renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure cisco systems, inc. 1,091 100% solar, wind u.s....

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

Chris Lyons Group Head, Private Credit

Tom Emmons Co-Head of Direct Infrastructure

Ed Levin Co-Head of Direct Infrastructure

Renewable Energy and Sustainable Infrastructure An Overview of Project Financing

For financial professional or qualified institutional use only. Not for inspection by, distribution or quotation to, the general public.

250001796_WEB.indd 1 06/12/2019 23:15

2

In 2018, renewable energy financing represented almost half of infrastructure financing in the United States. Lending in the construction/operation stage of these projects, combined with specialized expertise, can lead to attractive, equity-like double digit returns with consistent cash flow and an attractive risk/reward dynamic.

Growing Demand for Renewable Energy, with Significant Potential for Growth 4

Filling the Void: How Flexible Capital Can Monetize Inefficiencies in Project Financing 7

Risk Profile of Project Financing: How Timing of Investment, Underlying Cashflow and Structure Help Mitigate Risk 9

How Will the Roll Back of Tax Credits Affect Renewable Energy Project Financing? 12

How Does Renewable Energy Infrastructure Fit in a Broader Portfolio? 13

Table of Contents

Chris Lyons, CFAManaging Director and Group Head,Private Credit

Thomas EmmonsSenior Vice President, Co-HeadDirect Infrastructure

Edward Levin, Esq.Senior Vice President, Co-HeadDirect Infrastructure

Renewable Energy and Sustainable Infrastructure

250001796_WEB.indd 2 06/12/2019 23:15

3


Declining costs create soaring demand for renewable energy■ Fueled by improving technology and declining costs, demand for renewable energy infrastructure

has rapidly increased and is expected to grow significantly in the decades to come—the average cost of solar and onshore wind energy is now lower than power from conventional sources.

Complex financing requirements create high barriers to entry■ While demand for renewable energy infrastructure projects is growing, traditional sources of

financing are more limited compared to the broader infrastructure category, a dynamic that creates inefficiencies similar to middle market direct lending.

Higher expected IRR than traditional infrastructure equity funds■ These financing inefficiencies create opportunities for highly specialized investment managers

to privately negotiate deals with attractive yields, earn origination fees and secure yield enhancements from project sponsors and developers.

■ As a result, pure-play renewable energy infrastructure debt strategies can target higher expected IRRs than the larger, more generic pools of equity capital operating in the broader infrastructure space.

Debt protection with equity upside■ Among infrastructure investments, we believe renewable energy infrastructure debt strategies

are one of the most effective ways to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns.

Uncorrelated to corporate credit■ These strategies also provide exposure to ESG characteristics and are expected to lower the

correlation of a broader portfolio to the corporate credit cycle.

Executive Summary

250001796_WEB.indd 3 06/12/2019 23:15

4


Demand for renewable power is growing rapidly as renewable technologies have become more efficient, reliable and increasingly competitive with fossil fuels. In the U.S., renewables accounted for roughly 60% of all newly installed capacity from 2015–2018.1 While the adoption of renewable energy has been significant, there is still tremendous potential for growth. In 2018, excluding the hydro segment, renewables accounted for only ~12% of installed generating capacity in the U.S.—two thirds of U.S. power is still generated by fossil fuels. By 2050, more than half of U.S. power is expected to shift to renewable energy.1

Growth in the wind and solar segments is expected to be particularly strong. Installed U.S. solar capacity has grown steadily over the past decade, and is expected to more than double over the next five years. U.S. wind power has more than tripled over the past decade, and today is the largest source of renewable energy in the country. To put that into perspective, in 2020, it is estimated that Texas will receive more of its power from onshore wind than from coal.2 Figure 1. Growing Demand for Wind and Solar Energy is Expected to Increase

1 Source: Bloomberg New Energy Outlook 2018.2 Source: International Energy Agency, Renewables 2019 - Market analysis and forecast from 2019 to 2024.

Growing Demand for Renewable Energy, with Significant Potential for Growth

Source: SEIA, Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables, American Wind Energy Association and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Solar forecasts as of 12/31/18; Wind forecasts as of 03/31/19.

In the U.S., renewables accounted for roughly 60% of all newly installed capacity from 2015–2018.1

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Cap

acity

(MW

*)

Cumulative U.S. Photovoltaic Installation: Historical and Projected

Cumulative U.S. Wind Capacity

*A megawatt of capacity is on average su�cient to meet the electrical needs of around 140 U.S. homes

~35% CAG

R

2017

2018

2019E

2020

E

2021E

2022

E

2023

E20

24E

010,000

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,00080,00090,000

100,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cap

acity

(MW

*)

~20% CAG

R

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

250001796_WEB.indd 4 06/12/2019 23:15

5


Declining costs, improving technology and increasing pressure from stakeholders to create more sustainable supply chains are the three primary factors driving growth in renewable energy. Prices for renewable energy have plummeted, allowing companies and utilities to sign power purchase agreements that underpin large-scale renewable energy projects. As Figure 2 highlights, the average cost of solar and onshore wind energy is now lower than power from conventional sources. Wind and solar costs are expected to become increasingly more competitive in the years to come as efficiencies in lithium-ion batteries reduce storage costs and facilitate renewables penetration. Energy storage facilities help smooth the supply of wind and solar energy across regions and over time, which is an important step towards the wide-scale adoption of renewable energy. In the next decade, battery efficiencies are expected to cut storage costs by another two-thirds,3 which should exponentially increase demand for wind and solar power.Figure 2. Solar and Wind Costs have become Cheaper than Conventional Sources of Energy

What is Fueling the Demand for Renewable Energy?

Source: Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 12.0. As of 11/30/18.Levelized Cost of Energy measures lifetime costs divided by energy production. Calculates present value of the total cost of the building and operating a power plant over an assumed lifetime. Allows the comparison of different technologies (e.g., wind, solar, natural gas) of unequal life spans, project size, different capital cost, risk, return, and capacities. Source: US Department of Energy

3 Source: Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 12.0. As of 11/30/18.

The average cost of solar and onshore

wind energy is now lower than power from conventional

sources.

As a result of declining costs and stakeholder demand for sustainable supply chains, a growing number of U.S. corporations and utility companies are buying power directly from wind and solar projects. As highlighted in Figure 3 (next page), corporate renewable energy procurement reached an all-time high in 2018, with companies like Google, Wal-Mart and Apple among the ranks of U.S. corporations completing wind and solar power purchase agreements. In addition to growing demand from corporations, 37 states have renewable energy consumption mandates or goals, including California and New York that require 100% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2040 and 2045, respectively.We believe that renewable energy will continue to gain significant market share in the energy supply mix, creating a steady pipeline of compelling investment opportunities.

Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison – Unsubsidized Analysis

Conventional

Renewable Energy

Gas Combined Cycle

Coal

Nuclear $112

$60 $143

$74$41

$189

Onshore Wind

Solar (utility scale)

$25

$36

$29 $56

$0 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200

$46

250001796_WEB.indd 5 06/12/2019 23:15

6


Partner NameAnnual Green

Power Usage (GWh)GP % of Total

Electricity Use* Green Power ResourcesGoogle Inc. 5,921 107% Biogas, Solar, Wind

Microsoft Corporation 5,336 100% Solar, Wind

Intel Corporation 3,898 101% Geothermal, Solar, Wind

Equinix, Inc. 2,200 107% Solar, Wind

Wells Fargo 1,984 106% Solar, Wind

Apple Inc. 1,837 101% Various

Bank of America 1,717 96% Solar, Wind

Samsung Electronics and Semiconductors 1,239 100% Solar, Wind

Starbucks (company-owned cafe retail stores) 1,125 105% Solar, Wind

Cisco Systems, Inc. 1,091 100% Solar, Wind

U.S. General Services Administration 1,076 47%

Biogas, Biomass, Geothermal, Solar, Wind

City of Houston, TX 1,072 92% Solar, Wind

Walmart Inc. 1,037 5% Various

IKEA 933 391% Biogas, Solar, Wind

Procter & Gamble 794 27% Various

Kimberly-Clark Corporation 787 31% Wind

City of Dallas, TX 745 100% Wind

Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC 727 58% Solar, Wind

Mars, Incorporated 694 72% Solar, Wind

T-Mobile 626 27% Wind

Source: Source: EPA* Reflects the amount of green power as a percentage of total electricity use. Partners choosing to purchase green power in an amount exceeding 100 percent of their U.S. organization-wide electricity use are listed as such. Usage figures are based on annualized Partner contract amounts (kilowatt-hours), not calendar year totals. The U.S. EPA Green Power Partnership is a voluntary program that encourages U.S. organizations to use green power as a way to reduce the environmental impacts associated with conventional electricity use.

Top U.S. Corporate Green Power Users

Figure 3. Growing Corporate Demand Paves Way for Large-Scale Renewable Energy Projects

250001796_WEB.indd 6 06/12/2019 23:15

7


The broad infrastructure category includes projects across electricity, roads, bridges, railroads, airports, water and sewerage. In 2018, renewable energy financing represented almost half of all infrastructure financing in the U.S. This market is growing, complex, dynamic, and fragmented, which creates financing inefficiencies and opportunities for highly specialized investment managers (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4. While Renewable Energy Represents Almost Half of U.S. Infrastructure Financing… Percentage of Capital Invested in U.S. Infrastructure Deals in 2018

Environment 3%Renewables 48%

Power 26%Transportation 15% Telecom 7%

Social 1%

Figure 5. …Inefficiencies Remain, Creating Opportunities for Specialized Investment Managers Opportunity Set for Renewable Energy Infrastructure Debt Strategies: ~$19 billion per year

Filling the Void: How Flexible Capital Can Monetize Inefficiencies in Project Financing

Flexible, highly specialized investment managers

can capitalize on financing

inefficiencies by privately negotiating

and structuring deals with attractive

yields and terms.

Renewable Source $ Invested (2018) % of Cap Structure Opportunity (per year)Solar & Wind $44bn 10% (mezz) $4bn

Other (e.g. biofuel) $20bn 75% (senior) $15bn

Source: EIA, Bloomberg, New Energy Finance and Voya Investment Management

250001796_WEB.indd 7 06/12/2019 23:15

8


Figure 6 provides an overview of project financing in the renewable energy space. As you can see, there are two types of equity investors in the space. The first type of equity investor assumes more binary risk by investing in the very beginning of a project. This equity investor targets a high IRR at a level that investors typically associate with private equity / venture capital.Figure 6. Flexible Capital Can Monetize Inefficiencies in Renewable Energy Project Financing

Development Capital Senior Debt Other Debt Project Equity

Description More speculative equity invested at

project inception and exploration phase

Senior bank lending, capped as % of

project cost

Flexible debt capturing capital inefficiencies at

attractive terms

Larger sales of equity interest in a portfolio of

operational projects

Project Phase Development (pre-construction)

Construction / Operation

Construction / Operation

Operation

Risk Higher (project feasibility

uncertainty)

Lower (due to senior position)

Lower-Medium (due to risk mitigants)

Medium/High (some GDP correlation;

exposure to all operating and market risks)

Typical Lender Sponsor / Early Stage P.E. Banks Voya Infra Equity Funds

Expected Returns >15% IRR L + 2% 11% IRR 8 – 10% IRR

Source: Voya Investment Management. For illustrative purposes only.

As projects progress into construction, the developers and sponsors who provided the initial investment capital typically tap banks for traditional project financing. However, the amount banks can lend is often capped at a percentage of the project’s costs. Meanwhile, the larger institutional infrastructure equity funds—i.e. the second (and more common) type of equity investor in the space—invest significantly later in a project, when construction is already complete and the project is in operation. While the risk is lower for these larger equity investors, so are the expected returns, which typically include a long-term (20 year+) view on expected cash flows and residual value of the projects. In addition, these infrastructure equity funds tend to have broader, less focused strategies that typically look for investment opportunities where they can make larger commitments than those made by more specialized strategies.Flexible, highly specialized investment managers can capitalize on this financing inefficiency by devising creative, more efficient financing structures, thereby earning upfront fees and privately negotiating deals with attractive yields. For example, sponsors and developers often depend on investment managers to originate and structure deals, which allows investment managers to earn upfront structuring and origination fees. In addition, investment managers in this space are often able to negotiate and secure additional yield enhancements through “equity kickers” that improve the return for subordinated debtholders. While the specific terms vary on a loan-by-loan basis, equity kickers in renewable energy project loans often allow for the conversion of subordinated debt into equity as the project reaches milestones and successfully progresses through construction into operation.While we believe the opportunities in this space are significant, barriers to entry are high given the expertise needed to source deals and navigate the complexity of the infrastructure projects. In addition, by targeting deal sizes that are generally too small for larger pools of capital, a manager can negotiate more favorable terms. This makes pure-play renewable energy infrastructure debt strategies difficult to duplicate and hard to commoditize.This market dynamic is very similar to middle market private credit. However, in addition to being significantly less crowded than middle market private credit strategies, the lower risk profile of renewable energy infrastructure debt is also very compelling for investors concerned about downside risk from more traditional corporate credit exposure.

While we believe the opportunities in this space are significant, barriers to entry are high given the expertise needed to source deals and navigate the complexity of the infrastructure projects.

250001796_WEB.indd 8 06/12/2019 23:15

9


Entry Point of Investment is After the Development Phase of a ProjectDevelopment risks include: ■ Siting risk: Acquiring the rights to a site that is suitable and has robust solar or wind resources to

support the economics of the project or is otherwise a suitable location for a project.■ Permitting risk: Once a site has been fully acquired, many permitting requirements arise, such as

environmental and construction permits. Permits are typically required by different federal, state, county and city jurisdictions. Securing these permits can take years to obtain.

■ Interconnection risk: A wind or solar project needs transmission lines to get its power to market. Projects typically need to commission a study from a local utility about feasibility and potential cost of interconnection. A negative outcome of this study can make a project uneconomic.

■ Pricing risk: The developer must secure a long-term power purchase or off take agreement to lock in the project’s revenue (or effectively mitigate its variability), which reduces risk and enables the project to secure the non-recourse financing.

Initial equity investors may have their capital tied up for years as the project attempts to navigate through these risks. In the worst-case scenario, these risks can result in a project failing, causing equity investors to lose their entire investment. Debt financing is invested after the development phase of a project, i.e. when the project has cleared or otherwise mitigated these development risks and is entering construction. By investing after the development phase in projects with proven technology, debt investors are able to mitigate the major risks of renewable energy project financing. Other lesser project risks remain, but investors can assess and mitigate these risks on a case-by-case basis (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Mitigating Other Project Risks

By investing after the development phase in projects

with proven technology, debt

investors are able to mitigate a major

risk in financing renewable energy

projects.

Risk Profile of Project Financing: How Timing of Investment, Underlying Cashflow and Structure Help Mitigate Risk

Project / Borrower Technology Project Management Resource Risk Catastrophic

■ Payment Default ■ Solar module failure■ Inverter failure■ Wind turbine failure

■ Failure of O&M provider

■ Variation in solar and wind resource

■ Hurricane, fire, earthquake, tornado

■ High quality offtakers

■ Contractual protections

■ Reserves

■ Use of proven technology

■ Warranties■ Major maintenance

reserve

■ Long-term O&M contracts

■ Proven O&M providers

■ O&M reserve

■ Experienced resource advisors

■ Geographic diversification

■ Conservative production assumptions

■ Project insurance■ Business

interruption insurance

■ Geographic diversification

Source: Voya Investment Management. The chart above does not purport to be a complete assessment of all risks associated with Renewable Energy Infrastructure investments. There can be no guarantee that the mitigation strategies identified above will successfully mitigate all known and unknown risks. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Risk

Miti

gatio

n

250001796_WEB.indd 9 06/12/2019 23:15

10


Debt investments in renewable energy infrastructure projects are less correlated to market slowdowns.

Long-Term Nature of Project Cash Flows Isolate Investors from Broader Market Cycle RiskA significant source of current and future demand for renewable energy infrastructure projects is U.S. corporations and utility companies buying power directly from wind and solar projects. For example, Facebook recently announced its intention to buy 200 megawatts of power from an Aviator Wind project located in Coke County, Texas. This was part of Facebook’s initiative to procure enough renewable power to meet 100% of its needs by 2020 (as of 2018, it was three-quarters of the way there).These long-term, multi-year contracts, called power purchase agreements (“PPA”), result in a stable, predictable cash flow for investors regardless of where we are in the economic cycle. As a result, debt investments in renewable energy infrastructure projects are expected to be less correlated to market slowdowns. The economics of a project with a fixed revenue agreement (i.e. PPA) are locked in at the time of investment and are isolated from market movements, including the cost of power in the future. For example, when a utility enters into a PPA, the price it agrees to pay is calculated into its rate base and passed on to the consumer. If power prices decline, that does not affect what the utility can charge its customers for prior projects and does not change what the utility will pay the project under the existing PPA for the project’s future power production. Corporate PPAs are also stable cash flows. For example, most corporate purchasers of renewable energy (i.e. the corporate offtaker) are investment grade. However, even in the unlikely event the corporate purchaser defaults on its obligation to purchase power, it can often be replaced by another party that will purchase power from the same project.Bankruptcy Remote Special Purpose Vehicle Mitigates Risk of Sponsor DefaultThe “closed-system” of the project finance structure also reduces risk, as its cash flows are “bankruptcy remote” and are not dependent on a sponsor’s corporate health. In project finance, the repayment of debt is not based on the assets reflected on the sponsoring company’s balance sheet, but rather on the revenues that the project will generate once in operation.As an example, a sponsor or developer will set up a separate project company that will borrow and build the new power plant, selling its power to a utility or corporation, and pledging the power plant as collateral for the project loan. The developer would own the equity of the project, and only cash from the project is used to pay the debt used to build the project. The debtholders of the corporate sponsor, in the event of a default, cannot go after the assets and cash flows of the project. Thus, if the developer or one of its lenders went bankrupt, the project and the project’s cash flow supporting secured project lenders would be unaffected.

250001796_WEB.indd 10 06/12/2019 23:15

11


4 Moody’s “Default and Recovery Rates for Project Finance Bank Loans, 1983-2017”.

Figure 8. Structure of Project Financing Isolates Lenders from the Risk of Sponsor Default

Sponsor

Construction Contract Ops & Maintenance

(“O&M”) and Asset Management Contract

Separate project companies isolate

lenders from risk of sponsor default

Project HoldCo. II

Fund as Junior Lender$

4

5

Project HoldCo. I

Fund as Senior Lender$

3

Project Company

(wind, solar, etc.)

Tax Equity Investor$

2

1

or

$

Illustrative Cash Waterfall

Revenues = $100Fuel cost = ($0)

1 O&M and Asset Mgmt costs = ($20)

2 To Tax Equity = ($10)

3 T o Senior Debt = ($48) (1.46x DSCR) (70/48)

4 T o Junior Debt = ($8) (1.25x DSCR) (70/56)

5 To Sponsor = ($14)Power Purchase

Agreement (PPA)

Long-term, multi-year

contracts result in stable, predictable

cash flow

Revenue

Due in large part to the entry point of investment, the nature of underlying cash flows, and the “closed system” of project financing, the most common recovery rate for project finance bank loans is 100%, i.e. no economic loss.4

250001796_WEB.indd 11 06/12/2019 23:15

12


We believe the phase out of tax credits should not dampen future demand for new renewable energy projects, nor decrease our opportunity set.

Tax credits have played a role in the renewable energy space, helping to jump start the industry. The tax benefit for wind projects will end for projects that start construction after 2019. For solar projects, the 30% tax credit begins to decline in 2020 going to 26%, and will further decline over the next two years to 10% for commercial and 0% for residential. While tax credits have benefited renewable energy projects, as we highlighted earlier (Figure 2), the primary catalyst for renewable energy project demand is declining costs, which makes renewable power competitive with traditional fossil fuels on an unsubsidized basis. In other words, the industry does not need the tax benefits to remain competitive.Going forward, the elimination of tax equity financing for projects will result in a gap in financing for projects, which will likely need to be filled by additional equity and subordinated lenders that currently finance the projects. In our view, this increases the addressable market for renewable energy infrastructure debt strategies, and should benefit debt investors in the space.Thus, we believe the phase out of tax credits should not dampen future demand for new renewable energy projects nor decrease our opportunity set.

How Will the Roll Back of Tax Credits Affect Renewable Energy Project Financing?

250001796_WEB.indd 12 06/12/2019 23:15

13


Among infrastructure investments, we

believe renewable energy infrastructure

debt strategies are one of the most

effective ways to generate attractive

risk-adjusted returns.

How Does Renewable Energy Infrastructure Fit in a Broader Portfolio?

Among infrastructure investments, we believe renewable energy infrastructure debt strategies are one of the most effective ways to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. Given the inefficiencies in renewable energy project financing, we believe specialized pure-play renewable debt strategies are able to target a higher IRR than the larger, more generic pools of infrastructure debt and equity that are most commonly associated with infrastructure investing. Renewable energy debt investments also have an attractive risk profile due to the entry point of investment (i.e. after development), the long-term and predictable nature of the projects’ cash flows, and the “closed system” of project financing, which isolates investors from sponsor default risk, and other risks.In addition to the potential for attractive risk-adjusted returns, renewable energy infrastructure debt strategies help investors gain exposure to ESG characteristics. Broader infrastructure strategies may have more limited exposure to ESG characteristics given that these funds can include investments related to mining and oil and gas exploration, production, and refining.Diversify Corporate Credit ExposureIn addition to being an attractive standalone infrastructure investment, we also believe renewable energy infrastructure debt is an effective diversifier. From an asset allocation perspective, investors tend to place renewable energy infrastructure debt in a broader private or alternative category, where it can diversify investors’ exposure to middle market direct lending strategies.In 2009, direct lenders filled a financing gap after banks pulled back from lending to small and medium-sized companies following the global financial crisis. Since that time, many investors have flocked to these middle market direct lending strategies, creating an influx of capital that is often chasing the same deals. As a result, the inefficiencies that existed in the middle market are subsiding, which is lowering the expected return of direct lending strategies. This has caused many investors to seek other debt instruments that can deliver attractive risk-adjusted returns, such as renewable energy project debt.In addition, the risk profile of middle market direct lending (unlike renewable energy project financing), is tied to the health of corporate borrowers, which means these strategies are heavily correlated to the broader credit cycle. Accordingly, renewable energy infrastructure debt strategies may also help investors diversify their broader corporate credit risk.

250001796_WEB.indd 13 06/12/2019 23:15

©2019 Voya Investments Distributor, LLC • 230 Park Ave, New York, NY 10169 • All rights reserved.

DisclosuresThis information is proprietary and cannot be reproduced or distributed. Certain information may be received from sources Voya Investment Management (“Voya IM”) considers reliable; Voya IM does not represent that such information is accurate or complete. Certain statements contained herein may constitute “projections,” “forecasts” and other “forward-looking statements” which do not reflect actual results and are based primarily upon applying retroactively a hypothetical set of assumptions to certain historical financial data. Actual results, performance or events may differ materially from those in such statements. Any opinions, projections, forecasts and forward-looking statements presented herein are valid only as of the date of this document and are subject to change. Nothing contained herein should be construed as (i) an offer to buy any security or (ii) a recommendation as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing or selling any security. Voya IM assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking information.

Principal RisksThe principal risks are generally those attributable to bond investing. Holdings are subject to market, issuer, credit, prepayment, extension and other risks, and their values may fluctuate. Market risk is the risk that securities may decline in value due to factors affecting the securities markets or particular industries. Issuer risk is the risk that the value of a security may decline for reasons specific to the issuer, such as changes in its financial condition. High yield bonds carry particular market risks and may experience greater volatility in market value than investment grade bonds. Foreign investments could be riskier than U.S. investments because of exchange rate, political, economic, liquidity and regulatory risks. Additionally, investments in emerging market countries are riskier than other foreign investments because the political and economic systems in emerging market countries are less stable.

CMMC-RENEWABLE 120519 • IM1022870 • 210628 • WLT250001796

250001796_WEB.indd 14 06/12/2019 23:15

renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure cisco systems, inc. 1,091 100% solar, wind u.s....

Documents