Fabian Velez | 00:13
Yes.
Speaker 2 | 00:15
See? Joseph. Yeah.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 00:29
Six.
Fabian Velez | 00:34
I'm over there. Caral.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 00:52
Daba can cor me people. Okay, 4 minutes.
Fabian Velez | 00:58
Dia okay.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 01:00
No.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 01:01
It preal I.
Fabian Velez | 01:21
5I I saw it was a local. I would follow the contract management can say you're going to know, you're going to get, you're going to get... to Bungan and Saluma. Yeah, Tavis.
Sa if I can.
No, Fati again.
Paso lago present and okay, hey Ram, send kind of hey and corners a year.
[Laughter] Melia representan.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 03:24
On.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 03:24
The second time, I see, it's the local present and overall, demo the SE punto sing con conqu laposa k on that point.
Speaker 6 | 03:45
So you know, assumptions can come some total men sasung simple cento guarantee says okay, hell, you know, so your treat tongue I say, "When I get to the tea, the whole beta quadro, so got to quadroo say, so what I do is Jos. Okay, solo al mean polke, els poca eopretal, so essum sutter fujo parag that's batal at the end."
So, are you? Not Bonita. I want it a me so for sure. Yeah, well, loable per so loaval above our pay grade, I don't go.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 04:57
Go ptolina rustfatico l Josue a terminal. Okay. It's an iPhone. E wam b taa muum batant parik. Yeah. For female contract forever and by la e come in dead end on experiment dead end a mail no goon persuenos aglade come kaga kaka.
Fabian Velez | 05:23
One.
yvelez@recomspr.net | 05:33
Youment it that it's no.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 05:36
No.
Fabian Velez | 05:38
Okay the tamolito Miguel Vicente Marila tangi. Okay.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 06:18
Hereo.
Ya.
Fabian Velez | 06:45
Yes. Alg faultal game mass. The power.
Speaker 7 | 07:16
Rule.
Fabian Velez | 07:20
The LLaMA Minodita loa Eddy.
Speaker 7 | 07:24
Hello.
Speaker 8 | 07:26
And he's trying to join right now. He's using the code.
Speaker 6 | 07:29
Thomas.
Speaker 2 | 07:31
Hey, how are you guys? It's me doing.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 07:45
Puerto Ricoulu.
Speaker 7 | 07:54
Hello.
Okay. The min avenue in the Yamo Rab. Okay. Da.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 08:42
Okay. Five.
Fabian Velez | 08:54
I just sent to Eddie an a request to join.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 09:05
We'll give him a couple of minutes.
Fabian Velez | 09:07
Okay.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 12:25
All right, let's start. Li can join us whenever he can. We have a limited time, and we have to still do some stuff after this, so thank you, everyone, for joining. And a short noise, of course.
First of all, I'm gonna address, did you guys receive our r fi on Saturday? So I want to start with that. And as you.
Speaker 8 | 13:00
They responded to it and sent yeah, back in. Yeah.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 13:04
As you all know, these are the P3A and the PREP AR basically stating and telling us these were the last approved conditions or the terms, the last approved terms that were left off our expectation contract that was submitted to PREP and approved by PREPA.
So I want to start by obviously addressing the big elephant in the room. And they want to start obviously the conversations and where we left off, obviously the... We all know that PREP had a determination to proceed with a new RFP to change the timeline EE of this RFP making it available for a longer period, which is better for us, better for you.
But this did bring some assumptions with it. First of all, the assumption is that a longer contract would reduce our pricing and that it would give Puerto Rico a more stable power supply for a longer period of time.
Having said that, it's not that we are imposing those conditions. I'm just saying that those are the conditions that P3 obviously is willing to accept immediately and is willing to move forward as quickly as possible on it.
So it's something you don't have to answer. Now, I know you answered that, and I'm sorry I haven't had the time today. It's been hectic today.
Speaker 8 | 14:58
What are you referencing exactly with the pricing?
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 15:05
Well, the pricing is because I don't think.
Speaker 8 | 15:10
If they were allowed to change.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 15:12
I don't think anything else changed, right?
Speaker 8 | 15:14
Yeah, I'm confused because we had the... I mean, we were already awarded and given the projects. So if this is the same conditions they're willing to accept, why were we already accepted?
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 15:27
The conditions did change. It is now not a one to three-year contract, but a ten-year contract. So if you had a chance to read the pre-per prepersolution.
Speaker 8 | 15:45
Yeah, we responded to the... We just gave it to you guys in the portal. Our response. Yeah.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 15:50
But was our letter, but the pre-per resolutions basically state that one of the reasons to change the RP to ten years is because of the conditions that were provided due to the RP. It was better for Puerto Rico to do a longer contract because it would provide better pricing in the long run
and a more stable system basically. So that was basically the pre-resolution, long but on that specific reference to the contract that was sent to the pre-per, there was their decision.
Speaker 8 | 16:43
Did you guys read the response that we sent in?
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 16:46
I haven't, I'm sorry. Landon, I haven't had the time to read it yet today. Okay.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 16:55
I highlight on this. This is Marila. Sorry, I don't have my camera. I'm in a situation with my daughter on and off with the laboratory and the doctors. So, are you referring to the answer to the RFI where you referenced the always the contract term, establishing that you are definitely compromising after ten years?
Speaker 8 | 17:17
This is the written response to the letter you guys sent out on Saturday, and told us to have a Monday before this meeting. Those were going to be the discussion points that we're going to talk about for those key points that you guys had addressed.
So, we addressed those in that letter. I mean, I sent the letter to you guys, if you guys want to read it or we can talk about it. So, the fixed price that we had originally was with the $600 million of mobilization money upfront and with.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 17:55
Okay, Deanna, can you please put yourself on mute? Thank you. Okay, so let's... I hear someone... okay.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 18:04
I got it here in Landon perfect.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 18:09
Okay, so you're okay, obviously, you did establish a ten-year contract. You did incorporate in your proposal that you were considering a two-year extension from the ten-year contract, so that what you're saying is that you're eliminating the two-year extension.
Speaker 8 | 18:30
Yeah, we'll be at the two. That was just an option, but ten years is... We're already at ten years. Yeah, that was the price that it was perfect.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 18:40
Okay, so in the fixed price here, you're saying our initial proposal included an all-inclusive energy rate of 24/kWh, which deviates otherwise. Rates of 18.20 for Gossur. As outlined in part 2C2, the original rates of 18 and 23 were calculated based on an assumed 8,000 hours of annual runtime and an upfront mobilization payment of 600 million to cover infrastructure and setup costs. Due to the absence of mobilization funding and the imposition of new tariffs, which have increased our operational capital costs, we proposed a revised all-inclusive energy rate of 24/kWh for both Agita and Costaur to ensure financial viability over the 10-year contract term. We believe this adjusted rate fairly reflects the current economic conditions while maintaining a competitive offering. We are open to engaging in further discussions to better align this rate with the expectations set forth by the BPO. Contingent upon, among other things, BPO providing a comprehensive financial rationale to substantiate such a request.
Additionally, please consider that another potential strategy to reduce the kilowatt-hour cost would involve BPO assuming responsibility for the expenses associated with mobilization, infrastructure, interconnection, operations and maintenance, fuel procurement, and others.
Okay. When we wrote the RSI and I saw the contract, the 8,000-hour commitment was inserted in the model contract, right? So you're eliminating that condition?
Speaker 8 | 20:35
No, we need to come to an agreement on a certain capital recovery right now because right now, what you guys are presenting is there's no guarantee of minimum run hours, no fixed fee rate, no anything.
So we need to come to an agreement on whether it's the minimum run hours of 8,000 hours or a certain fixed fee if we don't use a certain amount of hours for us to maintain capital recovery. And that's how Thomas and he has multiple BPOs as they have currently that operate the same way.
So this is very normal.
Speaker 2 | 21:08
I do want to highlight the 18.9 and 20.3 from the previous RFP, which did not include the 600 million mobilization. We sent a table over, and there were two tables. A table on the left hand, I think. Landon, you sent this over. The table on the left hand side was that, which was the per kilowatt-hour price if a mobilization payment was included.
And the table on the right was without any mobilization. And so that was about AAI, I think it was somewhere... It averaged about a one-penny-a-kilowatt-hour higher with that or a penny and a half. But you have the tables on the tables as well. It said 8,000 hours minimum runtime.
So at some point, somebody took that information and published it. It was in the press, and that wasn't what we presented. We didn't say we would provide 18.9 and 20.3 at EDGA and 20.3 at Coast to Serve without any minimum run hours.
We said that again, and we didn't say we would provide that unless a $600 million mobilization fee was paid. So, I don't know how that happened, but it happened. So, that's... I feel it's necessary to correct that error.
Right. Again, that's what was published in the press and what was communicated verbally in different press conferences, but it isn't what we actually presented. The second thing is as drafted here, but by land and is...
I mean, we have had an increase in cost in the ensuing period, and the tariffs have gone up significantly since we submitted this initially. So.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 23:06
Well, thank you, Mr. McAndrew. I would like to circle back a little bit to help you understand maybe how this situation occurred. What we presented for the approval for the PREB was the contract that was discussed with the letters sent to our advocate where with the certifications of the non-negotiable terms, which included obviously the contract term and the no-guarantee provisions. That was what we sent after we presented the contract. The BRET asked us for the full package of what was presented by our expectations.
So, we provided the RFP that we put out and, obviously, the proposals that were received. So, they saw the table with the ten-year provisions. And then, when they saw that... What? That was at 09:19.
That's probably what created the situation where they put out the resolution saying, "Well, we'd rather have a 19. So it's most probably that they did not take into consideration that the price was subject to the payment of the $600 million and the $8,000 commitment.
So they were the ones who made it public with the resolution that they came out with.
Speaker 2 | 24:25
Fair enough.
Speaker 9 | 24:27
Hello everyone. I'm sorry, Thomas, let me answer that in real quick. Hi, Marila. How are you? How's everyone doing? On. Hey, how are you on that table? It was clear it specifically said we gave them when we submitted that table early on.
Okay, when we submit a proposal, we like to give all the information, right? We want to give as much information as possible so you guys can make the best decision, right? So that's what we did.
So there were two tables there. One table that had the 18 cents was really clear where it says, if the government gave us mobilization of $600 million plus $8,000, got that down to 18 cents. The other table was if we take on all the capital ourselves.
Okay, all the financing ourselves with a certain amount of hours. I believe the numbers were at 19 cents for cost for gear and 20 cents for cost of labor. Yes, correct. So our confusion was where we were confused because we've never received anything from 3PPO from the time that we were awarded.
Then we all of a sudden find out that there was a rebid. Right? We just want to be helpful, so we'll play along. It's just now we're at this stage where huge amounts of resources have been spent between our companies. We've spent over $2.5 million dollars in engineering, hotels and resources. For this bit, we've given everything that has been asked of us and more, okay?
Thomas has spent time away from his family. I spent six months. I just left the island last week from March. I have four other companies that I own, and I've, you know, I've been completely committed to this process.
And so it's just we're just trying to get answers, that's all.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 26:49
I understand, of course. Again, Eddie, I'm not III the resolution that the preb came out with. We just follow orders. So I understand where you're coming from, and we know we understand and we know the commitment that our expectations have put into this project, and we appreciate that, of course, and that's why we're sitting here with you. We want to move this along as quickly as possible.
If we're talking about something that we've sat and discussed for a long time, we just want to get the information to the preb again with what they've requested and their side as quickly as possible so we can move this process along.
Okay?
Speaker 9 | 27:55
Definitely. I think Miguel and Marila are family now, right? I've seen you guys so much. I think this year I have to get you guys Christmas gifts or something.
Fabian Velez | 28:04
What about me? And I want. I want Christmas. Gift. Gift too. You know.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 28:08
I don't even mention that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 28:11
Yeah.
Speaker 9 | 28:12
Fab yes, my buddy. Fabian, yes.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 28:18
So I just want to run to a couple of questions very quickly with you guys. It doesn't have to deal with, obviously, what you submitted. It's just questions from the proposal that I have and the proposal you're stating that the LNG forecast software is you're still planning to supply that by the existing pipeline, right?
Speaker 2 | 28:45
You can do either, right? We can use the existing pipeline. What we learned in the first RFE is that the vaporization capacity is available for 200 MW. It's actually available for 400. The PREP owns the vaporization capacity.
Again, what we were told is that there is 400 available in vaporization capacity. So it seemed like the most efficient path was basically to use the existing infrastructure. With that said, if required, we can bring in our own LNG in a completely independent path. The logistics get a little bit challenging, but we'll manage that.
So we can do either again. It just seemed like, given the fact that there's a lot of unused capacity in vaporization, we should try to coordinate and cooperate on the LNG supply. We would actually procure the commodity and then we would make whatever payments to PREPA for that vaporization capacity that's available.
If that's not an option, then we'll bring on our own LNG completely separate from that existing infrastructure.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 29:52
Okay? No. I just wanted to know. Yes. Your plan is to bring your own commodity, so you're bringing your own LNG to the tank and you're just using the infrastructure and the reclassification. Yes, the capacity, yes, that's it.
But you're not.
Speaker 2 | 30:10
You're not.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 30:11
And we were directly from naturgi.
Speaker 2 | 30:13
Right? But maybe or may not. But we again, we would be responsible for procuring the commodity regardless of who we bought it from. We may buy it from a trader, we may buy it from somebody else. Regardless, we would use the existing vaporization capacity and the gas distribution pipe to that site.
Again, there would be a tap to that, to the 600-pound. I think there's a 300-pound pipe. We would tap into the 600-pound pipe. But again, working in conjunction with PREPA to use that existing capacity.
If at any point in time, there wasn't enough capacity, then we would bring in our own supply and our own commodity and our own regs. Okay? Vaization.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 30:55
Yeah, alright, now I just wanna. I wanna make it clear so when we sit down and honest, you guys, I want to. I want to stress something very important. We need to the t vdeo needs to give a recommendation to the P3 tomorrow.
So the P3 will have the recom our recommendation tomorrow and we can start talking about any negotiable terms on Wednesday.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 31:35
Okay.
Speaker 2 | 31:36
That sounds sounds.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 31:37
We want to move this quickly, please.
Speaker 2 | 31:42
So, yeah, no argument here.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 31:47
I like you guys, but I don't want to see that much.
Speaker 9 | 31:56
I get it.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 31:57
We go. Okay, so for LNG and I-Ray, it's still going to be the same plan.
Speaker 2 | 32:05
Yes.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 32:07
For the trucking.
Speaker 2 | 32:09
But it's a combination of trucking and FSRU, and we're working out the final details on that. We've got it covered again, whatever the split ends up being between containerized and the barge fees.
So, we're finalizing the details, but again, it's covered. It's more than covered on the total volumes.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 32:30
Okay, perfect. I just wanted to... I saw the FSRU. That's why I brought it up because I saw the FSRU rate. I just wanted to make sure that... Do you already know this?
But I just wanted to emphasize the complications of Agra being an estuary. A natural estuary and having the population of the biggest population of manatees in Puerto Rico. Just when you talk to Sapphire, that's still going to be Sapphire's expire. Please reiterate that. That to take that into consideration when you're bringing the FSRU. We're thinking about doing that, and to take that into consideration that that's going to have a complicated permit.
Okay. For Fish and Wildlife and probably the Coast Guard for any SDS that's going to happen on South Island and just N&EPA. I don't know if the FSRU has cooling equipment for if it cools with water.
Speaker 9 | 33:54
Right? That's one of the things, Miguel, that we took into consideration because we went through this with the container ship and the other barges that were going to come in. So, we know the specifications to be able to use that area.
So, we're 100% aware of that. So, we won't be discharging any water into that area or anything that's harmful to the manatees, but yes, we are aware of that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 34:25
Okay.? Perfect. Alright, so this is kind of a two-stage question I wanted to ask you. In your timeline, you state that basically, for the entire project, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm looking at so many things right now.
It's around 150 days of completion.
Speaker 9 | 34:56
Yes. Okay.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 35:00
Is there a way to do a scalable object now? Not just saying that in 150 days, the entire project will be running, but maybe you can tell me. You don't have to answer now. Miguel, we can have 90.
Speaker 9 | 35:20
Yes. Miguel. So, yeah, that's right. So, one of the things that we took into consideration when we were designing everything was that we have equipment like 200 megs that we can have immediately, right? Because we know the urgency in Puerto Rico, and then we're going to ramp up. I can have that schedule sent to you,
but yes, we have equipment that's available immediately that we can have within the first 30 to 45 days, and then scale it up to the 150 days. Yes.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 35:55
Yeah. If you can get that to me, that would be super helpful. Just because I can give the prep and P3 an idea of when around 90 days you can have this much power, and you can have the whole project running in about this amount of time.
Speaker 9 | 36:15
Yes, sir. Yes, sir, I know that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 36:19
Go ahead.
Speaker 2 | 36:21
We'll get that to you this afternoon, I guess.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 36:23
Thank you, Thomas, I appreciate that. So, as part of that question, you have a separate array into two parts, correct?
Speaker 2 | 36:34
Yes.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 36:34
So part of our one is gonna be the one that's gonna be connected to the bar, on unit number one, and then part number two is going to be the one that connected to the combined cycle.
Speaker 2 | 36:46
I think it's the other way around. The initial GE-compliant bid, not the TVD, is connected to the combined cycle, and that's the TM2500. Then, the other piece will be connected. It's separated into two pieces. One is under the compliant, under the 400MW. The other is the 200.
But basically, we have 600 total. At GE, we're going to have 400 going to unit number one to that step-up transformer. Then, we're going to have 200 going through the combined cycle. Again, it's broken into two separate categories: GE-compliant and GE-TVD or whatever it was. I don't have that in front of me, but yes, it's a total of 600MW. Yes, that's how that set up.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 37:41
Okay, perfect. I just wanted to figure out which one was going to go first.
Speaker 2 | 37:47
The one that's going first is the one going to the combined cycle. So.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 37:53
And the one that's going first is the Siemens or the.
Speaker 2 | 37:57
The TM 20, the TM 25 hundreds. Yeah, the TM. Eddie was mentioning that the ones that we can move the fastest. It's the TM 2500 said the fastest kind of period from go to commission and those will be interconnected at the combined cycle that they have the basically they don't match the low side voltage and it's 13 two kv.
So whereas on the other side, we need we would have to step those up. So all the turbines generate between 13.2 and 13.8 kV. To go into unit one, you have to step up to 25 kV, which just takes more time to get set up.
We figured the fastest path to power to hit the 90 days is going to be going into the combined cycle.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 38:47
Okay, that's perfect. I know that the EMS are dual fuel, so yes. Are you planning to run them in diesel first or straight up LNG.
Speaker 9 | 39:01
Yeah, so that was one of the things that Thomas and I discussed. We're going to have them up and running in diesel first while we build out the LG infrastructure. Yes, but yet that's our that is our plan.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 39:16
Okay. Your plan is to store the diesel in pre-packed tanks and you're going to procure the diesel and bring it into the plant.
Speaker 2 | 39:25
And ideally, there is some... Again, this is a little bit like the natural gas at COA. Ideally, we work on some deal directly with Prepa on how to best accomplish this because what we don't want to do is try to step on each other's toes on the logistics.
So there'd be some discussion with Krap, but what's the best way to manage this? Do you like if we buy, we can pay you, we can bring in barges, whatever. We still know we have to have those discussions with Prepa on the best way to manage the logistics.
But yes, we're responsible for the diesel and we just need to figure out the best way to manage it so we don't cause any issues.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 40:05
Okay, a question for you, Thomas, is there going to be any deviation on price if you're running on diesel?
Speaker 2 | 40:14
There is I think we there yeah, there was a there's a it's an another charge, it's just it I think it adds about ten cents a kilowatt hour, but again, we want to minimize.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 40:27
I minimize sorry, I'm sorry, I see it here. It's in your table.
Speaker 2 | 40:31
We want to minimize the time that.
Speaker 8 | 40:33
Ten cents per kilo in the table.
Speaker 2 | 40:35
I think we want to minimize the time we're on diesel, but it's a faster path to power solar diesel. You have 200 MW of diesel at that price, and while we're getting everything going on the LNG side,
there's a step down in price.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 40:54
Okay, alright, I don't think my questions were quite obviously, we've answered so many questions. A lot hasn't changed, a lot has changed and a lot hasn't changed, so I already know a lot of the questions. We have some time.
So, do you have any questions for us or anybody to ask? Any other questions? I think legal team, do you have any questions?
mquinones@recomspr.net | 41:41
I think that if we did have a meeting with P3 and they were very emphatic in the note-taker, pay et cetera, so we definitely need to understand a clear understanding on what we're going to present regarding the guarantees required by Power.
And yeah, you were expressing earlier that the commitment, the 8,000 hours per annual commitment, if not presented as an 8,000 annual commitment, we would have to pay some kind of guarantee. What you.
Speaker 9 | 42:22
Yeah, I'm sorry, Mary Elop, the thing is this, right, the whole infrastructure, you're looking at a $2.5 billion project, okay? And the way it sits right now, we have Enchanted Rock has big investors, we have big investors, right? BlackRock, Apollo, what they're looking at is how they're going to recuperate their investment in this project, right?
And when the rules of engagement state that we have to put this equipment there, but there's no guarantee that we're going to make a dollar or that these equipment is going to. Then there's no clear path to capital recovery,
and that's a scary thing. I don't want to sound offensive, but with the PREPA credit rating and a lot of the problems that went on, it makes Puerto Rico a very risky investment for some investors. Now, our relationship with them, we've been able to bring them to the table and agree that if we have certain provisions that they would love to join and partner up and help the people of Puerto Rico with no problem.
But there has to be some type of commitment that we're able to pay or recover some of this capital.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 43:53
Okay, Eddie, I understand what I'm going to ask of you. It is to translate the run hours, the 8,000 hours or whatever you need, into a fixed fee or let's say.
Speaker 9 | 44:11
Yeah.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 44:11
We did what is the capacity payment.
Speaker 9 | 44:15
Right? We did. There's a table there that has even the minimum run, say, of two with the megawatt hours.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 44:24
And it's... I have the hours. I just want to put this into a capacity payment.
Speaker 9 | 44:36
Okay? So.
Speaker 8 | 44:38
Okay, like a dollar amount. Well.
mquinones@recomspr.net | 44:42
When we instrumented the $8,000, the capacity payment, if I was to calculate a percentage of how much we would have to pay in regards to the total contract, I believe it came to like a 95% calculation. So, you're asking basically if I would transfer the 8,000 hours into the take-or-pay provision of a percentage of the total contract. You're asking for a take-or-pay of...
I think, it was like 95%, or 92% in Costaur or something like that. I got prepared a little table. And that's what I was capable of observing. So, in all honesty, if I look at other contracts like Landon, who was saying similar contracts, I can see that the take-up pay provision is something standard in the industry.
It's reasonable, and we, as the 3PO, totally understand you, and we think that is a reasonable way to go. Obviously, we're messengers. The contract that was presented to the bread kind of established a standard, whereas now the stakeholders believe that there's a possibility of securing a contract without any guarantees, right?
Because that was what was presented originally. So, we have to come back and say, "Well, you know what? That was not industry standards." We need to see if... But now we have to go back and try and convince them that that's not going to be an alternative.
Anyway, I missed two things there. But ultimately, 8,000 hours, we're talking about 9,590, 2% take-pay. If I look at the other contracts, it's way more than the other contracts have.
Speaker 9 | 46:23
Okay, Thomas, did I believe that you have submitted a... You submitted a table with less hours, correct?
Speaker 2 | 46:31
We did, and we'll go back and refresh, so... Okay.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 46:35
And it does have less hours. What? I was clear of it. It doesn't have a change on price. So you have 2,000 hours at $0.23, 4,000 hours at $0.23, 6,000 hours at $0.23, and 8,000 hours at $0.33.
That's why I bring it up because then, fine, I would give you the 2,000 hours at the $0.33 and leave it there.
Speaker 2 | 47:03
But the dollars... There was a dollar per kilowatt-hour monthly fixed charge that changed.
Speaker 9 | 47:08
Yes, yeah.
Speaker 8 | 47:08
Can you get hold up and show it on the screen and show me.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 47:14
One second me one second. So yeah.
Speaker 9 | 47:18
Because I believe Miguel, there's there is a table there with there is.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 47:23
So this was no.
Speaker 9 | 47:26
That was in it is another one on the pricing.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 47:30
Portion of this is part of this is the pricing portion of the new of the RP that you sent.
Speaker 9 | 47:36
Yeah.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 47:37
Plus, see, so here's just the interconnection costs. This is the breakdown of each one of them, it's the interconnection cost, and then this is the generation annually, I think around... Yeah, that's the calculation of approximately how much.
Then you come to this to assess the 10-year term, and then you have the amount of hours. But it does have the same price. That's why I bring it right.
Speaker 2 | 48:08
It's kept the price, the dollar per kilowatt-hour price constant, and the dollar per kilowatt-month price changed, that's the fixed charge.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 48:19
So it changes here. Yes, I see.
Speaker 9 | 48:29
And one other thing, Miguel, and team that I want to just... If you're comparing apples to apples, right, then I could understand. But if you have, say, other proponents that are in the bidding process for 100 mW compared to our operation, the capital recovery is so much higher right now.
If you can compare our pricing with someone else that has a similar setup, for instance, if 800 mW against 800 mW. Okay, and see where we're at in pricing, then I understand. But if it's an operation that's got 150-200 mW compared to what we're proposing, I don't see how the price... It can be a fair analysis of that.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 49:27
No, I understand, Eddie, that's why I try to compare. I always try to take the same amount when I do my table. I do the same amount of megawatts per each proponent because I have to compare apples to apples.
Speaker 9 | 49:45
Correct. Right.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 49:46
Okay, so that's how I do my comparisons. I obviously the range was that everybody can provide up to 100, up to 800. So I can't compare one that gives me 800 and one that gives me 100.
So I need to compare a specific amount. This is why I'm going to ask I'm going to compare these specifically to the kilowatt-month just to see how this compares on a kilowatt-hour provision, how it scales up depending on the hours per hour.
And I can definitely see it. I'll do my math. But yeah, if I have any questions, I'll reach out on this, okay? Thank you, Miguel. All right, does anybody have any questions?
Speaker 9 | 50:57
We're good again. Miguel and everyone, we're here to help. We just want to serve, we want to make sure that both sides leave the table satisfied, okay? So whatever has to be done to move this deal forward, we're here.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 51:19
I'm with you, Eddie, I'm with you. I'm going to move it as quickly as possible, too. Okay, then, yeah, you'll hear from us soon, we'll be in touch and we'll start doing what needs to be done.
Speaker 9 | 51:42
Thank you so much. Thank you.
Fabian Velez | 51:44
Thank you.
Speaker 9 | 51:44
Okay by.