So they’ll have to go through some upgrades as it relates to emission control systems and other aspects that bodes well for us. And we’re seeing some — again, as we talked about, selective newbuild opportunities in the U.S. on replacing some older waste-to-energy plants, which are required. We’re seeing that similar type opportunity in Europe where we mentioned we’re being a little more selective, but there are a number of aged waste energy plants in Europe that would require projects or new upgrades or enhancements and those can be anywhere from $10 million to $100 million depending on the actual scope, and they’re going to vary site by site. So we’re starting to see some very good projects on the small end as well as in the medium end, but they’re, again, selective, but we are starting to see higher end projects similar to the ones that we just announced, but that we think would be operationally strong for us as well, too.
Alex Rygiel: And then can you also give us an update on each of the three Brightloop projects in Ohio, Wyoming and Louisiana?
Kenny Young: Yes. So in Ohio, I’ll go kind of reverse order here. But Ohio specifically, we are in final engineering design and construction components, bringing those final pieces together at this particular point in time. We are in, if you will, final negotiation discussion on the finalization of the offtake agreements associated with the hydrogen and the CO2 for that particular site, and we are in discussions right now on the financing of that specific site to move that forward. So we are hopeful that those pieces come together relatively soon, but the effort around that particular project and moving those particular pieces forward is in full gear for us. We also have a separate team that’s working on the Wyoming project at this point in time given the state grant and obviously, our partner, Black Hills Energy at that particular location.
And again, working through the final design of the entire project, including all of the steel, the steel structures, the civil works, which will be done by a partner that we’re in discussions with. But all of that work is part of this grant that we’re pulling together, including the permitting processes proceeding on that project. The tother in Louisiana right now, we’re keenly focused on the financing aspect, and we’re in discussions with one or two different potential finance partners on that project to drive forward. We’re also working with a few locally within the state on some further, if you will, feedstock availability. We’re keenly focused there on the biomass side of that aspect. So all of those efforts from a development standpoint, continue on those projects, and they’re in various states, but we are working diligently to bring those to closure as appropriate time permits.
Also trying to do that with very minimal use of cash on our balance sheet. It’s obviously — we’re using some, as I mentioned, but we’re trying to minimize that and make sure that we have outside financing to move those projects forward.
Alex Rygiel: And then maybe one for the Lou, can you talk to a little bit of the cadence of EBITDA from 2Q through 4Q?
Lou Salamone: Alex, the cadence will go along with what our cadence has traditionally been. Q1 is usually our lowest cadence. And then it varies, but you’ll get close to doubling Q1 and Q2 and then about 30% to 35% increase in Q3 and another 25% increase in Q4. And depending on how those percentages work out, that should really get us to the targeted number that Kenny spoke of earlier of between 105 and 115 of adjusted EBITDA.
Alex Rygiel: Thank you very much.
Lou Salamone: Welcome.
Operator: Next question comes from Aaron Spychalla with Craig Hallum. Please proceed.
Aaron Spychalla: Hi Kenny, hi Lou. Thanks for taking the questions. I just wanted to dig a little deeper on some of the EPA emissions rules you kind of talked about as it pertains to waste to energy and kind of climate bright. Can you just talk about — help us think about the impact from those and kind of timing that you might be expecting moving forward?
Kenny Young: Yes. Obviously, to the marketplace, no surprise in the rules, right? They’ve been out for consideration for quite some time, and obviously, just recently passed. But it pushes obviously or pushes the utilities that are using coal facilities to — by 2032, obviously, either eliminate those particular plants or add some sort of carbon sequestration to those particular plants or increased utilization of a green fuel that would actually be co-fired with the coal itself. So overall, they’re just driving those utility customers to either — which is no surprise in what they’ve been planning on, either convert to a natural gas or out a carbon capture element to it or combined with different green energy on those particular plants to have a carbon offset related to those.
And each one of those areas is a potential impact for us. If they add some sort of sequestration, that’s great. We actually provide that. If they do a conversion, we can do that if they are looking for a biomass offset or combining on that particular piece, and those are areas that we can help with as well, too, for those particular plants. But — it’s just — I think where it helps us more than anything is as some of these projects require PUC approvals on a state or local basis, it just helps reinforce the PUC to approve the projects because they’re coming off the mandate from the EPA requirements. On the waste-to-energy side, the main focus is around some of the emissions reduction in sulfur oxide nitric oxide, some of the SOX knock and other components, mercury and other areas where they’re just trying to increase or they’re trying to reduce, if you will, further the emissions of some of the waste-to-energy plants.
