© 2024 Alpha Spread Limited. All Rights Reserved.
www.alphaspread.com is not operated by a broker, a dealer, or a registered investment adviser. Under no circumstances does any information posted on www.alphaspread.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, investment advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. In no event shall Alpha Spread Limited be liable to any member, guest or third party for any damages of any kind arising out of the use of any content or other material published or available on www.alphaspread.com, or relating to the use of, or inability to use, www.alphaspread.com or any content, including, without limitation, any investment losses, lost profits, lost opportunity, special, incidental, indirect, consequential or punitive damages. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance.
You don't have any saved screeners yet
Intrinsic Value is all-important and is the only logical way to evaluate the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses.
Good morning, my name is Steve and I'll be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Boralex Inc. first quarter results conference call. [Operator Instructions] Marc Jasmin, Investor Relations, please go ahead.
Thank you, operator. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Boralex's First Quarter Results Conference Call. Joining me today are Mr. Patrick Lemaire, President and Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Jean-François Thibodeau, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Mr. Guy D'Aoust, Vice President Finance; Mrs. Melanie Fiset, Corporate Controller; and Mr. Pascal Hurtubise, Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary. Mr. Lemaire will begin with his comments, and afterwards, Mr. Thibodeau will carry on with some financial highlights. During this call, we will discuss historical as well as forward-looking matters. When we talk about the future, there are a variety of risk factors that have been listed in our different filings with securities regulators which can materially change our estimated results. These documents are all available for consultation at sedar.com. In our webcast, some results are presented both under IFRS and on a combined basis. Combined basis is a non-IFRS measure equal in concept to the previously used proportion consolidation, which was also an non-IFRS measure.As the company is growing, the weight of the current joint ventures is trending down. As a result, our disclosure is moving back towards more standard IFRS measures. However, the joint ventures remain significant investments for Boralex, so we will continue to provide investors with sufficient information to monitor their performance. Such information is provided in note 4 of the interim nonaudited financial statements, and in the non-IFRS measures section of the MD&A. This being said, unless otherwise stated, most comments made in this presentation will be on a combined basis. The press release, the MD&A, the consolidated financial statements and a copy of today's presentation are all posted on the Boralex website at boralex.com. If you wish to receive a copy of either of these documents, please do not hesitate contacting us. Finally, take note that we will only take questions from sell-side financial analysts who currently have an active coverage on Boralex. Given our Annual General Meeting will be held this morning at 11:00 am, we intend taking the last question of the call at 9:45 sharp. The AGM will be held in Montreal on the 8th floor of the Maison Manuvie Building, located at 900 West de Maisonneuve, where we will be shortly setting our new offices. All are welcome to attend. Mr. Lemaire will now start with his comments. Patrick?
Thank you, Marc. Good morning, everyone. For the first quarter, Boralex reports once again increased quarterly production, revenues from energy sales and EBITDA, driven for the most part by the contribution of assets which were either acquired or commissioned in 2017, and the better performance of comparable French wind sites and the favorable evolution of the euro. Given these great results, and considering we've achieved on the last 12 months basis, a 50% dividend payout ratio or a mid-point of our distributable cash flow target, I am also pleased to announce that our Board of Directors has approved a 5% dividend increase, and that starting with our next dividend payment on June 15, our quarterly dividend will go from $0.15 to $0.1575 per share, or from $0.60 to $0.63 on an annualized basis. On another note, I wish reminding you that we've also recently been active on the M&A front, as we announced a few weeks ago in France, the purchase agreement for Kallista Energy Investment from Ardian Infrastructure valued at roughly CAD 350 million on an enterprise value basis. The acquisition involved 163 megawatt of operating wind farm with the weighted average remaining contract life of 8 years, a 10 megawatt under construction wind farm, and about 158 megawatt of potential projects.Considering the 10 megawatt under construction, Noyers Bucamps project, we are pleased to announce this quarter the addition of 44 megawatt of new projects to our growth path. In France, these additions also include 2 projects acquired from Ecoterra in 2015, namely the 10 megawatt Catésis and the 14 megawatt Santerre projects. In Canada, we recently got the authorization to move forward with the 10 megawatt expansion of Buckingham hydro facility, which will increase the site's capacity from 10 megawatt to 20 megawatt. All together, this means that Boralex currently has, on the pro forma basis, 1,619 megawatt of installed capacity and another 277 megawatt of projects on its growth path, which will bring it close to 100 megawatts of its stated goal of 2,000 megawatts by the end of 2020, as you can see on Slide 5. Before I turn the conference over, I would like to take a few moments to thank our outgoing director, Richard Lemaire, who after more than 20 years as a board member did not seek reelection this year. I thank Richard for his valuable contribution over the years and wish him all the best going forward. On the same note, I wish to welcome 2 nominees that are set to be elected to the Board of Director later this morning. First, Ms. Lise Croteau, who until recently was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Hydro-Québec. And second, Mr. Ghyslain Deschamps, who currently serves as Senior Vice President of Telecon, the largest telecommunication infrastructure engineering company in Canada. I will now turn the conference over to Jean-François to further discuss our results and review our operations and financial situation. I will be back later for more closing remarks and the question period. Jean-François?
Thank you, Patrick. Good morning, everyone. Starting on Slide 8 for the first quarter of 2018. In comparison with 2017, on a combined basis, Boralex reports a 13% increase in production, a 24% increase in revenues, a 17% increase in EBITDA and a 22% increase in cash flows from operations. Accordingly, revenues came in $168 million and EBITDA stood at $114 million, representing margins of 68%. As for cash flows from operations, they total $84 million compare with $69 million last year. Net earnings attributable to Boralex shareholders stand at $20 million or $0.26 per share, or 24% better than the net earnings of $15 million or $0.21 per share achieved in 2017. The difference between both years is mostly explained by the year-over-year increase in EBITDA.Now as you can see on the Slide 9, wind performed better while other sectors were all lower. I will later provide further details on individual segments. Moving forward to Slide 10, with an analysis of the quarterly $17 million positive EBITDA variant at the bottom of the page. The commissioning and acquisition of new assets provided an additional $15 million EBITDA, and of this amount, $6 million comes from the Niagara site alone. Specifically to this site, keep in mind that these assets contributed to EBITDA for the full quarter this year compared to a partial quarter last year considering their acquisition in mid-January of 2017. However, these assets did not produce at their full capacity, as they were curtailed in Q1 of this year for an equivalent of 56 gigawatt hour, of which 42-gigawatt hour were compensated for an amount of $7 million. Volume from existing sites explain a $6 million positive variance, mainly due to the positive $8 million contribution of the French wind assets, which more than compensated the weaker performance of other segments. There was, during the quarter, a onetime expense adjustment that actually underestimates the quarterly wind EBITDA contribution by $6 million. To be more specific, Boralex recorded in the first quarter of 2018 the full year expense relating to the network connection of its assets in France. In the past, these expenses were recorded equally between each of the 4 quarters; however, it was determined that such expense should be recorded all at once because of their nature. This timing difference will reverse over the next 3 quarters, except for the volume impact of about $1 million related to the assets commissioned since last year. Finally, the year-over-year appreciation of the euro explains the $3 million positive year-over-year EBITDA variance, and on the negative side, development expenses and other items are respectively $3 million and $5 million higher. Moving to Slide 11. Let's look at the wind contribution. Taking into account the newly acquired or commissioned assets, wind production increased by 20%. In France, it was up by 40% while in Canada it increased by 7%. Please note that if we take into consideration the Niagara curtailment, production in Canada would have increased by 16%. On a comparable basis, excluding the contribution of commissioned sites, global production was similar year-over-year. In Canada, it was 1% lower, while in France it was 18% higher. If we look at it from the perspective of wind factors, expectation were for a 40% capacity factor in Canada and a 31% factor in France, for a blended 35%. In reality, the overall blended capacity factor came in at 38%, considering Canada achieved the 42% factor when taking into account the Niagara curtailment, while France achieved a 34% factor. The contribution of the newly commissioned sites had a favorable impact on our revenues and EBITDA, up $17 million and $15 million, respectively. Out of this $15 million of EBITDA, $9 million is explained by the French operations while the other $6 million is explained by the Niagara site. To conclude, in view of the above-mentioned items, revenues increased by 35% to $141 million while EBITDA increased by $29 million (sic) [ $26 million ] from $86 million to $112 million, representing margins of 80%. Moving on to hydro on Slide 12. This quarter's overall production was 4% lower compared to last year. It was 6% lower in Canada and 3% lower in the U.S. When in comparison with historical averages, both countries were higher, as Canada was up 4% and the U.S. was up 8% for a blended 7%. As a result, and considering the 40% decrease in the contracted price of the Hudson Falls facility, quarterly revenues decreased from $17 million to $14 million, and EBITDA decreased from $13 million to $10 million. As for margins, they stood at 71%, down from the 77% achieved last year. We have no specific comments on the thermal and solar sectors; however, we provided additional details on pages 17 and 18 of the appendix section. I will now comment on the corporate sector at the top of Slide 13. Development expenses totaled $5 million, up from $3 million, and are for the most part explained by additional expenses relating to our partnership in Scotland and increased M&A activity, including our recent acquisition in France. Administrative expenses within the corporate sector stood at $7 million compared with $5 million in the first quarter of 2017, reflecting nonrecurring expenses for the most part in this quarter. Considering all of the above items, corporate EBITDA came in at the negative $13 million in comparison to a negative $9 million last year.Now we will discuss cash flow generation and our financial position as seen on Slides 14 and 15 on an IFRS basis. Quarterly cash flows from operations before changes in noncash items came in at $77 million, up from $58 million in 2017. During the first quarter, we spent a total amount of $85 million on investing activities. More specifically, we invested $59 million on property, plant and equipment, $10 million as milestone payments for 2 projects which were acquired from Ecoterra, $10 million in additional reserve cash, and $6 million in other items, including a $4 million on business acquisitions. Financing activities required a net amount of $3 million. More specifically, we received $245 million of cash following the issuance of a $200 million, 10-year bullet, nonrecourse subordinated debt and $49 million of new project debt, less $4 million in total financing fees. These inflows allowed to reimburse $227 million of capital, including $50 million of project-related debt, $164 million of debt run under the revolver and another $13 million of sales tax related loans. Over and above, we paid $11 million in dividends to our shareholders and received $1 million following the exercise of stock options. Finally, in accordance with our internal risk management policy, we paid $10 million to unwind an interest rate swap which has been used to [indiscernible] a number of projects in Canada since 2010. Considering a $5 million translation gain on foreign currency cash balances, our cash stood at $142 million at the end of the quarter, in addition to $45 million in restricted cash. Now if we look at it on a combined basis, cash flow from operations represented $84 million in 2018. Again, $69 million for the same quarter in 2017, an increase of 22%. The joint ventures also reimbursed $1 million of capital during the quarter, and finally, our share of the cash sale by the JVs represented [ $50 ] million as of March 31, 2018. Boralex received a $4 million distribution this year while it has received nothing for the same period in 2017. Otherwise, there's nothing else significant to mention. Looking forward for the remainder of 2018. For the 277 megawatt projects identified in our growth path on Slide 5, we expect to spend another $285 million in property, plant and equipment. These investments will be financed by approximately $60 million of equity and additional debt drawdowns of approximately $225 million. For the remainder of 2018, project debt reimbursements should amount to approximately $110 million. Specifically for the next quarter, this should amount to roughly $35 million while for the next 12 months, it should amount to roughly $165 million.Now on our payout ratio. For the last 12-month period, our payout ratio stands at 50%, our midpoint of our 40% to 60% target of discretionary cash flows, which is in line with guidance we have provided in the past. Thank you for attention. I will now turn the conference over to Patrick for a few closing remarks before the question period. Patrick?
Thank you, Jean-François. I also want to thank our employees and all the people who help us to improve and grow this business. I am confident that Boralex will continue on this path into the future. We are committed to providing our shareholders with a balanced mix of growth and return of capital, while we maintain our financial discipline and long-term value creation objective. The 5% dividend increase announced this morning supports this statement. Thank you for your attention. I hope meeting you later this morning at the AGM. Operator, I will now take questions from the participants.
[Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from Rupert Merer with National Bank.
I'm wondering if you can give us a little more color on your French development pipeline. Can you remind us how many megawatts you have that are still FIT-eligible and how those projects are progressing?
FIT-eligible are...
If you refer to the 2016 tariff, we've got about 125 megawatt that are still part of that. And for the rest, the projects are moving, as you've seen, we've added 44 megawatt on the growth path this quarter. And add the total, if you include Kallista, with -- the pipeline stands at probably close to 1,000 megawatt, but things are progressing very well, as you can see.
So the Kallista projects, they're not FIT-eligible?
Some are, but it's minimal.
In fact, the under 18-megawatt contract with [ difference ] FIT Program, I'm going to say.
And the 125 megawatts, does that include the Moulin de Lohan project? Can you give us an update on the status of that project?
Things are moving along on that project. We don't think we're going to hear from that before the end of the year [indiscernible]. I can have our legal officer [indiscernible]
The date for the court of appeal hearing has not been set yet.
Is that included in the [indiscernible]
No. It's not included.
It is included.
No. It's not included. It's over and above the 125 megawatts.
Your next question comes from David Quezada with Raymond James.
My first question is just on the -- a follow-up on the Kallista acquisition. I know the team there has good experience in repowering wind assets. I'm just wondering, we know that the weighted average contract life is 8 years there. How soon are the nearest-term PPA expiries? And when would you look at re-contracting those or attempting to?
Some of them we're looking at. I don't have the exact megawatt in mind. We could send this to you but there's a few -- there's some megawatts that could be -- that could suit in the 2017 contractual difference program, because some of them -- most of them are under 18 megawatts, so could be re-contracted at a higher capacity because putting bigger turbines.
Okay. Great. And then I just had a question here just regarding the Alberta renewable procurement. I know the second round was launched recently. I wonder if, just thinking back to the results of the first round, what you thought the implications were, the pricing, and how you feel about the prospects there for the later rounds.
You were talking about Alberta? Sorry, I missed the beginning.
That's right. Yes, Alberta.
Okay. We said that the price was very aggressive -- or the bidders were very aggressive. So on our end, if the range stays the same, we could be competitive and have a fair return at the high range of the last bid, but for sure to be at the mid-range to look to the lowest bidder, it's very difficult for us to have, let say, a disciplined return, I'm going to say.
And our next question comes from Sean Steuart with TD Securities.
A couple of questions. Following up on Kallista, David mentioned the shorter weighted average PPA duration for the operating assets in that transaction. Is that typical of what's available for M&A opportunities in France in the current environment?
What I could say -- I cannot say what's going to come up for M&A in the future. So for sure is companies that have very recent CODs, the value is going to be way higher and the people could be more aggressive. We have -- they have experience, we have experience developing project, so if you see assets coming on sales with, let's say, average 12 years, you could have other players or investors that would be interested in these type of assets. So this one was very interesting for us, because 8 years, we have develop -- internal development team. They have one, so we can repower, we can finish the development pipeline and be successful realizing most of the pipeline.
Okay. And second question, on the dividend policy, we were encouraged to see the increase today. Looks like the board's approach to dividend growth to this point has been opportunistic around expansion initiatives. As Boralex matures, is there any thought to adopting a more regular dividend growth policy going forward?
We don't want to comment on this, because we always said that the best return is to invest the cash that we -- we're generating. So but we've been consistent over the last 4 years with our dividends so, not on the yearly basis, but we've had the third increase. So as we get into our range at a fair, let's say, fairly in our range, we should increase, but it depends on much what is the pipeline of realizing -- of realization of projects. Our range is 40 to 60s.
[indiscernible] that since we introduced a dividend, we've increased it 3 times, and it's around 20% increase since that time. So we're in line with our policy.
And your next question comes from Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets.
Just a quick follow-up on the comments you had on Alberta. You mentioned that the price at the higher end of the previous bidding range would have worked for you. Do you think the other, I guess, winning bidders had any CapEx or OpEx advantages over Boralex to kind of make their economics work? I was just thinking in terms of like if they have a lower CapEx cost, maybe it's through like a cheaper turbine cost or something, they could make it work out at those lower levels. Like could you comment on your relationship with turbine manufacturers and what you think -- whether there's any kind of big differences in CapEx costs?
On the CapEx side, you have to answer yes on that. How aggressive our turbine manufacturer, I don't know, but as Boralex is growing, we're getting, let's say, we're -- can commit to buying more megawatts from one turbine manufacturer and get deals too. So probably not the size of a [ DPR ] but -- because we're smaller, but I think we're getting there slowly. And on the OpEx side, no. OpEx, we can operate turbines very, very competitively. So on our end, I cannot see what they're doing, but we see them being aggressive on residual value.
Yes. There has to be more than the cost of turbine. If you look at the difference between the higher end and the lower end, there's a 30% decrease or reduction. So you cannot -- I don't believe that no one has a 30% advantage on turbine, so there's a lot of factor that comes in on top of probably a smaller, or small discounts to some of the other players on turbines.
Okay. Got it. And then my next question is just on the subordinated loan from the Caisse. So when they initially took or increased a stake to 19.9%, I think, in the past, your -- you had discussions with them on potentially doing additional investments or joint investments. Is the -- like do you see the loan as -- like was that their original intention in terms of just giving you a loan? Or do you see that relationship growing into like a larger equity investment or potentially a joint interest in future larger projects? Like how do you see their investment or relationship kind of progressing over time?
On the loan side, the guys at the Caisse who did the loan is a different group than the ones who have invested in equity. So we went to see them, because we thought that was the best cost of funds available to us, and met our objectives and it turned out that it was the [ Caisse ]. So it was not part of a plan at inception. And on the equity side, they're at close to 20%, and as projects, opportunities come along, we'll see how this thing evolves, but it's a function of opportunities going forward.
Okay. And then just one last question, on your capital structure. So I think in the past you mentioned that you guys have enough equity to fund the existing pipeline of growth through 2020, excluding acquisitions and subject to some timing items. Could you just kind of update us on that? And also whether you have any, I guess, debt ratio targets that you want to kind of stay within?
Okay. Couple of sides on it. In terms of -- I would say cash to fund the -- before, as we said, we've got the $60 million of equity to put. As you can see, it's not a major amount to realize the 277 megawatt, there's probably another 25 to add in 2019. So we're okay on that side to finish the 277 megawatt. As we've always said, depending on opportunities that come along, depending on timing of these, we'll see at that time, but to finish the 277, we're in great shape. Second, in terms of capital structure, yes, we always have some objective, without going into all the specific details. You can make the math. We stand at around about 8x EBITDA as we stand right now. And obviously, our targets would be to be -- to over a long-term period to come inside that band, inside the 8x. But I don't want to be precise. Our model justifies that. We're in great shape financially. We have no pressure to reduce that, but we feel that at some point down the road we'll come back inside that.
Okay. If I can just squeeze in one last question. In terms your corporate costs, development overhead costs, would Q1 be a fair run rate for the year? Because it implies about $20 million for development. I was just wondering whether that's a fair number and particularly after, I guess, the pending Kallista acquisition, you're adding a few more people to the team, whether that $20 million is a fair number to use.
Yes. It's a fair number.
Your next question comes from Mark Jarvi with CIBC Capital Markets.
I wanted to just go back to the comments around repayment of debt, and also just in the context, you guys have a bridge loan that expires later this year. Is that in the $165 million that you talked about? I think that was a bridge loan you put in place when you acquired development and land in Scotland? Maybe how you are going to deal with the maturity this year?
That part of the numbers that we gave you, this thing is expecting to be refinanced.
Okay. Refinanced. And then ...
Unless we sell all the lands that are backing these things and -- which is still our plan.
Okay. Right, fair enough. And then you didn't change the target on the sort of combined or proportioned EBITDA, you're going to wait till after Kallista closes, but I guess simply just adding the $36 million you expect from Kallista, plus the 3 projects added this quarter, I think which total about $13 million, so that's $45 million to $50 million to the target, is there anything else you guys are thinking about? What might change in sort of that target range post-closing of Kallista?
At this stage, no, obviously. And the reason why is, we're getting closer to the 2020, and we're looking -- we're trying to look in front of us so we didn't want to change something just for the sake of changing. And so we want to take the time to review and come back to you guys with the new guidelines, probably by the end of the year, which will take into consideration a longer-term view of these objectives, but we'll be back on this by the end of the year.
But just to clarify, we know when you're closing Kallista you would update the EBITDA run rate, but then the 2020 target of 2,000 megawatts you would adjust by year end.
Yes. Something like that. Yes.
The next question comes from Ben Pham with BMO.
It looks like that you guys are on track to hit the 2 gigawatts by 2020. Are you guys considering providing capacity targets beyond 2020 at some point? Or maybe moving towards a different metric? Or even just completely taking that guidance even off and not talking about it?
Yes. We're looking at the new guidance, let's say, 2023 or 2025 guidance. But our expectation or view is to have 7% to 10% growth, so -- on a continuous basis, so after 2020. So it could be only a percentage guidelines and I don't want to commit to anything here this morning. But we still look at the growing and then annual basis or an average of 7% to 10%.
And is that -- what's the metric you look then -- the 7 plus percent of that, is that distributable cash flow per share?
Installed capacity.
Installed capacity.
I got you, okay. And I know this is counter to hitting your 2-gigawatt target, but have you ever even considered at this stage of -- of maybe selling assets and recycling?
As long as they generate cash flows in line with our returns and everything, we have no intention of selling assets.
Your next question comes from Jeremy Rosenfield with Industrial Alliance.
There were some comments on the network connection costs in France, and I was wondering if you could just go back over that for the remainder of 2018 what you're expecting? And then just -- whether it was atypical? You mentioned it was a onetime this quarter, but if -- how does it typically work in France with the connection costs?
The connection costs are invoiced on January 1, to make it simple. And we pay it -- it's a one-shot invoice. So we used to pay it and put each quarter. We put it, let's say, in January in the prepaid and amortized that over the year. Now because of the nature, these are nonreimbursable and following [ gas ] and everything, so we have to record it once the payment is made. So we've recorded everything in the first quarter. There's nothing else to pay before January 1, 2019. So there, for the rest of the year, we will reverse about $5 million during -- so, roughly, about $1.6 million, $1.7 million each quarter for the next 3 quarters. So at the end of the year, this expense will be roughly the same as last year. But as we said, since our network has grown, there will be -- if you look at it on a year-to-year basis, there will be an increase of about $1 million, but the point for you guys is there is going to be a reversal of about $1.6 million, $1.7 million in each of the next 3 quarter. Because of that, it's going to be a positive variance in our EBITDA against last year of roughly about $1.6 million, $1.7 million.
Okay. That's good to note. And then just looking forward to 2019, do you expect the same thing to happen though? Is there going to be a, sort of, a large expense to be incurred in the first quarter of 2019 for connection costs that you would need for that year?
Yes. It's a not -- every year we've had that cost. Next year, there will be. If I look at the amount that we paid this year, it should be a little bit higher because we're adding new assets in the grid, so next year in January. But in terms of comparable first quarter, this year, since we've recorded this full this quarter, there shouldn't be material difference for the next quarter on this item alone.
[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Rupert Merer with National Bank.
Wondering if you can give us a little more color on the curtailment in Niagara. Can you remind us what your contract states as far as the ability to curtail the wind farm goes? And what we could expect for the rest of the year?
Okay. The curtailment -- there's 2 curtailment that happened in the first quarter. There's the, let's say, the contracted curtailment. So what ISO does, it calls us and shuts us down, and at will. And for the first 25 hours of curtail -- being curtailed, we don't get reimbursed, I'm going to say, and after the 25 hours, they take the wind readings on certain turbines and also some metering towers on the wind farm, and they estimate the production that should have been done during the curtailment and that's what they pay us back at the end of the month. So this is a -- the contractor curtailment and there was a little bit of a curtailment that the Hydro One did on the power lines, so this curtailment is not repaid. So this is the 2 type of curtailment that we have.
But just to add on what Patrick is mentioning. We have mentioned in the past that we were looking at some kind of a system to prevent, actually to minimize the impact of the Hydro One curtailments, and these equipment have been installed. They have to be certified, sorry, certify, which is in process and it's a matter of weeks. So we're trying to minimize the impact of the Hydro One, obviously, because they're not compensated. And just to add under the first point, since we've got -- we were compensated under the contractual curtailment, whatever will be done or curtailed for the rest of their year, the 25 hour is done. It's represents roughly about $1 million per year; it's already done. So if they continue curtailing, we will be fully compensated for each megawatt-hour.
Okay. So the Hydro One curtailment should reduce in the future?
Should, yes, yes. Compared to last year, yes. We were curtailed for a long time last year.
Great. Now if there's time for one more, can you give us a little more of an update on the progress of monetization of those land assets that you talked about, as how that's coming along?
This will be the last question?
Okay. This will be the last question of the call.
Monetization, actually, it's looking pretty good in France, and we've just, without going into too much detail, we received 6 offers and we're valuing this and working on it. Don't want to give too much detail, but we're in good shape on that side. We're looking also -- it's a different pattern in Scotland because we're trying to sell it more on a piece-by-piece basis, but we're -- it looks well also.
Thank you for your attention. A recording of the webcast is available until May 16, and we look forward to see you at AGM later this morning. Thank you. Have a nice day.