This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk00: ladies and gentlemen your conference will begin momentarily once again ladies and gentlemen please stand by your conference call will begin momentarily thank you for your patience Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Clearway Energy, Inc. First Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during this session, you will need to press star 1 on your telephone. Please be advised that today's conference may be recorded. If you require any further assistance, please press star then 0. I would now like to hand the conference over to your host today, Chris Sotos, President and CEO of Clearway Energy, Inc. Please go ahead.
spk01: Good morning. Let me first thank you for taking the time to join today's call. Joining me this morning is Akhil Marsh, Director of Investor Relations, Chad Plotkin, our Chief Financial Officer, and Craig Cornelius, President and CEO of Clearway Energy Group. Craig will be available for the Q&A portion of our presentations. Before we begin, I'd like to quickly note that today's discussion will contain forward-looking statements, which are based on assumptions that we believe to be reasonable as of this date. Actual results may differ materially. Please review the safe harbor in today's presentation, as well as the risk factors in RCC filings. In addition, we refer to both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. For information regarding our non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures, please refer to today's presentation. Turning to page four, first quarter results, which on a seasonal basis is the smallest contributor for the full year within our sensitivity range with CAFTI of negative 2 million for the quarter, which is historically our latest quarter for CAFTI generation due to the timing of debt payments and low renewable generation. Florida also increased its dividend by 2% to 0.3536 per share or 1.414 on an annualized basis thereby keeping us on track to deliver the upper end of our range in dividend growth objectives for the year. Importantly, our sale of the thermal business closed on May 1st with $1.35 billion of expected net proceeds, which after accounting for $600 million of previously committed growth investments, leaves Clearway with $750 million in capital available to be allocated. As a result of the thermal sale, we are revising our CAFTE guidance for 2022 to $365 million. Clearways Proforma CAFTI outlook remains on track, with less than $56 million of previously announced committed investments to fund, and with CODs on track for 2022 and 2023 as previously planned. When completed, these renewable assets will put Clearways Proforma CAFTI at $385 million, or $1.90 per share, with $750 million of unallocated capital remaining to be deployed. In working with our Clearway Group colleagues, we continue to advance the development projects that we have announced previously. I want to take a moment to address some of the concerns out in the market generally regarding supply chain challenges and other risks. The broader economy here in our country is, of course, grappling with dislocations in supply and increasing the cost for labor, commodities, and freight. Our electric power industry is no different. Uncertainties in the policy environment for renewable power certainly add to the dynamics that businesses like ours have to address. But amidst those pressures, we look at the business we have here in Fairway Energy, Inc., as one that is very well insulated from those complexities, leaving us very confident in our ability to fulfill the upper range of our long-term DPS goals strategy of 5% to 8% through 2026. But clearly, enterprise as a whole has the benefit during these times of having tremendous scale, diversification, and financial flexibility, which together put our integrated enterprise in a sweet spot generally, and especially in market conditions like these. We see this in the fact that Clearway Group has a pipeline that is large enough and diversified enough that can provide Clearway Energy Inc. with capital investment opportunities that will hold up across various market and policy scenarios. And because of its ownership interest in 85 million shares of CLIN, when Clearway Group builds projects, their goal is first how to meet the capital deployment needs we have while balancing providing our shareholders with strong capital accretion. This allows the entire enterprise, during volatile periods such as this, to flex the system to assure that C1 is able to invest at its targeted capital deployment levels and also its targeted returns. As well, Solar Group's development platform and its parentage in GIP are also large enough to command prioritization with suppliers and other stakeholders when complex situations arise. They bring to the procurement work a deep understanding of policy and global reach, which has led to supply chain strategies that are proving relatively resilient right now. And very importantly, the capital investment requirements we need to meet to drive our dividend per share growth requirements at Clearway Energy Inc. are substantial, but not so great that our sponsor can't be surgical about the choices it makes on supply chain. That is serving us well today, as our sponsor has been able to establish supply chains and project plans that are both policy resilient and redundant in their ability to enable our meeting the goals that we set for capital deployment. As a result of this, I'm pleased to announce an increase in the amount of capital we expect to deploy relative to Clearway Group's development projects to at least $300 million and an approximate 8.5% CAFTI yield. These development projects provide a strong start to the allocation of excess capital, giving Clearway Energy, Inc. confidence that it can achieve or beat the 215 CAFTI per share outlook when the $750 million in proceeds from the thermal sale are completely deployed. Turning to page five. Let me spend some time reemphasizing Clearway Group's approach to development and how the scale supports C1 as a whole. On the left side of the page, you can get a better view of Clearway Group's development scale. With over 22 gigawatts of development projects, an increase of three gigawatts since last quarter, it is diversified among wind, solar, and batteries. with 6.7 gigawatts of late-stage development. While execution of this pipeline will benefit from rational policy decision-making on trade and could be accelerated through enactment of clean energy tax credits that are currently being advanced through Congress, the pipeline is robust and can enable growth for Clearway Energy Inc. across a spectrum of policy scenarios. Those of you who have been longer-term investors in Clearway, it is important to note that Clearway Group's pipeline is five times larger than at the time of GIP's investments. To elaborate further, Facts and circumstances make us confident that we are positioned to deploy the $56 million in committed capital we have planned for investment into Millie Alley 1, Iowa, and Daggett Solar during 2022 and 2023 because of their status in construction and because the supply chain is being used to fulfill the projects. First and foremost, With respect to the projects being constructed in Hawaii, those projects received their panel supply prior to the commencement of the investigation and are now advancing into commissioning and will be completed this year, all without being subject to the risk of duties arising out of the Commerce Department's inquiry. And second, with respect to Daggett, the project makes use of a supply chain designed to enable use of US-made polysilicon processing that polysilicon into wafers, cells, and modules, with each step occurring outside of China. The scope of the anti-circumvention petition did not target a supply chain of this configuration, a fact affirmed in a memo issued earlier this week on May 2nd by the Commerce Department, in which it said that the modules made with wafers produced outside of China were not subject to the inquiries. While the CODs for Daggett's two phases have been extended by six months into 2023, The extension enabled the establishment of the supply chain, which we're pleased to be able to utilize. Moving to the right side of the slide and looking ahead to the next wave of growth we are planning with our sponsor, we believe should prove similarly resilient. The community solar funds that we now hold an option to invest in are fully operational or being constructed with solar modules already in the country today. And across the range of subsequent projects that CLOE group has planned for Texas Food Expansion, expansion of our portfolio in KISO, WEC, and PJM, is advancing projects that make use of both wind and solar technologies, providing diversification against policy risk, and also has secured redundant module supplies for producers whose manufacturing footprint includes supply chain options that are outside of the scope of the Commerce Department's investigation as is presently defined. As noted, these investments will have a weird average contract tenor of 18 years and will total at least $300 million of capital deployment and an average 8.5% CAFTE and approximate 8.5% CAFTE yield. We are working with Clearway Group to arrange succession of financial closings for these drop-downs over the forthcoming months, with the majority of those planned for the next six months. Importantly, the range of projects and flexibility on capital structures They can deploy. It reinforces our confidence that $300 million capital deployment goal can be met. And if the right policy choices on trade are ultimately made by the administration, and we are able to see new clean energy tax credits enacted, we would anticipate the ability to deploy substantially more capital into this family of projects with a corresponding increase in the CAF data that they will generate over time. In summary, FOA Group's development scale and flexibility provides CLIN with transparent and core growth strategy driving CAFTI per share growth into the future, and we are optimistic about what the outlook holds for seedland shareholders. Turning to page six. Page six updates our progress to the 215 of CAFTI per share as we deploy the 750 million of excess cash proceeds. Given the increase from 250 million to at least 300 million that we foresee in our latest potential drop-downs from Clearway Group, we now see that we have line of sight to 26 million of additional CAFTI versus 21 million of CAFI that we presented last quarter, or $2.04 of CAFI per share when allocated, with still $450 million of proceeds remaining. Over the next several quarters, we look forward to increasing the deployment of capital and achieving or exceeding the 215 by this time next year. With that, I will turn it over to Chad. Chad?
spk06: Thank you, Chris. And turning to slide eight. Today, Clearway is reporting first quarter adjusted EBITDA of $260 million in cash available for distribution, or CAFI, of negative $2 million, an amount within the company's expected quarterly sensitivity range. During the quarter, the company's conventional segment performed in line with expectations. For renewables, the utility-scale solar portfolio performed well, as overall conditions led to production 6% over expectations. However, this was offset by more challenging operational conditions at our wind portfolio, which impacted results during the quarter. Overall, while first quarter CAPD results were at the lower end of the company's target quarterly sensitivity range, we note that due to the seasonality of our portfolio, the first quarter is generally a small contributor to full-year results. As previously discussed, due to the original uncertainty of when the thermal transaction would close, 2022 CAPD guidance was originally established as if CWIN owned the thermal business for the full year. With the thermal sale now complete, we are updating our 2022 CAPTI guidance to $365 million, which no longer factors in the expected contribution from the thermal business beginning in May of this year. As a reminder, 22 CAPD guidance continues to assume the achievement of full-year P50 renewable performance and does not factor in the full contribution from existing committed growth investments, which informs the expected $385 million in pro forma CAPD that Chris referenced earlier. For further information as it relates to the seasonality expectations of the portfolio and the timing of expected CAPD realization from our growth investments, please refer to the appendix section of today's presentation. Turning to the balance sheet, adhering to our long-term credit metrics while maintaining flexibility and how we fund growth continues to be core to our overall business strategy. As discussed on our previous quarterly calls, due to the timing of when we expected to receive the net proceeds from the thermal sale relative to when we needed to finance committed growth investments, we require temporary financing to bridge the company's capital needs. Now with the thermal sale complete, we have fully repaid the outstanding $640 million in short-term borrowings as of the end of the first quarter, which included the $305 million under the revolver and the $335 million bridge loan used to fund the acquisition of the remaining interest in the Utah solar portfolio. With these repayments, The company's pro forma credit metrics are now back in line with long-term targets. There are no cash borrowings under the revolver, and the company has virtually no interest rate exposure as 99% of our consolidated long-term debt is fixed with the earliest corporate maturity in 2028. With the strength of our balance sheet and the excess $750 million in proceeds from the thermal sale, CWIN now has unprecedented flexibility to execute on its long-term objectives and as significant growth can be achieved without requiring capital market access while also maintaining our balance sheet targets. Now I'll turn the call back to Chris for closing remarks.
spk01: Thank you, Jen. Turning to page 10. Our goals for the year are simple. First, to achieve our financial and operational commitments. We have closed the thermal transaction. We are on track to hit our revised CAFTI guidance for the year. and we intend to increase our dividend at the upper range of our long-term 5% to 8% DPS growth target. As we discussed during this presentation, we and our colleagues at Clearway Group are focused on allocating our excess capital to new drop-down assets and providing greater visibility to the achievement of the 215 in CAFD per share when deployed. And finally, we continue to engage in discussions to hedge our natural gas assets with the emphasis on El Segundo. In conclusion, I think overall the first quarter is what we want about execution, and moving forward with our growth plans. And I think we've made a great start to the year. Operator, please open the line for questions.
spk00: Thank you. If you have a question at this time, please press star then 1 on your touchtone telephone. If your question has been answered or you wish to remove yourself from the queue, please press the pound key. And our first question comes from the line of Julian Dolman-Smith with Bank of America. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk03: Hey, good morning, team. Thanks for the time and the opportunity to connect. I hope you guys are doing well. couple of questions here. First off, you know, congrats on the thermal sale here. Just curious a little bit more if you can elaborate on how you're thinking about redeployment proceeds, timeline, et cetera. Just what does that marketplace look like at present? How much does the, you know, the trade and development activity impairments, you know, impact at all your ability to look at other assets that are already operating here? I mean... curious on the timeline now that you've got the cash in hand. How long are we going to need to wait? And then I'll just throw the second question, a brief clarification. Just what were the operational issues just tied to wind that you alluded to a second ago, Chad?
spk01: Sure. Thanks, Julian. I'll take the first one, and then I'll let Chad kind of take the second, obviously. To your first question, as usual, a couple pieces to unpack in your questions, Julian. But, you know, for part one, basically the timing of it will be that $300 million will kind of be spent in conjunction with development projects. So I would say over 22, 23, and 24. In terms of the deployment of the remainder of that capital, we're working to deploy it, frankly, now. We'll see how kind of all that goes. But I think for us, we definitely want to make sure that we can come to a conclusion. But I would say by this time next year, When we've had calls previously, I kind of said, you know, if after a year of trying to deploy capital we haven't found a use for it, that would then make sense to return to shareholders. So I think for our view, you know, we intend to deploy the capital by kind of this time next year and see where we end up. But, Chad, for Julian's second question.
spk06: Yeah, sure, Julian. I mean, if you look at some of the data in the appendix, Julian, I'd say there were certain instances in the quarter where resource was not optimal to what our expectations were. We also had some availability challenges of some of the assets, say, in Texas and the Midwest when we had some of the icing that happened in February and early March, which pushed down availability and then obviously would push down revenue capture as well. Those were, you know, a couple of the core items that I would say impacted the wind assets during the quarter.
spk03: And, Chris, just going back to what you said a second ago, I mean, you flagged, you know, after a year you might return it to shareholders here. Again, that's certainly not the core expectation here. Right, again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. I just want to make sure I heard you right there.
spk01: Julian, the goal is to deploy the capital in the most efficient way as possible. If the Great Depression hits and the stock hits 17, we might have a different view. But I think given where we sit right now, the focus is on redeploying it into other assets.
spk03: Got it. And at risk of pushing a tad further, Chris, Any evolving focus, you know, as you think about wind and solar versus the litany of other asset classes within, you know, energy transition? Just curious if the setting expectations early, if you guys are looking at anything more novel.
spk01: I don't think anything in particular, Julian. And once again, I don't think the majority of those excess proceeds would be in a completely different asset class, if that's your question. Maybe at the margin, but very minimal, I would think.
spk03: All right. Excellent. Well, thank you, guys. Best of luck. We'll talk soon. Thank you.
spk00: Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of William Griffin with UBS. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk09: Good morning, and thank you. My first question, just on the commerce memo a couple of days ago, it appears to clarify that the duty rates, if any, ultimately end up being applied on Southeast Asian module imports. would be equal to the company's existing rate for imports from China. Do you think that potentially gives developers or manufacturers enough clarity now to kind of restart imports now that sort of that risk can actually be quantified?
spk01: Craig, why don't you take that one? You're probably in the best position. Yeah.
spk07: You know, first just to emphasize that same memo provided the clarity that I think uh, we were looking to see for the committed projects that were advancing into construction and that, uh, align with the $56 million worth of, uh, upcoming investments for C1 is noted before. So I think at least as far as our company is concerned, that's more of a question about, uh, the environment for, for future projects. Uh, just, just to, to state that unequivocally, um, But for the broader industry's context, I think our perspective is that the Commerce Department in that memo was looking to do something helpful to the industry and trying to create a ceiling that people could look to as a basis for structuring financing so projects could commence construction with an understanding of how high the potential duty load might go. But as the broader landscape of industry participants has consulted with each other over the course of the last couple of days, I think our collective perspective remains the same, which is that we're grateful for that helpful gesture, but the fundamental revisiting of what product definition is within the scope of the inquiry, we still believe to be unlawful. And the focus for the Commerce Department really should be on getting to a prompt negative determination in that inquiry, which we believe to be inconsistent with both law and prior precedent. And I think that's really where the focus needs to remain for the Commerce Department, because the spectrum of potential duty levels that are produced by that, the fact that some wafer producers have no corresponding company-specific tariff rate because they don't also make solar cells and modules means that it is helpful but not really what the industry requires in order to achieve the kind of growth that the economy needs and that also is needed to help the climate goals.
spk09: Understood. Okay. And my last question here is just on the 8.5% target yield on the reinvestment of the $300 million. I'm curious, to what extent is that based on your ongoing discussions versus perhaps just conservative assumptions, particularly here in light of the rising rate environment?
spk01: Sure. I think it's really the rising rate environment I don't think is translated precisely through where a marginal bid is externally for assets. That may take some time. So if your question is, boy, should we expect to really do that much better than the 8.5, especially on the development drop-downs from CEG, I don't think that's a good working assumption. The 8.5 is kind of taking into account where those projects are and the economics of them. I don't think you're going to see a very elastic curve, so to speak, with the movements you're seeing in Treasury directly translatable to higher cap yields here in the very, very short term, if that's your question.
spk09: Very clear. All right, that's it for me. Thanks very much. Sure.
spk00: Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Colton Bean with Tudor Pickering and Holt. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk10: Good morning. Chris, I think you just touched on this in terms of valuation impacts, but I guess just broadly for the third-party M&A market. Can you describe the level of activity you're seeing there and the opportunity set that you see for that remaining $450 million? It doesn't sound like we've seen a shift in any valuations, but also would appreciate an update, if any.
spk01: Sure. I mean, I think to answer your question, Colton, there is a large amount of assets that are out there. I think obviously we do our own sourcing as well on a bilateral basis. And so from our view, we'll participate in auctions for assets that are out there where it makes sense. We'll also engage in bilateral. I think to your question around, are we seeing the move in treasuries, so to speak, move through in terms of a new bidding paradigm? Not to cheat your question, I think a little bit that remains to be seen. There haven't been a lot of bids lately that kind of have gone out to see if the move in treasuries and the like have actually moved the overall pricing of assets. So I think it's a little bit remains to be seen, but I think the one part to emphasize is we can really be patient in our capital deployment. It's not as though, you know, with the $450 million, we need to get it done in three months or something of that nature. So I think, you know, to kind of hold your question as well as some others, we're really going to take our time to make certain that we're investing in the appropriate assets that are quality assets and that appropriate returns. make sure that we can kind of grow for the long term because we have the flexibility of time and not needing to do something here in the next, you know, three, six months to kind of get the cash off our balance sheet. That's not the tone we're going to take.
spk10: Great. And then just on the development pipeline, any change to your approach in securing long lead items? Are you looking further afield maybe to earlier stage projects and starting those conversations a bit earlier than you otherwise would have? Yeah.
spk07: Yeah. Yeah, we've done that. I think I understand your question to be, are we securing major components for projects at an earlier juncture in a project's lifecycle than we might have historically in the industry? And the answer is yes. So, for example, for the projects that you see reference for the roughly two gigawatts worth of new drop-down opportunities on which we're focused today, we've secured the major components for all those projects. And in a past industry paradigm, that might not be the case. Generally speaking, as we're developing projects today, we are now looking to sign agreements that entitle us to the required components for a project at the same time that we're signing the revenue contracts that represent the bulk of the project's planned capacity. So we're doing that earlier. And I think that's best both for us and our off-takers because in an environment that is now inflationary and also, you know, over a 24-month interval, harder to predict in terms of evolution than the last decade was, for us and our customers, it's best for us to decide at the same time what the project's design and capital costs will be and to assure each other that we've reached an agreement on the revenues that we require for the project to be feasible. So, yeah, we're procuring earlier to enable that certainty and You know, I think one of the things that we enjoy in Clearway Group at the parent entity level is, you know, we have a very substantial balance sheet, and in our ultimate upstream parent, you know, a source of capital that is greater than we could ever really require. So when we can make rational decisions that help us advance a pipeline with more certainty than others, we're doing that. And we think that that kind of advantage is going to inure to us in the marketplace during the course of the next few years.
spk10: That's helpful. Appreciate the time.
spk00: Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Lippids with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk05: Hey, guys. Thank you for taking my questions. I have two that are kind of unrelated to each other. I apologize for that. Question number one is just broadly speaking, When you're looking at utility-scale solar and storage contracts today and what the PPA prices were, and also at wind contracts today of what the PPA prices are, and kind of just compare them to what they were 12 or 18 months ago, how big of a change? Like how much are PPA prices in the marketplace? And I know there's some uncertainty, obviously, with the Department of Commerce over Hank. But just curious, just on broader inflationary and supply chain trends, how much are PPA prices changing in the marketplace? Sure. Greg?
spk07: Yeah. Yeah, substantially. But what's interesting is that I think our customers, relative to the range of alternative sources of supply, still see financial benefit in those elevated PPA prices. And, of course... continue to have, you know, long run decarbonization goals that they're trying to meet. So, um, you know, I think, uh, you know, to put numbers to it, I mean, they're substantial. It's, you know, 15 to 30% increases in wind PPA rates over the space of the last 16 or six months in some areas. Um, uh, sort of resource adequacy contract pricing on battery deliveries for sort of the near term is up substantially higher than that in terms of percentage values. For solar PPA rates, again, they're up substantially higher than those percentage values. As you can appreciate, Michael, there's a variety of idiosyncrasies that come with resource and project location. But the bottom line is PPA prices are increasing, you know, between 15% and 50% roughly for vintages during the course of, say, the next 24 to 36 months. But they still offer, I think, relative to alternatives, a pretty favorable value proposition for customers. We've seen upward trends on RECs that are, even higher than those percentage values. And I think what that also reflects is the fact that supply chain dislocations and project completion timelines converging with escalating demand for renewable energy products lead customers to be prepared to pay more for those RECs. So, in total, we are seeing a pretty significant escalation in renewable power prices. As somebody who wants to see the resource accelerate broadly across the country as fast as possible, I don't relish the fact that market conditions require that. But we're seeing customers be prepared to continue to engage with us and advance projects forward even with that price escalation because the renewable projects relative to other fuel sources are still disinflationary.
spk05: Got it. Okay. That's super helpful. The second question, unrelated one, a little quiet on this topic. Any update on the California gas plants?
spk01: To be simplistic, Michael, not a big update. No, I mean, we continue to work on it. I think that, you know, we've talked about it a little bit previously, is most of the California ISOs procurement comes in the second and third quarter. So we work on them continually, but that's probably where we'll get a next significant update is probably more third quarter-ish along those lines.
spk05: And any thoughts on what any potential change in the retirement of Diablo Canyon, obviously there's been some press out of the governor's office, what that would mean for one of the assets you own?
spk01: I really don't see that big a delta just because of, as we've talked about over the years, the importance of the assets we do have. And I think in a lot of ways, given what we're seeing in the market today, those assets are as needed, if not more so than ever.
spk04: So I don't think it would really affect things that much, but it remains to be seen. Got it. Thanks, guys. Much appreciated.
spk00: Thank you. And our last question comes from the line of Noah Kay with Oppenheimer. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
spk08: Thanks for taking the question. Could you give us a bit more of an update on the battery supply situation, what you're seeing in terms of cost increases there and then you can push out delivery dates? How are you managing that aspect of the project development?
spk07: Yeah, you know, I mean, it's an interesting dynamic because there are so many different factors that converge. On the one hand, accelerating demand for use of batteries in automotive applications has strained the supply expansions that were planned already by different manufacturers, but pushouts of paired solar and storage projects in the U.S. have tempered some of the pricing escalation that we were seeing taking off at the beginning of this year. So, you know, for our company specifically, I think we enjoy, you know, prioritization of customers or of suppliers, I should say, both because of, you know, the many gigawatt hours worth of batteries we have procured or are planning to procure for project completions during the next four years and But also, you know, upstream from Clearway Group and Clearway Energy Inc., you know, GIP is our owner, is a global investor with a very global footprint of renewable and storage investments. And those suppliers recognize that as they're engaging with us, they're also sort of engaging with that broader family. Yeah. So we're able to have strategic conversations with them and within those for those to keep our project schedules on track. As we look forward, I think our company and others like us are looking to establish analogs to the type of framework agreements that the automotive industry employs with those suppliers and with those framework agreements to give ourselves you know, certainty of supply, certainty of cost structure within ranges, and also evolution of what that manufacturing footprint might look like. And the suppliers with whom we're engaged on those types of framework agreements really see how essential it is for the long run story our industry can tell for policymakers and citizens in America that they build a manufacturing footprint here in America. So As we're crafting those framework agreements, we are first looking to secure adequate supplies so that we can build the resources that our customers need here. Second, looking to establish a corridor of costs that allow us to be confident in developing projects. But third, also looking to accelerate establishment of battery supply chains here in the continental U.S. so that that footprint can both diminish risk around trade and freight, but also make good on the kinds of commitments that we're looking to make for policymakers as they establish a more robust environment for incentives for the deployment of batteries and renewables.
spk08: Great. Thank you, Craig. And just a quick housekeeping item. If I can clarify, there's a helpful table in the appendix around the contribution of committed or closed growth investments on a full-year basis to cap for 2023 and 2024. Is it possible to give us roughly what that might be for 2022, how material it is?
spk01: Chad, why don't you take that because I think it's basically the $56 million, but go ahead.
spk06: Yeah, maybe I wasn't exactly following the question. So are you just asking how much of that incremental capital would come in 2022?
spk08: Now, how much of the CAFTI contribution in 2022 is from, you know, the committed or closed growth investments?
spk06: Oh, well, I think if you think about it from a timing perspective, so what I would say is if you look at the table, which I believe you're looking at is slide 14, so obviously anything that had funded through the end of last year and then early part of this year, so really through BlackRock, that's almost entirely encapsulated in our 2022 expectations. I would say with regards to Mililani 1, WIOA, and Daggett, that's somewhat of a negligible contribution in the 2022 forecast. So what I'd ask you to do is that what we try to do is give a sense of the shape as those materialize, which you can see on slide 17. So basically the way I would think about it is that assuming we hit all of our targets on CODs and those begin to generate the revenue and associated CAFDs, we would expect to see a pretty sizable bump up starting next year.
spk08: Right, right. So if I could just reflect that, what's in CAFTI for this year is done. And, you know, whatever gets done this year in terms of additional projects, any contribution would be upside.
spk06: That is a fair way to think about it.
spk08: Great. Thank you.
spk06: Thank you.
spk00: Thank you, and this does conclude today's question and answer session, and I would like to turn the conference back over to Chris Sotos for any further remarks.
spk01: Thank you, everyone, for your time. I appreciate the support, and everyone stay safe. Thank you.
spk00: This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Disclaimer