Greetings. Welcome to the Polaris Renewable Energy third quarter 2025 conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press Star 0 on your telephone keypad. Please note this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to your host, Alba Sesteros, Chief Financial Officer at Polaris Renewable Energy. You may begin. Thanks, Hallie. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 2025 third quarter earnings call for Polaris Renewable Energy Inc. In addition to our press releases issued earlier today, you can find our financial statements and NDA on both SEDAR Plus and our corporate website at polarisrei.com. Unless noted otherwise, all amounts referred to are denominated in US Dollars. I would also like to remind you that comments made during this call may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation regarding the future performance of Polaris Renewable Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries. These statements are current expectations and as such are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations. These risks and uncertainties include the factors discussed in the Company's Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020. At this time, I will walk through our financial highlights. Overall, Q3 2025 was a steady quarter for Polaris. Results reflected solid operational execution, disciplined cost management, and the second full quarter of contribution from our Puerto Rican wind operations. Together, these factors supported both year-over-year and year-to-date growth in generation revenue and also adjusted EBITDA. Despite production generally being lower in the third quarter of the year, which coincides with the dry season in those countries where the company has hydroelectric plants and therefore there is less resource available for energy generation, as is the case of Peru and Ecuador, as well as the rainy or hurricane season, and therefore we have less radiation or wind in those countries where the company operates solar plants, as is the case of Dominican Republic and Panama and our wind farm in Puerto Rico. Starting with operations, third quarter consolidated energy production totaled 181,235 megawatt hours versus 168,639 megawatt hours for the same period last year. Consolidated energy production for the nine months under September 30 totaled 613,524 megawatt hours, representing an 8% increase as compared to the same period last year. The strongest performance this quarter was achieved by our hydroelectric projects in Peru, where favorable hydrology during what is typically the dry season and an excellent plant availability led to a 44% increase both in Q3 2025 and year to date in hydro output for the Peruvian project. Our hydroelectric facility in Ecuador also had an exceptional quarter, producing 24% more energy in the three months ended September 30 versus the 2024 comparative period, thanks to strong rainfall and excellent technical performance. In Puerto Rico, the Punta Lima Wind Farm acquired in March added incremental production that did not exist in 2024 and is now fully integrated in our portfolio. In Panama, solar generation in the quarter was 2% higher than in the 2024 comparative period. These increases offset lower output for Nicaragua, where short-term well instability and natural steam field decline earlier in the quarter reduced generation by about 5% for the nine months ended September 30 versus the same comparative period in 2024. Production at our Dominican Republic Anova 1 Solar Facility decreased 1% in the quarter when compared to the same period in 2024, while year to date the production increased 5% versus the 2024 comparative period, reflecting efficiency gains from the new panels installed in 2024, which allow offsetting grid-wide curtailments. Overall, our diversified portfolio spanning geothermal, hydro, solar, and wind across six jurisdictions continues to provide balance and resilience in the face of localized resource variability. Turning to the financial results, starting with revenue, revenue was $19 million during the three months ended September 30, which represents an increase of 8% versus Q3 in 2024. Revenue year to date was $60.9 million versus $56.9 million in the 2024 comparative period, reflecting higher generation in Peru and Ecuador as we have mentioned and the addition of our project in Puerto Rico. Adjusted EBITDA was $12.8 million for the quarter compared to $12.4 million for the same period last year. Furthermore, for the nine months ended September 30, the company realized $43.2 million in adjusted EBITDA compared to $41.4 million in the same period last year, reflecting a 4% increase. Operating margins remained strong despite inflationary pressures and the integration of new assets, supported by disciplined cost control and lower insurance expenses. Following our debt repayment and cash generation, net cash from operating activities remained robust with $29.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, exceeding the same period in 2024 by $3.3 million. The increase mainly reflects the collection in Q3 2025 of the strong Puerto Rican revenues from Q2, which follow a 47-day collection cycle, and the shift from quarterly interest payments on regional loans in 2024 to semiannual bond interest payments in 2025. Net cash used in investing activities for the nine months reflects the initial $15 million payment for the acquisition of Punta Lima Wind Farm, while there was no comparative transaction in 2024. Net cash used in financing activities for the nine months mainly reflects the early debt repayment of four credit facilities totaling $120.6 million. Finally, we remain committed to delivering shareholder returns. I would like to highlight that we have already announced that we will be paying a quarterly dividend on November 21 of $0.15 per share to shareholders of record on November 10. With that, I will turn the call over to Marc, who will elaborate on Polaris Renewable Energy Inc.'s third quarter results as well as on current business matters. Thank you. Thanks, Alba. I'll just make a few, call it, operational comments about where we see the rest of the year looking forward. As Alba mentioned, the hydros were stronger than normal in Q3, which is the dry season in those jurisdictions. We do see that at least October to today is continuing. Hydros, we think, will be somewhat stronger than usual in Q4 here as the rainy season has started somewhat earlier than normal. I would say what's going to offset that a little bit is that those, call it, rainier conditions do seem to be also in the solar jurisdictions, Dominican Republic and Panama, so they're looking maybe a little bit softer. I would say the net effect of those two things should still be positive in this current quarter. I see San Jacinto, as I mentioned last quarter, in the 49 to 51 range, for which it did, and then I would just, I'm saying, 50 megawatts current quarter, plus or minus a little bit, similar. When I run our numbers, that would bring the quarter in around 195 to 200 gigawatt hours, which would be the current range that we're looking at right now. Just a reminder, that is because we have moved the major maintenance at San Jacinto into January of next year instead of December of this year, just based on some availability of Fuji staff. That will land in Q1 next year. In terms of really the growth and the developments, the big focus remains ASAP. The update on that is that the contract was submitted by ourselves and LUMA Energy to PREB, which is the Energy Bureau. A while ago, it was approved by them, and then it went to PREPA. To explain, I'll give a little more detail. There are three entities that need to approve it there, which is PREB, which is the Energy Bureau, then PREPA, which is the contracting agent, and then after that FOMB, which is the Oversight Management Board. Basically, we had to receive PREB. We have PREB approval as of this past Monday. I would highlight that on September 22, the governor issued an executive order, which was really focused on the energy, call it, emergency situation. It's an acute need for more energy on the island. In that order, it was really, I would say, directing government entities, whether it's PREPA or even Ministry of the Environment, to expedite approval processes and permitting processes such that new generation, including storage, can get brought on the system quicker than what has traditionally happened in the past. While it did take a bit longer than we expected to get this PREPA approval, we are expecting things to move reasonably quickly from here on out. What does that mean, though, in terms of—we would look at likely a Q4 in-service date next year for that. In terms of the sizing, it has landed on 71.4 megawatts, which was approved as opposed to 80. That's really just a technical limitation at the interconnect point. Those metrics, based on what we're seeing from the procurement, and we are, I would say, reasonably far along in the procurement process, it would be gross CapEx of about $70 million. We do still anticipate being able to achieve an ITC on that, which would bring the CapEx down to a net CapEx of about $50 million. At that size of 71.4, you'd be looking at EBITDA around the $13 to $14 million on net CapEx of $50 million, which is about a 3.5 to 4 times sort of CapEx divided by EBITDA build multiple. Still very excited about those numbers and hoping to launch the program in this quarter, in the next month. We're also hopeful that this won't be the only storage project in Puerto Rico that we do. We've already been asked by LUMA to formally give our intention to move forward with something called SO2. We're looking at that. I would also say, given what I mentioned with the executive order, we are talking to several developers on the island or with projects on the island for more traditional solar-plus-storage projects that have contracts or have been awarded approvals for contracts. They're looking for sort of larger financial partners or operational companies. This has really come on the radar screen just in the last, I would say, two to three months. We like these because of what we're looking at on the island as well as they're reasonably chunky. I would say the small ones are $5 million of EBITDA, but we're seeing things in the $10 to $20 million range, with very good, I would say, capital ratios—probably not quite as good as the ASAP program I mentioned, but in the, call it, five times, which, you know, we're still looking at 20-year U.S. dollar contracts. That's very good return profiles. That really is, call it, the brownfield focus right now. I would say that is the focus for the company. I would mention the doctor, which we have continued to push on more in the background. It looks like that will get pushed into next year in terms of potential contracting, as the government is now saying they want to look at doing a tender situation instead of bilateral. We would obviously have the ability to participate in that, and I think we'd be in good shape for that. We do need to wait likely until next year. What that means is really pushing the Puerto Rico projects in front of that. Balance sheet is strong with $99 million in cash. We did repurchase another 27,000 shares in the quarter in Q3, continue to in Q4 here. I guess it is somewhat slower coming with the ASAP battery storage project, but we're very confident it is coming. With these other projects that we're looking at, I do see a situation quite quickly here where we will be using up that spare capacity on the balance sheet that we have and hopefully then some. I would say over the next 12, 15 months here the story would be steady as she goes from an operating perspective, but a big and expected big pickup in what I would call development and construction activities and news flow. I would say as we move forward on ASAP and as we move forward with hopefully one or two other projects next year, we will for sure, I would say, be giving more market updates and press releases as we move forward with these projects. It'll be more sort of, call it, newsy on the development and construction activities next year. I think it's important because those would be very material for the company and then, call it, financial results on the back of those coming in 2027 and 2028. With that, we can open it up for questions. Certainly at this time we will be conducting a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press Star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press Star two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment please while we poll for questions. Your first question for today is from Baltej Sidhu with National Bank of Canada. Hey, good morning guys. Good morning. Could you. It's great to see the progress with SO1, but could you just remind us of, one, the comparability of SO1 and SO2 as it pertains to the attractiveness for Polaris with the infrastructure you may have to leverage with the implication of FFSO1 that would be in place. The technical difference on the island is just SO1 was only for people that have a current operating interconnect agreement in place. In other words, you had to have some generation facility with an interconnect. SO2 is really open to either the same group, which is some people that have an interconnect, or anybody that just has a new development. If you had a new project without an interconnect, you could then participate. It's really the same terms for us; the only difference is we need to up our transformer capacity. On a, call it, $60 million, $70 million project, that's only a $2 million or $3 million CapEx item for us. Essentially, the same type of economics and the transmission capacity would be there that you would have, right? Yeah, the transmission capacity on the sort of downstream on the line is about 103,140 megawatts, and we're sort of the first one's really 35.7 times 2. That's a 71. We have a fair amount of, you know, we could probably triple it from here. Great, great. Might be too early, but is there any impact to pricing that we could see relative on SL2 versus SL1? I think pricing might be higher because the way that they do things on the island, typically for a traditional solar, let's say, is that any interconnect costs and system upgrades that are needed for a new project, rather than the transmission company or the distribution company paying for that and charging it to the rate base, the developer actually has to finance that. It comes into the cost of the PPA, let's say. For SO2, though, the assumption is that there will be participants that don't have an interconnect yet, so they will have to finance and build that, compared to SO1 with existing interconnect. If anything, the price should be somewhat higher. I don't think it would be. You know, it could be instead of $16,000 megawatt per month, $18,000 to $20,000. We don't know that yet. I don't think they've landed on it, but I think if anything it would have to be somewhat higher. The good news there is the backdrop of still, you know, I'd say, very competitive activities in the actual, you know, the lithium battery cost curve. That's probably going to continue. Right. Still to be determined, I would say at the worst case scenarios it would be the same type of economics. Very interesting. Looking forward to hearing those organic updates over the course of next year. Just switching over to, as you noted, the capacity that you have on the balance sheet and the ability to leverage that for organic development, how are you thinking about the inorganic growth and the M&A side? Could you point towards any color that. You see on the M&A pipeline. Yeah, and then just to be clear, when I said we're talking to local developers with brownfield, I wouldn't put that in the M&A bucket, even though it's, you know, it's kind of in between. I would put that still more in the brownfield development side. In terms of M&A, which I would also just suggest is probably a little bit comes on the back of us actually I think putting some runs on the board in terms of ASAP and probably some other development projects, I would say multiples, I would say came down more like 6 to 12 months ago to I think a reasonably attractive level. I think they've kind of leveled off there. If I had to put super high level numbers on things, I would just say if you, let's say you take ASAP at 4, let's say you take 4 times. I'm talking this is a build multiple. Probably these other development projects we're looking at are 5, 5.5. Same in the, I'm seeing sort of more for actual operational with contracts running assets in the M&A side in the jurisdictions we're in anywhere from 6.5 to 8 times. That's great. Color. Perfect. I'll pass the line over. Thank you again, Alba and Marc. Your next question is from Nick Boychuk with Cormark Securities. Thanks. Morning, Marc. In Puerto Rico, can you comment a little bit on the competitive dynamics? You mentioned that there's these local developers with brownfield opportunities. How many other players in the space could potentially be having these conversations to develop these? I guess once you have that conversation, how fast could we then move through permitting, construction, and getting these things operational? Yeah, I don't know with 100% certainty who else is out there, but it definitely seems like there's the dynamic of you have a few big players on the island with operating assets that wouldn't be interested in the stuff we're looking at. You have a lot of, I would call it, local developers that don't have the financial capacity for people in the middle that are looking at, I would say again, projects that once are up and running have $5 million to $20 million of EBITDA. We do know of one player that was definitely there and in the game, but they are not anymore. It does seem like it's really opened up for us from that perspective. Understood. Would it be a similar dynamic in the Dominican Republic? I appreciate that it's been pushed back a little bit by a year, but could you theoretically also have similar activity in that country? Yeah, I think interestingly, the Dominican might be a little bit more competitive for us in the mid range than Puerto Rico. The flip of that is Puerto Rico does seem to be quite open right now. I think it's weird. The Dominican, you actually, a bunch of, call it credit is available because it's a "developing country." You have a whole bunch of lenders that would maybe fund a smaller developer to get a project off the ground that doesn't exist in Puerto Rico because it's part of the U.S. That cap, it's almost more of a capital issue in Puerto Rico as opposed to how many competitors are there, if you understand what I'm trying to get to. Puerto Rico, there's a big issue with getting capital for these small developers to get, you know, a $50 million, $100 million project off the ground. Whereas there's a little bit more availability in the Dominican for that. Even though I would say it's not as if there's a bunch of other competitors that are a similar size to us in that market, it's just that the option of them to maybe get it further along to get construction going, there's a little bit of a better chance in the Dominican, which is a little counterintuitive, but that's what we see. Okay, got it. I appreciate that the return profiles on the M&A, you said it was 6.5 to 8 times versus the 5 to 5.5 for something that you'd be building brownfield. Better returns if you do brownfield, but just cognizant of your internal resources, your own abilities internally to develop these things simultaneously in given time. Is there a point where you recognize you could leverage more of your balance sheet and acquire something now, add incremental EBITDA and have a meaningful impact on shareholder value in the near term versus trying to maximize the return profile? How are you thinking about the difference between time to getting these built and maximizing the near term shareholder value? Good question. I would say, believe it or not, call it the Senior Management time to do, let's just say, real due diligence on operating assets, legal side of things, operational side of things on the front end, maybe not the back end. Once the operations are there, I would say streamlining them into yours isn't a huge deal. There's always issues, but it's not a huge deal for us. I would say at the front end, to your point, where there's going to be a bottleneck would be more that we are doing, call it the late stage development on ASAP ourselves. Right. If we partner with some developers, we're going to be doing, we're going to be heavily involved in that late stage development, construction, procurement, which I think is very similar to the M&A side of things. It might seem easier. I'd say it's at the front end where there's a potential bottleneck and we could. We can for sure do two. It might get a little bit harder at three, but believe it or not, I think we could do all. We could for sure do three. We could do ASAP. We could do a development, a new development in Puerto Rico now also because we're there, it's not as if it's a new jurisdiction for us. Our conversations with the authorities on some of these other projects are right after we've talked about ASAP. I do think we can handle that. It would be different if it was a new jurisdiction and some of the M&A stuff. I think at the front end we could do it as well. I don't think it's necessarily an either or. Okay. Just to confirm my understanding, you could do ASAP one, develop something else in Puerto Rico, and then one of the other of a Dominican Republic or M&A type of project. Theoretically, three different things on the go at the same time. Call it $10 million to $15 million in EBITDA for each, and all that could potentially be wrapped up by 2028. I think that in our presentation, we sort of show a five year, let's just say for 2029 that EBITDA, like 100 plus. What we're looking at right now is I think we could just say we're flat for the next 12 months operationally, but we will be doing things such that that 28 number I think can get very close to that. It's a big step up, such that the 28 number is looking very close to that, the 29 number that we have in the presentation. Okay, that's awesome. Thanks, Marc. Your next question for today is from Theo Jenzimbu with Raymond James. Hey, everyone, thanks for taking my call today. Just a quick question. On the curtailments at Canola 1 and the expected curtailments now at Canola 1, the delays at the interconnection for Canola 2, is there, like, how are you engaging with the government to address these? Is there anything that can be done by talking to the government there? Yeah, I'd say a fair amount of conversations where it just always goes to is that, yes, we're going to, we need storage. They very much acknowledge that. This is my comment about they're likely, as opposed to doing bilateral negotiations which we were looking to do, which was going to be put panels, but also put a reasonable storage capacity there, such that you're switching, call it a problem challenge into at least an opportunity or at least you head yourself off with the storage. They see that and they acknowledge it. They just want to get the regulation set and they're likely to do a tender next year. That's really how they're planning on dealing with it. Got you. I guess it's safe to say that it doesn't really impact how you guys think about future development in the Dominican Republic. I think what it does do is I've probably bumped up the percentage of storage coverage that I think we need from maybe 25% to 40%. I think it's a quote unquote problem now, but I think it will end up morphing into an opportunity when they're ready. I think that will be next year at some point. Okay, great. Thanks for cleaning that up. I guess just one more for me. Just on the regulatory timeline at Puerto Rico for the ASAP battery storage project, I understand you expect approvals within the next 60 days. In your opinion, is there any possibility of further delays to that? It's pretty much what we expect. Yeah. I can't say no to that. I think that this island is known to have very good projects, but you need to play the patience game. I think it's possible. I would say with this September 22, executive order by the governor. The. Entities do seem to be very responsive right now. It's probably as good as we can expect in terms of that timeline for Puerto Rico. Great. Fair enough. Thanks. All right. Appreciate the time today. Thank you. Likewise. We have reached the end of the question and answer session and conference call. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.