Inside Great Britain’s First Battery Revenue Swap - SSE & Statkraft

I'm your host, Ed Porter. Welcome back to Transmission. SSE has sold future battery revenues it hasn't earned yet. And Statkraft has bought in. And somehow both of them now have less risk. It's a swap. SSE gets a fixed price. Statkraft gets whatever GB batteries actually earn. Measured by Modo Energy's index. The whole fleet. It works because SSE had more battery exposure than it wanted, and Statkraft wanted more exposure. But what other questions need to be asked? What happens when your battery doesn't behave like the index? Could a wind farm, a solar portfolio, or a retail portfolio want battery exposure? Josh Brown at SSE and Cian O'Duffy at Statkraft did the deal. Now they're here to explain what it actually took. And whether you could do one too. This, for me, is the start of a new way for businesses to manage their risk in energy markets. And we're only at the beginning. Let's jump in. Hello, Josh. Hello, Cian. Uh, welcome to Transmission. Welcome back to Transmission. Thank you. Thanks for having us. Yeah. Our pleasure to have you on. And as ever, let's get straight into the details. So, Cian, what's the one thing that people get wrong when transacting a swap? Operational plumbing. Nice. And I suppose what I mean by that is when you're closing a deal with someone, uh, you discuss the commercials, you know, you're gonna have to agree like a price, the tenor, the size. And you also know that you're gonna have to sign a contract at the end. So, like, legal wording of the contract that's on your radar. But what a lot of people forget about is the things that make the deal real. So that would be like credit support deal booking settlement. And in my mind, the thing that always comes right at the end is regulatory reporting. Often, often is sort of left to the end. And what I mean by that, this, this deal that we traded with um, with SSE had a genuinely new underlying index, so we had to make that index work in our systems, but also report the trade to a central trade repository under EMIR, which is like the European regulations. None of this is very difficult, but it does need to be thought about before you trade. Yeah. So then you've got the reporting side. You also mentioned things like settlement. So, um, how both parties are going to sort of settle up the position effectively that gets generated from the trade. Yeah. And then making sure that kind of it sits within risk mandates and all the rest of it. So it's almost like you go within a trading house and you would then find all of these individual teams that you'd have to talk to and make sure that they're happy with this trade before you can actually go ahead and do it exactly. Like if someone's this is a genuinely new underlying. So it was really a new trade. And when that happens, what happens on both sides is you have to get together with all the departments and talk through what's going to happen before you're in a position to sort of agree a trade if you're just doing the same again over and over again, you don't have to do as much of that back and forth. Yeah. Okay. I like it. Um, and maybe let's go back one step to like, the original kind of reason about why you might do the trade. So Josh coming to you, like, what's the opportunity that SSE saw in this trade. We at SSE have already built a few batteries ourselves. Um, and then in addition to that, we've contracted with some third parties as well under long term floors and tolls. So we have a price exposure, um, that we took on knowingly when we, um, chose to build them or to contract them. So the main thing we're trying to do is we have a risk appetite and we're trying to see, you know, that's not a set in stone that can fluctuate. And so it's useful to have means of, um, addressing that risk appetite by getting some certainty for, for revenues. So we're very interested in helping to develop ways of doing this. You know you can do it otherwise. Top two, bottom two swaps and stuff like that. But we saw the index. We liked it. Um, chatting to Statkraft about it as well. Um, and so we thought it was a good opportunity to try and see if, um, we were aligned on our expectations of price levels and things like that, and as a means of trying to, um, hedge out some risk basically for the exposures that we've taken on. So more so this is more so from your side. You're thinking, well, we have this position where x gigawatts long of batteries. Yeah. And we're looking into ways of if we wanted to move that up or down in this case move it down. Like could we pass some of that risk over to another party, provided that the sort of the price and the tenor is correct? Yeah. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. And it's trying to help. Um, kickstart X, we think it's the, um, hallmark of a kind of healthy, you know, um, sustainable market is to have these products and these kind of things that you're able to. You know, levers you're able to pull. Okay. So that was the other thing. Like by doing it, we're hoping we're able to kind of get some more done as well. Cian, coming to you, same question. What sort of what attracted you to run this transaction in this deal. Yeah. Well, same answer as Josh, actually, which is interesting because we we had Statkraft was buying SSE was selling, but because we both had different exposures before the trade, it was reducing to both. Okay. Um, so uh, yeah, both portfolio risk management but also, uh, product development. Um, so in the UK, Statkraft has a like a nine gigawatt portfolio of renewables and flex. So it's a mix of exposure is not not a simple directional view, but also like we're trading uh, like doing new deals but also trading structures to hedge that exposure. So the exposure is changing and also is different each tenor. So at the time of this trade, we decided that it'd be good for the portfolio to be like longer batteries. And buying the swap from SSE was a clean, quick way of achieving that, but also adding a new product to like the menu of structures that we can use to hedge our portfolios. So it's great that we've got a new, new deal, you know, a swap on total battery revenue. It's great. Um, maybe, um, maybe we could give a little bit of extra information behind it. So because it's the first one that's been done, I know a lot of people have certainly been asking me and saying, what is the what is the tenor look like? What does the size look like? And I've kind of had to say, I can't say, um, but is it is there any is there, is there a little bit more information you can give around like the, the tenor or the size? Yeah, it's a six month deal. Um, and it's the size of a, like a small grid scale battery. Okay. So it's kind of, it's a way of testing out how this, how this product works. Um, and how was that getting sort of getting it through, as you say, the operational plumbing. Uh, how did you find that process? It was fine, actually, because, um, sort of doing new products is sort of what I do. Um, so I've certainly done more complicated products. The the question is, I mean, we'd love to do, like, a massive deal. Um, but whenever you do something new, usually sort of start smaller before you go into like a gigawatts. And, you know, ten years ago, it was, um, it would have been quite difficult to do, like, a absolutely massive deal first time. Um, but, uh, yeah, it was fine setting up a new index and, um, putting it in the systems. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Maybe Josh coming to you then. So the paperwork for this deal. So for people who weren't involved in this one, then looking at it and thinking, hey, this is the type of deal we'd want to do. We're either long or short battery exposure. Yeah. Um, how how hard is it to transact a swap? Not as hard as people might think. There's an acronym coming up. So prepare yourself like we have an ISDA agreement. So it's kind of like a financial kind of framework contract that kind of sets the, um, bedrock of all the settlements and things like that. Um, so we already had that in place with one another, but they're fairly easy to, to set up and actually like, uh, your other guest said on your other podcast, um, they're good from a legal point of view as well, because it cuts out a lot of needing to do a like a long form kind of contract. That was Chris Kennedy from Miranda Energy. Yes. He also mentioned that. So you have your ISDA and then you have a what's called a confirm underwriter, which deals with the kind of the actual swap itself. I think our one was seven, seven pages. Okay. You know, compare that to a 200 page wind PPA. Uh, you can get, um, pretty light. Yeah. Then then there's the bits that Cian rightly pointed out as well that, um, you need to be. That can take up more time than you expect. Kind of like systems and, um. But more the internal pieces. Internal pieces, you know, getting people on board, getting them, getting it set up, um, making sure you got the comms set up with, with your counterparty and stuff like that, but you're not gonna bankrupt yourself with legal fees by doing this. Uh, I suppose like, um, in part. Right. So if you have the ISDA set up, then yes, this is sort of more vanilla. It's more straightforward. You can definitely do this quickly. Yeah. But if you're a party that's never seen an ISDA before, there's outside of those seven pages, there's a long process for making sure you're comfortable with using, uh, ISDAs. I feel like if you were a group that wasn't there, like, that could be quite onerous, right? Yeah. I guess then you could just do a long form, confirm when you just kind of captures the main. You're taking what's relevant from the ISDA that you use. And that's useful because it's like got the replicability of it. You can just do it over and over and over and just put them in the confirm itself. But there's things you need to have. Like who's going to pay whom and when and you know, all that kind of stuff. Yeah. Who's gonna pay who? Yeah, yeah. Critical. At what point? Yeah. Yeah. But I suppose you will still need someone to understand the ISDA master or. Yeah. Not avoiding lawyers. Yeah, totally. Okay, so so there's a there's a few flavors of this, right? So if you're someone listening, you've got ISDAs. You're kind of nodding along. You think? Yep. Seven pages. I've seen that before. I know where I am. But if you're someone who sort of isn't from that world and thinking, oh, I could just do this straight away, you would have to be more comfortable with ISDAs to be able to do to to to sort of run a project quickly. Maybe one question that comes up a lot with swaps and Cian, coming to you for this. Somebody say, well, I've signed a swap. Does that mean I now have to do exactly what the swap tells me to do? Do I have to physically dispatch and make sure that I'm trying to sort of replicate the floating position? Or do you do you have license to do whatever you see fit with the asset. You've got license to do whatever you see fit with the asset. The the asset owner or optimizer can participate in any, any market that they choose, presumably to extract the maximum revenue from their asset. Day ahead, wholesale, balancing mechanism. The question more is like how closely does the index track the revenue that you're trying to hedge? So basis risk between what your battery actually achieves versus what the index achieves. And those two things can differ depending on the your battery's location outages availability or optimizer performance. Yeah. So no it doesn't tie your hands. But you do need to consider the basis risk between the index and what you're trying to hedge. Yeah I think this is kind of it's quite exciting. So on one hand we have these, um, uh, we have a business that's FCA regulated that has these indices within it. Things like the one hour index. The two hour index, which looks over 50 or 100 assets. We also do things like virtual assets in other countries where you can take a very specific set of grid parameters, ramp rates or, um, limitations on how you're allowed to trade. We can get much more specific with those. Um, I'm quite excited about the potential for some of those benchmarks in the broader sense of the term to be used to support transactions, because, as you're saying, with this basis risk, we can be much more specific with that than we can be for an index, which is, as I say, like an aggregation of, say, 100 or 200 assets. Yeah, I think that is needed. Uh, certainly, if you want project finance on a specific asset, um, the single asset basis risk versus the entire GB fleet could be quite large. Um, whereas like Statkraft and SSE, we both have like portfolios of battery assets. So trading the Modo index on the GB fleet is a lot more intuitive. But yeah, I mean their basis risk could be helped by, um, a more regional index or a more focused index. But it does raise questions around like outages and it does raise other other problems really. Like if you have got like a single uh, single asset in an index and it's offline, what's the index value going to be like presumably zero. Um, but that will have like knock on effects to, to contracts that are settled on it. On it. Yes. Imagine you have a nice looking asset, but actually the person who brought it to market signed some horrendous terms with their warranty, um, and can only cycle it half a time a day. Uh, it looks like a nice asset, but actually there's limitations on what it's actually allowed to do. Means that, uh, it's not it's not working as a as an asset. Really should. Yeah. So you could get some funny things popping up if you don't have enough assets in the, in the index. And maybe we're talking here about asset owners, um, people trying to balance the exposure between them. I suppose there's another side of this which is going away from people who have exposed to batteries today, but going into people who are, say, solar independent power producers have a portfolio of solar assets, have a portfolio of wind assets, or maybe a retail book. Um, to have no assets, just, just just clients. Do you see there's a world where they would want to bring in some of this exposure to offset some of their risks. I think it depends. So like a wind site, I'm going to give you some sort of more technical terms. Is is long capture rates long baseload power price, long wind volume and short balancing cost? We see battery revenues as a fairly good hedge for capture rates. Both wind and solar and and balancing costs depending on your dispatch sort of depending on the team. But the relationship between battery revenues and baseload power price and battery revenues and total wind volume is less clear. So if there are alternative products for a wind farm that hedges all four of those things, then that will likely be a better hedge than battery revenues. So in the UK, like a wind farm can get like fixed price PPA, which hedges all four of those things. Or you could trade structures on wind indexes that are sort of focused on like, um, specific wind sites or wind portfolios, and likely those alternatives will be a better hedge. I do know that. So on on retail shape, um, I've discussed with, with retailers, they're often like very interested in um, I was discussing physical day ahead, virtual batteries where they, they pay a fee and in exchange they can receive and deliver power when they choose. And that seems attractive because they can use that to hedge their, um, shape exposure with the Modo index. You're getting a bit more removed from that because you're not actually instructing the nominations. You're sort of relying on this negative correlation between the two. Exactly. Yeah. So that relation is getting a bit further away. But even with the day ahead, physical virtual batteries. So there's a bit of mouthful. Often when you got down to price it was viewed as like batteries, as quite like an expensive way of managing your shape exposure and like perhaps hourly shaped products would be more cost effective there. Yeah, I think this is kind of this is the fascinating thing that your big retailers, they would buy, say a block of baseload. But then when you look at like the underlying shape of that power. So like if you put it on a chart, uh, looked at it over 24 hours, what was the shape of the consumption look like? That would be the sort of shape of the power, effectively. And knowing that consumers generally use more in the evening if you're domestic and use less in the middle of the day or less overnight, and they have a morning peak as well. Um, it's nice to have a battery that is kind of doing the opposite, right? So when when the consumption is peaking, at the end of the day, your battery is often discharging. And so the nice thing that you're talking about here is the portfolio de-risking. You could kind of combine the two net off your position. And then that's good because you then don't have to from a volume perspective, you're not exposed to the market. So you don't have to go and buy power at the absolute peak price because you've already netted it in your portfolio. Yeah. So for, um, I say all that just to give people a flavor of when you're talking about portfolios, thinking about de-risking, uh, parts of this just to give a bit of a flavor of the type of thing that might be going on. Josh, you're also seeing this, right? So you're also active on wind and solar offtake. Yeah. I also have a retail book. Yeah. Um, yeah. What what do you think about the role of batteries in de-risking parts of that? Yeah, I mean, I agree with a lot of what Cian said there. I think they're probably the more, um, pertinent bit with regards to batteries is probably top two, bottom two or even top four, bottom four or something like that. That gives the kind of, um, it mirrors that shape that you were just kind of sketching out there. That could help smooth things out, uh, for them as well. And then if you're solar heavy IPP as well. Um, then yeah, you can do kind of rolling fixed prices and stuff like that. Or you could get a bit more kind of creative with it and have like your, your physical like route to market and balance contract and overlay that with different like kind of short term hedges or based on your risk appetite as well. And overlay that with maybe a top two, bottom two or something like that to to help kind of smooth it out a little bit more as well. So I think that's quite an exciting, um, area to to look at in the future. I suppose the top two. Bottom two. Right. That's the the bottom two half hours versus the top two half hours. And the difference between those two prices. Right. It gives you yeah. Gives you a number uh, based on whatever the, the spread looks like. Yeah. This is what's nice about a battery index is in terms of being different to that, it is exposed to that the size of the spread in day ahead and intraday. But it's also exposed to the volatility between intraday and day ahead because a battery would change its position. But it's also exposed to things like the balancing mechanism. So if you get a big spike in balancing costs a battery could discharge into that. Whereas with a TB spread that doesn't see that right. That's locked into the day-ahead position. Yeah, that's a good point actually. Yeah. It does it does pick that up. Yeah. I think Cian was mentioning a little bit in terms of you were saying, um, you were uh, you described as long balancing costs, or maybe you were exposed to balancing costs for the wind portfolio. I would have hoped I said short balancing costs, long capture rates, but maybe maybe I didn't. Short balancing costs. So when balancing costs spike, you're exposed to it. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. So, um, yes. And so obviously, uh, batteries would then be long balancing costs. Right. So you could then use that to net off some of that position. Exactly. The hope there is that balancing costs are usually high when forecast error is very high, and often there is a large difference between the day-ahead price and the imbalance price or the balancing. What you get in the balancing mechanism. So a battery, those additional revenues like the on day ahead from a battery would hope to hedge that that balancing cost. So what we call sort of like post day ahead. Okay. Yeah I like it. That's a nice big a nice big bundle of things post day ahead. Um, maybe maybe then going away from sort of wind and solar, but going down to the sort of the pure retail side. So maybe Josh coming to you, like if you had a ink client, uh, just a some sort of household name. I won't say anyone in particular because that might make sound like we know something that we don't. Um, but let's say it's a household name, and they have a big book of business. They buy a load of power in GB. Yeah. Do you think we could get to the world where maybe their energy procurement team. And there will be one, um, they're kind of looking at buying power on a sort of semi-regular basis. Do you think they could get to the world where they say, actually, I'm going to buy from Josh, I'm going to buy a ten megawatt virtual battery. I don't really want to build a battery because that might take quite a long time. And where would I put it? Yeah. Um, maybe there's a lot of great examples of where they could put it on their distribution centers. Uh, so they could definitely go down the physical road. But let's say they wanted to do a virtual road and just have that within their portfolio to de-risk a position coming into this winter. Yeah. Do you think that's something that, um, could be interesting as a, as a concept? Yeah, I think so, because I think at the crux of it, like it just gives you more versatility. So it's the same in like, um, with like wind as well, where you can have your, your physical route to markets managing that imbalance. But then over top of that you can do lots of financial kind of hedging and stuff like that. And you can, you know, you don't have to just go to the person who's doing your physical imbalance. You can go out to a bunch of people. It's the same with solar. It's the same, I think, with supply as well, because I think what could happen is that people. Well, what maybe happens now is people feel like they're lumped in with their supplier, and they have to go through that channel to get the products that they want to. But if they're able to do more financial stuff, they could talk to whoever they want. And so it's a it's a facilitator for doing more stuff, I guess fundamentally. And then within that, yeah, I think that there has to be. To me it seems logical. That's the kind of next step of kind of like energy procurement and management and stuff like that. It's kind of like a bundling up of different structures and stuff like that. It will vary based on how they procure. They just like kind of give you a very focused on baseload. It's all about baseload. But largely the liquidity is right. You can say baseload. But customers seem to like to buy baseload as well, so it will. You know. But that's like changing a little bit as, as the kind of shape and the energy kind of market changes itself. And so that will also I think bring about some of these changes. So and it depends as well like if, if the, if they've gone out and procured some, you know, corporate PPAs, be they physical or virtual or they put um put stuff on on the roofs like put solar and put some batteries like you said, they might have. That will affect their shape as well, which they might want to manage, might have unintended consequences. So I think there's lots of, you know, it's fertile ground for for more to be done in that space. I think so you kind of imagine they have a completely flat baseload shape, and they put a load of solar on their roof. Great. It's kind of that will definitely come in as cheaper than than baseload. Yeah. But you know I think about their shape. It's got a great big whopping hole in the middle of the day. And so they're now not buying baseload. They're having to buy the morning peak in the evening peak. Yeah. And Chris that can get expensive. And so yeah then they're having to think about shape and maybe a call to someone at a big energy intensive user. Uh, I think we'd like to get you on to come and talk about how you see this space. Uh, get in touch. Uh, we don't think we've had a big energy intensive user come on. And sort of, uh, give us the lay of the land. So that would be nice. Interesting? Yeah. For sure. Um, yeah, I mean, this this is happening on the continent as well. Like, there are industrials who've bought long term solar PPAs, um, and are worried about their solar capture rates and buy top-bottom products to hedge that. Um, and if they're if they're doing that, then why not buy a swap on the Modo index instead? Yeah. Maybe, maybe it's good. Like one step further. So we've talked about just a swap, right. So fixed for floating. Um, I wonder if I sort of put on an options hat and try and go, like, a little bit further. Um, you will have signed floors, uh, on your. Sorry. That's very presumptuous. I expect you've signed floors in your in your portfolios. I don't want to. I don't want to say you have, uh, but I think you have, um, and that obviously for your exposure. Right. Provided returns are good enough. There's just a simple profit share. It's running. The floors don't pay out, but you've got things like as soon as it drops below that floor, you're sort of liable to make the asset owners whole up to the floor. Right. Which is. Which is a bit more exposure. Yeah. And so I wonder whether, um, with things like the index, could you start to do, um, a few more options around that? So, uh, if you're worried about holding that floor risk, could you start to create other transactions that would offset some of your floor risk potentially. So it's not just a straightforward fixed for floating, but it does a little bit more. Um, I don't know who to come to you for that. Cian, maybe come to you. Yeah, I think that's a very good question. I would say actually, the next step is more swaps and more counterparties and actually building a market, uh, like one deal in isolation, you know, is, is quickly forgotten. But, um, more deals, more tenors, more pricing points, more counterparties to trade with. I think that that is the next step. Uh, um, if, uh, but but yeah, I mean, I'm sure we would love it if there was, like, a deep market in put options on, on the Modo index that we could like de-risk any floors that we write. Puts are more complicated. So, uh, and the more complicated the structure is, the more nervous people get around pricing it, and they take a bigger margin, and then it becomes more difficult to agree a price. Um, so, yeah, I mean, it sounds great. I think the next step is more swaps. Um, but then there is the other question like will the Modo... will floors on the Modo index be used to for a project finance of new build assets? And if the answer is yes then yeah I can see like puts on the Modo index trading. Okay interesting. Josh yeah I totally agree. Like the we just need to do more of them, get them done. And that's no mean feat as well. Like, I think even with something as fairly vanilla as top two, bottom two, you know, we're fairly active in the market and we have quite big, um, you know, deviations in our price expectations from, from others. And that's quite common. So you throw more complexity. You're just increasing the likelihood that you're not going to agree on on a price. So it's the simplicity is king. Uh, in a lot of ways I think, um, totally agree. It's the the lenders and banks are really important whether they can kind of get comfortable with it. And then I would say another area that I could see developing is more kind of, um, a subset within the index. So you're looking at like, I've got a battery in Scotland. Yes. I just want it to look at those index. Yeah. It's got it. You know yourself, you know Wales or wherever it is like to focus it on it. But then I think the the issue we mentioned earlier then becomes relevant. It's like, well, if there's only two assets, you're one of the two, then you know, it's you can skew it and you know, games could be played and stuff. So um. I see that being kind of solved, I guess, just by, um, you know, you could put something in related to that. And then also with the other thing we talked about earlier about unavailability being a concern of people as well. I don't think that's impossible to solve contractually. Yeah. You can put in stuff around that, around kind of unavailability. Like you have it in fixed price PPAs. It's the same thing you say if you're off, you know you're going to be off. You let us know, you know, if you if off unexpectedly, tell us straight away, please. Yes. Um, yeah. You know, so, um, uh, it's the same here. I think that's solvable. Uh, you know, again, next step. But job number one. Okay, let's just go do more volume. One more one. Volume. Okay. Um, I'm aware that an episode on swaps and options and indices might have sort of cooked some noodles out there. So let's go. Let's take a step back and let's ask a very general question. So, Josh, I'll stick with you. What is a contrarian view you hold on electricity markets or energy markets across Europe? I feel like I was fairly contrarian when I came on last time with about co-location and 24/7 and stuff like that. And then my actual main contrarian point, I would like to kind of reiterate it, because I don't think it's really been picked up enough and it's still there. And that was around the kind of the, um, the focus that the CfD has on things clearing at day ahead. And then so when, um, day-ahead prices looking to clear close to kind of zero. You could see people, um, moving that liquidity from day ahead to within day. Yeah. Um, because they know that if it clears just above zero, all that volume is going to come on and then the the within day price will go deeply negative and then they can buy it then. Um, this is this is such an important point. So for, for newer CfDs you only get paid if your day-ahead reference price is positive. Yes. And so there is a huge swing between 0.001 and -0.01. Exactly. Feels like a tiny difference. But for these CfDs it completely changes whether they get paid their strike price, which might be say, 70 pounds or just zero. Absolutely, yes. And so there's a lot of like thinking, I think, happening within these portfolios to work out well, do we want to bring more volume onto the day ahead and risk that price going below or not? Uh, I don't think there has been enough that's been done on this. And it was it was definitely highlighted in in. I'm trying to really remember back to REMA, the review of the electricity market arrangements. I think government did highlight this in like one of the subsets and said, oh, this is a this is a problem. Yeah. And it's something that we, as SSE, kind of raised and suggested, you know, I think our suggestion is moving to a deemed CfD structure. Um, but so it has been raised, but I think it's. Um, the assessments we've done, like when it can happen for an off taker, it can be pretty painful. Yeah. Cian, come to you. Uh, what is a contrarian view you hold about energy? Electricity markets? Um, my contrarian view is there's too much focus on sort of the ten year average battery revenue and not enough focus on the path and the volatility the battery revenues could take over that period. Um, I think that the sort of battery build out capacity is going to be higher than some central forecasters have. Oh yeah. Um, and it that but it it's going to be it's going to happen at the same time as a big renewable capacity build out. And there's sort of like arms race between renewables and batteries. But that's not going to happen in like lockstep. Like there will be like a lumpy big offshore site come online and then batteries are getting bigger as well. So it's very likely that there's going to be periods of like battery oversupply and undersupply, so that that for one reason that will increase the volatility of battery revenues. And the other thing is the weather, like battery revenues are driven by the weather. And with climate change, the weather is becoming more erratic as well as renewable penetration. So, um, while I think battery the ten year average battery revenue is healthy, it could be like a rocky ride. Yeah, I totally agree. And just to put a point on that, we released the review of September's revenues and kind of thing in September. Like that's going to be a fine month. Like there's not really too much tension. In September, we saw a load of voltage running on the system. Still got a load of constraints in the system. We're getting, um, notices on, on, on on sort of shortfall of generation from NESO. And actually the battery revenues with the kind of combination of, uh, renewables pushing prices down to negative a big chunk of the middle of the merit order being offline and then high gas prices coming through. It's one of the best sort of battery revenue months that there has been for, I think maybe something like two years. And you're kind of thinking in September like why, you know, why does that happen? I think it's exactly to your point that, um, there's a there's a real lack of appreciation for sort of how bumpy some of this road could be. Yeah, yeah. And also like the post day ahead, revenues in particular in September were particularly high. Like the day ahead. Revenues were, um, very good. But the you know, the balancing mechanism revenue was great. I'm gonna have to borrow your post day ahead bucket. It's a great. Question. Very lazy. Yeah. It's lovely. It's a lovely, um, brilliant. Well, Cian and Josh, thank you very much for coming on. You've been wonderful guests. I hope people have learned a lot about how these, uh, how these swaps are working in practice. And, uh, yeah, if you've got questions about how they work, then add them in the comments and we'll take a look. Thank you for having us. Cheers, Ed.