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 one on your telephone. Please be advised that today's conference may be recorded. If you require any further assistance, please press star, then zero. I would now like to hand the conference over to your host today, Christopher Sotos, President and CEO of Clearway Energy, Inc. Please go ahead.
Good morning. Let me first thank you for taking the time to join today's call. Joining me this morning is Akil 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 presentation. 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 our SEC 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, were within our sensitivity range with CAFD of -$2 million for the quarter, which is historically our lightest quarter for CAFD generation due to the timing of debt payments and low renewable generation. Clearway 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 CAFD guidance for 2022 to $365 million. Clearway's pro forma CAFD 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 Clearway's pro forma CAFD at $385 million, or $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've 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 increase in 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. Amidst those pressures, we look at the business we have here in Clearway 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 growth strategy of 5% to 8% through 2026. The Clearway 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 Energy 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. Because of its ownership interest in 85 million shares of CWEN, when Clearway Energy Group builds projects, their goal is first how to meet the capital deployment needs we have while balancing providing our shareholders with strong CAFD accretion. This allows the entire enterprise, during lulls or periods such as this, so to flex the system to assure that CWEN is able to invest at its targeted capital deployment levels and also its targeted returns. As well, Clearway Energy 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 their procurement work a deep understanding of policy and global reach, which has led to supply chain strategies that are proving relatively resilient right now. 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 Energy Group's development projects to at least $300 million and an approximate 8.5% CAFD yield. These development projects provide a strong start to the allocation of our excess capital, giving Clearway Energy, Inc. confidence that it can achieve or beat the $2.15 CAFD 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 re-emphasizing Clearway Energy Group's approach to development and how this scale supports CWEN as a whole. On the left side of the page, you can get a better view of Clearway Energy Group's development scale.
With over 22 gigawatts of development projects, an increase of 3 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. For those of you who have been longer-term investors in Clearway, it is important to note that Clearway Energy 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 Mililani I Solar, Waiāwa Solar, 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 Department of Commerce's inquiry. Second, with respect to Daggett, the project makes use of a supply chain designed to enable use of U.S.-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 second 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 are 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 are being constructed with solar modules already in the country today.
Across the range of subsequent projects that Clearway Energy Group has planned for Texas wind expansion and expansion of their portfolio in CAISO, WECC, 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 PV 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 weighted average contract tenure of 18 years and will total at least $300 million of capital deployment at an average 8.5% CAFD, an approximate 8.5% CAFD yield. We are working with Clearway Energy 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 reinforces our confidence the $300 million capital deployment goal can be met. If the right policy choices on trade are ultimately made by the administration, and we are able to see new energy, 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 CAFD that they will generate over time. In summary, Clearway Group's development scale and flexibility provides CWEN with transparent and core growth strategy, driving CAFD per share growth into the future, and we are optimistic about what the outlook holds for CWEN shareholders. Turning to page six. Page six updates our project, our progress to the $2.15 of CAFD 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 Energy Group, we now see that we have line of sight to $26 million of additional CAFD versus $21 million of CAFD that we presented last quarter, or $2.04 of CAFD per share when allocated, with still $450 million of proceeds remaining. Over the next several quarters, we look forward to increasing our deployment of capital and achieving or exceeding the $2.15 by this time next year. With that, I will turn it over to Chad. Chad?
Thank you, Chris. In turning to slide eight, today Clearway is reporting first quarter adjusted EBITDA of $260 million and cash available for distribution or CAFD of -$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 CAFD 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 CAFD guidance was originally established as if CWEN owned the thermal business for the full year. With the thermal sale now complete, we are updating our 2022 CAFD 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, 2022 CAFD 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 CAFD that Chris referenced earlier.
For further information as it relates to the seasonality expectations of the portfolio and the timing of expected CAFD 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 dollar 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, CWEN now has unprecedented flexibility to execute on its long-term objectives 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.
Thank you, Chad. 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 CAFD 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 Energy Group are focused on allocating our excess capital to new drop-down assets and providing greater visibility to the achievement of the $2.15 in CAFD per share when deployed. 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 really one about execution and moving forward with our growth plans, and I think we've made a great start to the year. Operator, please open lines for questions.
Thank you. If you have a question at this time, please press Star, then One on your touch-tone telephone. If your question has been answered or you wish to remove yourself from the queue, please press the pound key. Our first question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Hey, good morning, team. Thanks for the time and the opportunity to connect. I hope you guys are doing well. Couple quick 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, just curious on the timeline now that you got the cash in hand, how long are we gonna need to wait? Then I'll just throw the second question. It's a brief clarification.
Just what were the operational issues just tied to wind that you alluded to a second ago, Chad?
Sure. Thanks, Julian. I'll take the first one, and then I'll let Chad kinda take the second, obviously. To your first question, as usual, a couple pieces to unpack in your questions, Julian. You know, for part one, basically the timing of it will be that $300 million will kind of be spent in conjunction with a development project. I would say, you know, over 2022, 2023, and into 2024. In terms of the deployment of the remainder of that capital, we really, you know, we're working to deploy it frankly now. We'll see how kinda all that goes. I think for us, we definitely wanna make sure that we can come to a conclusion.
I would say by this time next year, when we've had calls previously, I kinda said, "Yeah, 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." I think for our view, yep, as we intended to deploy the capital by kinda this time next year and see where we end up. Chad, for Julien's second question.
Yeah, sure, Julien. I mean, if you look at some of the data in the appendix, Julien, 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 at 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.
Hey, 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 wanna put words in your mouth. I just wanna make sure I heard you right there.
Julien, the goal is to deploy the capital in the most efficient, you know, way as possible. If, you know, the Great Depression hits and the stock hits 17, we might have a different view. I think given where we sit right now, the focus is on redeploying it into other assets.
Got it. At risk of pushing a tad further, 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.
I don't think anything in particular, Julien. 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 that's very minimal, I would think.
All right. Excellent. Well, thank you, guys. Best of luck. We'll talk soon.
Thank you.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of William Grippin with UBS. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Good morning, and thank you. My first question, just on the Commerce memo a couple of days ago. You know, 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?
Craig, why don't you take that one? You're probably the best positioned.
Yeah. You know, first, just to emphasize, that same memo provided the clarity that I think we were looking to see for the committed projects that we're advancing into construction and that align with the $56 million worth of upcoming investments for CWEN as noted before. So I think at least as far as our company is concerned, that's more of a question about the environment for future projects, just to state that unequivocally.
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. 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.
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. I think, you know, 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 hit the climate goals.
Understood. Okay. My last question here is just on the 8.5% target yield on the reinvestment of the $300 million. I'm curious, you know, to what extent is that based on your ongoing discussions versus perhaps just, you know, conservative assumptions, you know, particularly here in light of the rising rate environment?
Sure. I think it's really you know the rising rate environment I don't think is translated precisely through where you know a marginal bid is externally for assets. That may take some time. 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. That 8.5% is kinda taking into account where those projects are and the economics of them. I don't think you're gonna see a very elastic curve so to speak with the movements you're seeing in Treasury directly translatable to higher cap deals here in the very very short term, if that's your question.
Yep, very clear. All right, that's it for me. Thanks very much.
Sure.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Colton Bean with Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Morning. Chris, I think you just touched on this in terms of valuation impact. I guess just broadly for the third-party M&A market, can you describe the level of activity you're seeing there and, you know, 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.
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. From our view, you know, 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, you know, 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.
I think it's a little bit remains to be seen. 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. I think, you know, to kinda, Colton, your question as well as some others, we're really gonna take our time to make certain that we're investing in the appropriate assets that are quality assets and that appropriate returns to make sure that we can kinda 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 kinda get the cash off our balance sheet. That's not the tone we're gonna take.
Great. Just on the development pipeline, any change to your approach in securing long lead items? You know, are you looking further afield maybe to earlier stage projects and starting those conversations a bit earlier than you otherwise would have?
Craig, do you want to take that?
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 life cycle than we might have historically in the industry? The answer is yes. For example, for the projects that you see referenced for the roughly 2 gigawatts worth of new drop-down opportunities on which we're focused today, we've secured the major components for all those projects. 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. We're doing that earlier.
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. Yeah, we're procuring earlier, to enable that certainty.
I think one of the things that we enjoy in Clearway Energy 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. When we can make rational decisions that help us advance a pipeline with more certainty than others, we're doing that. We think that that kind of advantage is gonna inure to us, in the marketplace during the course of the next few years.
That's helpful. Appreciate the time.
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Hey, guys. Thank you for taking my questions. I have two that are kinda 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 kinda 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? I know there's some uncertainty obviously with the Department of Commerce overhang, but just curious, just on broader inflationary and supply chain trends, how much are PPA prices changing in the marketplace?
Sure. Craig?
Yeah, substantially. 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. You know, I think, 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. Sort of resource adequacy contract pricing on battery deliveries for sort of the near term is 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%-50% roughly for vintages during the course of, say, the next 24 to 36 months. 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. I think what that also reflects is the fact that sort of 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. 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. 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.
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?
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 a little bit previously is, most of the California ISO's procurement comes in the second and third quarter. We work on, you know, with them continually, but that's probably where we'll get a next significant update is probably more third quarter-ish, along those lines.
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 those one of the assets you own?
I really don't see that big a delta, just because of, as we talked about over the years, the importance of the assets we do have. I think in a lot of ways, you know, given what we're seeing in the market today, you know, those assets are as needed, if not more so than ever. I don't think it would really affect things that much, but remains to be seen.
Got it. Thanks, guys. Much appreciated.
Thank you. Our last question comes from the line of Noah Kaye with Oppenheimer. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
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 any kind of push out in delivery dates? How are you managing that aspect of the project development?
Craig?
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. Push outs 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. 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, you know, many gigawatt-hours worth of batteries we have procured or are planning to procure for project completions during the next four years.
Also, you know, upstream from Clearway Energy Group and Clearway Energy, Inc., you know, GIP as our owner is a global investor with a very global footprint of renewable and storage investments. Those suppliers recognize that as they're engaging with us, they're also sort of engaging with that broader family. We're able to have strategic conversations with them and within those for those to keep, you know, our project schedules on track. As we look forward, you know, 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.
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. 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. As we're crafting those framework agreements, we are first looking to secure adequate supply so that we can build the resources that our customers need here. Second, looking to establish a corridor of cost that allow us to be confident in developing projects.
Third, also looking to accelerate establishment of battery supply chains, you know, here in the continental U.S. so that that footprint can both diminish risk around trade and freight, but also make good on, you know, 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.
Great. Thank you, Craig. 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 full year basis to CAFD for 2023 and 2024. Possible to give us roughly what that might be for 2022, how material it is?
Chad, why don't you take that? 'Cause I think it's basically the $56 million, but go ahead.
Yeah, maybe I wasn't exactly following the question. Are you just asking how much of that incremental capital would come in 2022?
No, how much of the CAFD contribution in 2022 is from you know, the committed or closed growth investments?
Well, I think, if you think about it from a timing perspective, what I would say is if you look at the table, which I believe you're looking at, is slide 14. Obviously anything that had funded through the end of last year or in early part of this year, really through BlackRock, that's almost entirely encapsulated in our 2022 expectations. I would say with regards to Mililani I, Waiāwa, and Daggett, that's somewhat of a negligible contribution in the 2022 forecast. 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.
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 CAFD, we would expect to see a pretty sizable bump up starting next year.
Right. If I could just reflect that, what's in CAFD for this year is done. You know, whatever gets done this year in terms of additional projects is any contribution would be upside.
That is a fair way to think about it.
Great. Thank you.
Yep.
Thank you. This does conclude today's question and answer session, and I would like to turn the conference back over to Christopher Sotos for any further remarks.
Thank you everyone for your time. Appreciate the support and everyone stay safe. Thank you.
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.