This is Cobad Babnaghri and you're listening to Switched on the podcast brought to you by Bloomberg ne EF.

The global energy transition was never going to be easy, but the investment assumptions underpinning it and now being fundamentally rewritten.

Tariffs, inflation and geopolitical instability have upended financial models, while political backlash against ESG investing and a renewed appetite for fossil fuels, driven in part bay Ais insatiable power demand are reshaping capital flows.

Yet amid the volatility, one thing remains certain.

Electricity demand is forecaster search, even without AI's explosive load growth.

For investors and banks navigating this uncertainty, the challenges identifying which technologies, whether in clean energy or fossil fuels, can deliver both resilience and returns in an increasingly electrified world.

So how to investors and banks a just course, Where can they find fresh investment opportunities and how do they engage with their existing portfolio.

On today's show, we bring you a discussion from the BNF Summit London, where Jonathan luan BNF set of Finance and Investment Research, spoke with Ulrik Frugman, Cocio Environmental Strategies Group at BNPP Asset Management, Ralph Ibbentdhal, Managing Director, Global Head of Energy Transition for RBC Capital Markets, and Bianca Zicarelli, Managing Director of CPPIB.

Together, the panelists discuss key topics, including how they deal with market volatility, the energy sectors they are keeping an eye on, and the strategic approaches that banks and VC firms take when it comes to investing in new technologies.

BNF summits bring together experts from across finance, energy and technology to share insights, build connections, and explore how innovations in clean energy technologies are reshaping global markets.

Held in cities around the world, they offer the ideas and perspective needed to navigate the transition to a cliar in a future.

If you'd like to join us at an upcoming event, including the BNF Summitt Shanghai on November twenty fifth and twenty sixth, head to BNF dot com and click on Events, where you can also watch highlights and videos from past summits.

And now to Jonathan's panel from the BNF Summit London, titled Weighing the Investment opportunity conventional versus clean energy.

So much is changing in the world.

At the same time, clean energy stocks has outperformed SMP five hundred since Liberation Day This year.

Private market seems to be very interested in the energy transition space, with Brookfield just closing a second transition fund that's north of twenty billion dollars, and a number of European owners have recently pulled their mandates from US managers precisely on ESG concerns, suggesting that they still care very much about the sacronym.

I'm not usually a glass half fall guy, so I'm happy to see myself having this personal growth.

But jokes aside, We've also obviously have had more conversations about energy security, energy reliability, and if not directly about building more fossil fuel energy.

Ralph Banks have been at the center of this pendulum.

S when over the past couple of years, Really, how has that changed your approach to this energy space in general and has this swing meant anything to you?

Yeah?

I think, I mean, look, I think a lot has changed in twelve months.

I think there's been some consistency.

China continues to dominate the space renewable to the lowest cost of production, and so that's a constant.

But I think there's been a significant change over twelve months I think from US in terms of engagement with clients, in dialogue with stakeholders.

Nothing's really changed fundamentally, but we are picking our spots where we see opportunity.

I would just point out a couple of other sort of changes that come with that that I think we're observing and that impacting the environment.

One is just politics generally.

I think, particularly if you look at Europe and you look at opposition parties, you hear a lot of the same themes.

So it doesn't just stop at big beautiful bill.

Tariffs really important also for this space.

Canada in particular, big impact there both politically, but then also in terms of major projects that are being delivered and developed, both conventional and clean energy.

So the Trump.

Effect definitely had a bigger impact.

More broadly, I.

Think, you know, data centers obviously is a theme that has been talked about a lot.

I think when we look at particularly listed stock books, what we can see is the people, the indices or companies that have outperformed are actually companies in clean energy that are related to that theme.

Nuclear geothermal energy storage very much outperformed the rest of the market over the last sort.

Of twelve months.

And then the third part that.

We see and Cabex came up in the last talk, investment is up.

And when you look at the plans for European utilities, just to pick something, when you look at the last three year plan versus they go forward three year plan, it's up depending on the company, somewhere in the fourty to eighty five percent, So significantly more investment actually despite the sort of volatile.

Sort of geopolitical environment.

And I think with that comes investment, need, need for capital and different sources of capital that needs to be mobilized.

And so what do I observe And I look back, I say, nothing's really changed in terms of the momentum is still there, but we are seeing different factors play out and therefore we're picking up spots much more carefully about where we see that opportunity emerging based on the policy inputs that we are we are getting.

How are you dealing with the policy volatility like it seems like everything's changing on a week by week basis.

Yeah, I keep rewriting our strategy every three months, so that I think most people here will you know, in my mind, you know, policy sets the framework and then everything will follow from that.

And you know, every time policy changes, we have to readjust and we have to think does the business case still make sense?

If it does, or does do I need to change my approach and I think we have to adjust.

And volatility is not an investments professional's best friend, as everybody will attest to.

So that's awesome.

Banka, coming to you again, this shift between fossil fee and queen energy, at least in the narrative side of things.

How has that changed your approach if anything?

And also I want to specifically ask you about interest rate obviously in another big change happening over the past couple of years.

How has that changed the math of finance energy?

Yeah, absolutely so.

CPPIB has always been an investor across the entire energy value chain.

So we've always invested in clean technologies, renewables all the way to gas fire generation and including upstream and midstream oil and glass primarily in the US, So we see the entire energy value chain.

We've always done that, so that hasn't changed more recently.

Having said that, we have seen a shift in the market dynamics with more emphasis on energy security, reliability, and hopefully, and I'll take your glass full approach, hopefully a pickup and power demand across Europe fingers crossed driven by data centers and electrification across Europe.

And on that basis, we actually see a lot of opportunities both on the conventional energy side, so gas, fire generation, but also renewables.

As Ralph said, renewables continue to be the cleanest, sorry the cheapest source of new energy generation, but economies for renewables economics are much more complex today than there were a few years ago.

So yes, interest rates have stabilized, which provides a lot more visibility into the economics of this projects.

But on the other side we have the kind of like the effects of price cannibalization, curtailment, kind of like negative energy pricings which do impact the economics of yes of these assets as well as I think a bit of like a lack of understanding from all of us on what is actually the full burden costs of renewables when you take grid stability and grid investments into account.

So all in I think we still see we're polish both on renewables.

As well as conventional generations.

We think both technologies are very important to the system, and we continue to look at both.

Thank you, or you need to help me a little bit.

We're trying to pick one out of the tube.

But both of them have said it's both.

You said up the Environmental Strategies group back in twenty nineteen and went to the moon.

I thought, I think that's a technical term.

Right.

How has that?

How has this ride been for you?

And do you feel like right now the moment is different than twenty nineteen.

Yeah, I'm actually twenty years old, but I may look forward you because I've been invested in key energy since nineteen.

No, No, it's been It's been a bit of a ride for sure.

Twenty nineteen twenty.

A lot of pivots, a lot of liquidity in clean energy and the technologies combined with sort of a fairly liquidity fueled market, perfect and cheap credit, perfect environment for very capital intensive.

Clean energy solutions.

And you know, if I got a dollar from every investor in twenty twenty that said, oh my god, I've missed this greatest theme of our lifetime.

I just cannot believe it.

When should I go back in?

You know, it's you know, we typically don't build a fund for timing.

We build it for sort of long duration.

The narratives certainly have changed so much.

I've stopped calling myself a cleenergy specialist because as soon as I introduced myself as one, the phone all of a sudden goes click.

So I'm now an a AI enabling power provider and the lines ringing off the hook.

No joking aside, The narrative is the same, and that is that exactly as Bianca said, you know, powder Man is going up.

It's quite a very simple chart, and I love simplicity.

If you look at powder Man from two thousand and five to two thousand and twenty two, it's flat, which defies conventional wisdom that GP and that power typically sort of correlated with GDP growth.

But of course we had energy efficiency, we had smart gro and everything else, so we could sort of offset some of that additional GDP growing Powderman, you know, with with efficiencies, and those efficiencies are now getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

You know, so big gains the beginning, you know, smaller gains and now those gains are just marginal.

And what does that mean?

It means that now reality is really picking up, and that is that powdermand is really starting to catch up with broad GDP growth.

So if we just kill AI for one second.

Now there's a lot of people that'll be sad if we did that, But let's just say we kill it for a second.

Just electrification and Powderman in Europe and the US, some excluding China for this, you know, would have done unbelievable in terms of their cleargy strategy and their power power management of power.

We're seeing powdermant going up to the tune of seventy eighty percent over the next twenty years.

That's that's that's pretty remarkable.

Now if you add AI to that, and I know that you know, as typically we tend to have systematic underestimation of you know, how fast things grow, well, it almost becomes a bit silly.

We're talking more than one hundred percent.

Let's haircut all of the AI projections in terms of giga watches served by fifty percent, and it's still a dunculous, insane amount of power we need between today and twenty twenty five.

The only difference is, you know, which I keep saying, is you're paying six and a half times price sales for MSCI aquate technology, and you're paying one times price to sales for clean energy, or let's call it AI powered innovative solutions meaning solar, when, battery storage, smart grids, et cetera.

So the thesis is exactly the same with any technology.

Anyone here will probably know the Gardner hype cycle.

You have a hype then all of a sudden something burst.

There's some exarconius event that happens.

It was rates and inflation with clean energy.

Can't think of any theme that haven't had that.

Think tech, think in China, think autos, think US railways, you know, whichever it might be.

And I would say about six months ago we were at sort of a dissolution sort of stage.

Oh my god, this thing is never gonna work.

K is just dead, you know, I just don't see it happening, despite solar and wind adding record capacity in the US.

So there is this sentiment change where end up be where where?

Basically I think we have one of the largest blind spots ever, which is AI.

You know, it's becoming such a big part of global in disease.

You know, we can't attend any conference, any meeting, any phone call, any conversation without touching upon AI.

Yet very few people are really focused on what enables AI, because there is no AI without power.

And then you can rank those in terms of time to market and then you get your answer.

The same logic applies to fossil fuel, and the reason why we're still talking about gas and maybe the conventional argument is time to market market argument.

Gas turbines take time, nuclear takes time, and a couple of other technologies you can you can list this out, but that hasn't stopped from gas makers raising their valuation in the market and having some of these names being at their record highs.

As a as a porfolio manager, how are you comparing these sort of fossil fuel names, even if they can't deliver their market prices are going very much up versus clean energy companies.

Well, it's not.

You know, I spent two thirds of my career investing in coal and oil and gas, and you know, the oil and above, and since sixteen sort of thought that there was a really interesting pivot around environmental solutions four years ago.

Yeah, yeah, sorry for you, Yeah, the longer.

So there's definitely an oil and above, and I think that just shows how urgent the demand power is.

It's not just that solar is the only solution, or gas is the only solution, or nuclear is the only solution.

It's just you take the power you can get.

And then there's a difference between baseload traditional baseload power, which consists of gas and nuclear.

It's just time to market, you know, is a bit of an issue there.

If you want power today, and some of the things you can deploy fairly quickly.

If you have an interconnection, whole different issue.

So lots of ifs and buds before the anchor kills me, you know, because that is a big issue.

You basically have solar plus storage, some more sol on our ad storage onto the equation.

You know, you've got some fuel cells, you've got some wind, you got you know, geothermal which is really starting to become quite interesting and moving down the cost curve, although still expensive.

So you know, we're not dogmatic about it.

We just wanted to create a vehicle where people could and exposure in an institutional manner, diversified amount of these environmental solutions across the spectrum.

And yeah, we're not specifically not invested in what we call transition because I feel everything's a transition, you know.

Coals are transition.

Coals transitioning, you know.

So I just really hate the word transition of what it's become.

But we've decided to focus in on the sort of more innovative side of the.

Palette of power innovation.

We've gone through this question with throwing a lot of technology names out there right nuclear, geothermal, wind solars plus storage.

I want us to go more specific into which technology and why you're finding opportunities.

Can I just ask.

All of you to name one specific technology on the low carbon side you find you're finding opportunities right now, which in the world and why?

And also one technology on the fossil fuel side for the same aspects.

Bianca canestra with you.

Yeah, so I'm going to piggyback on Org's point here on geothermal.

I am a firm believer in geothermal.

I agree with you.

I think the economics are not necessarily there yet, but I do think is going to pick up.

We're seeing a lot of activity in the US.

We're investing in the inferval in the US.

We're seeing some activities in Europe as well.

A bit different market dynamics and concerns but Germany is a market that I personally see a lot of potential earlier days in the US, but a technology that I think is worth watching out for in the future.

So that's on the clean energy side of things and another more conventional side of things.

Obviously, I think we're looking at a lot of gas fire generation, and we continue to see quite a lot of opportunities.

I think gas is here to stay for longer.

We're seeing this as a key uh well, I won't say transition technology, but a clear stability and security of supply technology.

So we're firm believers that gas will be in the system for longer across all geographies.

Are there any specific across all geographies, any specific region that you see policy enabling geothermal or gas making a sort of faster headway.

Yeah, So I think geothermal is probably going to pick up in the US first before it does in Europe.

I think Europe has different concerns about technology and fracking and all of that, so I'm probably I think we're probably going to see the development in the US ahead of Europe, and that's already happening.

Uh.

For gas, again, I think we're seeing many opportunities in North America, but also in Europe.

I think we're seeing opportunities in the UK, in Ireland, Germany is talking about deploying a lot of capital into building news new gas fire generations.

So I think we're seeing a lot of activity and interest pick up.

Obviously, where you get to and how do you compensate the type of assets with capacity, payments and things like that is a key key topics.

I think some markets are more developed than others, but overall, I think is a theme to watch for across all European geographies.

So I guess I can take you gas, so I'll have to transition to something else.

We see.

I mean there's a lot of areas that get a lot of focus, and whether that's energy service companies, where the software companies that are enabling transition, clean data analytics.

Lots of people talk to us about that fleet decarbonization.

But if I had to pick two, let's talk about nuclear.

It's not a now thing, it's a longer term one, right Let's I mean the first SMR will hopefully be delivered at Darlington, Ontario.

Watch this space.

There's you know a lot of new nuclear discussion in.

Across Europe, A UK Sweden, Eastern Europe y energy security, and I think baseload requirement.

Right, we exiting coal, we're exiting gas at some areas, so we have to have.

Some kind of you know, based load requirement.

So I think to me, if I take a slightly longer perspective, twenty thirty onwards, nuclear will be a theme, and we'll see it in many markets actually US and Europe in particular on the conventional side.

If I speak to my North American colleagues, it'll be LERG export to Europe and midstream infrastructure.

We see a lot of gas.

I see the demand in Germany write forty gigawads of gas capacity needed because you haven't got nuclear and you haven't got coal, so you need gas.

And with that you need a molecule to come in.

And somebody called it a freedom molecule.

I'm not sure about that, but LERG is definitely a topic of discussion for US.

It's really ungrateful.

Sorry, after you know Bianca and Ralph and because those are great, great examples, I would say energy storage.

I know that always comes up and people like, oh, that was really boring, because you could have chosen something a bit sexier.

But you know, energy storage is really interesting because it you know, the numbers in terms of growth or energy storage is just mind boggling and of course makes sense and addresses the intermiscency of renewables.

Right now, most of the energy storage we that we have is up to sort of four hours.

What's really interesting are companies that are trying to extend those to maybe eight hours, maybe twelve hours, which is really technically extremely challenging, and doing so with other materials and lithium for example, on the on the sink side.

So but energy storage for sure.

But I would say, and it's interesting you say region, I think energy storage is really hard for European or US companies to build storage, although that supply chain is building out for sure, where China really has a massive cost and in many ways technical advantage over a lot of the European and US counterparts.

So I would say energy storage that of course means it's not a good investment, because just because it's a great technology doesn't mean it's a great investment.

And there are different parts of the value chain there that are more interesting than others.

And then rather than maybe going into fossil fuels, can I off pieced a little bit on the sort of maybe going to the extractives.

Things, which would be lithium.

So we've built up positions across the lithium supply chain over the past six months, you know, as a result of and in a way of playing the energy storage angle that still needs a lot of lithium.

And we're seeing eb sales continuing both in Europe but also in in Asia.

So I know it's a little bit conchariant, but maybe that's why it's fun.

Because lithium, I think general wisdom would say it's still a fairly oversupplied market, etc.

But there's a lot of companies that are operating outside of the cost curve.

Chinese anti involution as well could address that.

So yeah, lithium, I want to pick up on that energy storage point you mentioned, not the whole valual change, some parts of it.

Can you tell us which parts of it?

Yes, I need to be careful because I think ninety percent of my investing companies are sitting here.

But no, you know, and Banker I'm sure would agree with me here that you know, running energy storage infrastructure is really interesting.

You can get some really interesting returns out of that and trying to find find ways in publicly listed infrastructure which is trading at you know, an incredible discount to private infrastructure, where we see just you know, a real divergence in invaluations in the public market visa v private markets.

I think it's quite interesting the picks and shovels of anty storage hence the lithium side, and then investing in companies, particularly in China that are developing energy storage technology I overall solutions to that.

It's really fears competition.

You know, and you'll have developers that want storage and they frankly most of the time don't really care where it's coming from.

As long as it takes down cost and increases returns overall, and there's somewhat of a reliability, they're actually you know happy.

I don't know if that's what your experience as well, but certainly that's.

I want to come back to the private and public market discussion later on if you have time, but before then, I find it weird that you are all sort of big names institutional investors talking about new technology as if they're very comfortable all the time with these new adventures.

These technology we're talking about, they're very new, unproven not reasonable or sustainable business models.

So far, how have you guys been getting comfortable with this?

Can I start with you as an institutional investor?

What does it take to get comfortable with something like geothermal?

Yeah?

Absolutely, So for us, there's a bit of a difference on scale of investments.

So for newer technologies, we may make a small investment just to get exposure to a sector that we find very interesting and exciting, such as geothermal, and then we can be closer to see how it unfolds.

But for us to make an investment at scale and really take a view on a technology, we need to see a proof of concept operational track record.

So for some of the technologies.

That we've been discussing SMR, long duration energy storage, GEOTHERMO, some of those we have taken very very small positions to see how the technology is going to unfold, but we are still waiting for a proof of concept, for operational track records to invest in scale.

So that's how we think about it.

How long do you expect what take for something like you've already acted on for like.

Gios, it really depends on how long it takes.

There's the policy element, the project element, so normally will take a few years.

So if I were to think about GEOTHERMO, I probably think is going to be in the twenty thirties SMRs ten years.

So I think it will depend on the technology.

But you do need to see start small with a small project and then starting building from that, and when you get to that scale of project, that's when we would start the point capital more broadly.

On the lending side of a bank, know that you were a different hat slightly on the lending side of the bank.

How would a bank get comfortable with the new technology and how has your team been approaching.

Yeah, I think it's I mean it's the same as on the equity side.

In truth, I think you start small, you get used to the ecosystem the sector side, you spend some time with companies, you make small lending to start with a candidly, more conservative parameters, and then as technology builds out and you get more comfortable with it and you feel like you have a good handle on then you can scale it.

And it's the same on the equity side as on the dead side.

I think in terms of when we discuss it with our you know, when we're on the advisory side, we speak to lots of different kinds of capital providers, whether that's infrastructure or public equity investors or private equity or growth equity.

This is about finding the right capital for the stage at which the company or technology is at.

And there is you know, VC is obviously able to take a lot more risk in technology then you know growth equity can.

And and in.

Truth that you know that that risk appetite is changing all the time, and we've seen a bit of a pullback in risk appetite and I think you have to be very alive to that.

And and but what is the fundamental.

The fundamental is if you have a first mover with the technological advantage and the ability to scale, that is doing does well.

What doesn't do well is if you're company number five, somewhere behind, no advantage and you're late, and you know, the question is always well, who is then the winner?

But actually in this space, what we've actually seen is is, you know, the first few companies do very well and are able to raise capital get good valuations, and others are they are finding harder to do.

So there's been a bit of a shrinkage towards the sort of.

Front runners.

If if I can just pick pick up this private versus public market kind of question.

We've obviously seen a lot of more discussions on private equity, private debt.

How have you seen this space changing changed over the past year or two.

Yeah, so I think I mentioned a number of different capital providers, but the reality is there's others.

There's government backed entities which have stepped in in certain areas where you know, the private capital just can be there, there's some risk private capitalists won't take.

And you've also seen credit funds and more structured capital to be more precise on the risk allocation between capital provider and company.

And so that's been sort of I would say over the last eighteen months, certainly a theme and part of our job is to find the right capital for you know, what is needed.

Capital is there, to be clear, but as you move on up on the risk spectrum or on the technology risk, that capital gets smaller and you have to be more structured and more innovative of doing it.

I mean, if you know, if.

You look at where's capital gone, and I think BNF does a great job at sort of you know the two point one trillion globally or you know, it's grids, it's renewables, it's evs.

Those are your top three.

That's the vast majority of the capital.

The other parts are still small.

Storage will become a much bigger is become a much bigger because it's cost competitive, it's low, so I think and as things scale up, you will just find mainstream capital just gravitate and the pool opens up as a result.

Or you you also wear a hat on the BNP private impact and MISS side of things.

Can you tell us a little bit about the private the private impact and MIST kind of angle and how does that compare to what Bianca and Ralph have mentioned.

Yeah, No, absolutely, I mean and that means just really just a focus on some of the solutions that we need to drive decarbonization as an example.

But yes, we see.

This what a bit of interest in sort of the early stage when enough sort of the VC community.

Is actually pretty active.

Uh and uh, there's a lot of interest there and a lot of investors that have that are focused.

And then as these companies kind of scale up.

And I'm gonna end up quoting someone that I can't remember who made up the term, but I'll copy it.

Which is the missing middle, you know, which is when some of these companies that need to really scale up to say, okay, we now have the technology, we have proof concept, you know, we we build our demonstration plan, it looks really interesting.

We believe that we can scale it to this level at a you know, cost of why level.

Then and that's when it gets really interesting.

All of a sudden, there's a little bit of a gap and where there's a real seeming lack of capital and I think that's a real opportunity actually, And there's a number of players that are that are in that space, you know, but.

The the vast majority aren't.

And part of the reason for that is that you've got private funds that are raised so much money that you know, sitting spending you know, six months on due diligence, and something where you can make a ten million dollar investment just doesn't really seem like a great you know use of time.

If you have you know, ten billion, you need to invest and then you'll go for the bigger projects.

And hence, you know, the bigger projects typically have much high evaluations because there are these months amongst the pools of capital that are choosing to follow sort of the same private assets and Hence we've seen your evaluations on the private sign and some of the large odeals in the private space being quite high and sort of dislocate from the public space.

What's really cool is to see the private capital moving into the public space to take those private you know, you know, affording to pay fifty six percent premiums and then still have a return.

So it tells you a little bit about, certainly on the listed infrastructure side, how attract if some of those investments are.

But yeah, when I sat up with my private hat on, my public hat on, you know, that's really interesting and really helps to inform also maybe what's around the corner.

We've been talking about this energy space as if raising powdermand from AI and others will lift all boats right to the degree that we don't necessarily need policy intervention anymore.

What does policy do in this environment?

And how can that help all of you to bring more capital if there's not enough even though we said that there's good enough capital.

Yeah, I start from you.

Yeah, I think policy is still key.

I think you had mentioned earlier that we have a massive grid bottleneck in Europe.

It's a massive problem not just.

For generation but also for AI, for data centers to connect to the grid.

So policy and help streamline access to grid unlock kind of like grid delays and grid cueues as we're seeing in the UK for example.

So that's one similarly permitting process.

I'm not saying anything new takes years across every European market, so you could also help use policy to unlock that.

I also talked earlier about flexible generation and the role of gas in the system.

I think policy play is a role in that, and how you compensate those assets to capacity payments and ancillary services.

And I think last but not least, we've been talking quite a bit about batteries.

There is a role for batteries to play with renewables.

So thinking about a hybridized project, I think there is still some thinking to go.

How do you actually compensate a project that is not just a PPA for the renewables and a separate revenue stream for the bass.

I think regulation can also help with that, help facilitate the deployment of bettery storage, but also rethink the compensation framework for hybridized projects.

Mix this up a little.

Bit work, Yeah, I was just thinking on the anti storage side.

Maybe just to add to that, that I think there's a lot of people that have this misconception that anergy storage is just about storing energy, which is not unusual given the name.

But one of the things that are really interesting about it, particularly in European markets, is the volatility of power prices and power markets getting more integrated, and in fact, a lot of the profitability within angy storage lies in the sort of merchant area where you know you're facing spot prices and you can actually start trading power that goes from certain points in the day negative.

You know how many days if we had negative power prices in the UK, I think it's seventy one something like that, you know, to then power prices going up by you know, tens of euros.

You know, these are spreads that anyone would love in any market speak and and and those are the kind of spreads that these energy storage guys are facing.

But you know, in terms of of if the question is more so, how do we how do we solve for this power deficit?

If you will?

You know, policy is one thing I think, but I do think at times that people tend to overestimate, particularly now it's these technologies mature the role that politics have and of course policy have somewhat like if you're getting a tax credit or not.

A tax credit.

But you know, you're stepping back a little bit and you look at certainly when it comes to the US.

You know, K ANDNG never had a better time under the current presidence first term.

You know, K and G never had a worse time during the term of the Democrats.

And K and G has never had a better time than during since January.

It's kind of, you know, not what you would necessarily expect.

You know, So this idea that KNG has to be incredibly politicized, Now that's great because what it means is that it's just economics.

It really just is about economics.

And I think the best thing that happened is that we are now reducing the tax credits for the next couple of years to get a much healthy industry.

I think it's the best thing that happened for renewables looking energy.

Well, any final thought.

Well, I started a discussion with saying policy is really important, so I can't really backtrack.

I think you've got to have stability.

But you're also right, which is economics dry like when you speak post a big beautiful bill and the change.

Everybody's like, I don't want to be exposed to subsidies.

I don't want to be exposed to changing regulatory regimes.

I want some base level of uncertainty and then I want the economics to work, and that's where I'm going to put my money.

So I think you need both.

Yeah.

I think we started this panel having a struggle in deciding between renewal energy and fossil fuel.

I think in the end everybody is picking has picked one side.

I think it's a very clear win for renewal of energy.

Somehow we got here.

It's a good message.

I'll end on that.

Thank you everybody, and thank you for the palace.

Welcome.

Today's episode of Switched On was produced by Cam Gray with production assistance from Kamala Shelling.

Bloomberg NEIF is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates.

This recording does not constitute, nor should it be construed as investment in vice, investment recommendations, or a recommendation as to an investment or other strategy.

Bloomberg ANIF should not be considered as information sufficient upon which to base an investment decision.

Neither Bloomberg Finance LP, nor any of its affiliates, makes any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this recording, and any

Liability as a result of this recording is expressly disclaimed