NRG Outlines Serial 1.2 GW BYOP Expansions to 2.4 GW After 2029 COD

BYOP expansion from 1.2 GW to 2.4 GW: timeline/cadence, increment structure, and expected returns/build multiple

1) What the filings imply about the timeline and cadence to expand to 2.4 GW

Base case sequencing referenced by management (COD timing)

• Management characterized the first BYOP block as having an expected late-2029 COD and said the program is organized such that “you can assume there’s another block, so 1.2 to come on serially year -- each year after the 2029 COD for the first one.” ¹
• This directly addresses the question about cadence: rather than implying a single later “all at once” expansion, the company is describing serial COD progression after late-2029 with another 1.2 GW coming in the following year(s). ¹

How that aligns with the “up to 18 months between CODs” framing

• In the Q&A, an analyst noted the decks “look like it could be up to 18 months between the first and the second in terms of COD” and asked how to set expectations around incremental 1.2 GW chunks. ²
• While management did not explicitly confirm the “18 months” number in the provided excerpt, they did confirm the serial-block concept and the annual cadence after late-2029 for the second 1.2 GW block. ¹
• Therefore, the best-supported takeaway from the excerpts is: expect the second 1.2 GW to follow after late-2029 in a serial build/COD cadence, with “each year after” being the company’s stated framework. ¹

Where execution speed is said to come from

• Management also emphasized that speed is determined by (i) construction COD scheduling and (ii) turbine deliveries, and that customer preferences and the ability to get turbines on the ground affect the pace. ³
• They further linked pacing “historically” to what they see across the pipeline, described as being “determined by” the company’s GEV agreement, and that these are discussed with customers. ³

Conclusion on timeline/cadence: Based on the excerpts, NRG is describing a serial expansion where the first 1.2 GW reaches COD in late 2029, and the next 1.2 GW block follows serially in the period “each year after” that COD, while the precise spacing can vary with turbine delivery timing and customer-driven scheduling of CODs. ¹³

---

2) Will the expansion proceed in 1.2 GW increments across sites?

Increment-by-block logic (1.2 GW blocks)

• The transcript explicitly frames the expansion as “another block, so 1.2 to come on serially” after the first 1.2 GW COD. ¹
• The Q&A also used the language “incremental 1.2 gigawatt chunks” as the cadence question, and management’s reply is consistent with that “block” framing. ²¹

Not limited to “2.4 on the same site” (sites are flexible)

• Management explicitly cautioned against thinking the expansion is strictly tied to “where”:
  • “the one thing I would think about is the 1.2 gigawatts on a site to expand to 2.4, that doesn’t rule out taking 2.4 somewhere.” ³
  • “That doesn’t rule out 4.8 somewhere” and they cited that customers are looking for multiple turbines. ³
• They also emphasized that the project “put forward today” is the one with the most alignment, but said not to “get tied up” in where the blocks land because that isn’t “the important part.” ³

Conclusion on site/increment structure: The company supports the idea of 1.2 GW blocks in a serial COD cadence ¹, but it does not commit (in the excerpt) to always building “2.4 GW at a single site” or “exactly 1.2 GW increments across sites” in a fixed geographic pattern. Instead, management suggests the same 2.4/4.8 scale could occur at different locations depending on customer/turbine/multi-turbine alignment. ³

---

3) Will future projects have similar returns, or a different build multiple?

Returns for the first 1.2 GW project are “underwritten” and expected to be maintained

• Management stated that the returns shown for the project being advanced are “our expectation” and “what we’ve committed to our shareholders,” and that when having conversations with customers, that is “what it’s going to be.” ³
• They further said costs and flows may vary “a little bit here and there,” but generally that’s what we expect for “the capital they deploy.” ³

Build multiple (implied by the first project’s financial profile)

• For the initial 1.2 GW project, management provided a concrete valuation/return bridge:
  • The project is expected to generate at least $500 million of annual adjusted EBITDA and approximately $375 million of annual free cash flow before growth at full operation. ⁴
  • On $3.2 billion of total investment, management expects a pretax unlevered IRR in a 12% to 15% target range, and says that implies a build multiple of approximately 6x. ⁴

Whether future projects change under rising build cost

• Management stated: “If the cost of the build goes up over time, our expectations of return on your cash flow or on your investment don't change… We will always sign deals inside of our 12% to 15% hurdles.” ⁵
• This is key to your question: it indicates returns/hurdles are designed to be durable even if construction costs rise. ⁵

Does “build multiple” stay the same?

• The excerpts do not provide a second-project “build multiple” target number.
• However, management’s logic implies that if costs rise, the company expects to still sign deals inside the 12% to 15% hurdles. ⁵
• Since build multiple is an outcome metric that depends on the dollar cost of the build and the earnings/free cash flow profile, holding IRR/hurdles constant does not guarantee the same build multiple—but it suggests the underwriting framework will remain disciplined around the target return band. ⁴⁵

Conclusion on returns/build multiple: The filings support that future BYOP deals are intended to be underwritten to the same 12%–15% hurdle range, with management explicitly stating returns expectations don’t change even if build costs rise. ⁵ The first 1.2 GW project shows an implied ~6x build multiple based on expected earnings/cash flows on $3.2B investment. ⁴ The excerpts do not quantify a “new norm” build multiple for future projects, but they do describe a consistent returns discipline rather than a planned step-down or step-up. ³⁵

---

Direct answers (summary)

• Timeline/cadence to 2.4 GW: First 1.2 GW COD expected late 2029, with a “next block” of 1.2 GW to come on serially with timing described as “each year after the 2029 COD for the first one,” while actual pace depends on construction COD scheduling and turbine deliveries. ¹³
• Does it expand in 1.2 GW increments across sites? The “block” concept supports incremental 1.2 GW sequencing ¹, but management indicates scale (e.g., 2.4 or 4.8) is not restricted to a single site—location allocation is flexible depending on customer/turbine alignment. ³
• Will future projects have similar returns/build multiple? Management indicates future deals will be structured to keep returns within the 12%–15% hurdle range, with expectations not changing even if build costs rise. ⁵ The initial project implies a ~6x build multiple on its stated earnings/cash flow profile. ⁴ The excerpts do not provide an updated build multiple for future projects, so the most supported claim is returns discipline continuity, not a guaranteed identical multiple. ⁵