Ryan Pfingst : And that leads into my follow-up. Could you just provide us with a refresher on how we should think about OPAL’s average realized sales price compared to what we might see in index prices? Is there a general rule of thumb for how much of the RIN price you’re able to realize?
Adam Comora: Yes. I think we’ve got some disclosure in there in terms of what typical brokerage or commission fees are for OPAL. And so I believe we’ve got that in our disclosure. And we don’t necessarily sell at the index price. We do pick pricing and transact on pricing. So we don’t have index based pricing, but you can assume that our average sales price is just over where we may have given our guidance for the year.
Jonathan Maurer: This is Jon. In terms of RIN price realization, it’s important to keep in mind our vertically integrated business model where we capture really 100% of the output both as a portion on the upstream side and the portion that would go to the fueling station on the downstream side of the business. So we really capture the full value chain in there. Adam was addressing obviously what we might pay out in brokerage. Some of our trades are done directly without brokerage deductions others are done through a third-party.
Ryan Pfingst : That’s helpful to contextualize that piece. And then it looks like the advanced development pipeline wasn’t included in the deck or the release this quarter. Is there any reason for excluding that here?
Jonathan Maurer: This is Jon. The concept was somewhat associated with our go public phase when we were a smaller company and the conversion of our pipeline of projects was more meaningful. We’re now at $5.2 million of nameplate and looking to exit 2024 with $8.8 million after the current RNG projects that are scheduled to be completed this year are in fact completed. So the pipeline of projects is now less meaningful. We’ve also shown that our excellence in bringing projects online and that our ramp up period and high availability operating factors really attract us to other partners and that the development of those partnerships really adds more of an opportunity set, that combined with our vertical integration really gives us a front row seat at a lot of the opportunities that are out there in the marketplace.
So we do see that. We’re guiding to greater than 2.0 million of MMBtus into construction. We believe that the tailwinds that we’re seeing in the industry will assist us in achieving those goals. But really nothing has changed. The cadence that we’ve been doing over the last couple of years will continue with the guidance that we’re giving here today.
Adam Comora: Yes. The only thing I would add to that is that the delineation between perspective opportunities in ADP, it really doesn’t capture the full opportunity set of stuff that we’re looking at. And if we’ve got perspective opportunities that are much greater than what we’re doing, what we would call as ADP, we just didn’t feel like it was a meaningful metric and thought that delineation was a little unique to OPAL Fuels on how we were describing that.
Operator: Our next question comes from Martin Malloy with Johnson Rice & Company.
Martin Malloy: I wanted to ask about Slide 17 and you mentioned also I think using biomethane for power generation in your prepared remarks. Could you maybe spend some time talking about that market, right rough economics of that market and how OPAL might play a role and I realized early history of the company that power generation was fairly important to OPAL?
Adam Comora: I think Slide 17 is important and it’s really important and how we’re really trying to communicate. Who OPAL Fuels does and why there are these policy tailwinds behind our company and what we do. And look, we recognize that there is a little bit of a holistic view of energy transition at this point. But what we do here at OPAL Fuels is we’re taking harmful biomethane emissions and turning them into a low carbon intensity energy product. And when you really think about it’s starting to become a much more broader issue for all Americans and really think that there is a lot of potential here for bipartisan support for our industry and we’re starting to see it show up in a lot of different places. And whether or not we’re going to talk about eRINs and other types of things that can support cellulosic electricity, we think that this industry is starting to get behind this good, better, best strategy, where we have countless thousands of landfills, thousands of small farms, thousands of wastewater treatment facilities that are owned by municipalities where we’re just not capturing biomethane.
And I think there’s a lot of room to have this good, better, best where the first thing we should be doing is capturing this biomethane and not every biomethane source is going to be big enough or have access to a pipeline. And there is this proven technology to turn it into renewable electricity, which is baseload, not dependent on some intermittent, either sun or wind and which is really good where you won’t need battery storage. We think cellulosic electricity makes a lot of sense and is the right public policy. So, eRINs are the one that already are existing in the EPA regulations and there’s a really great legal argument that was put forward by Arnold & Porter on a partnership for the electric pathway website that I would encourage folks to read.
And we think that eRINs are one potential for it. Perhaps it can show up in 45Z, where renewable electricity potentially could qualify for those credits. We just think it’s the right public policy to support the capture of biomethane and renewable electricity is certainly one product that could come from it.
Martin Malloy: And for my second question, I wanted to ask about Slide 20 and non-transportation fuel RNG demand. Could you maybe talk about how you see that market developing and could we ever see OPAL look into selling into that market under longer term contracts?
