Summer Wrap-Up: US Inflation Reduction Act, AECO Gas Price Plunge and Other Headlines
This week on the podcast, Jackie and Peter discuss some recent news. First, they talk about the surprise end to summer with the United States passing into law the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA includes $369 billion of spending on clean energy and supports the build-out of a clean energy supply chain in the United States and the EV incentives also help free-trade partners and North American automakers.
Next, Peter and Jackie talk about how Western Canadian natural gas prices crashed in the last few weeks of summer. While the rest of the world is paying record high natural gas prices, the benchmark in Alberta – called AECO – was pricing near zero dollars. Peter and Jackie talk about the price collapse and its causes.
Finally, they debate some recent news headlines.
Content referenced in this podcast:
- Energyphile Vignette of the Week “Make Hay While the Sun Shines”
- August 25, 2022 CBC reports “Chemical engineer questions Belledune hydrogen plan”
- July 29, 2022 Yard “Just Plane Wrong: Celebs with the Worst Private Jet Co2 Emissions”
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
It’s an odd name.
“I think we should maybe call it the ‘Build and Buy American Act and bringing renewable energy and clean energy technologies back to the United States (instead of) China.’ Act,” muses Peter.
It’s now been passed into law in the U.S and includes an estimated $369 billion in climate energy provisions. Many are calling it the most impactful climate legislation in the U.S., ever.
“Modelers at Princton are suggesting the impact of this bill will see a 40% reduction of GHGs by 2030,” notes Peter. “Now there’s a lot of others that are saying, ‘Yeah, everything has to go right for those sorts of numbers to be achieved’ and I would agree with that line of thinking, because there’s a lot of issues in terms of supply chain and getting things, but there’s no question that spending $369 billion on this is going to have a material impact on the build out of infrastructure, including solar farms.”
Today for example, a lot of the world is relying on China for batteries for solar panels. Through the IRA, Jackie notes “They’re giving a substantial amount of money for each unit of battery cells made, each unit of critical minerals produced, each cell for solar panels produced that can really increase the margins. And you have visibility for that into the 2030s. That’s a pretty big incentive.”
But what does this all mean for Canada?
“There is some positive for Canada,” says Jackie “For example, the EV incentives, they’re a little bit different in that they will only provide the incentive if you buy a car in the U.S. that has components in it. Part of the incentive has to be linked to the components of the battery and the minerals of the battery need to come from either the United States or free trade partners. So, Canada can benefit from that. Also, the manufacturer of the car has to happen in North America. So, the incentives for EVs are going to be helpful for Canada.”
Jackie and Peter go through the highlights and impacts of the new law in the U.S. as well as discuss the enormous disparity in natural gas prices in Western Canada trading near zero, while the rest of North American gas is near $9 per tonne and in Europe, the price is over $50. Why aren’t supply and production in sync in Western Canada?
Please review our disclaimer at: https://www.arcenergyinstitute.com/disclaimer/
Check us out on social media:
X (Twitter): @arcenergyinst
LinkedIn: @ARC Energy Research Institute
Subscribe to ARC Energy Ideas Podcast
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Amazon Music
Spotify
Episode 166 Transcript
Disclosure:
The information and opinions presented in this Arc Energy Ideas podcast are provided for informational purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer link in the show notes.
Announcer:
This is the Arc Energy Ideas podcast with Peter Tertzakian and Jackie Forrest. Exploring trends that influence the energy business.
Jackie Forrest:
Welcome to the Arc Energy Ideas podcast. I’m Jackie Forrest.
Peter Tertzakian:
And I’m Peter Tertzakian and welcome back. Wow, it was a great summer, wasn’t it?
Jackie Forrest:
It was. And without all those restrictions that we’ve lived with for the last few summers, it was really nice.
Peter Tertzakian:
It was really amazing getting outside. The weather was really nice, no smoke, any of that stuff. And for solar energy production, it was pretty good too, wasn’t it?
Jackie Forrest:
It was. Yeah. And Solar’s going to continue to be bigger and bigger, I think. Not only in Canada, but in the US, especially with this new legislation that’s been introduced to the United States. And we’ll talk more about that.
Peter Tertzakian:
Right. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is an odd name, but that’s a whole separate story. Really, it’s very much about the encouragement of green energy systems technologies and a real boon, I think for solar and wind.
Jackie Forrest:
Yes, for sure. And I saw you had a new Energyphile card about solar. Can you tell us about that.
Peter Tertzakian:
I did. And so I made a few comments on it. It’s a stylized photo that I stylized myself on Photoshop, turned it into a little bit of pop art. So take a look at that. Really it’s a commentary on solar farms because while solar energy is being encouraged, there’s also this debate about the sacrificing of arable land, farming land to put up solar farms and harvesting the sun as opposed to harvesting the land. And so I think that’s something that we’re seeing in Alberta already. We’re one of the leading… I think we are the leading province for renewable energy, but it does come at the sacrifice of arable land.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah. Most of the big utility-scale ones in Alberta are going into areas that have good farming land. And then you’re taking away that farming land. Now the proponents, and we did have Dan from Green Gate Power saying it’s still a very small fraction of all the farmable land, but as it gets larger, I think it becomes a larger issue.
Peter Tertzakian:
As it gets larger and larger because the energy density of solar is quite low. In other words, you don’t generate a lot of energy per square acre as compared to say an acre for a natural gas fire power plant. So, there’s trade-offs with everything. We’ve said that many times in this show is that nothing in the world of energy comes for free. And I think that’s going to be something to watch, but let’s talk about that Inflation Reduction Act that was in the US.
Jackie Forrest:
Okay. I will, by the way, put a link to that Energyphile card with your pop art on it so people can check it out. But in terms of what we want to talk about today, we’ll talk about the US Inflation Reduction Act. That’s being called the IRA, so we might refer to it as that as well. I also want to talk about the low prices for gas in Western Canada this summer. Last few weeks we’ve had Western Canadian gas trading near zero when the rest of North America is like $9 for gas. And as you know, over in Europe, they’re like $50 plus. So talk about why that is.
Jackie Forrest:
And then we wanted to finish with debating some news articles.
Peter Tertzakian:
Okay, let’s do it.
Jackie Forrest:
We had some good feedback on that from the first time we did it. So let’s talk about the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA. So it really was a surprise this summer. Most people had really given up on the US passing any material bill for climate. And it was because Joe Mansion, this Democratic Senator was opposed to a lot of the previous bills, but he agreed to support this one. And it has now passed into law and it includes an estimated $369 billion on climate energy provisions. And some are calling this the most impactful climate legislation in the United States ever.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah. I know there’s modelers like at Princeton University that are suggesting that the impact of this bill will see a 40% reduction of GHGs by 2030. Now there’s a lot of others that are saying, “Yeah, everything has to go right for those sorts of numbers to be achieved”. And I would agree with that line of thinking, because there’s a lot of issues in terms of supply chain and getting things, but there’s no question that spending, what is it, $373 or $369 billion or something like that on this, is going to have a material impact on the build-out of infrastructure, including solar farms and things like that we talked about.
Jackie Forrest:
And we’ll go over a few of them. It’s a 700 page piece of legislation, so we’re not going to be able to do it all. But I think the most interesting and maybe the biggest change, however, is the incentives for manufacturing domestically. So today a lot of the world is relying on China for batteries, for solar panels and even though they’ve done things to try to move more away from China, ultimately, even for solar panels, most of the original components are made there.
Peter Tertzakian:
I think this is an important point because it’s called the Inflation Reduction Act. It’s also underneath that build as the Climate Change Act or something like that. But really, I think there’s a lot more Geopolitical Act in this thing, which is trying to repatriate global supply chains. In other words, a de-globalization and repatriation of manufacturing back to the United States.
Jackie Forrest:
And it is a big deal. They’re giving a substantial amount of money for each unit of battery cells made, each unit of critical minerals produced, each cell for solar panels produced that can really increase the margins. And you have visibility for that into the 2030s. That’s a pretty big incentive. And so I do think it will add manufacturing. Now, one caveat is, it takes a while to build these plants and there is a timeframe associated with these subsidies. And so maybe it all can’t be done in enough time to take advantage of them.
Peter Tertzakian:
But it will be material. I think we can maybe call the Build and Buy American Act and bringing renewable energy and clean energy technologies back to the United States from places like China. So how does this affect Canada though?
Jackie Forrest:
Well, there is some positive for Canada. For example, the EV incentives, they’re a little bit different in that they will only provide the incentive if you buy a car in the US that has components in it. Part of the incentive has to be linked to the components of the battery and the minerals of the battery need to come from either the United States or free trade partners. So Canada can benefit from that. Also, the manufacturer of the car has to happen in North America. So the incentives for EVs are going to be helpful for Canada, but when it comes to building big factories to build solar panels or batteries, there, isn’t really a lot of benefit for Canada. I think if I was a company operating in North America, I’d build my manufacturing capacity in the US because you get those subsidies for each unit you produce, and you’re not going to get that in Canada. So I do think it’s something Canadian politicians need to look at because I don’t see a lot of investment in some of these components happening in Canada while these incentives exist.
Peter Tertzakian:
Right. Well, we are very rich in those critical minerals for batteries. And I know that there’s a big push on to try and get those minerals going, I’ll call it. But I haven’t seen the momentum of a bill like this and the free trade partner involvement in this bill really come back to any sense of excitement in the mining sector. The stocks are still pretty flat from what I can see. And there actually are a few articles written on that as well. We’ll see how it cuts through the American economy. And then by association, the free trade partners like Canada.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah. The incentives are a little less direct for Canada, but they are there. We’ll talk a little bit in terms of what’s this going to do in terms of the generation capacity in the US, that’s worth talking about. So you talked about wind and solar. They do have tax credits already and the idea is they’re going to extend those, but even make them higher in some cases. So there could be an investment tax credit as high as 50%. So similar to what the Canadian government was offering on carbon capture storage. Now you only get that if you have enough domestic content or if you’re in certain communities, the typical one would be 30%. Or you could also take a production tax credit, which is basically a credit for each unit of power you generate.
Jackie Forrest:
So this is a little different than it was before in that it’s opening up the production tax credit, which most people say is probably a bit of a better deal. So they’re making that more available. It’s also easier to get money for these credits. So in the past to get the credits only an equity partner of the project could get credits. Now they’re making it more open that you can sell those to others. And I think that’s a big deal because unfortunately the way it was set up, only a few parties were able to be an equity partner with you. And sometimes they would take a big part of the gain. And so I think this is going to make these incentives much more impactful.
Peter Tertzakian:
So you’re using the work’s credits, incentives, and there’s no question there’s a lot of, I’ll call them carrots, in this bill. And whenever a country offers all sorts of incentives and carrots, it creates a distorted competitive landscape. In other words, other countries have to keep up with those carrots, otherwise, industry migrates to the place with the most carrots. And so question is, yeah, we’re a free trade partner here in Canada, but we have a lot of sticks and carrots here. So how do you net out the sticks and carrots, because there’s very few sticks, I’ll call it, in which is the methane one.
Jackie Forrest:
We’ll talk about the methane. That’s literally the only stick. the rest of these are all incentives. Well, Canada has talked about putting in a tax credit for zero emission technologies. We’re going to find out more about that in the fall update, but I think that’s even more important. And I think we need to look towards the US and make sure that our incentives are similar. I think that’s urgent because as you say, investors can put their projects in the US or Canada and if they get a better return in the US, they’re probably going to do that. So I think that is a really important thing for Canadian competitiveness. The other thing that’s new is these tax credits are being opened up for much broader technologies. Before there was a narrow set of technologies, wind solar, and a few other things. Now it’s more all zero emission technologies that can generate power. So that’s another thing that Canada already talked about that’s new here.
Peter Tertzakian:
Finally, I don’t think there was any real sticks on the oil and gas industry in the United States. In fact, there was a lot of environmental groups that were fairly upset that yes, while we’re encouraging clean energy technologies, it wasn’t really deterring the oil and gas part of the energy economy.
Jackie Forrest:
They don’t have a carbon tax. There was really no financial incentive for them to reduce their emissions. So for the first time there is financial incentive around methane. So they’re talking about charging a thousand dollars a ton for methane leaking starting in 2024. Now that sounds like a huge number.
Peter Tertzakian:
But it is.
Jackie Forrest:
But I think it’s because we don’t usually talk about it in terms of tons. If you actually convert that to the CO2 equivalent, using a global warming factor of 25, that’s the equivalent about $50 a ton for CO2. So that just gives you a sense of that number. It’s a reasonable number and there’s many things you can do around methane to reduce your emissions for that type of incentive because methane emissions tend to be some of the lower cost things too.
Peter Tertzakian:
At the wellhead. At the wellhead. There’s a lot of methane leakage in antiquated pipes in the distribution and local distribution systems because the use of natural gas and prior to that coal gas, goes back over a hundred years. So there’s some really old pipes and things that leak. And I think it’s also, that’s the more expensive side of mitigating methane emissions.
Jackie Forrest:
The real question with these types of policies is how do you know how much is leaking and how do you charge attacks? And there’s a lot of complications, but assuming they are going to be able to monitor everywhere, I guess that would also have to be reduced. Now there are things too, areas where it is more expensive than that. You might be willing to just pay the fee because there specific areas where reducing methane is more expensive, but there’s a lot of methane that can be reduced at that price range. I did want to quickly mention carbon capture storage as well. There were some new incentives for that. They’re offering $85 a ton US for sequestering carbon for 12 years. So basically, guaranteeing a price for 12 years. And if you want to do director capture, they’ll guarantee a price for $180 a ton. And this is if you’re just going to sequester. If you’re going to use it is a lower price.
Peter Tertzakian:
So, the latter is basically sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and then sequestering it.
Jackie Forrest:
Yes. So, I’m really interested in this. First of all, Canada, as we have our tax incentive for CCS as well, it’s a bit different. It’s on the initial capital that you spend, but we have uncertainty around carbon price. So, in some ways this is stronger than Canada because it tells the developer I have 12 years of guaranteed income and there’s no policy uncertainty associated with that. And even though maybe the ultimate price might end up being a bit lower than what Canada might get to, it gets rid of that uncertainty. So, I do expect we’re going to see a fair amount of investment.
Peter Tertzakian:
So, it’s no policy uncertainty. I’m always a little bit defensive when I hear no policy uncertainty, but what do you mean? Because it’s actually contracted.
Jackie Forrest:
It’s contracted that for 12 years you’re going to get that price. I think it would be hard to, who knows I’m not an expert or a lawyer, but now that this is in legislation and when these contracts go forward, I think most people view them as pretty certain.
Peter Tertzakian:
Okay, well, we’ve been talking quite a bit about methane natural gas. So why don’t we segue into Western Canadian gas prices?
Jackie Forrest:
So, as I introduced at the beginning, while North American prices have been around $9 per MMB too the last few weeks of August, Western Canadian gas prices have been low at times pricing near zero. And this is not new. We’ve had this pattern. It’s an unfortunate pattern since 2017, where in the summer we’ve had low prices for our Canadian gas. It’s always been painful, but I think it’s even more painful when the rest of the world is getting paid so much for natural gas.
Peter Tertzakian:
So, let’s back up a minute for the audience because the whole gas market is a continental grid. And just for the understanding, there’s a series of major hubs where the pipelines gather and that’s where the gas is traded much like where the food is traded at a farmer’s market. You bring all the food to a market, and you sell it there. So, the hub in Alberta, the main hub is called AECO, which is in Southeastern Alberta. And at that hub, we’ve got extremely low prices because there is an oversupply of the natural gas and insufficient takeaway capacity. Whereas all these other hubs around North America, whether it’s in Ontario, Chicago, or down in Louisiana, where the big Henry Hub is, they’re trading at nine bucks US, and here it’s three bucks Canadian.
Jackie Forrest:
Or even lower. I mean that many times in the last few weeks it’s been lower than that.
Peter Tertzakian:
Okay. So why is it so low?
Jackie Forrest:
Okay. What’s been happening is that there’s some maintenance work that’s going on that’s limiting how much capacity exists in the Western Canadian gas system. And this is mostly on the NGTL system that we’ve talked about, that TC energy operates, but there’s other systems as well that have done maintenance work. And what that’s meant that is there’s just less capacity to move the gas out. By this impacts price is starting in 2017, TC Energy implemented a policy that when they were not having enough capacity to move all the gas on the system that was contracted, they would cut the spot service. So, the non-firm service, and by doing that, it means there’s more gas on the system than there’s capacity to move it.
Jackie Forrest:
And what it happens is the price collapses. And through that, people start to reduce their production. So, it used to be prior to 2017, the operator would say, “We are doing maintenance work. Everyone needs to cut their production like 3%”. And they would send out a notice that even though you have firm contracts that let you flow a certain amount, you’re going to be flowing 97% of that because of this work and the AECO price would stay high. But what has happened now is they don’t tell people to stop flowing. They stop the gas leaving at the export points or getting into storage. And what that does is cause an oversupply which causes the price to come down and then producers will voluntarily cut their production.
Peter Tertzakian:
Well, this is all very complicated actually. So, I’m trying to think about an analogy in this farmer market sense to give some clarity to this. I mean the farmer market is pretty efficient. There’s all these stalls and the vendors are selling at normal price, but then there’s all these vendors that are trying to get into the market, into the building and they can’t. And so, they are forced to sell at the doors at very low prices. And meanwhile, everybody in the building is selling at high prices because they have a contract with the building owner to be able to sell.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah. That’s one of their differences, actually. It’s a good point.
Peter Tertzakian:
So, I think that it’s not like everybody is getting the low price. It’s the people that are trying to get into the building and sell their food.
Jackie Forrest:
Exactly. So, the people-
Peter Tertzakian:
My analogy, their gas. So yeah, go ahead.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah. So, the people that have to sell at the AECO have to sell the low price, because there’s too much of their product, but there are people that actually have contracts on the export pipelines who are able to get the gas out of Alberta and sell at the higher prices in the rest of North America. So, the people that own the contracts on those export pipelines, they’re not being impacted by this because they’re able to sell the high prices. The ones that have to sell in Alberta.
Peter Tertzakian:
What’s happening is if you have a stall inside the market, you’re basically going to the front door buying really cheaply off someone who can’t get into the market. Then you’re going back into the building and selling it for nine. So, it’s a situation where the people that are inside the building that have firm contracts to have a stall to sell, are typically big companies and typically traders and third parties who have the money to be able to have a stall. So, anyone who’s trying to sell and typically it’s smaller companies and others that are hostage to all the people that are in the building.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah, they’re getting hurt by this. They were much better prior to 2017, when we just curtailed production and price stayed high. Now we’re causing the price to crash. And those that don’t have access to the export lines are having to pay the price and sell their gas very cheaply.
Peter Tertzakian:
If I’m observing this say, “Well okay. That’s just the way the market works too bad. So sad”. Eventually they’ll build a bigger building and allow more people in which is what’s happening. They’re going to build more pipes.
Jackie Forrest:
Well, that is true. That a lot of this maintenance work is because of a project that we been long awaited called the NGTL 2021 expansion. And here we are 2022 still waiting for it. But the idea is that this is going to add some additional capacity by the October, November timeframe, and then a bit more early next year. And once that’s done it, that should help. However, I would say in next summer, even with that additional capacity, because our production in Western Canada of gas has increased. I actually predict that we’re going to see this volatility again in summers. Because there’s always maintenance work. And the production level, I think will be at a point where when capacity is removed from the system, it’s going to cause this pricing situation. I will say, who loses? The small producers.
Jackie Forrest:
I also want to talk about the Alberta government in the month of August. It’s been a very low price here. And so, the royalties to Alberta will be much lower than if TC Energy used the old policy like they did in 2017 where they just curtailed production because that really affects the Alberta government’s income. So, they’re another group that has to see this low price. And there’s one other thing too. Martin King, who’s been a long-time analyst of Western Canadian energy markets, he had a quote in the daily Ola Bulletin last week, estimating that in August, this discount was conservatively costing the Alberta producers north of a billion dollars.
Jackie Forrest:
I guess this is all a very complicated topic. It’s a very contentious issue. We’ve actually talked about it a number of times on the podcast because it’s happened since the summer of 2017, when this policy was changed. I still think the solution would be that we go back and there was a couple of hearings that already happened with the Canadian Energy Regulator on this topic to look at how we deal with maintenance work in the summer. This is a reminder of how painful it really is. And I hope that all those parties get back to looking at solutions to create more stability to the price in the summer months.
Peter Tertzakian:
Okay.
Jackie Forrest:
Let’s get onto our debating the news. We’ll have two quick articles here. The first one is an August 25th article from CBC saying chemical engineer questions Belledune Hydrogen Plant. And just for context, I’m sure many of you saw that Canada and Germany announced to plan to send green hydrogen from Newfoundland and Labrador to Germany. That was a lot of news last week with the visit. Now this engineer is talking about the Port of Belledune project in New Brunswick, which also signed an MOU with Germany to deliver hydrogen green hydrogen by 2027. And he argues that this is a step backwards in terms of energy. And by the time you get to the other end, you paid for 10 units of energy, but only get back two.
Peter Tertzakian:
Yeah, I’m glad the engineer brought this up because this is a big issue in terms of efficiency. Basically, he’s saying of a hundred jewels at the front end of energy, only about 20 make it to Germany. And so net 80 jewels are lost or 80% of the energy is lost. It’s a very inefficient system and that implies the economics become much more challenging. In other words, how do you make money when you lose so much along the way? Now, there are plenty of precedence of inefficient energy systems, including the one we’re very familiar with, which is a barrel of oil being refined to gasoline, and then ultimately burned in an engine to turn the wheels of a vehicle, that’s probably 85% losses or more.
Peter Tertzakian:
However, a barrel of oil has a tremendous amount of energy. So, the economics go around, if you pardon the pun. In the hydrogen world, I’m skeptical to be honest with you, that we are going to be able to make hydrogen halfway around the world, ship it across the Atlantic in an ammonia tanker and do all the things we need to do and make it economically viable. So in theory, it makes sense, in practice and in terms of making money with the engineer, I’m not convinced.
Jackie Forrest:
Yeah. And you lose energy because each time you convert it to something else, you lose more energy. Now this would make you think, well, domestic production in Germany would make a lot more sense, but they may have issues. They may not have enough water, or the price of electricity may be really high. So, I guess in a jurisdiction with lots of water, with very cheap electricity, maybe it could overcome that. But I agree, it’s a big question mark in terms of, will it ultimately be economic.
Peter Tertzakian:
I’m very skeptical that hydrogen is going to be economically viable in tankers. However, it’s transported in those tankers around the world.
Jackie Forrest:
Let’s go to our second article. Late July, The Yard, not a very popular publication, but one that made a lot of news because they shamed stars for their CO2, from flying their planes. And it listed a number of pop stars and musicians. And the one with the highest carbon footprint was Taylor Swift at 8,293 tons or almost 1200 times the average person. And they had other stars as well, like Jay-Z, Kim Kardashian, Blake Shelton who made the top list. And so, Taylor came under a lot of pressure on social media and her spokesperson said this was incorrect because she regularly loans out her plane to other individuals. So therefore, that isn’t just her carbon footprint. That was her response to that. But you’re seeing more and more examples of this where people that have the high carbon footprints are being called out.
Peter Tertzakian:
Like Bill Gates and others.
Jackie Forrest:
Bill Gates actually addressed that in his book that he recognized he had a very high carbon footprint and he actually agreed to start using sustainable jet fuel in 2020. And in 2021, he committed to offsetting all of his emissions from aviation to address this problem. And Bill is a little different because he is out there saying… I mean, he wrote a book called How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. So, I think he has to do something. Some of these other stars don’t have make big statements.
Peter Tertzakian:
This just opens up a huge subject area of leading by example and what you need to do. If it’s a real climate disaster, arguably you should be parking your jet and making more Zoom calls, including Bill Gates. I think you can divide it into a number of boxes. The one box I would call hypocrisy, are not only pop stars that fly around in private jets, but also moralize about climate change and do nothing. You don’t have to be a pop star. You bring that all the way down to broad society and people who get on a stage and talk about climate change, climate emergency, but then go home and take vacations and drive the big SUV. And so on. It’s a little bit like someone who’s a vegetarian talking about vegetarianism, going home, putting a steak on the barbecue. You can’t do that. So, this whole thing brings up a whole bunch of issues that actually I would like to talk about more on a subsequent podcast, but Bo, our producer here at Ear Candy Studios points out that rock stars take buses, but pop stars fly around in private jets.
Jackie Forrest:
So maybe they need to start taking more buses. Reduce their carbon footprint.
Peter Tertzakian:
Or having a Zoom concert. Who knows.
Jackie Forrest:
Okay. Well with that, we will wrap it up for this wrap-up to summer. I hope you enjoyed it. If you enjoyed this podcast, please rate us on the app that you listened to and tell someone else about us.
Announcer:
For more ideas and insights, visit www.arcenergynstitute.com.
