Thank you for standing by, and welcome to this Northland Power conference call to discuss the 2021 third quarter results. During the presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. Afterwards, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. At that time, if you have a question, please press star then one on your telephone. If at any time during the conference you need to reach an operator, please press star zero. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10 A.M. Conducting this call for Northland Power are Mike Crawley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Pauline Alimchandani, Chief Financial Officer, and Wassem Khalil, Senior Director of Investor Relations and Strategy. Before we begin, Northland's management has asked me to remind listeners that all figures presented are in Canadian dollars and to caution that certain information represented and responses to questions may contain forward-looking statements that include assumptions that are subject to various risks. Actual results may differ materially from management's expected or forecasted results. Please read the Forward-looking Statements section in yesterday's news release announcing Northland Power's results and be guided by its content in making investment decisions or recommendations. The release is available at www.northlandpower.com. I will now turn the call over to Mike Crawley. Please go ahead. Thank you, Norma. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. This morning, we will review our third quarter 2021 financial and operating results. Following our opening remarks, we will take questions from analysts and look forward to addressing those questions. To kick things off as we always do, I wanna reiterate that the health and safety of our employees and stakeholders always comes first. We pride ourselves in the rigorous adherence to health protocols during this pandemic, ensuring the safety of our employees while allowing us to maintain high levels of facility availability. First, looking at the financial results for the third quarter, we reported adjusted EBITDA of CAD 211 million, compared to CAD 254 million a year ago, representing a decrease year-over-year of 17%. For free cash flow, we reported CAD 11 million in the quarter or CAD 0.5 per share. This compares to CAD 61 million or CAD 0.30 per share reported in the third quarter of 2020. This year, our financial performance has been challenged in large part due to the wind conditions in the North Sea. This low-level resource has affected the contributions from our three offshore wind farms, which have seen historically low levels of wind production so far in 2021. I will note that we have seen this abnormally low level of wind resource, not only in the North Sea, but across much of Western Europe, with generation in that whole area trending well below what our long-term average is. However, as we start the fourth quarter, which is typically one of the stronger quarters for offshore wind, we are seeing improved conditions, with October production coming in very strong. In fact, October has turned out to be the second strongest production month in the year so far, at well above P50 levels. As we noted in our press release yesterday, and Pauline will touch on it later in the call, despite the lower performance in our offshore wind segment, we remain on track to achieve the low end of our 2021 guidance range for both adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow. This is possible due to the increasing diversification in our portfolio, where our results benefited from stronger performance in our onshore operating segments, including assets like EBSA and the recently acquired solar and wind assets in Spain. Both of these sets of assets are performing well, and in fact, the Spanish assets are benefiting from the higher pool prices across much of Europe this year. On our growth initiatives, we are making good progress executing on a couple of opportunities to advance and grow our portfolio. Starting in Colombia, we are focused on growing our platform there following the acquisition of EBSA in early 2020. If you recall, one of EBSA's key attributes was its grandfathered rights that allow it to participate in all aspects of the Colombian electricity sector. This has allowed us to grow our platform first with our 16 MW Helios solar project, which achieved financial close in the second quarter. We followed this up with two solar projects with a combined capacity of 130 MW. In partnership with EDF Renewables, we have successfully bid these projects into the most recent renewables auction to secure offtake for these projects. Northland will have a 50% ownership in both of these projects, which will benefit from a 15-year power purchase agreement with multiple high-quality Colombian energy distribution and commercialization offtakers that are required to secure a minimum amount of green power by 2023. The projects are expected to be in commercial operations in the second half of 2023. Moving to Germany, along with our partners RWE, we exercised our step-in rights for Nordsee Two expansion project on our current Nordsee One project. This allows us to retain the lease. With the successful conclusion of the auction in late September, the winning bid was a zero bid for Nordsee Two, and we had the right to match that bid in order to retain the lease for Nordsee Two. We will now move forward with the development of that project, and we'll look forward to secure long-term offtake contracts with commercial and/or utility customers for the project. We also have the same step-in rights for Nordsee Three, which comes to auction in 2023. Similar to Nordsee Two, we expect to exercise those rights to retain the lease. Should we not be successful bidding ourselves into the auction. Together, these two projects have the potential for up to 900 MW of capacity and can help to meet the growing demand for renewable power in Europe among both utilities and also corporates. Northland has an 85% interest in each of these leases. In Spain, we successfully closed the acquisition of the wind and solar portfolio on August 11, that we spoke about earlier this year, adding 551 MW of operating capacity to Northland's portfolio. Our near-term focus will be on integrating the assets into our portfolio, and we also look to position ourselves for further growth in the region. We are adding key personnel to the team to help build out this platform in Spain. The assets have seen a significant increase in merchant pool prices since the announcement of the transaction in April of this year. We are now seeing prices north of EUR 100 per MWh, which will certainly have a positive impact on our near-term cash flows from the portfolio under the regulated tariff scheme. The portfolio aligns well with our priorities and helps to further diversify our asset base through adding high-quality, long-term regulated cash flow. Now turning to our other development and construction projects, I want to provide a brief update on the various projects that we have underway. In Japan, in September, the government designated four new sea areas as promising development zones for offshore wind development under its round three process for offshore wind procurement. These areas included Ichihara City in Chiba Prefecture, where Northland is progressing with the development of its Chiba offshore wind project along with our partners. In addition, the Katagami area in Akita Prefecture, where Northland is exploring up to a 400 MW opportunity through a consortium with Mitsui and Osaka Gas, was also designated on this promising development area list. The designation as promising areas is a key milestone in the development process for these two early-stage development projects, which could have a total pre-production capacity of up to 900 MW once completed. Now in New York State, construction of our two onshore wind projects, Bluestone and Ball Hill, is progressing well, and the projects remain on track for commercial operations in late 2022. Our third 100 MW New York onshore wind project, High Bridge, continues to be under active development. At La Lucha, efforts to achieve energization of the facilities continues, with Northland working with Mexican authorities and other private power producers experiencing similar issues to try and expedite the process, with timelines still remaining somewhat uncertain. Efforts to secure commercial offtake and project financing are expected to be finalized after commercial operations. Now finally, at Nordsee One, we have accelerated our bearing replacement campaign, and we're able to replace 10 rotor shafts assemblies by the end of September, more than we had initially planned. This is an important outcome as it allows us to minimize the downtime of the wind turbines during the fourth quarter, when wind resource tends to be stronger. The project had a very high availability during October as a result. The 10 assemblies were replaced at a cost of EUR 13 million or CAD 16 million at Northland's share. We were able to achieve some cost savings on the total expected replacement cost for all 54 assemblies. The cost is now expected to be slightly lower than estimated last quarter and within the range of EUR 50 million-EUR 60 million or CAD 65 million-CAD 75 million at Northland's share. The costs are now expected to be almost fully covered by the warranty bond settlement achieved and received in 2020 relating to the outstanding warranty obligations of Nordsee One's original turbine manufacturer upon its insolvency. We will resume with the replacement campaign in the second quarter of 2022 and expect to complete the replacement of all remaining 44 assemblies in 2022 and 2023. I'll now turn the call over to Pauline for a more detailed review of our financial results. Thank you, Mike, and good morning, everyone. Last night, Northland Power released operating and financial results for the third quarter of 2021. In the quarter, we generated adjusted EBITDA of CAD 211 million, which was a decrease of CAD 44 million or 17% from the CAD 254 million we generated in the third quarter of 2020. The main factor resulting in the year-over-year decrease in EBITDA was the lower wind resource at the offshore facilities, as highlighted by Mike in his remarks. Partially offsetting this was a CAD 19 million contribution from the Spanish portfolio. With respect to free cash flow, Northland generated approximately CAD 11 million in the quarter. This was a decrease of approximately CAD 50 million or 82% compared to the same quarter last year. Similar to adjusted EBITDA, the largest driver of the year-over-year decrease in free cash flow was the lower offshore wind resource in the quarter. This was partially offset by about CAD 8 million of lower taxes at the offshore wind facilities and about a CAD 3 million contribution in the quarter from the Spain portfolio. For adjusted free cash flow, we generated CAD 34 million in the quarter compared to CAD 76 million in the same period a year ago. The factors leading to the CAD 42 million decrease were the same factors impacting free cash flow, except lower growth expenditures in 2021, which do not impact adjusted free cash flow. Just to remind everyone, Northland's adjusted free cash flow excludes growth-related expenditures from free cash flow. We believe that adjusted free cash flow provides a relevant presentation of cash flow generated from the business before investment-related decisions and is a meaningful measure of our ability to generate cash flow after ongoing obligations to reinvest in growth and to fund our dividends. On a per share basis, these figures translated into free cash flow of CAD 0.05 in the quarter compared to CAD 0.30 last year, and adjusted free cash flow of CAD 0.15 in the quarter compared to CAD 0.38 per share last year. Free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow payout ratios calculated on a cash dividend basis for the rolling four quarters ended September 30th were 81% and 60%, respectively. This compares to 65% and 61% for the same period ending September 30th of last year. The increase in both net payout ratios was primarily due to lower free cash flow and adjusted free cash flow and the effect of the shares issued from the common equity issue in April of this year. Turning to our balance sheet and liquidity, Northland remains in a very strong position with ample liquidity to help fund our identified development initiatives. In the quarter, we executed on a number of initiatives that will further enhance our balance sheet and improve our corporate liquidity while also advancing our ESG objectives. We successfully renewed and extended our CAD 1 billion revolving credit facility with a syndicate of both Canadian and global financial institutions by 2 years to 2026 from 2024, and executed several amendments to increase the liquidity available under the facility to fund growth. Concurrently, we also implemented a sustainability linked loan or SLL overlay. The implementation of the SLL is an important outcome and aligns with our ESG initiatives and the green financing framework we introduced in February of this past year. The SLL is based on achieving defined targets around both increasing our renewable generating capacity and reducing carbon emissions intensity. The SLL is expected to provide Northland with cost savings when the targets are met, and is an important step in integrating our ESG performance with our financing objectives. All margin savings are expected to be used to fund our global sustainability initiatives. Also in the quarter, we successfully restructured and upsized the senior debt on a number of our Canadian solar facilities, resulting in a one-time cash distribution to Northland totaling CAD 40 million or approximately CAD 0.18 per share. This refinancing constitutes a green project financing in support of our ESG initiatives. To date, in 2021, Northland has received cash distributions amounting to CAD 113 million or CAD 0.50 per share from optimizing and upsizing project finance and other debt structures to further enhance our liquidity and to fund growth. I will note that these cash distributions are not included in free cash flow or adjusted free cash flow as they are not scheduled financings, but they very much do contribute to our ability to fund growth. Lastly, Northland received a second investment-grade corporate credit rating of BBB stable from Fitch. This rating will add to the current rating of BBB stable from S&P, which was reaffirmed in March of this year. The additional rating reaffirms Northland's creditworthiness and financial stability and could support future debt raises in specific markets. In terms of our liquidity as at September 30th, 2021, Northland had access to CAD 824 million of cash and liquidity, comprised of CAD 784 million of proceeds under our syndicated revolver facility and CAD 40 million of corporate cash on hand. We continue to look at opportunities to support our growth initiatives by raising capital from existing assets and executing on cost-effective financial optimizations that provide increased liquidity for the company. As part of this initiative, we are currently working on refinancing efforts for EBSA to extend and upsize the refinancing, and also to complete some optimizations to position us for success in refinancing this asset on a recurring basis. We expect to complete the refinancing in the fourth quarter, which is expected to generate additional cash flow to Northland. In regards to our financial outlook for 2021, we remain on track to achieve the low end of guidance for both adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow per share. For adjusted free cash flow, we expect to achieve the range that was revised in the second quarter of this year. For adjusted EBITDA, the current guidance range is CAD 1.1 billion-CAD 1.2 billion, while for free cash flow, the range is CAD 1.30-CAD 1.50, which is expected for 2021. For adjusted free cash flow per share, the expected range is CAD 1.60-CAD 1.70 per share. To reiterate, given the lower offshore wind performance thus far in the year, which negatively impacted our financial performance, we believe achieving the lower end of guidance is a very good outcome. The performance from our Canadian portfolio and EBSA speaks to the value of our diversified portfolio in providing offsetting support to the short-term weakness in the offshore wind segment. This diversification will be further enhanced with the addition of the recently acquired Spanish portfolio, which is performing well. Before I turn the call back over to Mike, I wanted to speak to our Iroquois Falls 120 MW efficient natural gas facility. Iroquois Falls has contributed significantly to Northland's financial performance over the course of its 25-year PPA, which is set to expire at the end of this year. This expiry will impact the contribution from Iroquois Falls to our 2022 financial projections. Currently, Iroquois Falls contributes approximately CAD 75 million annually in adjusted EBITDA, and this contribution is expected to reduce by approximately 90% in 2022. Given the current forecasted Ontario market capacity needs, Northland anticipates participating in the Ontario market through capacity options as a generation resource, offering capacity for both the summer and winter commitment periods. In addition, management intends to seek other offtake opportunities. In closing, we are satisfied with our progress in 2021, given the challenges that we have faced due to the various shortfalls experienced in offshore wind. Despite these unusual market conditions, we continue to execute on our business objectives and secure new opportunities for future growth and diversification, and to offset lower cash flows from our expiring PPA contracts. Our teams are working hard to ensure that our facilities deliver strong performance, and we continue to enhance our financial position through the execution of key financing initiatives that will allow us to advance our growth and objectives. With that, I will now turn the call back over to Mike for his concluding remarks. Thank you, Pauline. Looking ahead, we continue to see a lot of growth opportunities within the renewable energy space as the global trend towards decarbonization continues to gain momentum. Through our global presence, Northland aims to be at the forefront of this movement, and our strategy continues to be on making the investments necessary to position ourselves to capitalize on these opportunities. Our growth strategy centers on developing our pipeline of offshore wind projects in Europe and Asia, which will provide significant growth in the mid to latter half of this decade. While in the near term, our efforts will focus on supplementing our cash flow profile through targeted onshore renewable opportunities in key markets through both development and strategic M&A. This concludes our prepared remarks. We'd now be happy to take your questions. Norma, please open the line for questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to register a question, please press star one on your telephone. If your question has been answered and you would like to re-withdraw your registration, please press the pound key. If you are using a speakerphone, please lift your handset before entering your request. One moment, please, for our first question. Our first question comes from David Quezada with Raymond James. Please proceed with your question. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. My first question here, maybe just starting with the Japanese offshore wind projects. Wondering if there's any additional color or context you can provide on, I guess how much this improves the likelihood of those projects going forward. You know, how expected was it that these would be designated promising areas? Maybe just what the next hurdles are with those projects. For sure. I mean, it is the first key step in moving towards having a procurement run or on that area. For us, it is a key milestone for those two projects. The next step will be for it to be formally established as a designated zone, which signals that there will be an auction run within that area for an offtake and for the interconnection as well. That's the next step. Between now and then, our team will continue to work with the local community to ensure their support for the project, which has already been confirmed to a certain level, which is why it was designated as a promising zone. That has to be further confirmed, and then once that happens, it would be a signal to run a procurement in that area. Excellent. Thanks for that, Mike. Maybe one on the potential for Nordsee Three coming up. I'm just curious if the elevated power price environment in Europe stays in place, could you see any change to the way bidding happens there, like potentially a non-zero subsidy bid, or would you still expect that to be a you know, pretty competitive process? I'd still expect it to be competitive. Whether it's a you know zero subsidy bid or not will be determined. I think what's clear to us is that certainly in the near term and I can't forecast beyond that but in the near term power prices should remain higher than they have been historically in Germany or in Northern Europe. But the biggest driver I would say for those projects will be the increasing corporate demand for renewables. As you get further out towards the latter part of the decade we think the emergence of demand for green electrons for hydrogen projects as well in Northern Europe. As you know the European Union and the various state governments are being quite proactive on hydrogen. I think that's what really has us excited about the Nordsee Two and Three projects is that demand for green electrons. If you look at all of the net zero commitments from most large corporates, the easiest commitment and the low-hanging fruit is around procurement of renewable power. For some, it's to start looking at opportunities to on a pilot basis initially, but to introduce hydrogen into some of their industrial processes. We need green electrons for that too. I think those projects are well-positioned. Excellent. Thanks for that, Mike. Then maybe just one last one, if I could quickly on the benefit from higher prices across the Spain portfolio. I'm just curious if under the regulated system there, do you have to give some of that back via a downward adjustment in future periods? We do. I mean, there's three-year periods where you have effectively a set tariff. There's three components. In our revenue streams, there's the market revenue we get, there's a capacity-type payment, and then there's an almost like an energy-type supplement payment that you get. The last two components are set every three years. There'll be a reset at the beginning of 2023. The system is generally trying to solve to that low 7% return level, right, on the assets. Yeah, it basically effectively moves cash flow up earlier. There may be some modest time value benefit, but I don't think it's anything we would say is gonna be significant on returns for the projects overall. It's more a benefit in terms of moving up cash flow earlier, which is certainly good from our standpoint, given the back-ended cash flow that we get from the offshore wind development projects that we have. Pauline, anything else you'd add to that? The only other thing is we're working through revenue recognition. We're obviously in unprecedented territory with respect to where power prices are. I think all else equal, you are looking at higher cash flows over the three- and six-year period, even if there is a downward adjustment. Within this, you know, this window of time there, the cash flows, as Mike said, would be higher, and we're just determining now how to recognize that. Excellent. Thank you very much for that. I'll turn it over. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sean Steuart with TD Securities. You may proceed with your question. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Just following up on Nordsee Two. We saw Ørsted today secure its 25-year contract with the BASF. As you, Mike, think about securing corporate offtake, can you give us a sense of how that progresses? Do you leave any merchant exposure as you move ahead here? Ideally, how much would you look to secure through corporate offtake out of the gate for that project as you move it ahead? We would expect to look to secure commercial offtake or utility offtake as well. For the vast majority of the output, there will likely be a portion that is left as merchant just to ensure that we can meet the delivery commitments under the corporate PPA. Of course, that'll come down to the terms of that corporate PPA as well. Okay. With respect to the 130 MW in Colombia you're moving ahead with EDF on, any background you can give us there? It seems relatively small scale. Why partner at all for those opportunities? Can you give us some context there? Yeah, for sure. The original developer of the project is EDF. They were seeking a partner, and a partner that had a presence in Colombia and knew the market well. That's how it really came about. I think they probably knew that we were already building a solar project in Colombia, Helios as well. I'm not sure whether that helped or not, but they were seeking a partner. Do you have buyout rights down the road for those developments? How does that work? Nope. No, no. We're 50/50 partners all the way through on those projects. Okay. That's all I have for now. Thanks, Mike. I'll get back in the queue. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Rupert Merer from National Bank. You may proceed with the question. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to follow up on Nordsee Two again. It sounds like the outlook for corporate PPAs is pretty good. Can you talk about the sort of terms you can get there and would they be able to support project finance on the asset? We would expect to be able to layer in project financing. I can turn it over to Pauline as well on it. Prior to exercising our step-in rights on Nordsee Two, we did a robust market sounding both on corporate offtake, anticipating that it could be a zero subsidy that we'd be stepping into. And with that, we also explored kind of what types of terms we would be able to get with lenders to add some leverage to that. I think we've got a pretty clear view in the current market of where that would be. But of course, you know, it'll be a few more years before we go out to actually secure that. with the financial close for Nordsee Two anticipated in 2023 or 2024. Okay, great. What else is required before you can move to financial close? With this project, are you contemplating sell downs as you discussed in your Investor Day? I imagine sell downs could go to a corporate offtaker as well. Maybe you could give some color on your thoughts there, please. Yeah. You've certainly seen that in some instances where the offtaker also wants to invest in the asset. I think in most cases that I've seen they haven't, but I've seen a few cases where they have. I think we've been clear that we'd be open to looking at sell downs on all of our larger offshore wind projects. Doesn't mean we'll necessarily move forward on every one of them, but we certainly would be open to that. I mean, there's a lot of capital looking to invest in offshore wind projects, but there's a limited number of projects and a limited number of developers who have the capacity to advance and get those projects to FID. Okay, thanks. What are the other hurdles to get to FID? Just to complete the final permitting the projects, to complete the procurement, which is just now starting, processes around the project. Obviously final design, which is related to both of the project, but those are the main next steps. We don't really see any significant hurdles getting to FID. Just a lot of work. Anything else on- Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead, Rupert. Sorry. One final question on Nordsee Two. You've had some curtailment issues with Nordsee One. Looking out a couple years when Nordsee Two, Nordsee Three could be online. Sure. Do you anticipate we could see the end of those curtailments? That's been our forecast all along, is that as more coal gets retired, and there's a schedule to get all of the coal-fired generation in Germany retired over the next decade, roughly. As some additional transmission capacity is added between the north and south of Germany, that should relieve and address some of the congestion issues that we're creating, the curtailment at periods of low demand and high production in the North Sea. Great. I'll leave it there. Thanks for the call. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. Great. Thanks, and good morning, everyone. First question just relates to project costs escalation. I know that's been pretty topical for many sectors. You've talked about it in the past, but can you just remind us on kinda where you are in terms of what portion of costs have been locked in, and where and what are the key risks remaining for your New York projects and also for your Taiwan project? Nelson, for both of the New York projects that are under construction, all of the costs are locked in, so we've reached financial close. All of the supply chain contracts have been finalized and signed, so the projects are proceeding as expected through construction. All of that is locked down. On Hai Long, as we've described earlier, we have preferred supply agreements both on the balance of plant and as well as on the turbine procurement as well. With those, we get good visibility through all of the sub-suppliers of those contractors at different iterations over the year. We've got pretty good visibility into what's happening with pricing from their subcontractors. We're watching it closely. There's nothing certainly of particular concern related to inflationary pressures at this point versus what our assumptions had been going in. We're obviously keeping a close eye on steel prices, but we're not gonna be closing the financing and therefore locking down any commitments to suppliers until second or even third quarter of 2022. There's still some time to go on that. Just to clarify, on your third New York project, that's still in advanced development, so things are still kind of moving there, right? Like, are any of those costs locked in yet? Yeah. I mean, I'd say we're in discussions on it. Some of the costs are locked in on that project. We haven't yet reached FID. I think we'll probably have more to say on that in the fourth quarter. Okay. Just on Hai Long, costs are kinda moving around. You're watching it closely. Is there an ability to push the financial close date a little bit later? Like, what's the latest date you think that's where you can still complete the project in 2024 and 2025? Yeah. I mean, there's issues with weather windows in construction in Hai Long, so we wouldn't wanna see financial close drift past Q3 likely, roughly speaking. Without some change in schedule, right? In order to adhere to the current schedule that we have, that would probably be kind of where we'd be looking Q2, Q3 for financial close. Yeah, I'd leave it at that, I think, on Hai Long. I mean, what I would say is we continue to see lots of interest in general for renewable power in Hai Long in Taiwan, both from the government but also from corporates. Okay. Just one last question before I get back in the queue. In terms of La Lucha, it's, like, obviously the facility's completed, and I presume it's just sitting idle right now. So it is mainly just, like, the government just, I guess, not wanting to connect, like, due to political reasons? Like, is that how you see it? Like, are there other renewable facilities getting connected and or have they just put a pause on everything? There are two things that have gone on. One is related to COVID, which is just the impact of the pandemic on Mexico. Mexico was you know probably harder hit than a lot of other countries. We saw long periods of time when certain government offices that we required permits from were actually shut down because of outbreaks within that office. Even when they were opened up, they were operating at reduced capacity and doing turnarounds on requests or permits much slower than would be typical. That's the one impact. The other impact is you know it's probably a little bit more speculative. It's certainly clear and public that the administration has been trying to make changes to the energy reforms that were embedded into the Constitution by the previous administration to encourage renewable power and to encourage private investment in the electricity sector. So far they've been unsuccessful, both in trying to make regulatory changes that were overturned or stopped, I guess, effectively by the courts. They also had announced some legislative changes that they were gonna try and bring through this fall, which we understand have been now pulled back. It didn't appear that they had support, and they may be introduced later next year. That's the best information that we have on that. I think it certainly could. You could conclude that because of all of that that's been going on, it does create an environment of uncertainty with the government agencies that need to test, connect, and do the final kind of approvals on any new power facility. This is what we've heard from other Canadian, American, and European IPPs active in Mexico, and we talk to them regularly on that. Having said that, it's not like everything is completely frozen. There is activity and progress being made on a number of different projects. We do know of one project that was connected last month after a very long delay and very drawn-out process. I think that's the best way that I can. Best way, the way that I can characterize it. Okay, thanks for the color, Mike. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Mark Jarvi with CIBC Capital Markets. You may proceed with your question. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. I wanted to come back to Japan. Maybe you can clarify, how big is your position in the second consortium? Another question would be, you talked about, you know, moving from promising areas to designated areas. You know, what's sort of the timeline for that, and when do you think you'd be moving towards contracting? I think over the next 12 months, you would see projects get moved from being a promising zone to a designated zone, which would signal then within a year following that there would be a procurement. That is, I mean, again, it's not a foregone conclusion that every promising zone will be moved over to be a designated zone. All of our Japanese projects, our position in all our Japanese projects is a minority position. I don't think we have yet on all of them disclosed what our exact position is, but that is typical for how these offshore wind projects are moving forward in Japan. Usually with a couple of strong domestic partners and one strategic like Northland that has the expertise in offshore wind, and that's what we've been obviously pushing forward with and looking to promote through our team in Tokyo. Mike, are there further opportunities to join other consortiums in the next year or two? There could be, for sure. There certainly could be. What we announced today would be for the round three process. There is a round one process and a round two process that are both obviously underway already for procurement. For round four, following that, there's probably also the opportunity to do more greenfield development, which is something that we certainly would be looking at. Just to clarify, Mike, were you saying that in the round one or two, you still could come in as a late partner to one of those, or you'd be more focused on, you know, the round three and four? I'd say the two projects that we talked about today, if they move forward to being designated zones, would be for round three. We believe there's enough timeline for us to actually possibly do greenfield development of sites for round four, but we have not announced or moved forward with any sites yet. That certainly would be an opportunity for our team in Japan. For round one and round two, there are consortiums that have already been formed in various designated areas. We've got nothing at this point to disclose on any of those consortiums. Got it. Okay. Going back to Nordsee Two, sounds like, you know, assuming things kind of went a similar way that you stepped in on Nordsee Three. Can Nordsee Two and Three be built and CODed at the same time? Does that influence how you go about contracting, or do you kind of treat them as two separate projects when you're looking for offtake? They'd be built effectively in series, right? The financial close of Nordsee Two would be 2023, 2024. Nordsee Three would be around 2026, 2027, roughly speaking. We would look to certainly as we went about project design, procurement, and offtake. We'd be looking at trying to leverage the scale advantage of the two projects combined. They would be staggered in terms of how they would come online eventually. Then the last question from me is just, Nordsee One has the shortest contract of your existing projects, kind of rolls off around that 2027 timeframe when Nordsee Three might be coming online. Like, how does that come into the fold in terms of trying to think about contracts and maximizing sort of the afterlife of that project after the foundational PPA rolls off? It's a good question, Mark, because it does kind of align well with Nordsee Two and Three. You've got Nordsee One, which is obviously operating, coming off of its contract later this decade, right around the time when we would be securing offtake for Nordsee Two and Three. There is an opportunity to look at it as one large block. We have the same partner on Nordsee One, Two, and Three as well, RWE at 15%. How soon do you start to think about what to do with Nordsee One? Is that stuff you're actively engaging right now and thinking about, you know, follow-up contracts, or is that still a couple years away? It is probably a couple of years away on the offtake side. In terms of looking at how we right size and optimize operating costs for a post-subsea period, that is something that the team is engaged in right now. Makes sense. Okay. I'll leave it there. Thanks, Mike. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ben Pham with BMO Capital Markets. You may proceed with your question. Hi. Thanks. Good morning. You had a comment around the diversification of your assets, how it's helped you generally maintain your guidance, and it's clear that it's helping out, that diversification. My question is, has the diversification thought process, like when you rank order projects, you deploy capital, has that moved up the priority for you as you look to deploy capital? To that, like, do you think you've hit what you want to be in terms of the business mix today and diversification, and as things change, and you'll relook at it in the future? We've certainly got a much better position today than we would have two years ago in terms of diversification, as you point out, right? We're starting to see the benefits of that. The next major move in terms of diversification, of course, would be building out Hai Long and hopefully other projects, offshore wind projects in Asia, which will further balance out not just our overall portfolio, but also specifically our offshore portfolio and reduce our exposure to North Sea wind variability, right? We're also looking to get more onshore renewable development. As we bring online projects in New York, we're hoping to get more growth out of Spain and Colombia. We've indicated to the market that the other area of interest to us in onshore renewables is Eastern Europe, select markets in Eastern Europe. We think that'll also further help diversify our cash flow and strengthen the business overall. Yeah, I think it's about building a balance too in terms of cash flow profile, because everything we're talking about now with respect to Asia and Europe are all longer-dated cash flows. It's really about building a good balance with, you know, onshore and other opportunities like the Colombia project, for example, which, you know, will deliver cash flow in the next couple of years. I wouldn't say that we are there today, but we're certainly making good progress in terms of building out a more diversified portfolio that gives us, you know, cash flows that it sort of balance near term and long term. Do you find your observation, because you've been looking at offshore wind for some time, that there is geographical diversification benefits, like geographies kind of move in different ways on wind resources? Is that a correct statement? Yeah, for sure. I mean, it diversifies. Even between the Baltic and the North Sea in Northern Europe, you see some differences quarter-over-quarter in terms of wind production. Certainly between different parts of the globe, between Asia and the North Sea, you'd see a very different quarter-over-quarter or year-over-year production. You could have in Asia, in Hai Long, we could have a, you know, a P30 year, and in the North Sea, we could have a, you know, P70 year or like this year, you know, what looks like we'll probably come in at around a P90 or slightly worse year. It'll definitely balance out the portfolio in the long run. Pauline's point is an important one in terms of the priorities for the business right now, which is not just looking at geographic diversification, but looking at spreading out cash flow and the new cash flow that comes on from our development activities through the decade. It's not all back-ended. Okay. I'd love an update too around the spread between your cost of capital and offloading it to lower cost of capital players. Is it still in that 300 basis point spread, even though the group's been under pressure, or has it widened? No, I think that 300 basis points is probably still accurate. You know, on some projects it may be higher, on other projects it'll be lower than that. I think right now we've done some work on this, and I think we feel pretty comfortable on that spread holding. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Justin Strong with Scotiabank. You may proceed with your question. Thank you. Morning, everyone. Just quickly on the sustainability-linked loan overlay, you've indicated that, you know, if you hit certain targets, you know, there'll be some cost savings. Do you think you could, kind of just give a little bit more color, quantify some of those targets, timelines, and what the kind of scale of those cost savings? Yeah, sure. I mean, they're not large. I mean, right now, their structure generally is to be plus or minus five basis points. It's not today. I mean, I think the SLL is sort of a great initiative for companies to be undertaking because it ties nicely in terms of bringing together our KPIs and, sorry, making them more formal in the sense that they're tracked and they're reported on, they're audited, and you know, sort of how to account, but there's also some benefit from them, but I wouldn't say it would be a large benefit. Where I think we could position ourselves going forward is being able to apply the SLL to more sort of corporate pieces of debt that we have in our portfolio and potentially to do other types of linked KPI loans in the future. Great. Thanks. Then maybe just quickly on, at Nordsee One with the, you know, the replacement of those RSAs, you know, what, you know, you kinda indicate that you might be curtailing the capacity in order to protect them in the interim. Just looking to see what the kinda is that a little bit? Is it 5%, or is it more than that? Yeah. I mean, there's a couple of things on that. The really positive news this year about how quickly the team in Hamburg, our team in Hamburg, was able to mobilize is that by the time the winds picked up in October, right, that we were able to get all of the turbines back online. We were able to replace the rotor shaft assemblies on all of the turbines that had seen the most severe degradation and that were either severely curtailed or taken offline completely. That was, from our standpoint, very positive, and it allowed us to get, as I said in the opening remarks, a very high level of availability on Nordsee One during October. There are a very limited number of turbines that are operating at a lower capacity level. I think it's from down to 4 MW to each turbine from 6.3. I think it's in the range of kind of 10 or so, 10 or 11 turbines that are operating at that level. That's really just to ensure that we extend their operating capacity, so they hopefully do not have to get shut down through the winter. Then those would be the first turbines in the 2022 campaign to get the rotor shaft assembly replaced. Overall, I think our team in Hamburg has done a very good job of being foot forward on that and doing it in a very cost-effective way at the same time. Great. Thanks. That's all for me. Okay. Thank you. Our next question comes from Naji Baydoun with iA Capital. The line is open. Hi, good morning. Morning. I just wanna go back to Ben's question on diversification. If I'm reading a bit between the lines, what you're saying, and then thinking about your strategic priorities from Investor Day, there's no real urgency to acquire another utility platform and grow that part of the portfolio? I think our interest. I'd put it this way. I think we remain interested in other utility platforms, certainly within Colombia, in order to again gain leverage some synergies with EBSA. EBSA, when we acquired, I think, as we announced at the time, was, in our view, one of the better-run utilities in Colombia, had an, you know, excellent operating track record. It was a good utility for Northland to step into as our first investment in that asset class. We would be certainly interested in looking at other utilities that either may get privatized by the government in Colombia or only privately-owned utilities that may come to market, particularly if we see some synergies with EBSA. I'd say it's more specific to Colombia, and then again, continuing to leverage either EBSA or EBSA expanded maybe with, if we're able to do that, to build out a renewable platform in Colombia. Okay. Got it. That's very clear. The other question I had is related to the two new Colombia projects in solar projects in Colombia. Is this another path for you going forward, like trying to find not corporate partnerships, but other developers to work with, and maybe that's something you can repeat in the U.S. market? We're always open to partnering, and two of the three offshore wind projects we have in Europe are with partners. Hai Long we have partners on as well. Yeah, we definitely would be open to that. I mean, our view is that over the next decade, the world's gonna need a huge volume of additional green electrons. We wanna be part of enabling, you know, as many projects as we can to assist with that. Some of that we can do on our own, some of that we will need to do with partners. Some of that, at some point, even if we're doing it on our own, as we've said earlier, we would bring in partners to help continue to advance those projects, as they mature. I guess just to take it a step further, my question is really around that 1 GW target for onshore renewables in the U.S. Do you think that that's gonna be more similar to the New York wind projects, where it's 100% ownership, you're developing everything on your own, or do you think more of that could come from working with other developers? Both. I think you'll see both. Okay. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Kuske with Credit Suisse. You may proceed with your question. Thank you. Good morning. I guess the question is for Mike, and it's really the evolution of the offshore market. It's sort of funny saying that because in the grand scheme of things, there's not a whole lot of capacity globally at this stage, but a lot in the future. When you think about the parallels that we saw in the onshore market, where it started off with heavy government subsidies and contracts, and then largely wound up being corporate PPAs, for many, and then some merchant. You know, where do you think we are in that evolution on the offshore? Because we're seeing an increasing number of corporate deals being announced, dedicated for a longer duration on offshore. I think I don't know if roughly a decade behind maybe in that kind of order of magnitude in terms of the lag on it. Certainly what you continue to see is in markets like Japan, Taiwan, Poland, where long-term contracts are being offered up to attract the developers, attract the supply chain, and given the long development period for these projects and a significant upfront CapEx that certainly is needed, necessary in a new market to get that market going. That's what we like, and that's what we're trying to obviously take advantage of or leverage. Yeah, you'll see over time, both because as the market matures, like you're saying, and like you point out in Germany, you'll see more corporate PPAs, fewer government backed PPAs. It's also what's new probably in the last two or three years is just the increasing demand from corporates where they actually want to have access in a market to renewable power. In a, you know, a market like Taiwan is a good example where it's really difficult to get access to green electrons, and these corporates need green electrons in order to meet their ESG commitments or to satisfy the ESG commitments of their customers above them, right? That's the other kind of push that you're seeing. You're seeing kind of. You'll gradually, as you point out, start seeing as the market matures, seeing government PPAs, maybe pull back. You're also starting to see these corporates push in because they want to get the control of these green electrons for their net zero commitments as well. I appreciate that color. Then maybe just following up on that, with corporates desire a greater number of green electrons, does that give you another lever for financial flexibility on whether it be farm downs or, you know, securitizing the cash flow stream? How do you sort of think about that? Maybe it's a question for Pauline also. Yeah. I'll maybe let Pauline start on that. There's certainly if I understand your question correctly. I think in terms of farm downs, and I may have misunderstood your question. I think in terms of farm downs and sell downs, there would be. We think there'll be equal interest whether you have a government-backed PPA or a high credit quality corporate PPA. So I don't think that really changes the equation. Yeah. I think it's more of a bankability, really is your lenders. Like, we're all project finance. We don't corporate finance. So we've got to ensure that the corporate contracts have strong terms, conditions, guarantees, all those things that lenders would feel comfortable with. But so far, I mean, you know, as we've engaged lenders on the North Sea projects, everything is favorable to positive, I would say, relative to government contracts. It's just about structuring them properly. It's a bit of pioneering right now in terms of how you're structuring these corporate PPAs, because every single entity that's structuring them isn't necessarily financing the same way. Okay. Very much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Crawley, there are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to you. Well, thanks to everyone for joining us today. We're gonna hold our next call following the release of our fourth quarter and full year 2021 results in February. In the meantime, I wanna thank you for your continued confidence and support.