TerraForm Power, Inc. (TERP)

[odyd 1,293]

7 hours ago, ravalos said:

21 hours ago, odyd said:

I'm still exploring the site so I wouldn't know where to find that article, care to post a link? Thx

link above

[odyd 1,293]

Not sure if Tepper filed the lawsuit or decided it is over now.

I think he wants piece of governance over TERP or at least find the proper review and audit committee impartiality.

Problems holding gains in TERP:

1. Dividend -hopefully answered on or shortly after the Q4 results

2. Growth - TERP as complete entity now and what comes down on dropdown list. Balance Sheet and income statement very important.

3. Clarity how SUNE is going to manage itself-also better understood on March 15th

[odyd 1,293]

Ok, so what it looks like that 365MW were refinanced at $475M, where $160M was net gain from refinancing. This portfolio may have 15% GM to it, it has also 14 years of PPA agreements, I imagine this would increase the average length of PPA for what is left.

It would be interesting what price target this may have as average of $475 is $1.30 per watt, this could be worth $1.50, which would give TERP some $0.20*365 or $72M in future equity investment.

This being now 20% of equity could get some 279MW in the US at $1.30. The kick is that SUNE can sell tax equity in the projects, so it is a lot more profitable for SUNE, They get $362M cash, plus sale of tax equity. TERP brings 25 year long PPA which should compensate CAFD long term.

At least this is what I think may happen. The debt also goes down to $290M from $475M for TERP. If they can pull this off it would be an awesome transaction. They can probably sell it for less (than $547M). Again all it is in the PPA in UK, what value does it offer?

[odyd 1,293]

Those projects represent around 20% CAFD, however moving forward, 930MW of Invenergy assets should have replaced this sale for now and potentially increase the CAFD. The dividend may not be increased under the situation, but I see no reason for reduction.

TERP obligations (and not the rights ) are 448MW at $580M seem as $1.29 as per 10Q 32015. This after original obligation was reduced by $779.6M by sale to JPM joint venture of some 632.4MW of wind.

448MW consist of 156MW of solar, and 292MW of wind. That 156MW is a Comanche project which I read somewhere is being readied for sale. If the project is sold in full, That wind obligation is $379M.

I am wondering if this will unfold in this fashion.

On CAFD discussion TERP has a lot of wind assets now, half to be exact and more if that UK portfolio comes out and wind comes in. This is why comparison to pure solar low revenue per kWh assets is unfair, and I am guilty of forgetting this as well.

I do not feel that bad about CSIQ pool of assets knowing that detail. we are talking up to three times the factor in some cases.

[ravalos 20]

Well I was just having an argument with someone else over at SA comparing the avg yield on the portfolio projects between both 8Point3 (CAFD) and TERP and arguing whether TERP overpaid for their projects. It looks like as of Q3 2015, TERP had a run-rate of $71m of CAFD in the quarter, so extrapolating that would give you $285m/year in CAFD. That's a yield of approx 7.1% on the Power Plants (net) number recorded on the balance sheet as of Q3 2015 versus 14.3% for 8Point3. That's a big difference, and so I couldn't defend TERP much from this number. I hope that the transition to more wind assets and getting rid of some of the solar plants could increase the overall yield on TERP. I don't know what would be the end result of this late shuffling of assets (plus eliminating some of the obligations as you mention specifically the JPMorgan deal) in terms of CAFD per year, but if we go by your argument that CAFD should remain at least unchanged, that continues to be ~$285m CAFD/year which if we try to apply an investor multiple of 10x (10% investor's required rate of return as we have now removed the whole VSLR overhang) just to play it safe, we get $2,850m divided by 140.4 shares outstanding still gives you a nice and juicy $20.29 per share. I can't wait to see how the recent events unfold once they report the quarterly numbers. 

[odyd 1,293]

CAFD for 2016 has been set at $208M without Invenergy, which itself, without interest payment was about $139M, I would say that you are at $308M leaving around conservative $100M to manage interest/debt. $25M could move to CAFD. This is about 5.6% CAFD yield per cost of assets on CAFD set at $333M, at 140M shares this is closer to $23, and I am looking tor $20 to $22.

The depreciation will be taking big bites out of the that $5B asset pool.

CAFD (the company) shows investment in affiliates which they do not consolidate results, but show the MW for the partnership. You are looking at $1.9 per watt including leases. The actual CAFD extrapolation shows $64M so this is likely 7.3% yield and I think the math is a bit high still, probably getting some tax equity.

TERP if I got this uncovered, have an obligation on those assets reducing debt by at least $175M, their price is probably around $1.50 or so, average being $1.30 with solar plant. 300MW of wind can produce as much as 900MW of solar and in some cases more. At 1.4GW in wind now and hopefully 1.7GW by end of Q2 with the swap for UK solar, this is like reflecting on having 5.1GW of solar.

The rights to purchase assets from SUNE have at least 1.8GW in undeveloped wind assets.

TERP is amazingly potent, but with sense of the market returning to logic, SUNE recovering so BK is not talk of town, At $25 selling 30M could make TERP to get equity for those wind assets. Adding another $200M in CAFD at least. At $533M CAFD would add 50% value to equity.

[ravalos 20]

Robert, I got a bit lost on your calculations on the Invenergy assets. Why would this acquisition add $125 in CAFD to the overall $208 CAFD projected for 2016? If anything it should add only about $90m, not $125m. This is because TERP projected $139m unlevered CAFD, but the interest payment on that acquisition would be approx $49m once the remaining assets are acquired on Apr 2016 ($500m TERM loan used to finance the acquisition at LIBOR + 5.5% which is currently 6.13% and $300m from the senior notes at 6.13%). So that would result on $298m CAFD per year, and applying the 10x multiple you get a share price of $21.22 (pretty close to what we estimate anyways). I just want to get the numbers straight so I don't get confused. 

What I'm very confused about is the whole deal with the UK assets put on sale. I do not follow your logic as to what will happen with this group of assets and what would be the end result for TERP in terms of money. I will try to find more information about it. 

[ravalos 20]

I also agree depreciation will take big bites out of the assets pool, but that only helps to shield CAFD from taxes. It doesn't have an impact when determining the CAFD yield on the projects they acquire.

[odyd 1,293]

I think there is a room to add to CAFD from the original asset pool, note that 2016 estimate is only $208M, as you have observed 2015 will be $225M. As far as I know there is room there. I am keeping $100M for Invenergy as I suspect that there will be more than $139M prior IP.

The depreciation element is just to show that PPE will reduce hence the yield will go up.

Let me explain the UK transaction. This of course my stipulation knowing that SUNE will want to have obligation completed.

UK debt is $475M, It was refinanced at $1.3 per watt, which gave the company (TERP) $160M in cash. The non-recourse debt went into a long term debt with 4% average interest.

TERP is trying to sell it. They can probably sell the UK assets at $1.5 per watt, This is $72M in cash and paying off $475M long term debt. The equity gain if any is not that important.

TERP reinvests any equity in the buying from SUNE. The obligation is to buy $580M of assets as per Q3, which are 448MW consisting of  Comanche project at 156M and around 298MW of wind. Terra Nova (JPM) bought 333MW of assets from 632MW committed thus far, no reason to doubt they stop there, but the balance may still become TERP's especially since Vivint is no longer there.

For now Sparkspread reported that Comanche is going to  the third party, This leaves wind as obligation. Here I am guessing it will take $430 to $450M, I always forget about value of wind. So say they use $90M equity and they have non-recourse at $360M. Debt reduction of $115M.

They have potentially 3 times the capacity versus English 3 hours of sun. That alone should make it look like 900MW versus 365MW. the revenue may not be as impressive but it should have minimum 1.5 times (due to PPA price) effect. I am hoping for about $60M CAFD on annual basis. This is because it is going to be cheaper than wind MW from Invenergy hence more CAFD.

 

[ravalos 20]

Gotcha.. thanks for elaborating now it makes total sense. Although I would expect less than $60 CAFD from the 298MW of wind projects. That's because the Invenergy deal yields 7% if you take into account the total acquisition cost (not $1.1B paid but $1.96B as a result of the $818m project-debt acquired). So if this new Wind deal should yield 1.5x more than Invenergy, I'd expect around 11% yield, and assuming the acquisition price is $447m (298MW x $1.5/W) that gives you ~$50m, take $14m out for interest payment ($360m @ 4%) then I'd say you get around $30 CAFD on an annual basis. 

I agree there's room to increase CAFD from the existing projects, so I see where you get the additional $25m in CAFD. 

[ravalos 20]

I'm really curious to see what's the PPA price contracted on these wind plants. When you read about the wind industry you see that for 2015 the average price has reached 2.5 c per kWh. That's ridiculously low.. so I'd like to know what would be the revenue that the 298MW of wind projects can generate.. The way I would calculate this is 298MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 0.63 factor (which is 3 times that of solar or 15-16 hours of daily electricity production), that gives you 1,644,602 MWh x $0.03 kWh I get also the $50 million revenue figure. Do you follow something similar?

[odyd 1,293]

30 minutes ago, ravalos said:

Gotcha.. thanks for elaborating now it makes total sense. Although I would expect less than $60 CAFD from the 298MW of wind projects. That's because the Invenergy deal yields 7% if you take into account the total acquisition cost (not $1.1B paid but $1.96B as a result of the $818m project-debt acquired). So if this new Wind deal should yield 1.5x more than Invenergy, I'd expect around 11% yield, and assuming the acquisition price is $447m (298MW x $1.5/W) that gives you ~$50m, take $14m out for interest payment ($360m @ 4%) then I'd say you get around $30 CAFD on an annual basis. 

I agree there's room to increase CAFD from the existing projects, so I see where you get the additional $25m in CAFD. 

Invenergy deal assumes $818M in project debt but the borrowing is a lot more than that this is why the CAFD is expected be lower. Further Invenergy owns 10% of cash flow.

365MW of UK assets bring 20% CAFD as they have high payment range. The $60M is prior to interest.

[odyd 1,293]

37 minutes ago, ravalos said:

I'm really curious to see what's the PPA price contracted on these wind plants. When you read about the wind industry you see that for 2015 the average price has reached 2.5 c per kWh. That's ridiculously low.. so I'd like to know what would be the revenue that the 298MW of wind projects can generate.. The way I would calculate this is 298MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 0.63 factor (which is 3 times that of solar or 15-16 hours of daily electricity production), that gives you 1,644,602 MWh x $0.03 kWh I get also the $50 million revenue figure. Do you follow something similar?

All those projects (988MW)  I believe have have 15 years PPA 8 cents per kWh, so that 298MW is about $113M, Those were signed in 2013 I think midwest rates ares 2.3 cents per kWh.  GM could be around 60% plus depreciation is about $27M for 15 years with 10% residual, I say easy $60M. 

[ravalos 20]

27 minutes ago, odyd said:

Invenergy deal assumes $818M in project debt but the borrowing is a lot more than that this is why the CAFD is expected be lower. Further Invenergy owns 10% of cash flow.

365MW of UK assets bring 20% CAFD as they have high payment range. The $60M is prior to interest.

I hear you that since the UK assets bring 20% of current CAFD, and given that wind provides 3 times more in capacity vs solar, that we should expect at least 1.5x the UK's CAFD (resulting in the $60m figure), but the UK PPAs have a very good contracted price, I wonder what could be the PPA on those 298M of wind as part of TERP's obligations with SUNE. Considering the calculation I made previously to come up with a revenue figure, we would have to bring up the PPA contracted price significantly. I am just not so sure this would be the case given that the avg PPA price for 2015 from Wind plants reached $0.025 kWh. I wish we could get more details on these obligations. 

[odyd 1,293]

Oakfield, Bingham are 8 cents per kWh those are 2013 PPA in Maine. This is 333MW bought by Terra Nova JV.

South Plains I and two are both 300MW farms. They are estimated to be 1200GWh each which is about 11 hours per day. You are right at 5 cents this translates only to $60M. However I should keep the project costing only $1.3 per watt.

So at $60M in revenue and depreciation of $23M per year, this swap is probably only worth $30M in CAFD. The debt is down to $300 from $475M however.

the 2.5 cents PPAs must have to do with ITC as above examples in Texas do. HP bought 112MW for 12 years in the SPII this is the one to be owned by TERP. There is more to that than just 2.5 cents. However you are right this is not going to be more than 3 to 4 cents in a short future.

 

[odyd 1,293]

Ravalos,

Thank you for the inquiring conversation. Your questions made me go back and review my statements as well as the source info.  I have found couple of issues in my statements. Below are clarifications:

1. In 10Q I found that Terra Nova JV actually has a commitment for Oakfield and Bingham and SPII, News below shows what happen on Dec 10. Both those are Maine projects have 8 cents per watt PPAs worth 15 years.

http://investors.sunedison.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=106680&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2121839

2. We did talk about South Plains II, it is 300MW and all data written by me is real with exception of 5 cents per kWh, which is assumed and led to $60M in revenue. The 12,000 GW hours is real estimate.  HP and their PPA of 12 years is real.

3. Above JV commitment has 632.4MW, which leaves 356MW from this pool of assets for TERP. All together (988.4MW) those were separated by the price tag of $1.2B, at an average $1.21 per watt.

4. Comanche, belongs to what was left from this pool is for sale to third party, this project is 156MW.

5. The wind project we talked about is 200MW and seems to be part of the obligation by TERP

6. The rest of obligation is a combination of solar projects, residential, DG and utility, priced at the time at $1.65 with 92.3MW.

7. In the same 10Q, the price of the obligation of what was left for TERP was given at $580.3M. Since we know that 92.3MW cost $152.9M, this means our 200MW wind and Comanche 156MW, combined, average $1.19 per watt.

 

In summary, we are looking at  92.3MW solar and 200MW wind for TERP.  At $152.9 and 200MW *$1.20 we have $392.9M,

SUNE had a news release about selling a chunk of operating assets listing them by name. in 10Q there is no names for obligations, but it may be that some of those 92.3MW may be transferred to JV.

http://investors.sunedison.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=106680&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2125358

Lastly I was looking at the South Plains wind project of 200MW, this is the most I could find on this project

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141106006579/en/Wind-Closes-Financing-Project-Texas-MUFG

Hopefully we will see more details forthcoming.

I think I can conclude that 365MW in UK has a better CAFD profile than the combined, stipulated by me, obligation, despite a lot grater capacity factor for wind.

Assuming loss of CAFD in UK,  we do not know final profile of CAFD inclusive of Invenergy.

The Q4 10Q will be important to this and further to the delayed dividend, whether it stays the same or grows.

The swap of UK assets needs to look as good as potentially possible. Tepper is watching. It may come down to increase of MW based on debt levels, which would lead to keep the CAFD. It is predictable what it does for SUNE, cash injection, more tax equity etc. recovery.

 

 

 

 

 

[odyd 1,293]

Ravalos, what is your understanding of cash levels for TERP after Invenergy transaction?. There were about $1.7B of combination of cash and revolver. Revolver was boosted to $1B and cash going up by $160M.

Invenergy took $744M as cash so I would suspect they drew $500M on revolver and $244M from cash, leaving around $1B even split.

 

 

[disdaniel 54]

This may be asking a lot because of how complicated everything is once you add debt and tax equity shareholders (and now wind + buying and selling projects), but is there a "model" yieldco deal (i.e. simplified example) that shows how a good (or bad) deal for yieldco shareholder works?

In my opinion, TERP developed because (at least in the US) with a 30% tax credit, SUNE saw (cartoon/over-simplified example) that it cost SUNE $1.4W to build a project that it sold for $2W.  Customer gets the 30% tax credit which means customer gets all revenue for life of plant (say $0.25/watt x 25 years = $6.25/W) for effectively what it cost SUNE to build.  SUNE thought this was even better deal than they were getting, without all the work of building the plants, and decided to get into the business... especially once you consider that yieldco only invests $0.40/W and borrows the other $1/W at ~10% interest...(so for roughly their own profit margin they could own additional $6/W revenue stream rather than $2/W.)

TERP puts up $0.40/W (after tax credit) and gets paid $0.12/W/year [=$0.25 (gross rev)-$0.10 (interest) -$0.03 (O&M)] for 25 years for a $3/W profit over 25 years rather than $0.60/W gross margin (minus expenses) in one year.

I believe prices and costs continue to go down (along with revenue generated) but in my mind this is the logic behind TERP even if actual numbers change.  Obviously if only some numbers change then what used to be a good deal can become a bad deal.  I don't believe we are into bad deal territory, but I get confused by the past dozen posts...

[ravalos 20]

1 hour ago, odyd said:

Ravalos,

Thank you for the inquiring conversation. Your questions made me go back and review my statements as well as the source info.  I have found couple of issues in my statements. Below are clarifications:

1. In 10Q I found that Terra Nova JV actually has a commitment for Oakfield and Bingham and SPII, News below shows what happen on Dec 10. Both those are Maine projects have 8 cents per watt PPAs worth 15 years.

http://investors.sunedison.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=106680&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2121839

2. We did talk about South Plains II, it is 300MW and all data written by me is real with exception of 5 cents per kWh, which is assumed and led to $60M in revenue. The 12,000 GW hours is real estimate.  HP and their PPA of 12 years is real.

3. Above JV commitment has 632.4MW, which leaves 356MW from this pool of assets for TERP. All together (988.4MW) those were separated by the price tag of $1.2B, at an average $1.21 per watt.

4. Comanche, belongs to what was left from this pool is for sale to third party, this project is 156MW.

5. The wind project we talked about is 200MW and seems to be part of the obligation by TERP

6. The rest of obligation is a combination of solar projects, residential, DG and utility, priced at the time at $1.65 with 92.3MW.

7. In the same 10Q, the price of the obligation of what was left for TERP was given at $580.3M. Since we know that 92.3MW cost $152.9M, this means our 200MW wind and Comanche 156MW, combined, average $1.19 per watt.

 

In summary, we are looking at  92.3MW solar and 200MW wind for TERP.  At $152.9 and 200MW *$1.20 we have $392.9M,

 

Not a problem Robert, I also like to have these discussions with knowledgeable people because it makes me thoroughly review my models, notes and assumptions. I just have a little discrepancy with your findings above, I have the same figure than you in the total commitments that TERP has with SUNE after all the shuffling with JP Morgan and the Comanche project (200MW of Wind + 92.3MW various -DG, resi and utility = 292.3MW) but the remaining $ left for those I calculated as $479M.

That's because before the Comanche was sold, the total commitments from the Wind + Solar (initially the $1.2B for 988.4MW) got reduced by the JPMorgan purchase and TERP ended up at 356MW @ $580.3m (which matches your calculation on #7 above. But $580.3 / 356MW gives you an average of ~$1,63/W, not $1.19. As such, I end up with 200MW Wind @ $1.63 ($326M) + 92.3MW @ $152.9M all equals $479M for 292.3MW.

Does that make sense?

[ravalos 20]

53 minutes ago, odyd said:

Ravalos, what is your understanding of cash levels for TERP after Invenergy transaction?. There were about $1.7B of combination of cash and revolver. Revolver was boosted to $1B and cash going up by $160M.

Invenergy took $744M as cash so I would suspect they drew $500M on revolver and $244M from cash, leaving around $1B even split.

 

 

I also have some doubts about the liquidity levels. As of Sep 30, 2015, TERP had $1.3B comprised of $635.8M cash and $658.1M revolver (that means that at the time they had $66.9m drawn from the revolver).

I also think they increased the revolver limit to $1B (from $725m) thus ending with $933.1M revolver and $635.8M cash.

Invenergy as you said was financed with $744M cash but $300M out of this was from the Senior Notes due 2025, leaving $444m. I'm not sure if the $300m was considered as part of the $635.8M cash from the Q3 filing. If it was, then they have about $825M left between cash and revolver, and I believe they drew the remaning $444m from the revolver. I'd play it safe and decide that those $300m from the senior notes were included in the cash available as of Q3, 2015.

So all in all I'd say they have $335.8M cash and $489.1M revolver = $825M after Invenergy.

[odyd 1,293]

19 minutes ago, ravalos said:

That's because before the Comanche was sold, the total commitments from the Wind + Solar (initially the $1.2B for 988.4MW) got reduced by the JPMorgan purchase and TERP ended up at 356MW @ $580.3m

Ok, have a look at this quote

"Commitments to Acquire Renewable Energy Facilities from SunEdison
As of September 30, 2015, we had open commitments of approximately $1.4 billion in the aggregate to acquire additional renewable energy facilities with a combined nameplate capacity of 1,080.7 MW from SunEdison, which include commitments we expect to be significantly reduced in the near term as outlined below. These commitments include the following:"

Then you read:

"Pursuant to the MPSA, the partnership has agreed to purchase, subject to customary closing conditions, including receipt of regulatory approvals, three of the wind power plants (Oakfield, South Plains II and Bingham) described in the commitments list above. These assets have an aggregate nameplate capacity of 632.4 MW and represent an aggregate commitment by us of $779.6 million."

followed by

"Upon closing of the MPSA, as described above, the $1.4 billion aggregate of commitments to SunEdison would be reduced to $580.3 million."

1080.7MW-632.4MW=448.3 /$580.3M or $1.30, this includes Comanche.

Since we know that 92.3MW is worth $152.9 we have:

448.3-92.3MW =356M , $580.3-$152.9M=$427.4M or $1.20.Comanche and wind. I have no better option but to deduct Comanche as $187.9M.

I am left with wind at $1.20*200MW and $1.65*92.3MW, this is $$392.3M against 292.3MW or $1.34 per watt. I think I am adding cost to wind portion.

Attachment page 61.

10QTERP.pdf

[odyd 1,293]

4 minutes ago, ravalos said:

I also have some doubts about the liquidity levels. As of Sep 30, 2015, TERP had $1.3B comprised of $635.8M cash and $658.1M revolver (that means that at the time they had $66.9m drawn from the revolver).

I also think they increased the revolver limit to $1B (from $725m) thus ending with $933.1M revolver and $635.8M cash.

Invenergy as you said was financed with $744M cash but $300M out of this was from the Senior Notes due 2025, leaving $444m. I'm not sure if the $300m was considered as part of the $635.8M cash from the Q3 filing. If it was, then they have about $825M left between cash and revolver, and I believe they drew the remaning $444m from the revolver. I'd play it safe and decide that those $300m from the senior notes were included in the cash available as of Q3, 2015.

So all in all I'd say they have $335.8M cash and $489.1M revolver = $825M after Invenergy.

Good analysis, let me add my thoughts

635.8M is a cash level including $300M bond, bond was closed in July so it is in Q3.

What is not included $160M derived from the refinancing of the recourse and turning it into a long term loan for the UK asset. November 6th, Q4 reporting.

So pro forma for Q4 we had $795.8M,  Revolver was raised to $1B ( must deduct letter of credit $67 for UK transaction) $933M.

Invenergy transaction calls for $744M in cash. $300M is committed, means Cash now is $495.8M, to cover  the rest of $444M, revolver would be used potentially. This leaves $495.8M and revolver at $489M. I could probably think they have used $100M cash, so for better of it we have $395.8M and $589M revolver.

 

[ravalos 20]

8 minutes ago, odyd said:

"Upon closing of the MPSA, as described above, the $1.4 billion aggregate of commitments to SunEdison would be reduced to $580.3 million."

Gotcha, they already include the 92.3M from the various (DG, Resi & Utility) in this $580.3M figure. I missed the $1.4B aggregate (which was the $1.2B from Wind+Solar plus the $152.9M from the various). I had initially thought that this amount was left only from the $1.2B commitment (excluding the 92.3M various). 

Ok so you're right, the remaining wind+solar assets before Comanche was sold is $580.3M - $152.9 = $427.4 / 356MW = $1.20/w avg (so comanche will be 156MW @ $1.20 = $187.2M). So they end up with 200MW wind @ $1.20 = $240M + 92.3MW @ $152.9M = $392.9M

[odyd 1,293]

35 minutes ago, ravalos said:

Not a problem Robert, I also like to have these discussions with knowledgeable people because it makes me thoroughly review my models, notes and assumptions

We are doing similar analysis here for years. Our membership is low and the growth of it is low, becasue what you have said above separates us from mainstream forum sites. If you look to the right and see our public commitment portfolio, most consider TERP in top three investment choices and GLBL in 5. 

What is also apparent SUNE is at the bottom of the list. Both observations had served most people here well in last 5 years. I am always happy to see new contributor, like yourself, with interest in analysis. Beats yahoo noise and even some of the SA, while certainly quality is better there.

Thanks

[ravalos 20]

10 minutes ago, odyd said:

What is not included $160M derived from the refinancing of the recourse and turning it into a long term loan for the UK asset. November 6th, Q4 reporting.

I totally missed this event, I was not aware of the $160M derived from the refi so it must be added to the cash levels in Q4. I'll go with your numbers so TERP has left $395.8M cash + $589M revolver = $984.8M available.