Nelson Ng : Okay, great. Just one more question on California. So right now you have the Coso 1 and Coso 2 battery storage. You have the 150-megawatt overnight storage project, that’s also in California. Then now you have the Imperial project. So, can you just provide a bit of timeline or color on the timeline and maybe any color on the total cost of these three projects?
Santiago Seage : Yeah, so in terms of timing, the two Coso battery projects are under construction and construction should be over by the end of this year Q1 ’25. And Overnight and Imperial, in both cases, as you know PPAs have been signed. They are very advanced and should be starting construction between the end of this year, early next year. Depending on a number of things, but it would take — construction would happen mostly in 2025 and ‘26. But that’s more or less the timing. In terms of total investment, you have the numbers in our disclosure. I don’t have them in front of me at this point in time, so if you want to follow up with Investor Relations, but it’s in the disclosure.
Nelson Ng : Okay, great. I’ll look that up. And then just finally, can you just provide a bit more color on the funding plan? Obviously, capital recycling could be part of the solution, but any additional details on your funding plan? Obviously, capital recycling could be part of the solution, but any additional details on your funding plan? I guess one question is, will those three projects have project level non-recourse debt?
Francisco Martinez-Davis: Yes, Nelson. This is Francisco. Good morning. One of the good things as you know is, since we signed a very good PPA for this project and are contracted, that allows us to put leverage on them on a non-recourse basis at the project level. Capital recycling is another source of capital. We also have part of the CAFD that would generate in the future, and we also have some leverage capacity at our holding company. So if you combine those four, those would be the sources of funding. Santiago mentioned that’s at 2025 and ‘26 in some particular cases ‘24 for the coastal batteries, but we plan to use those levers Nelson.
Nelson Ng : Great, thanks. I’ll leave it there.
Operator: Thank you. The next question goes to Angie Storozynski of Seaport. Angie, please go ahead, your line is open.
Angie Storozynski : Good morning. So I understand you don’t want to talk about the strategic review, so maybe more generally about M&A transactions we have seen over the last couple of months. It does seem like there is quite a discrepancy in multiples that are being paid for development companies versus existing assets. I mean, we’ve heard of low teens in EV2 EBITDA multiples for developers versus given sub 8x for standalone renewable assets. And I’m just wondering why do you think that is and how is that all – it could apply to your valuation, which seems to more resemble that of a single asset? Thank you.
A – Santiago Seage : Thank you, Angie. I’m not familiar enough with the situations you described and the reason for the different valuations you were mentioning. Obviously in our sector, interest rates play a significant role, but I wouldn’t be able to elaborate a lot regarding the examples you have mentioned. Obviously we are aware of the transactions in the sector, but we typically do not spend too much time trying to understand valuations.
Angie Storozynski : Okay, but how about the fact that you managed to buy these wind assets in the UK at such low multiples? I mean, you sort of alluded to that, that those are middle of the market types of deals that might be coming at attractive multiples, but overall just wondering if that is indicative of basically the value of your existing assets given that you can buy assets at such low multiples.
Santiago Seage : Yeah, so specifically in that case or in general in what I told before, the middle part of the market, I would say that competition is lower than in the market you were describing before. So in certain situations we are able to find opportunities at multiples that we believe are attractive for us. I wouldn’t try to draw too many conclusions. I mean the market of purchasing a $65 million asset is very different from some of the examples you are describing. And obviously in order to find a situation like that, in our case, we had to look at many situations. Actually in the UK, because of the fact that we have NOLs locally, we have been looking for opportunities to invest for a long time and until now we have not found a situation with numbers attractive enough. So I wouldn’t say that it’s easy to find a $60 million asset in the UK at the multiple we shared with you. In our case, we had to turn around many, many stones.
Angie Storozynski : Okay, and then changing topics a little bit, so the wind assets you guys bought in the U.S., those were expiring PPAs. I mean, sort of an opportunistic timing here given that we have this run-up in forward power prices in the U.S., Texas in particular. Just wonder if that’s been impacting your decisions about repowering, maybe keeping some of these assets merchant for longer to capture this improving power market fundamental.
A – Santiago Seage : Yes, so yes. As you know, specifically the asset in Texas, at this point in time it’s merchant and part of the reason for keeping it merchant is because we thought and we think that we can benefit from, let’s say, more positive dynamics in the market. This doesn’t mean that we will want to have assets merchant forever, but short-term or tactically or opportunistically, we are happy with that exposure in those assets which are a very small percentage of our portfolio. At some point in time, we will be – we expect repowering, reinvesting in those assets. But again, depending on how the market evolves, one repowering or another might make more sense. It’s not only repowering with wind, you also have opportunities to repower with storage.
So we are trying to maintain that merchant exposure until we have a strong point of view regarding which repowering is the best. And again, we have a partner in these projects. So it takes two to tango and we need to make sure that we tango whenever we are both ready and we have a strong point of view regarding rising dynamics.
Angie Storozynski : Okay, thank you.
Operator: Thank you. The next question goes to Mark Jarvi of CIBC Capital Markets. Mark, please go ahead. Your line is open.
Mark Jarvi: Yeah, good morning everyone. So maybe Santiago, just coming back to that funding question, what would be the explicit plan for 2024? Just draw on the credit facilities or is there plan to actually issue corporate level debt?
Santiago Seage : We have the market, Francisco. As you know, I mean, our leverage is particularly low. We have different funding options and the one you mentioned is obviously one of the ones we’re considering.
