Thank you, Kaylee. Good morning everyone, and thank you for joining us for our 2026 second quarter earnings call for Polaris Renewable Energy Inc.

Before we begin, we would like to remind you that in addition to our press releases issued earlier today, you can find our financial statements and MD&A on both SEDAR+ and our corporate website at polarisrei.com. Unless noted otherwise, all amounts referred to are denominated in U.S.

dollars. We would also like to remind you that comments made during this call may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation regarding the future performance of Polaris Renewable Energy Inc.

and its subsidiaries. These statements are current expectations and, as such, subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations.

These risks and uncertainties include the factors discussed in the company's annual information form for the year ended December 31st, 2025. On today's call, I will start with an overview of our second quarter and year-to-date operating and financial performance, then Marc discusses recent business developments and our growth initiatives before we open the line for questions.

Beginning with production, overall this was a quarter that generally developed as we expected from an operations perspective. During the quarter, consolidated generation was 7.7% lower than the exceptional second quarter of 2025, a result that was consistent with management's expectations.

The quarter-to-quarter comparison primarily reflects continue curtailment in the Dominican Republic, lower geothermal production in line with the natural decline of the steam field in Nicaragua, and the return to more typical hydrological conditions in Peru and Ecuador after the unusually favorable water availability experienced last year. As we have noticed previously, the second quarter of 2025 benefited from record hydroelectric production that was not expected to be repeated.

The decrease in production was partially offset by stronger solar production in Panama. On a year-to-date basis, generation was 6.4% below the first half of 2025, reflecting the similar underlying factors.

Looking at the portfolio in more detail, Nicaragua performed broadly as expected. The steam units continue to operate well, with levels of decline in line with expectations.

During the six months ended June 30th, 2026, production decreased compared to the same period in 2025, primarily due to the impact of the Q1 2026 planned biannual major maintenance of Unit 3, while no maintenance was performed in 2025, as well as due to lower performance of the binary plant resulting from higher than anticipated sediment levels on the reinjection wells after the major maintenance. Peru delivered another solid quarter.

Although production was below last year's record levels, generation remained above our internal expectations despite the return to more normal hydrological conditions. The Dominican Republic continued to experience curtailment.

We experienced 29% for the quarter and 35% curtailment average year-to-date, although curtailment improved during the quarter as compared to Q1 2026, where we saw the curtailment at 42% level. We continue working alongside the authorities and other renewable energy producers to support long-term solutions.

The remainder of the portfolio performed generally as expected. Puerto Rico reflected lower wind resource during the quarter, while Panama continued to benefit from solid operating performance and favorable solar resource.

Overall production was lower than last year's exceptionally strong comparable period, but the portfolio performed broadly in line with our expectations, demonstrating the benefit of having a diversified mix of technologies and geographies. Turning to the financial results, the lower production translated into lower revenue, 8% decrease quarter-to-quarter and 5% year-over-year, and adjusted EBITDA down 11% both quarter-to-quarter and year-over-year.

However, the financial impact was partially offset by stronger pricing in Peru, driven by the annual CPI adjustment under our PPAs and favorable market conditions earlier in the year, together with improved pricing in Panama. Adjusted EBITDA for the six-month period was also impacted by higher direct cost, mainly related to the integration of our Punta Lima wind farm in Puerto Rico and the continue expansion of our development pipeline in Mexico and Puerto Rico.

While these initiatives increased expense in the current period, they represent strategic investments intended to drive future earnings growth. From a balance sheet perspective, we remain in a very strong position.

We ended the quarter with nearly $100 million of cash, providing ample flexibility to continue investing in growth while maintaining our disciplined capital allocation strategy. Finally, we remain committed to returning capital to shareholders.

We have already announced that we will be paying a quarterly dividend on August 21st of 15 cents per share to shareholders of record on August 10th. With that, I turn the call over to Marc.

Thank you, Alba. I'll just start with a few additional operational comments.

With respect to San Jacinto, as we had mentioned, I think, last quarter, we have been running the binary unit about .75 megawatts lower than what we think we can, just due to some sediments in two of the key injection wells that arose after the major maintenance in Q1 and sort of getting a handle now in terms of basically what the right level is to be running it. We will need to run it at the current levels really what we saw in Q2 for the rest of the year, but I do think we will be able to gain that back early next year through an acidification program which we have done before to clean out those sediments.

We've done it several times, it's worked, and the only issue is some specialized equipment. We will likely have to wait until Q1 to execute that, but I do think we can gain back some of those or about .75 megawatts on the binary unit sometime early next year.

In terms of the curtailment, it cost us about 5,000 megawatt hours, which was a little bit lower than what we were budgeting. I would say overall, we're still targeting 40 to 44,000, 40 to 42,000, actually, megawatts for the year, and we're running in line with that.

We are seeing initiatives on the ground from the government that will address situations. I think it's going to take 18 to 24 months to fully address that situation through basically contracting large-scale grid-scale storage as transmission assets.

They are definitely doing that. I think it's, call it, 18-24 months of curtailment.

I think it should be a little bit less next year with just demand growth, but of more fulsome solutions to that problem, call it, in a couple years from now. In terms of the hydros, Alba did, I think, mention the most salient points.

We definitely have heard comments or questions about El Niño. I would say that although we're not running at levels compared to last year, which was a high year, we are running more in line with levels from '22, '23, '24, at least up till now.

I think that we're, call it, reasonably in line with a long-term average on the hydros, at least year-to-date. That price increase as of May 1 is a big one, which is on average it was about 8% for the three plants in Peru, so that's good.

Then overall, in Q1 we gave a range of 760 to 770 gigawatt hours for the year. I still think about 760 is doable for the year based on where we're at year-to-date.

In terms of the growth, on the first one, the ASAP battery project in Puerto Rico, we did sign the contract with PREPA on June 12th, and we're now in finalizing the equipment process. We're hoping to have that finalized within the next 30 days, and we're targeting a mid-2027 COD date.

We very much look forward to the fact that we're moving from approval process to execution and construction phases, and we will make sure to be providing updates as we move forward with this over the next 12 months. That's a big growth initiative for us.

The next one that I'm going to talk about is Mexico, which we did announce, we had two announcements on that. Mexico is becoming a key growth market for us.

We announced the fact that we were selected for 250 megawatt DC of solar plus 30% BESS coverage, approximately. We signed the JV agreement on July 3rd, which sets out the key structure and governance for what they call the mixto projects.

We are now moving to finishing all of the contracting and development milestones. We do have commercial operations date estimates in the presentation that's on our website now.

I would highlight that big highlights of the contracts is that it's going to be in U.S. dollars with U.S.

CPI inflators, and a reasonable tolling percentage. It'll be approximately 25-year contracts.

We do try to highlight this in the presentation, but with the ASAP, which is a 100% tolling/capacity contract, no resource risk, and it's a 20-year contract, with the Mexico a 25-year contracts, again, all USD, and there's a reasonable tolling percentage there, extending the overall tenor of our contracts, but also, I would say, the quality of the contracts and the revenue profile is improving as well, as is the average, call it, credit rating of the jurisdictions. We are also pursuing several other paths and projects in Mexico, and we would expect clarity in, call it, Q4 of this year at the latest, where we will know if those projects have been selected to move forward or not.

That's coming relatively quickly. As we have mentioned before, we're also participating in several, call it, more traditional RFP processes in several of our other markets including Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, and those, I would say, have similar timelines in terms of clarity on whether you're moving forward, whether you've been selected or not, all within, I would say, the next three months.

In the next three months, we should have line of sight on a significant amount of, call it, further growth for us. That's coming, we think, relatively quickly.

I would also mention lastly, that we do outline that these, call it, processes we're involved, which are linked to specific projects, but I would also highlight that we do quite frequently get approaches by local, I would say, developers that do not have the capacity to build a project, raise the capital for the project, and they're in all these markets. We do have what we think are options in addition to what is, call it, in our own pipeline.

I would say that the strategy is let's push forward with our own, but I think it's worth mentioning that if we are not able to secure those, I think our positioning in the market is such that does not mean we won't have other options in those key markets. I think that there's, call it, some insurance there that we will be able to significantly grow the pipeline.

As you can see, with these recent announcements plus these other processes we're in, there's been a significant uptick in the total opportunities we're looking at, as well as the pacing of bringing them online, which has been a real focus for the company over the last 18 months. That's it for the formal comments, we can open it up for questions now.

Perfect, thanks. Morning, Marc.

Hi, Nick.

Hey. In Mexico, appreciate the color that you gave on the quality of the contracts, tenure, CPI inflators.

As you're going through that, though, and starting to do all the other parts of CapEx and working with them on interconnection and whatnot, are you getting a sense of what the actual power price might look like and how that would compare to other markets that you're operating in? I'm just trying to contextualize what the 250 megawatts of solar could potentially generate in incremental cash flow, EBITDA pickup, etc.

I think I've seen some estimates in the sort of 25 to 30 EBITDA for those three. Now that's a total, that includes the energy and the tolling, right?

That's a combined EBITDA number, which is very reasonable right now. I think both the CapEx and the EBITDA will go up somewhat from there once the final numbers are done.

We already have some numbers that we've assumed, but I have a feeling that's probably going to go up. However, will the revenue and EBITDA.

I think for now it's good to use that sort of 25 to 30, because you can sort of backwards imply what the returns are, and that kind of gives you exactly what the returns are that are being targeted and agreed upon.

Interesting. When you say it's going to go up, is that a function of the CapEx and then them responding and giving you a commensurate price because they recognize as they have to do this in order to get all of their auction filled?

I just think it's that the grid upgrade estimates were truly just that, and they have a tendency to, once you actually cost them out and they're going to be a bit higher. I would tell you, though, that that component of the contract is a pure tolling fee, though.

In many ways it makes the overall picture better,

because

the CapEx for the battery is a tolling fee, which is great, and then the CapEx for any grid upgrades are also tolling fees. To the extent that's higher than what we have right now, our actual percentage of revenue represented by tolling will go up.

That makes sense. When you're looking at this opportunity relative to Puerto Rico, because my understanding is in Puerto Rico you're going to have to potentially use U.S.

contractors and U.S. equipment and CapEx, are you better off meaningfully in Mexico by using other vendors and other options?

How should we be thinking about that mixture between the two?

It's for sure more expensive on the islands, particularly Puerto Rico, and conversely, we think it's going to be, based on even conversations, it's going to for sure be cheaper in Mexico, not necessarily the equipment provision, although even in Puerto Rico, because of tariffs, even equipment's going to be a bit more expensive, but the big delta is more on the contracting side, and we do think, given the scale in Mexico, there's going to be a big difference on that side in terms of it's going to be much better. Nick, I don't have sort of off the top of my head what percent in Mexico balance of plant is the balance of plant number relative to what we would look at in Puerto Rico.

I just don't have that number. Directionally, it will be a big difference, which brings the energy price for the solar is going to be much lower.

I would also say, though, that there needs to be an adjustment because there's a full U.S. CPI inflator in the Mexico.

You're going to just start with a lower price than if you have sort of a fixed price in another market, right? It makes a big difference, because if you assume sort of 2, 2.5% inflation over 25-year contract, that your average price is quite different than if you assume, call it, a fixed price, let's say, in Puerto Rico.

Makes sense. Last for me, just as you're talking about these opportunities that are coming up in Mexico to potentially partner with other developers who can't develop projects that have already been awarded, internally just from a resource standpoint and your bandwidth to develop all of these simultaneously, how are you feeling about that?

Any concerns about getting stretched too thin, turning all these big projects online at the same time?

It's a great question. It's something we are focused on.

Up until let's just say a month ago, I felt that we could do two projects, two distinct projects with the team. Because we already do have people that are only project management on staff, and I think we can for sure do two of those.

If you include the ASAP, call it, we could do one solar project in Mexico without any new hires. We are for sure going to be hiring people in Mexico City.

We do think that there's a lot of, call it, people in that talent pool. Really the good news is we have a lot of what I would call corporate support in Managua.

We have a big team there, but that's more sort of support and services. We also have, to a lesser extent, that kind of support in Toronto.

We're going to have to hire call it four or five people right out of the gate in call it as a mini office in Mexico City, which will likely be done before the end of this quarter. Then you're going to have project-by-project will have sort of an execution team.

I would say given that the first project, though, which is Don Alberto, which we think will be ready to build, call it, November, the two bigger ones are next year. That does give us some time, I would say, to sort of fill the roles and get the org chart nailed down.

If the two big ones were sort of Q4 start of construction, that would be, I think, a bigger risk for us. In some ways, that does help us, right, that they're not going to be ready to build this year.

Appreciate the color.

To the extent we do more, I would say there's still going to be a staging in terms of when they're going to be ready to build. It won't be much later.

It will be later. Then but I would say that there's some execution risks, but there's also some real benefits, too, in terms of having economies of scale both on the equipment procurement side and the people side, the admin side.

There's also, I think, real benefits to having scale there as well.

Does it imply that some of these larger ones when they come online after are going to be a little bit faster? If you start the first one, let's say end of this year, call it a 12-month construction phase, and then you move to the next projects, are they still about that 12-month-ish COD?

I think maybe you can improve it. I wouldn't assume that.

I think, in fact, what we have, Nick, is sort of more like an 18-month construction, and our experience has been to date that we've always done better than that. We're going to target better than that.

I think to the extent we have more and we're doing more, then maybe on average you could get closer to the

12. Got it.

Thanks, Marc.

Thank you.

Thank you.