Member Info for clissold345

The link to the blog entry has a typo. Here's the correct link:

https://gorestreetcap.com/blog/how-could-a-second-trump-presidency-impact-the-us-energy-transition

Thanks for pointing this out. Ferrymuir wasn't energised in January (GSF said so). Did they ever say when it was energised? March?

It's explained in this RNS. Scroll down to the section "Dividend Declaration".

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/gore-street-energy-storage-fund--gsf/unaudited-quarterly-nav-and-dividend-declaration/8082267

Etotheipi - "energisation" is one of many BESS terms that I don't fully understand. My guess is that "energisation" is when the grid operator issues some kind of certificate that the project is connected to the grid. Then I think there's lots of testing and 2 or 3 months later (?) the project (hopefully) will be operational (=fully operational).

Krustysmegma - sorry about the confusion. I've just realised that there are two versions of the page (one for phones and one for desktop). It looks like the guys at GSF have forgotten to update the phone version, which is the version I was looking at earlier today. I've emailed GSF, so hopefully they'll fix it soon.

Krustysmegma - Are you talking about maps on https://www.gsenergystoragefund.com. I can't see them. Where are they?

Krustysmegma - thanks for pointing this out. Yes Stony is "Operational". It says Ferrymuir is "Pre-construction", which must be an error, since in the last trading update they said Ferrymuir was energised.

Etotheipi - GSF have reported that Stony and Ferrymuir are energised but I don't think they've reported that they are operational. No one should assume they're operational until GSF have said so.

My post on 23rd May wasn't entirely accurate. Not all the non GB rates did hold up in FY24. The trading update says that German rates fell 47% in FY24. "Following a period of exceptionally high returns attributed to geopolitical events, the German asset has reverted to a more normalised revenue level, aligning with initial underwriting and disclosed third-party forecasts." So after (expected) big falls in GB and German rates GSF's FY24 revenue was apparently "saved" by Ireland and Texas (up 39% and 56% respectively).

The author of the article made a major error. The energised capacity is 421.4MW (not the operational capacity).

Uncle_Doug - yes I'm not entirely convinced. GB rates have recovered a little, which increases GB revenue a little and Stony and Ferrymuir are now operational (or will be in a month or two), which increases GB revenue a little. I think getting to fund-level dividend cover > 1.0 by end of FY2025 (31st March 2025) is perfectly possible - as long GSF's non-GB rates hold up.

To try to answer my own question, the NAV already reflects projects under construction, so a doubling of operational capacity in say the next year won't double the NAV? But how does that relate to revenue and ability to pay dividends? A doubling of operational capacity could well double revenue. If the dividend is covered now, then if revenue doubles, GSF could afford to pay twice the current dividend?

I'm expecting GSF's new projects to take a bit longer than they predict, and commercial operation seems to follow many months after energisation. However, at some point in 2025 GSF's operational capacity will be roughly double what it is now, so if revenue forecasts stay roughly as they are now, NAV per share will be roughly double what it is now, so if GSF continue to pay 7% of NAV, the quarterly dividend will be roughly double what it is now? This sounds too good to be true. What's wrong with my reasoning?

Alibaba42 - thanks for your answer. Can I ask you another question? In an earlier post you wrote: "still at the above revenue rate, and now with 385MW capacity it could theoretically generate on average 25 million per year". How did you calculate £25 million? I don't really understand how BMUs make money. If capacity is 385MW and the units are discharged six times a day, that's 385*365*6 = 843,150 MW/hrs per year - but at £7-50 a MW/hr that's only £6.3 million. I'm not doing the calculation correctly?

I read alibaba42's comment about £7.5/MW/Hr being a global "baseline rate". bessanalytics.com gives £5.45 MW/hr for GSF's five BMUs, which seems to agree with alibaba42's "baseline rate". But in their 12th March 2024 RNS GSF say "The Company's consolidated portfolio generated an estimated average of £15.1 per MW/hr during the Company's third financial quarter (ending 31-December 2023)". I'm confused. How does the £15.1 per MW/hr figure relate to alibaba42's "baseline rate"?