Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. And welcome to the BEP Second Quarter 2020 Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. It is now my pleasure to introduce CEO, Sachin Shah.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for our second quarter 2020 conference call. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that a copy of our news release, investor supplement, and letter to unit holders can be found on our website. I also want to remind you that we may make forward-looking statements on this call. These statements are subject to known and unknown risks, and our future results may differ materially. For more information, you are encouraged to review our regulatory filings available on SEDAR, EDGAR, and on our website. This morning, I will provide an outlook on the business and an update on our recent growth initiatives. After my remarks, Wyatt will provide an overview of our operating results, as well as an update on our balance sheet and funding plan. Following our remarks, we look forward to taking your questions and comments. Over the past 20 years, we have built a scaled global renewable power business with over $50 billion of operating assets and an 18,000-megawatt development pipeline and deep expertise across all major renewable technologies. The world continues to be in the early stages of a global transition to the decarbonization of electricity grids. This shift, which is fueled by a push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to meet increasingly stringent carbon reduction targets, and solar and wind power becoming the lowest cost and easiest to build providers of bulk power will require significant investment over the coming decades. Accordingly, there is considerable room for our business to grow for many years ahead. And as subsidies decline or fall away, the opportunity will increasingly favor investors like ourselves, who can drive value and enhance cash flows from our global scale and depth of operating expertise. We believe that we have established ourselves as one of the few entities of scale with the track record and global capabilities to partner with governments and businesses to help them achieve their goal of greening the global electricity grids while earning a strong return for our investors. Our solar business has grown substantially over the last five years. Today, we have over 3,000 megawatts of solar in operations and an additional nearly 10,000 megawatts of solar under development. As a result of technology advances and reductions in construction costs, solar can stand on its own without subsidies and, more importantly, is now amongst the lowest cost sources of conventional power globally. To put this in perspective, solar costs over the last five years, the period in which we have built our business, have gone from over $4 per watt to install to less than $1 per watt in almost all jurisdictions around the world. As a result of these favorable economics, as well as the renewable nature and perpetual source of free energy, we believe it is possible that in 10 years from now, the majority of the production capacity of Brookfield Renewable will be solar capacity. It is not that we do not believe in wind or hydro, but the growth in solar and the ability for us to develop and earn strong risk-adjusted returns should enable us to grow our solar operations at a far greater pace. Recently, we executed two transactions that highlight the strength and scale of our solar capabilities and demonstrate the various ways we approach creating value for our shareholders. First, we completed the merger of TerraForm Power into Brookfield Renewable on an all-stock basis. TerraForm Power was one of the largest owners of solar globally prior to the bankruptcy of its sponsor in 2016. Given our scale, we were one of the few organizations that could acquire it through the restructuring and immediately stabilize the business by implementing an operating plan and resuming growth. As a result, we have driven significant value in the business delivering TerraForm Power shareholders, including BEP, a 35% annualized total return and over two times their money since our involvement. The merger is accretive to Brookfield Renewable, strengthens our business in North America and Europe, and further enhances our position as one of the largest publicly traded pure-play renewable power businesses with an equity market capitalization of approximately $20 billion. The second transaction we executed was to acquire a 1,200-megawatt solar development project in Brazil. This is one of the largest solar development projects in the world and requires both development and energy marketing capabilities to bring the project to completion. The project is 75% contracted and we intend to leverage our deep energy marketing capabilities to contract the remaining power. In addition, given our global scale, we expect to drive down equipment procurement, installation, and operating cost to deliver additional value over time. Accordingly, we expect to achieve approximately 20% returns on this investment. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2020. In total, this quarter we have agreed on transactions to invest approximately $600 million or $130 million net to BEP of equity. Also of note last week, we completed the special distribution of BEPC shares providing investors with greater flexibility in how they invest in our business. BEPC is listed on the same exchanges as BEP, offering investors the optionality to invest in Brookfield Renewable through either a partnership or a corporation, which we believe should lead to increased demand and enhance the liquidity for our securities. We completed the special distribution on July 30 by providing unit holders with one share of BEPC for every four units of BEP. We have subsequently seen strong support for BEPC shares in the market with strong trading volumes over the first few weeks of trading and the share price trading slightly above the BEP unit price. We are very pleased with the launch and positive market reception thus far. I'll now turn the call over to Wyatt to discuss our operating results and financial position.

Thank you, Sachin, and good morning everyone. During the second quarter, we generated FFO of $232 million or $0.75 per unit, which is up slightly from the prior year as the business benefited from recent acquisitions, strong operational performance and execution on margin enhancement initiatives. On a normalized basis, our results are up 19% over the last year. With an increasingly diversified portfolio of operating assets, limited off-take or concentration risk and a strong contract profile, our cash flows are highly resilient. While generation for the quarter was below the long-term average driven largely by drier conditions in New York and Colombia, generation so far this year has been roughly in line with long-term average. As we have reiterated, we expect this type of resource cyclicality and therefore do not manage the business based on under or overperformance of generation relative to the long-term average in any given period. Our focus continues to be on diversifying the business which mitigates exposure to any single resource, market, or counterparty. We continue to be focused on maintaining a highly diversified investment-grade customer base with over 600 customers around the world under long-term power purchase agreements. For example, our commercial and industrial counterparties, which comprise less than 20% of our generation, are well diversified across regions and sectors, with our largest C&I customer representing only 2% of our total contracted generation. Our contract profile remains strong with 95% of total generation contracted in 2020 and a weighted average remaining contract length of 15 years. Therefore, our cash flows are well protected from exposure to short-term price volatility and are expected to remain stable over the long term. Turning to our segment results. During the quarter, our hydroelectric segment delivered FFO of $193 million. In North America, we remain focused on securing short-term contracts in this low power price environment to retain upside optionality for when prices improve. In our Brazilian and Colombian portfolios, we continue to focus on extending the duration of our contract profile while maintaining a certain portion of uncontracted generation to mitigate hydrology risk. This quarter we secured 17 new contracts in Latin America for a total of over 430 gigawatt hours per year including one contract in Colombia with a 7-year term. Our weighted average remaining contract duration is now nine years in Brazil and three years in Colombia. Next, our wind and solar segments generated a combined $85 million of FFO, representing a 29% increase over the prior year as we continue to generate stable revenues from these assets and benefit from the diversification of our fleet and highly contracted cash flows with long-duration power purchase agreements. This quarter we commissioned almost 100 megawatts of solar projects and secured five long-term PPAs with investment-grade counterparties to support our 1,500-megawatt wind development pipeline in the U.S. and Europe. Our liquidity position remains strong with close to $3.4 billion of total available liquidity which allows us to support our current operations as well as to opportunistically pursue new investments. Our investment-grade balance sheet has no material maturities over the next five years, an average overall debt duration of 10 years, and approximately 80% of our financings are nonrecourse to debt. During the quarter, we executed over $1.1 billion of financings across the business. We also continue to execute on our capital recycling strategy of selling mature, derisked, or non-core assets to lower-cost capital buyers and redeploying the proceeds into higher-yielding opportunities. So far this year, we generated close to $500 million of proceeds or $80 million net to BEP from these activities. In summary, our business remains resilient as we continue to actively look for opportunities to grow our portfolio on a value basis. As such, we remain firm in our belief that Brookfield Renewable is one of the strongest, best positioned platforms to contribute to the decarbonization of the globe through investment in multiple renewable technologies. In short, we believe the prospects for growth of our business are better than they ever have been. And looking forward, we remain well positioned to achieve our objective of delivering total returns on a per unit basis of 12% to 15% over the long term. That concludes our formal remarks for today's call. Thank you for joining us this morning. With that I'll pass it back to our operator for questions.

Our first question comes from Sean Steuart with TD Securities.

Thanks good morning. A couple of questions, Sachin with respect to your comments on solar cost declines and this being a focus increasingly for BEP going forward. Can you give us some thoughts about how you expect costs and capacity factors for the technology to trend from here? When I reverse engineer the economics of your project in Brazil, it looks like the intent is to build that at less than $0.5 million per megawatt which would suggest ongoing declines. How do you think about the longer-term cost trends for the technology and efficiency of the technology as well?

First of all, regarding Brazil and often in developing markets, it's important to note that construction and labor costs are generally much lower than in North America and Europe. This means a significant part of the overall costs is related to construction and labor. However, the U.S. also faces challenges due to tariffs, which add to the cost burden. Consequently, other markets tend to have lower overall build costs compared to the U.S. because of these tariffs. When you factor in labor and construction costs in developing regions, prices can decrease significantly, aligning with your projections. Looking ahead, we observe two key trends in the solar market. Firstly, manufacturers, primarily in China, are making substantial advancements in their production methods, allowing them to offer cost savings. More importantly, they are producing higher capacity factor panels and larger panels that provide better overall performance, including less degradation, longer lifespans, and reduced maintenance costs. When we combine this with our capability to manage plant operations and development in-house, we gain a significant advantage. Additionally, we maintain a strong business presence in China with established relationships with numerous panel manufacturers. Our scale enables us to implement a global procurement strategy that U.S. or European developers simply can't match. As a result, we believe these advantages will help us stand out over the next decade.

Thanks for that detail. Wyatt, a question for you, there was a $22 million positive contribution in proportion of adjusted EBITDA from the corporate segment. Can you give us some context on what that relates to?

Yes Sean. So as we mentioned at the last quarter, we have undertaken some public market activities. And really what that reflects is some of those activities in the quarter just given where markets traded to we exited those positions and were able to realize some gains.

Yes, I would like to add that in our business, we continually rotate capital. This includes selling assets and buying shares, as well as purchasing distressed debt and then selling it off. It’s important to remember that this is just our normal practice—investing for value and then selling when markets stabilize. Given the disruptions from the economic shutdown last quarter, we acquired significant securities at attractive valuations. We did sell some of these but retained a portion, allowing us to book the gains. This is similar to selling a half interest in a solar facility or bringing in a partner for one of our hydro projects. The accounting might reflect this differently at times, either as gains or equity. Most importantly, we are creating value for our shareholders through these activities, which is something we have been doing for many years.

Understood. Okay, thanks for that, I will get back in queue.

Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank.

Good morning.

Good morning, Rupert.

Sachin, so you talked about the move to solar. How does this change your forward view on power prices, both the cost of energy and the cost of capacity? And what do you think are the implications for your existing assets?

Yes, it doesn't really change our forward view. If you asked us seven to 10 years ago about our outlook on power prices, we were generally optimistic, mainly due to the fundamentals of gas reserves. A lot has evolved since then, including our understanding of how the declining costs of wind and solar have influenced the marginal cost of power. Over the past decade, we have rapidly transitioned our business to adapt to this change and have developed a substantial wind and solar operation. What we want to emphasize now is that this trend will persist. Power prices, based solely on energy, are likely to remain low for the foreseeable future. However, this also means that the value of storage and capacity is increasing significantly. For instance, the revenues from our pump storage facilities, capacity payments, and ancillary services in our hydro operations have been rising for a decade and have effectively offset declining energy prices. So, our perspective remains that while standalone energy prices will be low due to the economic viability of wind and solar, the intermittent nature of these technologies makes power storage, backup services, and grid stabilization increasingly valuable and rare. We see this as a solid hedge for our business. Additionally, the complementary nature of our assets provides us with a lot of diversity in terms of technology, geography, and the types of revenue we generate, while our pricing outlook remains unchanged. We are not becoming more optimistic. Moving forward, our focus will continue to be on securing power contracts.

So, if you move into building more solar, can we imagine that you'll want to maintain the existing storage assets you have and maybe build out more storage in parallel with solar?

For sure, Rupert. That is a key part of our strategy that having this complement of different technologies allows us to provide better overall solutions to customers, whether those customers are governments, utilities, or through our C&I business because we can provide 24/7 power with backup capability by bundling different technologies we have. So, it is pretty important that we maintain that diversity and it just gives us a more valuable product to the end customer.

And then just a quick follow-up housekeeping question. It seemed like the solar generation this quarter came in significantly lower than the LTA. Was that related to a radiance, or did you see some curtailment in your fleet?

Yes, Rupert, it's Wyatt here. No, you're exactly right. That all had to do with the resource, the underlying resource. We really didn't see any meaningful curtailment across our fleet. As we've mentioned before with respect to the markets we're in, our assets as renewable assets generally have priority dispatch onto the grid. And so curtailment wasn't really a meaningful impact to our business this quarter.

Thanks. I’ll leave it there. Thanks very much.

Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Rob Hope with Scotiabank.

Good morning everyone. Just thinking about the M&A market, debt levels seem elevated, but there's a lot of liquidity out there in the market. How do you think this plays out in the future? And could we see you acquire some distressed assets maybe in 2021 when markets start to normalize and liquidity normalizes?

Yes. I mean look, it's been an expensive, highly competitive market for 10 years now. Nothing's really changed. I think maybe if you asked us three or four months ago, we would have thought we were turning and the opportunity to acquire for deeper value was becoming more interesting. But with all the stimulus and government support, that quickly went away. I would say our playbook really allows us to always look for deep value distress, but we also do things that differentiate ourselves through our operations, like the Brazil deal, we announced. And therefore we've stayed away from the highly competitive low-risk; low-return type investments that others have had to go into. And we'll continue to stay away from those types of opportunities. And what I'm really getting at is those sort of single-digit return type opportunities, where there really is no differentiator other than a cost of capital. That's not our playbook. It's not where we focus our time and effort. For us, if we can drive operational enhancement and create value by doing something different, then that's really our area of focus. And you can see that from both transactions we highlighted this quarter that really signified that strategy.

All right. That’s helpful. And just to follow-up on Sean's question. Just the public securities that you're buying in Q2 and you've sold a portion of. Are you still looking to get toeholds in certain FTES, or is it that the market has rebounded a little quicker than you anticipated?

Yes, look they did rebound quicker than we anticipated without a doubt. So, the short answer is, we're pretty disciplined as an investor group and we will sell-out if we don't see the room to keep acquiring for value. From a total strategy perspective, it's always been a core part of the way we originate transaction flow. Look, ironically, while we were selling out securities this quarter we completed the final stages of the TerraForm merger, which also started out as a total strategy four years ago. So, I think what you should expect is that it will always be a part of our strategy. We'll always be in the market looking for deep value. But from time to time if we can't secure it, we'll sell-out and hopefully realize some gains for shareholders.

All right. Thank you for the answers.

No problem.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Mark Jarvi with CIBC Capital Markets.

Good morning. You guys have sort of been involved in advocacy for maybe looking at a carbon tax in the U.S. market. Do you guys have any updated thoughts on that in light of maybe a change in administration or a preferred structure on what you'd like to see if they went forward with the carbon tax?

We don't let changes in politics or government affect our outlook. When Trump took office, we remained optimistic about the sector because we recognize that the trend we are investing in is a long-term global movement that politics cannot impede. While it’s beneficial to have a supportive government, we do not rely on subsidies or carbon taxes to drive our business, nor are we investing with those expectations. If such measures are introduced and help us, that's a bonus. However, we have a solid business model and are capable of navigating various governmental changes. We believe these technologies are viable today and will endure beyond fluctuating public opinions.

Okay. And then as you continue to grow the solar business just curious how that changes how you guys think about financing your business? Does it change your view on access to medium-term notes or green bonds, or how does that change if the mix changes a little bit from less hydro and a bit more solar over time?

Yes. Thanks Mark. It's Wyatt here. So, in terms of the majority of our financing, as I mentioned in my comments, more than 80% of our financing is at the project level. It's financed on a mass maturity basis. So, it is reflective of the underlying asset. If it's hydro, it's a perpetual asset. So, it will be reflective of that. If it's wind or solar, it's a finite life asset so it would be an amortizing structure. So, the majority of our financing won't change. It will be just reflective of the underlying asset. In terms of the corporate level, we've always been aware that when we issue medium-term notes that we were doing so on the back of a perpetual hydro business. And so over time, we may look to moderate our overall issuance of MTMs to reflect the fact that they are a more finite business. But that's a long way off. We continue to have a very strong base hydro business and so for the most part, we don't really see it overall impacting our financing strategy.

One significant change we've observed over the last five years is that wind and solar, especially solar, have a much longer lifespan than lenders typically estimate. We're noticing that while these assets were commonly underwritten for 25 years, the technology is now being engineered to last 35 to 40 years, and it's becoming more resilient. At that level, these assets begin to behave like perpetual resources. There are components in our hydro assets that may need replacement after 40 years, but I believe the evolution in our sector could lead to wind and solar financing reflecting a more perpetual asset model over time. As solar operations extend to 40 to 50 years, with only component replacements needed, it effectively transforms the asset into one that feels perpetual. This would align it more closely with our hydro business. When this shift occurs, there will be a turning point where banks, insurance companies, and other lenders will likely favor longer-term, interest-only financing options, resulting in a significant increase in our cash flows. We anticipate this transition may happen sooner than many expect, much like the changes we saw in our hydro business 15 years ago, once stakeholders recognize these assets are indeed very long-duration investments when properly maintained and supported.

That's interesting. And maybe just follow-up on that, two things, one, how does sort of resource stability maybe solar or less variable than hydro or wind factor into how you think we're financing them longer term? And then, on the perpetual perspective how does sort of jurisdiction and maybe access to different markets and liquidity from an energy marketing perspective really change how you think about what your dollar should be spent on solar going forward?

So, first of all, wind, I would say wind tends to be the most variable resource, then hydro, then solar. Solar is the most stable resource. And that stability should drive a lower cost of capital in the financing markets. I also think that because of that, my comments around being able to finance them with interest-only long duration bonds, that could be the technology that leads the charge with wind pretty closely behind. In terms of your question around markets and energy marketing, obviously for us, it's a huge advantage to have energy marketing capabilities in LATAM, in Europe, and in North America, because as these projects increasingly age and PPAs fall off, there will be sellers who really just cannot operationally commercialize the back end of these projects. And if we can do it with our marketing capabilities and our ability to invest the capital needed to bring another 40 years of life to the site, that's a real advantage. So again, it all speaks to why we really prioritize building and investing in our operations, and my comments around these assets starting to look and feel more perpetual in nature. Our view is just that this is sooner than people think. And the technology has really matured, as has the entire apparatus that supports the technology from an ongoing maintenance and operations perspective. And therefore, as always, the financing markets should follow. And if that happens, again, we've never factored it into our business, but it will be a very meaningful driver of value going forward.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Ben Pham with BMO Capital Markets.

Okay. Thanks. Good morning. It's a feedback after seven months. I just wanted to touch base. First question is some of your commentary around just where you are right now. I think Wyatt mentioned, you're seeing a ton of growth opportunity I think best positioned in the cycle. So does that mean when you think about all the tailwinds that maybe just not pressured but the renewal energy that you have to growth rates are more at the upper end of your targeted range rather than mid to low point?

Look, what I would say is, our view on this sector hasn't changed in a long-time. I know that maybe if we were on a call five years ago or 10 years ago people were still unsure whether or not this business could grow in size or scale. But the perspective we've always taken is that the electricity markets around the world represent trillions of dollars of investment opportunity. Generation alone is the largest component of that and has the most transition that has to go through, because it represents significant carbon dioxide output. And so we're in the sweet spot of that because we are global, we can invest across multiple technologies and the disruption and transition in the entire energy supply stack is going to be most felt on the generation side. So we have believed and continue to believe that this is an enormous opportunity that we are building our business into and that opportunity will last for 25 years, at least. So I wouldn't say, we think it's bigger today. We thought it was big for many, many years. And what you've hopefully seen is that we've been able to deliver. And we'll continue to employ the same strategy and playbook, as we build out the business around the world.

When considering your target payout ratio of 70% of FFO that was mentioned a few quarters ago, do you believe, in light of the TERP transaction and other initiatives, that reaching this payout ratio may happen sooner than you expected six months ago?

Ben, we're not stressed at all about our payout ratio. Candidly, we weren't stressed when it was 100%. We have always said it's just one indicator of financial health. The more important indicators of financial health are having an investment-grade balance sheet, having a high degree of liquidity, having very stable assets that produce consistent cash flows. It's nice that our payout ratio is down into the high 70s. It gives people lots of comfort. And we'll continue to chip away. But it is not the driver of what we're trying to achieve. And over the years, if I look out over the next 10 years, there will be times where it's 80%. There will be times where it's 70%. There might be times where it's 90%. Most importantly though, we will make sure that we have an investment-grade balance sheet with a very high degree of liquidity, we obviously have very strong sponsorship with Brookfield Asset Management owning a very large stake in the company. And, therefore, it's one indicator of financial health that we obviously pay a lot of attention to and it's in a great place, but we're not overly focused on it.

I know you had a lot of questions on solar. But I was wondering, can you remind me when you look at solar versus offshore wind. And you mentioned that offshore wind, you didn't want to get into it because of the high subsidization, the cost curve has gone down dramatically. So you don't want to get caught in a situation in 10 years pricing drops and you get some pressure on the other side. So is solar a bit different there where the levelized cost is also dropping, pricing could drop as referenced by an earlier question? Is that compare contrast a little bit different there when you look at the two?

They are different. Look both are mature, both are very good technologies. The difference being on solar what I would say is typically the contract structures on solar, almost everywhere around the world have been much longer than what we've seen in offshore wind. Offshore has typically had 15 years in the beginning. It's in many jurisdictions it's 10 years of contract life and very, very high PPA prices that it's tough to make the bet that they will persist post the PPA environment. It could happen, but it's a tough bet for us to make. The second thing that we wanted to see in that sector is just a little bit more time to understand just some of the impact and implications around the operations of running deep-water or offshore generation. And I would say, the market has really matured. It's done a good job. Would we invest in offshore? Absolutely we would. It would have to be under the right conditions and at the right returns. And what we don't want to do is invest in offshore wind with a bet on the future power price. We'd rather invest in a way where we can drive operational value to create the returns we need to create. If we find that opportunity, we will absolutely invest in offshore wind.

Okay, got it. Okay. Thanks.

Thanks a lot, Ben.

Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets.

Good morning, everyone. I just had a few questions on the development pipeline. So in Brazil now that you have about three good sized solar developments. And I think for the 1200 megawatt solar facility you mentioned that 75% is contracted. Could you just give a bit of color on the term that that one is contracted for and whether the other two, the 210 and 278-megawatt projects, whether those are fully contracted or not?

Yeah. So all three projects have contracts in the range of 20-plus years. And the first two are contracted. The second one is 75% contracted and we will use our client base, our customer base in the country to contract out the balance, which to remind you we have around 600 customers in the country that buy power from us through all of our facilities and very strong ongoing relationships that we can use to lay off the final 25%.

Got it. Okay. Can you discuss whether you are seeing similar wind or solar opportunities in Colombia, given your significant presence there, and if you can utilize that presence to reduce risks on those projects, even if they are not fully contracted?

Similar. I'd say the big difference in Colombia is the contract market isn't as long as you see in Brazil. Brazil is just much more mature. So you can sign with a counterparty a 12, 15-year contract and that happens on a regular basis. In Colombia, it's more difficult. And, therefore, when you're doing development, you're typically looking for a government PPA to start out with. And then if you have a little bit of exposure left, maybe you don't get a full wrap, we then have a very large marketing group and we are probably one of the only ones in the country signing 10-year PPAs. So it is certainly an advantage we have, but the depth of the market is just not as strong. So I would say we probably are just being more careful in Colombia and you'll see more development in Brazil than you would see in Colombia from our perspective.

Okay. Regarding the Brazilian assets, is the strategy to get involved at a later stage of development, similar to what you're doing in Colombia?

Yeah. Typically, that's been our strategy for many years is anywhere in the world we're looking more at later stage opportunities. They tend to have the best risk-reward paradigm for us. And look, the strategy ebbs and flows. For a few years in Brazil, it was more of an M&A strategy when we felt that there was a scarcity of capital on M&A transactions. Right now we see a scarcity of capital on the development side, and therefore that's been our focus. We'll always be nimble around those types of things. But in general, we prioritize late-stage development and we're not going to burn a lot of capital on early-stage greenfield type transactions.

Okay. And then just one last question. The projects to be completed over the next few years, I think the FFO contribution is about $53 million. Roughly, what's the investment required to achieve that? Should we be thinking that you invest at 7 times to 8 times FFO multiple to get a mid to low-teen FFO yield?

This is expected to generate a 20% return on the development projects, which is our target. Wyatt can provide more details, but your investment seems a bit high.

Yeah. The basic math I would think about, Nelson is that our proportionate capacity on that under construction is around 700 megawatts assume 1 million per megawatt less than $700 million of total capital. You get 60% leverage on that, and then a 20% FFO yield on that. That's going to drive you to your $50 million to $55 million FFO contribution.

Okay. Got it. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Kuske with Credit Suisse.

Thank you. Good morning. Sachin, you mentioned earlier on about partnering and partnerships. Given some of the comments that have come out earlier from let's call them conventional energy producers about their aspirations in this cycle for renewable investment, how do you think about alignment for Brookfield on a bigger picture basis with either conventional energy producers or really off-takers and the technology industry is another example where there's a lot of demand for renewables?

Both groups are groups that we are actively talking to, and I would even add oil and gas firms as potential off-takes are also groups that we're talking to. And what I would say is this is all part of an energy transition thesis that's happening or trend that's happening. The technology firms have very stringent carbon reduction targets because of their supply chains and their data centers, which are heavy consumers of conventional thermal generation. The oil and gas firms obviously by the nature of what they do produce a lot of CO2. And traditional conventional power producers, which have coal and gas in the ground, are also looking to put capital to work in renewables. We are actively talking to all three groups looking for ways to partner to help with the broad thesis around energy transition. I would say in many respects that was part of how we got involved with TransAlta last year, was to help them with their transition story. So, I think given our capabilities and given our scale, we could be a really good partner around transition where it's a big area of focus for us. And I think to the extent that we can do it in a way that our investors understand that there is a bridge to a greener place and that we're part of that story that could be a really compelling area of growth for us.

Okay. That’s helpful. And I guess maybe just the context it's taking you 25 years to build the company to where it is now. And there are some players out there that have talked about trying to add like 2.5 Brookfield renewables within a 10-year period of time, which is a big aspiration. Do you see that as a big opportunity? Do you clearly have and I'm not trying to be patronizing about it, but you've got a big global footprint and you could be poised for accelerated development. You're not coming from a standing start, right? And how do you price that in the energy transition for a larger player like in the energy producer space?

First, I want to highlight that our business has consistently reflected the existing operations, and growth has been something that investors have found challenging to understand, despite our ongoing delivery of growth. What you're pointing out is that this growth is expected to continue and potentially accelerate due to the transition we are witnessing from large corporations, which previously focused on oil and gas development, to renewable energy. I have two key thoughts on this. Firstly, this shift is positive as it adds credibility and capital to the sector, creating more opportunities for us since we can offer capabilities that newcomers simply cannot match. Secondly, we can become a valuable partner for these organizations, allowing them to collaborate with a company that has 25 years of experience instead of starting from scratch. Additionally, if these investors are looking for scale, we can leverage our mature assets to meet that demand while continuing to expand our business as we have in the past. There's plenty we can accomplish as a result of this transition. Regarding their ambitious targets, I think they are indeed ambitious, and if they succeed, that would be commendable, but as we've experienced over the last 25 years, this business is challenging and requires time to build effectively.

One final question, if I may. You've mentioned solar costs, which have significantly decreased over the last 20 to 40 years. How do you view battery costs, and how do they integrate into your portfolio?

Yes. We have a few batteries in the portfolio, that we acquired largely in wind projects, actually one also in a hydro facility that we have, because either the existing infrastructure reduced the costs and made it competitive, or because we had some high-priced PPAs that let us invest in the batteries and secure that PPA price for more hours than we could otherwise achieve. And therefore the returns worked. But batteries continue to be expensive and I think will take time to properly commercialize. The biggest difference that we've seen is that batteries aren't attracting the subsidies that were given to wind and solar in the early days, that helped drive capital into manufacturing and R&D. And therefore what you're seeing on batteries is the vast majority of the R&D and capital going in is really coming from the transportation sector, as opposed to from a pure electricity application. So I think batteries will absolutely be a key component of generation and stability 10 to 20 years from now. It's just the path to get there might be slower than what we saw with wind and solar.

Thank you. And I'm showing no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the call back to CEO Sachin Shah for closing remarks.

Thank you everyone. We appreciate your ongoing support and your interest in the business. We look forward to giving you an update next quarter. Thank you.

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