Hello, and welcome to the Votes in Verdicts podcast hosted by Bloomberg Intelligence, Bloomberg LPA's investment research platform. In this podcast series, we talk about the intersection of business policy and law. My name is Brandon Barnes and I'm a senior analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence covering energy policy, regulatory and litigation.
Today we are welcoming to the show Katie Bays, who is currently the Director of Sustainable Investment with Adamantine Energy, where she provides political and regulatory analysis regarding risks related to investments in energy projects and companies. We're going to get deeper into what Katie's currently doing Previously, she's been in a number of different places and it's a kind of a fascinating background when you think of energy policy, and so we're going to touch on some of those
as well. But I'd like to kick it off by reminder Katie that we met during the healcyon days of the Dakota Access Pipeline litigation in District Court in DC. What days those were? Amazingly that's still dragging on somehow, And that time you were at Height Capital Markets and you're writing an analysis for clients from d C with sort of a DC perspective. I'd love to hear how you went from height to sort of the role you're on now at is it adamantin.
Adam and Tein, Yeah, you've got it. Well, those were fun times, absolutely for some people at least, and if nothing else good came out of that litigation, it was good to meet you, Brandon. And Yeah, So to your point, I've done a couple of different things in my career. I mostly worked as an advisor to financial institutions, providing political and regulatory analysis related to investment, but I've also a couple of times in my career served as an
economic consultant. I worked for the Energy Information Administration at the beginning of my career and then done a couple of Census economic analyst and consultant. And I think that that perspective of both finance economics and then with the policy overlayer has given me a bit of a unique
point of view. And while I'm not an attorney, I've certainly had a number of opportunities to listen into those kind of litigation settings, and I think in the way in which I'm trying to sort of bring this background into a useful sort of application with Adam and Teine and with the capital markets today is that we're at the precipice of this big energy transition thing, and we don't necessarily know exactly how it's going to go, but we know that there's a lot of project developed meant
that has to occur, and there's you know, there are financial, economic, and political overlayers to that. Plus there's obviously, you know, this risk of litigation that I think everyone is very sensitive to. So we try to kind of anticipate how that confluence of risk can come together and how that's likely to affect different projects and different companies, and do that in a way that hopefully is helpful to people trying to make investment decisions.
So that's I mean, and that's that's some of what we do as well. But I think it's your approach in this in this position is interesting. I think, you know, even even though I am that bad word lawyer, you know, previous life, I think I think about sustainable investing and I wonder, you know, I should know what that means. That's but it's not it's not just it's not a
touchy feely thing at all. Right, It's not sort of the days of old where we're talking about, you know, this is a better thing than that, just because we said so, tell me if you can a little bit more about what that is and how you view it, and we can maybe talk about some of the specifics.
Yeah. Well, and I think it's important to acknowledge that sustainable investment is not one thing, and it's not a static thing, and it's evolving. I mean, I think a lot of folks would incorporate, you know, principles like esg. The environment, social and governance principles into the sort of category of sustainable investing. But it's when I think about where, you know, it seems like a lot of investment firms
are incorporating these principles of sustainability. I think it's more from the point of view of kind of doing a
couple of things. One is obviously trying to manage long term returns, and this particularly in the energy universe, this idea that we are undergoing a fundamental change and we again don't know exactly how it's going to go, but there's a I think general accept so that companies or projects that are designed for a sustainable future or maybe resilient in a sustainable future are likely to perform better over time. And so that's a sort of a core
principle of what I would call sustainable investing. And then there's also there are other layers of sustainability too. There's issues like environmental justice and social justice that speak maybe more to sentiment or more to what you might call like a social license to operate. In the context of a project, you know, our consumers or other corporate partners
willing to engage with a business. And I think that investors, I think, by and large and the public by and large acknowledges that you are more likely to perform well as a business or a project if you can engage and maintain support from your customers, from your employees, from your peers, from your various stakeholders. So to me, that's the cruxis sustainable investing is that we're not just going to pencil out a company on you know, in Excel and try to see if this looks like a good return.
We're also going to look at the company's risk factors in a holistic sense and try to determine if this company or project is really going to be around in the long term. And I think it's a response to you know, this very large degree of social and political change that we're living through as well well.
And certainly we've I mean we've this is how we met, right, this is being part of these infrastructure projects that are going through something other than just I didn't get a permit or I don't have the funding, right, so I guess have used since since to go to access since twenty sixteen, and the courts, you know, have I wonder because I'm watching, you know, which project are having trouble because of things like environmental justice or you jay, you know,
how have you seen that from your role sort of evolve to become something that's more you can put not not necessarily put in Excel, but like you can actually put some metrics around and really really analyze.
That's a good question. I mean, I think we have definitely seen. Here's what I would say, because I think putting it into Excel is still really hard. So that part of the maturation of you know, this idea of sustainable investing. I think it's not quite My opinion would be it's not quite there. But I'll kind of explain more about what I mean by that. The environmental justice or social justice issues or the social license to operate
manifest in a negative way. And I don't think that these things are always negative, but I think that we do particularly notice when they show up in a negative way.
Is when you've got mounting opposition to a project that you know may have some layers of support, like you might often see projects do a good job of cultivating very high level political support, maybe a governor or you know, even a national figure like a congress person, but that the local community does not support the project or finds or maybe they could support the project in general or in principle, but there are particular aspects of the project
that they find objectionable. And that is very often sufficient to stop a project. And I think that's what we are finding is, you know, even if a project is entitled to use some tools like eminent domain, if there's local opposition that's speciferous, that's sufficient to wrap a project up in litigation for a long time or intimidate maybe some regulatory figures out of providing a permit, or providing
a permit as expeditiously as the project might need. So it's just a lot of different pain points, and so what does this mean for investment, right, and where this comes in I think within the framework of, you know, how our investors dealing with this problem in this headwind. It's honestly, I think it's by removing dollars from the market.
I think there is less investment in project development than there would otherwise be if projects had useful tools to navigate these challenges, and if there was a generally agreed upon playbook for how to engage with communities in a way that directly addresses that local or you know, very concentrated opposition. And then the last thing I would just say on the subject is that I think we often see this risk discussed in the context of permitting reform.
But you know, one of the things we've written about a couple of different times in our work is is that permitting reform is not a panacea. You can reform the way in which federal agencies are supposed to administrate the National Environmental Policy Actor NITA, but that doesn't obfuscate the role of communities. And in fact, if we see a permitting reform bill passed this year, I think we probably should anticipate because this is a pretty bipartisan issue.
At the end of the day. We should anticipate that the role of communities is going to be part of how we effectuate a permitting reform. I we see there's a local ban on carbon capture projects in Louisiana right now, We've got folks in Wyoming, where you've got there's state primacy over carbon capture. There's some local intimations about what people want to see from DAK or CCS projects. So
it's not a red state versus blue state issue. It's a pretty bipartisan issue where folks want to have say on what goes on in their community.
Does come down to local, doesn't it. I mean, you look at what you know, we think of generally should be a positive from a sustainability perspective. When we think of a project, we think of like some of these CO two pipelines. Right, let's run through Iowa. Let's take some of that f andol CO two out and we'll store it somewhere else underground. And the local opposition from the farm is real, and it's it's going to change things.
It's going to slow things down. So you mentioned to playbook, do you think, I mean, we've got to be closer to a point where everybody recognizes that local is critical. Do you think I mean, do you think there's still there are still companies out there that are just let's plow through or or just get the project done then we can apologize after.
Yeah, Unfortunately, I do. I do think that we are more. I mean, I think that the pendulum is a little bit because of some of the high profile conflicts that have broken out over a different infrastructure project. But I think there's a bit sometimes maybe people are not learning the right lesson. And for instance, you know, you brought up the long haul green field carbon capture pipelines that
are proposed throughout the Midwest. I mean, I would say, you know, from my perspective, the wrong lesson over to take away from the last let's say half a decade or maybe it's almost a decade now, but lease the last half a decade around energy infrastructure. The wrong lesson is to say that, you know, clean projects are exempt, clean energy projects are exempt from requirements to engage with
the community. That community opposition to a project like Dakota Access was entirely, entirely to do with the fact that it's an oil pipeline, and that is not true. You know, I mean, people are no more comfortable with CO two
pipelines today than they are with oil pipelines. You know, maybe in a very abstract sense, but when you talking about something going through a person's property, it's you know, there's no difference, really, And I think we have to approach projects from that perspective, that everyone's everyone's suspicion is valid, and that folks need to be engaged early on in the project, in the consultative process, and that the cudgel, the sort of the stick that you've historically used to
beat the community with, which is something like eminent domain, that you should not you know, the stick needs to stay in the closet, like the stick can't come out. And I do. I do get questions still about whether or not projects can avail themselves of m domain, And I'll just be honest, I think that's the wrong question to ask. Even if you can, it's not it's not a guarantee that the project is going to get all the tools, so it needs to be able to get done.
So I'm a little less confident that we've learned all the lessons that there are to learn, But I think that time I feel confident that this is an issue that folks are becoming more sophisticated on also.
Certainly even especially with the new clean projects that are sort of novel because we especially in places that we haven't seen them before. You would it makes sense to get out ahead with local groups as state regulators that haven't seen it before and say, look, this is a good thing for this reason, not just it's a feel good story. Yeah, because I think the laws are the same, right whether you're a natural gas pipeline or maybe a
CO two pipeline, depending on where you are. But you know, whatever was used before to slow down, you know, force somebody to avoid a permit on a fossil pipe fossil infrastructure project, that law is still going to apply over to some of the newer projects too.
Yeah, if not even in a more onerous way, because the newer projects may not have that you know, large statutory or sort of the pool of precedent that helps a company feel confident about what it's entitled to and the path that needs to follow in order to get the regulatory milestones that needs to hit. One of the things we kind of try to emphasize that I've learned a lot about from the folks that I'm in teen and I find really compelling. Is this idea? You know,
what does meaningful engagement look like? And I think Canada actually provides a really interesting model to that where we've really seen First Nations communities join projects as equity partners or as project partners and their engagement as a owner
in the project. Obviously there's financial benefits that accrue to them as part of that function, just like there would be to any other partner in a project, and that that entitles or that earns the support of this community, so that the sort of the political powers that be, you know, Prime Minister Trudeau, et cetera, are not anymore responsible for standing up for the First nation. So the
First Nations are able to advocate for themselves. Their interests are aligned with the project, and that has led to I mean those quite I think put really simply, those are the projects that are getting done. And so what does a model like that look like in the US? You know, how can you, as a project developer explore ways of really bringing communities on as partners and whether that's an equity partner or a different kind of partner.
You know, I'm not espousing the necessarily opinion, but like, how do you bring a community on as a partner, and with that partnership, you know, I think comes greater regulatory certainty.
Yeah, I think you know some of that. We talked about this before. But some of the examples, I mean, when we talked about early days of fracking, you know, twenty ten, then there was such a community pushback, mostly because people didn't know right. It just was it was asymmetrical in terms of the information out there on the
dangers or the risks or the benefits. But I remember seeing some of the better operators get community agreements in place where they went before they did anything, and they got people to come to the table and say, you know, we agree, here the restrictions, here's the setbacks, here's what we're going to do, and you know, they were able to do the project. They weren't sitting there, you know, reliigating Dimmick Water or I think it was Pavilion in California.
Those are blasts from the past. So yeah, I think I totally agree that it just seems like stakeholder engagement at a local level would circumvent so much of the issues that a lot of these projects see now.
Yeah, I think that I think that's the right answer. You know, I know that folks are doing it, and so it's not to say that, you know, go from zero to some engagement, but there are I think there are really good, diligent practices that make a real difference in terms of how productive that engagement.
Ultimately, you touched on permit reform. What do you think is it happening? You said, I know bipartisan support because particular his mansions on board to some to a big extent.
But yeah, and I think you know, Senator Carper also put out a version of a plan, So I mean there's some it's more certainly more bipartisan in the Senate than it is in the House, but that counts for a lot, you know. My I think my base case assumption right now is that, yes, I think permitting reform
does happen. You know, the timeline of maybe July going into the August recess is probably a good I here's what I would I would feel pretty confidencing that I think we'll get a push in July, and ultimately I think see if we see something come together, it's probably
you know, eighty percent Republican support. Twenty percent democratic support in the Senate and then maybe close to a party line in the House, just because that seems to be the way that that seems to be how things are kind of going down right now that there's not if there's not an incentive for House Democrats to vote for something, then they don't really need to. But that more bipartisan progress on the Senate side is how things are going to get done, so you know, I'll be looking forward
to that. I think some of the provisions in permitting reform that will matter to companies would be the limit on the duration of the environmental assessment environmental impact statements. Limiting those to a year or two years would be very material. Back to our favorite topic of litigation, providing some sort of a limit on litigation one hundred and twenty days one hundred and fifty days after final order has been proposed. Those are the two timelines that folks
are kind of standing around. There are other things that I think are less headline grabbing, but I definitely have fielded questions from investors on things like, you know, whether Mansion's proposal to staff furk better is going to go through because that people have come to understand that you know,
an understaffed FURK is a major headwind. So there there are other factors that or other elements of the permitting reform proposals that I think will matter to people, but the big ones limiting those reviews and limiting litigation that will probably that those seem to show up in basically every version of a permitting reform package, So I think that's we should expect that, And then the some of
the accessories a little less clear. But I think it does sound like there's a decent chance of something coming together this summer. It's amazing to me because we are in this bizarrely partisan time that more often than not it seems like the Senate can just get its head down and works.
Yeah, yeah, we would agree. I think that we were always thinking summer summer was the best shot. I think I'm suspicious of it actually being materials for project times generally, but you know part of that, clearly, the courts have a huge role they've been playing in this, because it's not like the agencies haven't been issuing permits, it's just they've been getting kicked back to the agency two or
more times. So yeah, I think we're a suspect on materiality there, But putting caps on times is a good start for sure, right.
And I think you're right to look past that a bit and say who enforces those times? Right? Yes, yes, you know. And I definitely again putting on my pretending to be a lawyer hat. I've had folks ask me in the past if companies or projects can file a rid of mandamus to try to get a permit at their own and it's like, well, if you want to get your permit denied, you absolutely could do.
I like when when they dig up the they really dig into the civil procedure, that's critical to know you're rid of mandamus petitions.
Yeah, so, I mean you've probably not seen that happen, though I actually think it has happened not so long ago. But it's not the best, not the best strategy perhaps.
But look, I mean they're for some of these project they're up against it, right, Like to think at them out Mountain Valley, like they have said that their best hope is legislation, which is not been the best pathway for anyone to get anything done on any topic for years. But here we are, they just keep running into the fourth circuit wall I know.
Well, that's an interesting thing in terms of you know, these sort of sleeper provisions and the permitting reform process, that connection at being pretty material. There's one I think it's in Sholling more capitals language, that would require that the panel, like the circuit court judge panel, to be drawn at random for each project. So one of the challenges for MVP, right is that they've been continuously assigned
the same panel. And I don't I don't ever wish to, you know, assume anyone's intent, right, but I think that the panel has become fatigued with the government. It seems in a lot of cases there's maybe a presumption that the government has made errors in its work. And so obviously with pretty high degree of regularity, that circuit's coming back with, you know, with with real problems with these permits that MVP is earning, and that is, uh, it's
been a real challenge. So I wonder, I wonder if that, you know, getting fresh eyes on each round of litigation, if that could end up actually being kind of helpful for future projects. But I think, you know, if I'm a project developer, I'm going to try to avoid by hooker by Kruk going through the same series of problems that that MVP has had to deal with.
Yeah, I'm thinking about where I'm going to build, and it's not it's not going to be through the through the red Wall of New York that I say read because in my heat map of how many days it takes to get approved New York is it's either infinity or zero because you're not getting improved. And then right, you know, the mid Atlantic has sort of moved in that direction. But yeah, I think I I MVP could
be its told its own podcasts several times over. It has kept me relevant for years, so I can't smirch it too much. But I will go further and say that I do think the four Circuit has gone beyond where I would think from a legal perspective they should go in sort of second guessing agency work. But that's showing my stripes a little bit too much.
No, I mean, I think I don't think you're alone, but I don't think you're alone in that conclusion at all.
That's I appreciate that I've heard from certain clients many times over the in different language that I am on the right track. So I think let's get back to a little bit more on the sustainable although obviously this all plays into that sort of analysis and that assessment because one of the things we think about a lot, obviously is for our clients. You know, how is policy
pushing around or nudging markets? And whether it's specific companies or industries or sectors, you know, that's what we're all trying to figure out. So I'm wondering, you know, when you guys look at something like the IRA, right, and or you know, how are you communicating your thoughts to clients on that? What are you what's what's most interesting to you in there? And what are you getting most asked about off that topic?
I think, well, I mean, I think the transition from the previous conversation, which is basically all of the sticks that have driven investment firms to try to incorporate principles of sustainability, that attempt, I think, in a really general way, attempt to anticipate some of those regulatory and political and social sticks. So that's what we think sustainable investing is, is trying to be responsive to less obvious forms of
social pressure when making investment decisions. The IRA is the carots, So why pursue sustainable investing. Why incorporate sustainable investing into your investment strategy. There's a lot of reasons, you know, your investors might be telling you to, but one of the big sort of overarching ideas here is that you're trying to respond to those regulatory and social sticks and you're also trying to take advantage of some of these
carrots and incentives. And the state of play for the IRA, I think is very interesting right now in the sense that we're i think waiting collectively, we're waiting for the other shoe to drop. You're waiting for additional guidance from the IRS on how companies will be able to apply some of the really big ticket IRA incentives, like the hydrogen tax credit, and you can hear from companies, I think,
how their strategies are. They're priming their strategy to try to take advantage of those tax credits once the certainty is there. But folks are I think being very conservative generally in their strategy right now, assuming that you know, we're we're not going to presume that IRS is giving us the full value of this tax credit until we see that they are, and so that's a critical that's
a critical kind of place that we're in. There's a huge amount of what I as, this is putting an economist out on the huge amount of I think economic misinformation that's going out. It's being put to the irs on the cost competitiveness of green hydrogen, particularly green hydrogen with all of these requirements layered onto it, things like additionality for the renewable energy and matching temporal matching, or lining up the energy use of the electrolyzer with the
renewable energy. You know, I'm seeing some more less leaning or progressive organizations, you know, putting out economic analysis saying that green hydrogen facilities with all of those requirements strapped on top of them are cost competitive, and really the reality is that they're not, and they're assuming way too
high up capacity factor for those electoralizers. That's impractical. And if you really talk to anyone who's actually looking at developing those electoralizers, these things are not they're they're not economic with the with like the most strict interpretation of the forty five V tax credit. So that's my little spiel, and I won't I won't become too much of a nerd here, But it was looking at some of that yesterday, it was really surprising to me what the assumptions.
Were that were going in, so surprising that people are talking their book.
Surprising to me that that somebody would assume that an electric very specifically that an electrializer with hourly temporal matching and the requirement of additionality for all of its electric generations.
So you've got all the capex associated with that renewable generation that's associated now that's also planted with the with the capex for the electrolyizer, all of these things, and that the electrolyizer is running at an eighty five percent or eighty eight percent capacity factor like this is not realistic.
The amount of capital, the return on capital is being projected, the price that they were modeling that the excess power could be sold for all of these things are like the rosiest possible assumptions that you're using to generate a conclusion that green hydrogen is three dollars a kilogram, which is still, by the way, something like twenty four dollars a million BTUs, so wildly expensive relative to natural gas. So this this formula is not a realistic set of assumptions.
And when IRS is getting information like that. You know, I think there's a realistic concern in the industry that they're going to see that and say, oh great, you know, let's make the let's make the forty five E text credit as restrictive as possible because someone put together a really misinformed economic model saying that this will work. So this is the nerdy part of the discussion. Everyone will
be tested later on what you've learned. But I think I think all these things make folks generally feel very, you know, a little bit uncertain about how some of the provisions of the IRA will be implemented. It's obviously very political, and we've seen Senator Mansion come out critically against some of the ways that IRS is interpreted those provisions. So it's by no means it's choppy waters. Absolutely, it's not a smooth sailing part of the process for anyone
trying to develop infrastructure under the IRA. But at the same time, there are other there are other challenges, and I do hear too from companies and from project developers that are looking at developing let's say, carbon capture uh and would normally I think want to you know, like a project would normally want to develop that project using you know, non recourse project finance and over you know, over a twenty year life for the asset or something
like that. Have you know this twenty year debt associated with it, And instead of the market really being open to that, they're hearing more often that companies that might be seeking to develop these projects are looking at doing it on the balance sheet, so using shorter term, more expensive corporate debt to finance and those those things raise the costs for clean energy development too. So I think there's a level of maturation of the project finance side
that's going to happen at US. These IRA backed projects become more common, but there are there's it's more than just the I R S is I guess all. I was trying to say that that uncertainty is creating other headwinds to investment, uh for the kinds of projects of the IRIS, and then to incentivize.
That's I mean, that's a great perspective, I think, because you don't hear that very often. But you know, what we see is just a bunch of projects being proposed and everybody's snapping up smaller you know, competitors or people in the project space and full steam ahead. We've got pneumonia. Plants tend to build some hydrogen, build some carbon capture, So that's that's interesting to hear. Is there what do you think, I mean, apart from you know, real guidance
out of the federal government, is there? You know, does it keep marching forward? Is it? Is there some sort of breaking point where people say, yes, we've got it, let's plow all the investment into it.
Yeah. I mean, it's a good question, and I'm not sure what I think. You're absolutely right. You know, there's always there's a status quo until there's not. This is the status quo today, and eventually it's going to change and will change in six months or twelve months. It's hard to say. But one of the issues I think that the market is grappling with right now is what's the role of energy? What is the role of the
conventional energy complex in the transition? And the things that we tend to hear is that companies are simultaneously coached by their investors that they need to be transitioned ready, so they should have credible plans to reduce their emissions. You know, if they can obtain certification for their gas, they should pursue that, but that they also but the investors generally also want these companies to stay in lanes and you know, not reach too far outside of their
core business pursuing transition strategies. And it's probably not bad advice because folks tend to you know, you tend to make mistakes if you go outside of your area of expertise. But that I think of obvious skates the reality that a lot of the transition projects are well within the oil and gas industries or the midstream industries area of expertise. Transporting hydrogen, certainly, carbon capture, sequestration, geothermal, all of these
things are well within the area of expertise. I mean, you can look at our you know, refining sector obviously is a great example of profound capital deployment, safe capital deployment, efficient operation of complex infrastructure. And so there's clearly a
role to play for our existing industry. But it's we're in a little bit of a I think a waiting space where the market is sending maybe not quite mixed messages but somewhat tentative messages to the oil and gas industry about how outsides of a role it ought to
play in the transition. So one of the things I think we really try to help companies do is to look at what is an authentic and very practical way for you to push the envelope on engagement in the transition or whatever you want to call it, but investment in a responsible way that's consistent with the company's larger financial objectives.
Yeah, it's got to be tough, especially in the upstream space, because you're the messaging on investment, particularly the federal griment, has not been positive, and then sometimes it's confusing, so you know to then turn and try and figure out what the investment looks like for the transition. At the same time, it's probably a difficult build a swallow for some of the teams. But you've been looking at some of that in Colorado, haven't you.
Yes, So adamantein the firm is based and was started in Colorado, and so while it's a national firm and there are folks all over the country, there's a good
Colorado presence. And Colorado is actually really interesting example of a place where you've had a very high level of community engagement and how that has led to an evolution and sort of the regulatory regime so that companies now really do engage with the communities early and often and are able to earn community support for project development programs,
and I was pretty proud to see that. Recently, some of our good friends at ARB and Energy did a nice piece discussing how the regulators regime in Colorado has gone from almost unmanageable to very certain and clear and navigable for companies, and so I think that's a great example of how you can effectively evolve this sort of adversarial relationship into one that's supportive of development as long as the development's occurring on community terms. So Colorado is
a great example of this. It's also a great example of a space where companies are very eager to engage constructively in the transition or in the efforts to decarbonize the economy. Colorado has passed legislation seeking to decarbonize the economy, and so now the industry is working to optimize the
role that it can play in that process. And you know, I think one of the one of the important political goals if I could kind of speak to that side, which is not where investors usually go, but one of the real important political goals, I think would be that we can pivot away from this goal of how do we eliminate fossil fuels to how do we eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and acknowledge that whether and to whatever extent the fossil fuel industry has a role to play in that.
If we've eliminated emissions, then I think we've accomplished the goal, right, We've we've hit the mark. So I think, you know, taking a bigger tent approach to how do we effectively meet all of our energy needs while eliminating emissions is really the big hard challenge that I think we're going to have to face in the twenty twenties.
Well, I don't think I can. I'm up any better than that, So I think, you know, I'll just try and close it out with a trivia question about Nebraska if I can. Oh, sure, yeah, why not? Because you are currently Nebraska.
That's right.
What powdered drink mix is the official state offt drink of Nebraska. So I thought it was.
A hard one. I think I would lose my residency if I could not answer this question. It is fool a, you're kidding me.
You knew that.
Of course I'm Carnie.
Wow, that's more information than I have from the internet, so obviously I can't back check you on that. That's impressive.
Well, thank you.
You get to keep your corn.
Corn hat and my Husker football ticket the good.
Well listen, Katie, I wanted to thank you so much for joining us today. Really appreciate the informant conversation. I think it's valuable for all of our clients to hear what you have to say on the topic of sustainable investing and energy policy. Generally, that will be it for US and Boats and Briticks podcasts. It's hosted by Bloomberg Intelligence. Again,
I'm Brandon Barnes. I'm an analyst to Bloomberg Intelligence. You can find us on the terminal anytime you need any of our critical research for your investment, thesis or anything else. Thanks so much.