Julian Nebreda: And if you can say, effect — but they do very, very different the way you think is our own once you see that they say you look to the same or they doing and to our customers to offer them services, which are very, very different with different levels of response time, quality security depending on what our cost is supporting. Hello.
Rebecca Boll: Maheep, you still there?
Julian Nebreda: Maheep, you still there?
Operator: We have our next question — looks like comes from Mark Strouse with JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Mark Strouse: Yes. Excuse me. Good morning. Thanks for taking our questions. I wanted to go back to the IRA. The $10 per kilowatt hour that you’re calling out for the modules, is there a good rule of thumb that we should be assuming as far as how much of that you keep versus what you share with your contract manufacturer or kind of pass on to your customers?
Julian Nebreda: Yeah. We will keep it. From our point of view, I think that’s important. This is part of our whole product side strategy. So you should not look at these or something that will add 2% of additional margin. It will be part of our 10% to 15% margin as we go forward. But it will be part of our pricing position or our cost position. And that’s how our terms with our contract manufacturers, but we believe we can keep most of $10 (ph).
Mark Strouse: Okay. Thank you. And then just a real quick follow-up, Manu. It looks like the pipeline metrics that you’re providing, you’re taking a bit more conservative view of what was reported previously. Just can you give some more color on what’s going on there? Is that just kind of the likelihood of that pipeline, kind of the timing of that pipeline, anything else to call out?
Julian Nebreda: I think the two things, the one you raised the bar on both the likelihood and the lens of profitability, which kind, of course, in line with our general team around focusing on profitable growth. So that’s kind of a little bit of color on how we thought about pipeline for year-end reporting. I would point out the fact that we have close to $8.5 billion of pipeline, which I would imagine with the higher part and the lens of profitability. I think it also lends itself to a tad bit higher conversion than what we have previously said. So good about not just the backlog position we are in, but also the pipeline that sits behind our backlog and frankly, the top of the funnel that gets behind the pipeline.
Mark Strouse: Okay. Very helpful. Thank you.
Julian Nebreda: Thank you, Mark.
Operator: Our next question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Your line is open.
Unidentified Participant: Hey. Good morning. It’s pleasure to chat here. My name is and congrats again. If I can, just to come back to the cash conversation quickly here. How are you thinking about ’23 here and a little bit of ’24? And obviously, adjusted EBITDA pressures what drove the cash burn here past tense, how are you thinking of that prospectively here, if you will, a little bit on ’23 and the totality until you get to a cash positive EBITDA-positive world?
Julian Nebreda: Sure, Julian. I get a chat with you as well. So just from a cash perspective, let me start with how we think about it. First of all, our model is asset-light and an operating cash edition model, which means as you bridge from EBITDA down to cash, you have very low CapEx and operating cash usage that we have dimensioned for ’22 and ’23 at 10% of it, right? So with most of the cash usage in ’23 being driven by our EBITDA performance with a little bit of cash in use for CapEx and then 10% of our revenue growth kind of taking to bridge all the way to the bottom line. That starts to turn in 2024, where we believe we’ll be close to breakeven for cash, not all the way there, we break even EBITDA. And then as we get to 2025, we start — we expect to start generating cash.
