CREDIT FOCUS

INFRASTRUCTURE JUNE 23, 2014

RATINGS

NextEra Energy, Inc.

Issuer Rating Baa1 Outlook Stable

KEY INDICATORS

FY 2012

FY 2013

LTM 1Q2014

Interest Coverage 4.6x 5.2x 4.9x CFO pre-WC / Debt 15.8% 18.8% 17.4% CFO pre-WC - Dividends / Debt

11.5% 14.2% 12.9%

Book Debt / Capitalization

51.5% 49.1% 50.0%

Source: Moody’s FM

Analyst Contacts:

NEW YORK +1.212.553.1653

Mihoko Manabe, CFA +1.212.553.1942 Senior Vice President mihoko.manabe@moodys.com

Jim Hempstead +1.212.553.4318 Associate Managing Director James.hempstead@moodys.com

NextEra Energy, Inc.: A Deep Dive into the Yieldco

» NextEra Energy, Inc.’s (NEE, Baa1 issuer rating, stable) initial public offering (IPO) of NextEra Energy Partners, LP (NEP, the yieldco, not rated) at the end of June gives NEE another option in its corporate financing to facilitate its strategic growth plans. The creation of NEP, by itself, does not affect NEE’s credit profile. NEP will be credit positive for NEE because it will be a new source of equity capital and a way to raise proceeds at attractive all-in capital costs. On the other hand, the yieldco will be credit negative because it will add dividend payouts to a new set of shareholders and incrementally add to the complexity of the capital structure of NEE and NextEra Energy Capital Holdings, Inc. (NEECH, Baa1 senior unsecured, stable; guaranteed by NEE).

» We believe NEE will be the only major utility holding company to utilize the yieldco structure. NEE is unique because it has a large portfolio of existing long-term contracted assets as well as a long pipeline of potential assets that can sustain a yieldco’s need for reliable dividends and asset growth.

» NEE will develop and manage its yieldco to defend its current Baa1 rating. Over time, we expect that NEE will apply most of the proceeds from the yieldco to reduce debt and keep the level of leverage and structural subordination in its capital structure balanced.

» NEP is a minor part of NEE and will have a very small financial impact in the foreseeable near future. In the context of NEE’s vast financial profile, NEP accounts for 7% or less by a number of measures and has nominal impact on NEE’s credit ratios.

» Over time, as NEP comes into its own, becomes a more significant part of NEE and issues its own debt, our credit analysis will focus more on NEP as a standalone entity. Assessing NEP in consolidation with NEE is sufficient at this early stage when NEP is so small.

INFRASTRUCTURE

2 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

NEP replicates the MLP model

In May 2014, NEP, a recently formed limited partnership, publicly filed a Form S-1 registration statement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for a proposed IPO of a yieldco. NEP’s IPO at the end of June will come almost a year after NRG Energy Inc. (NRG, Ba3 stable) launched the first yieldco1 (NRG Yield, not rated) and a couple of weeks after Abengoa Yield Plc (not rated) raised $721 million through its IPO2.

What are yieldcos?

Yieldcos are a new type of corporation designed to pay a high rate of dividends (yield) to their shareholders. Yield-oriented vehicles such as yieldcos, and also more established asset classes like real estate investment trusts (REITs) and master limited partnerships (MLPs), appeal to a growing class of investors who in this low interest-rate environment seek securities that produce predictable dividend income over many years. Over the past year, four companies have taken public their yieldco subsidiaries that hold power generation assets in commercial operations. Now, other companies, such as NEE, are waiting to do the same. Financial engineering initiatives, such as yieldcos, are the corporate finance topic of the year in the power sector.

For more information on our views on yieldcos, please refer to the Special Comments Diversified Utilities and Power Companies: Looking to MLPs, Yieldcos, and REITS While Keeping Credit Quality Intact, published in March 2014 and Yieldcos: Fantastic for Shareholders; Less So for Bondholders, from November 2013.

NEP replicates the MLP corporate finance model which is well-established in the oil and gas industry. NEP is structured as a partnership like an MLP. As shown in the simplified organizational chart in Exhibit 1, NextEra Energy Resources (NEER, unrated), the subsidiary that holds NEE’s unregulated power generation assets, will indirectly hold the entity that owns the general partner (GP) interest in NEP. As with MLPs, NEE as the GP will manage and operate NEP.

1 See Moody’s Special Comment YieldCos: Fantastic for Shareholders; Less So for Bondholders, November 2013 (160121). 2 Four yieldcos have been launched so far: NRG Yield, Pattern Energy, and TransAlta Renewables in 2013 and Abengoa Yield in June 2014. Two more will go public

imminently: NEE’s NEP and SunEdison’s TerraForm.

This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.

INFRASTRUCTURE

3 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

EXHIBIT 1

Simplified Organizational Chart Pro Forma Debt as of 31 March 2014 (1) ($ millions)

(1) Pro forma for the NEP IPO and June project financings Sources: Moody’s, NEP Form S-1, NEE website, 8-K

Although structured as a partnership, NEP is a regular corporation for federal income taxes purposes. It does not, however, expect to pay much tax for the next 15 years owing to the significant amount of net operating losses (NOLs) that it expects to generate.3 Thus, in effect, NEP is like an MLP that does not pay federal taxes. Not having to pay taxes increases the cash available for distributions (equivalent to dividends for partnerships) to unitholders (the shareholders of a partnership), which is important to the value of a yield vehicle.

NEP cannot be structured as an MLP, because its wind and solar power generating assets do not qualify to be put in an MLP under the US tax code. Being a corporation rather than an MLP, however, gives NEP more freedom in what assets it can own. NEP will own low-risk, long-lived, and stable cash flow-producing assets that are ideal for sustaining a yieldco’s high distributions (equivalent to dividends in a partnership).

NEP is the first yieldco to have incentive distribution rights (IDRs), a common feature in MLPs in through which the GP receives an increasing share of distributions as certain cash distribution benchmarks for the LPs are achieved. Incentive distribution rights have been a way for MLPs to align

3 The net operating losses will result from the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System accelerated depreciation on the step-up in value of the real property, which will

occur when NEP acquires a new asset. It is unlikely that NEP will acquire wind assets that have production tax credits (tax credits received in the first 10 years of a wind plant’s operations) to avoid having excess tax benefits that it cannot use. NEP’s solar and some wind assets will have convertible investment tax credits for their construction costs, but NEE will have already received the cash grants associated with those investment tax credits prior to the IPO.

Debt: $9,124 (30%)Debt (Holdco Only): $12,771

(43%)

US Projects

Canadian Projects

Debt: $2,222 (7%)

GP + Majority LP Interests

NH TransmissionIDRs

$250 revolver due 2019

NEE Operating LP

NEPLone Star Transmission

Consolidated Debt $29,951

NEEBaa1 Issuer Rating

Guarantee of Debt

Florida Power & Light NEECH

Other Subsidiaries NextEra Energy Transmission

NEER

Minority LP Interest

Debt : $5,834 (20%)

A1 Issuer Rating Baa1 Sr Uns (Gtd by NEE)

Public Unitholders

INFRASTRUCTURE

4 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

GP and LP interests, especially in the early stages of their existence, by rewarding the GP for growing the MLP so as to increase distributions on behalf of the LPs. This alignment of interests helps mitigate the other typical weaknesses in an MLP/yieldco’s corporate governance, including limited rights of public LPs compared with those of a typical shareholder of a public company and the potential for conflicts of interests that could arise and harm both LPs’ and creditors’ interests. We believe that NEP is a strategic vehicle for NEE and that NEE will maintain a majority interest in NEP and manage it well, which will be to its benefit. As is customary among MLPs, NEP will also have three independent directors, which will also help mitigate the weaknesses in the governance structure.4

Seeking lower cost of capital, higher share price while preserving the Baa1 rating

With good access to capital already, NEE did not have to create a yieldco. However, NEE found the yieldco to be an attractive financing option given its intent to improve its credit metrics while outspending its operating cash flow by almost $1 billion this year. Roughly half of the $6 billion-$7 billion capital expenditures this year will be on its regulated side, which NEE wants to grow, but NEE also plans to spend over $2 billion on renewable projects. NEP provides an avenue for raising equity capital more cheaply, since demand from yield-oriented investors is running up the value of yieldco stocks. In fact, just the anticipation of NEP’s IPO has contributed to a 25% appreciation in NEE’s share price over the past year.5

We believe that NEE is especially mindful of its ratings now because it needs to raise large amounts of capital for its investment program, while restoring its credit metrics that took a hit back in 2012, its biggest-ever capex year. Management targets increasing NEE consolidated cash flow before working capital (CFO pre-WC) / Debt ratio to 20% in 2014, an expectation reflected in our stable outlook for NEE and NEECH. NEE has been making progress in this regard, with this metric at 17% in the last 12 months ended March 2014. We believe that the maintenance of NEE and NEECH’s Baa1 rating is critical for the company to continue to raise capital at a reasonable cost and provide credit support to its many counterparties. NEECH’s hedging, trading and marketing activities are sensitive to NEECH’s credit ratings, and even a one-notch downgrade could cause significant collateral calls and reduce liquidity6.

NEE: Only utility holdco with a portfolio large enough to sustain a yieldco

NEE is uniquely positioned among large, diversified utility holding companies to create a yieldco, because of its substantial portfolio of existing renewable assets with long-term contracts that will generate stable cash flow. As Exhibit 2 shows, NEER owns 18 gigawatts (GW) of generation capacity, of which 11 GW is wind and solar. Renewables are a minor but fast-growing segment in the otherwise mature power industry, and present attractive investment opportunities for an experienced developer such as NEE. This unregulated generation fleet is by far bigger than those of other diversified utility holding companies that also own significant unregulated renewable portfolios, such as Iberdrola USA (Baa1 negative) with 5.4 GW; Duke Energy Corporation (A3 stable) with 1.7 GW; and Exelon Corporation (Baa2 stable) with 1.5 GW. NEER’s portfolio will become even bigger in the 2013-16 timeframe with the addition of up to 3.1 GW of wind and 1.1 GW of solar projects. This large backlog of projects, the majority which have already been secured by long-term contracts, provide a “pipeline” of potential assets for NEP.

4 See Corporate Governance Structure of Master Limited Partnerships Carries Credit Risk, June 2007. 5 Bloomberg.com, accessed 11 June 2014. 6 NEE estimates that a one-notch downgrade would result in a $280 million collateral call. It has $8.8 billion of credit facilities for its liquidity needs.

INFRASTRUCTURE

5 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

EXHIBIT 2

NEE’s Large Clean Energy Portfolio Provides Pipeline of Future Assets for NEP Capacity by Fuel Type (net mw)

Time 1Q14 IPO + ROFO (1)

Entity NEE Consolidated FPL NEER Yieldco

% total % total % total % total % total

Natural Gas 23,860 56% 19,923 82% 3,937 21%

Wind 10,285 24% 10,285 56% 700 71% 1,682 66%

Nuclear 6,173 14% 3,453 14% 2,720 15%

Solar 677 2% 35 0% 642 3% 290 29% 857 34%

Coal 897 2% 897 4% 0%

Other 859 2% 859 5%

Total 42,751 100% 24,308 100% 18,443 100% 990 100% 2,539 100%

% consolidated capacity 57% 43% 2% 6%

Sources: Moody's, NEE website

(1) Assumes all ROFO assets added to initial IPO portfolio

Many of these potential projects are earmarked as “Rights of First Offer Assets” (ROFO), which NEE can sell or “drop down” into NEP once it completes construction, as each of those projects have already secured long-term contracts. NEP is thus central to NEE’s “capital recycling” strategy, in which NEER drops down its power projects into NEP, recoups the capital it had invested in their construction, and reinvests the proceeds in building new projects. These ROFO assets represent revenue growth potential for the next few years, which is important to yieldco investors who want steady increases in distributions. At least in the foreseeable future, we expect that NEP will be a vehicle for drop-downs rather than third-party acquisitions because NEE intends to temper the growth of its unregulated businesses so that its regulated businesses will become a bigger majority of the company.

NEP is very small in the context of NEE’s total generation portfolio, accounting for 2% at the IPO and potentially 6% if we assume that NEE drops down all the ROFO assets. As Exhibit 3 below shows, NEP’s roughly 1.0 GW (potentially 2.5 GW if NEE drops down all ROFO assets) is reasonably diverse with high-quality assets. The initial portfolio has 10 wind and solar projects that are spread across five states and the province of Ontario. The assets are relatively new and, on average, a little over two years old; consequently, they have many years left on their contracts (average of 21 years) with highly-rated utilities (average rating of A2). These long-term contracts with strong counterparties will generate stable cash flow that can support the distributions that yieldco investors will expect. These credit-positive attributes are mitigated by exposure to a few customers -- initially Ontario Power Authority (OPA, Aa2 stable) and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E, A3 stable) and potentially, Southern California Edison Company (SoCalEd, A2 stable) – and assets, such as the Genesis solar facility that will likely generate 40%-45% of the initial portfolio’s EBITDA. Please refer to the Appendix for more details on NEP’s asset portfolio.

INFRASTRUCTURE

6 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

EXHIBIT 3

Reasonably Diverse, High-Quality Portfolio NEP Portfolio Breakdowns (mw)

Operating Status Technology Region Counterparty

Capacity

% potential portfolio Operating

% capacity

Under Construction

% capacity Wind

% capacity Solar

% capacity

US - Midwest

% capacity

US - West

% capacity Canada

% capacity OPA PG&E SoCalEd

Initial Portfolio

990 39% 930 94% 60 6% 700 71% 290 29% 219 22% 524 53% 247 25% 25% 25% 0%

ROFO 1,549 61% 596 38% 953 62% 982 63% 567 37% 414 27% 729 47% 406 26% 26% 12% 34%

Potential Portfolio

2,539 1,526 60% 1,013 40% 1,682 66% 857 34% 633 25% 1,253 49% 653 26% 26% 17% 21%

Sources: Moody's, NEP Form S-1

We believe the solar and wind assets that are in NEP’s portfolio have relatively low business risk compared with other asset types in yield vehicles like MLPs and REITs. As Exhibit 4 shows, utility-scale solar is on the very low end of the business risk spectrum because, once installed, the modules produce a predictable amount of energy and require little maintenance expense. Wind resources are more variable than the sun, particularly from a wind resource perspective, but wind technologies have improved and forecasting techniques have become somewhat more predictable, resulting in more reliable power production. NEP’s cash flow will vary somewhat, because its revenues are based on the variable amounts of energy that its projects generate rather than on fixed capacity payments.

EXHIBIT 4

Relatively Low-Risk Solar and Wind Assets

Source: Moody’s

NEP: High profile but low financial impact

NEP is a nascent company not only as a legal entity and in its corporate form, but also in terms of its assets. About 40% of NEP’s generation capacity has not been in operation yet for a full year. We expect that NEP will grow significantly, but from a low base. A key credit strength is management’s track record in developing, acquiring and operating renewable resources for many years. In the context of NEE’s vast financial profile, NEP accounts for 7% or less by a number of measures (see Exhibit 5). NEE is also growing its already large pie of assets outside NEP and can easily absorb an incremental financial risk from NEP. For example, NEE expects to increase its consolidated cash flow from

HIGHER RISK LOWER RISK

Marketing/Trading

Gas Processing

Fuel Oil

RefiningDrilling

Propane

Gas Gathering

E&PTerminals and Gas Storage

Intrastate Gas Pipeline

Interstate Gas Pipelines

Crude Pipelines

Product Pipelines

MLP

YieldCo / REITWind Generation*

Utility-Scale Solar Generation*

Business Risk Spectrum

Rooftop Solar Generation*

Hydro Generation*

DistrictHeating/Cooling

Gas-Fired Generation*

*Assume contracted

Electric Transmission

INFRASTRUCTURE

7 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

operations to $5.3 billion-$5.6 billion for the full year in 2014 from the $5.0 billion reported in the last 12 months ended March 20147.

EXHIBIT 5

NEP Is a Minor Part of NEE’s Financial Profile

NEP NEE NEP LTM

3/14 % NEE ($ millions) 2013 LTM 3/14 NTM 6/15 3/14

CFO pre-WC (1) 57 80 151 4,845 3%

EBITDA 100 124 249 6,871 4%

Distributable Cash Flow 34 52 86

Dividends (2) 69

to NEE 48

to public equityholders (3) 21 1,258 2%

Debt 1,800 1,786 1,827 27,914 7%

Debt/EBITDA 18.0x 14.4x 7.3x 4.1x

CFO pre-WC/Debt 3.2% 4.5% 8.3% 17.4%

CFO pre-WC - Dividends / Debt 4.5% 12.9%

CFO pre-WC - Dividends incl NEP / Debt 12.8%

(1) Assume pro forma adjusted EBITDA less cash interest and taxes and incremental public company costs for illustrative purposes. 2013 and LTM 3/14 reflect partial year results from the two units at Genesis, which entered service in November 2013 and March 2014.

(2) Assume 80% payout for illustrative purposes.

(3) Assume 30% LP interest held by public for illustrative purposes.

Sources: NEP as reported in Form S-1, NEE as adjusted in Moody's FM

NEE targets NEP’s distributions to public LP unitholders growing from a low base at a three-year annual growth rate of 12%-15% per common unit. The rate of dividend growth will depend on the growth in distributable cash flow, which NEE can manage through the drop-down of the ROFO assets. About 953 MW of the ROFO assets, or over 60% of the ROFO portfolio, are still under construction and will come on-line and start generating cash from the third quarter of 2014 through the end of 2016. These new sources of cash flow should more than offset the new outflow of dividends at NEP. We anticipate that payouts to the public will also be a minor portion of NEE’s total distributions and dividends for the foreseeable near future, when NEE will likely retain the majority of the LP interest. We expect that the incentive distribution rights mechanism will be immaterial for a few years.

NEE has yet to determine some key terms of the units, such as the minimum quarterly distribution rate that is part of its incentive distribution rights mechanism, but will finalize them prior to the close of the IPO. Lacking these final terms of the IPO, we assumed for illustrative purposes that NEP will have an 80% payout for the next 12 months ending June 2015 (Exhibit 5), which is in line with NRG Yield, the first yieldco to go public. We also made a simplifying assumption that public unitholders will account for 30% of the LP units.

7 NEE 2014 March Investor Presentation.

INFRASTRUCTURE

8 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

Based on these assumptions, the incremental distribution paid to the public is quite small, accounting for only 2% of NEE’s current dividends to its shareholders. Consequently, if including NEP’s dividends to the public unitholders, this incremental distribution moves the CFO pre-WC-Dividends / Debt ratio down only 0.1% to 12.8%. As NEP’s dividends grow, we will be focusing more on dividend-related metrics such as this ratio to monitor the level of internal funding and financial aggressiveness.

Structural subordination is not material at this early stage, with NEP’s debt accounting for only 5% of consolidated NEE debt as of 31 March 2014, pro forma for the NEP IPO. All of the NEP debt is non-recourse at the project level. NEP does not currently have any debt at the NEP holding company level other than a $250 million revolver, which will be undrawn at the IPO. Structural subordination of the holding company-level obligations at NEECH, which is already subordinated to a significant amount of project-level debt at NEER (20% of consolidated NEE debt), could deepen if NEP holding company begins to issue debt at some point in the future. Our rating incorporates a belief that NEE will use most of the equity proceeds it receives from NEP to pay down debt at NEECH holding company (43% of consolidated NEE debt) so that the degree of structural subordination for NEECH debtholders will remain in check.

NEP will be fully consolidated in NEE’s financial statements according to US GAAP, which would be the basis for Moody’s Standard Adjustments and calculations published in our reports on NEE. The consolidated approach reflects NEE’s control as the GP; NEP’s reliance on NEE for management and staff; the operational integration and centralized cash management among the two entities; and NEP’s inclusion in NEE’s combined tax returns. We will add dividends to public LPs to NEE’s common dividends in our payout and retained cash flow calculations.

This consolidated analysis is sufficient at this early stage when NEP is such a minor part of NEE. Over time, as NEP comes into its own, becomes a more significant part of NEE and issues its own debt, we will focus more on NEP as a standalone entity.

INFRASTRUCTURE

9 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

Appendix: NEP initial portfolio and rights of first offer projects

NextEra Energy Partners Initial Portfolio

Project Operating

Capacity (MW)

Under Construction

(MW) Total Owned

Capacity (MW) Technology COD Years in

Operation State/

Province Counterparty Rating Expiration

Contract Tenor

(Years)

Northern Colorado 151.8 - Wind Sep-09 4.8 CO Public Svc Co of Colorado A3 2034 25

22.5 Sep-09 4.8 Public Svc Co of Colorado A3 2029 20

Elk City 98.9 - Wind Dec-09 4.5 OK Public Svc Co of Oklahoma A3 2030 20

Moore 20.0 - Solar Feb-12 2.4 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2032 20

Sombra 20.0 - Solar Feb-12 2.4 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2032 20

Tuscola Bay 120.0 - Wind Dec-12 1.5 MI DTE Electric Company A2 2032 20

Conestogo 22.9 - Wind Dec-12 1.5 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2032 20

Summerhaven 124.4 ` Wind Aug-13 0.9 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2033 20

Perrin Ranch 99.2 - Wind Jan-12 2.4 AZ AZ Public Service A3 2037 25

Genesis 125.0 Solar Nov-13 0.6 CA Pacific Gas & Electric A3 2039 25

Genesis 125.0 Solar Apr-14 0.2 CA Pacific Gas & Electric A3 2039 25

Bluewater 59.9 Wind Sep-14 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2034 20

Initial Capacity 929.7 59.9 989.6

Rights of First Offer Projects

Story II 150.0 - Wind Dec-09 4.5 IA Google Energy/City of Ames Aa2/Aaa 2030 21

Day County 99.0 - Wind Apr-10 4.2 SD Basin Electric Power Coop A2 2040 31

Ashtabula III 62.4 - Wind Dec-10 3.5 ND Otter Tail Power Co. A3 2038 28

Baldwin 102.4 - Wind Dec-10 3.5 ND Basin Electric Power Coop A2 2041 31

North Sky River 162.0 Wind Dec-12 1.5 CA Pacific Gas & Electric A3 2037 25

Mountain View 20.0 Solar Jan-14 0.4 NV Nevada Power Co Baa1 2039 25

Adelaide - 59.9 Wind 3Q14 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2034 20

Bornish - 72.9 Wind 3Q14 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2034 20

INFRASTRUCTURE

10 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

NextEra Energy Partners Rights of First Offer Projects (continued)

Project Operating

Capacity (MW)

Under Construction

(MW) Total Owned

Capacity (MW) Technology COD

State/ Province Counterparty Rating Expiration

Contract Tenor

(Years)

Jericho - 149.0 Wind 4Q14 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2034 20

East Durham - 22.4 Wind 4Q14 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2034 20

Goshen - 102.0 Wind 4Q14 Ontario Ontario Power Authority Aa2 2034 20

Shafter 20.0 Solar 2Q15 CA Pacific Gas & Electric A3 2035 20

Adelanto I & II 27.0 Solar 3Q15 CA So Cal Ed A2 2035 20

Silver State South 250.0 Solar 3Q16 NV So Cal Ed A2 2036 20

McCoy - 250.0 Solar 4Q16 CA So Cal Ed A2 2036 20

ROFO Capacity 595.8 953.2 1549.0

Sources: Moody’s, NEP Form S-1

INFRASTRUCTURE

11 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

Ratings history

NextEra Energy, Inc.

Source: Moody’s

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Baa2

Baa1

A3

A2

A1

INFRASTRUCTURE

12 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

Moody’s related research

Rating Action:

» Moody’s Affirms NextEra at Baa1 stable, May 2014

Special Comments:

» Diversified Utilities and Power Companies: Looking to MLPs, Yieldcos, and REITS While Keeping Credit Quality Intact, March 2014 (165861)

» Promise of Stronger Valuations Expands MLP Model Beyond Traditional Midstream Home, January 2014 (163537)

» YieldCos: Fantastic for Shareholders; Less So for Bondholders, November 2013 (160121)

» Analyzing Partnerships in the Midstream Sector, March 2009 (115149)

» MLP Incentive Distribution Rights Reduce Long-Term Competitiveness, August 2007 (104494)

» Corporate Governance Structure of Master Limited Partnerships Carries Credit Risk, June 2007 (103313)

Company Profile:

» NextEra Energy, Inc., May 2014 (170142)

Credit Opinions:

» NextEra Energy, Inc.

» NextEra Energy Capital Holdings, Inc.

» Florida Power & Light Company

To access any of these reports, click on the entry above. Note that these references are current as of the date of publication of this report and that more recent reports may be available. All research may not be available to all clients.

INFRASTRUCTURE

13 JUNE 23, 2014

CREDIT FOCUS: NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE YIELDCO

Report Number: 171926

Author Mihoko Manabe, CFA

Production Associate Prabhakaran Elumalai

© 2014 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved.

CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. (“MIS”) AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (“MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE MOODY’S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.

MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO CONSIDER MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS IN MAKING ANY INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moody’s Publications.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.

NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.

MIS, a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MIS have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MIS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS’s ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Shareholder Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”

For Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail clients. It would be dangerous for “retail clients” to make any investment decision based on MOODY’S credit rating. If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser.