I guess management failed to notify the following risk assosciated with Montalva -
"One project Montalva (100MW) is rated as a major interconnnection concern and should not be approved" - Sargent and Lundy findings
Against PREPAs grid integration measures, certain proposed PPOA projects present consistent grid problems. In specific Montalva due to its size and location, violates Thermal Overloading, System Strength and severe frequency deviations in absence of batterries."
I guess this is why they threw in the free batteries.
This I found most interesting.
"Since PREPA is still in bankruptcy protection, there is a possibility that if PREPA abrogated one of the PPOA contracts, the developer could attempt to claim loss in bankruptcy court. While we cannot speculate on the outcome of such a claim, we believe there will be precedant for bankruptcy courts showing that if the utility regulator (PREB) approved the transaction then, a) the utility cannot sue the regulator in federal court and, b) while a debtor can attempt such an action, there is less likely the court will show deference to decision protections regarding the public interest, reliable provisions or power, and issues of a similar nature."
There is a $951M question.
One project (100MW) failed both the basic policy test of saving rate payers and was found to have interconnection restraints and should not be approved at this time." - Montalva
Of the (16) original legacy PPOAs there were only two that received a "Do Not Approve" status.
Giro Guayama 18MW
Montalva (100MW)
PREPA (its poor rating and its bankruptcy) have been the greatest detriment to getting the projects moving but other factors are not only certainly involved.
Goalposts keep moving around too.
You want DOE financial approval?
Environmental and overall approvals are much more stringent.
I get why Cilff Webb may be exhausted from the experience.
https://energia.pr.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/03/20210317-AP20210001-Peticion-CIRO-Salinas.pdf