Green Plains Inc. (GPRE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Hi, everyone, and after a small switch to our room for the [indiscernible], thank you for joining us for the Green Plains fireside chat. Today, we have actually a brand-new management team for the company versus the past few years. CEO, Chris Osowski; and recently joined CFO, Ann Reis. So thank you, firstly, both for coming here. I know you were busy coming from Orlando for another commitment.

I want to start a little bit with the big picture. So again, the management team has seen a big turnover. I think other members like General Counsel, et cetera. So now that you're this seat, what has changed in the way Green Plains is managed versus, say, the past 1, 2, 3 years?

It's a great question, Sal. And first, thanks for inviting us and giving us the opportunity to talk about what we're doing here at Green Plains. And if I think back what has changed, it starts with really a year ago, we welcomed 3 new Directors to our Board of Directors. At the same time, we've set up new committees with those Directors that are focused on risk management and then also on strategic planning. A year ago, we set out and we laid out some new expectations for our employees and how we're going to work. We've built new processing models for each of our facilities to outline the financial impacts of all the different ways we could run those plants, and then which options have the best value for the overall company. We've also set up a sales and operations planning process where we have cross-functional involvement from finance, operations and the commercial teams to get involved in the day-to-day running of the business to make sure we're making data-driven decisions.

Perfect. And Ann, from your perspective, I know you joined more recently, but I think it's been a couple of months now that you're on this position, and you came from another ethanol producer. So any views so far?

No. I mean I think the company is on the right path for sure. Ethanol is in an exciting time with lots of opportunities. And it's an industry I have a lot of passion for. So I was excited to be able to join Green Plains and continue down that path and help them with kind of Green Plains 2.0.

Perfect. Now let's go to the biggest topic, which is carbon credits and 45Z. You obviously have discussed that this year, you should make over $180 million in EBITDA. We hosted ADM yesterday, and they're guiding officially to $100 million as a starting point for them. In your scenario, in your case, I believe when this discussion and the investment started, the number was quite small. I think it was around $100 million. So what has changed over the past year, whether it's regulatory-wise or what the company is doing specifically that has allowed you to boost these numbers so significantly?

Well, first, we do appreciate the guidance that we received here recently about the 45Z, and we view that, that guidance is really only positive to what we had expected. A couple of things that have changed and that we've built into those numbers. First and foremost, we've got the Advantage Nebraska project fully operational, capturing carbon at high recovery rates. We're very pleased on how that project has performed. But on top of that, the indirect land use removal from the CI calculation has benefited all of our locations and all of our plants are qualifying for 45Z credits. And at the same time, improved efficiency in sites, driving operational excellence in all of our plants, improving ethanol yields is definitely helping us monetize 45Z. At the same time, the opportunity to buy renewable energy credits against our electrical consumption helps drive those CI scores even further lower.

Yes. Okay. Perfect. So I would say $188 million, I think, this year's guidance, that's kind of as a starting point. I believe you've mentioned that could go higher. So what could we expect? I'm not sure if it's for next year or further out, but what could be a target or -- and what levers do you have to actually move your EBITDA from carbon credits over that -- over this year's guidance?

Well, there are a couple of things. First and foremost, we still need the plants to run and perform well. And with respect to operational excellence, we always want to be improving that ethanol yield, key driver. At the same time, we always want to reduce our energy inputs to the plants and really make sure that the base business improves in terms of profitability outside of the carbon opportunity that we've got. So a couple of things we're working on. We've talked about before a handful of very fast returning projects, capital projects that reduce energy inputs and help us put more carbon in the pipe, so to speak. And those are very exciting for us. But another part of the guidance is with respect to the farm practices impact on the CI score associated with corn. So while we don't know exactly what that is going to equate to, we are focused on improving our grain storage and our receiving infrastructure and plants to help drive up the percentage of farmer-originated corn. So we are in a good position to take advantage of that when we get that further guidance.

Perfect. And that was actually my next question. So my understanding is that farmer practices are now in consideration. Has this been finalized or is still in the final stages, firstly? And when it comes to that, what other options do you have? I believe there's another ethanol player that's talking about working towards farmers making low-carbon corn that will eventually make low-carbon methanol, right? Is it something you're looking at?

Yes. So what we have right now from the USDA is a beta version of the calculator, which has 5 elements essentially that the farmers can get credit for. So previously, under some of the other USDA guidance, there was really kind of a laundry list of items, like cover crops and all of that. They narrowed it down. So it's mostly focused on no till, strip till and different fertilizer applications, including the use of the manure. That's -- we're thinking that's what the final calculator from the USDA is going to look like, but we don't know for sure. They haven't released the final version. And then that has to tie into the DOE 45Z-GREET calculator. So until we have that, and they said it would be at sometime in 2026 but really haven't given us any specific guidance as to when that's going to be released, we don't know exactly for sure, but we do know, to your point, the guidance that we gave around the $188 million, we did not assume that we were going to be able to use farming practices when we came out with that number. So this is definitely an opportunity. And we've done some pilots in the past to work with farmers. In our area, in the Nebraska and Iowa space, using no till or strip till in different fertilizer applications have been in practice for a long time because they realize that the quality of the soil is better. It's more drought resistant. It's more pest resistant and less pesticides have to be used throughout the years or applications for disease and things like that on the corn. So these are not uncommon practices in our -- where our facilities are located. So we feel like we're positioned well to be able to take advantage of what seems to be coming down the pipeline here. But until we get the absolute final guidance, we won't be able to really put a number to it yet.

And I guess, since these practices are already used, actually, is this more of an opportunity or a disadvantage because I'm not sure where things are standing right now, but I believe initially, the idea with improved farm practices was they'll have to measure them against your benchmark, meaning that if you are a no till farmer, that's your benchmark. So continuing with no till not actually give you a better CI score. That was what was discussed 1 to 2 years ago.

Well, that was how it was historically done. There's been changes over the years. So I think what they realized with doing it that way was they were incentivizing farmers that have been capturing carbon in their land to go and till it up the next year, right, so that they can get credit for it. And it's not the behavior that they want to incentivize. So we don't believe that that's how the final guidance is going to come out. It's really going to be about what is your current year practices for that tax credit year. So it's really going to be a matter of us collecting the data, getting the farmer attestations and getting the documentation together to be able to prove the scores.

Perfect. Another opportunity that used to be discussed is the Summit pipeline. So can you give us an update or where does it stand? And I know historically, Green Plains never provided all the details, but our understanding for Green Plains, and I think overall the Summit agreements was that Summit puts all the CapEx, including carbon capture. They get all the credits. At the time, it was only 45Q to be received. And the benefit for the other companies was the low-carbon ethanol that could get a premium in the market. So is this still kind of the ideal? Or with 45Z, there's a lot more credits to be had?

Yes. And that is how Summit has structured their agreements, which is different than obviously our agreements with Tallgrass that we have on the Nebraska Advantage. From how Summit is operating and what looks in the future for them, there are 2 main legislation pieces that are going through the Iowa House and Senate right now. So one proposal within the House is that it completely would eliminate -- you cannot use eminent domain for any CO2 pipelines. That would be very detrimental to Summit trying to get their project going. The other one that's being proposed within the Senate is that the eminent domain would be the last resort, right? So there's other things that can -- that need to be proven first before they would go to that last resort of eminent domain. So that really depends on how these legislative sessions turn out and what kind of Summit's next steps are depending on the legislation.

Okay. So it's still facing the hurdles. I guess, are there any other pipelines out there that you're seeing potentially being developed because the only one, Tallgrass, was an existing one, which made it much easier to take place.

I think the other theoretical pipeline you're investigating is opportunities for either truck or rail movement of liquid CO2 to a sequestration site. So we're evaluating some potential opportunities in our non-pipeline plants that have the potential to come to fruition.

Okay. I guess that would be a testament to how attractive 45Z is because railing liquid CO2 would sound quite expensive, right, compared to the traditional model, but it still could make money for you.

But kind of coming back to some of the organizational focuses, being a data-driven company, evaluating all the opportunities that we have with respect to capital and free cash flow leads us to look at all of the options for developing our network of plants and putting our focus on where we have the most return capital.

Okay. Perfect. Now that brings us to the other question, which is what is your view on 45Z in terms of post 2029, right? I think it expires in 2029. I don't know if you view it may be too early. But also, if it does expire, can you go back to 45Q? Or is it theoretically, you used already 45Z, there's no other option anymore?

No. So yes, 45Q is absolutely an option. So it runs from 12 years of when the carbon sequestration begins operations and -- but you can't double -- you can't stack it, right? You can't use Z and Q at the same time. So if Z ends in 2029, then we'll move into collecting the Q for those 3 Nebraska facilities where we have carbon capture. There is legislation that's being proposed out there to extend the Z to 2033, along with adding an additional benefit for SAF development and SAF credits. So we're staying in touch with all of that and just looking to see where everything goes. But we definitely have a few options, and Q is one of them.

The SAF credit, would that be on top of the current because the SAF credit is higher, right, several times.

So it's -- they reduced it in the recent 45Z guidance. So it had been at $1.75. Now it's -- and then it was reduced to $1. That's the new legislation is trying to get back up to $1.75. But yes, you would not be able to -- like we would not be able to collect the Z and sell the ethanol to a company that would collect the SAF credit. That's historically how they've been constructed. But until that legislation gets passed where -- you don't know for sure.

Perfect. And I will be talking about the financials for this year, the guidance specifically that $880 million EBITDA. So my understanding is this -- firstly, where do you stand actually on the credit sales? Because right now, you have to monetize them through this version -- this approach. Do you -- are you progressing on some of the firm agreements? And secondly, how should we think about the cash flow itself? Because my understanding is there are some -- well, not necessarily delays, but the structure doesn't provide you the cash as you realize the income, right? And last year, I think your income -- your EBITDA was around $45 million from 45Z, but the cash you pulled was $14 million with the rest coming, I assume, this year?

Yes. So I mean, we have marketed all the credits produced in 2025 and have took some of the cash associated with those tax credit sales back last year and are actively marketing the 2026 credits right now. And we're actually -- we feel very positive about the interest that we're seeing for those tax credits and look forward to making further announcements about that here in the near future. And I think there is potential upside based on the numbers we've talked about and getting more guidance around opportunities on farm practices to lower CI scores in plants, along with some of the current capital products we're working on to help further lower CI scores in plants.

Okay. Perfect. So switching to ethanol, I guess. Firstly, can you provide us an update, or we're 2 months into the quarter, how are margins for ethanol so far, are they versus your initial expectations roughly 2, 3 weeks ago when you provided your earnings update?

Well, I mean, we're pleased with our position in Q1 and where our current crush margins on a consolidated basis sit, especially relative to same quarter previous year on the back of what has been record corn yields and corn supply in the Midwest. On top of that, we're seeing more strength in the ethanol market at the same time here domestically. Plants are producing at strong rates, but we're not seeing the inventory stack up like we would have initially anticipated that. So that's been positive for us. At the same time, DCO values have strengthened through the first quarter. And our plants are running well and got through the cold spell we had here earlier in Q1, and we're looking pretty healthy right now.

And additionally, we're entering into kind of spring maintenance season, right? So there's -- all of the facilities run 24/7, majority of the year. And so in the springtime, everybody shuts down to clean and get it ready to run for another 360 days. So we're going to see production numbers. It's just a seasonal event that happens every year. So we're going to see that happen. And also the increase over the summer months with the increase in the driving, people going on vacations, things like that. So we're pleased with where everything is going and how we're headed into Q2.

Perfect. And as you said, margins look to be still better year-on-year for -- given the seasonality component. Demand doesn't seem to be great domestically, but what has been really helping is the export market. So can you do kind of a broad overview in some of the key end markets, key countries that are pulling U.S. ethanol? And if you're familiar with some of the more specific mandates and quotas, some of the countries or province, say, in Canada may have?

Yes. I mean we feel positive about demand, especially on the export side of things. Just coming from the National Ethanol Conference here earlier this week, the mantra wasn't about export growth. It was export acceleration was the term used. And so that's primarily going into Canada with, what, 30%, 35% of the export volume going there. And Canada's production volume is able to achieve like 40% of their domestic demand. So a lot of that extra volume will come from the United States. And also, we saw the Netherlands year-over-year increase a significant portion of that imported ethanol. And with the EU as a whole and India increasing their volumes, we expect that trend to continue.

Perfect. And do you participate directly in the export market? And are you familiar with what's the export ethanol price or netback differential versus the domestic one?

Well, to a very limited extent. We do have a facility in Northern Minnesota, where we do export roughly 15% of that plant's volume into Canada. So we play in that part at a small extent, but we're also very actually interested in the uptake rate of E15 going into California, thinking about the entire decarbonized ethanol volume of Nebraska being able to find its way into that market at some point in the future. That's probably more where we're focused at the moment.

Okay. Perfect. We'll touch base on that a little bit later but staying on kind of the theme of the supply and demand. Firstly, what are you seeing for U.S. supply from the standpoint of -- I think POET announced a new plant recently, the first, I think, greenfield in many, many years. Is this something that we should see, the start of a new wave of additions driven by 45Z and export demand? Or do you think that's a one-off?

Well, I think we're referring to expansion possibly of plants. I think there's -- in general, there's interest in that. From the Green Plains perspective, we want to be very disciplined with respect to increasing volume. I mean we expect to see that demand continue to grow as the export volumes increase and as the country continues to push for year-round E15. But we want to grow in a very responsible way and make sure that we measure twice and cut once and focus on improving, first and foremost, the efficiency of our existing plant infrastructure and making sure our base business is strong outside of tax credit opportunities.

Okay. And then globally, are you seeing anything in Canada, which is something I'm not as familiar. You just mentioned they cover 40% of the demand. But particularly Brazil, that is something where we paid more attention to. We actually went to Brazil in December, and there is a very big wave of corn ethanol mills. Now obviously, the U.S. being half of the global capacity, Brazil can add a lot of local supply and still may not be a huge amount from a global number. But I do believe it's probably mid-single digits or a little bit more of the global supply. Is this something that worries you? Is it something you expect to continue?

Well, it's definitely something we pay attention to. The majority of the world's supply of ethanol coming from Brazil into the United States. It's important to keep an eye on what's going on in Brazil as sugarcane plants add corn processing capabilities and switch volume away from sweeteners into the fuel market. That's an important impact to the global ethanol S&D. But at the same time, we have to remember that Brazil has been running on E30 for years and are working towards E40. So I think that they have the opportunity to manage the S&D in Brazil to some extent that will help take some pressure off of that global export.

Okay. Perfect. And are you seeing anything -- do you have any specific expectations from the sugarcane ethanol supply? I believe last year, last season, which was almost a year ago now, sugarcane plants ended up producing a lot more sugar versus ethanol versus expectations. We recently learned that the reason was they had committed to producing the sugar, even though at the time of the crush, the economics have shifted. So as -- I think the crush season starts now over the next couple of months, what are your expectations there potentially?

Well, I think we expect that the volume out of Brazil to increase like a 10% to 15% type range. I think we're kind of like in a wait-and-watch type phase at the moment. But we're connected to what's going on in Brazil. So we have line of sight to the changes that are happening with respect to volumes of sugarcane-based products. And as things change and evolve, we'll be on top of it.

On with the 45Z, right, I mean the guidance specifically out there, it states it has to be domestic, right? And the feedstock has to come from Canada or Mexico. So I mean that also has an impact, right, on where the feedstock that the ethanol that is able to qualify for 45Z can come from.

Perfect. Last component of the supply is, as you mentioned before, the industry has been running pretty hard. I believe -- I lost track of, with some exceptions, how many weeks, it's been at over 1.1 million barrels a day. Why have we seen -- I think it's roughly a 10% step-up from 2 years ago without obviously new nameplate capacity coming online. So why have we seen this big step-up? And is it tied actually to 45Z?

Well, I got to believe there is some impact associated with 45Z on current production rates. But we've got to remember that the wintertime plants run well when it's cold outside due to the ability to cool the process easier as opposed to hot summer months. And we've had, for the most part, outside of a couple of events, a pretty mild winter. So there hasn't been as many opportunities for freeze-ups to happen in plants that would negatively impact total production rates. But as Ann mentioned earlier in our conversation, we're coming up to that season where we're going to start seeing some plants take downtime and prepare for a strong run during the summer months. So we would expect to see that -- those numbers start to taper off a little bit here going forward.

Perfect. Switching to a little bit wider subject on ethanol. So you mentioned SAF. That was a much hotter topic, let's say, a couple of years ago. We actually had panels here, not just on SAF, but specifically alcohol-to-jet, which will be the outlet that use ethanol. And things seem to have fizzled. What do you think would ultimately happen with the industry? Is this something that you're still looking after? I believe there was a JV with Tallgrass that was in the end shelved.

Yes. That is kind of temporarily put on hold. But I mean, it's -- I wouldn't say that like new technology, right, there's always a big buzz around it. And then we're seeing the players that have, I think, a strong presence in it and the good technology are still expanding and they're still working on how to make it economical, right? Like that's the real question is, especially in our current economic environment, how much of the cost can they actually pass down to the consumers, the airlines, right? And so the -- what companies like LanzaJet or Honeywell and there's a few others that are really continuing to make process -- progress in the space. And I believe that they will be able to get there and be able to make it economical. Whether that's in 5 years or 10 years, I can't tell you for sure from like a full production, full-scale facility. But I do think it will get there. And the ratio of alcohol-to-jet, right, is so 2 gallons of ethanol to 1 gallon of sustainable aviation fuel or synthetic aviation fuel. And so it provides a big opportunity when they get there. So there's also marine fuel, too. So that the marine industry is really looking at being able to use low CI ethanol for their feedstocks. And so there's a number of markets that are being developed, and it's an exciting time of year or time of an ethanol history to see where this all goes.

Yes. I mean SAF from what I recall, theoretically, if the entire U.S. aviation industry were to go to SAF, that would require double the global ethanol capacity, and that would be enough in use for cars. So those calculations we did 2 years ago. So certainly, an interesting area. And you brought up Maritime. I know Maersk has done some of their -- some trials. We have looked into this market, methanol, ammonia, all of them are being considered. How does ethanol play there? Is it something that goes into the mix with bunker fuel? Doesn't need separate engines, like an ammonia vessel? How would ethanol fit into that?

So there's been a number of pilots. And I don't know exactly what Maersk has been working on specifically and what their mix looks like. But there's been a number of really successful trials where they convert even just like diesel engines and semis that operate off of 100% ethanol. And so the technology is there and it exists. What exactly is the right mix to work? I'm not a chemical engineer, but I know that there's a lot of promise out there and a lot of technology that is working on being able to run these large engines even on 100% ethanol.

Okay. The other growth area could be E15, right? And we're seeing some tailwinds like California on the state level, but an overriding, let's say, federal legislation seems to always be a little bit missing. And can you tell us what are you seeing there? Because it looks to me that every 3 months, I'm reading about the legislation being proposed. It doesn't go through. It was supposed to be part of the Big Beautiful Bill. It was excluded in the end. So what is the pushback specifically on this proposal?

Yes. It's been a saga. And it is frustrating to get so close to having it completed. And then there's just kind of -- you have a couple of loud voices in the room that get concerned about whether it be SREs or whatever the answer is. There is a tremendous amount of bipartisan support around E15. And I do believe they will get there. It does take compromise on both ends to be able to get to a common goal. And I do believe and a majority of the industry believes that common sense will prevail. The administration has been incredibly vocal, right, about domestic energy needing to create it here in the United States. This is the key way to do it. We have the President's full support around, and he said in Iowa just a month ago, right, as soon as he wants to see it done and as soon as that bill crosses his desk, he will sign it immediately, right? So there is -- and USDA has come out with recent, I think, even just this week, right, because the council was supposed to present the bill. We've got a handful of kind of midsized refiners that have some concerns around SREs, and that's really been a little bit of the linchpin that's prevented it from moving forward. But I do believe that it's in the best interest of our country, and it's a bipartisan issue. And I do believe that we'll get there with a negotiated solution.

And on that topic, have you seen -- like in states where E15 has been allowed all year and now more recently in California, have we actually been seeing the investments because they do require investments by gas stations, right? Have you seen the best investments to upgrade? Or is this just not enough for them?

So I would say that a majority, at least in the Midwest where we're from, there really isn't a lot of investment that needs to be done. The infrastructure is set and ready to be able to take E15. It's really just a signing of the pen that needs to happen to be able for that to happen year-round. All of the -- most of the facilities within our area sell E15 within the given time frame. And we've been giving some -- they've been -- the EPA has been issuing summer waivers for however many years now. So we've all had access to year-round E15 anyway. It's not what we want to have continue. We don't want to have to do -- have the EPA do this every 20 days during the summer to allow it. We want a final solution that's legislatively complete. It makes it easier for the refiners also, right? Like they don't have to go through the blending changes. They can stick with the standard process. But we're seeing -- and I believe the National Ethanol Conference, they just quoted that we're -- the total blend rate for the United States at 2025 was above 10%. So it's like 10.5%. So -- and in some areas, it's even getting closer to the 11%. So we are seeing that adoption and the cars, everything has been shown that there's no impact to it. It really is just a legislative issue that needs to be resolved.

Great. And last topic is strategy. So firstly, you did a strategic review, you sold a few assets. You decided to not sell the company. Is this review now behind you? Does this mean no more asset sales? Does this mean the company will operate as a public company? Or could that door reopen?

I talked about, I think, a couple of earnings calls ago about the company being at an inflection point. We concluded the sale of the Obion, Tennessee location and paid off some debt overhang. And since then, I think we've really turned the corner as an organization. And right now, we're focused on being the low-cost, low-carbon biofuel producer in the Midwest. And with the opportunity we have in front of us with strong free cash flow in the future, we're really focused on our strong capital allocation strategy, and we want to grow. We want to be a company that goes from playing defense to playing offense, and we're looking forward to being in a position to do that.

Well, that's actually my next question and last for now, which is you're going to start generating cash probably -- I haven't been covering Green Plains for that long, several years, but this will be the first time, I think, that on a full year basis, there's going to be some free cash flow. So what do you do with that? What are your priorities?

Well, first and foremost, like I mentioned, we're going to have a very disciplined rigor approach to allocating capital. We have a strategic planning committee with our Board that we're going to work in lockstep with to make sure that we make the best possible decisions for our shareholders and the performance of the company. Number one, we're going to take care of our plant assets and make sure that they maintain a high utilization rate, and they have very good yields. We want our plant assets to be in the top 25th percentile of the industry, so at best-in-class type levels. We have plenty of opportunities to either further monetize 45Z, but at the same time, improve the base business. So things like improving yields, lowering energy consumption, also improving our grains storage and receiving infrastructure, that opportunity is good not only with respect to improving or increasing farmer-originated grain, which will help us on the 45Z side for the farm practices benefits, but also it will help the base business for the long haul by giving us the opportunity to get more farmer-originated bushels, lowering our raw material costs and improving the overall crush margins in our plant assets. Also, we still have to keep mind of our debt, right? So we have opportunities to pay down debt potentially or return value to shareholders or grow the company through potential M&A.

Perfect. We have a couple of minutes left. I just want to see if there are any questions from investors here. There's a mic.

For your alcohol-to-jet process... Can you hear me? Okay. For the alcohol-to-jet process you have, how do you compare the cost competitiveness of that to like fatty to jet or other processes out there?

How do you compare your alcohol-to-jet process versus others? And I guess you don't have. You are exploring one. But you can talk about that.

Yes, the concept around alcohol-to-jet, right, is the feedstock has to be of a low CI. And so that is -- we have with our Nebraska plants, in particular, we are creating ethanol that could potentially be used in that process, but we do not yet have an alcohol-to-jet facility. We would just anticipate being able to be the feedstock that could be used in one of them.

Yes. So our focus is really on what's within our control right now in driving our CI scores as low as possible within our network of plants and ultimately to be the supplier or maybe a partner with respect to an ATJ process in the future.

Okay. Perfect. With that, I think we're at the end of our slot. So thank you very much for coming.

Appreciate the opportunity, Sal.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.