So we’ll have to continue to assess respective trade-offs. But I would say, at least as of right now, really early innings. I want to continue to stress that there’s a pretty positive indication of their capabilities in that regard.
Alexander Bradley: If you think about CapEx, we — at the Analyst Day, we showed you a CapEx plan for ’24, ’25 and ’26 in sales that was somewhere in the range of $3.5 billion to $4 billion of spend. As Mark just said, there’s early indications that there’s an opportunity potentially for some of the technology-related CapEx come down a little bit. However, you think about the near term, the majority of the spend for 2024 is not related to that capacity expansion, R&D facility enters maintenance and sustaining CapEx, so the guide that we’ve talked about in the Analyst Day of 1.6%, 1.9% for next year. It doesn’t have a lot related to that technology a little bit. As you get into the out years, there’s more technology related. So if there is an opportunity to bring that down, it’s going to be more in back end of ’25 and ’26.
So as we look through next year’s capital standard program, still a significant CapEx program that we’re looking at. And I think to have fun there, if you go back to the tax reform in 2017, what that effectively did was you paid a one-time transition tax, which is the equivalent of paying federal taxes to all repatriating the money. So the federal expense is basically done. However, there would be state local tax implications of bringing money back. So today, we’re certain that we permanently reinvest our capital offshore. If we were to change that assertion and bring capital back, there wouldn’t necessarily be a tax impact to the capital pullback as you would see and impact that depends on the P&L at the time to change that search. So I haven’t given the number of what that would be, but there would be some potentially significant stable level tax indications of doing that at the time.
In terms of thinking about the way the funding — look, what we said right now is what we need is transition capital, temporary capital. I don’t see any request. So what we’re looking at is things that will help us bridge through the gap between the significant investments we’re making now upfront and the timing of receipt of the cash associated with the action for credit. As I said at the Analyst Day, if we had that cash on hand at the same time that we recognize the tax benefit on the P&L, then we wouldn’t have this potential challenge in jurisdictional mix and temporary transition timing. But the need for equity I don’t see today. Then to your question around buybacks, look, we haven’t looked at that. I think we’re a long way from being in a position where we need to think about that.
We’re going into a pretty significant CapEx spend over the next few years. their capital not coming in yet. So we’ll think about that when the time comes, but that’s not where now we’re going to invest inside.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Colin Rusch from Oppenheimer & Company. Please go ahead
Colin Rusch: Thanks so much, guys. Can you talk about how much finished goods inventory you exited the quarter with and where you’re at right now in terms of the nameplate run rate in India?
Mark Widmar: So let me sure, Colin. So you want to know the enterprise-wise finished good inventory amount? Is that question not just India, right?
Colin Rusch: Yes. That’s the for the whole company and then understand where you’re at in terms of the production run rate in India right now?
Mark Widmar: Yes. So for the total for the company, we ended up with north of 3 gigawatts in inventory. But right now, as we indicated, we produced about 150 megawatts or so in India. All that is actually an inventory, we don’t have the certifications yet to allow us to start shipping. So there was a little spike in inventory part because of that. But it lines up to our — if you look at our sold volume in the fourth quarter, I think an order to gigawatts or something like that. So that inventory is lining up to our anticipated shipments here in the fourth quarter. But India, as I indicated from a demonstrated capability, they’ve demonstrated almost 80% of nameplate. We’re actually running that right now about a little less than 70% of the nameplate.
And look, that’s a tremendous result when I look at it because we just started the integrated run with that factory in July, they were three months or so out, they we’re making 10,000 modules a day. That was obviously a step function improvements, but it’s great to see where demonstrate that ability to make a finished — 10,000 finished modules on a given day, not just demonstrated capability that we can do that. And we did that from a standpoint of as I referred to, that start-up was largely a cold start. We didn’t — we weren’t able to because of our permitting restrictions and things that need to happen. We couldn’t really start running and seasoning any of the tools until we got to the point of actually starting the integrator fund and very quickly moved into our plant fall process.
So really good results. Hopefully, that’s a forward-looking indicator of success that we’ll see as we move forward into our Alabama factory and our Louisiana factory. And again, our goal is always to start these factories up sooner and faster than we had the previous one. And I would say, at least indications from Ohio going to India. It was pretty successful so far long way still to go and a lot of work still in front of us, but pretty happy with how that factor is performing right now.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Ben Kallo from Baird. Please go ahead.
Ben Kallo: Hey, Mark and Alex. Just on that note. I guess the question is two-fold. What do we think about your customers like breaking contracts as that on happens because soon going to open up a factory in Indiana or something like that. And how do we know that’s not risk? And number two, what you said there is the speed to time of your factories, I think, is getting better as they get more automated. And how does that factor into your — whatever ROIC or however you look at?
Mark Widmar: Look, Ben, I think we’ll — one of the deals that we just did this quarter I think there may be a press release this week. We added another 500 megawatts on to a deal with partner we have for a while. I think it brings a total of north of 3 gigawatts that we’ve done with this particular partner. And there’s just this relationship and understanding of value propositions that First Solar is able to bring and our ability to deliver certainty against commitments that people look to and want to de-risk their projects. I mean that’s their primary focus. These projects are meaningful multiyear investments with a meaningful amount of capital and that are starting to evolve now with higher CapEx dollars for our integration of storage and eventually integration of — for hydrogen, that at the front end of what you need in order to make that project successful if something has to take bolt-ons that make electrode.
Otherwise, nothing happens. And what our partners want from us is certainty. They want us to give them a competitive technology at a great price. That de-risk their projects and allows them a higher level of confidence of delivering against their commitments to their Board and to their shareholders and others. First Solar is able to do that, and we’re uniquely positioned. We’re also uniquely positioned to provide, we believe, with Series 7, in particular, the highest domestic content qualifying module in the industry to take risk to try to find ways to look at alternative paths so have degrees of uncertainty associated with that. It’s not even clear that, that factory that you’re referencing will actually be up and running in the time line of which it’s been committed.
