Danny Abajian: Yes, happy to run through that a little bit here. I think we have responded to that publicly. Obviously, we think our response was adequate. Happy to go into more detail here on this call. And I would say just first and foremost, like the numbers from two different sources are not comparable. We do define what we express in our metric. It’s been the same and hasn’t changed as far as subscriber count. And as any diligent company would do, where it’s not clear, in this case, EIA asking us for information, we do have conversations with them to make sure that we cover off all of the nuances and give them exactly what they’re looking for and that’s where a team has done over time through multiple conversations between our team and directly with EIA.
And there are like atypical aspects of our business that a generic reporting guideline that you pull from their website wouldn’t perfectly address. So, as to solar customers, there are a couple of places, EIA has requested that we diverge from GAAP. The first place is our prepaid customers, which they’ve said we should not report because we don’t actively bill them and they’re trying to obtain billing data and we have well more than 50,000 of those customers. That gives rise to 865 million in prepayments on our balance sheet and if they change their mind and ask us to report that, we would happily do so. Another area is like the monthly billing customers, and whether you go with the GAAP number, we have contract that escalates from $0.10 to $0.20 over 25 years, GAAP records.
$0.15 of levelized payments over the contract term, and we actually report our current cash billing amount, which would be $0.10 in year one. That’s a nuance we’ve checked, that’s how we report it. And another unusual area is revenue from storage systems, and how do we report that over time and we’re currently in discussions with them on how to report that to their satisfaction directly. And then finally one other element to hit is the estimates on the system costs. And I would say before that, there are also the delay in recognition of assets I didn’t hit, which is the permission to operate. We do have a much longer lag in permission to operate from getting from install to permission to operate, and commencing billing then is understood. And that’s another large portion of the difference.
And then on the cost side, which I was going to get into, as is visible on our balance sheet, we have $813 million in CIP, much of which is a weighting placement in service. And that wasn’t picked up in the analysis that was done. And also there’s, GAAP expense recognition versus capitalization differences between when you sell an asset and when you lease it to a subscriber. And examples of that include warehouses, branches, vehicles. We don’t capitalize that into the basis of the asset and we expense that in period and that also wasn’t picked up in the analysis that’s been done. And I would say just to kind of leave it with the last piece here. As far as what we do and how that relates to ITC claims on tax equity funds, that does go through numerous elements of third-party due diligence as well, and that’s been very well scrutinized by third parties, and we welcome it.
Philip Shen: Great. Thanks for the detail, Danny. I’ll pass it on.
Danny Abajian: Happy to do it.
Operator: Thank you. That ends all the time that we have allocated for the Q&A. You may all disconnect your lines at this time and have a wonderful day.
