Hello, and welcome to the NET Power Inc. First Quarter 2024 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions]. It's now my pleasure to turn the call over to Bryce Mendes. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to NET Power's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. With me on the call today, we have our Chief Executive Officer, Danny Rice, our President and Chief Operating Officer, Brian Allen; and our Chief Financial Officer, Akash Patel. Today, we issued our earnings release for the first quarter of 2024, which can be found on our Investor Relations website, along with this presentation at ir.netpower.com. During this call, our remarks and responses to questions may include forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those stated or implied by forward-looking statements due to risks and uncertainties associated with our business. These risks and uncertainties are discussed in our SEC filings. Please note that we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. With that, I'll now pass it over to Danny Rice, NET Power's Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks all for joining us. We're going to reference several slides in the investor presentation we posted to our website, and I'd encourage you to have those handy. To summarize where we are to date, development remains on track for our utility scale product, development remains on track for our first project. Our total addressable market is expanding faster than we expected and government policy is evolving in our favor. Brian will provide an update on product and project development. But first, let me share some thoughts on the macro. Society's paramount need for the next century is to implement scalable energy solutions that can provide clean, affordable and reliable power, a trifecta that remains elusive in current offerings. Despite the enormity of the prize at hand, only a handful of emerging solutions hold the promise on delivering on these fronts and net power really stands out among them. Diving into the U.S. in particular, the expected deficit between future power supply and future power demand continues to widen its low growth, primarily from data centers and the electrification of everything is outrunning supply growth, which we think will move forward power prices significantly higher. In a free market, higher prices would induce new supply primarily from coal and gas power plants. But what makes this situation really interesting is that the EPA recently finalized its Section 111 B&D emission rules for coal and gas power plants. To summarize the rules, all coal plants must capture the equivalent of 95% of its CO2 emissions by 2032 and all new baseload gas plants operating more than 40% of the time, must begin capturing 90% of its emissions by 2032. While existing gas plants will be addressed down the line as EPA gathers more input. These emissions rules raise the bar for…

Thanks, Danny. Turning to Slide 10 in the presentation. The team continues to make steady progress on site upgrades to our La Porte demonstration facility in preparation for our floor phase validation campaign with Baker Hughes. It is an exciting time to the site as our team is busy making control system modifications and installing new equipment, structural steel, electrical cable and piping, all in preparation for near-term testing. On our last call, I presented this slide, and I will revisit key points before going into more depth on how this campaign will derisk the utility scale deployments. The La Porte demonstration facility was developed to prove the concept of the NET Power cycle, which we did when we synchronized to the grid in 2021 and to test key equipment such as the turboexpander. The upcoming testing of port will focus on validity and derisking the Baker Hughes utility scale turbo standard and how to optimize its operation within our cycle. The campaign will follow 4 primary phases and will continue for 2026. The first phase of testing of a work focuses on the Turbo standard Barmer, which is where combustion of natural gas and oxygen takes place in a CO2 environment. We will test multiple oxyfuel burn configurations, and Baker will select the best burner heading into the next phase. We expect to begin Phase I testing in Q4 of this year. The second phase of testing will take the selected oxy-fuel burner from Phase I and tested along with a combustion liner and other hardware to form a single demonstrator size combustion car. This testing will allow us to optimize combustion and full apport demonstration conditions. The third phase of testing will involve scaling the demonstrator size in buster can from Phase II to a utility scale can…

Thanks, Brian. NET Power continues to premiumly deploy our capital, ending the first quarter of 2024 with a strong balance sheet, including approximately $625 million of cash and investments. Consistent with the past several quarters, the current interest rate environment has allowed us to put our balance sheet cash to work to materially offset our corporate spend. In the first quarter, our cash flow used in operations was approximately $3 million, which included a cash payment of more than $3 million under the Baker Hughes ADA. However, this high interest rate environment won't last forever, and we expect cash flow used in operations to continue increasing as we build out the organization, progress the joint development program with Baker Hughes and ramp up activity at La Porte. For the quarter, our total capital expenditures were approximately $10 million, comprised of approximately $6 million of capitalized costs associated with the ongoing Project Permian development activities and approximately $4 million spent on La Porte modifications and upgrades ahead of testing that is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of this year. NET Power's fully diluted share count was approximately 248 million shares as of March 31, 2024. This was comprised of approximately $214 million Class A and Class B vested shares currently outstanding, 19.5 million shares issuable upon the exercise of outstanding public and private warrants which if cash exercise, will give net power an additional $225 million of cash, 1.7 million shares subject to earnouts or vesting requirements and approximately 13 million authorized shares issued pursuant to the Baker Hughes joint development agreement. For a detailed breakdown of our share count, please refer to our annual and quarterly financials on file with the SEC. That concludes our prepared remarks. I'll now pass it back to the operator to open up the line for Q&A.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. Our first question is coming from Martin Malloy from Johnson Rice.

The first question was around the interconnection filing. Can you give us any more information about the geographic location or if there's a filing associated with that for carbon sequestration and maybe the timing of that filing?

Marty, it's Danny. Good to hear from you. In terms of like specific location, we're not disclosing that just for competitive reasons. But like we've said in the past, it's in the Northern MISO region. MISO goes all the way from Michigan all the way down to Louisiana and everything have been trained, and it will be in the northern section of MISO. It will ultimately get out there publicly once the filing is accepted by MISO, and we're proceeding into the next phase of the interconnect. And then on the subsurface side of things, our partners and I will be looking at filing Classics sequestration permits in 2024. So I think when we fast forward 3 or 4 years, we'll have Class 6 permits and we'll have the interconnect into the Northern MISO system. So everything is kind of going according to plan up there, and we couldn't get that power plant on soon enough. That Northern MISO system really, really needs clean baseload power, probably as much as any other system in the country.

And for my second question, just wanted to maybe see if you could provide a little more information about recent customer conversations. And you started off the prepared remarks talking about the total addressable market increasing faster than expected. And with the press reports about the need for additional power for data centers and reshoring manufacturing, et cetera. Can you maybe talk about the nature and the types of customers that you're having these conversations with?

Yes. It's been the same type of companies over the last few years. We've been talking to the tech companies for a while. They have a growing need for baseload power for the data centers. So those conversations, I wouldn't say are necessarily new. They're just not picking up is they're really starting to look at almost needing to start to procure power what's going to the source of generation rather than just being an active participant in the open market in the grid systems. I think everybody is now starting to realize baseload reliable power has gone from being an abundant low-cost commodity to now becoming a pretty sacred resource. And that's really only kind of transpired over the course of the last few years. And then I think when everybody looks ahead with just the clean ambitions that we have at the EPA in across most states there's really no such thing as clean, affordable baseload today. And so folks are starting to pay a lot more attention to those potential solutions that are being developed that give you that energy neutrifecta. So we're seeing a bunch from the tuck folks, but we're also seeing it from the utility industry and just the power industry in general, who have obviously been like the primary customers and custodians of these type of generating assets and the shortage of power that we're seeing on the tech side for data centers is even greater on just the broader grid system where you see these system operators across MISO, PJM, even ERCOT is now saying, by 2030, we're seeing a 30-gigawatt shortfall in peak summer power demand, which is a little bit amazing since Texas is what I think all of us would say is probably the most abundant place for power…

Next question is coming from Leo Mariani from ROTH MKM.

I was hoping to expand a bit on the customer discussion here. Just specifically with respect to OP1, have you guys actually kind of engaged a counterparty that's committed there? Or is this still something that NET Power is kind of funding in the early stages and sort of progressing? And maybe there's some conversations about getting somebody to step into that actual role. So maybe just kind of talk about that kind of OP1, I guess, project #2.

Yes, sure, Leo. And it's still to be determined if it will ultimately be serial #2 or serial #3. I think that's one of the flexibilities we have around the originated projects as it gives us total creative control over not just the timing of the project, but also what critical strategic stakeholders do we want to bring into this project? Because I think the way we're really envisioning this project is it's not just a one-off plant right? I think the area that we're targeting in the market that we're targeting is much larger than just one plant. I mean we're talking about a market that could accommodate 20 to 40 NET power plants. And so as we look at just partners and strategic partners, we had a slide in one of our earnings deck a few quarters ago where we kind of listed out all of the various stakeholders that we would want to bring into these consortiums. And it ranges from the utilities that are in the area. It is not just like the local government and the local landowners and the stakeholders at the community level. But the infrastructure capital providers, there's going to be really cool opportunities to be able to start looking at co-location of data centers for some of these plants, whether it's OP1, or OP2 or OP3. And so I think one of the real neat benefits of just this origination strategy is it gives us a lot of just creative latitude over what are the strategic partners do we want to bring into these hubs because while I think at the center of that hub, NET Power is powering it. But there's a whole lot of stakeholders that really benefit from having that clean, affordable, reliable power either for the grid or for their behind-the-meter solution. So we're in the early days of really setting out what are the strategic stakeholders we want to have in this Northern MISO hub. But I would imagine it will be different and really catered for each market where we start to establish these origination hubs.

Okay. I appreciate that. And then just wanted to follow up quickly on the cash burn that you all were talking about. I think the cost, you kind of referenced it might be accelerating a bit here in 2024. Can you maybe just kind of speak to any of the components of that? You talked about kind of $10 million in CapEx in the first quarter, like some of that was $6 million capitalized, $4 million actually spent. But how do you see that kind of progressing for the rest of the year? What type of CapEx do we see? And is that going to be the primary component of the cash burn? Do you expect, I know interest rates could fall. But assuming they stay steady, do you think kind of the interest on the cash balance kind of handles the internal sort of G&A?

Yes. Thanks, Leo. Yes, we are spot on there. So 2 components. On the cash burn from operations this quarter, we were at roughly $2.7 million of cash burn. But that includes our cash payment under the Baker Hughes JDA, which was approximately $3.7 million. So if you back that out and you back out the cash interest received and just multiplied by 4 for a run rate annualized figure, the cash burn from operations is roughly $40 million right now, and that's being covered pretty materially by the cash interest received. Now as interest rates come down and we actually start spending money on the CapEx side, you'll start seeing that accelerate a little bit. But very fortunate that we overcapitalize the balance sheet, we continue to be pretty prudent on how we build out the business to ensure that we've rightsized our capital plan. On the CapEx side of the house, when we overcapitalize the balance sheet on the Go Public transaction, we said that roughly $200 million is our first dollars into the project to ensure that we continue releasing long ways, et cetera. Now we're in active negotiation with several of the long lead providers. And so we haven't really said when that cash will go out the door. Obviously, Tim, in terms are incredibly important, and we'd like to keep that cash as long as we can. But you can expect that to come through over the next color of the year. The pace of which it will be back later for this year and then hopefully, we can get some pushed out, but still still little early for us to say when exactly on a quarterly basis that will accelerate.

Next question today is coming from Thomas Maric from Janney Montgomery.

On supply demand, I'm curious your thoughts about the next couple of years, and I want to dive into ERCOT, but I think this is related to all the RTOs. But specifically, just kind of thinking about load growth, the need for dispatchable generators, the EPA rule and just the general underwriting of risk to build a new dispatchable resource. So the question is really just how do you see the supply and demand of generators in the next few years, specifically dispatchable assets?

Yes. No, I think Thomas, I think that's like the $1 billion question. It may even be a trillion dollar question at this point. I think when you kind of heard us talking over the course of the last few quarters about just the underlying thesis for NET power, it was really like through the lens of this, we have a grid system where we've really underinvested in baseload assets over the course of the last decade. Really, since the shale revolution in natural gas replacing coal powered then in the country, we've really seen this underinvestment in baseload dispatchable assets and more of an overinvestment into the renewable assets. And so we're in this real predicament now where we have the system operator saying, hey, by the end of 2030. We're seeing all these decommissioning notices of baseload plants that are just aging that are underutilized that are uneconomic looking to come off the grid system, and we have a real problem because nobody is backfilling with new baseload power generation. And so this is all like all of this stuff kind of predated the new load forecasts for data centers and what the data centers aspire to do. And so when you kind of start to add that on top, you start to see problems start to just shortfalls really start to emerge quite quickly. And so then we have the EPA rules which are saying, hey, look, if we want to actually decarbonize, we really need to find ways to reduce emissions from coal and gas power generation. So we totally agree with that sentiment. That really is like the other basis of NET Power was if you really want to decoverize the grid, you really need to find a way to capture CO2 from colon gas…

A great response. On the EPA, just curious, NET Power was one of just a handful of private sector companies mentioned in the final document. I'm curious just how you reacted to that? Or what have conversations been like since the role was published. Maybe just any kind of anecdotes or commentary about the inclusion of NET Power technology in that final rule would be helpful.

Yes. I mean I think some of just the color for our investors that haven't been following it too closely. The EPA proposed the rules last fall. They then opened it up for a comment period. We didn't know that we were going to get called up by name specifically as an example of promising technologies coming down the pike on the carbon capture side. And so when they had their proposed ruling and then they open it up for comment, we saw that as an opportunity just to let everybody know, not just the EPA, but all of the other readers of that comment period, just the facts and circumstances of NET Power. And so we were just a matter of fact about just the state of the NET Power technology development. The state of the company. We have just taken the company public, we had properly capitalized the business to be able to scale up to meet this future demand resulting from the EPA rules. But that's really been, I think, certainly, the broader power industry is a little bit split on it. There's some folks that onto believe we need to get a cleaner grid system faster. And there's other ones that believe that we need to ensure that this transition to a lower current future proceeds uninterrupted. So uninterrupted affordable, reliable power. I think in either case, we want to be there as that clean, affordable, reliable power source that really cuts right down the middle and really like unite both sides that want that reliable, affordable power, and they want it to be clean. So tactic my intro comments today, there's not a whole lot of just energy solutions being developed that can do all 3. And certainly, we see net power is probably one of the better ones. And a lot of it is because we're using one of the cheapest energy feedstocks we have on Planet Earth, natural gas, especially here in the United States. And we've kind of always said, man, if we can find a way to decarbonize this really, really low-cost feedstock, we really can't deliver the energy trifecta. I think it's something that we'll be able to get everybody to support. But I think right now, it is a bit partisan in terms of people taking one side or the other, but we're going to be that aisle that goes right down the middle that I think everybody can rally around. And so being a public company with the shareholders that we have on this call, there really is a much greater purpose to what we're trying to do beyond just creating significant shareholder value.

Your next question is coming from Wade Suki from Capital One.

Just to kind of dovetail I think it was maybe Marty and Leo asking about OP1 there might be some shifting priorities or time lines here. I wonder if you could kind of give us maybe a Vedat time line for what you see as OP1 today. I can't remember. It might be a memory or something, but did you all disclose the size of this project?

Yes, so the OP1 is the same size as serial #1. So I think as everybody knows, we have a standard plan design, right? And so that's really like the important thing coming out of serial #1 is it really establishes the standardized design that we're going to deploy in manufacturing mode across the U.S. and the world. And so I think one of the just flexibilities we have, and this is really unique to NET Power versus all other real thermal power generation solutions is every single plant really into that battery limit is going to be identical to every other one, absent changes for just ambient temperatures, if you're in a cold environment versus a hotter environment, but absent that, everything else about this plant, the size, the design, the its operability, it will be the same. And so what that allows us to do is a couple of things. One is the manufacturing mode approach where we can just start to just mass manufacture all of the components of the plant. We can modularize the components of the plant. But the other really neat thing that enables us to it gives us flexibility over when the plant is essentially coming off of that proverbial assembly line, which location do we want to send it to first. And it can be for both economic reasons, a given market has crazy power prices that have spiked, let's accelerate deployment of this location over another one where power prices haven't gone haywire. But it also allows us tremendous flexibility if we run into any permitting delays in one location versus the next. We always have other projects in the hopper that we can then send those components to get those plants online sooner. So it's almost like a little bit of an insurance product to being able to have the standardized approach. Now right now, we're sitting here saying, "Okay, one, right now, it's kind of in line to be serial #2. But as we're developing other origination projects, as we're starting to have serious dialogue with prospective customers that are in dire need of being able to meet their own power demand on just the traditional licensing commercial side. There's going to be opportunities for us to accelerate other projects. And it's really part of it is through the lens of what's in the best interest of the shareholders to accelerate one project versus another, but also part of it is just like the social responsibility of this area really, really needs baseload reliable power much sooner than this other area. So I think at the end of the day, when we think out 20 or 30 years, we're going to do what's in the best interest of the shareholders long term. And I think certainly, the standardized design really enables us to have total flexibility to ensure that happens.

Makes total sense. Let's take the next step, I guess, here. I was asked about the commercial pipeline, things like that. You mentioned Alberta, but I'm just curious where in line do international opportunities kind of reside in the pecking order or in the priority list as you see it today? Again, any hints you can give us on geography that would be fantastic.

Yes, I think we've been pretty transparent about what international markets are really interesting to us. The Canadian market is a little bit unique, specifically Western Canada, just because it's a competitive power market just like most of the U.S. markets. So the ASO system is a competitive power market just like a MISO or PJM or an ERCOT where anybody can go build power generation out there if they wanted to supply power into Alberta. And so that's an area where we could do origination and where we're working on things right now. And so that's an interesting area. I think when we look at other international markets, those are usually state controlled when we look at places like the Middle East. But again, that's a really, really interesting market because they have the key features of what makes NET Power really unique, which is access to low-cost natural gas and great places to store the CO2, whether it's a permanent geologic storage, deep sale aquifers or for utilization in the form of enhanced order recovery where they can actually ascribe value to the CO2. And so the Middle East has always been interesting to us, and it's one that we're working on right now. And then when we look at other parts of the world, Australia is another one, access to low-cost natural gas, places just requested the CO2. Southeast Asia, I think, in the nascent stage of figuring out what to do with the CO2 and where they're going to be able to procure low-cost natural gas, which is a little bit different than Europe, which has access to natural gas. They've chosen not to develop the natural gas, but they have fantastic places where they've proven they can geologically store the CO2 in the North Sea.…

One last one for me, Dan, if you don't mind. As you look down the road, when the company is in sort of the manufacturing mode, what kind of time line do you see, let's just say, from customer signing agreement through the permitting and everything to plant start-ups, I guess, we're in the 30s at this point, but what kind of time line would you think about just all in?

Yes, that's a great question. I'll turn that one over to Brian to walk you guys through the time line a little bit.

Yes. So for the initial projects, I'd say, more of a traditional power project approach like Project Permian, maybe think of it as 4 years end to end. Certainly, that's something we want to compress over time. And as Danny said, with manufacturing mode and standardization, we can absolutely produce that. So what that will require is standard modular design, standard equipment, which we're setting up the company to do such that when someone has the idea they want to start development, there's not reengineering work required, which is typical in the power industry. There's not reengineering work on the equipment, the overall plant design. And we get to a point where eventually, even there's potentially inventory being held long leads being ordered. If you just go back to the early part of the supply chain, the longest lead stuff is usually components in turbomachinery, for instance. So the equipment OEMs are very knowledgeable on how to get out ahead of customer orders if they see the demand coming, and they have a good line of sight in forecasting into that. And so we're working with them as we ramp up to have insight into the upcoming commercial opportunities. They're participating in the case of Baker Hughes participating with us on the commercial committee where we look at all originated nonoriginated opportunities and basically get out ahead of early engineering inventory. But really, our intent is not have to carry inventory, just reduce the overall cycle. So what a net power plant should look like in the future is 3 years or even shorter as our target from someone has the idea until it's operational. And the only way you get there is standard design and modular manufacturing approach.

Our next question today is coming from Betty Jang from Barclays.

Great. I want to go back and ask about the data center demand. Just wondering what how big is the opportunity to do behind the meter power solution for specific data center? Like do you have to size down from the 300-megawatt utility scale to fit for a typical size of a data center?

That's a great question, Betty. I think if we went back 5 or 10 years, we would say, yes, maybe a net power plant is maybe too big. And in those cases, there'll be partial load going to the data center and the rest would just go into the grid system because a data center is going to need redundancy, whether it's through backup on-site diesel generation or just connectivity to the grid if they're truly behind the meter solution versus an off-grid solution. I think if you look at just the data centers of today and tomorrow in the size of these hyperscale data centers, these are really massive facilities. We're talking on the magnitude of 250 megawatts going up to a gigawatt. And so if you look at just the NET Power product market fit, we really are almost like the ideal product market fit for these data centers, which are, like I said, going to be really, really large. Now if you look at the data center, that's a gigawatt and you said, okay, data sites a gigawatt, you guys are only 250, 300 megawatts that's not a good market fit. What we are because really what we're doing with the standardization, it really is conducive to fleet deployments. So you almost need to think of these like blocks or modules, sort of like the way the SMR guys, the small modular reactor folks are doing with nuclear, except instead of starting with like a 50- or 60-megawatt block like they are, we're starting with a 250 to 300 megawatt block. And so to give them a gigawatt, we're really just putting a fleet of 4 net power plants together in a fleet configuration. And in terms of just the amount of acreage that takes up a…

That's really great color. If I have a follow-up just on that. In your conversation with tech companies, are they looking for behind-the-meter solutions? Or is it tied to the grid?

I think just the reality of the way data centers need to operate, they need, like their most important thing, especially for these language learning model data centers, the LLM is they can't have any interruptibility in power. And so reliability is paramount because if you think about going through these language training programs and that can take a couple of weeks, and at the end of the first week. If there's an interruption, they have to start all over again. And so just that redundancy and reliability is absolutely critical to their ability to perform the way they need to. The latency isn't as critical as reliability is. But again, because the largest source of expense for these data centers is power consumption, affordability of that power is right up there with a reliability piece. And so there's probably no greater industry that's really impressing need of just the energy trifecta clean, affordable, reliable than the tech folks. I think the challenge that we're all facing is when we look across the spectrum of all potential solutions out there, there's nothing that does all 3. You kind of have to create a portfolio where you're having to compromise a bit on affordability. You haven't to compromise a bit on reliability. You having to compromise a little bit on the carbon intensity in order to be able to meet your power needs. And so I think what we're really designing is that thing where there really is no compromise. I think where you're really having to see the adjustment with net power is it's a paradigm shift and how are we going to get clean power? Because I think for the last couple of decades, people haven't looked at possible fuels as being clean. And so this is really where…

I mean I can't agree with that more. Just carbon intensity should be the NRM. And I think the EPA regulation actually helps a lot to drive that forward by measuring everything on covering pens. So I have a follow-up just on the Project Permian next steps. But what needs to be tested with the air separation unit provider before you can finalize that long-term partnership. Just wondering if that's a financial negotiation? Or is it more technical integration, whether it fits well with the rest of the plant? And then separately, can you just talk about what is an open book estimate?

Sure. This is Brian. I'll take that. Yes, it's more of a technical integration at this point. I mean these are large air separation units. So they're not, let's say, directly off the shelf, but we're very focused on not stacking technology risks. So we are integrating design aspects that have been proven before an ASV providers past experience? So it's really more about getting the right technical integration. The commercial model for this and many power plants will be an integrated sale of equipment approach, where flowing through the EPC or through owner will be the purchase of the ASU equipment integrated into the plant. So in other words, there's not a separate ASU distinguishable from the NET Power plant. It's a standard design that comes together. So we're really working through those technical integrations that's also integrating into the overall feed. And then, yes, it's a commercial discussion. We had a lot of interest from industrial gas suppliers in this project because they all know that this first entry sets them up for deployment on future standard plant design. So first, get the technical right, get the technical fully embedded into the feed, and we're working through some commercial, but there's really no development aspect of this. As far as the other question, open book estimate means when we work with exactly, we see all of the costs. So there is a different approach where you could just have a quoted lump sum price, which is not what we're pursuing. We want to work directly with them on value engineering and understanding where we're driving cost with our cycle design. So we see all of the costs.

In the interest of time, we have one final question from Noel Parks from Tuohy Brothers.

Just had a couple. I wonder if you've covered a lot of really interesting the touches on sort of gas macro and of course, various power approaches for decarbonization. I'm just wondering, do you have any thoughts around whether some of the maybe more expensive, smaller scale, fastly solution, I think, for instance, about fuel cells running on natural gas. So to have attention to kind of, I guess, maybe shut down whatever price sensitivity there is out there and whether that could either be a benefit to you as your plans get closer to going online or whether it sort of is just going to place speed so much as the Paramount concerned that investment in longer but larger projects struggles a little bit. Have any thoughts on a scenario like that?

Yes. No, it's an interesting one Noel. I think a lot of folks are trying to find ways to be able to just launch peak pricing by adding battery storage wherever the heck they can by doing fuel cells by having more just natural gas peakers on the system. I think just the challenge is the sheer volume, just load growth demand that we're seeing coming our way is something that I think the power industry was frankly just flat-footed for. And I think the problem just gets compounded a little bit with these new EPA rules, if it really has a chilling effect on people deploying both dispatchable sources of power generation that is demonstrably proven that they can scale really, really quick, like the natural gas generation industry has over the course of the last couple of decades. I just don't think whether it's fuel cells or batteries are going to be able to really do much in the way of really being able to meet the load growth that's kind of coming because this load growth isn't intermittent. This load growth is 24/7, 365. So you really need to look at energy sources for power generation that can really just mirror that and just match that. And so then you're really looking at things like nuclear and natural gas. And so I think all of these other things will really help around the edges. But I think in terms of actually being able to scale up to deliver 50 to 100 to 500 gigawatts of new baseload generation capacity, you're really going to be looking at natural gas generation based solutions. And so if it's going to have to be lower carbon intensity natural gas, you're going to be looking at either something like NET Power? Or…

Thank you. We've reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the floor back over for any further or closing comments.

Thank you, everybody, for joining us today. This is really fun. Hopefully, it was informative and hopefully, we'll catch you on the next call in 3 months. Have a good afternoon.

Thank you. That does conclude today's teleconference and webcast. You may disconnect your line at this time, and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation today.