They actually look to Hyzon to help bring our partners to the table and to provide the options. So I guess my overarching statement is the public stations will be there eventually, right? We can’t and won’t wait for those to be available. We have options through our partners today that Hyzon’s largely not putting capital into that we provide to the customers from the partners. And the slide that we showed previously on the example scale up and you see at the bottom of that slide how the fuel will transition. When you look at that year-over-year deployment of trucks, it ties pretty directly with a reasonable time frame to have mobile dealers start with the first year delivery continue likely into the second year. While they made a decision once the first year units are delivered and start permitting on the first behind the fence solution to install and that permit and installation lines up with the second and third year delivery.
So our scaling plan is not some random walk of how we want to scale. This is a very fine tuned yearly schedule of what we think is reasonable from a subsidy availability standpoint from a customer ability to train their facilities and to ramp up their facility teams and from a fueling standpoint to have a mobile to install transition happen.
Michael Shlisky: Thanks for that discussion. I appreciate it. I’ll pass it along.
Operator: Our next question is from Bill Peterson from JPMorgan. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.
William Peterson: Yeah. Hi. Good morning, guys. It’s good to hear from you after a year off. And thanks for the update on the strategy and so forth moving forward. I have a few questions as well. So I guess if we first start off on the positive contribution expectations across 110 kilowatt, 200 kilowatt low and high volume, can you give us some sense of, I guess, what kind of pricing you would need to have in that scenario? I mean, should we look at prior company cost of ownership calculations as a guide? And I’m assuming you’re talking maybe $400,000 per vehicle plus, but maybe if you can give us a sense for that, it would be helpful as we can think about the conceptual modeling going forward?
Parker Meeks: Thanks so much, Bill. It’s great to be back in this forum and speaking to you and the rest of the group here. Certainly glad to dig into that. So we footnoted a lot of the assumptions on the slides, but that all the slides and all the numbers across the slides are related to economics on the contribution margin examples that we have in there. And the TCO slides are all coherent, right? So the TCOs that we’re showing the approaching TCO parity today with subsidy and the contribution margin being included in that is all coherent numbers across a coherent scenario, right? So, you know, we haven’t reset public guidance on pricing, but the examples we’re giving are in line with the commercial arrangements we’re putting in with our fleets.
And the assumptions that you see in those slides are in line with the range of what we’re putting in with the fleets today and what we’re expecting potentially for the pricing to do as we approach the 200 kilowatt and the low volume in the 200 kilowatt high volume with expected competitive pricing dynamics going forward, it’s a price that we’re seeing fleets transact. The PFG agreements one case of that, these are fleets that look, they can’t afford, you know, to put any product on the road that’s not going to earn margin for them. And a lot of these fleets don’t have a huge margin in their ops, right? So today we’re confident in the contribution margin that we have on the 110 because of how close we are to production. We haven’t put out official guidance on that or the specific number range around the 110 or the 200 kilowatt yet.
