Fabian Velez | 00:10
Ola.
No weather? Yes. To him. When the LLaMA I can remo congoants. Okay Ant Kong tang a loi at the pa entering request to join.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:03
Yeah, boy pun. Carlo mende.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 01:33
Another Canva seng naido pacifica to sa caking harvest sour and monicalala taralaja hanging harvest no.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:52
Baro.
Fabian Velez | 01:55
Okay. Nit. And at the. I what'sa.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 01:58
Darling alient thing boy.
Fabian Velez | 02:26
So you can get a miiper. And you likely with a miper.
Okay boy li at the okay boy me get a ta okay.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 03:25
Can you good morning? Yes, we can.
Fabian Velez | 03:29
Good morning to yal good morning.
Speaker 4 | 03:33
Good morning everyone. morning.
Fabian Velez | 03:44
Okay, we still missing I think. I mean we are here, are we? We are here.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 03:53
I think so. Are we missing somebody from gotthenss?
Fabian Velez | 03:59
Dan' you mean me.
Speaker 4 | 04:00
Yes, we have the whole Gotham team.
Speaker 5 | 04:02
Sorry we're not missing anyone from Gothams.
Fabian Velez | 04:05
Okay. And from three p PO I think Vicante is it here?
Speaker 5 | 04:11
Yeah.
Fabian Velez | 04:13
Okay. Alr.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 04:14
Yes, I'm here. Well, good morning everyone, thank you for joining us. In short, such a short notice. We appreciate everybody being here on a Monday morning. I hope everybody had their coffee. So, my... the PPO and that I would like to give a short description of what the P is in charge of. Most of you who's never been to the sites already know me. The VBO is basically in charge of managing the procurement for any potential ERP that has an OC.
So we are helping Prepa, Hera, and Luma and P3 manage this process. Okay, we just wanted to start communications with you. We had a couple of questions we wanted to figure out.
Thank you for responding to our RFE. We'll be getting into that during the session, as you know, we sent out an RFE on Friday. I think it was on Saturday. Requesting just the specific terms that the PREB had already approved for the past project. We just want to move this along as quickly as possible.
So we want to start all the conversations. When they ended up... I know you guys were not part of the conversation last time, so you might have a couple of questions. That's fine, but that's it. We're here to answer as many as we can.
But those are the terms that basically were approved by PREB, by T3, by F1B and PREB the last time this process was undergoing. So that's where we want to start our conversations. Okay, is that unders.
Speaker 5 | 06:44
Yes I think we understand that's the position.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 06:49
Okay good it's not that they can't they there can't be any counter offers it's just that is what is approved and I don't we are not in obviously if we want to move this along as quickly as possible that is.
But it's already, you know, again, approved.
Speaker 5 | 07:14
So can I just ask? One quick question, if you don't mind. This is Daniel Salinas. I'm with the law firm of Quinn Emanuel for Gotham's. You mentioned that these terms were approved by... I think you mentioned PREB, PREPA.
I think you mentioned LUMA and I think you mentioned the FMO is three.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 07:37
Is that the craz? P three a yeah, p three a and this. These terms were already sent to all the agencies for the past. RP and they're the ones that were going to move forward. Basically.
Speaker 5 | 07:56
My question was a little bit more specific, these terms or the contract, I assume was approved by the is.
Speaker 4 | 08:06
This is Maria Lavin. Hello, everyone. I'm sorry, I can't turn my camera on. I'm on a clinical emergency. But no, this has not been seen by the FOOMB yet. It will have to be approved by the FOOMB. These are the terms and conditions that were previously sent to the and that were approved.
The reason why they decided to extend the contract for the original contemplated time to ten years. So those were the conditions by which the FOOMB authorized the extension of the ten-year contract. These terms after we received the proposals and we saw that, at least in the Gotham's proposal in the model contract that was provided on the red lines, there was a provision stating that they wanted to have a discussion in regards to an upfront payment or a line of credit.
So obviously we had to send back and that's just regarding you. We're not discussing, obviously, the other proponents, but we just wanted to remind everybody what the terms and conditions that were approved and discussed with P3A and the pres.
Speaker 5 | 09:25
Okay, understood. Thank you, Maria.
Speaker 4 | 09:27
Thank you.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 09:32
Okay, so after going through the proposal, the technical team. I'm here, joined by Glandavalis, which is the head of the technical team. I'm here, Miguel Garcia, who's leading the technical. Basically, the site visits. We had a couple of questions regarding those.
In the earlier proposal that we had evaluated, there were shipped daily charges that were going to be added to the proposal. We didn't see that in this proposal. Did the daily charges for the ships, are those not included or are they included in the
sorry.
Speaker 6 | 10:37
One second. Orgon, do you want to answer that one, and Arol, for sure.
Speaker 7 | 10:46
I think it's all around here. The prime subcontractor for Gotham, our ship solution Americas. We all understood and prepared this response to this RFI on one basis, which is to have one all-inclusive cost of energy, which includes mobilization, site preparation, ship daily charges, fuel, and everything.
So, in response to the RFI, as required and requested, we have included everything in the unit price.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 11:22
Okay.
Speaker 7 | 11:23
And a commercial and practical point of view, we see those two separate processes. That's probably why Danielle's question was why we're looking at something that was decided on the basis of a previous bid submission in relation to this new process.
But you clarified that it's, I think, the buyer's prediction comment to decide what they want to buy or what conditions they want to impose. But our understanding, as Gotham and their prime subcontractor, Americas Power Solutions, is that everything is included in the price.
It's one energy fee. Sadly, I think it's no secret to anyone, even though we do not understand how and why our offering on two sides. One was above in Igera, I think above the price you mentioned in the letter, whereas in the cost of service, we were well below the price you mentioned, which I think is a remnant of the previous offer. We don't know how that link is established, but besides that, I think we are quite comfortable to confirm that there are no additional other charges or requirements on the unit price. Is that clear?
From a legal point of view, Gotham's people, I'm responding to a commercial point of view. Please stop interfering if I'm stepping outside my place on this, but I think that was the commercial answer we were looking for.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 13:12
Yes. Thank you, Ann. I want to make clear that the letter that was sent to you. The RFI that was sent to you was sent to all proponents. It's not specific to Gotham. Your specific proposal is just to the pre-resolution.
So, if you search the pre-resolution, it does state that they were moving or they were moving in the direction of extending this RP to ten years to make sure that Puerto Rico could get a better price in a long-term contract.
That would mean 18 cents for Costasur and I think it was like 20 for a Draycott around there. So, Orhan, thank you for your answer and yes, that did clarify. I just want to make sure that everybody understands this. This was a letter sent to all proponents and was specifically to alums.
Speaker 5 | 14:18
Thank you, Mike. I think, just to circle back to Orhan's point that you just addressed, I think the point that Orhan was making is that our understanding after reviewing the PREB order approving the contract, the purported contract with Power Expectations, was that they were evaluating that contract and imposing other conditions on that particular contract with that particular provider, not that the PREB was establishing requirements for any future contracting.
I think you explained that by saying, "At the beginning, it's just a benchmark because that's where PREB left off, and so we want to be expedient about it." I think you said that, and that doesn't foreclose counteroffers or what I rather read as negotiations, right?
That's the starting point. I just wanted to clarify because it wasn't clear to us from the letter over the weekend that that's where we're living. We're living not in a world of requirements that were imposed by PREB, but as a starting point to make things go more smoothly. Let's put it that way. Is that my understanding correct?
Speaker 4 | 15:40
Me and I think... I can address, and in all honesty, what is the intent of the PREB in that letter? I can't jump into conclusions, right? Because the reason that they decided to extend the contract for ten years is because those were the provisions provided by our expectation on their proposal. To be honest, we did have a conversation with P3A and the legal team, and they were very emphatic that those were the terms and conditions that we're willing to abide to.
So, obviously, we can't jump into conclusions that they are willing to negotiate it as of today because those were not the instructions that we received. They are expecting proponents to present the terms and conditions that were previously approved.
Okay.
Speaker 5 | 16:37
So. Maria, does that mean that anyone who doesn't present exactly the terms that P3A suggested in the context of that particular contract with power expectations will not be invited to negotiate with the P3A, or does that mean something else?
Speaker 4 | 16:58
Not necessarily. Because those are my instructions. My instructions are these are the terms and conditions that we are willing to present. When you present your terms and conditions, I will not disqualify Gotham with the terms and conditions that they present.
I will be bringing those to the consideration of the stakeholders so that they can determine whether they are willing to bend those terms or not, but I can't... We can't assure you because those are our instructions.
Speaker 5 | 17:33
Okay? Understood. Thank you. And I think that clarifies, I don't know, Maria or the Gotham's team, whether you have any lingering questions on that issue.
Speaker 4 | 17:42
No, I think that's very clear. Thank you so much, Mail and Miguel, of course.
Speaker 5 | 17:47
Thank you.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 17:51
Okay, I think I lost everybody. Just first, second. Sorry. Power is a little sketchy. [Laughter].
Speaker 5 | 17:57
Yes, we... I know. [Laughter].
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 18:02
Sorry for that. Okay, so review and thank you. Obviously, Gotham presented a very strong proposal. Thank you for addressing many of the concerns we had in the previous proposal, specifically on the timelines and then the hurricane recovery. Basically, I do have a couple of questions regarding permits. They are obviously Gotham states that they could have as soon as 50 to basically 90 days, depending on the project, it could be operational.
But my question is, do those timelines include permits, or are you expecting a waiver on the permits for that timeline to be plausible?
Speaker 5 | 19:04
E Matt and Gunner, you're on mute just in case.
Speaker 6 | 19:09
Yeah, I think the comment is yes, there would be some permits included in that. We have to basically, I mean, my permit guys on this call currently, they think there's different permits for different subsectors.
So we're aiming to achieve.
Speaker 8 | 19:24
And already begun with the research to find the permits we may need some help from you all, but we yeah.
Speaker 6 | 19:32
We have different permits in different subcategories. We would be able to go out and get a lot of the permits. There's certain permits that I think are energy-related permits to have federal powers act and a number of other different things.
But currently, we would be going after all the permits in that timeline. How do you have further thoughts on that?
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 19:52
Okay. I just want to make sure that you understand that Puerto Rico can help us as a facilitator on the local permits, but we have no say on the federal permits.
Speaker 6 | 20:06
UNDERTOOD Yeah, we have gone through, and I think that we've communicated it in our proposal. But in other projects that we've done with the state of Florida, the state of Texas, states all around the country, including DC. California, we've gotten and gotten all the federal permits to be compliant. Some things were expedited, some things were done on a traditional timeline, and some things were done with waivers on past projects of ours, to speak to our experience.
Similarly, in a project like this, we do everything we can to get the permits as quickly as possible from a federal perspective. Based on a lot of information we have, we believe that we can get a lot of permits in order on a rapid timeline.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 20:51
Okay, Maria, do you want to say something?
Speaker 4 | 20:54
Yes, thank you. Okay, I wanted to... This is a very critical point that we're discussing right now. As part of our preparation for this RFP, we did have a meeting with around eight federal agencies. There were 72 people in that meeting, and they are willing to cooperate and assist. As Mega said, we are facilitators,
but ultimately, the responsibility of the permitting is going to be on Gotham's end. We do have concerns. We had an extensive meeting with the Coast Guard, and we were advised that the declaration of emergency of the DOE and of the President of the United States is not the same definition of emergency as to which the Coast Guard abides.
So, the emergency situation, as we were advised by the Coast Guard, is a disaster. It would have to be something that is immediate, and an immediate situation that created the emergency and the energy situation in Puerto Rico is has been ongoing for decades.
So, they don't consider it an emergency. As designed as established in the executive order, and I'm pleased that this is what Angel Kodansson specifically advised us. Therefore, he says that it's going to be easier, and that they can cooperate in trying to do this as quickly as possible, but they still have to do the consulting to these agencies because there's going to be cables going on top of the water, there's a fish that's it.
So, that right there in Agira, particularly, which is more sensitive. It's an estuary. It's the biggest concentration of man at East. You're going to have the Navy, the Corps of Engineers, and et cetera.
They were advising that they don't see this happening before a year. So our question to you is, from your past experience in similar conditions in US grounds, what is the timeline of these projects on the permitting?
Speaker 7 | 23:10
Maybe it would be.
Speaker 6 | 23:11
Best if you wrote that out for us and then gave us the time to respond with our proper consultants. We've done this in the past with DHS and worked with them on a number of different projects to respond to these things.
What I would appreciate, potentially, is if you wrote that out and gave us the time to respond to that in a meaningful way. So, yeah, that would be beneficial, and I think that would give us the space to give you guys the answers that you want rather than me getting.
Speaker 8 | 23:39
Possibly proposing to DHS to cover the Coast Guard.
Speaker 6 | 23:44
Emergency. Yeah, we can. We've had discussions like that. We work with other organizations, but yes, if you can send us that, it would be great. Or on if you for.
Speaker 4 | 23:55
Okay, fantastic. Even then, I don't know if the Coast Guard would be willing to meet with you because I know that they do meet with us because they consider it agency to agency. We will take the task and see if we can coordinate something together. I don't want to be in a post-station where I have the word of a federal agency versus the word of a proponent. I would definitely like to see where we can sit together and try to understand the reality of the situation.
So we will take that task. We will write the RFI so that you can formally answer, and we will see if there's a possibility of meeting with them directly so we can be sure we are on the same page.
Speaker 6 | 24:38
Just or will go ahead. But just to add, right, I think that there are different branches of that federal agency. The Coast Guard operates throughout US coastal waters, and a perspective from Puerto Rico is very beneficial.
We absolutely are able to work with them, and we've talked and had discussions that have been very advanced with coastguards around the US and there that we will be compliant in those settings.
So, we don't see a reason why we wouldn't be complying with Puerto Rico. I'll pass to or on, but there's a chain of command within the Coast Guard. We've had discussions at the highest level on other projects there that we are currently considering doing.
We believe that we can achieve these goals. So, yeah, I'll let her continue.
Speaker 7 | 25:25
I have a couple of points. One, I think it would be wise to consider our offers with Guttams as two separate offers. Let's not sacrifice costair's offer on the back of challenges that may be apparent on IGA's site-specific issues.
So, I will kindly ask the evaluation team to make sure that they are looking at two separate sites with two separate predicaments, two separate sets of priorities or sensitivities that may be helpful in resolving some of the issues.
Second, if everyone uses the maximum time allowed under the legislation to evaluate this, there will be challenges with permitting. But if all related parties consider this as an urgency, not a disaster, but urgency to help out Puerto Rico,
and they do not use up the maximum allowed time to process the applications and processes, I think we have a very clear path to delivering power within the stipulated timelines. Third, I think there are alternative approaches to the permitting where there are crossover jurisdictional positions between the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers in relation to federal permitting. So, some Coast Guard PAT issues may take longer, whereas as we have stated in...
I think Godsams has submitted a clarification in that with their submission, some of the processes can be taken up by the Army Corps of Engineers, which may have a faster path to completion. So at least from a commercial prime subcontractor point of view, we see the technical execution not as a challenge. We see a meaningful allocation of time for permits and license provision in the timeline submitted.
But painting with a broad brush and saying that every issue will create a challenge for Agira contaminates the cost-to-sew process, I think we should stay clear from that and evaluate each site separately as they have different solutions and different technologies, different fuel types, different applications.
Ultimately, I think when we can look at this from a Puerto Rico authorities facilitating and the federal authorities not taking the maximum allowed time perspective, there's a clear path to delivering power within the stipulated times.
I think the commercial offer that was presented by Gotham is an amazing offer that should not be an opportunity to miss. But those are my two cents on it. At least from a subcontractor executing the physical works point of view, we see no challenges on the timeline with enough margin for a reasonable, facilitated, and accelerated permitting process allowed. Should we map it out together? Whether we use the Coast Guard channel or as the regulation and legislation permits and suggests, maybe at certain intersections, use the Army Corps of Engineers as the related authority.
I think there is light at the end of the tunnel as far as we are concerned.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 29:25
Thank you for that. I want to make clear that we do so we do separate each project as you just stated. We are not just stating Agira as a fact. We will put our questions in writing specifically for timelines for permitting so you can address them better.
There are challenges for both projects. Obviously, Agira being an estuary is a problem. Coast sewer. Our only concern, at least my concern, is the STS, the ship-to-ship transfers when it needs to be approved by the Coast Guard as well.
Fabian Velez | 30:09
No. Da.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 30:16
But yeah, again, we will put it in writing. I want to make very clear that it's not just a concern that you cannot... Some things are out of our reach for us and Gotham. I understand that. It's not that we're going to say,
"If you can't complete your timeline, we're not going to consider it." It's just that it affects both Gotham and us. Of course, it affects us because we don't get the product in time, and it affects Gotham. For your ability to start your project, obviously, and start.
Speaker 8 | 30:57
Yeah. And look, if people want to make problems and say it's going to take one year, just saying it's going to take one year doesn't help the people of Puerto Rico, right? It doesn't help the power situation.
So what we're saying is if they take the maximum to the day, which I know they have on other circumstances, which we've talked to people at senior levels to try and mitigate that. But if they're going to take the tax amount, they can just because that doesn't help the situation, which I mean is really... You're missing it right now with your power, right?
So we have a wonderful solution at a wonderful price, and we've done this before, many times, we have experience doing it, and we're very enthusiastic to work with Puerto Rico, work with everyone involved to complete that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 31:54
Okay.
Speaker 5 | 31:54
And me add only that here. As you can see, you have a subcontractor very much aligned and working hand in hand with your contractor and a contractor and subcontractor team that is willing to expend every resource that we have in order to make this work for Prepa and for Puerto Rico. You have two residents of Puerto Rico and Juan Carlos and myself.
So we want this to work on a personal level. But we have unmatched resources. Gotham's has unmatched resources within the federal government. They have unmatched relationships. So we plan on bringing all of those to bear in complying with everything that we need to comply with in securing any permit that we need to secure in the fastest turn of a timeline as possible.
You will have that full commitment from this entire team. Usually, you won't have a... What I mean to say is you won't have a contractor that when things get a little bit difficult with a federal agency, we're just going to throw our hands up and say, "It's just taking so long.
Fabian Velez | 32:52
A profession.
Speaker 5 | 33:06
No, we know the importance of this, Puerto Rico, and we are willing to bring all our resources to bear to make that a reality.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 33:14
Thank you, Dan. That's very reassuring. I appreciate that. Okay? I am well aware that you guys did your homework, and I saw the report brought by a Puerto Rico maritime group. I know you consulted with the Coast Guard and everything.
So, for my personal knowledge, I want to ask this question. Are you aware that the postcard stated, at least to us, that in hurricane season normally... Normally, they ask all ships to part from port around 8 to 10 times during the hurricane season. Are you aware of that?
Speaker 7 | 34:10
How did you respond to this? I think there is a little bit of confusion between the definition of ships and how they are positioned. If a ship is... This is purely out of intellectual curiosity, just off the record. On the record, however you want to treat it...
If a ship visits a port and drops one or two small anchors that are conventionally designed to keep that ship at anchor for a very short period of time and very limited weather exposure, the Coast Guard has all the right to ask that ship to vacate the area because those two small anchors will not hold the ship.
However, in a spread mooring arrangement, which we have used in many jurisdictions and permitted and studied it to withstand significant hurricane-level winds, this becomes a permanently moored vessel, and it is not held by two tiny little anchors with two tiny chains that hold the whole ship.
Okay, in that... In that scenario, that is not customary even for the Coast Guard to ask for that the ship, for that ship, to leave. Hence, there is an opening in the legislation that says such vessels may actually be treated as permanent structures that are not. I'm sure Daniel will help with this. Crafts, vessels, different definitions with different wordings.
So we'll actually not qualify as a visiting ship. We will qualify as an existing structure in situ, which is chained, anchored with enough strength to withstand category 4 level hurricanes. Should there be a really catastrophic scenario, we'll be able to vacate the area if needed.
But that frequency is once in every 50 years, rather than eight times a year. However, having said that, yes, there may be an unfortunate coincidence where there's an SDS required in the middle of a hurricane, which may cause an interruption for a day or two.
But in the grand scheme of things, delaying or rescheduling that SDS operation for the visiting ship will not be an impediment to the project, as there will always be enough storage on board for those couple of days during that potential rescheduling.
So all these studies will be submitted to the Coast Guard and wherever the Coast Guard's concerns require us to have a stronger anchoring situation, and that's where the Army Corps of Engineers may necessarily have to step in to qualify this as a permanent structure.
So all these little details are laid out in the legislation. As I have stated my concern about painting with a broad brush between two sides, I have a similar mini-concern that a prime facie visiting ship view or looking through that lens may not be an in-depth analysis of the actual mooring arrangement, for which we are happy to submit a full Mooring arrangement analysis. We did these studies. That hasn't been in the last hundred years. A single natural event in the location where we are proposing for the cost of the year that has required this to happen.
So we are looking at historic metoation data, which is the standard practice globally for this, which is accepted by the US. Government and all its instrumentalities and federal agencies. These studies will be presented. We have presented a version of those already supported by the local experts who have actually suggested these alternative ways to look at this.
I think our view is we are ready, willing and able to execute this rather than looking at a very small potential hiccup. Having a session where this actually can meet all the necessary requirements and explain this and take the path that is prescribed in the regulation and legislation's available.
I think we are quite comfortable executing this project in the given time lines, as I said. Yes, if ever. As Matt has said, if everybody takes the maximum permitted time in the legislation, well, that's a little challenging for sure.
But who would in their right mind try to help Puerto Rico take the maximum prescribed time in the legislation? I don't think that will be constructive for the whole exercise. So we are hoping that with the Puerto Rico authorities' support and the desire from the federal agencies to make this solution available for Puerto Rico, the solutions are available.
It's an amazing commercial offer that the team has put together. Gotham has gone to extreme lengths to make that possible, so we are happy to follow through with that with all our resources. As Daniel said,
we have all the answers that are available in the technical engineering universe possible.
Speaker 5 | 40:06
And Miguel, if I may add to Orhan Bay's point, one thing we would appreciate is the extent and I think this you suggested. Or maybe it was Maria who suggested that an eventual potential meeting with the Coast Guard might help address these things. What we would not like is for generalized, diffused questions or doubts to affect our proposal. We have never heard from the Coast Guard and we haven't seen other than statements potentially made by Koso or others at the Coast Guard, we haven't seen any actual concern or objection to the extent there are, and I'm not suggesting that there may not be to the extent there are any. As you just heard from Orhan Bey himself, we will have technical legal engineering responses to any concern. This is not a fly-by-night operation. We've thought really hard about this submission, and we have the capabilities and the experience to address all of the concerns as a lawyer. What I would not like to see, if at all possible, is that simply because there are doubts, that decisions are made based on those doubts without trying to address them with the required level of specificity. Does that make sense?
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 41:30
Yes, of course. And, okay, I mean, of course, I understand, and that's why we're here. I exactly... I really like Gotham's proposal. I think it's a very elegant proposal for both sides that we'll address. I'll address the San Juan side later,
but for at least for age and costsur, I think it's a very elegant solution. I just want to make sure that Gotham understands that there's going to be some pushback, not from us, but from the federal agencies that already reached out to us. We, like Maria stated, already had a meeting with all of them and basically asked generalized questions because we are not experts on this.
So, it was generalized questions, and we want to refine those questions and get them to be answered by you or them so we can get this as quick as possible. Our mission here is not to judge or to say this is not going to be possible. It's just to make sure that Gotham's proposal is aligned,
and that's the best position for Well.
Speaker 7 | 42:49
Me the too, and that's music to my ears. Human life and safety environment and eventually the safety and well-being of the assets in that order is a clear priority for us. Any question anybody has, we are happy to answer. All we seek is the opportunity to hear those questions and address them properly rather than not knowing exactly what the question or what the concern is and trying to second guess what someone may or may not be concerned about.
Because our priorities, along with yours, are the same: human life and safety first, environment next, and the well-being of our assets next. Eventually, all this results in delivering reliable good economics power to the people of Puerto Rico.
If we can achieve this, and if there's any question that does not hide behind half answers or half questions, anything that you can scientifically engineer-wise, demonstrate and explain within the regulations and legislations available at our disposal here,
I think we are ready to fire on all cylinders as all the stakeholders involved in this project.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 44:15
Perfect. That's perfect. Thank you. An okay next question for the age solution are you is your proposal stating that you're going to use a gris already e tanks that are the diesel tanks that are on site and is Gotham gonna is Gotham going to bring in fuel to the ag airport to store in are you. What I'm trying to say is are you planning to store your fuel on the existing tanks or are you or is your proposal specifying to buy the fuel from the plant?
Speaker 7 | 45:01
Our proposal is an all-inclusive energy price where we are responsible for procuring, supplying, storing, and delivering the fuel necessary for the power generation. The only common resource we are contemplating to use is to be able to discharge into the water cooling system of the EA power plant so that we stay within the limits of the ambient water conditions.
So, we are not relying on any of the local GRIS infrastructure operations as required and requested by the RFP. Buttoms asked us what we can do technically, and we have together presented an offer that is standalone, self-sufficient without using any of the resources in Agira to maintain the all-in energy price and the supply of sustainable power.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 45:56
Okay, so where are you planning to store the fuel on the barge.
Speaker 7 | 46:05
The power ship itself has its own self-storage, and it's necessary. Depending on the supply frequencies, we may have an alongside smaller vessel to support that storage from time to time.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 46:21
Okay, let me just write this down. Okay.
Speaker 5 | 46:29
So again, to Gunner's point, to the extent you want us to send... To the extent you want to send us some of these questions in writing and want rather than relying on all our memories and notes... Although I'm sure your notes are excellent, but we are happy to respond to these specific questions that you're asking in writing as well.
I think I mentioned.
Speaker 7 | 46:55
We will receive.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 46:56
A RFI letter from that. Daniel did all these questions will be put in writing. We always do this.
Speaker 5 | 47:03
Okay, perfect.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 47:05
But I... I like to be personal and know I ask them. I like to know the people and know the team that I'm working with, so I like to ask all the questions. Of course, I'm not specifying that they need to be answered right away.
If you can't just say, "Hey, I need to go back, I need to verify this information and get back to you," that's understandable and understandable, and, yeah, we will be putting them in writing.
Speaker 5 | 47:36
Perfect. No, and me and we... I can't overstate how much we appreciate this opportunity to talk to you and get this feedback from you personally and not just in writing. So, we thank you for that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 47:48
Okay, so let's address a little bit about the proposal. Your proposal for San Juan. Thank you for that, by the way. I know it was very ambiguous and it's very difficult. We didn't have all the information. We still don't have all the information of where we can put in more power in Puerto Rico.
So, I would like to ask you a favor, basically. And I would like to get them to take a look at Cambalacha at the Cambalacha plant and see if there's anything that can be done there. San Juan is very complicated. Specifically, that little area is so much ship traffic that a MORT craft anywhere would be a problem.
But maybe a better alternative. They did tell me that there was a little space available in Cambalacha to draw in more power. It doesn't have its own port, but there's a port close by that is closed. Nobody is using it, so I just want to ask if you can take a look at it and come back to me and say, "This is possible or not possible."
Okay.
Speaker 6 | 49:23
Yeah, we'll take that into consideration, and we can take any other sites into consideration as well and do technical analysis on any and all of them.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 49:31
Yeah, I'll ask for my as because my is a possibility. I just don't know if their infrastructure can handle more power. But I'll ask for my as because it's fairly easy because that you could board right next to the plant.
I'll ask for my as and let you know. But for now, Cambalacha is the one that they came back to me and said that they might be available, say set available.
Speaker 6 | 49:59
Yeah. The only thing that I would ask you for further on that is essentially which port are you referring to close to Cambalacha? So sorry about my terrible pronunciation.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 50:10
There I think there was a closed tuna factory or something really fairly close by.
Speaker 6 | 50:20
Okay, we'll look into it. Thank you.
Speaker 8 | 50:23
And we have a place in San Juan to identify the park.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 50:28
No. In San Juan, it's... We're fighting that battle for many reasons right now. So one is that it's very complicated, I guess.
Speaker 6 | 50:38
Like I guess what MC was asking, I guess is if let's just pretend, right? We were to buy a piece of land that existed there or agree to some lease agreement with a piece of land that existed there, and we were able to figure out, I guess, the difficult space that we would be able to take up. Would that enable us to basically make that more of a viable option? Or is it just.
Speaker 8 | 51:03
We've identified a piece of property?
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 51:05
It could. Yeah, it definitely could. It's not off the table, and it definitely could.
Speaker 6 | 51:14
Thank you.
Speaker 8 | 51:16
Very fa.
Speaker 6 | 51:19
So yeah, we talk about a piece of property that we're able to find. We might be able to find a piece of property that we're able to use if we can send further correspondence to you guys on that, and we will expand on that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 51:33
Okay, I appreciate that. Yeah, and I know San Juan has some advantages. Obviously, there's already LNG in San Juan that can be utilized for other applications. So yeah, I understand. But yeah, if you can bring another option, that would be perfect. The option that presented now and again. These are. Negotiate, you know, it's part of the negotiation process and it's not that I'm saying would you put the would you but this value your offer is not viable we're not going to consider it.
Yeah, it could be plausible, depending on your position or what you're stating is you can find somewhere to two more basically understood.
Speaker 6 | 52:22
Yeah, we can sort that out and come up with suggestions on all of that. All these different things for San Juan, Mi, and Kache. We'll take that internally and work through that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 52:36
Okay, Orhan, I just wanted to quickly review on the AGR side. I know you stated that you're going to use the existing discharge for... I know the advantages of it.
I've worked many years in that plant, so I know that using the existing discharge canal would help dissipate the heat and take that hot water off the bay. That. I'm not saying no. Yeah, it is a possibility.
It is a good possibility. We just need to feed it by generating and preparing to make sure that they agree with that proposal and then how that affects their NPDS permits and discharge permits because this will be added to that.
Speaker 7 | 53:35
Well, in reality, it should not be a concern because all plants in the portfolio are actually operating below installed boilerplate capacity. So, if their permits and licenses were for the design capacity, any capacity that is not being used today will only substitute that retired or dysfunctional capacity.
According to our technical team, that should not be a concern. That will take it over the originally permitted threshold levels. However, our entire premise regarding sites, locations, and everything, we wanted this to be a no-nonsense solution offering.
Okay. We could technically do everything, but in a timeline of 60 to 90 days with all the constraints around it and a little bit of the sensitivities everybody has developed in the last couple of months on how to execute this. We wanted this to be the simplest and most straightforward possible way. We are 100% confident we can execute. Hence, that was the original proposal. Any minor modifications that are required by Puerto Rico, we are happy to adopt and implement, but that may have a little bit of time and implication on the actual execution. We are happy to take this task and work on it for sure. My concern is if the need is there, any alternative sites and alternative applications, we are discussing those. They may take a little longer than desired to properly evaluate.
That's why our base offer was based on whatever the operating capacity is, based on whatever the license capacity is, without going outside the perimeters of the installed boilerplate capacities of the existing plants and facilities at locations. We just wanted to fit in and give the power the cheapest power, the quickest possible power to the grid.
The request from Gotham was for us to put all our technical skill sets together to come up with what is the art of really no-nonsense execution in the given time frame. Everything else, whether it is San Juan, whether it is Comparia, whether it is alternatives, discharge of the cooling in a Jira, these are all technically doable things. They may take a little more time. We just wanted to make sure that our original offering was within the parameters of the RFI and RFP that was put out so that the evaluating team at least would have something that 99.9% complies with their constraints so that we can actually get power to the Puerto Ricans as quickly as possible. At least in my opinion, it's an amazing cost advantage today.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 56:53
Okay, perfect, and I appreciate that.
Speaker 7 | 56:58
I just wanted to do... I had turned off my camera. I forgot that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 57:03
No worries. I want to make sure that you understand that we, as a Dr to be, are going to be the facilitators of this. And the reason I'm bringing all this up is not to bring you as... You get to fix this. This is our concern, that this might be a concern to Prepa, P3A, or anything else.
I want Gotham to be prepared with any answer that needs to happen. If, let's say Prepa says no, we don't want you on our discharge.
Speaker 7 | 57:39
Okay? That feels like you're focusing on costs. So, if they are that sensitive, okay. If the redesigning and reengineering of that discharge is not to their liking, okay, let them live without the additional 120 MW. All joking aside, I just want to say that I don't want to contaminate the evaluation of an otherwise perfectly executable offer for some tangential discussion that may or may not give the best result.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 58:21
I understand that. I'm going to state again that everything is evaluated individually for each project that you presented. It's not that I'm evaluating Gotham as a whole. I'm evaluating Gotham as a proposal for costs, and the proposal for SAC one individually. Thank you.
Speaker 7 | 58:42
Okay. We try to debug each offer on a technical level, on its own merit, on its own site constraints, and to propose what was, in our, at least technical opinion, the most executable within the given timelines.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 59:00
No, I understand. We are all here on this conversation. We work in the project management, so we know that as a project is presented, it never ends as originally presented. So, it's a conversation, right? We're having a conversation, we're having a discussion within what are the technical terms or what are the conditions that we can accept or customs can provide and to reach out to acceptable terms and conditions to work with.
Speaker 7 | 59:34
That is all I can say to support this. Anything and everything we have in our technical and commercial arsenal. Bottom's has at their disposal to make it into something that works for Puerto Rico. We will not hold anything back to make that happen. It may be... They may have separate timelines and separate works. Stream tracks. One project may be going in a different direction, and the other one may, with a joint understanding, take an alternative route and timeline.
It's for Gotham and Puerto Rican authorities to decide. But from an America's Power Solutions point of view, whatever we have is at their disposal.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:00:19
Okay, perfect. Okay, so for now, that's all the questions that I have, and we do still have a couple of minutes left. Is there any question on Gotham that you want to address?
Speaker 8 | 01:00:36
The only question I would have is the timing of where this is, just so we know, because I assume you know the next date will be in person in Puerto Rico, and you know this is the last week of summer. There are people all over the world on the screen here that we all want to participate.
So, if you could give us a better idea of some of the timing, that would be helpful.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:00:59
Sure. I can't be specific on timing because I don't control the people that are gonna say, we're gonna but it's gonna be soon. This... Maria, go ahead.
Speaker 4 | 01:01:14
Yes, thank you. PPI is expecting a recommendation by tomorrow, so we're moving fast today, taking everything into consideration so we can make a recommendation of selected proponents to initiate contract negotiations with them by tomorrow.
So we're breathing down our neck. We have a lot of pressure to do this by tomorrow close of business day. And what happens with contract negotiations after that? Well, that's going to depend on how effectively we can work with the proponents and the selected
Okay.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:01:53
That's so. Yeah, to your question, if you want to see my bunny, you can come to where... Don't you go. I'll take care.
Speaker 8 | 01:02:08
If we here.
Speaker 5 | 01:02:09
I'll take care of that bunny. Miguel, I have one quick question. If the Gotham team didn't have any or if Orhan Bay and Maria and others on the Americas Power doesn't have any but any sense you can give us about where we are in the process in terms of how many other proponents have submitted bids that would be helpful to sort of understand the lay of the land.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:02:37
I can't really disclose that, Danae, but I can tell you that Gotham is being considered and as Mail stated, we are... They're breathing that next to have a decision by tomorrow to start negotiations. Okay, so the expected timeline is that P3A will have a recommendation by tomorrow, and after that the negotiations could start as soon as
Okay.
Speaker 5 | 01:03:14
Understood, thank you. Mi.
Speaker 4 | 01:03:18
I have a question, was Kam able to... I haven't had an opportunity to discuss with Fabienne. The correspondent received during the weekend. Did Gotham respond to the letter that was sent out on Saturday?
Speaker 5 | 01:03:31
Yes.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:03:32
Yeah.
Speaker 4 | 01:03:34
Okay, thank you.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:03:35
Okay, so again, we will be putting these questions into writing. We will try to get that today afternoon. As we're talking to you today, we have other meetings until probably five. So we'll try to get that today if not tomorrow morning. Go ahead.
Speaker 8 | 01:04:02
The only thing I would finish on is the only thing that we, I think, don't have an exact answer on is how the other sides will react to our responses, as we said earlier in timing-wise. So these people want to make it very difficult for us and make everything the hardest, highest level for timing of the Coast Guard, they can.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:04:25
So to your question, these responses, we're trying to jump the gun to the responses. And these responses will be part of the negotiations, and I don't think they will greatly affect our decision from today to tomorrow, but they will be a part of the big part of the negotiations.
So yeah, to your question, yeah.
Speaker 6 | 01:04:50
I'll have to make sense. Yeah.
Speaker 5 | 01:04:52
Understood that's that actually clarifies a lot. Thank you, go ahead.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 01:05:00
Hi. Right. I just have a question that the financial advisor is asking. She's saying that although we require the financial statement to be audited, apparently what we receive is not from Gotham but it is from another financial company that will be in charge.
And we're going to have to send another RFI just to clarify that because in that case, she's saying that it will be needed for Gotham to have these other financial companies to sign the contract.
So, that's basically what she's telling us.
Speaker 6 | 01:05:42
So she's saying that basically the other company needs to sign a contract with us.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 01:05:47
She says, Gotham is not a new company, but they did not submit the financial statement audited as required as part of the RFP requirements. But we receive financial statements for another company that's assuming the financial part of the contract.
She's saying that company will have to sign the contract. We need to evaluate those too. So we need to clarify that. We are going to be sending you a correspondence just to make sure that we can have that part clarified before any moving forward negotiations.
Okay? That's something we need to understand.
Speaker 6 | 01:06:34
Rights. Yeah, understood.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 01:06:39
All right, any further questions? Yeah, I know they're going to be many, and we're going to see each other a lot, so we might as well get along with each other.
Speaker 5 | 01:06:50
I hope so. We and I truly hope that we get to see all of you a lot. So thank you very much for your time, everyone.
Fabian Velez | 01:07:01
Bye. Thank you. Bye.