Energy Transition Fund Frenzy

the public markets. But today we're gonna talk about even bigger stuff. Asset managers raising huge funds to invest in the energy transition, so things like wind and solar projects, other renewables like geothermal, EV charging networks, batteries, anything and everything zero carbon, as well as investments in the company's

doing these projects and supplying the kit. Okay, So just to name a few of these funds we're recording on on July Yesterday, on the twenty eight, Brookfield announced a seven billion dollar fund that's on its way to twelve point five billion target TPG. The day before announced a five point four billion dollar fund on its way to seven billion target, and back in April we saw eight point four billion from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and four point

eight billion from black Rock. Okay, so, in his latest piece for Bloomberg Opinion, Nat Bullard, chief content officer and friend of Switched On, talked about this frenzy and fundraising. We've gotten that on the show to tell us about it and to give us a few frameworks for how to think about it. Along with this weekly column, Bloomberg users can catch Nat every Wednesday at eleven am Eastern where he hosts Asked BANF, a weekly show where he gets into it with a BENF analyst on their recent

work and users can ask questions live. The next ask BNF is on August four, where he'll talk with BENIF analysts Vicky Cumming and Maya Godamer about the asset owner's path to net zero emissions. Register on NF dot com or s M and R go on the Bloomberg terminal. As always, does not provide investment or strategy device and you can hear the full dist claimer at the end of the show. Him Mark Taylor, and you're listening to switched on the BENF podcast. Now, Welcome Mark, Thanks for

having me. It's nice to be back. It's always great having you on the show. Thanks for coming to Thank you. Okay, So we kind of decided to do this one really quick. We just started talking about it this morning because there's so much going on in this corner of the market. Can you get put it in your ownwards kind of what's going on in the market and kind of describe why you decided to write about it this week. So we're recording on Thursday of the twenty nine of July.

And on Tuesday July, we got noticed that two big alternative asset managers, TPG and Brookfield, have closed between them just under twelve and a half billion dollars worth of climate or climate transition funds, so big private equity funds designed to be deployed broadly around the theme of climate. Now for reference, those are very very big funds, even within the normal realm of like an energy or infrastructure fund. They're not even the only multibillion dollar funds that have

been closed this month. I think I looked back and found three or four others, and I found a number that are announced intentions to be that size. Those funds themselves aren't even fully closed. There at five point four and seven billion dollar funds respectively. That could go up to seven and twelve and a half billion, So we're talking about potentially just under twenty billion dollars of funds

that have come in. And it's just an extraordinary moment, certainly in general, but also I think given the history rather fraught history in the last decade of fundraising either at the early stage or later stages for anything climate related, it just sort of caught our eyes, shall we say, not just mine, but pretty much everybody we work with, everybody in my guard of professional network. So I figured let's put a little more sunlite on this and talk

about it a bit more. It was so, you know, I don't want these ord shocking, but yeah, you know, Cutter I such this week that it kind of caught caught us off guard. We even stopped tracking these types of fundraises a few years ago because nothing was going on like it, which just wasn't really happening. We had

to go through that sad process of what we call deprecation. Yeah, taking a taking a product that was that was sort of a fallow field within within the larger pasture of things that we cover in research, and say this is probably something that we don't need to vote a lot of time too, because there's just not a lot of activity and a lot of inbound interest. And here we are and what's the reverse in a direction I don't know, right and and now and now we have something. Though.

There's one thing to say about that, which is that this also shows that it was no longer probably running through such specialized specialty financial channels too. It was no longer potential limited partners coming through a specialty funnel, if you will, to then go back out into a specialty market. What it was instead is the world's collective pool of limited partners going to a pretty well established funnel of

the world's biggest alternative asset investors. And that's that. In many ways, it follows a pattern that we don't really need to track because it is already very well tracked in general within the world of finance and capital raising. It says that this happens to be taking place not for a real estate fund, not for an infrastructure fund

in general, but for specific climate transition. Let me give you one more g whiz thought on that is, ten years ago, when we were tracking this more closely and all this stuff, I talked to a friend of mine who worked at a private equity right and I was like, hey, you guys should look at renewables. It's getting getting pretty cool. And the answer, you know, I talked to him multiple times about this, and it was always it's not big enough.

You know, the funds that would be raised that we would do, they don't match them the numbers that we are typically used to looking at. Well, this this p shop. They are on the list that you mentioned of a funds that have announced, you know, and don't even think they're gonna be you know, in the top ten of size. You know. So like things have changed, Things have certainly changed,

and we can actually track that change. Weirdly, out about the same time that you had prospective fundraisers sort of saying that nothing was big enough for us to invest in, we saw the assets being created that later on they could invest it. In fact, right about the same time as when we saw the first multibillion dollar club deals for offshore wind in Europe, which actually were a way of kind of of kind of kickstarting things into a

scale of capital that finally mattered. I remember the first time I ever talked to sovereign funds, and this was even earlier than even earlier than the time that you're describing, so let's say two thousand nine. Their problem was being like, yeah, actually, you know, the returns profiles are okay for what we like. The speed which we can move is also doable, all that kind of stuff. Is there anything ten times bigger?

Like our ticket sizes ten times bigger, because that's the weight that we move in, Like our due diligence process and our timelines don't really reward doing things this small, Like we're going to do the same amount of diligence if we're acting in a half a billion dollar genre in a fifty million dollar job. So, speaking of deploying that capital, right, so we've talked a bit about how much it is or how much is going into this stuff,

but like they're all being described as transition funds. Basically, now, what are they going to be spending that money on? Well, it's a little bit unclear. I have to say that given the general trajectory for a fund that size, it almost certainly be tilted towards asset investment, like it has to probably flow into assets and infrastructure at that size. You do see some general purpose venture funds that are in the multiple billions, but they would be probably doing

later stage software investment. That might still happen, you know, fifty million dollar ticket sizes per institution in the fund raise at a time, but they're probably you know, they're probably not going into like angel round funding, friends and family rounds for things that have spun out of universities. They're almost certainly going to be going at that price

for assets. But the caveat to that is that some of the funds have said that they are interested in looking relatively early on, like it is sort of an early stage growth, So providing the first walk around money for a big developer could be one. We definitely saw that happen back in the day. The question and we

can talk about this a little bit later. It's interesting is what does that What does that imply for pricing of assets and pricing of companies when you have all that that capital chasing in something that's inherently smaller perhaps than the pool of available capital within a fund, just to be clear, for assets, you mean like projects like physical stuff things, Yes, you may not be buying them at these stage you're commissioning yet, but you're buying into

a pool of physical assets as opposed to an acquisition that is primarily concerned with intellectual property broadly speaking, right, it's it's going towards property, plan and equipment if you want,

rather than intellectual property. Right. Okay. One thing that I thought was really interesting looking at some of these announcements was I think it was the Blackrock announcement where they said that, you know, traditionally our previous two funds in this space have been solely on operational assets, but now we're going into construction assets and even just announced stuff announced projects, so they're going, you know, further further a field. I guess you could say. I thought that was pretty

telling of where things are going. It's a sign I think of a sort of collective mass de risking, if you will. If an asset manager at that size is willing to start to go earlier and earlier in the development stage, that implies greater confidence written large across the sector and perhaps in the particular operators as well that

they are investing in. So there's another sign of sence if if you're dealing with developers whom you've seen proved success in the past, go from dirt you know, from basically being a dirt farmer and dealing with permission and rights of way all the way towards commissioned assets, and you realize that you can invest on long that continuum if you will on an asset basis, then then maybe you are willing to do that. Also, they may find

that pricing is more advantageous. Certainly, your spreads are going to compress the closer you get towards construction because the risks are in turn lower. And I mean this is

this is kind of pretty familiar credit stuff. Maybe the cases that you're finding risk reward tolerance that is shifting towards the early stage because you want more reward and you're either more willing to take on the risk or you think that the risk itself is perhaps miss priced, right, so you're you're willing to go earlier, earlier into development stage because you see that that's where the value can

be captured. You know, all these funds are raised from investors, who are the parties involved putting money into these funds.

So the archetypal participants in any kind of infrastructural fundraising like this, and generally most of the institutions funding What happened this week are what we brought to be called institutions, and institutions in this case are endowments from a university, they are sovereign funds, they are pensions, retirement funds, things of that sort, and they're basically you're saying, well, we

have two billion dollars of us as under management. That's the vote, you know, two tents of a percent of it to this fund this year, and maybe one percent of it overall in any given year to this kind of asset class. So that's pretty typical on the Ontario Teacher Teachers Pension Plan or the similar institutions in the

state of California might be doing something like that. What's intriguing this time around is that you find other institutions that don't really we don't qualify as an institutional investor, and that would be things such as a Nike, Honeywell a corporation acting as unlimited partner, which is intriguing that doesn't often happen. You see companies of all sorts these days setting up their own venture wings, so they are sometimes they'll set up a completely separates wherein they have

hived off and ring fence. They general partner that interacts with the rest of the company as a limited partner to the general partner, or they might be unlimited partner and somebody else's fund is a broader blanket or broader umbrella of of corporate venture capital. This is something very different. This is like corporate limited partnership in mostly assets based businesses. And I think we need to watch very closely to see what the intentionality is there over time. Part of it.

I mean it could be purely financial. I mean it could be that the that the companies that are that are raising the funds are simply giving an expectation of returns that looks very very favorable and very very healthy. And as a treasurer, chief investment officer, chief financial officer of any big company, it simply pencils out ideally that's the case. Anyways, there's some component of that. You're not taking a flyer on it completely. But the rest is like,

what's the additional gain is it? You know? Is it within the broader mandate of e s G of OF and its stitution. Is it part of its sustainability strategy? Is it part of its talent identification? It's thinking about its own investing. I mean that that has often been I think one of the complex dual mandates or triple mandates within venture capital that companies want to make money, identify deals, and identify partners at the same time, all

equally well, which is I think difficult. One of them I feel like has to be sublimated to the others, or one rather has to be the first among the equals, the chief the chief goal, which personally I would always say should probably given the nature of investing as unimited partner, be money. But that's not necessarily the way that every everybody sees it. In fact, most of the times that I hear a corporate fund being described it, it's more along the lines of we're we're looking to achieve all

of these goals at once. So in this case it's it's even it's even more derivative, I think, because you know, by by being a limited partner in a mostly asset and infrastructure bigated fund, you're not sort of getting a preview necessarily on a new technology or new market structure things like that, I think you would on suppliers, right,

potentially suppliers and potential developers. Because some of these funds were saying, you know, hey, we're gonna be using this money for projects like assets and what they were calling it growth equity, right, so identifying the what would you call walking around money for for a developer. And so if I'm like a big corporate, you know, I need a developer and to to acquire later, maybe this is a good chance to get them up to speed potentially.

So and so I actually I would actually like to see how this plays out and how it's proven out. I'm not to say do things one how the corporations themselves describe the the initiative here like the prime mover of their decision making, and to what they actually do over time, and that may be that may be a bit of a bit of a data challenge over time, because we don't necessarily see any of these things, right, they're unlimited partners within a general partnership structure that is

itself a private entity. And then we may not find out a lot, but I think we should. We should interrogate this as much as possible because it's actually it's fascinating to see, and I think it's very important to determine where future pools of capital might go, how how how companies themselves might disrupt this this otherwise quite traditional flow of capital through the funnel, if you will. But let's step back a little bit. Why now, So what

is going on right now? What is the world telling us to say that these funds should be raised at this moment? One element is probably policy signal, right, betting along the vector that eventually every major jurisdiction in the world will have some sort of net zero target. And that's when I say major jurisdiction, I think about that on the kind of molecul or carbon dioxide basis. Okay, every major emitter, if you will, we will have a will have some mandate to insofar as possible, decarbonized as

much as possible. I think that's one. Two. I feel like there's there's probably a general awareness in a very good way of the competitive or out competing economics these days, of doing cleaner types of investment on the assets side, and maybe even further upstream of that, you know, investing in technology companies, that there's potential there. So you're saying,

just the economics just makes sense, and that's being recognized. Yes, that's being that's being recognized, it's being and it's also been priced. And I think on the flip side of that is that the the tail risk slash stranded asset risks associated with other types of investing may become more apparent, right, so that risk premium is probably going up for some other types of investing on the other side of the carbon ledger, if you will. Now, that doesn't mean that

those investments don't happen. They just maybe become more specialized. They become the domain of more specialized not so much general funds. We go back to me ten a lot, I guess, but we kept seeing the boutique banks doing these types of deals, right, and maybe maybe we're not talking banks, but maybe it flips, right, so maybe it's now the boutiques doing the coal plant. Yes, I would say,

like and actually that is absolutely the case already. If you want to do it, call if you want to do a coal plant investment in Europe and North America, you are almost certainly doing it with at the highest level, maybe a special situations group within within an established bank,

though honestly I doubt it. It's much more likely that you're dealing with a specialty private equity fund then looks at that type of asset, that type of market, and also looks at specific instruments within that there might be like, great, we'll take you to our energy Distressed Debt fund, you know, as opposed as opposed to our seven and a half billion dollar soft clothes or seven billion dollars soft clothes

on our climate transition fund. I think there's just a zeitgeist, the element not to sound too hand wavy about it, but there is is, you know, a sense that there is a more categorical imperative to decarbonize in more places

and in more ways. And I think a sense too that I'm interested to see how this reflects within climate transition over time, that it is about more than the electron that it that it, that it starts to go into things that are about chemistry and not just about physics so to speak, you know, that start to get into the difficulty decarbonized spaces that we know very well we'll take tens of trillions of dollars, but also maybe the sorts of tens of trillions of dollars that online

with the sorts of things that people already invest tens of trillions of dollars in two pipelines, plants for transforming molecules, supply networks, things of that sort that better online with the expectation of investing, you know, a billion dollars at a time. Do you think this is the start or do you think this is like, you know, a culmination or something like that, Like, what's would we expect going forward? It's a it's a good question, Um. I I expected

to be sort of still within a continuum. I don't know when we'll see a high water mark on it. We will probably look at and be like, Okay, that's it this, you know, this seventeen billion dollar fund that was closed in six weeks specifically around I don't know. Green hydrogen production in one in one market is probably the kind of thing of it that seems kind of

high water market to me. But I don't know that we're anywhere close to that yet, So I would still say that it's a continue There's still an awful lot of institutional money waiting to go. And this is a neutral statement, but there there does tend to be a lot of trend following and going along. Like these institutions I would say that are doing these fund raises are really really apex institutions within alternative with an alternative investment,

and I think that implies if they're so oversubscribed. If they have so much interest from so many different parties, it implies a much greater total addressable market to shake out over time and perhaps come down a little bit in fun size, specialize on a little bit more. I think this would be entirely healthy if that was the case, right, I mean I I think it's possible we get some

larger funds beyond this point. It's also possible we get we get a thousand flowers blooming of more specialized funds with similar enthusiasm. So like the whoever Canadian wind fund, Yeah I'm or yeah, I'm raising the mid market green

hydrogen fund for the Benelux. That actually doesn't sound should not sound rather too specific in that sense, given the scale of what might be happening right where things come in with a much when things come in with a tight targeting based on appetite, thun limited partners, specific expertise and technology, all that kind of stuff I feel in tells me if I can give my my my slight take for a second, the NEO, the new energy outlook that just came out last week from benf Right, we

put investment in there required to achieve net zero or between our different scenarios out one seventy three trillion in the next thirty years. And so I've penciled that out and we put capacity you know, for wind and solar only like like not even talking about hydrogen and things like that, but wind and solar only at eight now of capacity and what in right, And so if you just use average project sizes, that gives you three hundred and sixty six thousand new projects that have to be

built the next thirty years. And so to me, yeah, this might be a culmination or a high water mark for this type of fund, but there's still a drop in the bucket in comparison to what kind of could be expected to be built in time. The headroom within the markets in order to reach a net zero energy system is so huge that there's no chance on a pure capital basis of anybody crowding anybody else out. Exactly.

That's that's the point of trying to make yeah, exactly totally yeah, Like like none of these funds are saying like, well, that said, I've stitched up the opportunity and the resident can go get stuffed. Like that's not that's not possible. There's a different there's a different thing to be said about what it means for valuations, what it means for sort of distribution of distribution of interest in investment types. But that's you know, that's that's perhaps a different conversation

before we go to break though. Let's do one one last one on that, like if everybody wins, who loses? Like if if it seems like there's room for everyone,

you know, who are the winners and losers here? I don't necessarily think of it in winners and looses losers, but I can think of it in terms of vector and that is that you may have a very stiff competition that pushes valuations up for certain asset types that could make it that can make it challenging, especially the early stage like wind lease offshore wind leases in the US, right, and I'm but also also on the company level, like if you know where in these where in these institutions

are going to participate in say a Series B or C round, which I think some of them probably will. They're going to be competing with each other and with general venture funds along the way that have in many cases a history of bidding extremely aggressively and being very

very founder friendly. So soft Bank of course, is well known for this sort of behavior, so are so as Tiger Global Um and when you could have a sort of miniaturized version of that within the funds that we've described right now, and you could also have external non specialty funds at the Series B and C level doing that same competition, and it could be a pretty aggressive

bidding up, could be very founder friendly. It could be challenging for some of the long term really expert investors in early stage climate tech investing, of which there are now a number. There are plenty of veterans that that that are around and are raising new funds, and it could make it very challenging in that. In that element, I feel like I find it unlikely that a very large alternative investment manager is going to be doing seed

round funding. It's just simply not worth the trouble and it's not you're not really set up to diligence things like that. But you might find it competing in a B round or a CE round against you know, a fund that has been raised specifically for climate tech two or three years ago and is doing its own follow on investing with things that it is sort of carefully nurtured from seed on up, so that will be that

will be interesting to see. There is also the worry, as always, I think that there are certain asset classes that still proved to be too challenging to invest in for any number of reasons, Like would any of this funding end up devoted to newer nuclear power technologies? I don't know, Like tickets size wise, they should be perfectly suited, but are they within the risk profile direct air capture

or something like that exactly? Um So I think there's always that, And then there's always things that might have a sort of regulatory brittleness to them. Be very binary if you will, which is I would enough to invest in that hydrogen network, but only if you know, only if something is backstopping it, and what is that thing. You don't need to back stop doing rooftop PV almost anywhere right now, but you do probably need to do it to build a green hydrogen network Without that, and

without that happening, it may be very difficult. This This is a It could be a virtuous cycle. The back stopping institution, whatever that might be, is willing to do it and therefore capital flows, or it could be a vicious cycle in which is neither one, neither one commits because neither one is committed. Thanks. Now, when we come back, we're gonna get a little bit more into NAT's recent piece talking about networks in all of this, stay with us. So this week we had CEO of A Yes Undressed,

Glue Sky on the show. He talked about how he got his start in telecoms in the nineties and how the changes he's seeing in the power sector now remind him a ton of telecoms. Then, So that reminded me of your piece today. How you saying these changes related a lot to networks. Can you kind of describe the

concept you're setting out there. I'm often looking to analogize what's happening in our sector to other sectors, and I think that there's something both both very beguiling but also potentially a bit dangerous and saying everything is networked now. So I've I've been hesitating for a very long time to kind of work that angle, if for no other reason than duh, like they have network in their name, like electricity network, a vehicle charging network. It runs the

risk of being not terribly insightful. But I was doing a little bit of reading and I came across one of Chris Dixon's essays. Chris Dixon is now at Andries and Horowitz, and he has this brief but really fantastic essay called Come for the Tools, Stay for the Network, and he talks about how, in the case if his example was Instagram, something that began as a pure tool add a filter to your photo, became something that could

create a network. It attracted people for its utility. It becomes sticky because it has an expanded utility, and then it becomes insentially embedded because other people are using it and you can share within it, and you create value for users, you create value for investors instead of doing it. So I thought, this is actually an interesting, potentially fruitful hook to use from looking at what might be coming

next in the broad bucket of climate tech investment. Is it it's too easy to just say everything is a network. We have to we have to sort of think about how they start. And so I took that logict from from Dixon's essay and I wanted to look at it across the world of coming TECK. I probably could have dozens of examples, and in fact I put out an open, open outcry in the bottom of my column. Send me a note with things that you can think of as

an example of tool becoming network. So send them to me if you have them, and I will happily read them. And I came up with three. I came up with three, which was the first one was looking at energy storage. So a battery is a tool. Battery my phone is a tool. I use that to charge up my thing. Right, it provides power. I charge it up. It provides power. That's a tool. If you have a hundred thousand of them connected together, being at the home scale and a

grid scale or whatever, that's a network. They begin to interact with each other. There's there's differential values distributed over time and space that therefore of now people to arbitrage, to trade, to transact. So that's a perfect example. I think of wearing like a tool that I have becomes a network. We all have them and we put them together, and it's not just that they're connected, it's that there's greater value to be derived too. I think that that's

actually the most important part. That's that's the part that I want to make sure it is always emphasized. When everybody says, well, like this reminds me of telecoms, or there's a network that's being created, is it needs to be also a creation of value, not just of connection. It reminds me of one of those fascinating essays I've ever read. Actually, Lewis Thomas wrote an essay a long

time ago. He was a biologist physician about ants and how an individual ant is a neuron but simple oversimplifying many ants, becomes a brain that can build structures, can transport goods, can do all kinds different things. They become a network and isolated on its own. That aunt is it's it's strong, but not particularlyly capable, he said. Aimless. Aimless is a very nice way of saying it, right, Um, not not directed. I mean in the case of ants,

they require a pheromonic connection. Like, they don't actually do anything without a connection to each other. They don't they don't act as, they don't really act um even if they are out, even if they are out foraging scouting, they're only doing so in connection to a larger group of entities that's connected behind them. Okay, So from entomology

to to what I will broadly call climate intelligence. That's everything from measuring deforestation and afforestation two emissions two um carbon footprinting different objects to what I use as my more specific example, carbon accounting and accounting up for and

around climate risk. And I said that these things. The reason I think about these in particulars as being networked in value is that if we can, if we continue to accumulate individual tools, we will have dozens of standards for doing these things, which means we don't have standards right We have two ways of doing accounting in this in the world right now, very roughly speaking, gap and non gap accounting, so we we sort of probably want to there will be a taxis towards having only a

few standards for all of these things of her time. And in so doing, two things are working at the same time. First is that they are attracting. As they become more powerful, they attract more people to them, more entities to them, which makes them more powerful. And they consolidate around a shared set of standards that makes them lower in cost and more useful and attracts and turn

more things, more things, more entities towards using them. So I was thinking about it that this is a place where the tool measuring your emissions gains intense value from becoming part of a network when everybody's doing it the same way, there's a huge amount of shared learning and a great deal of shared expertise. And this was actually something one investor wanted to emphasize to me in writing today, to say that you know that the fourth fourth tool

that becomes a network is people ourselves. You know that we that we individually are a tool for climate tech and collectively we are an instrument for a network work for changing the climate. So that I think it's actually very well spotted to go along with that same with that same notion, and then the third one I said was seven renewable power that we could probably expand that zero carbon power sort of broaden the brush a little bit.

And the reason I said that is, like, Okay, the the classic instrument for reducing my my emissions as a corporation, my electricity emissions at least is I sign a power purchase agreement with a wind or a solar farm that has reduced my emissions commensurate to x percent of demand for something. Usually I'm offsetting the emissions from the data

center by acquiring wind. That's great, but we've seen Google and we've seen some other institutions as well go about the process of essuch as saying I actually wanted to meet all of my demand seven by doing that, and that necessarily requires looking generally beyond one particular region for sourcing electricity, one particular technology, one particular market approach. All that's sort of thing, and it again necessitates interconnection and

requires it in the process. So you know, I closed it off by saying a wind power purchase agreement is a tool and zero carbon powers and network. So that's that's the case again, like where they they have an a creative value of things coming towards them and coming into them. That creates value for everybody involved as well,

and then ideally has virtuous cycles. I suppose within it things that get cheaper and better, shared learnings, shared expertise, shared knowledge, and so as more of these funds that we you know, open the show with, get raised and get deployed, we'll have more of these networks seven zero carbon power ideally, yes, And what I would hope is that those those funds, when they're deploint capital, are asking questions about where what additional value beyond the internal rate

of return they're going to generate over time and where that might where that might have knocked on for other stuff within their portfolio, and where it might might be creating durable competitive advantages over time for the companies that are making those decisions, not just for the assets, but for the companies that are making those decisions as well. Nah. Always a pleasure having you on. Thanks, Mark, It's a treat.

Let's let's do it more often. Definitely, Well, you're probably saying me by this point, but no, any any any time. I'm happy to I'm happy to hop on and thank you for reading. Thanks for grabbing me on short notice. I like doing stuff like this. It's a it's good for everybody, and just for everybody. Where can they find

you on Twitter? Nat, It's pretty easy and a T b U M L A r D. In the spirit of deprecation, I have long since deprecated my very industry specific in joke of a Twitter handle, unlike somebody I know, well, I was in a new gold rush. I'm embarrassed. I was embarrassed about the New gold Rush for a long time because I put it up there, like because you know, I thought, like God, this is happening, renewables is happening. But guess what like now it actually kind of makes sense.

I don't know, you weren't wrong, Mark, just there you go on that note. Thanks a lot that Thanks Mark, take care of This week's show was produced by Ava Gonzalez SLA and edited by Rex Warner of Grace Took Media. Bloomberg an EAP is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor should it be construed, as investment advice, investment recommendations, or

a recommendation as to an investment or other strategy. Bloombergunia should not be considered as information sufficient upon which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this recording, and any liability as a result of this recording is expressly disclosed