Andrew Littlefair: Yes, I — that was part of your question. I wrote them down here. I wrote down in New York, Illinois, New Mexico. So there will be other states. I think New York’s pretty close. And Illinois has, I think, introduced it. We’ve got some work to do in North Carolina, you’ll have other states. There will be some that won’t go. But you’ll have you’ll have other states do it. And I think New Jersey wants to New York goes you probably get New Jersey and the other, the others in the area. So yes, they should. And Craig, if California does something to louse up their program, they will.
Craig Shere: Got you. Okay. Thank you for those insights.
Andrew Littlefair: Okay, thank you.
Operator: Our next question is from Paul Cheng with Scotia Bank. Please proceed with your question.
Paul Cheng: Hey, guys, good afternoon. It’s pretty late. So real quick. There’s some discussion, I think California may want to change the way no longer keep LCFS credit to LNG and net it prove the gas is physically in the state. I want to see if you guys have any read, or have you talked to the government official there to see where that stands. And yet if it does get passed how does that impact your credit, your operation? I mean, what percent of your projects that currently under construction will list realistically that you will have the pipeline connection all the way to California? And also, how much is your LNG sales that currently from the third party, you will be able to do that? Thank you.
Robert Vreeland: Yes. Hey, Paul. Yes, I mean, I think that’s, I mean, it’s kind of around the book or claim book and claim and where the — where they’re going to require us to physically move gas in to do that. And, I mean, first we don’t, we think that’s yet to be determined. So we’re not really moving around to try to accommodate that now. In some sense, I think there’d be some cost. There’d be some cost added, but it’s not, one of the beauties is we’ve got pipelines, and we already have. We have certified pathways. So we actually, we do have to be able to get gas from the, from the farm to the dispenser in San Diego. I mean, it has to be able to go there, what we talked about, and I mean, but it’s a little tricky, right?
Because once it goes once methane goes into the pipeline, it’s methane is kind of indistinguishable. It’s like putting $1 in the ATM. I mean, you go take it out. It’s not the same dollar, but it’s the dollar. So that’s, but look, however, we would have to track molecules. I think you’d add a little cost, but it would be done on either way on and above. I mean, just I mean, that, that there’s discussion and they wouldn’t allow you to do use the current book and claim that you have to pay for the essentially the transportation. Right. And that’s not, that’s not a deal killer, Paul. I mean, it’s not fair. And it’s not the way it should work. And frankly, this is the kind of crazy stuff that’s going on. But again, I’m going to, I’m going to kind of assign it to faceless bureaucrats, right?
I mean, it. By the way, that’s not the case. If you use it for hydrogen, even while they would want to do it for us. I mean, that’s the kind of thing that it just, I just think that when cooler has looked at something, I don’t see that. And, but if it were to happen, as they discussed in some of these workshops, there would be an extra cost to it, but it’s
