Hello, everyone. I'd like to specify that this conference will be held in English. Members of the media are invited to ask their questions by phone after this call. A presentation supporting today's discussion is available as we speak on the homepage of our website at www.innergex.com. This call contains forward-looking information within the meaning of Applicable Securities Law. Although the corporation believes that the expectations and assumptions on which forward-looking statements are based are reasonable under the current circumstances, listeners are cautioned not to rely unduly on these forward-looking statements, as no assurance can be given that it will prove to be correct. Forward-looking information contained herein is made as of the date of this call, and the corporation does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of events or circumstances occurring after the date hereof unless required by law. Also, during this call, we will refer to financial measures that are not recognized according to International Financial Reporting Standards. Please refer to the Non-IFRS Measures section of the MD&A for more information. Our speakers today will be Mr. Jean Trudel, Chief Financial Officer, who will present Q3 results, and Mr. Michel Letellier, President and Chief Executive Officer, who will review our operational highlights. I now turn over the conference to Mr. Trudel. All right. Merci, Karine. Hello, everyone. Just to start with results, the corporation's financial performance posted a very strong growth for the three months ended September 30th, 2022 compared to the same period last year. Production was up 19%, and revenues were up 40% at CAD 258 million compared with the same period last year. This increase is mainly explained by the contribution of our 2021 and 2022 acquisitions, namely the 50% interest in Energía Llaima, for which results are now included in Innergex performance. The Curtis Palmer assets in San Andrés, as well as the Aela wind farms in Chile. The commissioning of the Griffin Trail and the Hillcrest facilities and higher selling prices at the Phoebe solar facility and also increased production in BC due to the temporary shutdown at Kwoiek Creek last year from wildfire damages, as well as the new PPAs that we negotiated with higher selling prices at some of our French wind facilities. The items previously mentioned were partly offset by lower wind regimes and lower exchange rates at the French wind facilities, as well as lower selling prices at the Salvador solar facility. Operating G&A and prospective project expenses were up 24% at CAD 77.2 million. The increase is mainly attributable to the acquisitions, as mentioned above, and the commissioning activities, as well as higher maintenance costs at some of our BC Hydro facilities. As a result, adjusted EBITDA for the three-month period reached CAD 181 million, which represents a 48% increase compared to the same period last year. Moving on to the next slide. Our proportionate financial performance also posted growth for the three-month period ended September thirtieth. The increase in proportionate is largely driven by variances explained by in the previous points above and also is partly offset by the decrease of PTC generated by the wind farms, and it's mostly due to the lower production at our Foard City facility. Continuing to the next slide on operating and free cash flows. For the trading twelve months ended September thirtieth, the corporation generated free cash flows of CAD 159 million, which is up from CAD 107 million on a normalized basis last year. This increase is explained by, obviously, the contributions of our acquisitions and the recent commissioning activities that we mentioned earlier. It's partly offset by higher debt principal repayments from the Energía Llaima acquisition and the beginning of debt principal repayments for the Upper Lillooet River and Hillcrest project loans. An increase in free cash flows attributed to non-controlling interest coming mainly from Curtis Palmer acquisition and unfavorable differences between the sales at the Phoebe node and the purchases at the ERCOT South Hub. The increase in free cash flow versus 2021 resulted in a 30-percentage point improvement to our payout ratio, which amounted to 91% for the trailing twelve months for the quarter, compared to 121% normalized last year. When we exclude the prospective expense of CAD 27 million, the adjusted free cash flow stood at CAD 186 million versus CAD 128 million. The adjusted payout ratio consequently reached 78% compared to 96% last year, which is, in our view, a great improvement for the corporation. On the next slide, now some financial events, I guess. On October 4th, we completed the acquisition of the remaining minority interest in the 16 wind assets in France for, I guess, a total consideration of CAD 96 million. This allows us much greater flexibility to optimize our platform in France. In order to finance partly this acquisition, we monetized our Euro/CAD or part of our Euro/CAD foreign exchange forward contracts for a total gain of CAD 43.5 million. We concurrently amended the Euro/CAD foreign exchange contracts, and now we have a total notional amount of CAD 115 million amortizing until 2043 at a new fixed rate of CAD 1.48 per Euro. As well, in France, it's been quite active. On October 10, we took advantage of the currently very favorable energy pricing environment in France to enter into two PPAs for its Bois d'Anchat and Beaumont wind facilities, which are to take effect on January 1st, 2023, concurrently with the early termination of these PPAs. In addition, it's important to note the new PPAs will effectively increase the contracted period of the facilities to December 2032. On November the 3rd, finally, the Canadian government released its Fall Economic Statement, and finally they included a major item related to the renewable energy industry, I guess, the key areas of interest for Innergex are obviously the Investment Tax Credit for Clean Technologies. This is a refundable tax credit that will equal 30% of the capital cost of investments in electrical generation systems, such as PV, solar, wind, run-of-the-river, hydro, among others. The ITC will also cover the batteries and pump storage. Companies that will adhere to certain labor conditions will be eligible for the full 30%, while those who don't, would be eligible for a credit of 20%. We don't believe this is a big constraint in the context of the Canadian context to meet the 30%. The credit will be available as of the day of the budget, 2023, and will phase out until 2035. This is a great answer to the American ITC that we have experienced over the last 20 years. Finally in Canada, we have a similar program that will actually help the development of renewable energy within Canada. On top of that, there's also an Investment Tax Credit for Clean Hydrogen. What we understand is that the Department of Finance will launch a consultation on how to best implement this credit based on the life cycle carbon intensity of the facilities. With the lowest carbon intensity meeting it would be eligible to up to 40% of ITC. The proposed ITC will be refundable and available for investment made again as of the day of the budget, and the credit would be phased out after 2030. This helps bridge the gap like on two fronts, I guess from a production of renewable energy and also on the capital expenditure for electrolysis system. It's certainly going to help bridge the gap between the green and the gray hydrogen in the coming years. As a concluding remark, we're very pleased with the performance of the third quarter versus last year. The past few months were very fruitful with the execution and delivery of various initiatives. We therefore reiterate our August 2022 guidance and growth targets as we discussed previously. I will now give the floor to Michel for the operational review of the past quarter. Thank you. Thank you, Jean. I echo your comment on a great quarter. Very proud of what the team have achieved in the last three months. We're executing on this strategy and very pleased to see that this is now paying out in terms of reducing our payout ratio. As we said that that's one of our priorities while developing our pipeline of development. Very pleased to have that performance and t hanks to the dedicated team that are always striving to execute on our strategy. Talking about strategy, as you know, we want to develop the storage component or the storage sector of our industry. Pleased to report that finally the Tonnerre facility were put in service in France, which is a little bit long, but one has to understand that this battery system is aimed to mitigate the fluctuation, the micro fluctuation in the grid. Therefore, this machine or this battery has to react very, very fast on anything that happens on the grid. I think that the team, our team and the EVLO team from Hydro-Québec has done a great job in putting that in commissioning. We have learned, both team have learned a lot, and I think this is a good investment in a sense that it's going to be very useful for the very active market right now in France. It's giving us a lot of experience to do some more battery project in the future. In terms of if I flip to the other page, construction activities. We've been active in Hawaii. As you know, we are trying to renegotiate the price. We have submitted three proposals to HECO regarding Aiea Koe, Barbers Point, and Kahana. We are negotiating. It's a little bit hard to say a little bit too early to conclude on where we will be end up in terms of negotiating, but things are progressing well. Aiea Koe is, as you know, advanced. We have slowed down the construction activities while maintaining the value of our asset and investment that we have put there. Like I said, we still have a window of opportunity to deliver this project by Q3 2024. Before continuing and engaging with the construction activity at that full scale, we have to have an agreement with HECO. Innavik is progressing well. We still have some critical window of opportunity to finalize the spillway before the winter. The team are still optimistic to do that this quarter and hence being able to put the project in service late in Q1 2023. Going back to battery, we have been advancing on Salvador battery. Pretty happy to have made that decision a little bit earlier last year because the battery price, as you know, have gone up, and volatility in the market in Chile is there, and it would create great opportunity to have that battery in the system. I think it's a very, very good complementary tools to our portfolio approach in Chile. Our general manager was sitting in some of the meetings with the industry and these two battery systems, Salvador and San Andrés, are making our competitor a little bit jealous that we have been able to initiate that investment. Very pleased on that aspect. I think that this is a very, very good complementary for the portfolio. As we mentioned, Chile is a good market in terms of renewable energy development, but it has some component of delivering firm energy. Hence, I think that our strategy is paying out and very pleased to have also San Andrés, if we flip to the development activity, San Andrés will also be put in service by 2023. Same supplier of battery. We are going also for this battery package to be in service by 2023. I think on the development activities, the big point that I want you to focus is the signature and the advancement of Boswell project in Wyoming. Just making sure that people are not confusing the fact that we have not declared construction just yet. The team have made the switch between the development activities and construction activities. There are two things that we still have to finalize with the PPA. But it's very, I would say technical. PacifiCorp is waiting to have the written notice from the PUC to have their green light to go and build the Gateway West. They are actually under construction in the field. It's just a matter of. We don't know why it takes so long to have the verbal bench decision to be written. Maybe COVID, maybe some delay in all these administrative offices. Anyway, PacifiCorp is fully committed and already started the construction on the transmission line that is needed for Boswell to interconnect. Boswell is going forward. We have all the contractor lined up and suppliers, so pretty good project. We're very proud of having been able to renegotiate a good price with PacifiCorp, and we'll keep you apprised on the advancements of Boswell, but this is a big step forward in the United States for us. Palomino is also advancing well. The prices are very strong in Ohio. The only challenge we have, not the only, but the biggest challenge we have with Palomino is the interconnection. Everybody knows that PJM in terms of interconnection is really, really busy. That's a problem across the U.S. It's probably one of the limiting factors to see more and more projects being built in the States, is the ability to interconnect. Palomino is having a little bit of a challenge in terms of establishing a firm schedule for the interconnection. We're still optimistic that 2025 COD date will be maintained, but it might slip a quarter or two, depending on the schedule of the interconnection. Going back to France also, we're developing and trying to advance our project in France. Auxy Bois Régnier is still a 2025 project, although we are not certain exactly on the appeal. I think that given the circumstances in France and the need for renewable energy, I think we're very confident that this project will go forward. Lazenay will be put in service by 2023. If we go to prospective project, I'd like to maybe stress the fact that Hydro-Québec has just deposited their long-term forecast for their demand or customer need. Pleased to report that for the next 10 years, Hydro-Québec is forecasting a growth of their demand by 25 TWh. That's 14% of their total capacity. If you translate that into a wind facility or wind facility with 40% utilization factor, you would need more than 7,000 MW of new installed capacity in order to fulfill that demand gap. I think that Quebec will be a tremendous market for us. We have all the intention to participate and take our full share of the market in Quebec. We are having a lot of new discussion with landowner and other stakeholder in order to expand our activities in Quebec. The focus on the next few years will definitely be back to Quebec and be successful in meeting the need of Hydro-Québec for new growth. I think that Canada with the new ITC program, as Jean described, will certainly be a very busy place. I think that Ontario will eventually wake up, same with BC. We think also that the Eastern provinces could benefit from the federal willingness to increase the renewable energy portfolio in New Brunswick and Nouvelle-Écosse... Nova Scotia, thank you. I think that this is one way for the East to capture some of the federal financing that will be available. You know that in the West a lot of federal funding is going to be in the blue hydrogen aspect. I think that the East can certainly benefit from the Eastern Loop where Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland would be a little bit more integrated and exchange renewable energy for basically New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Eventually Ontario. I think that this will be a great opportunity in the East as well. France, as you know, is definitely growing. I think that wind might have a little bit of difficulties in permitting, as it's always a little bit more complicated in France. Nonetheless, I think that they need renewable energy, and they definitely are very aggressive on solar. Our strategy in France has shifted a little bit. We're still developing wind in France but definitely looking more for solar project and initiative in France. United States is still really busy. I just mentioned one of the issues is interconnection in the States. It's true everywhere, but in the States, it's definitely a little bit more present, I would say. Our teams are developing and making project in a lot of states. Northwest is very active, as you know. We have Wautoma project in that area, which is a 400 MW solar. We have a lot of incoming calls for potential long-term PPA. PacifiCorp will also be active in the future for RFP. We have a nice wind there that we have acquired while we were developing Boswell. It's called Wind Dancer, 400 MW wind in that area. We're getting equipped to be able to sustain the development also in the United States. Chile, always interesting to see. The market is still strong. Their summertime will see perhaps a little bit of easing on pricing. They have the ability to receive some natural gas from Argentina in summertime. Argentina is not delivering natural gas in the winter. They need it to heat their citizen, but in summertime, they have a little bit of a surplus. That put a little bit more pressure on price to go down in Chile in summertime, but I think that fall and the winter will see again very strong pricing in Chile. That would conclude my presentation. J ust a big thank you to Karine and her team to have been able to produce a TCFD report that we are putting online. One of you has mentioned that we were the first renewable energy to do such to you know to publish such a report. I'm very proud to the team that done a great job. It's a first for us, and we're happy to report on it. Oh, we're open to the questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question, please press the star followed by one on your touch-tone phone. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. Your questions will be polled in the order they are received. Please ensure you lift the handset if you are using a speakerphone before pressing any keys. Your first question will be from David Quezada at Raymond James. Please go ahead. Thanks. Morning, everyone, and congrats on a really strong quarter. My first question may be on the two facilities in France that were re-contracted. It looks like you got longer terms there than you've had in the past. Just curious if there's any other detail you can share on those agreements. Yeah, well, it's a little bit. We don't like to disclose it too much. It's very competitive right now, those renewals. Let's say that we have taken that strategy of extending the contract, but at a lower price than the ceiling, but yet at a very good premium from the existing contract. We kind of mitigated or let go, compromise a little bit on the short term in order to have a better long-term premium contract. Okay, excellent. That's good color. Thank you. Maybe just on the topic of interconnection and you know challenges on that, specifically in the U.S. I'm wondering, Michel, is there any detail you can provide on how you stack up in terms of interconnection queue positioning across your advanced and I guess maybe even mid-stage development projects. Maybe any comments you have around Wautoma and Wind Dancer specifically, just in terms of you know what you see as the outlook for interconnection there. Well, Palomino, as you know, PJM has switched to a cluster approach, which is going to change a lot of the queues. The queue in PJM, to some degree, will be reshuffled quite a bit with that approach. We are theoretically grandfathered in our approach to be able to interconnect in Palomino. That's why we're still fairly optimistic, but we never know if we end up being caught in this cluster approach. The team is still positive that we should be able to have our window of interconnection and still have a 2025 project window. In terms of Wind Dancer, that's a little bit of interesting one because we actually acquired this facility because our transmission line from Boswell is going through that land. Theoretically, we would be able to interconnect on our own line, and PacifiCorp should have a lot of room in their new buildout of the Gateway West. That should not be a big issue. In Wautoma, interconnection will be a little bit of a challenge, but we have a few options there. The project is situated where we have a few options. Either we're going through the Mid-C or Puget Sound and directly in the West. There's some room. I think we're fairly in good shape. Colorado is preparing an RFP for beginning of next year. We have a project called Mile Isle there that is getting ready for answering that question. In general, we're not that bad. We also have advanced in the north of Minnesota, a place where perhaps a little bit less wind and solar capacity, but more room for interconnection. We're trying to be smart in perhaps having less resources in terms of gross capacity of those projects, but perhaps a better interconnection opportunity. It's difficult to answer more, David, on those aspects because it's moving so fast in the States. Yep, that's good color. Thanks, Michel. Appreciate those comments. I'll get back in the queue. Thanks. Thank you. Next question will be from Nelson Ng at RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks, and good morning, everyone. My first question is, I just want to get a bit more color on your liquidity position. You ended the quarter with, I think, CAD 217 million of cash. You bought the rest of your French business for CAD 96 million, and then you had the FX gain. Can you just give some color as to, like, where you stand in terms of cash availability at the corporate level? Can you talk about your Chilean Battery project? Is that fully funded through that refinancing? Yeah, the Chilean project is actually financed with the refi that we did in Chile. The Salvador BESS project is included in that financing, so we will draw further on that private placement to fund entirely the project. At the corporate level, we have a revolver available that's quite substantial right now. We were able to finance the acquisition of the French asset, as you mentioned, like partly with the repricing of the hedge. The usage on the revolver line of credit. Right now, our situation is good and looking to 2023. We also have availability to conduct our development. Of course, we may look into. Like, if we're very successful, obviously, in our development, then we may have to look for. As I mentioned actually in the IR Day as well, like, we'll look for some ways to finance our activities, and it could be in the form of quasi-equity or, you know, disposal of certain assets that we have or part of assets that we have. We're looking into this right now as well. You know, always looking into the waterfall of ways to finance our activities and the last remaining option would be to do a stock issuance. We have different options. I think we have different ways to, I guess, rotate some of our capital that we have, you know, on our books. We'll try to optimize our structure. Thanks. Just to clarify, for Chile, does your facility also fund the San Andrés battery? Oh- storage project? No, no, not the San Andrés. It finances the Salvador BESS. San Andrés in 2023, that's one that we're looking at adding into the U.S. private placement right now, or to have a financing on its own for the San Andrés. That's something that we're working on actually to have, like, a financing option by end of Q1 2023. I guess looking forward near term, it sounds like Boswell Springs will start construction possibly later this year or early next year. Would that be the next, I guess, big project to- Yeah. ... that you're looking to finance? Yeah. That's that we're actively now looking at it, like, to finance with tax equity partners and also with a term loan. There's that one and there's the other one. The other piece that we are actively looking at to finance is the CDPQ sub debt at the Kwoiek facility. That comes due in February 2023. It's something that we're actively looking at financing right now. Nelson, most of the equity is already spent in Boswell. There's a little bit more to put, but then, when financing will be put in place, probably in Q1 or very early Q2, or we wouldn't have to contribute more equity to the project. Matter of fact, we might receive. We might receive some, yeah. Receive some back, depending on the success of the financing. Can you just clarify that? Because, like, obviously construction hasn't started, but you're saying your net equity needs after tax equity and after a term loan might be negative? Yeah. Already fully funded? Yes. There's only maybe $10-$15 million that we have to continue funding until the financing. We have already ordered and put deposits on turbine done a big portion of the engineering. We have had, if you remember, continuous construction on Boswell to maintain its qualification for the PTC. So, there's not much equity left to put in Boswell. It's in construction, actually. We, you know, have purchased the turbine. Like I said, the initial payment has been paid. Approved. From the road also have been done. Some foundation of turbine has been dug. Just a matter of, you know, it's this quarter the construction is. Contractors are getting mobilized, finalizing the contract of the contractor for all the balance of plant. Contractor for transmission line has been secured, and engineering has already started on that. Purchasing of components has been done as well, transformer and stuff. It's going forward. Okay. Wow. It sounds like it's a lot more advanced than I thought. On the Boswell project, I think the sticker price was about, like, CAD 544 million. Like, do you have a rough breakdown in terms of the capital structure, in terms of tax equity, term loan, and sponsor equity? Remember that Jean will answer that but remember that we have a 30-year PPA. There will be quite a bit of capacity for back leverage financing as well over and above the tax equity. The leverage will be fairly high and Yeah, in the 70-75 range. I think the tax equity, and I can take it offline as well, Nelson, but to be more precise, I think it was 60-65 tax equity portion and then another 10-15% of loan. Great. Thanks for the color. It's 110, 120. Yeah. Maybe 20% of loan. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. Excellent. Just one last question on that, before I get back in the queue. With interest rates heading higher, like, has the cost of tax equity and the cost of debt essentially moved up one for one with the higher ten-year rates? Or how should we think about the cost of tax equity and debt now? Good question, Nelson. I don't think it's one-for-one. You know, the bond yield has gone up 250. Maybe tax equity has gone up 100-ish. Yeah. Right. About. Right. Okay. I presume that's obviously close to one-for-one. Yeah. Well, yeah. We're not in a big rush to fix right now, that portion. As you know, most of our debt is already fixed. I think that short-term interest rate is going up, as we all know. The long end with the inversion of the curve and the talks about the recession coming, not sure that the ten years and plus have a lot of room to go up. Yeah, I agree with that. Okay, thanks for the color. I'll get back. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Nelson. Thank you. Next question will be from Nick Boychuk at Cormark Securities. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. With the power prices in Texas spiking to pretty high levels this quarter, can you please walk us through what your thoughts are on securing PPAs in that market, compared with remaining merchant? That market is crazy, as you know, so we don't want to get fixed. We like being exposed to the merchant in Texas. We've learned it from the hard way. PPA or quasi PPA, where you have to be firm with one asset is nothing that we like about that. Nope, not looking to be very aggressive on fixing pricing, firm pricing in Texas. Michel, does that include going with a corporate PPA? Like, could an opportunity arise where- Well- A large corporation could come and maybe partner in that way? Sure. We like being floating in Texas. It brings a lot of volatility, but at least it doesn't cost an arm and a leg if things are not going your way. Yeah. Unless it has produced- Unless it has produced, and it's a good price. We will never ever again do the silly power hedges. Never again. Okay. That's good. Thanks. There's also a comment in the MD&A that the Salvador Battery storage asset could have a delayed COD due to delivery, but that you'd receive compensation by liquidated damages. Yeah. Can you please just walk us through what that means and how that will be structured? Well, it's a cost per day. Can't remember exactly how much is the quantum per day, but it covers our interest and it would not be totally linked to the lost revenue because that was difficult for the supplier to accept. It's a fair compensation. That being said, we're talking about maybe a month, 45 days-ish, that the Mitsubishi would need to, you know, to be in COD. To come back maybe on your view of fixing price in ERCOT, we're not too hot on this issue because we don't see very good long-term pricing power in Texas. This is very different in Chile. Chile, we're starting to see big demand for long-term PPA directly with players that have already long-term contract obligation in Chile. I think that a lot of people were caught in thinking that building new facility would be fairly cheap. We're seeing, and we're starting to think that the time is come to maybe fix more PPA. We have term sheet on the table, and prices are around CAD 60, CAD 60-ish. There's new DISCO coming in next year, where you are going to see prices around the CAD 60 range with full inflation. At that level, we are starting to think that it's becoming a good bet to start signing a long-term PPA in Chile. Okay. Sorry. Just to clarify, like, that could be, you know, San Andrés solar, for example, that's currently merchant. You could potentially get a PPA of 60 with an inflation factor? Well, we're not going to indicate an asset. We have a portfolio in Chile, so we have the ability. We're actually becoming a small utility with a portfolio where we can. In Chile, it's a financial transaction as well, so we can use any of our facility to supply the obligation, the contractual obligation that we would enter into. Chile. The BESS, the Battery System would contribute to our ability to supply energy to a third party in Chile. Yeah. Understood. I think it's important to know it's very different from what we lived through in ERCOT. Because what Michel said, we can service these offtake agreements from many different points of interconnection- Yeah. ... on the grid from all our assets. It's very different. We have the ability to store at some assets, and with the battery system, it's going to be even more flexible. Yeah. We can build. Okay. Great. Thanks. We can build new project around $60 with full inflation. Projects like Frontera or San Carlos are starting to make sense. Like we said, we will be very focused on seizing the opportunity. If the opportunity arise that our project becomes profitable, we'll start construction. We don't want to start construction without having a strong price signal. Got it. That's really good. Thank you. Just last for me, can you just walk us through any inflationary effects you're seeing on the cost of maintaining the existing asset base? Oh, well, labor and some component. As we said, every percentage of inflation higher than our 2% or 2.5% initial forecast is cash positive on a portfolio basis to about CAD 1.5 million, right? Yeah. About that level. Yes, we have some inflation in our operation, but it's well compensated by our inflation-indexed PPA. Awesome. Thanks so much, guys. Thank you. Next question will be from Rupert Merer at National Bank. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Great quarter. Hello. Hello, Rupert. Thanks. You seem, from your comments, to be more open to consider asset sell downs given the market conditions, and I do think the market would like that. Would you consider a sell down of a stake in development projects like Boswell as you move to financial close? It would depend on the price. It could, w e could. Boswell will have... pr obably Boswell is not the right one because when you understand the matrix, the financial matrix of Boswell, you understand it's a very cash accretive project, especially in the first 10 years, where we have the full benefit of the PTC and the PTC inflation as well. That would not probably the one that we would be willing to divest first. Contrary to, I guess, the past, we are considering some asset that we own, some small ones that are creating a little bit of, I would say stress on management and not big contributor. That could also be on our strategy, just to clean up our portfolio and making sure that our people are available to put their energy on a more profitable project or more aligned in developing some other activities. France might look to. In some ways, we might benefit from a partnership, a financial partnership from a European base. You know that we just acquired 30% of France. On the other end, we have created value by re-signing PPA. There's maybe some opportunity to partner with some financial institution in France. Market is still very strong for portfolio and platform. We're going to look into a project that also are not necessarily generating a lot of cash flow for us. We'll take our decision, but of course, we will have to replace these by also very good and long-term value the asset. Great. Thanks for the color. Talking about another partnership, we saw Hydro-Québec make a fairly large acquisition in the U.S. recently. Did you look at that deal, and do you see potential for involvement with Hydro-Québec in future deals and in the Québec RFP? Oh, yeah. Well, Jean has worked with Hydro-Québec, and our team has worked with Hydro-Québec on the early days of that deal. We decided on a common ground that this asset was a little bit big for us. Given also the weak market condition for us was a little bit of a challenge. I think that one of the issues is also the fact that Hydro-Québec wanted that asset. It's very strategic for them. They, as you know, have long-term contract to supply New York. They think that this asset has a very long-term value for them as well. You just heard me in saying that they are looking for 25 TWh of new energy. If they could supply their commitment in the state via a United States asset, I think it's a good thing for them. It was on the common ground that we decided to let them go alone on that transaction. A little bit also on the fact that it would have been difficult to establish a strong governance on how we would value the electricity on that asset, given the fact that Hydro-Québec has this long-term commitment to sell electricity to New York. I mean, we're all friends on that transaction. We're very happy for them that they were a winner of that asset. As Sophie said, I think that they paid a good price, but an expensive price. I think they see that asset as a long-term hold for them. I guess that doesn't change any fundamental to our long-term relationship and our way to try to look at the other potential acquisition in the Northeast with them. No, and maybe if I can add, like, with the two partners are looking at into extending that partnership now, because there was a three-year window originally for the commitment from Hydro-Québec. We're looking at extending this further in time. We will obviously adjust the partnership. Now we know how each other works. We know what's of interest. We know each other much better. We understand each other much better. Strategically, we'll position that extension of the alliance with more granularity, I guess, for the coming years. I think that since we have worked well with them, I mentioned the Eastern Loop. I think there's great opportunity for us to participate with Hydro-Québec in New Brunswick, Ontario, and definitely in Québec also, to be partnered with First Nation and potentially Hydro-Québec as well on Greenfield project. The alliance is very alive for us. We would have loved to be in a position to take a position in this transaction. Like I said, it was fairly big as well. 25% of that transaction and the financing, the project finance was in place. Very difficult to prepay, and the equity ticket would have been huge for us. Great. Thanks for the color. Thank you. Next question will be from Mark Jarvi at CIBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Jean, maybe you can clarify just the comments around equity needs for next year. It seemed like San Andrés or, sorry, Salvador and Boswell, there was no more additional equity required. What would be there in terms of spending for next year? Would that be San Andrés and then Boswell would be the sort of bigger ticket items next year, potentially for equity requirements? Well, it's really if we have more success, I guess, in our development pipeline, and there's a fairly good amount of prospective projects that are advancing as well in our business. Things are moving fast. If we do further acquisitions, then we may need to access the market, of course. We've done the France acquisitions and, you know. I'm just. I think we have the bandwidth now. We have the flexibility to conduct our development. I'm conscious that we are advancing quite fast in many fronts. We're preparing ourselves to see, okay, where, you know, how we could give ourselves more flexibility. That's why, like what Michel mentioned in the, when we revisit our assets, our asset base, and we look at potentially, divesting from a portion of our assets or reconfiguring some of our assets, I think it's in view of that we just want to be positioned to have that flexibility, I guess, in the coming year. Okay. When it comes to the other projects in Hawaii, you know, it talks about you guys are trying to work with the utility here and amend the PPA. Can you comment on how that's progressing? Or if you can't come to an agreement, is the plan then to rebid in future RFPs? Or just maybe kind of what's the path forward and options in Hawaii? Yeah, we could theoretically bid Aiea Koe in the RFP 3. That's always an option. That's always a possibility. I think that the PUC has made known that their pricing expectation for the RFP 3 is anywhere between $150-$170 per megawatt hour as a blend for battery and solar. That's an area where Aiea Koe could compete, certainly. I think that HECO has some motivation to come and finalize the negotiation with us perhaps a little bit below that threshold. I think that there's definitely some willingness on their part to sit down. It's difficult for them to agree on renegotiating a price without necessarily having an RFP. They have to justify that in front of the PUC, so they're demanding a lot of question about how come this project has gone up in price, so we have to supply our original bid and updated bid. As you know, it's and it's moving part, right? Because the inflation has gone up fast and the delivery of item can be also delayed if we're not taking some decision right away. We're having a good discussion. Also, their avoided cost of producing electricity is high. They're burning diesel, and their cost to burn that diesel is over $200 per MWh. Every month that we're not in service, it's costing them more money. I think we have a path forward. It's just that it takes a little bit more time, and they have to justify their decision in front of the PUC. Michel, could you outline sort of the expected timelines for resolution on that? You know, given where we stand now and you're hopeful as a result of this maybe next year, what's a reasonable timeline for CODs for those projects? Aiea Koe, as I mentioned, we still have a path towards Q3 2024. I think we can maintain that. We have a little bit of a buffer as long as we can have decision from the PUC in the early Q1 2023. The other ones like Barbers Point? Barbers Point is another story. That's one of the smaller ones. We may elect to bid it in the RFP 3, that one. We're still in negotiation, but that one might be a little bit tougher to come to an agreement. We may select to go for RFP 3 on Barbers Point. The timelines for the RFP 3? They're supposed to announce it next year, and COD Day would be 2026 or 2027. Okay. My last question just on Phoebe, seems like you guys looked like you booked higher revenues, but then there's the realized loss on the hedges, sort of net. What is the cash flow profile coming off of Phoebe right now, and is it above plan or below plan at this moment? It's probably not great. It was a bit positive last quarter. It was slightly positive last quarter. If you're asking us since when we took the decision to invest in Phoebe or? Yeah, or even at the beginning of the year, maybe, like when you guys set your sort of free cash flow per share guidance and things like that. It's a little bit neutral from what we had expected at the beginning of the year, but it's always challenging, the basis in Texas for Phoebe. The demand is starting to grow in and around Phoebe. More rigs are being drawn to the area, so that should help. One of the issues that the demand had crashed around Phoebe. The rigs had been decommissioned or no more rigs were installed during the COVID. Given the price of oil being fairly strong, we're seeing more activities in rigs around Phoebe. It's terrible for me to wish to have more rigs. As you know, we're a renewable energy, but that's a fact. The demand around Phoebe is mainly oil-related activities. Would Phoebe be one of the assets your kind of alluding to that's maybe a bit more challenged and something that takes up too much time that you guys would think about selling? I think your conclusion might be right. Okay. All right. Thanks, Jean. Thanks, Michel. Thank you. Next question will be from Sean Steuart at TD Securities. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. Just one follow-up for me, guys. Follow up on France. Do these two contracts you've signed exhaust all your re-contracting opportunities there? And can you give us a sense, is this a new contract with EDF or is it corporate off takers that you're signing the deals with? It's a small co-op utility in France which has the ability to recharge its fees to their customer base. We like that credit. It's a good off taker. Very nimble. We had only a few weeks to renegotiate that contract given the window of opportunity and how fast things are going in France. We were very pleased to have that new customer to be adding that customer in France. The previous ones, Sean, were with corporates. That one was with this, smaller distribution company. Well, we have Longueval that is still fully merchant, and that is going to benefit from this month without having the ceiling at EUR 180. We have Beaumont, another. It's Beaumont, it's 25 MW more, right? Well, we have. No, Yonne. It's Yonne. Sorry. Yonne, it's another 60-ish. Yeah. Yes. We still have, but we're going to be careful, given the noise around potentially capturing the surplus profit. There's a lot of noise in France, regarding the ability of the government to impose special taxes and stuff like that. We're taking our time. We're examining still our option, but Yonne is still one that we can get out of the contract without penalties. Understood. The rest of my questions have already been asked. Thanks very much, guys. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Thank you. Next question will be from Ben Pham at BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hello, Ben. Hi, good morning, everybody. You mentioned your cost of capital has gone up. I wanted to confirm, has that changed the capital structure of how you're going to be financing your projects going forward? I guess that our cost of capital has gone up. Everybody has seen their cost of capital go up. I think that we've been punished a little bit more than our peers on our share price. Hopefully that by delivering good quarter- over- quarter- over- quarter, people will get back to buying our stock. We're reacting as everybody else, knowing that our total cost of capital, i.e., Project Finance, our equity, everything has gone up by 200 basis points-ish. We're trying to adapt and any acquisition that we are seeking take that in consideration. Even if we're doing acquisition with our price of stock, we always take the current price of our stock to calculate the potential accretion of a transaction. Always kept in mind that we have a certain cost of equity and an average cost of capital and try to adjust in our target return when we acquire or when we develop projects. Okay. I know you also mentioned selling assets is still attractive. Has that return on asset sales or, I guess, whatever you want to call it, the difference between that and your cost of capital, has that narrowed or you're seeing it more the same as before? Well, it's funny. Sometimes it's certainly very good assets with long-term PPA, there's still a lot of cash or equity that is committed to this type of infrastructure fund that love those assets. We think that it's always a little bit lagging in terms of adjustment, in terms of expected return on these assets versus public companies. Our price gets adjusted very quickly. So, there's a disconnect between the public market and the private transaction. Always lagging in some ways, I would say. How much is difficult to say, but you know, if we go up by 150-200 basis points in our cost of equity, typically it translates to 50-75 basis points in the private transaction. Okay, one last more detailed one. The news flow and the BC droughts, are you generally immune to that based on where your assets are located? No. You've seen that our quarter was not that great coming from BC. That's the reaction. Although when you have very warm summer, some of our water basin have some melting snow and some melting glacier. That kind of mitigated a little bit our production versus the drought itself. No, unfortunately, BC has been hit by this dry condition. It could turn around, as you've seen in the last years. BC is a little bit more volatile than in Quebec. You have very good quarters and sometimes followed by fairly bad quarter and then dry spell. Hopefully BC is due for a good wet year going forward. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Next question will be from Andrew Kuske at Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Over the years, you managed to build out a nice business in France, and that jurisdiction historically has been, you know, challenging for permitting smaller land parcels and just in general, tougher regulatory processes. You know, how are you navigating the current environment, and are you seeing any change where there could be a potential acceleration of activities in France and just maybe easier processes around development? You're right, Andrew. There's some I would say some legal, not legal, political desire to streamline the process, especially for solar. solar will get some acceleration proposal, I think in some permitting issue. wind is still difficult to permit in France, and the willingness of the politician to stand by wind is not so strong. I think that we'll still be able to develop wind in France, but solar will be a lot easier to develop. Then eventually, solar and batteries might also becomes very useful for the French market. Like I said, wind, we'll still continue to develop wind, but there's definitely more pushback for wind acceleration proposal in the legislation than for solar, for sure. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Then maybe just to follow up, you know, given what we've seen with your FX hedges earlier on and just the current levels of some FX spot rates, are you more inclined to put capital into France and maybe Europe broadly, if you find sufficient returns or opportunities just on a reversion to mean kind of trade, you actually wind up with a pretty meaningful lift on just FX alone? I guess that was luck. Not luck. I mean, we hedged ourselves and having this huge plus value sitting on the hedge and our ability to actually recontract that hedge at around 1.48. Yeah. Coming from 172-173. 72, 73. Yeah. We thought versus the spot, it was kind of an easy call, right? I mean, we took advantage of that. That was quite a bit of money to be 43, 40- CAD 43 million, yeah. CAD 43 million of value that just there. I don't think we are focusing too much on FX. It just happened to be very profitable to do that trade. That doesn't really change our strategy to invest in France. The return. We're trying to calculate the return based on its own merit in France. We always need some money to continue developing in France. Repatriating cash from France sometimes can be challenged. If we have the ability to recycle some of that capital, we were willing to do so. As I mentioned, there's a lot of willingness also from financial partner in France to commit fairly aggressive cost of capital to continue developing project in France and Europe. That could also be, like we said, an alternative for us to increase our presence in the development in France by having a potential partner in Europe. Okay. Appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if there are any additional questions at this time, please press star followed by one. Your next question will be from Naji Baydoun at iA Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hello, Naji. Hi. Hi, good morning. Congrats on the good quarter. Just wanted to start off with a clarification question. You didn't increase the guidance for this year despite the good results, that's not sort of relaying any expectations about Q4? Well, we didn't republish guidance because the guidance that we provided in Q2 and during the IR Day are still valid. Sorry. This quarter, there's some timing also on the debt repayments and so the guidance, we felt that we were comfortable with what it was in August. I mean, we'll see how the next quarter goes in terms of production and revenues, but we felt just comfortable staying as is for now. Yeah. I mean, the east is doing great in production. BC, as you know, October was still dry, but it's picking up now in November. Always difficult to call on one quarter. Yeah. Well, it depends also the level of pricing that we experience. I mean, we've benefited from it and it's softening a little bit in Chile, so it's above our forecast still today, so that's good. Yeah. The plan is to issue guidance at the beginning of the year and then midyear to issue an update and then unless something material was to happen, obviously. Okay. Got it. Just wanted to go back to the topic of partnerships and asset sales, but just starting with Hydro-Québec, when do you think what would be the timeline to maybe move forward on the project with Hydro-Québec in the province outside of the RFPs that they're looking to do? Sooner than later, but it's difficult in Québec to go through all the permitting and then interconnection delay, construction, depending where you develop that. It's difficult in Québec to build in wintertime. Putting project in service before 2026 is a little bit of a challenge. Some can be done, but then it's definitely more 2027, 2028 to see COD. That's the timeline that Hydro-Québec is looking for, right? To add new capacity, it's going to be post 2026. Right now, like, what they see is all the way to 2032 or above. We're positioning ourselves really, like, to insert that load, that requirement. In time, I guess, whenever Hydro-Québec feels ready, like, to come in and join us, I mean, we'll be happy to entertain, you know, a partnership at the project level as well with them. Because typically, a project that has been developed in the north, it takes two years to permit in Québec going through [Foreign language], and then usually it takes two years to build-ish. Four years starting in 2023 puts you at the best at 2026, and early 2027. That's it. I mean, based on those timelines, it sounds like you could FID on something next year. Oh, definitely. We're working very intensely to secure some project in Québec. You know, 7,000 MW is doubling the total installed capacity in Québec in terms of wind. That took 20 years to build. Yeah. We will be busy in Québec. Not an easy feat, but definitely an exciting opportunity. Just on asset sales, I mean, you just did the French portfolio consolidation, that helped kind of simplify the structure a bit. I guess it's two questions. One, do you see other opportunities to maybe consolidate your ownership and assets? I'm thinking some of the wind farms or hydro facilities in North America. How do you think about the trade-off between partial asset sales and maybe, like you said, partnerships in France, which maybe just make the structure more complex again? No, I agree with you. The complexity of our financial statement is something that we heard investors saying that sometimes our financial statement are a little bit complicated, i.e., because we have a joint venture, we have some consolidation, and we have PTC. We're pleased to have been able to consolidate our French asset. It's always a compromise. We would rather keep it. If we think that the arbitrage between the cap rate of Europe and our ability to deploy our capital to a higher rate somewhere else, that's the compromise that we will have to do. Let's see. In France, it was important to strategically position ourselves to be in control of the operating assets. We had a partner on operating assets but not on development assets. The idea would be to eventually. To your point, Michel, cap rates are good. Investors are looking at that type of platform. Now we have something different to offer if we want to partner with someone. It would. You're right, it would bring a partner, so sometimes it looks like it's more complicated. If it's a partner for the overall platform, it really simplifies our ability to grow the platform because we're aligned on operations but also on development, both sides. We did the same thing in [inaudible], right? We bought back our partner to gain control over our assets, and then it was putting us in our best position to acquire further assets and to have a full, complete platform. In some cases, it's really strategically driven, I guess, to buy out a partner, and in some cases, it's just to simplify the structure. Yeah. In this case, we had willing sellers that for all kinds of reason was probably happier to dispose of their investment in France to deploy it somewhere else. We took advantage of that alternative. It was also easier for us being the sole owner to take the decision on renegotiating PPA, our portfolio in some cases than having a partner to share the decision. Once everything would be settled and we would know more about our strategy regarding the recontracting activities, we might consider looking for a partner in France. Okay. That's very helpful. Just to be clear, I guess there aren't any other major opportunities today to consolidate other ownerships- No, there are. ... within the portfolio? Yeah. I think you mentioned, There are some. Still, if you look in our statements, you see that we have some minority positions in our business. We're looking at when it might not be feasible in some cases. In some cases, it might be. I think it's important for us to just take a good look at it and see if something can be done. In France, just to add up to France, I mean, it was a great opportunity, I think, at the EBITDA level that we bought back our minority. I think it was a great deal for us because deploying capital on acquisitions in France, it's much harder in a process-like environment. In the bilateral fashion like we did now, it's I think it was a great opportunity as well. We'll look at what we have, and we'll try to find ways to conclude, but sometimes you have minority partners that are not sellers as well. We cannot necessarily force them out, so. Mm-hmm. Okay. Appreciate all the details. Looking forward to more updates as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, Mrs. Vachon, there are no further questions. Well, I thank you very much, everybody, for your time, and I always appreciate your support. Thank you very much. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does indeed conclude your call for today. Once again, thank you for attending. At this time, we ask that you please disconnect your lines.