Ed Fenster
Analyst · Bank of America. Please go ahead, Julien
Thanks, Tom. I want to echo Mary’s appreciation of Tom’s contributions and also to share my excitement for Danny’s promotion to CFO. I have worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Danny for over a decade and know he is the right person for this role. His knowledge of Sunrun and his finance capabilities are unparalleled. In his nearly 12 years at the company, Danny has also pinch hit in several other areas, for instance in corporate planning and M&A. He was instrumental to our convertible debt offering as well. Following Danny’s ascension to CFO, Stewart Bewley will lead project finance and report to Danny directly. I have been looking forward to Danny having this opportunity and I am very excited to see him open this next chapter. Today I will discuss the impacts of increases in inflation and interest rates on the company, summarize our recent capital market activities and provide an update on regulatory matters. This quarter, we have been busy positioning for increasing interest rates, for instance raising prices to new customers as necessary behind the large utility price increases that are underway. As regulated monopolies, utilities are able to pass through their higher labor, fuel, and capital costs to customers, and despite an 11% year-over-year increase in national electricity prices, this pass-through has just begun. In addition, our existing capital structure is well hedged through a mix of interest rate swaps and fixed coupon, long-dated debt securities. As Mary noted, we have implemented meaningful price increases and expect recently originated customers, when installed, to generate at least $3,000 in incremental net subscriber value, as measured at a 5% discount rate. This benefit will flow through in Q3 and is designed to mitigate the higher material and capital costs the industry is facing. On slide nine, you can see the sensitivity to subscriber values using various discount rates. We currently observe our capital costs as between 5% and 6%. Increasing the discount rate 25 basis points to 75 basis points above 5%, for instance, would reduce pro-forma subscriber values by approximately $750 to $2,100. As you may recall, several years ago we used to report the figure using a 6% discount rate and didn’t update it to 5% until we saw capital costs below 4%. While we actively monitor capital costs, we don’t plan to update the discount rate for minor fluctuations above 5%. In April we priced a $0.5 billion asset backed security senior note. The transaction was the largest solar lease portfolio placed in the ABS market ever, across all issuers in the sector. We expect to achieve proceeds on this portfolio, net of fees, from all sources, rebates, tax equity, customer prepayments, swap terminations, and senior and subordinated debt, of about 95% of contracted subscriber value, measured at a 5% discount rate. We expect to achieve a weighted average cost of capital for this pool of assets of about 4.5% including benefits from interest rate swaps, or about 5.5% excluding swap benefits. As we have shared before, we frequently enter into interest rate swaps to hedge capital costs on our newly installed customers. As we tweak our financing strategy and benefit from less robust swap terminations, we expect total advance rates to settle over the moderate term between 85% and 95% of contracted subscriber values, discounted at a 5% rate. We believe a wider range is appropriate given the current volatility in the fixed income markets. Finally, as described on the last earnings call, we retired our $250 million recourse lending facility and arranged a larger $425 million facility at enhanced terms and with a longer tenor, during the quarter we upsized that facility to $600 million on the same terms, the facility is only partly drawn. We continue to maintain a robust project finance runway. As of today, closed transactions and executed term sheets provide us expected tax equity and project debt capacity to fund over 400 megawatts for subscribers beyond what was deployed through the first quarter. The multitude of events causing massive delays in the utility-scale segment are causing several capital providers to experience unexpected short falls in 2022 transaction volumes, especially among tax equity investors. We expect this to provide a modest tailwind for us. Turning now to an update on regulatory matters. Sunrun is in a strong position to navigate a dynamic supply chain environment, most recently compounded by the uncertainty of the potential retroactive tariffs, catchily called by many the AD/CVD anti-circumvention matter. This investigation by the Department of Commerce concerns solar imports from Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia using Chinese inputs. To maintain high levels of component supply, particularly solar modules, we continue to increase our inventory position. As of March 31, we held over $0.5 billion of inventory on balance sheet, up $49 million during the quarter and up $273 million since the start of 2021. We have over 100 days of supply on hand of both modules and inverters and continue to procure modules from a diversified base of manufacturers. We believe the Department of Commerce’s investigation is misplaced and contrary to the administration’s objective to encourage the transition to clean energy. Most head-scratching is that the application of tariffs against these countries would simply cause American solar developers to buy panels directly from China, which currently exports almost no product to the United States. We have entered into several supply agreements for hundreds of megawatts of solar modules in total from manufacturers unaffected by the investigation. We also expect to enter into additional agreements in the coming months. Purchases from such manufacturers may be on less favorable terms than our existing suppliers and result in increased working capital investment. Last week, the Republican Governor of Florida vetoed an anti-solar bill that was drafted by the state’s utilities and pushed through the legislature earlier this year. The vetoed bill, which was somewhat watered down as it went through the legislature, proposed certain reductions to net metering in future years and called for a regulatory proceeding to consider a fixed fee for solar customers. While also citing inflationary pressures, Governor DeSantis’s veto statement essentially said that no one should be forced to pay a utility for power the utility never produced or sold in the first place. Prior to the veto, the largest utility in Florida was granted a double-digit rate increase. We believe the read through to California is positive and the comparison was immediately taken up by the media. For instance, Politico opined, quote, DeSantis is now in the position of setting a pro-solar bar for his rival, California Governor Gavin Newsom, to clear, unquote. In addition, the massive delays in utility scale renewable development are causing elevated blackout risk in California. On April 27th, Governor Newsom wrote the Commerce Department that their investigation alone threatens our ability to maintain energy reliability ahead of the retirement of 6,000 megawatts primarily generated by aging, gas powered once through cooling plants. Utility scale projects are also struggling under pressure from unforeseen capital cost increases and permitting delays. Throttling rooftop solar and storage deployment against such a shortfall looks even less wise than it did in December. We remain optimistic that Congress may come together to pass some sort of climate legislation which includes an investment tax credit extension, but we don’t proclaim to have a crystal ball to predict when parties will come to the table, if they will reach an agreement or what the scope of any agreement might be. We will remain active in urging Congress to act, but will manage the business assuming the status quo for the time being. With that, let me turn it back over to Mary.