Connor Teskey: Certainly. So maybe just a fun point of color for everyone. We actually got our last regulatory approval on Westinghouse, I would say within an hour before this call. So we are all good to go and we do expect to close this transaction next week. In terms of why we’re so excited about Westinghouse, I would say two things off the top and then I’ll get into some of the detail. When we look at the growth drivers of wind and solar, they are very clearly decarbonization, electrification, and energy security. And when you look at what the drivers of nuclear power are, it’s the same thing. Decarbonization, electrification, and energy security. And then the second thing I would say is, we’ve been tracking nuclear for a long number of years now.
And I think we’ve always had a very favorable view of it because of the front row seat we have to the value of clean dispatchable baseload power that we see through our own existing hydro portfolio. The value of that clean dispatchable energy, clean dispatchable baseload energy is not growing incrementally, it’s inflecting higher. And today there’s really two places where you can get that type of energy supply, and that’s hydro and nuclear. And going forward, we will have meaningful leading positions in both. When it comes to Westinghouse, Westinghouse obviously offers a full suite of nuclear power generation products. It’s probably most well-known for its market-leading AP1000 reactor, which is what is typically used in large markets to support countries and major utilities get off large, I would say, coal or thermal supply stacks.
But what’s important to recognize about Westinghouse is they also have an AP300 technology, which is a small module of reactor technology. And the important thing about the AP300 is it’s the same design, it’s the same technology, it’s the same model as the AP1000 simply shrunk down. And as a result, we don’t expect the AP300 to have many of the first of its kind issues that other SMR technologies will have. And then lastly, Westinghouse has its microreactor technology, eVinci. And this is very good for projects and businesses that are in remote locations and need to get off high carbon, high cost energy like diesel fuel oil. What I would say, what we get really excited about Westinghouse is today it typically supports large utilities and power grids of governments.
But with the huge increase in corporate demand that we are seeing around the world, and with leading corporates now looking to procure the same amount of energy as leading countries, we do believe that we will be able to use Westinghouse’s products to service the large energy demands of our leading corporate customers. And the clean dispatchable base load profile that they can provide matches very well with the build out in renewables that we’re already using to service that customer demand. So similar to how our hydro portfolio has really differentiated us in the past, we think adding nuclear to our portfolio will continue to really differentiate us in the future.
David Quezada: Awesome, that’s great color. Thanks for that Connor. And then maybe just kind of a follow-up to commentary around M&A and I’m thinking about hydro specifically. I’m just wondering if hydroasset seems like historically they’ve traded hands at higher multiples. Are you seeing any M&A opportunities shape up in the hydrospace where you could look to grow your fleet there?
Connor Teskey: Certainly. So, it’s a good question, but what I would say is there’s simply less hydro being built around the world. The hydro fleet around the world is a much more contained perimeter of assets and therefore there is going to be less deal activity. I would say we monitor it in all of our core markets. We have been buyers of hydro over the last couple of years, most notably in South America, and those investments have performed really, really well for us. But what I would say is we look at acquisitions in hydro no different than we look at acquisitions in every other technology. If we can buy for good value, we’ll obviously deploy the capital there, but if we’re seeing better risk-adjusted returns elsewhere, we’ll allocate that capital away.
