Andy Marsh: I would just wear shorts to the Investor Day at that event.
Kashy Harrison: If I could sneak one more in. Andy, in the prepared remarks, you talked [Technical Difficulty] down the [Technical Difficulty] 13%. I was wondering if you or Paul, could go into some details on what these are exactly and then how should we think about those items over the course of the year?
Andy Marsh: Kashy, I’ll hand it over to Paul.
Paul Middleton: So I mean, I guess what I would say is, I’ll just give you a microcosm example. When you’re designing something that’s new that’s never been done before, then you’re trying to manufacture and scale it in mass quantities, obviously, you’re going through an incredible learning curve really fast. So sometimes we learn like certain materials in terms of how they perform and the product and when we turn — we have — fortunately, we’ve got a great, broad platform to be able to test the product between the customers we’re selling them to as well as in the case of electrolyzers, our own green hydrogen plant. So we’re able to accelerate that learning curve. But when you run into the range of things that we’re launching and the scale of pace and all those things, you kind of compound those things.
So some of it is material sometimes in terms of how it works, sometimes it’s the manufacturing processes in terms of how it works, your learnings there. It’s those kind of learning curves that you go through. The good news is we feel like — in particular, many of these things, we’ve kind of gotten through those humps and curves. And they’re not lessons that you learn again, right? So we’re able to kind of course correct and go through those learnings quickly and redirect. So that just gives you a microcosm example of some of the kind of things that’s included in those costs.
Operator: Our next question comes from Sam Burwell with Jefferies.
Sam Burwell: I’ll make it quick. And you guys obviously put out that letter on the 45 seats, the powers that be recently and out your case convincingly in my view at least, but it seems like the debate or like the conflict, the intracorporate conflict, if you will, is on additionality with the NextEras of the world wanting it. You obviously don’t for reasons that make a lot of sense. But with that as a backdrop like what do you guys consider to be a win on additionality, like it being put to rest forever, or is it still a win if additionality is a requirement that gets phased in over the next, like five plus years?
Andy Marsh: So Sam why — I’m going to take a step back and say, I stand with Senator Carter and Senator Manchin where Senator Carter wrote the bill, but additionality was not included. So I’m going to stand by that. I would just add the longer additionalities pushed out the better it should be. But it — when people ask me that question, we’ve done a lot of work, and you may have seen some of the work. But essentially, it’s bad for U.S. jobs, it’s bad for climate and it’s bad for national security. And one item that people don’t really talk a lot about and I think you’ll start seeing articles about this. This is really at heart, and I know Senator Manchin took me aside and said, Andy, at heart, this is a national security decision for United States continue to be energy independent.
And to put requirements on the hydrogen industry, which the government has not put on their own buildings as they drive to be net zero just doesn’t make sense. So the longer it’s out, the better. But I see no reason for Plug to publicly take a compromised position.
Operator: Our next question comes from Chris Dendrinos with RBC Capital Markets.
