The Modernization Fund,
I think of it as the biggest fund no one's ever heard of.
It's financed from the
ETS revenues,
ETS1.
It should probably come out to around 57 billion euros.
Once you start looking at the actual numbers,
especially with the public finance,
you see there's a lot of money.
It's just not necessarily being spent that well.
A growing share of this Modernization Fund money has gone to gas,
waste incineration,
and biomass.
this raises a fundamental
governance question.
Are we using public funds to prepare people and systems for carbon pricing or to postpone the hard choices?
If you're familiar with this podcast,
you know we see the energy transition as more than a question of technology,
heat pumps,
network renewables.
It's a human story.
We've been talking about social and human factors,
of course,
but now it's time to follow the money.
Across Central and Eastern Europe,
one
EU funding instrument plays a decisive role in what kind of heating systems will exist for the next 30 years or more.
The Modernization Fund,
which channels revenue from the EU
Emission Trading System,
ETS,
into national investments.
It sits alongside other pillars of the Fit for 55 architecture,
including the Innovation Fund,
the Social Climate Fund,
and the upcoming
ETS2.
which will put a carbon price on fuels used in buildings and transport from 2027.
On paper,
this architecture makes a lot of sense.
ETS revenues fund the transition.
Investments modernize energy systems.
Social tools protect households.
In practice,
the picture is sometimes messier.
A growing share of this modernization fund money
has gone to gas,
waste incineration and biomass,
even as ETS2 is delayed because governments fear the social backlash of higher heating costs.
This raises a fundamental governance question.
Are we using public funds to prepare people and systems for carbon pricing or to postpone the hard choices?
This matters because heating is where climate policy,
household bills and social trusts collide.
It also matters because tens of billions of euros are still unallocated.
And the decision taken now will shape whether ETS2 becomes socially manageable or politically explosive.
To unpack this,
I'm joined by Morgan Henley from CEE Bankwatch.
Morgan has been closely tracking how the modernization fund is...
actually used,
who decides,
and what still can change while there is time.
This conversation is really about why funding design is political,
why district heating is a justice issue,
and why the credibility of Europe's climate policy depends on how these instruments interact.
The analysis discussed draws back on BankWatch 2025 assessment of the modernization funds,
allocation and impact that will be linked in the show notes.
So Morgan,
welcome to the show.
Hi,
thanks for having me.
It's great to be here.
So Morgan,
you work on funding instruments that most people never hear about.
What drew you personally to district heating and EU climate finance as a place where the transition can...
either succeed or fail?
Well,
I'm originally from Florida,
from the U.S.,
so public EU fund for heating.
Yeah,
especially public finance from the EU for district heating wasn't exactly my childhood dream job,
but
I've been here now for 15 years.
I worked on the coal phase out in the Czech Republic for quite some time before my current role at Bankwatch,
so it was sort of a
a natural transition because when we're working on the coal phase out,
heating was always the kind of untouchable issue like,
oh,
it's too complicated.
It's too hard.
And well,
I guess I like a challenge,
but it's actually,
I think the district heating and heating side of things,
it's really fascinating.
It's a question of technologies.
It's a question of financing,
but it's also really personal.
Everyone has a heating system at home pretty much.
So people I don't know.
And I think it's much closer to them than,
let's say,
electricity.
So
I like that it kind of intersects with all of those things.
And in the public finance side of it,
you know,
there's always this debate,
like,
is there enough money for the transition?
And once you start looking at the actual numbers,
especially with the public finance,
you see there's a lot of money.
It's just not necessarily being spent that well.
So it's not a low hanging fruit.
I wouldn't say that it's quite difficult.
But once you see and get into it,
it's quite clear that a lot more could be done.
So,
so interesting.
So let's start with the basics.
What is the modernization fund?
Who is eligible?
And what is the budget?
why does it matter so much for energy systems in Central and Eastern Europe compared to other
EU funds?
So,
yeah,
the modernization fund,
I think of it as the biggest fund no one's ever heard of.
It's financed from the
ETS revenues,
ETS1.
So it's been operational since already 2021.
And because it depends on the price of the ETS.
So it should probably come out to around
57 billion euros.
And it's only 13 member states that are eligible.
So it's all of the Central and Eastern European member states and now additionally Greece and Portugal.
So why is it reserved for these countries?
So these are the lowest income member states and kind of thinking behind it is in the name,
the modernization fund.
So it's supposed to be a little helper to help these countries modernize their energy systems.
It's,
I think,
one of the only funds that's specifically for energy only.
That also includes transport as well.
But
I don't think there's any other like cohesion.
It can be used for many more purposes or the resilience recovery,
that as well.
But something of this size and that's so singularly purposed,
I think this is unique.
Yeah,
that's very,
very interesting.
As you said,
it's about modernizing their energy system and it's financed through EU
ETS, which would be like the kind of tax importers would have to pay to be able to play on the European markets.
It's the carbon tax for an audience that wouldn't know it so well,
but maybe you have a better way of framing what ETS is.
Yeah,
so I mean,
I think carbon tax is probably shorthand that many people understand,
but it's essentially what so far industries have had to pay if they're still producing a lot of CO2.
So that's mostly just CO2.
It doesn't include methane or other kind of byproducts as much.
It's not taxed as heavily.
So it's mostly these really CO2 intensive industries.
And so things like big power plants have been paying into it for quite some time.
There are some other industries which have had free allowances,
which are only now beginning to have to pay into it.
So that will also change the dynamics a bit.
And then this is where it led us to ETS2,
which I think we will get into later or now,
if you want.
Yeah,
yeah,
yeah.
Now I would like to get into why the fund is financed through EU ETS,
this kind of revenue.
Why does it come from this pocket rather than the EU budget?
In many ways,
it does affect the political attention,
right?
Or even the accountability.
But even the way decisions are taken at the national level,
the national governments have a lot to say about this fund,
right?
Yeah,
so I mean,
the concept behind the whole carbon tax was that we,
you know,
ideally prevent and push forward the transition from CO2-intensive industries.
And with that money,
help.
bring that transition about.
So using the money that,
you know,
to help get a jumpstart.
So it could have been some of this money that the ETS revenues goes to national budgets already.
So that's happening across the EU.
And then some of it is going to this modernization fund.
Also the innovation fund as well.
Just so it's not all the revenue from the ETS that goes into this modernization fund.
Yeah,
no,
it's just a small percentage,
actually.
Okay.
How much?
I don't have enough at the tip of my tongue,
but I believe it's under 5%.
But then some of the member states can even reallocate their own emission revenues to the modernization fund.
So they can even top up their own modernization fund that they get from the EU.
Because every member state has a set amount of money in the modernization fund.
So it's like their little pocket of money.
but then they need to request it even.
So it's not as if the countries have to compete amongst each other.
Okay.
So the countries have kind of decided where the priority investments were to go.
I mean,
in theory,
it should go to support renewables,
energy efficiency,
grids,
district heating modernization,
and overall the just transition,
right?
Yet a large share of funding has gone to gas,
waste incineration,
and biomass.
How did this happen within the existing rules?
So within the rules of the modernization fund,
there's two different kind of piles,
let's say.
There's the priority funding and the non-priority funding.
The non-priority funding,
it doesn't have as good of a status within there.
So it can only,
I think,
fund 30%
of the investment,
of a total project's investment.
And that can be used for almost anything.
Whereas the priority,
it should be really things for climate action.
However,
that's based on the current EU legislation.
And now that can include the conversion from coal to gas CHPs,
combined heat and power plants.
Because any time you're phasing out of coal,
you will get an emissions reduction.
It's the worst of the worst.
So it's,
you know,
if you stop eating McDonald's and still are eating frozen pizza,
it's still better than the McDonald's.
So,
OK.
No offense against McDonald's.
Yeah,
yeah.
I'll have them at cafe when needed.
But because there's this kind of need for speed to decarbonize,
even if it's converting coal to gas,
it's within the current legislation.
Okay.
Even though eventually gas will also have to be gas CHPs,
gas power plants will have to pay into the ETS.
So it's a bit like...
the snake eating its own tail that the whole idea is to transition away that you wouldn't have to pay ets revenues but yeah so it's in this kind of stranded investments right they are investing in something that is locking uh they will have to pay for it in uh in a few years time so that's uh quite not to mention the price of gas i mean fluctuating and i mean all of that that we've lived through so uh it's
a really short-sighted
technological switch from coal to gas isn't as complicated as going to renewables.
So I think that's what's driving a lot of it,
but it's really short-sighted and a missed opportunity.
Yeah,
so there's a big governance issue.
So member states design and propose projects,
and the Commission and the European Investment Bank assess them.
There are clearly some accountability gap.
in this process since they've been validating some stranded investments.
Is it because they are based on what you said,
the current legal framework that allows it to happen,
right?
Or what are the issues,
right?
So there's many diagnoses,
I think,
that can be made of this issue.
I think one that's quite clear is that this is the last EU fund that can fund a lot of these fossil-based power plants.
And we even see that some of the projects that are proposed are ones that were rejected by the cohesion fund or residential recovery funds because they have stricter criteria.
It's much more of a back and forth process,
whereas the modernization fund,
it's quicker.
So what will usually happen is the national government will
proposed to the to DG Klima either schemes or projects.
So schemes can be for many different projects or just single singular projects.
And from there,
then they go back,
let's say,
so if it's a scheme,
then they'll do an open call for then plans to or whomever,
whatever the scheme is for to apply.
However,
in the designing of these schemes and projects,
it's,
I think,
What we've heard,
it's only anecdotally,
but...
quite systematically,
it seems,
is that they're being built with these major utilities,
like really discussing it before they even go to Brussels.
So because these are major utilities,
then smaller renewable operators,
they're not in the discussion at all and be excluded.
And so this is definitely a transparency governance issue.
And then,
yeah,
we see also the architecture in every member state is very different.
There's no systematic kind of.
baseline of what needs to be done in terms of if there's monitoring committees,
how civil society can be involved,
how renewables or SMEs can be involved.
So it's really just done on an ad hoc basis.
You have some monitoring committees in some countries,
but a lot of times it's really just like a fig leaf.
So they're going to have been really able to play a really impactful role.
And we've heard from,
yeah,
many renewable operators that
that they're excluded completely or it's too complicated or they apply and they were rejected.
Wow.
Oh,
yeah.
I mean,
I totally understand why you work on this issue and try to bring attention to this huge problem.
I mean,
it's not only a financial problem and the problem of public finance and how the public money is spent,
but it's also a question of something,
yeah.
powers,
pun intended,
at place.
So yeah,
the fact that there is little,
in certain cases,
that there is little public oversight or that's extremely worrying is not playing in favor of,
you know,
the EU and how the EU's image as a champion for climate and clean energy development.
For sure.
And I mean,
it's how some of the rules are applied.
It's even a bit scattered.
And like,
for instance,
like the do no significant harm principle,
which is supposed to,
you know,
help improve projects that the EU is funding.
And so,
for instance,
do no significant harm is very clear that it shouldn't fund waste incineration.
And so the application of it is from this year,
or sorry,
last year,
from 2025,
but we still waste incineration.
it's still at least being proposed to the Modernization Fund.
Whether it will be completely excluded,
we'll see.
But,
I mean,
the European Commission was quite clear about it.
It cited waste incineration as an exact example of the do no,
it's a given and harm principle.
Yeah,
and,
you know,
I live in Italy,
and a few years ago,
there was this enormous scandal because there was to be built a...
an incident like wasting an insulator close to Rome and that made the government fall.
So there was a lot of scrutiny over something.
Sincerely,
I don't know anything about waste but whenever I was reading the news,
it was very clear that there was a either or discussion.
It was extremely polarized and now you tell us that is a kind of thing that shouldn't be funded at all.
That makes it even scarier.
For sure.
I mean,
waste is one of these things.
I mean,
it's that,
you know,
if people are relying on this for their heat source,
you will always need waste.
And so you have many waste incineration facilities that have to import their waste.
I mean,
this is clearly unsustainable.
You have to be bringing trucks of waste from even other countries.
How it's managed,
it's very complicated and you need to have eyes on the ground.
So
I don't really think the EU is also ready for such a level of bureaucratic oversight.
Yeah,
yeah,
yeah.
Well,
among our listeners,
if you are specialized in waste and waste treatment,
I would love to hear from you because that's definitely a blind spot in this podcast.
So yeah,
please contact me.
I've got some people for you,
Marie.
Don't worry.
Okay.
Please put me in touch with them.
That will be lovely.
Thank you so much.
But if you work on waste,
please contact me anyway.
I would love to hear from the listeners.
Don't be shy.
Okay.
So now let's move on to
ETS2.
ETS2,
Emission Trading System 2.
It will put a carbon price on fuels used in buildings and transport.
But its start has been delayed due to social concerns,
quote unquote.
From your perspective,
how should the modernization fund be used now to prepare systems and households for ETS2?
Or if you want to clarify ETS2 first,
you can go in that direction.
Yeah,
so I mean,
I think you did a good setup,
but just to...
It's just now extending the sort of carbon tax to also include homes and transport.
And so in the heating side of things to also include gas boilers.
Because,
I mean,
the reality is,
is if you are a district heating consumer and your district heating comes from.
power plant that is using coal and even gas,
you're paying ETS1 already,
depending on how your district heating company allocates the cost.
But a lot of times that cost is being passed on to the consumer.
And a lot of times you can't choose if you're on district heating or not,
and you can disconnect if you want or not.
So the idea is to make it fair.
And if you have a gas boiler,
you should also be contributing.
However,
As you mentioned already,
it was delayed because it became quite a political hot potato that no one wanted to have in their hands.
And yeah,
it became very,
very politically toxic,
especially the country I live in,
the Czech Republic.
It was a very strong message from the current prime minister during his election campaign last year that it won't happen.
And it's not just the Czech Republic,
I think.
it was
Quite similar across the sea region.
So,
yeah,
it became,
I don't want higher bills for my heating.
Yeah.
Yeah,
and this kind of concerns also were also very much in the making during the yellow vest,
let's say,
campaigns in France a few years ago as well.
So there,
as you said,
a lot of hot potatoes.
But as we also mentioned,
they are hot potatoes because the modernization fund has been financing things that will be accountable and under ETS too,
right?
So now,
how should this fund be used to better prepare for ETS?
Yes.
So,
I mean,
there's also what we said.
I mean,
there has been part of,
so back to the modernization fund.
Parts of it have been going to energy efficiency and to electrifying transport.
Very little has gone to electrifying heat,
but transport,
yes.
So those are the good things.
I mean,
building renovation,
it's the hungry,
hungry hippo.
It will eat everything around it.
So there's,
I think,
no limit to how much you can invest in that.
But still,
we don't see the projects really expediting the building renovation wave.
the level it needs to be,
especially for deep renovations,
which is really what's necessary if you want to,
I don't know,
switch your gas boiler to a heat pump or to prepare a building for low temperature district heating,
which can be based off of renewables.
So what we would really encourage member states,
especially those that are receiving the modernization fund,
is to be applying for these kind of energy efficiency projects and to really get the ground running on that.
Because also the modernization fund,
it's really been underspent so far.
The absorption rate hasn't been very high.
In some countries,
the checks have been quite quick,
but many of the rest,
it's really behind.
And you see like Hungary,
Latvia,
some countries have barely even touched it.
So there's still lots of money available.
And this seems especially given that the member states decided they need one more year.
well,
have some energy efficiency schemes in place to help these households prepare for this new tax and hopefully avoid the worst of it.
Yeah.
Why has it been underspent so far?
What kind of bottlenecks are there?
I mean,
what we hear over and over again from the different managing authorities is a lack of capacity.
is that it's a big fund and they just don't have enough people in the ministries to help disperse it or apply for it.
And they don't have this infrastructure to,
I think,
also run the calls that would make it very easy.
Because we also hear that a lot of projects are rejected.
And we don't know.
So we also don't know what the applications are.
We just know what's awarded.
But if,
you know,
renewable...
producers are being excluded,
those are the kind of projects that would probably be easily approved.
But if a lot of these countries don't have,
you know,
good examples and have,
you know,
already schemes or projects in place that can just be replicated,
then it's starting from scratch.
So it's a whole new ballgame for them.
Yeah,
it seems like the kind of playbook where you have a tool that has been designed for...
ease of use it's still too complicated for the organization the let's say the local governance and the administration that don't know how to apply for it so some businesses are coming in maybe some incumbent businesses some fossil businesses and saying we're going to do the application for you and
that manage they manage to unlock everything and that they get it approved
Yeah,
a lot of these are projects they've had in their files for a while.
Now they're just like,
okay,
here's the pot of money we've been looking for.
So yeah,
I mean,
it's definitely a question of capacity.
The open mouths get fed.
Yeah,
yeah.
So what needs changing?
I mean,
you've been saying that there have been so many wrong solutions that have been validated.
So...
carbon pricing is expanding,
what needs changing?
And is there a timeline for things to change?
ASAP,
of course.
But I think on all levels,
but even just the kind of stuff we can do tomorrow is capacity building on the national levels of how to build like schemes for geothermal,
for instance,
or heat pumps.
These are things that we have examples from other countries.
Whether it be France,
the
Fond Chaleur,
which is often cited as a good example,
taking some,
you know,
pieces of that.
Also,
yeah,
something like geothermal,
which is also a big regulatory change that's needed.
So,
yeah,
capacity on how to change that to,
you know,
make sure the mining and the water codes are not being prohibitive for exploration of this technology.
And,
yeah,
I mean,
it would be great to have some earmarking.
or whether it's minimums for energy efficiency or some really regret-free technologies like heat storage.
I mean,
heat storage,
it's something that's kind of plug and play,
and it's usually pretty regretless,
and it can be done even without a whole overhaul of a new energy system for heating.
You are giving me some very good ideas for...
organization and people who could really talk about this different geothermal.
We never had geothermal on the barge.
And yeah,
heat storage,
that would be really interesting.
If you know some people,
that would be nice.
Who should be providing this capacity building,
Morgan?
Anyone who will.
I've been,
I think,
on a tour of institutions asking,
you know,
and it's,
I think,
yeah,
DG Klima,
DG Inner,
you know,
if they want to help with these kinds of
technical assistance things.
They already have programs in place.
The EIB,
they also have programs.
I have experience with this.
JASPRs,
ELENA,
et cetera.
So they have it.
It's just,
these are not sitting within the modernization fund territory,
but it exists.
And yeah,
I mean,
I think that's also one thing we hear from on the ground is that they have to be very careful about not double dipping into any EU.
funds.
So if you get something from just transition fund,
then you don't try to match it with the modernization fund because Brussels doesn't like that.
Maybe what is being said,
being complimentary.
So making sure that
I think municipalities and companies can do that in a way that's a little easier,
I think would probably be helpful for upping up the spending level,
at least,
of course,
with protections.
But then something like that,
if you're getting technical assistance from.
Yeah.
the commission or eib then it shouldn't be complementary not instead of yeah no but uh you know i've been working on the new european the house facility oh yes yeah which is also something that aims to build on other initiatives and i
mean the modernization is of course about energy but i really see some some connections that could be made there towards like you know
Whenever we talk infrastructure,
whenever we talk housing,
I mean,
there is a strong emphasis on people who are facing energy hardship or energy vulnerable and so on.
So there could be discussions out there as well,
right?
For sure.
I mean,
and we have quite a serious housing crisis in Europe.
So also
I see that,
you know,
building new housing,
it can also be sort of a sandbox playground for innovative heating solutions.
that.
But these can be,
I mean,
these technologies are there,
they're out there,
they exist in Europe.
I mean,
in Denmark,
it's probably leading it,
but across Scandinavia.
But it's not just,
you know,
a Danish fairy tale.
It can be done elsewhere.
Like,
I have a favorite example from Estonia where they,
so,
you know,
they have many of these prefabricated buildings from the Soviet era.
And so to help insulate these buildings and modernize them.
They started making prefabricated parts.
So it's kind of like Lego pieces they just like put on the buildings.
Okay.
And yeah.
And they use local manufacturers.
And it's a really kind of plug-and-play solution.
And there's lots of pre-complicated buildings across
Europe. So this can be replicated and done in a way that can be...
Because I think also with building renovation,
we miss a lot of big,
sexy ideas that are really exciting.
Yeah,
it's just like,
oh,
construction work.
I don't want construction work.
Yeah,
exactly.
But if you're like,
you get excited by a new kitchen or a new bathroom,
but you never get excited by insulation work,
right?
No.
And I mean,
yeah,
when you see construction work,
be excited.
It can be energy efficiency.
Yeah,
yeah.
I think,
you know,
my dream would be to see,
yeah,
participate in a...
a TV show where it's not only about choosing the color of the tiles,
but really about making the home as efficient as possible and something like a competition between different families,
different countries,
different whatever,
to get the more energy-efficient home.
And over years,
we've found out how people actually live in their home streets.
And even a very efficient one,
but sometimes,
you know,
it doesn't live up to the expectation.
So I think we also need some accountability as well.
So,
yeah,
maybe the EU would be interested in financing this kind of things.
Yeah,
and it can also,
I mean,
like households,
but also schools.
I mean,
things where,
you know,
you have schools that are probably sitting empty for at least one month a year,
maybe two months.
I don't know,
and the teachers come back and do their planning or whatever.
But these kinds of things,
which can be done in mass,
and it is coming from the state,
etc.
So there's public buildings.
I mean,
homes,
this is the hardest thing to touch.
But there's other things as well.
And I mean,
schools is also great because then you can get the students involved and show them why it's important.
And yeah,
there's lots of nice little examples and stories of that,
which are good.
Little kids with solar panels and heat pumps,
it's always a good image.
The good thing with the heat pumps is that they may also be reversible and work in the summer.
So summer energy parity is a topic
I focus a lot on.
And
I think the examples you gave about systems that only heat and don't really think about cooling,
I think there are also
mistaken because they don't,
they are not kind of future-proof.
And there are now more and more examples of district heating and cooling systems.
And that would probably be some avenues for development and funding.
For sure.
And district cooling,
I mean,
this reaches out to my Florida girl heart.
Yeah.
Air conditioning is something that is a...
health necessity.
And it's getting to be more and more in Europe as well.
But I mean,
also one thing about district cooling,
there's a lot of great examples and it's also in unexpected places.
I mean,
Paris is famous for it.
And I mean,
it's done in really historic buildings.
It's in the Louvre,
it's in the
City Hall,
it's
Galerie Lafayette.
But that's it.
So something like Galerie Lafayette,
that's a commercial property.
There are lots of hotels.
So it's also
I think it can also be financially interesting for a lot of companies because once you're selling to business,
it's also a different ballgame and can be more profitable.
But a lot of times they need these commercial properties first and then they can do the residential because it's quite expensive to do the residential.
But
I think it's also just something that,
I mean,
once you think about not having air finishers everywhere,
what a great thing.
They're noisy.
They're a little...
big,
they're ugly.
I mean,
to have no rooftops covered in air conditioners,
great.
Yeah,
as an American,
that's a very encouraging thinking.
Oh,
yeah.
So,
Morgan,
one very final last question.
If you had,
say,
one suggestion for organizations who would like to get money from this modernization fund,
what would that tip be?
Well,
I think it's as simple as finding out who is administrator of the funds and start a conversation with them.
And if it doesn't go anywhere,
well,
you can give BankWatch a call and we can see what else is happening.
I think it's just also about keeping your eyes open and making these kind of discussions because it's usually it's not.
big giant teams working with these funds usually.
So I think it can be a lot more personable than maybe it seems from the get-go,
especially on the national level.
But I think also the fact that it's not a very well-known fund isn't helping expand the interest and transparency.
So
I mean,
as the ETS-1 will be under review this year,
I hope also the modernization fund will get a bit more light shined on it
And also with the discussions ongoing about the ETS2.
So yeah,
but it's not a very crowded field of,
let's say,
practitioners looking into the modernization funds.
So any interest is very welcome and happy to continue the conversation and hopefully do things like capacity building.
Excellent.
Thank you so much,
Borgen.
I learned a lot.
That was really great.
you
Thank you so much.
And I will put your contact in the show notes as well so that people,
if they want to contact you and know more about this,
how to use this money for smart investments and not surrendered investments,
yeah,
that will be the way to go.
I love when our little podcast can have an impact.
Great.
Yeah.
Thanks so much for having me.
Thank you for tuning in to another episode of Energetic.
It's been a pleasure diving deep into the world of sustainability and the just energy transition with some of the most forward-thinking mouths out there.
I'm Maureen Cornelis,
your host from Policy Consultancy and X-Energy Consumer.
And it's been an incredible journey growing this podcast together with you,
our knowledgeable and passionate listeners.
Since 2021,
we've shared countless stories,
insights,
and ideas over more than 40 episodes.
And it's all thanks to your support and enthusiasm.
If you enjoyed our journey so far and want to help us keep the conversation going,
why not support us on Patreon?
Every bit helps us bring more inspiring content your way.
Check out the show notes for the link.
And hey,
if you're a part of an organization that shares our passion for a sustainable and inclusive energy future,
we're excited to explore sponsorship opportunities with you.
It's a fantastic way to connect with a dedicated audience and make an even bigger impact together.
Shout out to the fantastic
Igor Mikhailovich from Podcast Media Factory for his incredible sound design work,
making every episode a joy to listen to.
If you haven't already,
make sure to subscribe to Energetic on your favorite podcast platform.
And if you think a friend or a colleague could benefit from our episode,
we'd love for you to spread the word.
It helps us grow and keep the energy transition conversation alive.
Sharing is caring.
Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn to stay engaged and update on all things energetic.
Thanks once again for lending your ears.
Until next time.
I need you.
I'm not gonna.
I'm taking your attention.
I'm not gonna leave you.