Greetings and welcome to Clean Energy Fuels Second Quarter 2021 Earnings Conference Call. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Mr. Robert Vreeland, Chief Financial Officer. Thank you, sir. You may begin.

Thank you, operator. Earlier this afternoon, Clean Energy released financial results for the second quarter ending June 30, 2021. If you did not receive the release, it is available on the Investor Relations section of the company’s website at www.cleanenergyfuels.com where the call is also being webcast. There will be a replay available on the website for 30 days. Before we begin, we would like to remind you that some of the information contained in the news release, and on this conference call, contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Words of expression reflecting optimism, satisfaction with current prospects as well as words such as believe, intend, expect, plan, should, anticipate and similar variations identify forward-looking statements, but their absence does not mean that the statement is not forward-looking. Such forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of performance and the company’s actual results could differ materially from those contained in such statements. Several factors that could cause or contribute to such differences are described in detail in the Risk Factors section of Clean Energy’s Form 10-Q filed today. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this release. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements or supply new information regarding the circumstances after the date of this release. The company’s non-GAAP EPS and adjusted EBITDA will be reviewed on this call and excludes certain expenses that the company’s management does not believe are indicative of the company’s core business operating results. Non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to results prepared in accordance with GAAP and should not be considered as a substitute for or superior to GAAP results. The directly comparable GAAP information, reasons why management uses non-GAAP information, a definition of non-GAAP EPS and adjusted EBITDA and a reconciliation between these non-GAAP and GAAP figures is provided in the company’s press release, which has been furnished to the SEC on Form 8-K today. With that, I will turn the call over to our President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Littlefair.

Thank you, Bob. Good afternoon, everyone and thank you for joining us. This was a great quarter for us. In Q2, we signed the most important commercial agreement in the history of our company with Amazon. Our business is growing again and surpassing pre-COVID levels. We raised $200 million in growth capital. Our earnings were better than expected. And there continues to be an increased understanding of the role our renewable fuel can play in addressing climate change today. Notably, our fuel volumes surpassed 100 million gallons a quarter again, a healthy 13% increase over the second quarter of 2020 when the pandemic had begun to take hold. We saw volumes bounce back in all sectors. And the good news in particular is that airport fleet volumes increased 36% and transit increased 24% compared to a year ago, which surpassed our own internal projections. Our renewable natural gas, or RNG volumes, grew 19% over the same quarter a year ago and continues to become a larger share of our overall fuel mix. Our efforts to accelerate that demand for this ultra clean fuel is only matched by our focus on bringing on additional RNG supply to meet the growing demand, which I will elaborate on in a minute. As you know, we are focused on providing more and more RNG, a fuel that can be rated to have a negative carbon intensity allowing our customers to meet their transportation sustainability goals easily, immediately and affordably. I am going to let Bob go into more detail about our strange revenue number this quarter, but it’s not hard to see. There were accounting-related non-cash charges that highly impacted it, most notably the Amazon warrant charge. Excluding the non-cash charges, our revenues would have been $79 million, a 29% increase and apples-to-apples comparison…

Thank you, Andrew and good afternoon everyone. And I will reiterate what Andrew said, the second quarter was a good financial quarter for us. We started to see the anticipated rebound in volumes along with good fuel margins and a continued favorable environmental credit market for D3 RINs and LCFS. Of course, our GAAP results as reported were significantly impacted by the non-cash contra revenue charges of $78.1 million from the Amazon warrants. But looking at our non-GAAP earnings, we earned a $0.01 a share with adjusted EBITDA of $14 million. These contra revenue charges related to the Amazon warrants is why we are reporting a revenue number of $0.5 million for the second quarter. Without those warrant charges and changes in fair value of Zero Now hedge, our revenue was $79 million or 29% above 2020 second quarter revenue of $61.3 million on a comparable basis. The Amazon warrant non-cash contra revenue charges for the second quarter included $76.6 million related to the immediate vesting of approximately 25% of the warrant shares and $1.5 million related to ongoing fuel delivery to Amazon under our fueling agreement. We will continue to record non-cash contra revenue charges each quarter that could be in the range of $3 million to $4 million per quarter related to the ongoing spending on fuel by Amazon. As also note the contra revenue charge related to the immediate vesting in the second quarter was higher than our initial estimate of $68 million due to additional warrants being issued in connection with our share issuance from our at-the-market stock offering program. As such, we have updated our guidance for estimated – for our estimated GAAP loss to $86 million for 2021 to reflect the increased contra revenue charges in the second quarter, which has no impact on…

Thank you. Our first question comes from the line of Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, Andrew. Hi, Bob.

Hey, Eric.

Hey, so I know you mentioned that Amazon is not a surprise that it’s helping more broadly in discussions with customers. But maybe could you talk about specifically Amazon suppliers, maybe some specific data points as much as you can share tractions you are making there and kind of how you see that overall volume opportunity?

Our stations that we are building for Amazon are going to be open to the public. And of course knowing our business, Eric, when I open to the public that means it’s they are open to other truck companies, right. And in that case, I think it’s likely to be other vendors and suppliers as well as other fleets that operate for Amazon. We have seen a few companies that haul for Amazon begin to bring natural gas trucks into their fleet. And I think you will see more of that in the future. And that’s really all I can talk about right now is, but I know that as I believe that Amazon looks at their emissions and their goals and their reductions in the future, they are going to try to encourage many of the people they work with to bring on cleaner and cleaner vehicles over time. And we hope to be right in the middle of that and kind of stay tuned.

Yes, okay. Well, maybe just sticking with that, I mean, is there anyway, obviously, as you’ve got the joint ventures now you’ve brought on more supply, you’ve had the supply agreements in hand for some time, maybe the size of the pipeline for Redeem whether it’s versus a year ago, 3 years ago, anything along those lines would be helpful?

Right. And I am going to be a little cagey here, Eric. And it’s just because I guess there is lot of good news here, but which is there is a – there are a lot of competitors that are out there trying to develop dairy projects. And in one way that’s really a good thing, right, because that just confirmed for me that there is lot of money and there is some big players with deep pockets recognizing that this is a really viable fuel that’s economic and that has a great role to play in reducing carbon emissions today. So, that’s good. Remember that we are ahead even while we are competing at let’s call it at the dairy location. Often, we are – I don’t want to say the only game in town we often get though the supply from our competitors as they go look to put it in a vehicle tank, right because we have the infrastructure. So, just because we are not developing a dairy farm and harnessing the dairy fuel for our own account, that doesn’t mean that we don’t ultimately bring that loan carbon negative fuel to our customer, our fueling station. Now, obviously, we would like to get a lot of it on the upstream side, because that makes economic sense for us as well, but just want to kind of keep that in mind. So if you go back and look, 3 years, I mean, there was hardly anything going on in the dairy business. So, when you look at the pipeline today, it’s dramatically increased. And I have said on a previous call, I am not going to dissect it today, I said in the previous call that we have got several projects that are either in that we have given the notice to proceed that are either in construction or in the – or signed or in our pipeline that’s grown since our last call, but I’ll just kind of leave it at that right now. But yes, Eric, compared to where we were several years ago, I mean, remember, we were early in this business. We started I guess we were the first ones to put landfill gas in a truck 10 years ago, right. And so up until recently, it was all landfill gas. And it will continue – there is a lot of landfill gas in the United States and it will continue to be a lot of landfill gas. But you will also see more and more dairy and farmed hogs coming on board because of its low carbon nature.

Got it. That’s so much helpful.

For instance, let me give you one other little point and I can’t go back a few years, but our carbon intensity is coming down. And by the end of this year, our carbon intensity will be – in the fourth quarter was – is going to be approaching zero for our fuel. And it wasn’t too many years ago as it just wasn’t, it wasn’t that way. And it’s coming down fast, because we do bring down this negative carbon fuel. It’s so much lower carbon that it brings down the other. So, that’s a good thing.

Yes, no, that’s good. Maybe last one for me just, I mean, great to hear a rebound in transit and airport. Have you seen any change or with variants and things along those lines or is that something that you kind of feel like those few areas are back on track and they should continue to grow going forward?

Yes, we are seeing them all grow. I don’t think airports aren’t fully back. I mean, they have come back a long way. And I’d say they are back to about where we were before, but they are still not, I don’t think they are operating on all cylinders yet just based on what I know on the passenger load. But they are pretty – they are essentially back to where we were before, but I think there is growth there. Transit buses, I’ve said this from the – in the kind of the early days of the pandemic, they kind of flipped the switch, right, they went from 100% to 50% and they drop it in big pieces. And it doesn’t have as much to do necessarily, with the passenger load on a given days, it does that they just turn on different routes. And we have seen the transit back to pre-pandemic levels. The transit is back. We have seen transit properties growing. We see transit buses taking delivery of new natural gas transit buses. So I think you’ll see both those segments continue to grow. So, that’s good news that we are starting to finally see some growth back now. Rep use grew last year, right, I want to say 8% and it’s continuing this year, along those lines.

Okay, thanks a lot.

You bet.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Rob Brown with Lake Street Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Good afternoon.

Hey, Rob.

Hey, Rob.

Just wanted to get a little more color on the Amazon build out where are you at in terms of getting stations completed and do you expect to have really all of them by the end of the year or what’s sort of the timeline there?

Right. Now, of course, we have told Amazon we are going to bring those stations down as quickly as we can. And of course, as you know, as we build those stations, the toughest part just to be candid and where we are with Amazon and other, our customers know this, the longest lead part of developing a station is the sighting of the land and is the permitting and is the due diligence on the utility and the utilities and the acquisition of land or the leasing of the land. That’s the longest lead item. The construction is actually the shortest part. So we have made very good progress of the new locations. The majority of them have been – we’ve gotten through the real estate piece of this and you’ll begin to see construction phase on most of these stations being developed in the latter part, third and fourth quarters of this year, some of those will get probably finished next year as well early though, but we are making good progress on all of them. And we are also making additional investments and adding to existing stations, as I think I said, maybe in the last call, we are currently fueling Amazon trucks and we have seen them at our existing network, where we have actually been fueling Amazon trucks at 37 of our different stations already. And some of those network co-locations are receiving some increases in additional investment to make sure that they are – they can serve the Amazon characteristic and fleet well as well as we can. And so that’s what’s going on. So I feel pretty good. We monitor it very carefully. And look, real estate locations in the Northeast are not easy to come by. There is a lot going on up in certain states, right now. But we made pretty good progress on.

Okay, great. Thanks for that color. And then in terms of the fuel volume or the accounting of the revenue, I think, Bob, you mentioned some offsets going forward, could you just give some color on sort of is that volume driven or is that kind of a fixed amount?

It’s volume spend driven. So, they – Amazon vests and the warrant says they spend and there is thresholds and milestones frankly, but from an accrual accounting standpoint, you assume they will make the various thresholds. So, it’s kind of we are going to record those as the spend occurs. And that’s how that will – that’s where those will come from.

Okay, great. Thank you. I will turn it over.

Okay.

Thanks, Rob.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James. Please proceed with your question.

Thanks for taking the question. So we are obviously waiting for the infrastructure built the past and I noticed that one of the changes from the original March version to the – what’s actually going to be voted on is there is some provision for buses that are low emission, but not zero emission. Have you guys looked at whether nat gas can be included within that?

Right. Well, Pavel, we were heavily involved in that. So, you go back about 6 or 8 years when the LoNo – NoLo program was put in place. And it always envisioned low-NOx, which is natural gas bus. It’s just that the Obama administration decided not to ever fund any natural gas buses. And so the LoNoLo program was always used as a slush button for electric vehicle programs. And it was on the order of $100 million, $150 million. So in the scheme of transit, it didn’t really amount to much, right, because that doesn’t go very far in the electric world. And so, come this year, there were some United States senators on the Republican side with some Democratic colleagues, in fact, Chairman Brown that just felt like the LoNoLo program should return to the original legislative tent, which is that if you could put help fund low-NOx buses, especially using RNG on the road, which have arguably a lower carbon content than electric that should get put in place. And so, when you look at the plus up, so the LoNoLo program has gone from on the order of a couple of $100 million a year to $5 billion, right, $5.25 billion. There is a 25% carve out of that $5.25 billion for low-NOx buses, which would be natural gas buses. So, it’s a big – for me, it’s a big recognition and it’s a carve-out right. It’s solid. So you got a $1 billion basically there, that’s going to be for natural gas buses. And so we are real pleased about that. And when you kind of compare that versus the other $3 billion that’s going to go to electric, you are going to get on a bus on bus comparison, you will have about as many natural gas buses funded as you will electric. So yes, we are on top of that one.

Okay, okay. No, I appreciate the detail. Going back to your comments in the intro about certain municipal bus lease that are unhappy with their electric purchase, do you know of any specific examples of a city fleet that did a pilot or initial deployment of electric and then essentially gave up on it and said, we are going go back to what we had before?

You mean, like Foothill, you mean…

Well…

So, you mean transit properties that tried it, no, thank you.

Exactly. And actually walked away electrification entirely.

Well, I think and I know you follow this so you may know, but I believe Albuquerque did. And I imagine they are still running some. But I am pretty sure Foothill Transit has decided that they are – in fact Foothill Transit is going to now go with I guess they are going to take a swing at hydrogen. Indianapolis that was a disaster and Duluth, so, I don’t know of any others, but those are the ones that come to mind. I am sure there are others that just haven’t had a good experience.

Okay, that’s helpful. I am just trying to kind of visualize how common that kind of reversal it is?

Look, I know it always comes across like pick on him, but I – and I do, I do in a way. But you know what I sort of recognize that there maybe a role for the public funding to sometimes push on these extravagant technologies. And we saw that 20 years ago with natural gas buses, right. Transit fleets funded natural gas when that wasn’t the thing to do, right. And so occasionally, the public monies are being used here to push on the technology side. And that’s one thing, okay. Though, Pavel, what you and I talked a lot about over time is that when you have something that’s being funded 93% by the Feds, okay, so you don’t really look at it as a dollar and cents cost effective thing, you just don’t, you don’t have to, but when you start looking at a private sector fleet and then it’s totally different. When it’s 100% your own money, then this really does come into play and that’s where I always try to let people know is don’t think, because somebody is funding or fielding some electric transit buses that necessarily translates to private sector trucking company doing the same thing, because there is different economics at that point. And I think that’s important for people to understand.

Yes. No, appreciate the perspective. Thank you, guys.

You bet.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Manav Gupta with Credit Suisse. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, Bob. Hey, Andrew. I mean, I am trying to understand this, you put in about $50 million with the BP JV and then you are saying with Total, it’s going to be more project by project based. And I know you can’t get too specific, but let’s say, we are looking out to year end 2022 or you picked 2023 like how many dairies are you targeting would have contracted with you and how many do you think would be online between BP and Total, just some rough numbers, so we can model those JVs a little better?

Yes, that’s well, Manav. That’s a good question. But there is – all these dairy projects vary kind of so much with the size and what we have said, generally speaking – we are talking about in gallons and you are going to spend on the low – on the negative carbon, the dairy, you are going to spend maybe $20 million per million gallons, right. And so, but we started to do that math. I mean, our intent is to spend the 400 million in the BP deal and the 400 million in the Total Energy deal and it could go bigger. But let’s just say, we will go through both 100 million, so that would be kind of 200 million at the JV level 100 million each.

And they – and that might be leveraged.

So, Manav I don’t know that we are going to – you are going to get from us today, a dairy cow and headcount gallon count of low CI count that you can put in your model. But what we have said is by 2025 100% of our fuel is going to be that way. And what we have said is that we are working with very large fleets that if you just – I think you did it on one of your fine notes, if you kind of run out and use Amazon and do the multiplier on gallons, and all of that has to be RNG. You can see we need another 100 million gallons, 50 million to 100 million gallons just for them. So, there is going to be a lot of money put to work here, from us, our partners and also for others that we are going to have to bring in, because the future is going to be a landfill and dairy projects over time. That’s the future, so that’s not going to be the fossil, it’s going to be this RNG bring – coming to bear.

Yes. With significant flow from those investments more in 2023?

Right.

So, I mean, I think the point is the intent is to spend the full amount of capital there that can be leveraged at the project level. So, and there typically would be…?

Well, in Total energy sales indicated their preference to upsize there that JV and they have said they would like to see that go up to 400 million. So, we are not ready to do that, right. The second, but we know that that’s their intent. And that’s what they would like to do. So, there will be a lot of money on our side put to work.

Perfect. I had a policy question. On one hand, we obviously see the Biden administration about lowering carbon emissions and everything. And then all you see from most members of the administration, talk about is EV. I think even today, it was all EV. I mean there are one or two senators like Senator Amy Klobuchar, or some other people who are talking biofuels. But most of the time, what we hear from media, at least, is just EV. And again, you guys are very close to all this, like on the ground do you think the current administration is more supportive of biofuels or do you think it’s just the support is just EV and nothing really has changed even from the Trump era?

I think it’s been easy. It’s frankly, easy for politicians to just at this point, just kind of lump it all in and it’s gotten to be very comfortable to sort of talk about an EV – solar and EV future. I mean, that’s kind of what the environmental community likes to hear, that’s kind of what they have adopted now. If you press it is why you see – it’s why you see that that buildup prevail and I just talked about. All of a sudden, there was a 25% of carve out or low-NOx, which is natural gas – natural gas, there is a recognition that you should try to do whatever you can today to lower emissions and not wait, because they know that. And we don’t really get any pushback from either side of the aisle is when you really address it. As you know, there isn’t a fuel cell truck today. There isn’t a hydrogen – then you can buy. And frankly, there is not really an electric, so that is code for if you don’t do something that’s available today, you are just allowing that to go to diesel. And that’s why you just saw this carve out in this LoNo program. I would call your attention Manav and others on the call and it may be a little hard to find, but the Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District just wrote a really compelling I guess rebuttal to the Environmental Justice Community and some of the Health Communities that we are kind of roughing the South Coast Air Quality Management District who is responsible for the air quality in Southern California. And frankly, I have been on the leading and bleeding edge of air quality issues for last 50…

Perfect. My last question is, you have currently in the quarter 42.9 million gallons of RNG was supplied, help us understand how much of that was landfill, and versus the dairy farm and how that has tracked over the last 1 year or so?

Well, you are consistent Manav. On that, I don’t know that we are going to break that down for you. But we are increasing our dairy farm. And if you kind of look back, last year, you were 2% dairy, and by the end of this year, you will be up to 10% dairy and so that’s kind of way to think about it. And of course, we will continue to bring on dairy at a higher – more and more as we go, because of what it does for us. Bob, I don’t know if you had another way to…?

Well, we have delivered – we have taken supply of more dairy through the first six months than we did all of last year.

Okay.

And we were probably – we are probably almost up close to 100% from one quarter to the next. So, that is – so the dairy is growing as expected. But there is still plenty of room. It’s kind of good news, bad news thing, because, frankly the numbers that we see in front of us that was a very good quarter, are not heavily weighted toward dairy RNG. There are some in there for sure. And we also had some very nice RIN pricing. So, we just have – we continue to have the upside in the replacement. And to your question that those stats should tell you some at least in terms of that pace is going with the growth rate of the dairy.

Thank you so much for taking my questions.

You bet. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jason Gabelman with Cowen. Please proceed with your question.

Hi guys. I want to ask first on I guess this margin range that you have provided, could you just help us understand what’s kind of driving the potential for you to come in at the high end versus the low end, is it just RIN volatility. Is that kind of the main factor? And if so, what’s the sensitivity there?

Bob.

It’s some of that, Jason. But it’s not all. It’s not all banked on that. So, it’s also just an anticipation of volume rebounding from the pandemic. So, and I think Eric had a question too on that. But we all know this variant stuff is going on. But frankly, we are not seeing anything like that right now impacting our volume. So, we still are anticipating that we are going to gradually recover. And so as we put on more fuel volume and we grow volumes that really also is a driver to our margin per gallon. Along with RINs, that’s helpful. But the LCFS has been – is lower than when we started the year, right. So that hasn’t necessarily been off the charts. It’s still strong. It’s and by no means not good. But that’s kind of off the RINs picked up. So, there is always a little bit of this and that, that goes on, but then the fuel.

There is a little mix in there, too.

Yes. The increase of fuel volume with greater mix and look at the Amazon fuelings, those types of volumes help in that absolutely because those are our core fuel volumes. So, we see that increasing.

Okay. Great. And then I guess, just more broadly on the volume outlook, now that they have kind of rebounded to 2019 levels, I think your 2Q was flat with where 2Q ‘19 was. Could you give us a sense of the volume trajectory moving forward into next year? And if you expect, kind of, and within that, I guess, the RNG volume growth as well.

Yes. I think, we have said at the beginning of the year that we have kind of – we have come out of Q4 at around a 12%, kind of middle, 12%, year-over-year, 12% to 15% in volume growth. So, I think that we will get there with our Q4, Q3 will be not at that level, but it will rise and then Q4 will kind of be maybe at 12% to 15%, above what it was a year ago. And then assuming there is no real setback from what’s going on out there, we will – we should be in a solid double-digit volume growth. But that’s we still want to see how all that various deals shake out before we give too much guidance towards the 2022 volume. But it should be north of 10% as we go into that grade.

And then the last one, just on the equity raise you did in the quarter, did you consider other channels of financing? Why was I guess the equity more attractive than whatever other options that you could have pursued?

Sure. Jason, we are always looking at different things, right. And in our history, we have done – we have had convertible notes and so. So, we were always looking for what we think is best. And we are not – because we did this via latest couple rounds of equity. I mean, I don’t think one should assume that that’s the only thing we are going to do. Well, there is probably a time when some other debt on these projects and would make some sense. But we felt like with what was happening in the market at the time, and the need for growth capital, that it was prudent for us to put some on the balance sheet when we had a chance.

Alright. Great. Thanks a lot. I appreciate the answers.

You bet.

Thank you. Our final question comes from the line of Todd Firestone with Evercore ISI. Please proceed with your question.

Good afternoon. Thanks. Thanks for taking my question. I had a couple questions. One was maybe I could come on it a little different angle. Are you able to disclose or maybe an internal estimate of what one of the Amazon trucks would use annually on a gallon basis?

I don’t know that we have ever really said exactly. But look it wouldn’t be I am not divulging any Amazon secret. When you look at kind of normal over the road trucks that can operate like Amazon, I think and I have been saying this for years, right. It’s somewhere between kind of depending if they are regional or a little more super regional. They tend anywhere between 12,500 gallons and 20,000 gallons, right. So, I mean, I think if you were to use a number in the 14,000 gallons, 15,000 gallons that’s sort of a good placeholder for an over the road truck, J. B. Hunt type truck, those kind of big over the road trucks in that neighborhood.

Great. I appreciate that. Second question is just on the number of stations, and the just logistics around that, and I apologize if you disclosed it on our prior call, but is there may be a hard or soft cost contingency built into – building out these stations. So, what I am really trying to get at, are you seeing trouble getting workers and the crews to build these stations and is there any reason to be concerned about that?

Well, we have seen like everybody else. We have seen some cost increases. I don’t know that it’s been – I don’t know that we have been faced with horror stories on that. But to concrete it up a little bit, some of the – our steel cylinders, we have seen. Now, we were lucky and that we kind of pre-ordered some and we were able to get some supply that will take us through. I think almost all of our first initial build for Amazon. But we always put a contingency on the construction area and somewhere between 10% and a little bit more. So, we will probably eat up some of that, I would guess. But we haven’t seen anything that’s been completely off scale, I wouldn’t say.

Right. And I think labor wise, we are active on station builds have been.

Right.

So, we have been keeping a lot of people employed. And so that’s, that kind of remains the case on that front. We have got good contracts.

We have good subs that have been continuing them through kind of thick and thin. They worked with us last year and this year, so we are not seeing – we are not having to go out and hire dozens and dozens of new construction guys, which I think could be a little daunting. We have some pretty well squared away firms that have long history with us.

I appreciate that color. So, that’s all I have.

Okay. Thanks Todd.

Thank you. We have reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the floor back over to Mr. Littlefair for any closing remarks.

Good. Well, thank you, operator. And thank you, everybody for participating and listening in today. And we will keep you posted as we go forward on RNG and our station build out and growth plans. Talk to you next time. Thank you.

Thank you. This concludes today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation and have a wonderful day.