Ladies and gentlemen, this is the operator. Today's conference is scheduled to begin momentarily. Until that time, your lines will again be placed on hold. We thank you for your patience. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to that Clearway Energy third Quarter 2010 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] After the presentation there will be a question-and-answer session and instructions on how to do so will be given at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Chris Sotos, President and CEO of Clearway Energy Sir, you may begin.

Good morning. Let me first thank you for taking the time to join today's call. Joining me this morning is Chad Plotkin, our Chief Financial Officer. Akil Marsh, our Investor Relations Manager and Craig Cornelius President and CEO 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 will 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 for the third quarter of 2020 Clearway achieved CAFD of $171 million for a total of $265 million year to date. These results were within our expected sensitivity ranges. Today, the effects of COVID remain minor with our teams maintaining safe and reliable operations through this difficult time. Clearway is announcing an increase in our quarterly dividend by 1.8% to $0.318 cents per share in the fourth quarter of 2020 and continues to see dividend per share growth at the upper end of our 5% to 8% long-term growth rate through 2021. As I will go into more detail later in this presentation C1 has committed to invest approximately 450 million in new growth during 2020. This is comprised of today's announcement encompassing total growth investments of approximately 108 million or generating 13.8 million of average asset CAFD over five-year period and our previous growth investments totaling $339 million while generated approximately $36 million of average asset CAFD…

Thank you, Chris. And turning to slide eight for the third quarter Clearway is reporting adjusted EBITDA of $312 million and cash available for distribution or CAFD of $171 million. Clearway has now realized $853 million of adjusted EBITDA and $265 million of CAFD year-to-date. During the quarter, the company benefited from strong availability at the Conventional segment as our California-based gas plants performed exceptionally well during the key summer months. This was especially evident during the extreme heat wave across the West Coast where our California plants demonstrated their value as critical reliability resources in the state. While the conventional performance in the quarter was a welcome response to the challenging West Coast weather conditions, the company's renewable portfolio did not benefit from the environmental and weather related events. As noted in the appendix section of the presentation. The solar projects were especially challenged as the fires. On the West Coast resulted in soybean and weaker Radian's if we need to production below. 95% of expectations between August and September. Additionally, wind production during the quarter across the portfolio, we've got 92% of expectations as strong results in August were offset by a weaker July and September. As a company, we continue to closely monitor the business impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistent with what we indicated last quarter, the Company's projects have maintain safe and reliable operations, but we have observed a reduction in volumetric sales at the Thermal segment which continued into the third quarter. Though this impact is not material from a consolidated company perspective, we do currently anticipate the volumetric degradation to continue into next year, which I will discuss momentarily when walking through forward financial expectations. Lastly, and providing an offset to these items CAFD results in the quarter were favorably impacted by…

Thank you, Chad. Turning to page 11. I wanted to take a moment not Tervita list of what we have executed in 2020, but rather to provide an overview as to what we as a company are focused on, first after coming out of the PG&E situation as we had indicated, we have resumed increasing the dividend. One, with long-term targets, while maintaining our credit metrics and providing CAFD within our sensitivity ranges. Second, it executed on a variety of growth investments to further diversify our portfolio and accretive assets that serve the drive our CAFD per share to a level that will support ongoing dividend growth within our payout ratio objectives. Third, we are working closely with our CEG colleagues to create an investment structure with equity partners who will provide a structure that emphasizes diversified contracted assets at accretive CAFD yields, but also increases the transparency around the capital required. We also believe that this will allow us to establish a more consistent timeframe of drop-down expectations in the future. All this leads to an updated pro forma CAFD of $345 million or more importantly a $71 per share, which supports our long-term dividend growth rate at the high end of our targeted range for 2021 as well as drill beyond 2021. Thank you. Operator, please open the lines for questions.

Thank you, sir. [Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin Smith from Bank of America. Your line is open.

Hi, I am stepping in for Julien so I am just, Hey, morning. Sir, just wanted to ask given the scarcity situation in California, Could you talk about how you expect resource adequacy prices to trend, and also is there potential to lock in longer tenors when you recontracted through thermal assets.

Oh sure this is Chris Sotos. I think in terms of the pricing obviously we'll have to see kind of where it turns out, but I definitely think what we saw in California would lead to higher pricing for resource adequacy. I also think the probability of being able to contract for a longer tenure is higher but I think as I've said consistently throughout the years and I think also in our last quarter, I think that pace is going to really pick up in 2021 in terms of discussions around, recontracting. So I would not say there is any really new information since the last quarter we talked by doing think obviously what's occurred is helpful for pricing and also for contracts.

Okay, great. And then also could I ask about just on CAFD yields and the latest announcements too, kind of put out there to go with projects have had pretty high CAFD yields. How should we think about just future growth projects that you announced in terms of CAFD yields, how much opportunity is there to maintain rates kind of levels?

So, I think these levels are difficult and I tried to address in my comments some of it is due to Langford. Obviously having less hedged position than typical even though with the structure obviously contracted cash flows and so from our view and looking at the latest dropdown offer that we are working with our CEG colleagues and an equity partner on, that's about a 14 year, we had average CAFD life for contracts. So I don't think that type of CAFD level will be achievable. I think if you look back in our history, you've seen kind of things, let's say, in the 9th in terms of CAFD yield. Once again, don't want to negotiate here on the phone. But I think that type of range probably is more probable than the ranges that you see in the latest drop downs that we announced today.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Sure.

Our next question comes from the line of Angie Storozynski from Seaport Global. Your line is open.

Good morning. So I just as a follow-up to this question that we just heard. So I understand that you're saying that this new partnership with CEG is not a financing partnerships, but you will be presented accepting some additional development and/or construction risk. So can you at least tell us if there would be some incremental CAFD versus third-party acquisition or acquisitions of both operating projects that would be basically paying for that incremental risk that you're assuming?

Sure. Just to make sure we're clear. There isn't any incremental risk. We're not taking development risk. These are projects that are through the development cycle. So just to make sure we're all clear. That's not and the partnership also is going to be with the third-party. Our long-term owner. Obviously, CEG is the current developer who is kind of all three of us are working together to finalize that partnership. So I think, CEG is still acting as developer and operator similar to drop downs, we've had before. So just for clarity.

But there are some projects, right, I mean if I understand correctly okay even if they're fully developed, you would be providing financing for some of them before they start commercial operations, right. So, at the very least you would be assuming some construction risk?

No, we really deploy capital at COD, acquisition operation date. So I don't think it'd be any different than what we've done historically.

Okay. I understand. Now moving on, you said that you've adjusted some of your expectations of regarding renewable power production volumes basically reflect the last five years of data. Now it looks like we're going to have La Nina continuing into next year. Is that something that could materially impact your especially wind production levels in 2021?

Chad on that.

So yes, Angie maybe to take this in two steps. So I think one of the things that we've done consistently that we talked about just on the first point is, just as a matter of sort of prudency as we collect more historical data. We rolled out through our modeling and in some instances it increases expected P50 and project in some instances can reduce it. I would say in the total given the dollars we're not talking about material moves overall, but we're just always trying to be honest with how we evaluate that. I think on the La Nina media piece look, I'm not going to venture to guess exactly how weather will do I think I've seen some data points that suggests that you could have stronger production through the course of next year as a result of it, but I think from our perspective, I'd like to kind of see what shows up relative to expectations. But, and then how that is disbursed geographically as well.

Okay, thank you. And last question on the lower thermal units that you said that that we have could persist through 21 or into 21. I mean, just can you give us an example? Is it just some of these projects support hotels or something like that and hence, there is some sensitivity to volumes.

Precisely Angie, in our San Francisco operations that tends to be more volumetric and I'm sure as everyone the funds aware of hotel occupancy in San Francisco is lower due to COVID, so it is exactly that definitely.

Great, thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of David Fleishman from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning. All right. Just I was hoping you could maybe provide a little bit more color just on the $17 million of timing related to the growth investments, when we think about the bridge from your pro forma to 2021. And really just how it compares to the 5-year CAFD, is it fair to kind of think the pro forma is kind of using almost again year three average and it's a little bit below and then it becomes a little bit above your smart five or is it just something with kind of more the first year of operation were you guys take a little bit more conservative approach.

Chad, you want to go ahead?

Yes, David. It's a good question. I think if you look at the appendix slide, page 17 we've tried to show that bridge on most of that has picked up over the next two years. So you are correct, like, if I look at it on a 5-year average basis you may have a pickup in a couple of years that are a little bit higher versus the next couple of years like in 24 to 25 at major slope down a little bit. Most of the delta, especially for this year as you move into 2022 you have a lot to do with expected the timing of expected COD days and the Christmas point and we want to provide the number relative to how we've looked at underwriting the investment, but importantly our capital outlay doesn't occur until we get to the COD date. So it is important to remember that our capital is not exposed until that point either and I think the big driver on this one would be in our growth profile. A lot of that is related to the timing of Pinnacle, just given what we've seen in the observation of construction timelines. We're looking at a second half in-service date, which is obviously delayed some of our original expectations as well.

Okay, thank you. That makes a lot of sense. And then just a couple of other quick questions on the line for the project. I think I heard in the earlier prepared remarks that the 65% that isn't contracted under 12 year PPAs that's related to pay go financing. I just wanted to maybe clarify how that works. Is that just you receive a portion of the value of the production tax credit [indiscernible] from a tax equity investor.

Yes, but to be a little bit more precise. The 65% on the revenue. So you can think about basically was too cash flows, obviously. Revenue from the asset about which 35% is hedged, 65% is open, and then also the PAYGO, which obviously is contracted from a cash perspective, but obviously subject to P50 risk in terms of production. So when we look at combined basis the contracted cash flows are subject to hitting the P50 the PTC, the payroll structure and then also 35% of revenue with about 65% of revenue being open, not necessarily just PTC or bigger.

Okay, understood, and then my last kind of just CAFD shaping question in prior PowerPoints used to have a slide related to distributed generation and how the CAFD trajectory changes over time. As part of the partnership that you acquired, did you effectively take out maybe the tax equity component that was reducing it over time, or is that still kind of a structure where there's kind of five-year step changes.

You should still expect a step change to be fair, we did not take out the tax equity.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the time.

Sure. Great. Thank you, David.

Our next question comes from the line of Colin Rusch from Oppenheimer, your line is open.

Thanks so much guys. Now, as we see increased amounts of liquidity in the market and availability of capital pretty widespread. Are you seeing any change in dynamics in terms of the competitive landscape, both at the development level or at the project acquisition level.

The project acquisition level. I think there, we are seeing tightness in terms of CAFD yields. I think, once again, as an all things when you kind of you to look for the right intersection of where we can bid and add value to kind of really maintain our accretion. But I do think given from current capital markets liquidity, you probably are seeing tightness in terms of where 3rd-party assets are trading. Chad, if you don't mind addressing the development side

Yes, hi, Colin. I think for some parties tax equity available clearly is an issue. We've observed that among some competitors needing to elect to move projects out in time or otherwise be challenged in their tax equity financing options. We've been pleased to be in the circumstances where every project we intend to take into construction, including those that you've seen cited in these partnership investment opportunities have been able to secure tax equity commitments from interested investors and we're finding that there is some preference for quality in terms of sponsorship and project composition, which we benefit from in a market where there is some scarcity in terms of tax equity. In terms of construction debt and term debt, the markets remain clearly as robust as we've ever seen them both in terms of demand and the cost of financing that we're able to secure that helps us in terms of being able to propel further developing growth and also to be able to offer truly attractive investment profiles for the cash equity interests that show up in C1. On project M&A, I think what we've seen is a desire on the part of smaller developers from whom we might buy pre-construction assets to see the election outcome play out. And what that might mean for timelines, they need to develop in. And fortunately, we've engaged selectively in some situations like that and have also been able to propel growth in our organic development pipeline, which the disclosures indicate actually grew substantially in the prior quarter, so whether project M&A is available to our, to us or not. We actually feel quite confident about the ability to deliver a pipeline that will support a 5-day 8% dividend per share growth.

Great. And then just I mean you're looking at how the industry in that's for the lower-cost capital at really low cost batteries like really low cost batteries being available. Are you guys seeing the different type of opportunity in terms of increased distributed assets different sorts of configurations and ability to serve load with the newer technologies that are available. As you look at the development opportunity and is there an opportunity for some increased spread capture to emerge as you guys are probably a little bit more comfortable with some of those technologies and other firms.

Would you like me to take that one to Chris?

Yes, please.

Okay. Yes, I think right now Colin, our focus is more on central station storage solutions then behind the meter on site storage solutions commensurate with the pipeline and that we're developing. In our operating assets. We do have smaller scale distributed solar projects being deployed. Some of them on to markets like Massachusetts that are paired with storage, but most of our focus on storage is in the combination of new construction projects like those you see cited in the 1.6 gigawatt partnership investment opportunity where in the case of the Daggett Solar Project. We will be building more storage at a single solar site, than I think has actually been deployed before this year in CAISO and projects like that in the future as well as opportunities for hybridization or retrofitting of solar and storage into our existing operating fleet including wind projects and some of that same value capture you're citing is achievable in essentially interconnected storage resources as well whether there is a stand-alone storage ITC or and need to pair storage with solar, we're bullish the opportunity to deploy in that kind of format at some scale foreseeable in the future.

[Operator Instructions] There are no further questions at this time, please continue.

Well, thank you everyone for attending and I look forward to talking in February. Everyone stay safe. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.