That being said, could you see smaller moves in the interim? Yes. And then your second question about extending the other resources that go through ‘27, not to minimize it really is those three sources. RA is the big part of it given pricing that we’re seeing, we hope it holds. And like the question I just answered, we’ll look to see what happens in the RFP processes kind of the spring and summer. M&A is obviously critical as well as the repowerings and further drop-downs with the 2026 and 27 COD. And once again, we hope to provide more color on those we progress through the year and we feel better about what capital those products are going to take, so on and so forth. It’s a little bit early now to do that.
Justin Clare: Got it, okay, I appreciate it. And then I did want to ask about the non-recourse that’s principle amortization schedule. It looks like the amount in 2024 that is expected moved up significantly, $1.7 billion, I think last quarter of the expectation is $432 million. So, could you just maybe walk us through the change there and help us understand that?
Chris Sotos: Sarah, let me get the schedule for a second.
Sarah Rubenstein: The projects under construction.
Chris Sotos: You got it. Go ahead, Sarah, why don’t you just answer.
Sarah Rubenstein: Yes, so we had several projects that we, thank you, that we acquired. I think you can see Victory Pass and Arica is the biggest piece of it, the 757, and then also the Rosie Class B. Those two amounts are for projects under construction. And so, once the construction is complete, that will get replaced by tax equity, cash equity, more permanent financing. So those maturities will go away as a result of other proceeds from other financing arrangements.
Justin Clare: Got it, okay, that make sense.
Chris Sotos: So, what we’re thinking about, the amortization on the existing project debt is about the same as it had before. That’s really just as the two projects move from construction debt to permanent financing.
Sarah Rubenstein: Yes, that’s right.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Noah Kaye with Oppenheimer & Company.
Noah Kaye: Okay, great, yes, they cut out for a second, but I just want to make sure I was in hold on. Thank you for taking the questions, folks. I think it goes a little bit to one of the earlier questions, but too soon to talk about, capital yield expectations for, some of these 2026, 2027 potential projects, anyway to dimension that. And in particular, I know, one of your peers has talked about kind of the return expectations for repower. So not sure if you can parse that out for us a bit.
Chris Sotos: Yes, be simple to your question. No, we think it’s too early. I think once again, if your question is, will it be eight? Probably not. But I think, if you look at where CAF deals and move, I think also, you’ve noticed that hopefully our sponsors have been supportive of moving CAF deals higher from where we first thought they would be given the move in tertiaries that happened. So if you look, I think it was probably August of 2022. We basically indicated CAF deals on some of these drops would be about eight and a half. And then we kind of moved them up in, I believe it was the fourth quarter of 2022, moved them up further in ‘23. So there’s a ceiling on that it’s not as though they can move them to infinity. So I think for us, not to minimize your question, it really is seeing where the capital markets out that time and where do we feel comfortable underwriting.
So it is too early to tell. And I think the projects are a little bit too early stage currently for everybody to feel good about the capital required and also what that cost of capital might be.
Noah Kaye: Yes. It’s good to see that, just from a sponsor development standpoint, I mean, the kind of quantity of projects for ‘24 and ‘25 looks fairly consistent quarter-to-quarter. I did notice what appears to be some shift of target CODs of ‘26 into ‘27. Anything we can understand or read into that, does it speak to IRA clarifications or kind of more perceptive in their connection bottlenecks, anything like that? May be a Craig question.
Chris Sotos: Yes, Craig, if you don’t mind.
Craig Cornelius : Yes, perceptive question, Noah. Yes, we, what that shift over ‘26 to ‘27 reflects principally is a plan for certain projects to be able to make use of domestic content solutions and conservatism and the way that we’re planning those project schedules based on when and how the guidance that’s required for being able to finance those solutions would materialize. But also just forecasting of project schedules in a way that we anticipate would be durable and also enabling of capitalization of the project by CWEN under foreseeable financial market conditions. So right now with respect to interconnection, we feel pretty solid about the family of projects that we are advancing that underpin the core of that 2026-2027 volume for CWEN growth enablement.
We have in excess of 15 gigawatts worth of late stage interconnection acute positions and many gigawatts worth of high voltage equipment that we’ve secured to be able to support the growth there in the mid-decade. So I think we’re not in a position where we’re particularly concerned about some of the grid bottlenecks that have broadly impacted the industry to be able to support growth goals for CWEN and instead right now as we’re prosecuting projects for that mid-decade are just focused on how to set projects up to maximize value to construct a portfolio that will be diversified and beneficial for CWEN and to set projects up for construction and funding schedules that provide us with useful flexibility for how and when the projects would be funded by CWEN.
