Pembina Pipeline Corporation (PPL) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you for joining us, and welcome to Pembina Pipeline Corporation Quarter 2 2026 results. [Operator Instructions] I will now hand the conference over to Dan Tucunel, Vice President, Capital Markets. Dan, please go ahead.

Thank you, Matthew. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Pembina's conference call and webcast to review highlights from the second quarter of 2026. On the call today, we have Scott Burrows, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Cameron Goldade, Chief Financial Officer, along with the other members of Pembina's leadership team. I would like to remind you that some of the comments made today will be forward-looking in nature and are based on Pembina's current expectations, estimates, judgments and projections. Forward-looking statements we may express or imply today are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations. Further, some of the information provided refers to non-GAAP measures. To learn more about these forward-looking statements and non-GAAP measures, please see the company's management discussion and analysis dated July 30, 2026, for the period ended June 30, 2026, as well as the press release Pembina issued yesterday all of which are available online at pembina.com and on both SEDAR+ and EDGAR. I will now turn things over to Scott.

Thanks, Dan. Yesterday, we reported second quarter results, which were highlighted by adjusted EBITDA of $1.064 billion. It was another solid quarter that reflects a constructive industry environment, coupled with strong underlying operational performance and new assets entering service. As Cam will discuss in more detail, we have affirmed our 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance range of $4.35 billion to $4.55 billion, while noting we are trending [ to ] the midpoint of the range. Since our business update in April, we've continued to build momentum across all three pillars of our 3C strategy and have further strengthened our visibility to long-term growth. As a reminder, our strategy is built around three complementary pillars. First, we aim to capture growing volumes across the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin by leveraging our integrated midstream footprint and deep customer relationships. Second, we strive to connect those volumes to the highest value markets through our and others transportation and export infrastructure. And third, we want to catalyze new sources of hydrocarbon demand that create growth in the WCSB and incremental opportunities across our value chain. Together, we expect these pillars will provide multiple avenues for growth and allow us to create value across changing market environments. Over the past quarter, within capture, we placed RFS IV fractionator into service in late May, on time and under budget, adding 55,000 barrels per day of propane plus fractionation capacity at Redwater complex further strengthening our industry-leading NGL franchise. Within Connect, Cedar LNG continues to make excellent progress toward first exports in late 2028. During the quarter, we achieved key construction milestones, including mechanical completion of the pipeline that will supply the facility and successfully moving the floating LNG vessel hall from dry dock to wet dock in South Korea. We also announced our participation in the proposed West Coast oil pipeline where we can contribute our development and execution expertise to a project that has the potential to further expand market access for Canadian energy. We are participating in a purposeful and prudent way through a disciplined approach to capital allocation and risk management. Within Catalyze, we sanction the Heartland Extraction Plant, a highly capital-efficient project that leverages existing infrastructure and monetizes our extraction rights on the yellow head pipeline. Equally important, the project was accompanied by an expansion of our long-term commercial relationship with Dow, increasing contracted ethane supply volumes by 15% and reinforcing the strength of our integrated NGL platform. We also reached a positive final investment decision on the Greenlight Electricity Center, a 932-megawatt gas-fired generation facility that will provide dedicated power to a new Alberta data center being developed by Meta. Greenlight represents an exciting new growth platform for Pembina, creating stable long-term cash flows while also driving incremental demand for Western Canadian natural gas. Importantly, Greenlight has the potential to generate benefits across multiple parts of our existing business, and we continue to manage discussions around additional gas-to-power and data center-related opportunities and recently acquired additional land proximal to the Greenlight electricity Center and the Redwater complex to support future projects. Taken together, the projects and announcements this quarter demonstrate the breadth of opportunities available across Pembina's franchise and our ability to identify and then convert those opportunities into tangible growth, whether it's expanding our NGL platform, connecting Canadian production to global markets or creating entirely new demand pathways for natural gas, we're seeing strong execution across each pillar of our 3C strategy. As a result, we remain confident in our ability to deliver our targeted 5% to 7% compound annual fee-based adjusted EBITDA per share growth through 2030. And we continue adding potential new opportunities such as the West Coast oil pipeline and are pursuing additional gas-to-power for data center projects that if converted, will support extending our growth well into the next decade. I'll now turn things over to Cam.

Thanks, Scott. As Scott noted, Pembina reported second quarter adjusted EBITDA of $1.064 billion. Compared to the second quarter of 2025, continued strong operational performance across the Pipelines and Facilities divisions and higher results in the marketing business were offset by the impact of the new toll structure and revenue sharing mechanism on the Alliance Pipeline announced last year. The net result in the second quarter was a $51 million or a 5% increase in EBITDA over the same period in the prior year. Looking at quarter-over-quarter results by division, the major factors impacting the quarter in pipelines included higher contracted volumes on the Nipisi pipeline, higher revenue on the Cochin pipeline due to prior period tariff adjustments and a lower contribution from the Alliance pipeline due to the negotiated settlement between Alliance and its [ shippers ] partially offset by higher interruptible volumes and lower operating expenses. The Facilities segment benefited from the RFS IV fractionator entering service in May and the Wapiti expansion in PGI entering service at the end of March, both on time and at or below budget, further extending Pembina's track record of delivering solutions for our customers in a timely and capital-efficient manner. In addition, the quarter was positively impacted by higher contributions from PGI due to stronger performance at the Dawson assets, fewer unplanned outages and higher recoveries from an asset upgrade and no comparable planned outage at Redwater has occurred in the second quarter of 2025. In Marketing and New Ventures, second quarter results reflected the impact of wider WCSB and U.S. NGL frac spreads resulting from higher NGL prices, including the benefits of Pembina's exposure to premium propane markets through West Coast exports as well as benefits from higher crude oil prices and higher sales volumes. In addition, the quarter was impacted by higher realized losses on NGL-based derivatives and lower realized gains on crude oil-based derivatives. Finally, in the Corporate segment, second quarter results were lower than the prior period, primarily due to higher long-term incentive costs driven by an increase in Pembina's share price and incentive multiplier during the quarter compared to a decrease in Pembina's share price and incentive multipliers during the prior period. Earnings in the second quarter were $512 million, which represents a 23% increase over the same period in the prior year. In addition to the factors impacting adjusted EBITDA, the change in earnings in the second quarter was due to higher unrealized gains on NGL-based and crude oil-based derivatives and unrealized losses from the Cedar LNG compared to unrealized gains in the second quarter of 2025. Adjusted earnings were $415 million or a 10% increase over the same period in the prior year. Compared to the factors related to earnings, the change in adjusted earnings excludes the impact of the unrealized gains on NGL-based and crude oil-based derivatives and the unrealized losses in Cedar LNG. Total volumes in the Pipelines and Facilities divisions were 3.7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day in the second quarter. This represents an increase of 3% over the same period in the prior year. Higher second quarter facilities volumes were driven primarily by higher volumes on the Alliance pipeline primarily driven by stronger operational performance and higher contracted volumes on the Nipisi pipeline serving the Clearwater formation, Higher second quarter facilities volumes were driven primarily by the impact of RFS IV entering service in May and higher volumes from certain PGI assets primarily from the Wapiti Expansion and at the Dawson assets. Yesterday, Pembina reaffirmed its 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance of $4.35 billion to $4.55 billion, and we are currently trending towards the midpoint of that range. At the midpoint, due to seasonal factors, timing of spending and certain onetime items, Pembina anticipates that the adjusted EBITDA contribution in the third quarter will be lower than the second quarter with a seasonal contribution -- seasonal -- strong seasonal contribution expected in the fourth quarter. It is worth noting that over the past 5 years, the third quarter has contributed between 23% and 27% of the full year adjusted EBITDA. Our current outlook for 2026 has the third quarter contributing at the low end of that range. A few specific factors that are expected to impact the second half of the year are worth noting. First, seasonality in the WCSB NGL frac spread business, resulting in a lower contribution in the third quarter and a higher contribution in the fourth quarter. On a quarterly basis for the remainder of the year, Pembina has hedged approximately 90% of its NGL frac spread exposure in the third quarter and 40% in the fourth quarter. As a reminder, for the period from 2025 to 2026, our U.S. and Canadian frac spread businesses combined are expected to account for approximately 2/3 of our marketing. Secondly, higher integrity and maintenance spend in the second half of the year compared to the first half of the year. Due to strong 2026 results and operational efficiencies, we have chosen to fast track a portion of normal course integrity work. I want to remind listeners that the third quarter is typically our highest quarter for operating expenses. In 2025, the third quarter accounted for 27% of the full year operating expenses, and this year is looking to follow a similar trend. Thirdly, lower contribution from Cochin Pipeline in the second half of the year compared to the first half of the year is expected, reflecting strong first half first half throughput as certain firm shippers advanced a greater portion of their annual take-or-pay commitments into the earlier part of the year. As a result, throughput above the remaining annual commitments for the second half of the year is expected to be highly correlated with connotate prices. In 2025, approximately 60% of the full year adjusted EBITDA on Cochin was generated in the first half and 2026 appears to be following a similar pattern. Fourth, sequentially lower contribution in the third quarter and higher contribution in the fourth quarter on Alliance Pipeline due to seasonality and the ability to transport higher volumes during colder periods. And finally, a higher contribution from PGI in the fourth quarter due to new assets entering service and nonrecurring revenue recognition. In aggregate, the lower and upper ends of the 2026 guidance are framed primarily as a function of commodity prices and the resulting contribution from the marketing business, interruptible volumes on key systems, the U.S. Canadian dollar exchange rate and Pembina's share price performance and its impact on incentive compensation costs. I'll now turn things back to Scott.

Thanks, Cam. In closing, I would offer once again that recent developments reflect tangible execution of our 3C strategy and highlight the breadth of opportunities available within Pembina's integrated business. The accomplishments over the past quarter reflect a continued focus on disciplined capital allocation, long-term contracted cash flows and creating value for our shareholders. Operator, please go ahead and open up the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan Securities, LLC.

There's a lot of talk in the industry with regards to incremental WCSB oil egress, Pembina, one of the projects being proposed. But I was just wondering if you could help me think a bit about the picture as a whole and how it impacts Pembina as it relates to condensate. It seems if there's sizable egress that's going to come on, that means there's sizable condensate needs. And I was just wondering how that gets solved? Is this Cochin expandable in any sense? Is in-basin production going to really tick up? Is it going to be a combination? I mean if it seems like in-basin is going to be part of the solution, that's a lot of volumes, a lot of growth to hit Pembina's system. Am I thinking about that the right way?

Yes, Jeremy, I'll give you our high-level macro view, and I'll let my colleagues pitch in as well. I mean that's one of our key fundamental tenets from our April strategy session. We talk about the flywheel, and we always start with oil sands growth. And there's ranges out there between 600,000 to 2 million barrels of incremental oil. So let's just pick 1 million barrels for ease. If the West Coast oil pipeline goes ahead 1 million barrels a day, -- that's going to require somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 barrels a day of incremental condensate. I think we have a firm view that the majority -- vast majority of that condensate needs to come from the WCSB. And we know we have the resource here in the Montney and the Duvernay. And so just condensate alone has fairly significant running room, which is some of the reason we were getting ahead of some of our expansions in Northeast BC, debottlenecking the system in advance of what we anticipate to be strong condensate growth across the system. Now of course, you don't drill for condensate alone. You drill for natural gas that condensate comes along with. So we are going to need to find incremental home for natural gas, whether that's LNG Canada Phase 2, potential pushing incremental throughput through cedar, wood fiber, et cetera, as well as incremental data center demand. And of course, oil sands are going to need incremental gas in order to grow their production from the oil sands as well. And then lastly, of course, there's associated C2+ and C3+ that comes along with that natural gas, which should drive growth through PGI and fractionation and export as well. So just backing up a step, it's that kind of general linking of all those projects and all that growth that really leads us to be extremely optimistic about the WCSB to 2035.

And I think, Jeremy, it's Cam here I would just pitch in, you referenced Cochin. I think on top of what Scott said, I mean, a reminder that when we acquired Cochin, that asset was running at about 85,000 to 90,000 barrels a day through some great operational work by our team in the field and in Calgary here, we've managed to increase the capacity of that system to about 120,000 barrels a day, and it's running very firmly, very strongly, and I think we'll continue to be in high demand, especially as oil sands volumes continue to grow in the coming years. That said, I think the opportunity for more imported condensate is also a potential solution. And clearly, with our franchise, we'd be looking at the best way to serve customers across the board.

Got it. That's very helpful there. And then I just wanted to go, I guess, towards Greenlight, and I realize I'm getting well ahead of myself here, but I'll try nonetheless. We've seen in other areas where data centers have developed, there's been a tendency to cluster where initial toeholds have led to bigger developments over time. Just wondering now that this project is in motion, thoughts about the potential for that way down the road.

Jeremy, it's Chris. Yes, I mean, the FID earlier this month really support our thesis about gas-to-power as a business serving data centers in Alberta. Do you think it's a scalable project? We think Alberta remains one of the best jurisdictions to build in. We've got a very supportive government continue to have a first-mover advantage across land, our adjacent businesses, expertise. And then to what you're referencing, like the customer demand and interest remains high, including around the concept of clustering. We certainly saw that happening elsewhere and have a view around the potential for that to happen in this area. The team is already hard at work developing the next phase of the project, that includes acquiring some incremental strategic lands approximate to our lands. We had an opportunity to consolidate some contiguous lands right around our existing Greenlight site. And they're all progressing customer discussions and all of that is really centered around some of what you're referencing. Both from the initial customer perspective, the probability or likelihood of the clustering but then also how these facilities tend to group across a variety of customers in strategic areas like the Heartland.

Your next question comes from the line of Theresa Chen with Barclays.

Following up on the Greenlight side of things. With Phase 1 underway and as you have already consolidated the contiguous lands and in the process of commercializing Phase 2 and maybe beyond, would you expect the time line for further phases to be a little quicker? And anything to say on size and scope at this point?

Yes. Theresa, it's Chris again. I don't think we can get into timing a lot. I think there's a few things happening in the market that you can look to as -- for a little bit of guidance, the AESO's Phase 2 large load allocation that's underway and the continuation of the bring your own power strategy is, I think, a bit of a guide to think about timing. I think we've got a relatively proven model on how to progress these projects. We're really focused now on getting those front-end strategic sort of first-mover components in place, and we're working with customers to derisk them much like we did on Phase 1. So I can't really give a guide on exact timing, but I can sort of tell you we're moving quickly and with pace, but very much in a similar vein to how we've done on the last round.

Understood. And on the diluent side of things, can you just lay out the economics of in-basin production versus importing incremental barrels of condensate? What do you think is the marginal relative cost to the customer at this point? And if you move forward with the next phase of expansion for Cochin beyond the 120,000 barrels per day, what kind of size or economics should we think about related to that?

I think what I'll first say is that we see the economics of the condensate barrel as being market-driven, meaning that the price gets set based on the availability of the supply. And clearly, as Scott said, the vast majority of that supply gets filled domestically today. And obviously, those economics in the basin for domestic condensate production are some of the most competitive available. In terms of your specific question around the marginal economics of bringing condensate up, I mean, I think it's a bit preliminary. We're not at a stage yet where we can share something to that degree. I think what we recognize is that both the scale and the economics have to have commercial support from the customers. And I think with that, we've made some positive first steps in terms of the MOU with the government. The Pathways Group has secured some signals that there is a desire to grow but the time line of that ultimately remains subject to their decisions and their capital allocation decisions. And so as we always do, we look forward to working with customers closely to provide a value-added solution, but probably a bit preliminary to start sharing that at this point.

Your next question comes from the line of Spiro Dounis with Citi.

I wanted to revisit the 2030 growth outlook. I guess since you've provided that update, you've now sanctioned another $3 billion of projects, which I believe underwrites about 6% of that 5% CAGR range. So first, am I sort of thinking about that right? And as you think about that sort of remaining $2 billion bucket still up to sanction, how do you think about the ability to grow that opportunity set beyond $2 billion, but still be within that 2030 time frame that could maybe even take you above that 7% high end?

Thanks for the question. And first off, I think we would look at it similarly to you, meaning that we've crystallized or derisked a material portion of what was in that growth outlook from 2026 through 2030. As a reminder, that was somewhere between $1.50 to $2.15 of adjusted EBITDA -- fee-based adjusted EBITDA per share growth between 2026 and 2030, and we've obviously derisked a material portion of that. What remains in that is a combination of some core volume growth within our business and some core capital investment opportunities. And I think the -- the positive thing I would say about that is that, one, much of that or effectively all of it is within our core franchise, our core business and very much only gets better and more compelling with continued volume growth, which I think we have even more confidence around based on what we've seen more recently. And I think as we've said since April 7, probably the biggest near-term lever for us on that 5% to 7% within the time frame, is overall industry activity. And I guess I would couple that by saying and reminding everyone that the level of organic volume growth that was really embedded in our 5% to 7% was more historical looking. I think I've said before in the sort of 2% to 3% range for liquids. And I think what we take positive signals from is some of the large customers in the basin and some of our large customers talking about multiyear volume growth in excess of that number through 2030. Some customers talking about volume growth up to the likes of 5% EBIT. And so that would be obviously very capital efficient for us and very, very quick turnaround. So I think there's -- that's probably the biggest opportunity for us. And as Scott signaled in his prepared remarks, what we're really getting excited about whether it's future phases of Greenlight, whether it's the West Coast pipeline opportunity is the ability to extend that growth that we've signaled through 2030 into the next decade. And I think based on some of those opportunities, based on the condensate opportunity that we talked about earlier and the breadth and the integration of our value chain, which we truly believe is unmatched. We stand very well positioned to continue to grow at that rate into the next decade.

That's helpful color, Cam. Second one, maybe just going to the West Coast oil pipeline actually. So Scott, you had mentioned sort of taking a prudent approach here and wanted to dig into that a little bit further. Just curious how you're thinking about the need to sort of protect your capital and preserve your return if this project does go forward? And maybe perhaps more broadly, can you just talk about your overall decision to get involved here? I think as has been highlighted on this call, you really benefit from WCSB growth almost regardless of the egress method. So curious maybe what some of the rationale was here.

Sure. I think from a Pembina perspective, I mean there was discussions over time of our involvement in TMX. And so I think that the southern route and that idea of getting our Canadian depressed prices higher through egress has always been a strategy and clearly is highlighted in our 3C strategy. So when I think about the strategy, this fits clearly in the connect bucket. Anything we can do in the basin, whether it's natural gas, LPGs, crude oil to increase the production and the netback for our customers, has that knock-on effect throughout the business. So just from a core strategic perspective, it fits directly in what we're talking about. I think we see an opportunity here as we talked about previously to be part of a consortium where we're able to lend our experience and really complement and not replace the project proponent and build -- and bring our skilled project execution discipline to it. So we're pretty excited about our role. And I would say that we approach this no different than how we approach many of our projects. We look at the risk return trade-off. We have our long track record of financial guardrails. We're willing to put some money at risk, but [ it ] comes back to the risk reward and when we stacked up all the key aspects of this project, we felt like it was something that we wanted to be involved in and are very excited about it not just for Pembina, but what it can do for the basin as well.

Your next question comes from the line of Praneeth Satish with Wells Fargo.

Maybe just staying on Greenlight here. I guess just broadly speaking, I know it's still early, but when you think about Phase 2 and when you think about another potential site, should we expect the economics and commercial structure and risk profile broadly to look like Phase 1 now that you've got that out there? Is that kind of like the blueprint or the rough template for how you're pursuing some of these other projects? Or do you think they're all kind of a little bit different?

Yes. It's Chris here. As I was saying earlier, I think we really feel like we've proved out our sort of thesis on gas-to-power is a midstream business in Alberta. And part of that is certainly the commercial construct and how we've thought about the risk profile and the fit of the project with how we think about our broader business. And so still in motion certainly and still underway, but future phases, we're targeting to structure them in a similar way to Phase 1. They're going to be long term. They're going to be fixed fee, low-risk arrangements that align with Pembina's business model. I think as you get out into expansions, not necessarily everything always looks the same out in time, but we've been really effective across all of our businesses of keeping that risk profile and keeping that structure in line with our business model, and this will be no different.

Got it. That makes sense. And then maybe just switching gears. So there are a number of pipeline projects being proposed in the U.S. to serve growing low demand in the Midwest and Alliance and Aux Sable kind of sit right in the middle of that demand corridor. So I'm just wondering if you see an opportunity to expand and extend south of Aux Sable and participate in some of that growth?

Jaret here. With respect to expanding downstream of the terminus of Alliance past the Shanahan extraction facility, I would say we're probably more focused in getting incremental gas egress unlocked out of Western Canada to -- so our customers can produce more condensate like Scott talked about and Cam talked about that entire flywheel needs to find egress for all of those products as oil sands grows. So I would say we're probably more inclined to look at getting more gas down into the Midwest versus just extending the existing gas volume further down the value chain.

Got it. Okay. Yes. No, that's kind of what I was suggesting here to kind of bring some of that gas down and serve the demand load but understood.

Your next question comes from the line of Aaron MacNeil with TD Cowen.

Cam, you sort of touched on this a bit already, but I wanted to put a finer point on it. Can you remind us of the basin growth assumptions that underpin your -- sort of April business update guidance and how you might take a crack at sensitizing the guidance in the event that production growth exceeds your assumption? And maybe as a follow-on, are there projects that were not referenced in that update that would be required like any fractionator or incremental pipeline expansions, would they be required to sort of realize that higher production-driven growth rate?

Sure, Aaron. Yes. So as I mentioned earlier, the volume growth that was embedded in our April 7 update and our 2026 to 2030 outlook was, again, in a bit of a historical sense. And we've seen liquids volume growth over the past 4 to 5 years in that 2% to 3% range, and that's effectively what we embedded in our outlook. I think, as I mentioned earlier, if you see that escalate beyond that, our math is that there's a very direct relationship in terms of our growth and the basin growth stepping up. So kind of percentage point percentage point, obviously, depending on timing and when that comes. But if you want to try and distill it to the highest level, that's the way I would think about it. In terms of the investment there, I think that we have -- one of the values of our franchise is the breadth and the integration. And as you know, we have debottlenecked various points of that franchise along the way. Certainly, on the pipeline side, we have -- we debottlenecked upstream of Fox Creek significantly over the past 5 years. We made the investment close to 10 years ago to create the corridor from Fox Creek in. And we continue to have space there. I will say if we see activity and we do start to see 1 million barrels or more of new crude egress come to fruition and the requirements for condensate and the associated NGLs that come along with that, I think it's no surprise that we will be looking for additional fractionation capacity in the basin. There may be debottlenecking investment depending on where that supply comes from. But we certainly do have some running room in the near term here and the ability to respond quickly and capital efficiently where there isn't.

Makes sense, and that's helpful rule of thumb. I can appreciate your committed to self-funding growth today. So maybe just a hypothetical for now, but what market conditions would have to occur to incentivize you to deviate from that? And what might the funding plan look like in that scenario?

Yes. I'll remind everyone that our target leverage range or our leverage guardrail has been 3.5x to 4.25x senior debt -- proportionally consolidated senior debt to EBITDA for a very long time now. And clearly, we've been well below that because as you mentioned, we've been very much executing within free cash flow for the balance of the past 5 years. I think we look at that and when you look at whether or not we would go, say, beyond 4x, which we haven't done, but whether we would do that, you sort of have to look at the overall risk profile of the business and the opportunity where we've significantly mitigated all other risks in the business. I think that gives you some confidence to be able to accept risk in other areas of the business. And so those are the conditions. And I think you need to see a very clear path to getting back towards the middle of your target range, which is where we prefer to operate. But I would say that clearly, we are at a generational point in the industry at the moment and the type of investment opportunities that we're seeing, both in terms of ability, scale and returns are very compelling. And so we really need to take a long-term perspective as we look at these investment opportunities to generate the most value.

Your next question comes from the line of Maurice Choy with RBC Capital Markets.

I just want to start with the West Coast oil pipeline. I suspect it might be too early to talk about customer volumes in the coming years, but maybe you could give us a vision as to what needs to happen between now and FID, whether that be between the industry, the governments before we do see the first customer volumes get contracted.

Sure, Maurice, it's Scott here. I don't think about this too different than any other major project when it comes to FID. I mean, clearly, we'll need to have a regulatory approval with conditions under which we can construct. We need to have a competitive cost estimate and then we'll need a certain level of volumes to underpin the investment. And so all of that's going to happen over the next, call it, 18 months as we advance the project. But I don't see it really any different than any other major projects. So based on what we're seeing and hearing, we do think volumes are going to be there, so we're pretty optimistic.

Got you. And if I could finish off with a question about our -- or more broadly about your growth platform. I think in your press release, you mentioned that Greenlight establishes an entirely new growth platform. And I think, Chris, you mentioned earlier that this Greenlight project, obviously proves out your gas-to-power thesis. I think in the past, you mentioned that you're not looking to grow an IPP within the company. and sure there's future phases of Greenlight on the same site. But could you just talk to any plans to grow this platform beyond Greenlight?