Jeffrey Lipson: So I think, a simple framework for that is that it’s a 50-50 partnership. Without this partnership, all those investments would have gone on their balance sheet. So a strong amount of that is it reduces our equity needs by 50% is I think the best way to think about it.
Jack Hurley: Okay, thanks a lot. And if I may, one more follow-up. How should we think about the economics around the transaction with other structures that you — for you guys? And then we keep hearing about a lot of renewable projects, constructions being pushed out by a few quarters for various reasons, interconnection challenges, and other things. Are you guys seeing any impact to your pipeline because of this? And does that require you to move focus more to the behind the meter side, for example?
Jeffrey Lipson: But maybe I’ll take the second part of the question first and Marc can take the first part. So we are seeing periodic and episodic delays in certain projects, but it’s not been material. We tend to work with the largest developers who’ve had less challenges than some others. And some of the transactions we do are also capital recycling. So the project is already built and they’re simply recycling capital into next projects so you wouldn’t have any delays there. So any delays we’re seeing aren’t material to our revenue, aren’t causing us to reconsider our guidance. So they’ve been relatively minor. And I’ll let Marc answer the other part of the question.
Marc Pangburn: Sure. And just — I think the question was just generally around the economics of CCH1 and to reiterate what Jeff said, it’s a very simple 50-50 structure. And so whatever investment would have gone on to our balance sheet but instead goes into the CCH1 partnership, we’ll earn 50% of that through our ownership interest. And then in addition to that be paid again from upfront and ongoing.
Operator: Our next question is from Mark Strouse with JPMorgan.
Michael Fairbanks: Hi, this is Michael Fairbanks on for Mark. Thanks for taking our questions. On CCH1, is there any color you can provide on how the exclusivity piece work also, I know it doesn’t change the overall investment strategy here, but is there a certain asset class within the portfolio that the structure is best suited for? Is that more kind of all encompassing?
Jeffrey Lipson: I would say it’s more all-encompassing. The exclusivity we would describe as limited exclusivity. I think you should think of it as we’re showing them most of what we are sourcing for the balance sheet. And they are, in some cases committed based on some pre-agreed upon criteria. And in other cases, have the ability to decline transactions and in those cases, we can do them on our own. So I think that’s the framework.
Operator: Our next question is from David Sutherland with Baird.
David Sutherland: Hey, Marc. Hey, Jeff. Thanks for the time. Appreciate you taking the question. Surprise surprise, another KKR question. I just wanted to ask if in the guide you — or you noted that in the guide, there was a joint investment that was already contemplated in the guidance. Maybe was it forecasted that this would come to fruition as early as it did or maybe any details you can share about how this came to be would be helpful. And then I have one quick follow-up.
Jeffrey Lipson: Sure, David. Thanks for the question. And I think the main point there is that by the time we were issuing our guidance in the February call, we were engaged in early conversation with KKR and we’re able to model what we thought the partnership would become and included in that guidance number. So now that it closed, we don’t need to change it. I think that’s the key point.
David Sutherland: Okay, good. That makes sense. And then lastly, I think, Noah may have already asked this, so apologies for the repeat, but just wanted to clarify. Is there any different risk threshold or any other, I guess, restrictions or outlines for the assets in that CCH1 that we should contemplate? Thank you.
Jeffrey Lipson: Thanks for the question and definitely not. So I’ll go back to what I said in the prepared remarks that our business and the way we source, underwrite investments, the way we price risk, it is all unchanged and this in many ways is an endorsement of that strategy. And that the objective here is to have HASI do what it’s always done and allow KKR to participate in that business, not change the business. So that’s the way to think about it.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the end of the question-and-answer session and are out of time for today’s call. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time.
