Dominion Energy, Inc. ($D)

Welcome to the Dominion Energy First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to David McFarland, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations and Treasurer.

Good morning, and thank you for joining Dominion Energy's First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. Earnings materials, including today's prepared remarks contain forward-looking statements and estimates that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Please refer to our SEC filings, including our most recent annual report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for a discussion of factors that may cause results to differ from management's estimates and expectations. This morning, we will discuss some measures of our company's performance that differ from those recognized by GAAP. Reconciliation of our non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, which we can calculate are contained in the earnings release kit. . I encourage you to visit our Investor Relations website to review webcast slides as well as the earnings release kit. Joining today's call are Bob Blue, Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer; Steven Ridge, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and other members of senior management. I will now turn the call over to Stephen. .

Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Since the conclusion of the business review over 2 years ago, we've remained steadfastly focused on 3 top priorities: first, consistent achievement of our financial commitments; second, continued achievement of major construction milestones for the Coastal Virginia offshore Wind Project; and third, constructive achievement of regulatory outcomes that determine our ability -- that demonstrate our ability to work cooperatively with regulators and stakeholders to benefit both customers and shareholders. As we'll discuss today, we continue to demonstrate success against these priorities as we build our track record of high quality and consistent execution. Turning to first quarter results, as shown on Slide 3. We're off to a strong start to the year with first quarter operating earnings of $0.95 per share. First quarter GAAP results were $0.69 per share. As a reminder, a summary of all adjustments between operating and GAAP results is included in Schedule 2 of the Earnings Release Kit. We are affirming all financial guidance provided on our fourth quarter earnings call, including operating earnings, credit, dividend and long-term growth guidance. We continue to guide to annual earnings growth at the midpoint of our 5% to 7% range with a bias starting in 2028 toward the upper half of the range. Our confidence in that outlook reflects disciplined financial management, attractive business fundamentals and the strength of our growing regulated investment profile. First and foremost, this is about our customers and meeting their needs affordably and reliably. We're monitoring catalysts that could enhance and/or extend our long-term growth rate. We continue to see incremental opportunities to deploy regulated capital on behalf of customers, most recently supported by legislation in Virginia to expand grid scale energy storage targets. House Bill 895 and Senate Bill 448, which are now signed into law require that we petition for 20 gigawatts of short- and long-term storage projects by 2045, a significant increase from the current requirement of 3 gigawatts by 2035. We'll reflect this new multiyear opportunity as well as other regulated investment opportunities in our capital update early next year. And as Bob will discuss in his prepared remarks, we expect increasing clarity later this year around the opportunity to recontract Millstone. Turning to data centers on Slide 4. We now have over 50 gigawatts of data center capacity in various stages of contracting, including approximately 10.4 gigawatts of capacity contracted under electric service agreements. Since our last update, we continue to see accelerating and durable demand from our differentiated, high-quality, low-risk data center customers. Large load provisions ensure those customers will fund the infrastructure required for their growth, protecting existing customers from cost shifts and mitigating stranded cost risk. Quickly on the financing plan and credit. Year-to-date, we have issued approximately $1.2 billion of common equity under the ATM leaving $400 million to $600 million for the remainder of the year, consistent with our Q4 call guidance. As mentioned previously, there is no change to our credit-related targets. Full year 2025 and Q1 LTM FFO to debt metrics are both above 15% demonstrating our commitment to credit strength, and we continue to derisk CVOW as we achieve major milestones such as First Power in March. In closing, we are off to a good start to the year aligned with our guidance and capital plan and confident in our ability to execute. Our financial plan strikes the right balance of appropriately conservative, but not unreasonably so. With that, I'll turn the call over to Bob.

Thank you, Steven. I'll begin with safety on Slide 5. Our employee OSHA injury recordable rate for the first quarter of the year was 0.42, which remains well below the industry average. Safety is our first core value, and we're continuing our efforts to drive to 0 workplace injuries. I'll start our business updates with the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project on Slide 6. The project is now over 75% complete. And as Steven mentioned, in March, we achieved a very significant milestone with the delivery of much needed power to customers. General fabrication and installation continue to proceed very well. We've now completed installation of all 176 transition pieces that connect the [ monopile ] foundations to the turbine towers. All 3 substations are installed and commissioning is proceeding as planned. Deepwater export cables are installed and array cable installation is on track. All of the remaining cabling is now fabricated, and the majority is landed in Virginia, and we're making excellent progress on turbine fabrication. Over 86% of towers, approximately 69% of nacelles and about 45% of blades have been fabricated. This progress tracks well relative to our schedule. With regard to wind turbine generators, we're seeing materially positive improvements in the installation cadence as shown on Slide 7. We affirm our previously communicated time line for project completion with the majority of turbines expected to be placed in service by the end of 2026 and the remainder in early 2027, prior to the end of June. As of this morning, we've completed 9 turbines. During the first quarter, we successfully calibrated our procedures and equipment and navigated winter weather. Since then, we've been able to ramp the installation rate markedly including averaging approximately 2 days per installation for our last 4 turbines, which supports our existing time line for project completion. We continue to see path to optimize the process, resulting in improved installation times. In addition, we're moving into better weather windows for the next several months. Please note the current project budget includes turbine installation schedule contingency for weather delays through July 2027 as needed, including [indiscernible] charter costs. I'll also reiterate our general rule of thumb. If the project extend beyond July 2027, we estimate that each additional quarter to complete turbine installation would add between $150 million and $200 million to the project cost, a portion of which would be allocated to our financing partner. We'll continue to include data from additional installation iterations in our quarterly updates. As shown on Slide 8, the project budget now stands at $11.4 billion. which is approximately $100 million lower than our last update. We've updated the budget to reflect changes in tariff assumptions as a result of recent judicial and administrative actions. Unused contingency stands at $123 million. Looking forward on project costs, we're monitoring the potential of 2 recent events. First, certain regional transmission projects were captured in both the PJM transition cycle, which resulted in network upgrade costs allocated to CVOW and the subsequent broader RTEP award package. As a result, we would expect the overall network upgrade costs allocated by the PJM transition cycle across all generation projects, including CVOW to be reassessed and reduced. Second, recently updated steel and aluminum tariffs, which are pending additional information from suppliers and guidance from the applicable agencies. As shown on Slide 9, the project's cost sharing and risk sharing continue to work as intended to protect customers and shareholders with no change to either LCOE or customer bill impacts. CVOW remains one of the most affordable sources of energy for our customers. Our updated analysis indicates that the project is expected to generate fuel savings of approximately $5 billion for customers during the project's first 10 years of operations. Taking a step back and all of the above approach to energy supply, including CVOW is critical to ensuring continued reliability amidst real-time growing demand in our service areas. Building new energy generation as a core competency of ours. As demonstrated in recent years with our successful development of thousands of megawatts of renewable generation as well as combined cycle plants in Greensville, Brunswick and Warren County. We continue to advance the development of new generation capacity consistent with our update last quarter. In addition to producing much needed energy for our customers, these projects will be an economic benefit for Virginia, generating thousands of new jobs, billions of dollars of economic investment and meaningful local tax revenue. Turning to Slide 10. I'll reiterate that we view customer affordability as central to our public service obligation. And accordingly, we have a long record of maintaining competitive rates, which continued to compare favorably to the national average. Even while executing one of the largest regulated investment programs in the sector, we expect our customer bills will continue to grow at rates comparable to inflation over the long term, demonstrating disciplined capital deployment and our regulatory construct working as intended. We continue to be recognized though that customers are feeling the pressure of higher cost for housing groceries and other essentials, including their electric bill. We have a number of programs designed to help our customers manage their bills, including budget billing, energy savings programs and financial assistance programs such as energy share. Late last year, we also launched a new online platform to put all our programs in one place so customers can more easily find the best options to meet their needs. In addition to providing tools to help manage payments, we're also working to ensure fair and reasonable rates. For instance, the commission approved our recently proposed large load provisions in the 2025 biannual to ensure that our smaller customers aren't at risk of subsidizing our large customer classes nor be left with stranded costs. We also plan to pursue fuel securitization in Virginia for unrecovered fuel costs to minimize the rate impact on customers. We work continuously to improve the efficiency of our operations while meeting high customer service standards and reliability needs. In recent years, we've driven out cost to improve processes, innovative use of technology and other best practice initiatives. On the technology front, we're focused on implementing technology initiatives that accelerate our mission, and we've recently deployed a range of AI tools. For example, in our contact center, AI enables clear visibility into customer needs at scale and real-time insight into customer sentiment, allowing us to respond with greater precision and efficiency. Looking ahead, we're intently focused on ensuring our service isn't just reliable that it remains affordable as well. Now I'll turn to other business updates, as shown on Slide 11. In South Carolina, DESC's electric rate case continues to progress. Staff and other interveners filed their testimony on March 31. We filed our rebuttal testimony on April 21 and expect [indiscernible] rebuttal testimony on May 5, consistent with the procedural schedule. Hearings are scheduled for mid-May, and we expect a decision in late June with rates effective in July. Yesterday, we filed an electric rate case application and testimony for Dominion Energy, North Carolina to support the approximately $400 million investment placed in service by the company attributed to North Carolina since the 2024 rate case and ensure that we can continue to provide safe, reliable and cost-effective service to our North Carolina customers. We expect the decision in February 2027 with interim rates effective December '26, subject to true-up and finalization in March 2027. Recall DENC represents about 4% of the company's investment base. Finally, on Millstone. I'll start by noting Governor [ Lamont's ] comments last week highlighting the hundreds of millions of dollars at the current Millstone contract to save customers and which is now resulting in a material customer bill reduction in Connecticut. In March, the facility submitted its bid in the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection's zero carbon energy request for proposals. Per DEEP's published schedule, solicitation decisions are expected in the second quarter with negotiations with the local state utilities to begin in the third quarter. Contracts will be submitted to the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority for approval thereafter, the time line for which is up to 180 days. In addition to state-sponsor procurement, we continue to evaluate the prospect of supporting incremental data center activity as well. We remain focused on achieving a constructive outcome for the facility, and we'll continue to provide updates as things develop. With that, let me summarize our remarks on Slide 12 by reiterating where Steven began the call with a focus on our top 3 priorities: consistently achieving our financial commitments, continued on-time achievement of major construction milestones for the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project and achieving constructive regulatory outcomes, that demonstrate our ability to work cooperatively with regulators and stakeholders to deliver results that benefit both customers and shareholders. We're 100% focused on execution. We remain committed to delivering reliable, affordable and increasingly clean power for our customers. With that, we're ready to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] We'll take our first question from Nick Campanella with Barclays.

So I just wanted to ask on the [ HP 896 ] that you brought up on the battery side. Can you just kind of talk about what's embedded in the plan currently for battery storage, what your recovery mechanisms would be for this new opportunity? And then when you just kind of think about like supply chain, labor, the company's own balance sheet capacity, what does that kind of enable in terms of a gigawatt installation run rate? And what can we kind of expect here if you have any thoughts?

Yes, Nick, great question. So the $65 billion 5-year capital plan, which we produced as part of the Q4 call in February includes already about $2 billion or about 3% related to battery storage, subject to regulatory approval. And what the recent legislation means for us is that in order to achieve the updated targets, we're going to need to work diligently to accelerate the ramp of that capital. And so I'd say things to watch going forward. There's going to be a State Corporation Commission Technical Conference this year on the topic. We'll, of course, update our IRP in the fall to reflect our most recent thinking on the ramping of the battery storage and then we'll update our capital plan in line with our normal cadence on the fourth quarter. General rule of thumb, a gigawatt overnight installed, including transmission network upgrades, et cetera. We sort of put into the $2.5 billion to $3 billion per gigawatt. Obviously, the increase to [ 20 ], which includes short and long term represents a meaningful opportunity over a long period of time. So we're excited about the opportunity. We already are -- we're working on the pipeline for this, as mentioned, with the $2 billion in the plan. This gives us an opportunity to potentially accelerate that. So we'll provide those updates and would recommend folks pay attention to those couple of public data points that will happen later this year.

Okay. Looking forward to it. And then maybe just moving to CVOW, just 2 questions there. I just wanted to clarify, the PJM upgrade costs, are they included or not in the figures you're putting out there today? Or is that still downward pressure? And then how are you thinking about the potential 232 steel tariffs.

Yes, Nick, another really good question. So today's mark does not reflect the potential for certain transmission costs that were allocated to CVOW being potentially reallocated and Bob mentioned sort of the process whereby that occurs and why that might occur. So that would be something to watch as we move forward into the year. And then on 232, we're also taking a mark on that, which is we're awaiting some additional interpretive guidance from the agencies. We're evaluating with our partners, many of whom are the importer of record, completely finalize that. So we estimate that, that has the potential to be in the $200-ish million range, which, as I mentioned, would have the potential of being offset by some of the reallocation of transmission costs. We're not -- we don't have exact precision on how those 2 will balance, but they seem to be somewhat generally in the same area. So those are the 2 things to watch going forward.

our next question from Shar Pourreza with Wells Fargo.

So just real quick on Millstone. Obviously, you guys highlighted [ Governor Lamont ] recently touted the savings generated for ratepayers by Millstone. I guess how much headroom do you have to recontract at the higher prices. Maybe just elaborate a little bit further on the alternative paths you may have outside of the deep process. There's obviously something we're all monitoring given the affordability rhetoric. Connecticut necessarily hasn't been very open to data centers. So are we talking about a virtual deal here?

Shar. First of all, it's great that we can talk about Millstone with you again. I feel like it's been a while. And you're right, we are very pleased with the Governor's comments Commissioner. [ Dike's ] also talked about the value of the existing PPA. Just as a reminder, currently contracted a little more than half through August of 2029. And so the process at Millstone today in Connecticut would be for procurement, we would expect after the expiration of the existing PPA. There's not in that process, a limit on how much could be potentially contracted with the state. As we've talked about in the past, other states in New England have also expressed an interest, and we're certainly happy to work with them as well. because they recognize the value of Millstone in the same way that we do. As to data centers, we continue to have some interest from data centers to contract there. But I do want to reiterate what we've said in the past, which is our view is any outcome there needs to have the support of stakeholders in Connecticut. We think that's the smart way to pursue it. And what's in front of us right now is this RFP, and we'll continue working on that.

Got it. Appreciate it. I've been waiting years for you to answer my Millstone questions. And then just on nuclear on the topic, obviously, Dominion in the past is really focused on SMRs, but there seems to be a little bit of a momentum building from a consortium of utilities looking to build new AP1000s with some cost inflation protections from the off-takers being the hyperscalers and maybe some backstop from the U.S. government. Would you be sort of willing to participate in this consortium in AP1000? I guess what are the puts and takes on SMRs versus the AP1000s that you do have -- a like an early site permit with North Anna. So just curious there.

Yes, Shar. We do have an early site permit at [ North Anna ] And we also, as you know, have been exploring SMRs as well. I mean if you step back, as we've talked about before, we're in a very pro nuclear state in Virginia. I think arguably the most nuclear-friendly state in the U.S., and you can see that from the support of the governor both Senators Kane and Warner have expressed support for nuclear, general assembly, a couple of years ago passed legislation allowing us to recover some costs for nuclear project development we filed with the SEC and got an approval for that. We have a lot of nuclear supply chain here, the nuclear navy here and the units at Surry and North Anna. As we think about nuclear development in any sense, we're going to continue to be guided on 3 principles that were resolute. The first is any structure has to address first-of-a-kind risk. So if we're talking about SMRs, we need to address that. It's got to address cost overrun risk so that our customers and our shareholders are not bearing that burden, and we need to protect our balance sheet and our business risk profile. So we'll continue to investigate and explore alternatives on the nuclear front, but we're going to be guided by those principles, and we'll continue to work with policymakers.

Fantastic results [indiscernible]

We'll move next to Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies.

The first I wanted to ask on, obviously, you have a unique position in PJM. Just thoughts on the backstop procurement, the auction feature. And just if there's any ways that you can accelerate generation or kind of spread the cost more broadly across PJM, but just kind of overall thoughts on that process.

Yes. Paul, thanks for that question. We support PJM's effort to develop a backstop auction to get or process to get additional capacity for load-serving entities that aren't developing generation or lack of state regulated framework to do that. We're different. We're vertically integrated. So it doesn't change our existing process. We don't expect to change to our plan. We have an integrated resource plan that's designed to meet policy goals in Virginia and the incredible demand growth that we're experiencing, and that includes as you know, incremental generation. It is also important to note, as you think about this, the difference between the Dom Zone, which we serve as a transmission operator and our load serving entity that we serve from a generation standpoint. So we'll take a look at the process that PJM is ultimately doing. But the plan that we have is through our state-regulated utility vertically integrated, and we're going to need to build generation to serve load in Virginia, regardless of the outcome of the PJM process.

Okay. very true. And then if I could follow up on the battery bill the successful one there. Any way to kind of frame the cadence of that? Should we kind of think about the megawatt deployment targets is ratable? Or kind of more back-end loaded, front-end loaded? Any kind of shaping would be useful, too.

Yes, Paul, we probably don't have great guidance on how to model exactly what that cadence will look like. we'll take steps to start accelerating that spend, which we recover via rider mechanism in Virginia as quickly as we possibly can. So I think there'll be some upward bias in our 5-year capital plan associated with that. And then you'll likely see in the 30s, you'll start seeing a higher run rate associated with that. But I would say stay tuned for that IRP because that will show where the model sort of selects those installations coming in.

We'll move next to Stephen D’Ambrisi with RBC Capital Markets.

Just a quick one. You talked about some of the -- we've talked about the battery storage, but you added up to Slide 3, the line monitoring catalysts that could enhance or extend the growth rate. So can you just talk a little bit about, one, what that means and what the buckets are? Presumably, it's storage, Millstone, potentially an acceleration of data center, but just what, I guess, of those could either drive an enhancement or an extension and just how you're thinking about adding that language to the slides.

Thanks, Steve. I'm glad you noticed that language. It was pretty deliberate, which is -- as we mentioned in the script, I'd say, first and foremost, our growth is about meeting our customers' needs quickly affordably and reliably. And I think we feel like we've positioned the company to be ideally situated to meet accelerating need across generation, transmission and distribution. And that's why fortressing our balance sheet as part of the business review was so critical as we saw the need for incremental capital coming. And you've seen this trend reflected in our most recent Q4 call update. So the most recent was an increase of 30% of capital over the 5-year plan and the one before that was about 15% higher than the prior. And we continue to see those opportunities to deploy regulated capital to serve our customers. And the battery storage legislation is just an example of that, but it definitely expands beyond that, which is across, as I mentioned, other forms of generation, transmission opportunities, broadly distribution. So certainly, I would say battery storage as a potential catalyst, I'd say, more generally, regulated capital across other applications as a catalyst that we see in the potential 5-plus year plan. And then you correctly ascertain Millstone, which we view as a potential for another win-win for customers, which -- and we'll be in a position to share more on that later this year. But I'd say, we feel like we've been appropriately conservative in our plan around Millstone. And to the extent that we're successful in finding a win-win for customers that would have the dual benefit of continuing to hedge that exposure for customers, much like the first contract has done and also potentially recognize the increased value across nuclear capacity in the United States.

Great. That's helpful. And then can you -- just on the Millstone point, I think previously, obviously, we have the very visible deep process. But can you talk about potentially interest from surrounding states? And just if there are any formal processes to -- and if you would be willing to contract more than, call it, the 50% that you've done historically?

Yes. The answer to the second question is yes. We'd be willing to contract more than 55%. Other states don't have a formal process in place the way Connecticut does but we've certainly been talking to them. And I think they've expressed interest.

Next question from Anthony Crowdell with Mizuho.

Just a couple here. On the CVOW installation cadence, you're averaging about 2 days per turbine on recent installations. Just what gives you confidence this pace is sustainable as you move through their project?

Great question, Anthony. Let's take a step back for a second. We've been building projects on time and on budget for a long time, whether it's [indiscernible]-- the combined cycles we built in 2010 are big transmission projects. Building infrastructure well is one of our strengths. And for CVOW we got first power to the grid in March, which was in line original time line. That was a big milestone. And then as for turbine installations, we noted upfront, we have been able to ramp installation productivity meaningfully. If you think about some of the other parts of this project, think about transition pieces or monopiles when we started off, those were modest. I think we did 4 monopiles in May of '24, the first month we were doing those. We did something like 13 transition pieces in January of '25, which was the first month we did those. Then by the time you got to the end, we were doing 21 monopiles in a month and 38 transition pieces. So really dramatic improvement as we went along. And we're seeing that same dynamic that's playing out here where we start with the measure twice and cut once approach that we've learned in doing big projects over the years. That rate is accelerating. I think we've got a lot of opportunities to optimize that process more. We also started in the winter, the winter months are the worst weather months. Now that we're in the summer, that will give us more opportunities to refine our process and improve cadence. So if you think about that, you take all that together, the productivity progression improving weather windows, that's what gives us confidence in hitting the time line. And I'd say really what's most important, 3 things. One is it's the fastest source of new power for our customers. Two, it's the most affordable option; and three, we have great confidence in our financial plan to be durable and resilient as we work through construction.

Great. And if I could just throw on a follow-up on the balance sheet. I believe the target is above 15%. As you know, the CVOW construction kind of winds down I think rate base investment accelerates. Are there any key risks that you highlight to maintaining above the 15%.

No, Anthony, we've put out a financing plan as part of the Q4 call that is 100% supportive of maintaining that cushion, which we've indicated, we think is adequate in order to safeguard from unintended headwinds that we may face. I'm really pleased with where the balance sheet is as a result of the business review. As I mentioned earlier, pleased with where we printed in '25 [ over 15% ] and LTM above that as well. So I think you take everything put together, and we're in great shape on the balance sheet. We're already at that cushion level. It's not a situation where we're ramping over time to get there.

We'll move next to Richard Sunderland with Truist Securities.

Circling back to that Slide 3 commentary, the addition at the bottom, appreciating the buckets and what are some of the pieces there. And you've already, I guess, expressed a bias on the growth rate. But just thinking more about how these opportunities aggregate, is it still about working in the range of that 5%, 7% growth? Or do you see the potential for structurally higher growth over time?

That's a very clever question. Rich, I think we've said it exactly as we want to say it, which I think I mentioned our plan is appropriately conservative not unreasonably so. But we are focused on building a track record of successful high-quality execution quarter after quarter, year after year. And I think we feel very well positioned with tailwinds we have, the strength of the balance sheet, to be in a position to monitor catalysts that will enhance our and/or extend our long-term growth rate range. .

Very clear. I had to try. And then on the battery side, I know you've picked out some of the different components and thinking around there but [indiscernible] on the long duration component. How do you think you might address that, any thoughts on technology and timing? Just any opportunity there around long duration in the next, say, 5 to 10 years? Or is that more going to be in the out years?

Yes, a little early on giving specificity on that. I mean we've got a couple of pilots on longer duration storage underway right now, evaluating technologies. As a result of this legislation, we'll continue to ramp that up, explore more opportunities with more vendors, but we're not really in a position to identify specifics on that today.

We'll move next to Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs.

I just had a quick follow-up on Anthony's question on the cadence of the turbine installation. I know you've mentioned the pace has sort of picked up here as you've already gone through and honed the best practices. I guess should we think about that 2 turbines -- 2 days per turbine as the target? Or are there still any identifiable items that could get you towards maybe that 1 day to 1.5 days range that maybe have been quoted for some other projects out there.

We're always interested in getting that number down. and we will continue to push for that. Just -- the main message here is the really impressive improvement that the team has made each time with the pace that they've been able to install. I mean there's obviously a limit on that curve. But we're going to continue to push our way down that. So we'll update on installation cadence on every call, and we'll have an opportunity to talk about the ways that we have improved. I expect we're going to continue like we did with monopiles and transition pieces to get the pace up faster as we go along.

Got it. Okay. That's super helpful. And then just on the data center pipeline. I know you guys are uniquely positioned in PJM. But just curious if you're seeing any shifts in terms of the cadence of load development or progression through your pipeline due to some of the broader uncertainty on the constructs and PJM governing pricing of capacity and kind of cost allocation?

No, we continue to see incredibly strong demand for new data centers in Virginia. We noted in our prepared remarks, we've added commitments in all stages of contracting since December that interest has not waned at all in recent months. So short answer is no detectable change.

And I would now like to turn the call to Bob Blue for closing remarks.

Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to join the call today. Please enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you. The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.