Hi, Andy.
Hi.
Thanks for giving us the time to discuss one of the most important topics in the energy sector, the future of the grid. As Nick has already outlined, National Grid has recently announced the near doubling of its CapEx program to GBP 60 billion over the next five years. This investment plan has progressively higher spend across the period, with over GBP 13 billion of CapEx in 2029, suggesting an even higher level of spend for the next five year period. Can you perhaps outline what are the key drivers of that higher spend?
Yeah, sure. Thanks, and good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to National Grid as well. Yeah, as we said, you know, and Nick said in his intro, it's a really exciting time, and I think, you know, when I look at those, those drivers, they, they are sort of similar but different across different parts of the group. And of the GBP 60 billion, the biggest step up is here in the U.K., where with GBP 23 billion of that focused on our electricity transmission business. And when I think about the big drivers there, it's, it's very much about effectively reconfiguring and extending the existing grid infrastructure, the existing transmission network in the U.K., to accommodate the greater levels of renewables that will be required, the greater variability in the location and the, the, the direction of, of the flows on, on the network.
And the important thing for us, of course, is, is that much of that is already embedded in our license. The ASTI projects, the 17, you know, major transmission projects are already embedded in our license. We're up and running on delivery. You know, if I look across the rest of the group, of course, you know, in the U.S., we've seen a 60% step up in our CapEx, and again, that's a mixture on the electricity side. Very similar drivers, actually. The greater penetration of renewables, the greater demand coming onto the network and needing to ensure that the transmission and distribution grids are expanding and effectively renewing to stay up to speed with that.
And then finally, obviously, with the gas business in the US, where we're continuing to deliver our leak-prone pipe replacement program, in particular, with gas remaining a critical part of the energy mix in the Northeast, and you know, continuing to be a big driver of spend, and we're seeing that again, reflected in the latest rate case in downstate New York as well. Just to, you know, to your point around, you know, it will be a significant number, $13-$13.5 billion by the end of the five years. And I've had a lot of questions, actually, when I look forward, so what happens then? And the reality is, you know, there are a number of different scenarios, and we will...
You know, I would absolutely expect to continue to see significant levels and drivers of investment. That doesn't necessarily mean that the increase is going to continue to be as rapid there. You know, if you think about the levels of spend that we'll be at, the affordability, I'm sure we'll talk about that at some point as well. I think, you know, there are definitely scenarios where we continue at a high level, but the rate of growth starts to soften and so, you know, it's hard to get the crystal ball out at this point. What I can be assured of is that there will continue to be good drivers of investment.
Yeah. And what will be the key operational challenges in delivering that higher level of investment? You know, we already hear in Europe about constraints with HVDC manufacturing capacity. You know, sort of how tight is the supply chain or the availability of skilled labor, and you know, how material is the deliverability risk of that investment need?
Yeah, it's absolutely one of our core focus areas over the last year or two, and I think both inside the company and, of course, with our supply chain. We've worked very hard to ensure that we are well-placed, but we're definitely having to adapt and work in different ways with the supply chain. Inside the company, a year ago, we stood up a new business unit, Strategic Infrastructure, to oversee the delivery of the ASTI projects, which is the big element of step up I referred to. We've already recruited over 500 people into that business unit. Some of those are internal moves, but many from outside as well.
But of course, the critical thing, as you say, is the supply chain, and there we've looked at it in different aspects. So when we think about those projects, they're a mix of onshore transmission, but also importantly for us, subsea and offshore transmission. And therefore, you know, as you said, offshore in particular, we are competing in a very tough global market, and we've taken two different approaches based on timing. So for the very early projects, we've looked to contract bilaterally, and we've had to be more agile in how we tender. We've probably had, you know, less companies willing to bid, which is, you know, not surprising.
And we've had to look at sort of, you know, tools such as upfront commitments, prepayments, to ensure that we can secure that capacity. The important thing is that we have, and we've successfully, you know, secured that capacity. And then for the projects which are slightly further out, we've put in place framework arrangements where, you know, 'cause if there's one consistent message from the supply chain, it's about transparency and visibility of the commitment, the long-term commitments to volumes that allows them to make the investments they're required.
And similarly, onshore, we've created a partnership enterprise, partnership, bringing in a number of different companies for everything from overhead lines, substations, civils, to all be part of that, where we share the risks and rewards of our regulatory arrangements through into the supply chain. And again, we look to give them the clarity of volumes that allows them to make the investments that are needed. And finally, I think your point about workforce, absolutely. You know, we are very focused on how we bring in new talent, whether at the apprentice or the graduate level. And you know, we're increasing the schemes that we run, and we've been very successful in attracting talent. But importantly, we've also focused on training.
Today, it takes more than three years to train an overhead linesman, and when you think about the pace of the ramp up and the demand for labor, you know, we're working very closely with the supply chain on how do we get that down sub 12 months? How do we approach training and development in a different way to allow us to get people into the organizations and up to speed, you know, much more quickly? So those are the types of things we've had to do to address some of those challenges.
The increased investment obviously needs to be funded. You've recently completed a GBP 7 billion rights issue, the largest in the U.K. since 2009. How much capacity has that given you in terms of funding that investment, and what other balance sheet measures are under consideration?
Yeah, and firstly, I've seen a few folks in this room who represent funds that have supported us, so thank you for those who have, you know, invested in the rights issue. I think the important thing for us when we announced that is about giving long-term clarity. So one of the important messages we said when we announced the raise was, you know, this is about giving us certainty of funding through to 2031, the end of the next regulatory period. So yes, of course, all of...
Not surprisingly, the focus was on the GBP 7 billion equity raise, but we positioned it as part of a broader funding package, you know, the action we took on the dividend, including continued issuance or use of the scrip option. Obviously, you know, significant continued access to the debt markets over the next few years. The crystallization of some value through a couple of asset sales that we announced. And, you know, in the longer term, continued use of the hybrid markets as well.
So all of that, you know, was about giving confidence that we will navigate the balance sheet, you know, through this period of much higher growth to ensure that we retain the credit metrics that we need against the thresholds, plus obviously, the appropriate buffers that we'll always look to retain. So it was very clear, you know, having done that and, you know, executed the raise successfully, that's put the balance sheet in an absolutely robust position to navigate us through, as I say, to at least 2031.
You mentioned the use of the scrip dividend. In the U.S., utilities seem to have more regular periodic equity issuance, particularly through the at-the-market equity programs. You know, sort of do you think it's easier in the U.S. because investors are more accepting of periodic equity issuance? Or do you think the sort of one-shot, sort of clear the table approach is more beneficial?
Yeah, as you can imagine, I've had a number of conversations along that train over the last few weeks, but I think what I'd start with is, as a board, you know, we thought very hard about all the different options in terms of, you know, how do we finance this unprecedented level of growth? And, you know, we considered everything from, and including, you know, sort of portfolio changes, as you say, different types of equity raise, different approaches to the dividend. We believe that ultimately, the package that we came up with was the right balance of utilization of all of those tools. And specifically around, you know, the approach to raising equity.
It's fair to say, when I've looked at some of my peers in the US who have that ability to use what's, you know, what's called an ATM type approach, you can see absolutely some benefits of that. But I think that's a broader question for the markets. For us, particularly with pre-emption rights, we believe that the right approach was to give our existing investors the opportunity to take part in what we absolutely believe is valuable growth. And to, you know, therefore, the discounted rights issue approach allows them to do that. And what actually, as we've seen, you know, we've had a very strong level of take-up and support from our existing investors in that raise.
So, you know, we believe that that was the right approach and, you know, we're very pleased with how it's gone.
Yeah. No, that's good. And, is the regulatory framework, supportive of the structurally higher level of spend, and, you know, equity issuance environment that we're, we will have, you know, across the sector going forward? You know, it appears, that the ASTI programme, you know, sort of has recognized the benefits of bringing on the projects, early. So, you know, we seem to have, seen improvement there. But, you know, in an environment of global competition for capital, you know, do you think Ofgem's new investability framework will, actually deliver, you know, sort of the required, changes?
Yeah, I, I think, let's start, you know, what we've seen with Ofgem over the last probably couple of years actually, is a, is a real positive progression, and, credit to, to Ofgem for how they've responded to, you know, the changed expectations, the accelerated, demand in terms of delivery. And I think you, you mentioned ASTI, and I think that's a great example of, you know, we, we've gone from two years ago, where these projects were first, incepted, first sort of created in terms of a list and an expectation of delivery. Within a year, we had them in our license, and another year on, we're up for-- we're into delivery. We're getting the first set of projects through, regulatory approvals with Ofgem.
We're working very closely with the regulator and around the approach to the supply chain. Some of the things I mentioned earlier, which are relatively novel in this space. You know, the regulator is working closely with us, ensuring that spend is effectively going straight into our asset base and allowing us to earn a return upfront as well. So I'd be very pleased with how, you know, we've been able to work with Ofgem to create that framework. As you say, obviously, we are still in the what is quite a long process to get to the detailed financial outcomes, including, of course, the returns. But, you know, some things we've seen from them, again, are very much moving in the direction we want to see.
They themselves obviously have a couple of new statutory duties, which broadens out their long-term focus on customer protection, to take into account a demand that they support the delivery of growth and, of course, the delivery of net zero. And I think that's itself is a very important balance for them to think about. I think we've seen them, you know, reflect that into their strategic priorities and most recently, of course, into their Sector-Specific Methodology Consultation, where, as you said, they introduced this phrase investability. And I think we've been very clear in our response where we would like to see focus when we move to the decision, which is the next step.
As a reminder, it's a process that runs for another 18 months yet, to the right to the end of 2025. But we would really want to see, you know, the progress we've made on ASTI reflected across the rest of the regulatory framework. So the agile, accelerated approach, forward-looking, how can we embed that across the rest of our spend? We think there needs to be a greater focus on incentivization. I think RIIO-2 probably took a bit of a step back, and I think there's an opportunity, recognizing ultimately that incentivization is, in the long run, beneficial to consumers, and therefore, we think it's something that they should, you know, look further at again.
Making sure that they are forward-thinking and, you know, the supply chain question you asked earlier, making sure that they're reflecting the supply chain challenges in their approach to unit, setting unit cost allowances. And of course, you know, finally, as importantly, if the financial framework itself, recognizing that... And we're a great example. We have opportunities for investment in the U.S. and in the U.K. Obviously, different regulatory frameworks, different allowed rates of return, and that's absolutely something that we will, you know, continue to have the dialogue with Ofgem on. But it's important that for us, it's not just about the return.
It's always been about the overall financing package, the speed of cash, to ensure that, you know, we're delivering a cash return on these investments as we go through the strong investment cycle. So that's just, you know, a subset of the things we're, we'll be looking for. But definitely, you know, we're pleased with the progress, and we're pleased with the dialogue, and obviously, slightly delayed because of the election, but looking forward to SSMD-
The methodology
the next step.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Having raised the equity to fund the higher level of expected investment, you know, is there a risk that potentially the projects get delayed, or potentially the projects get opened up to competition, and therefore, you know, sort of your expected level of investment isn't necessarily as high as, as currently anticipated?
Yeah, I mean, just firstly, on the competition point, just to be clear where we are. So Ofgem, post the Energy Act that was passed last autumn, does now have the legislative right to put project out to competition. However, as I mentioned, the wave of projects that are driving the big step up in the next five years, the ASTI projects, they are all in our license, so it is. You know, they are not going to be competed. They are effectively already embedded in our regulatory obligation. Absolutely, as we think about future waves beyond 2030, you know, we can certainly see options where they may look to compete one, two, or a few projects, and you know, we wouldn't be surprised to see that happen.
We're very confident that if that happens, we're well placed as a company to be able to take part and compete successfully, and I think we'd back ourselves to, you know, to do well. So I don't see, sort of, in this five years, competition as a threat or even as a sort of distraction from the investment that needs to get done. And I think more broadly, you know, when we go right back to the start and the need for this investment and the recognition that certainly for the next period of time, the pace of investment is as critical as the marginal cost of that investment.
I think that will be reflected in how all regulators think about costs and benefits and, how that, you know, drives their thinking about what's the best route to get this done, incumbents versus competition, and so forth. In terms of more broadly, your question around, you know, delivery, I think, you know, we're very clear that the GBP 60 billion is our best view today, and, you know, around 70%+ of that is already either in our rate cases or price controls or very close to being agreed as part of ones that are underway at the moment. We've mentioned supply chain, one of the big, you know, focus areas.
Of course, the other piece is planning and planning and consenting, which I'm sure many people in this room are familiar, is a challenge for all infrastructure developers. But we have taken, again, what we believe is a practical and conservative approach to planning assumptions across those projects. You know, ultimately, we in the U.K. have the ability to take projects to the Secretary of State for DCO, and that's a tried and tested path, and we've successfully used it. And, you know, similar, slightly different, but similar paths apply in our U.S. jurisdictions as well. And so we're confident that, you know, with the regime we have, we can absolutely progress these projects.
Of course, certain things will slow down, things will slip one year to another, but also things will get accelerated as well. So overall, we're very confident that the GBP 60 billion is a good number for the next five years.
If I look at your investment plan, 85% of the CapEx is Taxonomy- aligned. You know, you still have a sizable US gas distribution business. You know, it could have been potentially a disposable... disposal candidate when you were looking at funding options. Sort of broadly speaking, sort of what are the differing characteristics of, you know, sort of an electricity network versus a gas network business? And longer term, could there be a benefit of moving towards a pure power play structure?
... I think, you know, whenever we look at the assets within the National Grid portfolio, we are always looking for that balance of growth and yield. And ultimately, growth today is gonna deliver tomorrow's yield. And, you know, over the years, I think we've shown, probably most recently here in over the last few years in U.K. Gas, both with the Cadent disposal and then most recently with the gas transmission disposal, where we've seen a business that we're potentially moving towards lower growth rates, and, you know, that we absolutely will take action on that. And, you know, we've successfully navigated the portfolio and, of course, adding, you know, U.K. electricity distribution to the portfolio as well.
When we look at US Gas, we still see that in a very different light. It is a business which is still growing strongly, I think high single digits. I mentioned right at the start, the driver coming from the leak-prone pipe program, that has many, many years to run, and is strongly supported by our regulators. The most recent rate case in New York, in the city, in the state, we're seeing a step up in the demand from the regulators to go faster on that program. And we're seeing a step up in CapEx in New York as a result.
We're seeing, you know, good support for returns, you know, with, with a step up around from 8.8% allowed return for the old case to 9.25% in the new case. And, you know, all of that leading to strong cash characteristics for that business as well, being very supportive for credit metrics. So when we assess that business, as I said earlier, in terms of thinking about all the different options for financing the growth, we believe that that business contributes very well to the proposition, is continuing to be very supported by regulators and, you know, we believe it's a valuable part of the group going forward.
and similarly, you know, sort of what are the regional differences of, you know, sort of the U.S. business compared to the U.K. business? And what are the benefits of having a multinational group?
Yeah, again, for those less familiar, we sort of having started in the U.K., we started adding to U.S. acquisitions around the turn of the century, and have gradually grown the U.S. business over the last, you know, 20 years or so. And today, we're around sort of 45% U.S., 55% U.K. There's no target that we set ourselves, but to your point, we absolutely value having that spread across the jurisdictions. And of course, there's a diversification point there. If you think about the scale of National Grid, the size of the business, you know, having all of that within one market, one regulatory jurisdiction, you know, we believe there's absolutely value in diversifying that regulatory exposure.
But importantly as well, speaking as the CFO, having the mix of nominal and real regulation is powerful for us as well. Nominal regulation means that you get your cash slightly faster. Real regulation, ultimately, you can achieve broadly the same achieved return once you allow for the inflation protection in the U.K. But more of that return is deferred into the asset base. So you're creating greater asset growth, you're creating greater debt capacity, but you're getting your cash back slightly, slightly slower. And that, when I think about the overall TSR proposition of National Grid, that blend and that combination has been very powerful for us, and it's certainly one of the strengths we see going forward as well.
You know, there's absolutely an economic benefit we see to having that breadth as well.
Finally, we have a general election in the U.K. tomorrow.
Tomorrow.
Earlier than expected, and we have a presidential election in the U.S. later in the year. We're still are waiting to see whether it will be Biden as the Democrat's nominee. But what changes do you think could potentially come about, and what policy developments would you like to see from governments coming through?
Firstly, I'll probably, given polls, I'm probably more able to suspect what the U.K. election outcome is gonna be, probably less willing to try and call the U.S. election in a few months' time. I think, you know, in terms of the U.K., what I'd say is we've spent a lot of time working with the Labour Party, understanding what their priorities are, you know, working to try and sort of also educate them on some of the practical issues that are faced in terms of meeting their own sort of ambitions.
But, you know, 'cause overall, they're very aligned as, as political parties in terms of the overall direction of travel, and I think that's one of the things that, that gave us absolutely the confidence to go forward with, setting out our, our five-year plan. They want to, in some areas, to go even faster than the current government. They're talking about wanting to decarbonize the power system by 2030, versus, you know, the existing government has a 2035 ambition. And they, they sort of recognize that as challenging, but which is why they've also talked about things sort of, you know, tackling some of the planning and consenting, mechanisms, wanting to ensure, you know, and understand how they can support, the private sector in delivering that as well. So that takes you on to sort of GB Energy.
Again, I'm sure people have heard about GB Energy that the Labour Party has created. Firstly, I think that's, you know, everything they've said is that's very focused on generation renewables, you know, potentially new nascent technologies. It's not focused as, from everything that we've seen and been told on transmission. But I think that there is an opportunity for government or for the Labour Party, if they came into government, to potentially look at, is there a convening role that they can play back to supply chain?
You know, if the government or working with the regulators could create a framework that allows us to make longer term commitments, that would allow us, like some other countries are able to do, to place orders and make commitments to the supply chain, firm commitments to the supply chain over a much longer period of time. So absolutely, that's one of the things that I think we'd like to continue to work with the incoming government on. Planning and consenting is, again, as I mentioned, they've said that that's an area they want to focus on. Again, we work very closely with the Conservative government on how we could see that being, you know, adapted and changed to speed up the regime in the U.K.
Again, I think, you know, if we are gonna move successfully towards 2030, it's not me committing to hit it, but recognizing that the, you know, move faster in that direction, we absolutely have to tackle planning and consenting. And so that is something I think that would be a priority for any incoming government. In terms of the U.S., I think, you know, it's a bit early to tell. I think there's been a lot of focus on if President Trump was re-elected, would he go after the IRA or the IIJA? My sense is it's a bit more nuanced than that.
I think, you know, under both of those, there, there's been, you know, successful routing of funds in, into Republican states as much as, as Democrat ones, and I think you, you might see sort of potential changes in when maybe where the money is directed, how it's spent, but I, I think it's probably more nuanced than is, is it-- is the scheme going to be stopped or, or blocked? So, I think we'll have to wait until a bit nearer the time to, to see where that's going to go.
I think with all of these elements, I think stability, from an-
Yeah
Investor and corporate point of view is highly valued.
Yeah, absolutely. I think, and that's why, you know, back to the dialogue we've been having in the U.K., and the overall, the direction of travel is very clear. They want to push towards electrifying and decarbonizing the energy sector. Our five-year program is very much about enabling that. And we think, you know, it puts us in a very, very positive position with any incoming government, that we're now extremely well placed to for National Grid to play its part in delivering that.
Well, thank you. Thank you, Andy. That was very encouraging. It's a good overview. I think we've got the opportunity to take some questions. I can see Harry with his hand up.
Thanks. I'll reprise my role as the sell-side analyst here. I wonder, how are you thinking about the share of the electricity bill that's coming from networks, which I guess the historical answer to this question was, "Don't worry, 'cause it's very low, and even if we have a significant increase in our revenues, it's got a limited impact on the consumer bill." But as time goes on, the argument will probably weaken a little as networks become a higher share of the bill. So how do you manage that risk looking forward, especially if you had another gas price shock for any reason, and energy prices became a big political issue, and while in the past, networks haven't been cast as a villain in that debate, perhaps in a future period when network costs are higher, they might be.
And also from a political standpoint, how ready would, if we assume it's the Labour Party, how ready would they be to sort of understand the necessity of networks and their role in delivering the energy transition, and perhaps to kind of defend you from any pressure that there is to reduce the burden of networks on the consumer bill?
Yeah, thanks. I mean, on the first one, and as a reminder, that if you take the latest energy price cap that's just come into force, around 1,600 GBP, for the U.K. average bill of dual fuel. So today, transmission is between 20 and 25 GBP of that. Distribution, electric distribution is around 100 GBP of that, just to give you a sense. And I think the important thing is, yes, as no doubt that these levels of investment are going to add a few GBP to that. Precisely how much comes back to the regulatory framework and what's the pace of cash and allowances and so forth. But, you know, there's no doubt it will go up slightly.
But the reality is, and this is, I think, one of the things that both in the political arena and also the regulatory thinking has become very much aligned over the last couple of years, is, you know, ultimately if you want to get to a place where you can more sustainably hold bills at a more sensible level going forward, delivering this network reinforcement, allowing the renewables to come on more, you know, a greater penetration, removing or reducing your reliance on imported fossil fuel, and therefore your attachment to the international price of gas, ultimately is a more sustainable way of managing bills. And I think if you look at some of the actions that Ofgem have taken, it's that that's reflected in the way they look, think about their cost-benefit analysis.
A few marginal pounds on the transmission bill today potentially gives the ability to avoid significant increases or even you know, bring down the commodity, but also the constraint element of the bill going forward, which are vastly in excess of the 20-25 GBP that is transmission today. Of course, you know, the headline is you're still putting a few GBP on the bill, but that's sort of the broader picture and you know, why we believe that, you know, even with the change of government, I think that recognition that you know, it's important to get this transmission investment done because it's the only way to unlock those renewables onto the system, the only way to remove some of those constraints.
And just the finer point around, you know, education, I think, as I said, we, we've worked very hard with the Labour Party. Ed Miliband, you know, the, who's led on the energy brief for a long period of time, he knows the sector very well. He understands and his team, I think, understand well the importance of transmission. And just like we've been talked about by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past, over the last 12 months or so, you know, the leader of the Labour Party has talked about, you know, networks and the importance of grid connections as well. So I think we, we, you know, we remain, you know, pretty confident that they're going to continue to support the delivery of the investment that's needed.
I see we got Mark.
... Hey, hello. Thanks for taking my question. If I look at the challenges in transmission and to a degree, distribution, many infrastructure sectors have these more CapEx or more TotEx. If I look at water, some of the big road schemes, I look at fiber, which is big as well, and you add up all of the industry's CapEx plans, sure, there's unit cost inflation in there, but there's also an immense amount of resource that just isn't there, right? And we're hearing reports from former businesses that you owned, they just can't get semi-skilled labor to do some of the work, and they're looking in places they would not previously have gone, and they just can't find it.
So what is it that gives you confidence that your GBP 60 billion, which is 70% committed, can be done and the contractors—'cause most of it's done by contractors, right? How is it that you're sure that your GBP 60 billion gets done, and it's somebody else who can't find the labor or labor comes from somewhere else? Because you see the issue, the sum of the parts doesn't really equal the sum of the whole.
No, and you know, I think, as I said earlier, it's not easy, just to be clear, and I can't comment on what other companies may or may not have said. But all I can give you is what we're doing and what we're seeing. And you know, we are, as I say, both internally, where we are attracting, you know, the intake that we need today, and we can absolutely see, given the numbers that are applying, that, you know, it is at an attractive place for people to come.
As I said, we need to tackle the training so we can get them sort of up and running more quickly, in terms of, you know, cutting the amount of time that before they can become productive. But overall, we are absolutely seeing, you know. So from a direct company perspective, we're seeing that. In terms of the supply chain, I think, you know, all I can do is say we are successfully contracting. They are committing. They are signing up. Yes, it is hard. Yes, we are seeing unit price increases, but we are being very clear that those are being effectively, you know, done transparently with the regulator as well, to ensure that our allowances reflect those higher unit costs, as well as the higher volumes.
As I said, I think the one thing they're wanting is the long-term clarity, and, you know, that transparency of volumes so that they can make the necessary investments to create that capacity that you're saying is needed. I'd agree, if you look out to the end of the decade, the HVDC cable market is pretty maxed out. And therefore, you know, if you're looking at projects, you know, at the back end or certainly into the thirties, you are looking at a need to create more capacity. What we're hearing consistently from the supply chain is they're willing to do that, but they want those long-term volume signals so that they can invest against that themselves.
And that goes back to the point I made earlier about, I think, how we can continue to work with Ofgem, with an incoming government, to create a framework that allows them to create the environment where we can make those longer-term commitments without... You know, today, that would be an exposure for us as a company because we wouldn't have the regulatory underpin. I think importantly, we would want to try and get to a place where we do have that regulatory support. But no, you're right, Mark. It's a tough environment, but all I can do is share with you the success we're having, but we're having to work very hard to get there.
Hopefully, that results in not just more capacity, but more British capacity, potentially, you know, with the Sumitomo-
Yeah
... plant, that, SSE has contracted with.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Agreed.
Well, great. Well, thank you. I will draw this session to a close.
Okay.
Awesome.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thanks, Andrew.