred financing, like anything, I clearly don't see it, but anything that could catch up with you in the next couple of years, some sort of a deferred benefit of low short-term rates that we had over the last couple of years? Sure. A couple of different questions there. I think part one, in terms of the corporate bonds, there's nothing like that. The earliest corporate bond maturity is 2028, the next is 2031 and 2032. If we look to our non-recourse project financing, we don't really have any large requirements for refinancing until the third quarter of 2024. Once again, yeah, not to minimize that, but that's about $100 million, $150 million in terms of principal. Once again, to the point, the credit spreads aren't moving much. We'll see what happens on a SOFR swap basis. I think, you know, nothing in 2023 really. 2024 there is that one refinancing and all corporate debt is locked down until 2028. We're also about 99%, 98%, 99% fixed in terms of having our non-recourse debt swapped. Overall, Angie, not a lot other than that repricing that may occur in, you know, the third quarter of 2024 when we redo that non-recourse financing. When you say that you're within your credit targets, Just remind me again, is it 4x hold co debt to parent level CAFD? Or again, what is the metric that I'm trying to solve for? Sure. Yes, it's basically between four and 4.5, and that's kind of the calc I went through a little bit on the last quarter. The way we look at that is you take your total corporate debt, the $2.125 billion of bonds. You divide that by corporate level CAFD plus corporate level interest. You take our $410 of guidance, you add between, I think it's, you know, between $90 million and $95 million of overall corporate interest. That gives you obviously about $500, you know, $510. That's the ratio that gets you, like I said, to a low end of the 4 range. We should be at the lower end of that range looking at that one. That's the key metric we try to solve for. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sure. Our next question comes from Mark Jarvi with CIBC. Thanks. Morning. Just in terms of the commitment that you expect to finalize this quarter, is the expectation it'll be all done together? I guess is there any one of those projects that are a bit trickier to, I guess, get across the finish line and figure out that might be pushed out into subsequent quarters? I don't think that the projects... I mean, the timeline we have is the timeline we think is appropriate in terms of those assets, if that's kind of what you're asking. I think in terms of will all of them necessarily be signed at the exact same time, that's not probable. You know, we kinda go through the assets as they come and different diligence speeds on them. Obviously, out of that first drop-down, what we refer to as drop-down 24, which is Victory Pass, Arica, plus the remaining, you know, $182 million of capital associated with that. We obviously did Victory Pass, Arica first because that was the furthest along. To answer your question, don't expect them all to be done at one time. There'll probably be, you know, a variety of announcements coming out along the lines of the different assets. Two, the timing that we have, you know, in our appendix is what we think currently. Okay. Thanks, Dave. Just coming back to the 2.3 GW of storage and wind and power in the projects, what would you frame as a good success rate, if you thought about that? Like, do you see it as potentially achieving 50% of that in terms of completing that over the next couple of years? Or is it, you know, just too hard to get any numbers at this point, given all the negotiations that have to come through? Craig, would you mind taking that one? Sure. Yeah, I think we'd, I think giving you a particular probability right now is probably premature. What we can say is this. For all of the volume you see represented there, we have active engagement with, and in most cases with the existing customer for those facilities. That is a very meaningful change over the picture, you know, just one year ago, and I think reflects a recognition from load-serving entities across the country that the clean energy assets that were deployed first in our grid tend to be located in places where their resource and their place in the transmission position is especially useful. Between that locational value of our existing fleet and the substantial flexibility and economic benefit that the structure of incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act provide, there's a real strong catalyst for engagement with load-serving entities and other customers to contract for resources at these locations for a very long term at economics that are attractive to us. Also to try to expand or supplement them where either the renewable resource can be increased in size or where we can augment it with batteries. What we see now is the ability to extend contracts for I think materially longer periods than repowering is generally supported before. You see that in the extended duration of the agreement we reached for Cedro Hill. Importantly, incentive structure for storage that allows us to deploy storage at those locations without some of the structuring complexities. That one had to go through before the IRA's passage. I feel pretty constructive that over time we're gonna be able to repower, expand or hybridize a pretty substantial fraction of our fleet. It's really just a question of when we get to do that. What you see on that page just represents the ones where we're in active conversations today. Understood. Just in terms of conversations around co-located storage, and the comments before have been that you have to get someone to be, you know, willing to pay for that upside and get a, you know, a willing counterparty. Is there any other opportunities you're seeing or structure you could see around trying to get storage built with the, you know, the existing utility partner for that, you know, the wind or solar asset that doesn't want to partner on the storage side? Meaning if they want to own the storage as a transmission asset or something they dispatch? Like if there's some way, like, you know, if you're gonna be kind of just doing, you know, arbitrage on time of day and it's kind of quasi merchant, is there some sort of, you know, you know, financial structure or swap you could do in terms of that? Yeah. You know, I mean, I think, we're kind of at the dawn of a real renaissance for how these assets can be structured commercially, how they can be financed. Also, how power markets and will be regulated and will make market designs that generate revenues or procurement obligations on behalf of utilities, where storage is a useful resource. I think we can look at California kind of as being instructive, where eventually storage was viewed as a pretty essential resource, and there was a combination of IRPs that were generated that expected storage as a central resource procurement direction that was either proposed by utilities or mandated by their regulatory commission. You know, that structure is producing assets that are very compatible with the YieldCo's investment mandate with long-term revenue profiles. We're starting to sort of see that move east, where, you know, some of the resources you see referenced there are outside California. Actually, the majority of the hybridization opportunity set we're engaged on now is outside California, where, you know, If you look under the surface of IRPs from utilities, they're starting to identify storage as a resource they really need to procure in the system as renewables grows. You know, what we're finding is those utilities are prepared to think about contracting for those resources over a long-term basis that's compatible with YieldCo. The last thing I'd add is that I think as you move eastward, we do expect that over the next two, three, four years, ISOs and RTOs will start to recognize the need for storage in their system. As they do, that will likely lead to changes in how those markets are designed that may ultimately make attributes of batteries that today you would expect we have to monetize on a merchant basis, attributes that we can monetize on a contracted one. That's really helpful. Chris, just last question for you. I know you have to save a bit of catch up here if you wanna hit your guidance. Was there buffer in the renewal guidance that, you know, gives you some hope that you'll be there through the balance of the year or some other levers you can pull to make up, to catch up here on the lost CAFD in the quarter? I think it's more just the waiting. I think, you know, for those of you who follow us for a long period of time, first quarter is always the weakest. It's low from a renewable, you know, resource perspective. For us, it's just obviously, you know, second and third quarter are critical to getting that, especially with the merchant. It's not as though we necessarily quote-unquote, need to, you know, have a Herculean effort to catch up. I just think that, you know, we'll know a lot more kind of when we sit in our second and third quarter as we get through those as the main CAFD generation periods. Okay. Got it. Thanks, everyone. Our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Hey, good morning. How are you guys doing? All right. Yourself? Quite well. Thank you. Hey, I wanted to follow up on the 600 MW of additional potential drop. Just talk about the 215 in DPS. Listen, you all have a pretty good line of sight on that number already prior to this incremental 600 MW. The 600 is being contemplated, I think in the 2025 timeframe, as best I understood your commentary. How do you think about this adding latitude to the 215, if not upside? Do you think that the drop timing here, et cetera, just extends that growth rate and gives you the latitude to continue compounding here? I just wanna make sure how we should think about that, especially in conjunction with the additional cash flow coming from the modest repowering as well. Sure. Hopefully I understood your question correctly. I would say it's much more an extension of the 215. I think to kind of the point they would kind of come online in 2025. First year would be the first year of 2026, excuse me, would be first year of operations. Maybe not kind of run rate CAFD number. I view it much more toward adding to the 2027 and beyond timeframe than really a big impact necessarily in 25 and 26, depending. You know, Julien, to be fair, there's a reason I said it's a little bit too early to tell. When we have everything tied down, we'll go through it. Just to give you a, you know, a directional, I think about it that way. Right. How do you think about this fitting with the idea of no external equity needs here to fund that? You know, you can make some CAFD assumptions here on what that 600 MW could do, et cetera. How do you think about this creating some equity need out there? I mean, obviously we're gonna come back into that at some point. Yep. I mean, it depends on size. I think to the point in 2023, once again at our guidance, et cetera, we generate about $100 million of excess cash. I think for us, Julien, it's really about flexibility. As I talked a little bit on the call and over the, you know, past quarters, you know, we did upsize our revolvers. We have a lot of flexibility to determine if and when we need to issue equity. Yeah, once again, there's a reason I didn't bring up the actual capital because it's a little bit too early, so I don't wanna speculate. You know, the point I would like to make is we have a lot of capital flexibility with, you know, A, internal cash flow generation, B, just high cash balances from the thermal sale, C, you know, an undrawn revolver except for LC postings. Got it. Excellent. Just minus, again, especially since regarding that 2027, 20, 2028 timeframe here, I mean, your California portfolio, I mean, RA prices continue to move sharply higher here in recent months. I mean, when does that reopen up again here in terms of open exposures? I just wanna think about the payout ratio latitude and your continued organic improvement in the portfolio as well, as we talk about 2027 and 2028 there with the new drop. Sure. They're basically on a capacity basis. All three of the assets are open in 2027. There's different bidding rules that allow what you can bid in or not. We may not-- Yeah, once again, not gonna go into our bidding strategy on a public call. Yeah, we may bid in some, bid in others, but, you know, to answer your question, the RA capacity for all three is open in 2027. You would agree with the assessment that there is further latitude relative to where you're hedged today? I imagine, wherever you hedged, say, a few months ago, it's just not where the current forward marks are. Yeah, I would say, you know, forward marks are higher than where we hedged that as a generalization. I also don't wanna get too far out ahead. You are talking about a period that's, you know, if we bid on a three-year basis, for example, a three -year strip between 27 and 30, kind of today's or 2024's RA price may be a little bit strong from how you look at it for a longer date basis. To your question, Julien, RA prices in general are higher than where we had hedged previously. Excellent. Hey, thank you two very much. I appreciate it. Good luck, guys. Thank you. Our next question comes from William Grippin with UBS. Great. Thank you very much. Can you hear me okay? Yep, all good, Will. Awesome. Yeah, just maybe getting at Julien's question a little bit differently here. You know, you talked about being at the high end of the 5%-8% growth range without the need to issue new equity. How are you thinking about possibly growing faster or upping that range, just given your ability to leverage a more traditional funding mix for incremental deals from here? Right. For us, we typically don't look to increase the range. I would always much rather grow the period of time with which we can kind of give the, you know, investors visibility into that growth. If the question is, would we move the 5%- 8% to, let's say, to 9% as an example, that answer in general is a no. What I'd much rather do is, let's say in November, be able to demonstrate to investors growth through 2027 or beyond. We're always much more focused on extending the runway at that growth rate than increasing the growth rate in one or two years just to get a little bit ahead. All right. Appreciate it. That's all for me. That concludes today's question and answer session. I'd like to turn the call back to Chris Sotos for closing remarks. Thank you everyone for attending today. As I understand, it's a very busy day in terms of, you know, reports coming out, so appreciate everyone's time, and look forward to talking to you in August. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.