Dan Brdar: Yes. The automakers are each approaching things a little bit differently. Some are doing the packaging design for modules, for example, in-house. Some are relying on third parties. So they each are going to preach us a little bit differently but what we’re seeing pretty consistently is rather than relying solely on the Tier 1 suppliers. They’ve all seemed to have created some very substantial technical themes internally to assess technology and to do design work, particularly as it relates to high power sections of the EV like the drivetrain, all really focused on how to shorten the design cycle because they really don’t want to get into the 5-year traditional design cycles. They’re really looking to take a couple of years out of that. So it gives us some opportunities to, I think, really collaborate with some pretty innovative companies and approaches.
Tim Burns: And then on the milestone payment side, so there’s relatively modest revenue associated with the first couple of phases of the program but it is based on one or more milestone payments for each phase. That’s still a negotiation for Phase 2 but likely for Phase 1, it will be a single milestone payment.
Jeff Christensen: What do you estimate your tax loss carryforward will be at the end of fiscal 2023?
Dan Brdar: So we’re still doing our taxes here for this year that just ended. But I think we had a carryforward of in excess of $40 million in growing. So it’s pretty substantial. We have not done any kind of analysis to see under the tax code, whether we’ve ever triggered as a company a change of control with capital raises which is an analysis we would have to do to really confirm that full carryforward but it is pretty sizable.
Jeff Christensen: How do you define top 10 automaker? Unit sold market cap revenue?
Dan Brdar: Units sold because that’s what really matters to us is, how many vehicles are they selling because that really drives the size of the opportunity for us as a supplier to them?
Jeff Christensen: Thank you. Any update on the circuit breaker project for DOE you were mentioning a while ago with DTI.
Dan Brdar: The circuit breaker that we were doing with BTI for the Department of Energy, we won the Phase 1 award, successfully completed that. DTI submitted the proposal for Phase 2 but Phase 2 actually didn’t get selected. And the only negative feedback that they got was there was concern on DTI’s ability to be a significant supplier to the utility sector because they’re not traditionally a big supplier to them. They’re really more successful in terms of the government marketplace. And since there’s so much competition for these, just that one negative was enough to result in us not getting selected for Phase 2. Now for us, what we’re providing and what we’re doing, whether it is a DC circuit page for the military or whether it’s an AC circuit breaker for the Department of Energy for us, the work is exactly the same.
Jeff Christensen: Thank you. My understanding is Enphase researchers have started using gallium nitrate to improve power electronics. Is this conceivable that this material could be used for Ideal Power’s Power Switch in addition to silicon and silicon carbide? Has any test been done in that regard?
