Stephen Lacey: If you can believe it, it's been 15 years since Cape Wind, the project meant to be America's first offshore wind farm, was proposed. For years, the 130-turbine, 450-megawatt project was held up as the start of an entirely new industry in the U.S. But stalwart legal opposition and project financing problems eventually brought the project down. The offshore wind industry is now virtually all in Europe. In 2001, Europe had a few hundred megawatts of offshore wind projects when Cape Wind was first proposed. Today it has nearly 13,000 megawatts of capacity. And developers are on track to make offshore wind the cheapest form of new electricity. In fact new offshore wind projects are now beating government 2020 price estimates set a few years back. And so we come to the question that's been reverberating through clean energy circles for the last decade and a half. When will America finally capture a piece of this industry?
So this week we're joined by someone who's well equipped to answer that question, Alicia Barton. Alicia is the former director of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, the former Chief of Operations at SunEdison's Global Utility Group and is now the co-chair of the cleantech practice at the global law firm Foley Hoag. She's here with us in the Boston office. Hey, Alicia.
Alicia Barton: Hey, Stephen.
Stephen Lacey: Let's talk about where offshore wind is at to get everyone on the same page. Last year we saw the first commercial offshore wind farm developed off the coast of Rhode Island, the Block Island wind farm, a 30-megawatt project. Does that say anything about momentum here in the U.S.? Is this a one-off project or is it something that represents true momentum in the offshore wind industry?
Alicia Barton: Well, from where I sit, the Block Island project is a huge milestone for the U.S. offshore wind industry. It represents a moment where, for the first time, we sitting here in the United States can say we actually have "steel in the water," as they say in the offshore wind business. And it was a long time coming, to say the least.
It's a small project -- you mentioned at the top it's 30 megawatts -- and so by global estimates it's a bit of a pilot scale but represents a huge step forward.
Shayle Kann: And for people who aren't steeped in the world of offshore wind and all of its trials and tribulations, what has been the fundamental hold up? Why did it take us 15 years to get 30 megawatts in the ground, or I'm sorry, in the water?
Alicia Barton: That's a great question, Shayle, but one that will take a little bit of time to unpack, I think. There's been any number of reasons why offshore wind has been slow to take off in the U.S. I think probably price, first and foremost amongst them, which is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. First-generation projects are always going to be more costly than projects that you see after an industry has time to mature and reach a certain scale where you can deploy projects more cost-effectively.
And I think that has been one of the key reasons why we haven't seen offshore wind take off at the same rate that we've seen solar and land-based wind deployed in the U.S., but you can't really separate it from a lot of the siting and opposition issues that have certainly been in the background all along.
Stephen Lacey: Let's unpack these one at a time and talk about pricing first before we get into the regulatory hurdles here in the U.S. Europe has been trying to develop this industry for quite some time now, and with now a decade and a half of experience, almost two decades of experience, new projects with these massive 7-megawatt turbines and a sophisticated installation process...are coming in at $120 per megawatt-hour.
That pricing is below where the U.K. government and other European officials thought developers would be at this point and also competitive with all sorts of other new forms of generation. And in the next couple of years, it will just hands-down be one of the cheapest forms of generation in Europe.
Here in the U.S. prices are probably going to be a lot higher because we just don't have a mature industry [and] because we have to import a lot of equipment; we don't have a lot of the infrastructure set up. How might pricing compare to Europe here in the United States because our industry is so immature?
Alicia Barton: Well, we have essentially a couple of data points on that right now, which are early data points and I think not fully indicative of where prices will go, but as we sit here today, you have the Block Island project, which is operational, and that's fantastic and exciting. But that is a bit of a unique situation. You were in a case where the power for that project was replacing, essentially, diesel fuel on Block Island, which was very high-priced. So the Block Island contract, which starts at about $0.25 and goes up from there, is something that is one price point that we have but obviously not one that would indicate a lot of market competitiveness if we saw prices stay in that same range.
I think the other data point we have, and this is an exciting, relatively recent development, is the South Fork wind project, which was selected by the Long Island Power Authority for a 90-megawatt power-purchase agreement, and that gets much closer to the neighborhood of something that looks very cost-competitive, at least in the short term and again, in the situation where you may have other costly alternatives.
To the best of my understanding, I think that contracts start somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.17, and that, again, is on a 20-year contract for power. In a situation where they ran a competitive process, actually...to many people's surprise, [offshore wind] beat out other conventional sources of generation for that contract.
Shayle Kann: So, as we talk about those numbers, it harkens back for me to the first wave of big utility-scale solar contracts that were getting signed in California. There was a whole set of them to meet California's RPS in 2009 and 2010 that were in the $0.18 to $0.20 range, which all got built out for utility-scale solar where contracts are now below $0.05 but at the time people looked at those and certainly thereafter and said, "Oh, man. Those are really expensive contracts. People are upset about what ratepayers are paying for that in California."
But I guess the question with off-shore wind is: Can you imagine a similar price curve where you can sign a $0.17 per kilowatt contract today but in five or ten years we're down at $0.05 or even less? And I think there are some examples in Europe, potentially even now, of getting down into that price range.
Alicia Barton: You absolutely can imagine it because as you said we've seen this play out in the European markets, which has been really exciting. So Stephen, you referenced $120 per megawatt-hour and I think that is, you know, in the range of the average project price that we see in European markets like the United Kingdom, but there were recent tenders in the last few months, both in Denmark and the Netherlands, where you saw, to many people's surprise, prices come in in the $50-60 per megawatt-hour price range. There is a lot of speculation whether those are really indicative of the actual market price or whether the competitive auction really drove some outcomes that were a little bit more unusual. In any event there are data points that I think really reinforce the notion that we can replay that movie we saw in solar with offshore wind if we do the things we need to do to get it right.
Stephen Lacey: With pricing higher here in the U.S., are there certain applications for offshore wind farms that make sense first? Like Block Island, which was directly replacing diesel. Is that the type of project development that we're going to see where there are specific local use cases where higher cost offshore wind power can offset localized expensive generation.
Alicia Barton: That may be one of the scenarios that will drive some deployment of offshore wind but I would actually argue that we're going to see the next generation of projects be much more full commercial scale. They are certainly driven by the economics of the market that they're in and the fundamentals.
So, to take a step back, where you see a lot of the activity these days in offshore wind is in the Northeast of the United States. States like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York are really the ones leading the way at the moment towards what looks like real full commercial scale deployment of offshore wind.
And there's a couple reasons for that. One is that the wind resource is really excellent off the Eastern seaboard, particularly the farther North you go. Some people call it the Saudi Arabia of offshore wind in reference to the abundance of the wind resource that's there. You also have comparatively shallow water depths and that's one of the key challenges for offshore wind. So these are massive, massive projects and they are constructed in what are really complicated marine environments so they are much more cost effective if you can reduce the engineering and materials needed to deploy those projects, meaning in shallower waters.
Stephen Lacey: That's a pretty substantial advantage for the Northeast, too, because in the North Sea you have depths that are far greater and if even building these projects ten miles off the coast of the Atlantic seaboard you have relatively shallow waters compared to some Europeans sites.
Alicia Barton: That's why it's so attractive and that's why there has been historic interest going back even more than decade now in this resource, although it's been slow to take off. The last piece that you have in terms of market fundamentals is the proximity to load, right? You have proximity to cities like Boston and New York and the relatively congested part of the United States that is along the East Coast. This area also has relatively high electricity prices.
So offshore wind can be more competitive in those instances where you have the right wind source, the ability to ploy and attractive areas where the water is not too deep and you can tie pretty directly into a market that is a good fit for the type of energy you're selling.
Shayle Kann: It's kind of a good segue into one thing that I've been wondering about offshore wind as it develops, which is, who are going to be the players that build this market because you know all the things you're talking about are deep engineering challenges. These are harder to build than your standard traditional onshore wind or utility-scale solar project. And I wonder whether we have -- what's the expression? "Leaders get the arrows and followers get the settlement." I'm positive I butchered it, but the point being the first wave of projects, Cape Wind being the perfect example of that, were bottoms up, new entrants' attempt at building an industry. Whereas the impression that I get is that now the developers that are building the projects that are winning these bids are much larger, more established, in some cases oil and gas super majors like Statoil, which won part of the bid in New York.
Alicia Barton: I think you absolutely are seeing a bit of a shift here. So not only Cape Wind, which was essentially a Massachusetts-based independent power developer that had long history in developing conventional generation power plants and had moved into the offshore wind business.
Block Island, which we've talked a lot about, is developed by a company called Deepwater Wind based in Rhode Island, and they are backed by private equity. D. E. Shaw is their private equity backer. Those look like the models for an early market where you have capital that likes the risk-reward scenario that offshore wind provides.
Now, fast forward a few years later, what we are seeing is enormous companies with a huge track record of development in Europe moving into the offshore wind market. They bring not only their engineering and construction expertise, and to a great degree these are really marine logistics projects and they take the kind of capabilities that a company like Statoil has, but also a lower cost of capital as well. They bring the type of development mindset that you see in a more mature market. Even though we haven't actually seen offshore wind deployed at a commercial scale yet in the United States.
Shayle Kann: I would add a long-time horizon, right? I mean one of the other things that seems to be endemic in these projects is they take forever from inception to operation, which is also true of the types of projects Statoil and other big engineering-based oil companies are used to doing when they want to build a pipeline or they want to drill somewhere. You know, they have to put a lot of capital behind it, it's going to take a decade between then and when they actually start generating revenue from it. So they can take that long-time horizon where if you're private equity backed often times you don't have that kind of luxury.
Alicia Barton: That's absolutely right although I have to add on behalf of those of us that are working to push forward the U.S. offshore wind market, we do hope we can get project timelines down below a decade sometime soon.
Shayle Kann: Yes, so you mentioned a few companies. You mentioned Deepwater Wind, you mentioned Cape Wind, and then Statoil as sort of one of the new entrance. Who else is out there now?
Alicia Barton: Well, the largest offshore wind developer in the world right now is a company called Dong Energy and they are a company out of Denmark that started in the oil and gas industry and in about a decade or so has built the leading offshore wind business in the world.
They moved, I want to say about a year and a half or two years ago, into the Massachusetts market just as they saw the opportunity becoming more ripe for a real market to develop in the United States. It's really interesting because I do think a company like Dong that shows up with a track record to say, "We've built these projects at scale. We have an ability to show the cost declines that we've seen in Europe and we think that we can replicate the same thing here in the United States." That was a real game changer in the public policy conversations that were happening in the state of Massachusetts at the time.
Massachusetts is a state that had been living with this dream, if you will, of offshore wind for many many years and there was a lot of ups and downs in that story along the way but I do think one real turning point was the entrance of players like Dong to the market to bring some credibility and actual track record of having deployed this in a significant way.
Stephen Lacey: Did Dong come in because the situation in Massachusetts was looking kind of bleak? You might characterize it differently because you were involved with this for so many years, but one could say that the dream for offshore wind turned into a nightmare as the Cape Wind debacle unfolded.
Shayle Kann: Can you give just a brief history of that debacle as you call it?
Stephen Lacey: I think Alicia is probably better equipped to give the history on Cape Wind and then maybe we can use that as a jumping off point to talk about policy and what attracted these companies to the state and to other states like New York and Rhode Island.
Alicia Barton: Yes, happy to rewind the tape a little bit and set the stage for the moment that we're seeing here today with all the promise and excitement it has, which really did come as a result of some very challenging moments. I don't know if I would personally call it a nightmare, but I will say that I do bare a lot of battle scars from the ups and downs of the Cape Wind project, and I think that's to say of anyone that spent time working on that project.
So, for your listeners that didn't follow it, I think Cape Wine really was a saga and a very dramatic tale about which books have literally been written and movies made. It has its heroes and its villains and everything that makes for a really good story.
What really happened was starting back in the mid-2000s, Cape Wind decided to propose this project off the coast of Massachusetts in Nantucket Sound in a location that really is relatively close to residences on Cape Cod. It was planned to be about three miles offshore, which is relatively close and that caught the attention and widespread opposition from many of the neighbors and abutters to the project who didn't want to see an industrial energy project in their backyard, so to speak.
Stephen Lacey: By the way the book that was written on this in I think 2007 is quite a fascinating story and I recommend if people do want to revisit this. It's an interesting piece of history.
Shayle Kann: I also have some vague recollection of a Daily Show episode where Jon Stewart was making fun of the Kennedy's. Was that right? The Kennedy family who was in opposition to this despite loving wind because they owned property on Cape Cod and didn't want the blight of the offshore wind farm in their beach view.
Stephen Lacey: And the author of that book was on that Daily Show episode.
Alicia Barton: Yes, that's right. Famously Ted Kennedy and some of the other members of the Kennedy family were in staunch opposition to Cape Wind and the late Senator actually did try to use his weight to slow down the development of that project.
It was contentious for so many years, but it did slowly gain political support over time. So, for example, when Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts he was highly opposed to the project and made that very known. When governor Deval Patrick got elected and took office in early 2007, one of the first things he did was actually sign the environmental approvals for Cape Wind. Through his support behind the project as a candidate and then as a governor, that set the stage for what looked like the more promising chapters of the Cape Wind story.
So the project eventually did move through permitting, which took many years. There were appeals to virtually every single permit that was issued to the project. I think that over time there were north of 30 different lawsuits filed against the project. Some of them were withdrawn. But in cumulative effect, that type of delay and the difficulty of getting past the lawsuits and the difficulty of convincing the financiers of the project that they would ultimately prevail in the lawsuits, ultimately proved to be a pretty strong head wind for the project.
Stephen Lacey: So they failed to close a portion of their financing and then the utilities who had entered into a contract with Cape Wind backed out, right? Is that 2014?
Alicia Barton: Yes, that's correct. Actually, it was in January 2015 ironically just as Governor Patrick was leaving office so it really was an eight year span of the state of Massachusetts trying to facilitate the development of Cape Wind as an entrance to the offshore wind market. It was never about that one project but it was about what that project stood for in terms of a new energy resource for America.
Shayle Kann: So then fast forward and Massachusetts passes a bill that has an offshore target in it but, correct me if I'm wrong, Cape Wind is not allowed to bid on that.
Alicia Barton: That's correct, I have to say to my surprise, coming out of the Cape Wind disappointment and all the fall out from that, it was about a year and a half later that this legislation actually was passed to enable other projects to go forward to say, "We're moving past this one project." And in fact, as you said Shayle, that the legislation specifically kind of carves out the project from being about to compete. They specify that projects have to hold a lease from the federal government after 2012, which was really designed to prevent Cape Wind from coming back from the grave so to speak and carrying with it all that baggage.
Stephen Lacey: Let's put this into perspective this is a historical piece of legislation because it sets a 1,600-megawatt target for offshore wind and it was signed into law by Charlie Baker, a guy who previously was skeptical of the Cape Wind project.
Shayle Kann: Charlie Baker, the current governor of the state of Massachusetts.
Stephen Lacey: Exactly. The current Republican governor. And so you've leveraged all this new support for offshore wind in Massachusetts despite the challenges and opposition to Cape Wind. What changed politically and what pieces were in place to make lawmakers and also the governor say, "This is something worth backing".
Alicia Barton: A couple of things. Again, I do think taking Cape Wind off the table so to speak in those conversations really helped to say the least. It allowed people to really take the personalities out of it, take the baggage and the history and look forward to, like I said, the market fundamentals are really strong for offshore wind off the coast of Massachusetts and the promise has always been there. Really the thing that gets people excited is not just the ability to have renewable energy at scale in Massachusetts, which is something difficult to do onshore because we're a relatively small state here, but to have the job creation that comes with it and that was a big piece of the political support for this bill.
Down on the south coast of Massachusetts they have been positioning themselves for years as the eventual home and hub for the United States offshore wind market. That really is centered in large part in New Bedford, Massachusetts, where the mayor and the rest of the city there have been very aggressively supporting the deployment of offshore wind and where the state of Massachusetts invested and poured infrastructure to help that industry take shape.
There were other leaders on the south coast in the state legislature that really saw that vision and bought into it, including state representative Pat Haddad who championed the cause. She holds a leadership position in the House here in Massachusetts, and it was I think the combination of someone in leadership in the legislative side believing in the economic development promise of offshore wind. Along with the fact that Massachusetts really is facing a number of constraints on its energy supply and that situation was becoming more acute. The bill that ultimately passed was called 'An Act to Promote Energy Diversity' and that's a concept that was really baked into this was bringing a new resource at scale to help replace retiring coal and nuclear facilities that are leaving New England in large numbers.
And again the climate goals as well. Massachusetts has a requirement to reduce green house gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 as a number of other states do and it's going to be hard potentially for Massachusetts to get there without the contribution from offshore wind.
Stephen Lacey: I want to talk about that New Bedford facility, which was approved and built when you were CEO of MassCEC, is that correct?
Alicia Barton: The project was already underway, but we did complete construction while I was CEO of MassCEC.
Stephen Lacey: And that was initially designed to support equipment coming in for the Cape Wind project, correct? They were going to use that for a couple of years as that project got built out and then they had to walk back on use of that terminal because the utilities walked away from the agreement. And that was its own political issue in and of itself. And I know MassCEC has worked over the years to bring other lease holders in. You brought Gamesa in for six months, you've had some solar development on the property, and last fall Dong Energy, this big European developer came in and said, "We intend to use this facility as we start developing projects".
So you have this letter of intent that shows some promise that the facility will get used. But again, this was kind of it's own political kerfuffle and it shows that this is a difficult sector because you need to develop the infrastructure to support these projects but because of the long lead times and the legal complications associated with building these projects, matching exactly when you build infrastructure and support infrastructure with when the projects themselves get built is difficult. Can you speak to that?
Alicia Barton: Certainly. I would agree that the story of the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal does point out some of the challenges of investing in the type of infrastructure that will allow the United States to actually deploy offshore wind at scale. It's not something that we're well set up to do right now so there really are going to be real infrastructure investments that need to be made. I would quivel maybe with the characterization that the facility was solely designed for Cape Wind or that its fates would be tied specifically to that project.
The Marine Commerce Terminal in New Bedford represents the first purpose built infrastructure in the United States to support the offshore wind industry. And there's no doubt about it that Cape Wind was the catalyst for really greenlighting that investment. The timeline of Cape Wind was critical to the timeline of construction for the facility because we didn't want to miss that opportunity and because frankly we needed a facility like that to actually accomplish the project.
But the facility has been designed with a 50-year lifespan and was always built with a long-term view for the offshore wind industry in mind. We knew from the beginning that it wasn't something that was going to happen overnight and while we were disappointed that Cape Wind didn't arrive on time when the facility was completed as we had originally envisioned, I don't think that's the end of the story for that facility and as you noted, and I'll just make a minor correction, not only Dong signed a letter of intent to use that facility but each of the three holders of leases off the coast of Massachusetts have signed a letter of intent to use that facility. If and when they're awarded essentially a power purchase agreement under the Massachusetts legislation to go to construction.
Shayle Kann: So then what is the calculation you're making when you're thinking about how to support this type of infrastructure? When you see this as a 50-year investment, but you know that there are challenges in matching up with project timelines, that this is a nascent industry and that you're probably going to have some political conflict in the short term over these types of investments. Massachusetts has largely been very supportive of this industry but there are bumps in the road and I'm just curious about how you think about this in the public sector when you're making these long-horizon investments to support an industry that might not materialize overnight.
Alicia Barton: It really increases the pressure to be thoughtful. And look, making long-term decisions is never easy for policymakers because the pressures are always there to show results quickly, but when you really take a step back and take a hard look at the options available to states like Massachusetts, who as I mentioned needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in time for that 2050 deadline, or states like New York who've set an even more near-term requirement to achieve 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 under the clean energy standard that has been put in place.
You quickly realize that this is a resource that needs to be brought to the conversation and even though it is difficult we've got to start working now to start putting those building blocks in place.
Stephen Lacey: We've talked a lot about Massachusetts, let's turn to some of the other states -- New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina -- where there are some auctions and where there are some specific targets put in place. New York probably being the most mature compared to a lot of other states. So New York and Massachusetts are the furthest ahead on this. What's going on in those other states and how do they compare to the way Massachusetts has structured its leasing and its public policy?
Alicia Barton: So as we've talked about, the thing that's exciting about Massachusetts is that later this year there is going to be the first commercial-scale auction, specifically for offshore wind which is similar to the types of auctions you see in Europe that really again have been so influential in creating the market so that will be a historic moment. No two ways about it.
But there are so many other states that are right behind them looking at this opportunity as well and chief among those would certainly be New York, where governor Cuomo came out in his state of the state address earlier this year and set a really ambitious goal of 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind by 2030, again tied to the clean energy standard where the state needs to get to 50 percent renewables in just over a decade, which is a big lift, but one that will certainly be easier to achieve if you bring offshore wind to the table.
Stephen Lacey: New York and Massachusetts because they have such a great resource and because as you said there are certain energy constraints. We're looking at potential nuclear closure in Massachusetts. You have the closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York. You have natural gas pipeline constraints. There are issues in both of those states that seem to make offshore wind particularly attractive. Is that what's driving public policy in both New York and Massachusetts? Some of those inherent constraints in the market?
Alicia Barton: I think that is a big piece of it, again, if you really are serious about moving the economy to being powered by renewables and you are either transmission constrained or land constrained. Otherwise we'll find it difficult to bring really large-scale new renewable resources to the table. You need to look offshore.
That's not the only reason though, and I do think the economic development potential is really something that policymakers and politicians, like Governor Baker and Governor Cuomo, are taking a hard look at as well. There are really enormous number of jobs in offshore wind potentially that could be brought to those areas if they achieve first mover status and that's really what some of these states are looking at as well. As this industry starts to grow and mature, where will the jobs go? Who will be first? Where will the hub be? And that's without a doubt part of the attractiveness for states like Massachusetts and New York.
Shayle Kann: Let's just step back for a second and talk about the federal level then since we've been mostly talking about states because obviously we have a new administration. We don't exactly know what their attitude is. And in fact, the Trump administration has had largely negative things to say about wind, but there may be some glimmers specifically with offshore wind. But either way, what is the federal government's role in offshore wind? How much influence does it have and how much could it impact the growth of this market?
Alicia Barton: I think we have to start from the premise that it's difficult to take any real guesses about where the Trump administration is going to land on any particular issue, but offshore wind's kind of an interesting one.
So, to your question about the federal government's role, primarily their role in offshore wind is through the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management, or BOEM as people call it in the industry. They lease the areas in the water for development of offshore wind. And they've been doing this for a number of years and really that whole BOEM leasing process was actually itself a result of the Cape Wind project as well, which was simply proposed for an area without a competitive process. That had a number of consequences that led to the situation here we have today. A federal agency that raises revenue, that determines competitive interest, and in the same way that for decades we've leased offshore areas for oil and gas exploration, we're now doing that for offshore wind.
The other area that the federal government will have an influence on offshore wind is really through the permitting process and when you look at the lead times for projects and you know, Shayle, you referenced projects taking a decade earlier and I think now in Europe you see those timelines much faster from conception to commercial operation. You can be down to five even four years, something like that. But in the US, as we look at it now, the industry see the permitting process as probably the lead timeline driver for development of offshore wind.
So the federal government both for its leasing authority and through its permitting authority will have a significant influence on the pace and location for where offshore wind takes off.
Stephen Lacey: We do have some glimmers of hope here and just yesterday BOEM and the interior department announced winners of a lease auction off of the coast of North Carolina and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he had a lot of positive comments about the future of offshore wind as it related to a broader renewable strategy and an all above strategy for the President.
So although we've seen massive budget cut announcements coming out of the White House we do see an Interior Secretary who seems to be supportive of offshore wind. That's one sign in favor of this industry.
So what other signs should we be looking for over the next year or couple of years coming out of the federal government that shows us that we are on a path to building a real offshore wind industry here in the US?
Alicia Barton: So my first prediction would be that the contracts that are awarded under the Massachusetts competitive auction process that will take place later this year will get a lot of attention and will send a strong signal as to whether these are projects that can be competitive in the United States energy market. We don't know for sure, of course, where those prices will come in, but we're talking about large enough projects and credible enough players. We have, not only Dong who we talked about, but also a company called Vineyard Wind which is backed by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners at the table, as well as Deepwater Wind with their track record in the U.S. Those folks are going to be duking it out and hopefully driving to contracts that look like something that can be a replicable model for offshore wind in the United States.
Stephen Lacey: Alicia Barton is the co-chair the cleantech practice at the global law firm Foley Hoag. She is the former CEO of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Thank you so much for coming in. With Shayle Kann, I am Stephen Lacey. This is The Interchange, conversations on the energy transition from Greentech Media. We'll catch you next time.