Sun Pacific Holding Corp (SNPW)

[jesuslovzu]

Here is the DD I wrote the other day and tried to post elsewhere. Didn't work apparently lol. Anyone is welcome to take some or all of it and use/repost as you see fit. GL everyone!

Getting right into it, SNPW is a solid, short-term opportunity. This is a binary stock, at least for the next month. SNPW has a couple of solar farms in process, has a patented non-glass panel that is 40% more efficient than what's on the market, and creates solar powered bus shelters. I became especially interested in this stock because of the CEO, Nicholas Campanella, who put his money on the line for the sake of shareholders ("Mr. Campanella has further pledged personal property located in Manalapan in excess of $1,000,000")

These are all good things, but for the next 3 weeks, they will not be the focuse of the market.

Right now, SNPW awaits the decision of RI-DEM (Rhode Island Department of Energy Management) on Final Approval for its MedRecycler facility. This facility will be funded by tax-advantaged private bonds, and SNPW will not carry any debt, but will own the rights to roughly half the profits through its 51% ownership of that facility "Through MedRecycler, LLC, the Company currently owns fifty-one percent )

I am going to narrow my focus to whether this gets approved or not, and then some price scenarios of each potential outcome. RI_DEM issued an 'intent to approve' on January 11th. This is a great sign for holders, and the market reacted well, sending the stock as high as 34 cents in the days following. However, next came the hearing and comment period. We recently finished a comment period (4/15) and will hear a decision by (7/15). Because the public comment period was the 'latest' item to take place here and had a significant impact on price and perception of approval, I'll focus on that.

You can see all of the comments at the link
below http://dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/medrecycler/pn-medreycler-comments-received.pdf

For some context, The faciliy is in West Warwick, but close to East Greenwich. West Warwick will get the tax revenue, Easy Greenwich will not.

East Greenwich. Population~ 13,000

West Warwick. population~ 28,700

There were about 450 comments, most of which were against the facility. I did a random survey of 10 comments and from what I observed, 8/10 came from East Greenwich residents (Diane Pg 169 East Greenwich, Kathleen pg. 359 West Warwick, Leonard pg 525 East Greenwich, Andy pg.697-711 East Greenwich (town council), Roger 825 West Warwick, James 258 East Greenwich, David 205 East Greenwich, Katie 364 East Greenwich, Jonathan 343 East Greenwich, Donna 180 East Greenwich)

It is worth noting that out of roughly 40,000 residents of these two localities, we have negative comments from roughly 1% of them. I summarize all that to provide some context and perspective before we delve into the content.

One of the most vocal opponents is Denise Lopez (who is from East Greenwich) Her comments are page 143-165. Here are a couple of excerpts from Denise to RI-DEM to make my first point

"If just even one person had done their due diligence with this project you wouldn't be in this position."

"Did anyone at DEM do any research on pyrolysis before issuing an intent to approve?"

"They came in the same way Medrecycler is trying to , under the radar"

"Especially in this age of COVID, considering the relatively new and unique use of

Pyrolysis for the disposal of Medical Waste, I would question whether or not RI DEM

even has the ability / expertise to thoroughly and safely evaluate the proposed project."

"WE ARE URGING DEM TO DO THEIR JOB"

I don't mean to minimize Denise's concerns or say that these are a fully summary, but I chose the quotes because the highlight that Denise is emotionally invested in getting this rejected. I understand this, but it isn't going to sway the RI-DEM. They are a science-based organization looking for "substantive" responses, and I don't believe these quotes fit the bill.

Additionally, she is has questioned RI-DEM's standing/ability, which, in a strange way, would be proven accurate IF they decide to reject the application now, since they issued the intent to approve months ago. Microsoft Word - MedRecycler-comment SBF edit 6-15-20 (002).docx (ri.gov) Because of this intent to approve, it would be embarrassing if they have to go back and say "Oh, because of a comment on an item we got that we had completely missed that says we have no authority we've now changed our mind". It just doesn't sound plausible.

Last, there is a recurring issue that Denise maintains that this is 'incineration' and 'burning waste'. This is a common theme across the comments. By RI-DEM definitions, it isn't. In (very) short summary, MedRecycler's process is a two-step process that uses high heat (but no oxygen) to 'gassify' solids. As a second and separate step, those gasses are then burned. While it may feel like burning/incineration to Denise... the first step, by definition, is not.
This is key because the presence of oxygen and the 'burning' is the basis for much of her concern. The issue with the second step is that burning gas is generally considered harmless. This is an industrial zone. Gas is burned in residential zones all the time (Home Heating, grills,stoves) and so it would be very difficult to make a rule that keeps MedRecycler from burning gas in an indistrial zone but allows people to grill in a residential zone. RI-DEM understands this, and also knows that a big portion of the opposition (understandably) does not. Whatever the decision is, they are unlikely to be moved to change their minds by people who either don't understand or misrepresent this process.

A second opposing viewpoint can be found on pages 697-711. This was written by a lawyer for East Greenwich on behalf of the town council. He lays out some very convincing-sounding points, but it's clear, even from what he wrote, that these things have been considered by RI-DEM before. The entire 'rebuttal' to this can be summed up with what is stated on page 699 "In discussing this with legal counsel for RIDEM, it was suggested that the term “solid waste disposal facility” as used in RIGL 23-18.9-9(a)(1) should be interpreted to be effectively synonymous with the term “landfill,” making this requirement inapplicable to MR"

The entire argument that this lawyer makes hinges on the idea that this facility should fall under the definition of a “solid waste disposal facility". All future pages with steps, additional approvals,etc. hinge on this issue. RI-DEM has already issued intent to approve based on a different interpretation, and has already addressed his concerns as you can see from the quote above.

The prior two things quickly summarize the opposition. I would add that the Attorney General of Rhode Island has also expressed concerns "https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/2021/04/15/neronha-criticizes-regulatory-process-medrecycler-proposal-and-calls-stay/7237411002/";

We'll call this 'opposition' but it reads more like an attempt to appease constituents like Denise. Among other things, the AG of Rhode Island wrote:

"“While the unknowns of the proposed Facility should not necessarily preclude a project solely because it is first-of-its-kind, the novelty of this proposal merits close scrutiny and strict adherence to relevant regulations,”

Frankly... anyone would say this, even those who support the facility. RI-DEM has taken great pains to address concerns, with their FAQ sheet among other things Rhode Island DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF LAND REVITALIZATION & SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS MANAGEMENT . I don't believe there's anything more than 'fluff' here. It may sway or drive sentiment, but it wouldn't ( nor should it) affect RI-DEM's decision making process.

Long story short, this has been a years-long process with hundreds of pages of applications, multiple reviews and conditions. I's have been dotted and T's have been crossed. The opposition is vocal, but it is also a minority (especially in West Warwick where the facility is located) and more importantly, it is based more on emotions, and irrelevant items ( such as property value concerns) that either aren't relevant to RI-DEMs decision making process, or are in conflict with conclusions they've already come to about impact, than on the type of thing the comment period is meant to address.

So, quickly.. let's look at what happens in a 'denial'. This company at present is worth $40million dollars. I believe that, for whatever reason, the chances of approval of MedRecycler is essentially being priced at $0. SNPW, the parent company, has two solar farms (Mexico/Australia) in the planning stages, has a patented non-glass solar panel that is frankly more exciting to me than Med-Recycler, and has pretty neat looking solar Bus Shelters. Furthermore, if MedRecylcer gets declined, the MedREcycler model can be still be utilized elsewhere in the country, and the company is already in talks to do so regardless of this outcome. I believe good things are going on, and that a case could be made for the current value without MedREcylcer, but I'll assume the price drops to $0.02.

We know a little bit about what happens in the 'positive' scenario as we can look at the price action in January when 'intent to approve' was issued. THe stock traded as high as $0.349 cents on January 25th before settling back down, largely due to the issues above and concerns about denial. If full approval comes, then it's entirely reasonable to think that the stock could eclipse its highs from January. Conservatively though, I believe it's better to chase the 'low-hanging fruit'. While the price could exceed the former high, I'd rather focus on the lower price points for this discussion and consider anything beyond as 'icing on the cake'. If approval comes, I would anticipate the following on the first full day of trading after this is known.

$0.05 99%

$0.075 97%

$0.10 90%

$0.125+ 80%

I believe the price should exceed $0.125 ( I give it an 80% chance) but I'm just going to use $0.10 as a conservative target and for the sake of this DD at this price point.

So, if we take 50% of the value at $0.02 in the 'denial' scenario ($0.005) and take 50% of the value in the 'approval' scenario ($0.05) and put those together, that gives a fair value right now of $0.06, which is over a 50% increase from where this stock is trading now. Unlike most penny stock situations where this vague 'value' could take years to materialize... in this case, we will know by 7/15 which of these two scenarios will play out. While it is a risk, it seems to be a great opportunity price at below $0.05, either for a longer term investment, or just a flip (If one does plan to hold less than a year and flip, I suggest an IRA so that there are no short term capital gains taxes on this trade). I own shares and plan to hold for a while and pledge to hold all at through an announcement of a decision from RI-DEM.