Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to Capital Power's First Quarter 2021 Results Conference Call. As a reminder, all participants are in listen mode only, and the conference is being recorded today, April 30th, 2021. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Randy Mah, the Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thank you for joining us today to review Capital Power's first quarter 2021 results, which we released earlier this morning. Our first quarter report and the presentation for this conference call are posted on our website at capitalpower.com. Joining me on the call are Brian Vaasjo, President and CEO, and Sandra Haskins, Senior Vice President of Finance and CFO. We will start with opening comments and then open the lines to take your questions. Before we start, I would like to remind everyone that certain statements about future events made on this call are forward-looking in nature and are based on certain assumptions and analysis made by the company. Actual results could differ materially from the company's expectations due to various risks and uncertainties associated with our business. Please refer to the cautionary statement on forward-looking information on slide two. In today's discussion, we will be referring to various non-GAAP financial measures as noted on slide three. These measures are not defined financial measures according to GAAP and do not have standardized meanings prescribed by GAAP and therefore are unlikely to be comparable to similar measures used by other enterprises. These measures are provided to complement the GAAP measures, which are provided in the analysis of the company's results from management's perspective. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to their nearest GAAP measures can be found in our first quarter 2021 MD&A. I will now turn the call over to Brian Vaasjo for his remarks starting on slide four. Thanks, Randy. Good morning. I'll start off with the highlights of the first quarter and comment on our 2021 outlook. We delivered strong first quarter results that exceeded our expectations. This was the first quarter where all generation in Alberta Power market was dispatched by commercial market participants following the expiry of the Balancing Pool PPAs. The strong quarterly results confirm the Alberta Power market is truly robust. Earlier this month, we executed an innovative 15-year renewable energy agreement with Labatt Brewing Company for the Enchant Solar project that I'll cover off in more detail shortly. With a strong first quarter and higher Alberta forward prices for 2021, we are forecasting our 2021 financial performance will be modestly above the top end of our annual Adjusted EBITDA and AFFO guidance ranges. We also continue to make solid progress on our approximately CAD 1.7 billion in growth projects. I'll also provide an update on our various CO2 reduction initiatives. Turning to slide five, as mentioned, we've entered into an innovative partnership with Labatt for the Enchant Solar project. It is a 15-year renewable energy agreement for the sale of electricity and RECs. The virtual PPA is for 51% of the electricity from the Enchant Solar project that covers all of the electricity requirement for Labatt's Canadian operations. Approximately one quarter of the RECs will come directly from Enchant Solar, and three quarters will be packaged with RECs sourced from Eastern Canada to closely align with Labatt's operations footprint. The 75 MW Enchant Solar project is expected to begin commercial operation in the fourth quarter of 2022. When we announced the project in November 2020, our original guidance was CAD 11 million in Adjusted EBITDA and CAD 12 million in AFFO on average per year for the first five years. This financial guidance continues to be reasonable with upside from a higher value of RECs based on the federal carbon tax. Overall, the agreement with Labatt will strengthen our contracted cash flow, extends our average contract life, and support progress towards a low-carbon economy. I'll now turn the call over to Sandra. Thanks, Brian. I'll begin my comments by going over the Alberta Power market on slide six. Extreme cold temperatures in February set a new daily record for demand and contributed to a high average power price of CAD 95 per MWh in the quarter, compared to a CAD 67 per MWh average in the first quarter of 2020. In the first quarter, our trading desk captured an average realized price of CAD 77 per MWh that was 24% higher than a year ago. The positive outlook for the Alberta Power market is being reflected in higher 2021 forward prices that have steadily increased over the past few months and currently sit at CAD 79 per MWh. For our Alberta commercial portfolio, our baseload generation is 30% hedged in 2022 at an average contract price in the mid-CAD 50 per MWh range. For 2023 and 2024, we're 24% and 10% hedged, respectively, at an average contract price in the mid-CAD 50 per MWh range for both years. This compares to current forward prices of CAD 63 per MWh for 2022, CAD 54 for 2023, and CAD 51 in 2024. Moving to slide seven, I'll review our financial results for the quarter. Overall, financial results in the first quarter were strong. This includes revenues and other income of CAD 554 million, up 4% compared to the first quarter of 2020, largely due to the higher revenues generated from all three units at Genesee. Adjusted EBITDA of CAD 303 million was 29% higher than a year ago. Higher Adjusted EBITDA for the Alberta commercial facilities benefited from a higher realized power price of CAD 77 per MWh, compared to CAD 62 per MWh in Q1 of 2020. The higher price in the quarter was partially offset by lower generation during periods of milder temperatures in January and March that resulted in lower demand. The results for the U.S. contracted facilities reflects a full quarter of contributions from Buckthorn Wind that was acquired on April 1st, 2020, and Cardinal Point Wind that began commercial operations on March 16th, 2020. First quarter results include the impacts from the February winter storm in the U.S. that caused some disruptions, primarily to our Buckthorn Wind facility in Texas. The net impact for this facility was a positive CAD 8 million to Adjusted EBITDA and AFFO. These are updated numbers on the impacts of the winter storm and replaces the preliminary estimates that we disclosed in late February. Also mentioned in that news release, during the peak days of the storm, our trading desk physically flowed power around North America that contributed another CAD 6 million to Adjusted EBITDA. Net corporate expenses were CAD 3 million compared to CAD 17 million a year ago, largely due to higher recognition of coal compensation revenue in Q1 2021 as a result of repowering of Genesee 1 and 2, which was announced in late 2020. We generated CAD 159 million in AFFO. That was 35% higher than a year ago. AFFO per share of CAD 1.49 was up 33% from the first quarter of 2020. I'll now turn the call back to Brian. Thanks, Sandra. Turning to slide eight, I'll review our first quarter performance versus our 2021 annual results. Average availability was 96% in the first quarter. That included a major planned outage at Decatur. The 93% annual target reflects major planned outages for Shepard in the second quarter and Genesee 2 in the fourth quarter. Sustaining Capex was CAD 18 million in the first quarter, compared to the CAD 80 million-CAD 90 million annual target. We recorded CAD 303 million in Adjusted EBITDA in the first quarter versus the CAD 975 million-CAD 1.025 billion target. We generated CAD 159 million of AFFO in the first quarter compared to the CAD 500 million-CAD 550 million target range. As mentioned, based on our current forecast, we expect Adjusted EBITDA and AFFO to be modestly above the top end of their guidance ranges. Our growth targets are highlighted on slide nine. We continue to make progress on all of our renewable projects. This includes developing and constructing seven renewable projects on budget and on time for commercial operations starting in the first quarter of this year to the first quarter of 2022. Construction on the repowering of Genesee 1 and 2 is expected to begin in the third quarter of this year, with in-service dates targeted in late 2023 for Genesee 1 and in 2024 for Genesee 2. As in previous years, we have a target of CAD 500 million of committed capital for growth that is aligned with our strategy of growing our renewable assets and/or acquiring mid-life contracted natural gas assets. Turning to slide 10, I'll provide an update on the various CO2 reduction initiatives that we have underway. Carbon Corp, the legal entity for C2CNT, recently won the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE. It was one of the two Canadian companies that were honored for creating excellent products. The development and marketing of the Genesee Carbon Conversion Centre and carbon nanotubes, is well underway, with an expected operational date in mid-2022. The first phase of the GC3 will produce 2,500 carbon nanotubes per year from carbon emissions of Genesee 3. We are also developing plans to apply carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology at Genesee 1 and 2. Expected federal and provincial funding will support this initiative, which should deliver 3 million tons of annual carbon emission reductions. These CCUS initiatives support our goal of contributing to a low-carbon energy future. In closing, I'll provide an update on the executive team as shown on slide 11. Darcy Trufyn, our Senior VP of Operations, Engineering and Construction, will be retiring at the end of June. Darcy has been with Capital Power for 12 years and has continually delivered outstanding performance in operations and has successfully managed the development and construction of all of our growth projects over the past decade. I'd like to publicly thank Darcy for his tremendous contribution to Capital Power. Steve Owens, who is currently VP of Construction, will be promoted to Senior VP, Construction and Engineering, effective June 1st. This is an example of our robust internal succession planning. At the same time, Bryan DeNeve will take on a new role as Senior Vice President of Operations, relinquishing his commercial and business development responsibilities. Chris Kopecky will add business development and commercial to his responsibilities and will be the Senior VP and Chief Legal, Development and Commercial Officer. Prior to joining the executive leadership team last year, Chris led our U.S. business development team in Boston. Kate Chisholm, Sandra Haskins, Jacquie Pylypiuk will continue in their current roles. I'm confident this executive team will continue delivering value for our shareholders. I'll now turn the call back over to Randy. All right. Thanks, Brian. Shauna, we're ready to start the Q&A session. Thank you. We will now begin the question- and- answer session. To join the question queue, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. We will pause for a moment as callers join the queue. Our first question comes from David Quezada from Raymond James. Please go ahead. Thanks. Morning, everyone. First question here, just on the outlook for the Alberta power market. Obviously, this was the first quarter, as you mentioned, with the Balancing Pool PPAs expired. We also saw very supportive weather. Just wondering if you could provide any kind of qualitative commentary on how the dispatch might have been different in the quarter, as opposed to when the Balancing Pool PPA is in place. Any comments around that would be helpful. Yeah. Thanks, David. As we saw even coming through late last year, the anticipation of the Balancing Pool exiting the market had an impact. We saw a lot of supply response starting with retirements and mothballing. Now that we're into 2021, we are seeing all assets being managed in a commercially optimization approach, and that has led to the higher prices that we expected that we would see. In Q1, we did have periods of mild weather. Certainly in February, when we had extreme cold weather, you did see periods of very high prices. I think that the market dynamics have unfolded the way we would have expected they would in this in post-PPA environment. Excellent. Thank you. Appreciate that. Then maybe just one on the plans to add carbon capture at Genesee 1 and 2. Appreciate it's probably early days, but any color you can provide on what the capital cost might be there and how the province or the federal provincial funding support would play in? We're looking at a project in the order of magnitude of about CAD 1.6 billion, that again, results in about 3 million tons of carbon being essentially buried a year. In terms of the federal funding and provincial participation, I think you've probably seen in the press some fairly significant dollars being tossed around in terms of potential support for these kinds of initiatives. The way it's starting to play out a bit, again, extremely preliminary, as you may know, there's about to be a 90-day consultation period to actually work out some of the mechanics and directions led by the federal government. Some of the early indications are that something like the U.S. 45Q may be a way to approach it, whereby you get a tax credit for every ton of carbon that's essentially buried. That it may well be that it could actually be paid out as well, not only from a tax credit perspective. There's also some consideration for significant support from the Canada Infrastructure Bank as well. Of course, some of the traditional approaches of making applications both federally and provincially for various kinds of support associated with carbon capture and utilization. I should also add that there's also some considerable support anticipated for hydrogen technology as well. That's great color. Thanks, Brian. I'll get back in the queue. Our next question comes from Rob Hope from Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning, everyone. Just in terms of the Buckthorn dispute, can you just kind of walk us through the potential avenues and timing of when that could be resolved? Just to confirm, the CAD 8 million benefit that you saw in Q1, you received the cash on that, and that did flow through the cash flow statement? Thanks. Yeah. As far as the timeline, there's no certainty around when that will unfold. We expect that there's a good chance that that'll be settled within this year, still to be determined. As far as the cash flow, yes. We are paying in accordance to what we view as being the appropriate number. That has flown through appropriately through the statements. All right. Appreciate the color. Just a follow-up question from me. We saw updated disclosure on hedging for 2022 and beyond. You have kind of increased some hedges there. Are you also increasing your hedge profile for the rest of 2021? Maybe could you give some kind of color on what that shape looks like, just so we can kind of triangulate what modestly above the 2021 guidance looks like? Yeah. As you may recall, up until last year, we didn't give any indication of our change in hedge position as we came through the year. Last year was a bit of an anomaly given that it was a pandemic year. What I can say is that we continue to layer on hedges when we see that the price is appropriate to do so. As you know, we came into the year fairly unhedged, and that was by design, and that's played out in our favor. We continue to use the same approach when we're looking at stepping into more hedges. As far as liquidity, there has been an increase in liquidity that we've seen in this year and even going out a little bit further. Those opportunities are there, but once again, it's all relative to our price view. Actually, sorry, one more follow-up. Has your price view changed so far this year, just seeing how the dynamics in the Alberta power markets have changed, or is it still kind of what you presented at kind of Q4 at the Investor Day? Yeah, I think what we had at Investor Day was below what we're seeing here. It does have some shape to it, but generally, there has been a slight lift from what we took as maybe an optimistic yet somewhat conservative view at that point in time, given where the forwards were. Things have played out to be more favorable than what we had used at Investor Day. All right. Thanks for the color. Appreciate it. Our next question comes from Patrick Kenny from National Bank Financial. Please go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, good morning, everybody. Just wondering first if you could walk us through the accelerated recognition of coal compensation revenue, just as it relates to repowering Genesee. What the increase in quarterly revenue might be going forward, and does this actually change the actual annual cash amount to be received by the government between now and 2029? Thanks, Pat. The amount that we receive each year in cash is CAD 50 million, and that doesn't change. We'll continue to see those payments, and that's reflected in AFFO at CAD 50 million per year. On Adjusted EBITDA, the coal comp recognition is amortized over the period that you're actually burning coal. Because we announced to be off coal in 2023, we do recognize those payments. At the same time, we're depreciating the assets that are underlying that compensation. That's where you get the accelerated recognition that goes through the income statement and impacts Adjusted EBITDA. We currently have on a quarterly basis, we recognize about CAD 31 million of off-coal compensation, compared to last year, which was CAD 11 million. It's about a CAD 20 million increase per quarter. Okay. That's very helpful. No change, like you said, to the cash inflows on an annual basis. Okay. No, that's correct. Excellent. Then maybe just to circle back on the Buckthorn dispute there, you haven't taken a provision on the CAD 18 million exposure. Just maybe you could provide a little bit more color as to why you feel so confident in your position. I appreciate it's probably sensitive to talk about, but perhaps you can just point to something to give us confidence in there may not be an unfavorable ruling down the road or some sort of recognition of that CAD 18 million. No, absolutely. From an accounting perspective, when the outcome is more likely than not that you'll be successful, then you would recognize the favorable outcome. In our view, the contract uses very plain language in terms of which reference point should be used to establish pricing. Based on that, we feel very confident in our position as being correct. The counterparty's position of using a different settlement point is generally consistent with the reference point outlined in our contract, except for periods where you would see extreme differences in supply-demand, like the weather event drove in Texas in February. Typically, there wouldn't be a difference between the reference point in the contract and the counterparty's position. During the February storm, it was quite a different outcome. In our view, it's very plain language in the contract, and therefore, we feel very confident in our position. Okay. Thanks for that, Sandra. I might have missed it in the disclosure, but just curious if you utilized any of your carbon offset credits in Q1, or was there a similar deferral as there was back in Q4? The carbon offsets all have an expiry timeline on them, which is a seven-year life. Given that we have a number of credits in inventory that will expire this year, we expect that we will be using the full allotment of offsets this year. Yes, we did continue to use them in the first quarter. Okay, great. Last one from me, if I could. Just if you could provide a little bit of a funding plan update here for the incremental CAD 500 million that you're looking to commit to this year. Do you expect to be able to finance that fully with debt? Perhaps you're looking at partnerships, or would you lean more towards asset sales or equity options at this point? Yeah, it's going to depend on how we commit that capital. If it's something that is in the development realm, then we do have a number of options depending on what that spend profile looks like. As we look at our current funding plan, we have seen a real flattening of our spend profile. We had anticipated that a lot of the development for the current projects would be incurred this year. In fact, that's sort of been pushed out somewhat with a deferral from Mitsubishi on repowering being the key driver there, also having higher internally generated cash flow. At this point, we haven't even tapped into our credit facilities to fund the current development. It gives us more capacity to look at incremental committed capital. In the case of an acquisition, it would depend on the size and timing of it, and that's where we might be more likely to look at asset recycling or some other avenue of financing. It really depends on the nature of the transaction. Right. Okay. That's great, Sandra. Thank you, and looks like you're off the hook, Brian. Have a great weekend. Our next question comes from Mark Jarvi from CIBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. I wanted to touch on the Genesee assets, just in terms of a couple things on the cost and on the revenue. It seems like the realized price was a little higher than the spot price. Just curious if that's sustainable based on how your bidding behavior is going to be going forward. On the cost side, looks like fuel and O&M are north of CAD 50 a MWh. Is there something abnormal in the quarter or something with the hedges? Maybe just help us on the cost side of things as well with a step up year-over-year. Sorry, Mark, you're looking at the O&M cost at Genesee year-over-year? Like Genesee 1 through 2 and 3. If you bundle together, go from revenue and then the gap to EBITDA and look at what that spread is and divide by the generation. That cost per MWh is up dramatically year-over-year. I'm just trying to understand if it's fuel cost, carbon cost, but also maybe some impacts of settlement of hedges or anything like that that goes into those numbers. Yeah, I think when you look at the generation at those three facilities, it's down from prior years. There would be a high level of fixed costs in there if you're looking at full O&M and operating costs. Your cost per MWh would go up, if you're looking at it on that basis. Just on the realized pricing being, I think, marginally above where the spot price averaged in the quarter, is that something you think you can continue to achieve based on how you're going to use those assets going forward and for a little bit more economical holding when possible? Yeah, I think what you are seeing is that there is less generation or more, as you say, less being bid in, if you will. I expect that that probably will be the dynamics going forward. Yeah. Okay. When you think about the renewable projects you have in hand and then more projects potentially in Alberta on the renewable side, when you're thinking about the base case and underwriting those projects, what is some of the underlying assumptions between how much return you need to get from the merchant price versus how much faith you have in the current tier and carbon prices going higher? What do you think your philosophy is? Maybe contrast what you think you might be seeing from other developers out there in terms of how hard they're going to push on economics around the value of carbon credits going forward. In terms of the value of carbon credits going forward, I think there's a number of elements that we look at. That is, of course, when we're out looking for longer-term contracts to support projects that otherwise would be merchant and we're comfortable from that perspective, we're not willing to give up a lot of, after you've adjusted for risk, we're not willing to give up a lot of value in order to secure a contract. What we rely on is a combination of solid construction, obviously, and development of projects. In addition to that, and I think as evidenced in the Labatt deal, we do have different levers and different knowledge of markets and so on that we can draw on that others who are competing for contracts may not be able to. Also just our ability in the province to have other power generation that we can rely on in terms of providing customers with sort of a complete package and an ability to provide power 24 hours a day, regardless of whether the sun's shining or the wind's blowing. There's a lot that we're able to do and pull levers that others may not. We see that there isn't a need for us to sort of go to any sorts of extremes to ensure that we get contracted facilities. As indicated, since we embarked on those projects, the carbon price has gone up. The value of those projects, by definition, likewise would go up, and as has implicitly power prices in the longer term associated with rising carbon prices. They sit quite well from an economic position. Having said that, so is the environment for continuing to gain. We are very active in pursuing additional contracts for long-term commitments associated with our renewable facilities. Okay. From the comments on carbon capture and government support, obviously there is an angle of reducing your emissions intensity, but there is also, obviously, if you put capital work, want to make a return on that. Do you have a sense at this point yet in terms of how much capital you might be willing to put to work in terms of CCUS versus how much would come from federal or government support? How do you think the trade-off of return on that capital versus the environmental benefits of what that technology does for your company? When we look at the project, and again, it's early days, but we think of it pretty much as similar to a merchant facility, just simply because you're counting on, to some degree, commodity prices and so on and so forth. We start looking at returns in that order of magnitude as opposed to lower-end contracted returns. As we look at different avenues of potential government support, that obviously reduces risk. Depending on the nature of the support, then that can bring down our return expectations. If it was a fully guaranteed commodity prices by the government and significant other bells and whistles, it could get down to almost a contracted rate of return. That's sort of the normal economics. We have started, and I think you've seen in some of our narrative that we will start, and we're working it out this year, ways in which we can, in our business decisions, incorporate the ESG implications. Having said that, at this point, and I would say in the timeframe for this decision, it would have, I would say, a modest impact. Certainly it's a very good thing to reduce the carbon footprint. The other thing that we would have in mind, and difficult to quantify, is the overall fact that, as we've indicated earlier, Genesee 1 and 2, we've looked at it and the repowering based on a 20-year outlook. The returns that you've seen are based on that 20-year outlook. We've also indicated that the physical life of those facilities are probably 35 years. Certainly, with carbon capture associated with those facilities, that greatly extends the economic life of those facilities, or at least an economic life that we can count on. There's a lot of very significant moving pieces around this initiative. We absolutely expect that for us to move forward with it will be adding to the bottom line. It will make sense in a conventional sense, but would also certainly make sense for the organization from an ESG perspective. Got it. The last question, just on Enchant talked about sourcing some credits in Eastern Canada. Those are third party and I suspect they are, maybe I'm wrong on that, but if they are third party, what's the risk in terms around procurement of RECs in the market in terms of liquidity sourcing going forward? For obvious reasons, because maybe this is the first that many of you have heard about it or that kind of activity, we're not overly keen on too much disclosure around that. We don't anticipate that there's much risk around the acquisition of credits to cover that Labatt position. Okay. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ben Pham from BMO. Please go ahead. All right. Thanks. Good morning. I had a question on your Clover Bar facilities. Looking at the production and the strong pricing during a quarter, didn't know if you ran your Clover Bar facility that much during a quarter, despite strong pricing. What's happening there? Is it more coal plants economically withholding that the Clover Bar's kept clear at the high prices they're bidding? How does Clover Bar fit now in your portfolio? Do you usually run those plants pretty hard when you see pricing conditions like this? Yeah. During periods where we would utilize Clover Bar more when there's volatility in price and we have a hedged position. What we saw in Q1 is that all of our coal facilities had high availability, and therefore, we ran those facilities and didn't have the opportunity to run Seabeck the way that you may have seen it utilized in periods where we were more hedged. Those opportunities really reflect the overall supply in the market, as well as our portfolio position. Okay. you still see Clover as still strategic overall for you? Yes, that's correct. Okay. Maybe on my second question on carbon capture, we've been through a couple cycles of this too before, and you've worked on some of these various technologies. Maybe can you tell us what's different this time versus before? One of the major elements is that we are, and the country is looking at a profile of escalating and material carbon prices, which is not what we had seen before. That obviously has a significant implication. Also, you have a more concerted effort by both the federal government and the provincial government to meaningfully bring down carbon emissions. For example, what we're talking about with Genesee one and two in terms of carbon capture associated with it in the dollars is actually about a third of the current federal expectation of carbon reduction in the power sector from what they would have expected to otherwise happen. There's a strong intent to not demonstrate technology and see where it goes and evolve it in time. There's a drive by both the federal and the provincial government to reduce emissions by 2030. This isn't a large experiment. There is a real drive to put real financial support behind making these projects move forward. For example, our timeframe associated with an expedited process of moving this forward is, we could be putting carbon in the ground in 2026. There is a little bit of an urgency here from both the provincial and the federal government to actually move forward with these technologies. The other thing that is very different is that there has been a lot of work done, and we have done a lot, and as you pointed out, historically, we have put about, with some government funding associated with it, about CAD 50 million into carbon capture and storage potential development. We are quite knowledgeable in the area. Our cost of preliminary studies is a couple of million dollars, and FEED studies is, before internal costs, somewhere around CAD 5 million. As opposed to what historically people think of as the CAD 30 million or CAD 40 million touch for being able to have these projects developed. I would say this isn't a case of let's develop the technology and see where it goes and what the potential is, which is, I would say, the prior direction of the federal and provincial government going back a few years to we actually have to reduce carbon, and we have to put money behind it in order to do it. All right. That's very useful. Thank you. I'm not sure if Darcy's on the call. Best wishes in retirement, and congratulations on everybody else in your appointments. Thank you. Thank you. I'll pass that on to Darcy. Our next question comes from John Mould from TD Securities. Please go ahead. Thanks, sir. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to just start with gas-fired or potential gas-fired acquisitions. The Trudeau government's increased its 2030 emissions reduction targets. The Biden administration has articulated some pretty ambitious targets, probably with a tough legislative path. How do these increased decarbonization ambitions inform your thinking on potentially acquiring mid-life, strategically located gas-fired assets? Obviously we have to see how some of this plays out. As you said, the Biden administration and what they speak of in terms of targets, particularly as it affects the power industry, are fairly aggressive. The Republicans have a very different view. What comes out at the end of the day, we expect to be some sort of compromise in the middle. What we do see as very positive is the fact that both parties in the U.S. are very keen on technology and on technologies like carbon capture and storage. What we see particularly with large facilities like the ones we have, like Decatur, is technologies are evolving and will evolve in time where there's a high possibility or probability that one of these technologies can be associated with our facilities and reduce carbon from that perspective. When we look at new opportunities, certainly we'll be thinking about the potential for carbon capture and storage and carbon utilization. I think the other thing to point out is a little bit of the rationale as to why we look at mid-life natural gas assets is that, if you take a natural gas plant that, say, a 30-year life or 40-year life, somewhere in that range, these assets, when we buy them end up with sort of a 10- 20 year timeframe, our future. You tack that on to today, we don't have other than potentially Genesee 1 and 2, we don't have any natural gas assets that without repowering or other significant investments, would move it to a 2050 timeframe. Again, that's part of the general lower risk approach associated with pursuing mid-life natural gas assets. We do continue to monitor technology, and I think as we've said, we're looking to apply technology to Genesee 1 and 2 and learn from it, and also watch what's evolving with other technologies and then potentially apply carbon reduction technologies to the Goreways and to the Decaturs and to the Arlingtons as we move forward. Okay, great. Thanks for that context. Maybe moving to your Alberta renewables pipeline. You've had success with Strathmore and your latest solar projects just in terms of announcing those as merchant and then contracting those corporate buyers. I'm just wondering if you can give us a sense of what your potential earlier stage pipeline in Alberta looks like right now, and what the timeline could look like for making an investment decision on some of those potential projects. In Alberta, we're continuously looking at renewable projects. Our success in moving projects forward and contracting and so on has sort of increased the lineup of people wanting to talk to us in terms of junior developers with potential opportunities. There's a lot of opportunities out there for Capital Power. Having said that, they're all not necessarily good projects. That continues. We also are looking at some of the projects and relationships that we control. One of the things that we're monitoring and watching is the degree to which we're seeing projects and contract possibilities evolve. One of the things, as you may recall, that pushed us to move forward on the Enchant project was the fact that Strathmore was already filled up. We're monitoring that as well. We expect that outlook to be very positive and to be very fruitful for Capital Power in the relatively near term. To make a long story short, wouldn't be surprised at all if we moved forward on another renewable project in Alberta this year. Okay, great. I'll leave it there. Thanks for taking my questions. Our next question comes from Andrew Kuske from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. I appreciate some of the enhanced disclosure on your embedded renewables business. I guess the question really drives to some others have structurally separated this business. Historically, you've always taken the view of having this really under one roof. Has anything really changed, in your opinion, from the past to where we are with the disclosures now? Andrew, I think as you know, as we've discussed over the years, we continually look at that. That's always, whether it was the quick spinoffs that took place for high-yield organizations and so on and so forth. Through time, it's something that's always there and always something that we should be actively considering. As we go through it and have fresh eyes on it, as how the world is evolving. What ends up happening is you've got, at the end of the day, if you did something like spun off our renewables business, you end up with two relatively small businesses. You certainly get the benefit on the renewables side. You also would be experiencing on the thermal side, a little bit of lower multiples, obviously. Given their sizes of the two businesses at this point, don't really see that as being practical. If you look at it in terms of a relationship of dropping down assets and so on and so forth, one of the things that the size drives is that you continually have to look at consolidation from an overall risk perspective and from a rating agency perspective, which drives, again, some limitation on how far you could push a renewable entity in terms of its investment potential and the degree to which it could actually throw off cash for Capital Power. At this point, the sun and the moon and the stars aren't lined up for that kind of a play. Again, we continually look at it, and size does matter, for sure. Okay. That's helpful context on things. Maybe just focusing perhaps on the sun. When you think about Southport and Roxboro effectively going offline, is there anything you can do with the physical footprint there? In particular, you've got grid connectivity, and so is there solar that you could put on site? I know there's some physical limitations with the sites, but is there anything you can do to really optimize the footprints you have, given some of the renewables initiatives in the state? When you look at the physical footprint of Roxboro, it's really too small to do anything. It's a regular sort of industrial size. There's no real excess land there. From a renewable perspective, it isn't a good site. Although, as you say, from a connectivity to the grid and so on, it's got some positive attributes. When you look at Southport, it's actually property leased from Duke. Even though it's a bigger footprint, it still isn't big enough to really establish a significant renewable project. Again, it's just too small. Again, complicated by the fact that it's actually leased from Duke. Okay. Very helpful. Thank you. Our next question comes from Maurice Choy from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thank you. I just want to pick up on your question about size as well as tying back again to an earlier comment about the sale of potential assets. It sounds like there's a lot less urgency now in terms of potentially selling certain renewable assets, which was the comment made back in the Investor Day. Brian, you alluded to how if you did sell the renewables, the size of the company might be a little too small. Curious to understand what is the target size that you're thinking of in your mind. Along with that, how do you approach, I guess the thesis between capital recycling versus gathering assets for size? Well, I think when one just sits back and says, so how do you actually realize the value associated with the renewable assets? I think as Sandra's commented a number of times, those would be the assets that we recycle. Those are the ones where we think that there may be a little bit more value than the value reflected in the market with us holding it. That realization, we think is a way of, again, recognizing the value of the renewable assets from a shareholder perspective. Those would be the primary candidates. As we look at needs to raise capital, it is definitely in the wheelhouse of something that we would be actively looking at every time we consider raising capital. Again, where they are in the market today, the values in which renewable assets are achieving. It's again, definitely in our wheelhouse to be looking at recycling those assets as an avenue of ongoing realization of value for shareholders. I think we've commented in the past that as we move forward and we see increasing renewable opportunities, it's entirely possible that part of our approach to the renewable business is to develop and build beyond, I'll say, our ability to currently finance and get into a cycle of consistently and systematically recycling renewable assets, realizing that value to sort of fuel further growth and further size in the organization. We recognize that potentially recycling renewable assets is a significantly positive value proposition. I guess recognizing all those comments, going back again to the size, sounds like you're not quite there yet. Is it one where you want to double or triple your size before you go on a more active capital recycling approach? Are we close to the mark now? No, actually, if you look at significantly recycling renewable assets is something that right now, as you know, with CAD 1.7 billion of spend in front of us, although as Sandra said, it's smoothed out a bit and so on. If we saw significantly more renewable opportunities developing in Canada and the United States near the medium term, you might see a fairly active renewable recycling program just because we're able to capture that value for shareholders. Restocking it and growing it. There are some degree of limitations to how quickly we could grow to the extent that we can develop and build beyond that. An excellent model is to be recycling that capital and actually accelerating our growth despite the fact visibly it looks like we're selling assets that we otherwise could have held on to. It actually could significantly fuel our growth. That makes sense. Just to finish up on a slightly different topic, this is about your carbon nanotubes. It sounds like there is obviously appropriate support for CCUS projects like yours here in Canada. If I tie together many of the comments you made today about existing gas assets and potential future acquisitions of gas assets, a lot does depend on your success relating to C2CNT. Could you share with us if there's any other obstacles or any obstacles left with regard to C2CNT, be that technology or even the commerciality of the products? C2CNT is certainly. I think there's significant opportunities around C2CNT, but I think we've said all along, that is one of the avenues of reducing the carbon exposure. Everything from the simple trading, which is how we prefer not to reduce our carbon exposure because that doesn't actually reduce your risk to where we're physically reducing carbon coming out of the stack, such as CCUS or C2CNT or ultimately reducing carbon on some other avenue, not necessarily associated right at our facilities. When we look at that profile and where C2CNT fits, it's in time we'd expect to have invested or participated in a number of carbon reduction applications to be able to reduce our carbon profile. With C2CNT, as we look at it, continues to have a robust outlook. As we've cautioned, the actual, I'll call it, the significant escalation in utilization and acceptance will not be immediate just simply because there's usually, on the very large applications, an interface technology challenge to overcome, such as cement as we've talked about in the past. That, by the way, is moving along and the tests are promising from that perspective. Again, we see that moving forward. Again, C2CNT, continue to see it as very promising and robust and will add a significant amount of shareholder value in time and mitigate some of our carbon risk. It's not the only answer. Even in that space, you may find in time that we are looking at other technologies. Again, there's a lot of significant potential associated with it. In the general space, again, we're looking at a whole range of different kinds of technology to mitigate carbon. Great. Thank you very much. Once again, if you have a question, please press star then one. Our next question comes from Naji Baydoun from Industrial Alliance Securities. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Just wanted to go back to the topic of developing versus selling renewables for a second. Besides spinning off the renewables portfolio or select asset sales, I'd like to get your thoughts on what are some of the other avenues you're considering to potentially recognize the full value of those assets versus what is being attributed to them in the market today? One of the things and one of the approaches as opposed to fully outright selling the assets is to work with, say a financial player, and jointly developing assets that are sort of well beyond our ability to finance. In addition to getting our proportionate share of the economics also gaining fees associated with operating the facilities and so on. There's other approaches to elevate the value of the assets in the longer term when you're in a position where you've got more on the development and construction side than you can reasonably finance. It opens up actually a number of different opportunities and ways to increase the value around those assets beyond just a simple sale or partnerships with ongoing partnerships on the development side or just one-off partnerships associated with either one or a group of those assets. There's a number of different ways in which value can be realized associated with them. Appreciate those comments. Are there any updates that you can provide us on the Island Generation re-contracting? Just wondering when you expect to be able to finalize that initiative. There's really no change in BC Hydro's ability to move forward on the execution of those kinds of contracts. It's not just Island Generation. There's a number of other facilities in British Columbia that are just being held up for, I'll call it technical reasons. Again, not sure when that will end, but we continue to receive assurance from BC Hydro that they absolutely need the asset. The question isn't if, it's just when. Okay, got it. I just have one last question on really sort of corporate partnerships or relationships and what kind of opportunities that opens up for you. I'm just wondering if you can talk about how the agreement with Labatt has maybe informed your approach to corporate contracting, and if you could talk about any opportunities that you see with other sort of corporate customers in Canada or the U.S. to access renewable energy. You put Labatt together with the other one that we announced earlier this year, but still haven't indicated who the off-taker is. Those are very good contracts. What we have found that unlike the early renewable contracts that were available in the U.S., and although we aren't a direct counterparty in some of those. Some of our wind facilities in the U.S. are actually backed through a third party by sort of the Amazon or Google, et cetera. We get some insight from that perspective as well. It's gone from where it's kind of a simple contract of renewables entering into an energy portfolio of large organizations to where they've become more and more sophisticated, and they're looking for more and more elements around the contracts, drilling down more into the energy side. I would just say that whole drive is becoming more mature from the customer perspective. If you think of it simply, it's gone from a procurement part of the organization, like supply chain, to more committed and focused resources on energy procurement who have greater expertise. That market is maturing, and they're asking for more, and they're looking for more creativity in the solutions. For example, the discussion with Labatt's was over a number of months, a large number of months, to get the agreement that works best for them and best for us. I think that maturity in the market, although it takes more time. As I said earlier, we've got more levers. We've got more things that we can bring to the table than many of the other people we're competing with for contracts. We think that maturity is actually helpful to us. We expect that that kind of maturity on the buyer side will continue to evolve. Again, that evolution is very positive for us. For example, in the Labatt deal, it's targeted to cover their demand for the overall Canadian side of their business. In fact, the renewables getting broadly sourced to kind of emulate where the demand is. If you looked at a contract, say two years ago or three years ago, you wouldn't have nearly that degree of sophistication. Again, it's a continually changing market, but we think that evolution is to our advantage. Appreciate all that great color. Thank you. This concludes the question- and- answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Randy Mah for any closing remarks. All right. Thanks, Shauna. If there are no more questions, we will conclude our conference call. Thanks again for joining us today and for your interest in Capital Power. Have a good day, everyone. This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect your lines.