Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Thank you for your continued patience. Your meeting will begin shortly. If you need assistance at any time, please press 0 and a member of our team will be happy to help you. Please standby.

Your meeting is about to begin. Welcome to the Dominion Energy, Inc. First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, each of your lines is in a listen-only mode.

At the conclusion of today's presentation, we will open the floor for questions. 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, Inc.’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 Report 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.

Reconciliations 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 the webcast slides as well as the earnings release kit. Joining today's call are Robert M. Blue, Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer; Steven D.

Ridge, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and other members of senior management. I will now turn the call over to Steven.

Good morning, everyone. Since the conclusion of the business review over two years ago, we have remained steadfastly focused on three top priorities. First, consistent achievement of our financial commitments. Second, continued achievement of major construction milestones for the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project.

And third, constructive achievement of regulatory outcomes that demonstrate our ability to work cooperatively with regulators and stakeholders to benefit both customers and shareholders. As we will 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 are 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 II 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 are 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 will 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 electrical 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 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 will turn the call over to Bob.

Thank you, Steven. I will 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 are continuing our efforts to drive to zero workplace injuries. I will 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 have now completed installation of all 176 transition pieces that connect the monopile foundations to the turbine towers. All three substations are installed, and commissioning is proceeding as planned. Deepwater export cables are installed, and inter-array cable installation is on track.

All of the remaining cabling is now fabricated, and the majority has landed in Virginia. And we are 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 are seeing materially positive improvements in the installation cadence as shown on slide 7. We affirm our previously communicated timeline for project completion, with the majority of turbines expected to be placed in service by 2026, and the remainder in early 2027 prior to June. As of this morning, we have completed nine turbines. During the first quarter, we successfully calibrated our procedures and equipment and navigated winter weather. Since then, we have been able to ramp the installation rate markedly, including averaging approximately two days per installation for our last four turbines, which supports our existing timeline for project completion.

We continue to see paths to optimize the process resulting in improved installation times. In addition, we are 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 Charybdis charter costs. I will also reiterate our general rule of thumb: if the project extends 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 will 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 have updated the budget to reflect changes in tariffs as a result of recent judicial and administrative actions. Unused contingency stands at $123 million.

Looking forward on project costs, we are monitoring the potential of two 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 cost allocated by the PJM transition cycle across all generation queue 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 levelized cost 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 ten years of operations. Taking a step back, an 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 is 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 will 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 continue 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 recognize, though, that customers are feeling the pressure of higher costs 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 EnergyShare.

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 are also working to ensure fair and reasonable rates. For instance, the commission approved our recently proposed large load provisions in the 2025 biennial to ensure that our smaller customers are not at risk of subsidizing our largest 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 have driven out costs through improved processes, innovative use of technology, and other best practice initiatives. On the technology front, we are focused on implementing technology initiatives that accelerate our mission, and we have 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 are intently focused on ensuring our service is not just reliable, but that it remains affordable as well. Now I will turn to other business updates as shown on slide 11. In South Carolina, DESC’s electric rate case continues to progress. Staff and other intervenors filed their testimony on March 31. We filed our rebuttal testimony on April 21 and expect surrebuttal 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 a decision in February 2027 with interim rates effective December 2026, subject to true-up and finalization in March 2027. Recall, DENC represents about 4% of the company's investment base. Finally, on Millstone, I will start by noting Governor Lamont's comments last week highlighting the hundreds of millions of dollars that the current Millstone contract has saved customers, 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 timeline for which is up to 180 days. In addition to state-sponsored 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 will 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 three 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 are 100% focused on execution. We remain committed to delivering reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean power for our customers. With that, we are ready to take your questions.

We will now open the call for questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press the star key followed by the one key on your touch-tone phone now. Our first question comes from Nick Campanella with Barclays. Your line is open.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.

Good morning, Nick.

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

Yeah, Nick. Great question. So the $65 billion five-year capital plan, which we produced as part of the Q4 call in February, already includes 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 are going to need to work diligently to accelerate the ramp of that capital.

Things to watch going forward: there is going to be a State Corporation Commission technical conference this year on the topic; we will, of course, update our IRP in the fall to reflect our most recent thinking on the ramping of the battery storage; and then we will update our capital plan in line with our normal cadence on the fourth quarter call. General rule of thumb, a gigawatt overnight installed, including transmission, network upgrades, etc., we put into the $2.5 billion to $3 billion per gigawatt range. Obviously, the increase to 20, which includes short and long term, represents a meaningful opportunity over a long period of time.

So we are excited about the opportunity. We already are working on the pipeline for this. As mentioned, with the $2 billion in the plan, this gives us an opportunity to potentially accelerate that. We will provide those updates and would recommend folks pay attention to those public data points that will happen later this year.

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

Yeah, Nick. Another really good question. Today's mark does not reflect the potential for certain transmission costs that were allocated to CVOW being potentially reallocated, and Bob mentioned 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 tariffs, we are also taking a mark on that, which is we are awaiting some additional interpretive guidance from the agencies. We are evaluating with our partners, many of whom are the importer of record, to completely finalize that. We estimate that has the potential to be in the approximately $200 million range, which, as I mentioned, would have the potential of being offset by some of the reallocation of transmission costs. We do not have exact precision on how those two will balance; they seem to be generally in the same area.

Those are the two things to watch going forward. Thank you.

We will take our next question from Shar Pourreza with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.

Hey, guys. Good morning.

Morning.

So just real quick on Millstone. Obviously, you highlighted Governor Lamont recently touted the savings generated for ratepayers by Millstone. How much headroom do you have to recontract at higher prices? Maybe just elaborate a little bit further on the alternative paths you may have outside of the DEEP process.

This is obviously something we are all monitoring given the affordability rhetoric and Connecticut necessarily has not been very open to data centers. Are we talking about a virtual deal here? Thanks.

Hey, Shar. First of all, it is great that we can talk about Millstone with you again. You are right, we are very pleased with the Governor's comments. Commissioner Dykes also talked about the value of the existing PPA.

Just as a reminder, we are currently contracted for a little more than half through August 2029. The process at Millstone today in Connecticut would be for procurement after the expiration of the existing PPA. There is not, in that process, a limit on how much could be potentially contracted with the state. As we have talked about in the past, other states in New England have also expressed an interest, and we are certainly happy to work with them as well, because they recognize the value of Millstone the same way that we do. As to data centers, we continue to have some interest from data centers to contract there, but I want to reiterate what we have said in the past, which is our view is any outcome there needs to have the support of stakeholders in Connecticut.

We think that is the smart way to pursue it. What is in front of us right now is this RFP, and we will continue working on that.

Got it. Appreciate it. Thanks for that, Bob. I have been waiting years for you to answer my question.

And then just on nuclear, on the topic, obviously Dominion in the past has really focused on SMRs, but there seems to be 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 willing to participate in this consortium and an AP1000? What are the puts and takes on SMRs versus the AP1000s? You do have an early site permit with North Anna.

Just curious there. Thanks.

Yeah, Shar, we do have an early site permit at North Anna, and we have also been exploring SMRs. Stepping back, as we have talked about before, we are 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 Kaine and Warner have expressed support for nuclear. The General Assembly a couple of years ago passed legislation allowing us to recover some costs for nuclear project development.

We filed with the SCC and got an approval for that. We have a lot of the 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 are going to continue to be guided by three principles that are resolute: first, any structure has to address first-of-a-kind risk—so if we are talking about SMRs, we need to address that; second, it has to address cost overrun risk so that our customers and our shareholders are not bearing that burden; and third, we need to protect our balance sheet and our business profile. We will continue to investigate and explore alternatives on the nuclear front, but we are going to be guided by those principles, and we will continue to work with policymakers.

Got it. Appreciate it, guys. Fantastic results. See you in a few days.

We will move next to Paul Zimbardo with Jefferies. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning, team. Thanks for having me on.

Morning, Paul.

Thank you. First, on PJM—obviously, you have a unique position in PJM—just thoughts on the backstop procurement, the auction feature, and if there are any ways that you can accelerate generation or spread the cost more broadly across PJM? Overall thoughts on that process?

Yeah, Paul, thanks for that question. We support PJM's effort to develop a backstop auction or process to get additional capacity for load-serving entities that are not developing generation or lack a state-regulated framework to do that. We are different—we are vertically integrated—so it does not change our existing process. We do not expect a change to our plan.

We have an integrated resource plan that is designed to meet policy goals in Virginia and the incredible demand growth that we are experiencing, and that includes, as you know, incremental generation. It is also important to note 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. We will take a look at the process that PJM ultimately finalizes, but the plan that we have is through our state-regulated utility, vertically integrated, and we are going to need to build generation to serve load in Virginia regardless of the outcome of the PJM process.

Very clear. And then if I could follow up on the battery bill, the successful one there. Any way to frame the cadence of that? Should we think about the megawatt deployment target as ratable or more back-end loaded or front-end loaded? Any shaping would be useful.

Yeah, Paul. We probably do not have great guidance on how to model exactly what that cadence will look like. We will take steps to start accelerating that spend, which we recover via a rider mechanism in Virginia, as quickly as we possibly can. So I think there will be some upward bias in our five-year capital plan associated with that.

Then in the 2030s, you will likely see a higher run rate associated with that. I would say stay tuned for the IRP because that will show where the model selects those installations coming in.

We will move next to Steve DeBrissey with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hey, Bob and Steven. Thanks very much for taking my questions. Just had a quick one. You talked about—we have talked about the battery storage—but you added on slide 3 the line monitoring catalysts that could enhance or extend the growth rate.

Can you talk a little bit about what that means and what the buckets are? Presumably, it is storage, Millstone, potentially an acceleration of data center activity, but which of those could either drive an enhancement or an extension, and how are you thinking about adding that language to the slides?

Thanks, Steve. I am glad you noticed that language. It was pretty deliberate. As we mentioned in the script, first and foremost, our growth is about meeting our customers' needs quickly, affordably, and reliably.

We feel like we have positioned the company to be ideally situated to meet accelerating needs across generation, transmission, and distribution. That is why fortressing our balance sheet as part of the business review was so critical as we saw the need for incremental capital coming. You have seen this trend reflected in our most recent Q4 call update. The most recent was an increase of 30% over the five-year plan, and the one before that was about 15% higher than the prior.

We continue to see 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 across other forms of generation, transmission opportunities, and broadly distribution. Certainly, battery storage is a potential catalyst. More generally, regulated capital across other applications is a catalyst that we see in the potential five-plus-year plan. And you correctly ascertained Millstone, which we view as a potential for another win-win for customers.

We will be in a position to share more on that later this year. We feel like we have been appropriately conservative in our plan around Millstone, and to the extent that we are successful in finding a win-win for customers, that would have the dual benefit of continuing to hedge that exposure for Connecticut customers—much like the first contract has done—and also potentially recognize the increased value across nuclear capacity in the United States.

Great. That is helpful. And then on the Millstone point, I think previously we have the very visible DEEP process. Can you talk about potential interest from surrounding states and if there are any formal processes, and if you would be willing to contract more than the 50% that you have done historically?

Yeah. The answer to the second question is yes, we would be willing to contract more than the 55%. Other states do not have a formal process in place the way Connecticut does, but we have certainly been talking to them, and they have expressed interest.

Next question from Misty Galois Crowdell with Mizuho. Your line is open.

Hey, thanks for taking my questions. Just a couple here. On the CVOW installation cadence, you are averaging about two days per turbine on recent installations. What gives you confidence this pace is sustainable as you move through the project?

Great question, Anthony. Let us take a step back for a second. We have been building projects on time and on budget for a long time—whether it is Cove or the combined cycles we built in 2010 or big transmission projects. Building infrastructure well is one of our strengths.

For CVOW, we got first power to the grid in March, which was in line with the original timeline. That was a big milestone. 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—transition pieces or monopiles—when we started off, those were modest.

I think we did four monopiles in May 2024, the first month we were doing those; we did something like 13 transition pieces in January 2025, 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 a really dramatic improvement as we went along. We are seeing that same dynamic playing out here where we start with a measure-twice-cut-once approach that we have learned in doing big projects over the years.

That rate is accelerating. We have a lot of opportunities to optimize that process more. We also started in the winter—the worst weather months. Now that we are in the summer, that will give us more opportunities to refine our process and improve cadence.

Taking all that together—the productivity progression and improving weather windows—that is what gives us confidence in hitting the timeline. Most important, three things: one, it is the fastest source of new power for our customers; two, it is 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 in a follow-up on the balance sheet. I believe the target is above 15%. As the CVOW construction winds down, I think rate base investment accelerates. Are there any key risks that you would highlight to maintaining above the 15%?

No, Anthony. We put out a financing plan as part of the Q4 call that is 100% supportive of maintaining that cushion, which we think is adequate in order to safeguard from unintended headwinds that we may face. I am 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 2025 over 15% and LTM above that as well.

Take everything together, and we are in great shape on the balance sheet. We are already at that cushion level. It is not a situation where we are ramping over time to get there.

We will move next to Richard Sunderland with Truist Securities. Your line is open.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks for the time today. Circling back to that slide 3 commentary and the addition at the bottom—appreciate the buckets and what are some of the pieces there—and you have already expressed a bias on the growth rate.

But thinking more about how these opportunities aggregate, is it still about working in the range of that 5% to 7% growth, or do you see the potential for structurally higher growth over time?

That is a very clever question, Rich. I think we have said it exactly as we want to say it, which is 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, with the strength of the balance sheet. We feel very well positioned with the tailwinds we have to be in a position to monitor catalysts that will enhance or extend our long-term growth rate range.

Very clear. Thank you. And then, on the battery side, I am curious on the long-duration component. How do you think you might address that? Any thoughts on technology and timing? Any opportunity there around long duration in the next five to ten years, or is that more going to be in the out years?

A little early on giving specificity on that. We have a couple of pilots on longer-duration storage underway right now evaluating technologies. As a result of this legislation, we will continue to ramp that up, explore more opportunities with more vendors, but we are not in a position to identify specifics on that today.

We will move next to Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. I just had a quick follow-up on Anthony’s question on the cadence of the turbine installation. I know you mentioned the pace has picked up as you have honed best practices.

Should we think about that two days per turbine as the target, or are there identifiable items that could get you toward maybe that day to day-and-a-half range that has been quoted for some other projects?

We are always interested in getting that number down, and we will continue to push for that. The main message is the really impressive improvement that the team has made each time with the pace they have been able to install. There is obviously a limit on that curve, but we are going to continue to push our way down that curve. We will update on installation cadence on every call and will have an opportunity to talk about the ways that we have improved.

I expect we are going to continue, like we did with monopiles and transition pieces, to get the pace faster as we go along.

Got it. That is super helpful. Thank you. And then just on the data center pipeline, I know you are uniquely positioned in PJM. Are you 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 in PJM governing pricing of capacity and cost allocation?

No. We continue to see incredibly strong demand for new data centers in Virginia. We noted in our prepared remarks we have 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 one moment. 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.