Q3 2023 First Solar Inc Earnings Call

Participants

Alexander R. Bradley; CFO; First Solar, Inc.

Mark R. Widmar; CEO & Director; First Solar, Inc.

Richard Romero

Alexander John Vrabel; Analyst; BofA Securities, Research Division

Andrew Salvatore Percoco; Associate; Morgan Stanley, Research Division

Benjamin Joseph Kallo; Senior Research Analyst; Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division

Colin William Rusch; MD & Senior Analyst; Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Research Division

Joseph Amil Osha; MD & Senior Energy and Industrial Technology Analyst; Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Research Division

Philip Shen; MD & Senior Research Analyst; Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Research Division

Vikram Bagri; Research Analyst; Citigroup Inc. Exchange Research

Presentation

Operator

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to First Solar's Third Quarter 2023 Earnings Call. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of First Solar's website at investor.firstsolar.com. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Richard Romero from First Solar, Investor Relations. Richard, you may begin.

Richard Romero

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Today, the company issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2023 financial results. A copy of the press release and associated presentation are available on First Solar's website at investor.firstsolar.com.
With me today are Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer; and Alex Bradley, Chief Financial Officer. Mark will provide a business update. Alex will discuss our financial results and provide updated guidance. Following their remarks, we will open the call for questions.
Please note this call will include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. There are many factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from management's current expectations. We encourage you to review the safe harbor statement as contained in today's press release and presentation for a more complete description.
It is now my pleasure to introduce Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer.

Mark R. Widmar

All right. Thank you, Richard. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today. At our recent Analyst Day in September, we outlined our goal to exit this decade in a stronger position than we ever did. We believe the future belongs to thin film, and we described our long-term intent to be positioned to serve all addressable markets and commercialize the next generation of PV technology balancing and optimizing across efficiency, energy and cost in environmentally and socially responsible way.
This long-term aspiration aligns with our nearer-term growth which is underpinned by our points of differentiation and solid market fundamentals, including continued strong demand for our products, proven manufacturing excellence, a uniquely advantaged technology platform and crucially, a balanced business model focused on delivering value to our customers and our shareholders. Since our last earnings call, we have continued to make steady progress on this journey; and I will share some key highlights related to continued strong demand and ASPs, manufacturing, operational excellence, and expansion.
Beginning on Slide 3. We will continue to build on our backlog with 6.8 gigawatts of net bookings since our last earnings call at an ASP of $0.30 per watt, excluding India. This base ASP excludes adjusters applicable to approximately 70% of these bookings, which when applied with our -- aligned with our technology road map may provide potential upside to the base ASP. These bookings bring our year-to-date net bookings to 27.8 gigawatts and our total backlog to 81.8 gigawatts. Our total pipeline of future bookings opportunity stands at 65.9 gigawatts, including 32.5 gigawatts of mid- to late-stage opportunities.
As it relates to manufacturing, we produced 2.5 gigawatts of Series 6 modules in the third quarter with an average loss per module of 469, a top bin class of 475 and manufacturing yield of 98%.
Our third Ohio factory, which establishes the template for high volume Series 7 manufacturing continues to ramp, demonstrating the manufacturing production capability of up to 15,000 modules per day, which is approximately 97% of nameplate throughput. Our third factory produced a total of 565 megawatts in Q3. Total year-to-date production of Series 7 modules in the U.S. has surpassed 1 gigawatt. As noted on our Analyst Day, the factory recently demonstrated a top module wattage produced of 550 watts as part of a limited production run. While still undergoing commercial qualification testing, this implies a record CadTel production module efficiency of 19.7%.
Our India plant started production in Q3 and is continuing to ramp, recently demonstrating a manufacturing production capability of approximately 12,000 modules per day, which is approximately 77% of the nameplate throughput. Factory produced a total of 154 megawatts in Q3 and recently demonstrated a top module wattage produced of 535 watts.
In terms of technology, our Series 6 Plus Bifacial modules completed rigorous field and laboratory testing. We recently converted our first Series 6 Plus plants in Perrysburg, Ohio to commercially produce the world's first bifacial solar panel utilizing an advanced thin film semiconductor. The technology features an innovative, transparent back contact pioneered by First Solar's research and development team, which, in addition to enabling bifacial energy gain, allows infrared wavelengths of light pass through rather than be absorbed as heat and is expected to lower the operational temperature of the bifacial module and result in higher specific energy yield. Upon successful demonstration of operational metrics and high-volume manufacturing, such as yield and throughput, we plan and to convert more plants in the future, which will enable us to capture incremental ASP through our existing contractual adjusters.
Turning to Slide 4. Our focus on delivering value extends to our manufacturing expansion strategy, and we are making tangible progress towards achieving our forecasted 25 gigawatts of global nameplate capacity by 2026. Construction of our India facility is completed and production has commenced. Commercial shipments are expected to begin once the factory receives the Bureau of India standard certification, remaining government, which is expected by year-end.
In September, we mobilized on our new Louisiana manufacturing facility, our fifth fully vertically integrated factory in the United States. At a ceremony attended by the Governor of Louisiana, we set in motion the work expected to deliver 3.5 gigawatts of annual nameplate capacity, which is anticipated to commence operation at the end of 2025. When completed, we expect $1.1 billion facility is projected to take us to approximately 14 gigawatts of annual nameplate capacity in the United States, further enhancing our ability to serve the market with domestically made modules. Meanwhile, we continue to make steady progress on the construction of our new Alabama facility, which is expected to commence operation in the second half of 2024 and our Ohio manufacturing expansion, which is projected to commence operation in the first half of 2024.
Additionally, our new R&D innovation center and our first prospect development line announced at Analyst Day are also on track, representing an expected combined investment of $450 million. The prospect development line and R&D center are expected to commence operation in the first half of 2024 and reflect our determination to lead the industry in developing the next generation of PV technologies, optimizing across efficiency, energy and costs.
Crucially, as our manufacturing footprint continues to grow, so does our supply chain. In the U.S., we recently expanded our agreement with Vitro Architectural Glass, which is investing in upgrading existing facilities in the United States to produce glass for our solar panels. The expanded capacity commitment from Vitro to First Solar is expected to commence production in the first quarter of 2026.
Today, First Solar is one of the largest consumers of float glass in the United States. As PV manufacturing continues to scale in the U.S. and a premium is placed on domestically produced components, including glass, our early work to build a resilient domestic supply chain, which began in 2019, gives us a significant head start over the competition.
Similarly, we expect OMCO Solar to manufacture and supply Series 7 module back rails through a new facility in Alabama. This reflects our efforts to derisk our supply chain with strategic localization. OMCO only uses American-made steel, which aligns with our intent to maximize the domestic economic value created by our U.S. manufacturing footprint. Generally, our Ohio facility also served by steel value chain that is located within a 100-mile radius of our factories.
Before handing the call over to Alex, I would like to discuss our policy environment. In the United States, with regards to the Inflation Reduction Act, we continue to await guidance from the Department of Treasury on the Section 45X manufacturing tax credits. We also remain engaged with the administration and continue to work with our customers to ensure that the IRA's domestic content bonus guideline reports the act's intent to sustainably grow U.S. solar manufacturing and its supply chains.
As we have previously noted, we share our commitment to the current guidance with the administration and are working with our customers to enable their ability to benefit from the bonus credit for using U.S.-made content. We are appreciative of the work done by the Biden administration to provide a solid legislative foundation for domestic solar manufacturing. The IRA has supplied a catalyst for growth, and our goal is to leverage it to help create a position of strength for the country, both now and after the term of the incentives.
Beyond the IRA, we are also aware of new anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions filed against importers of aluminum extrusions from 15 countries. Consistent with our views on fair trade and the importance of conforming with rules governing trade issues, we will comply with any request for information from the United States Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission, while we work to understand the potential implications.
Moving abroad, we remain engaged with policy measures across Europe as the block attempts to tackle serious challenges to its solar manufacturing ambitions. For example, Chinese module inventory in Europe stored in warehouses across the region and estimated by analysts to reach 100 gigawatts by the end of the year is reportedly being sold at prices below its cost to manufacture. This alleged dumping behavior driven by overcapacity in the Chinese crystalline silicon industry that has decimated international competition over the past decade represents a serious threat to non-Chinese manufacturing and to ambitions of diversifying solar supply chains away from the dependency on China. It also represents a policy threat potentially underlining the political willingness to deliver the comprehensive trade and industrial legislative solutions necessary to both level the playing field and incentivize domestic manufacturing.
We continue to advocate for comprehensive legislation to safeguard any domestic manufacturing ambitions. Our view is that industrial policy-related CapEx benefits alone are inefficient and that absent sufficient trade policy support to ensure a level playing field, Europe will find it challenging to achieve what the U.S. and India have been able to do in a relatively short period of time.
I'll now turn the call over to Alex, who will discuss our bookings, pipeline and third quarter results.

Alexander R. Bradley

Thanks, Mark. Moving on Slide 5. As of December 31, 2022, our contracted backlog totaled 61.4 gigawatts with an aggregate value of $17.7 billion. Through September 30, 2023, we entered into an additional 23.6 gigawatts of contracts. We recognized 7.4 gigawatts of volume sold, resulting in a total contracted backlog of 77.6 gigawatts with an aggregate value of $23 billion, which equates to approximately $0.296 per watt. Since the end of the third quarter to date, we've entered into an additional 4.3 gigawatts of contracts, contributing to our record total backlog of 81.8 gigawatts.
Including our backlog since the previous earnings call are contracts of approximately 1 gigawatt or more with returning customer Longroad Energy and new customers, including a new IPP and an asset manager with multiple companies in his portfolio. Additionally, we have received full security against 141 megawatts in previously signed contracts in India, which now moves these volumes from the contracted subject to conditions precedent grouping within our future opportunities pipeline to our bookings backlog. As noted at Analyst Day, while the ASPs associated with the India bookings are lower than those associated with the 6.6 gigawatts of U.S. bookings since the prior earnings call, gross margin profile, excluding the 45X benefits, is comparable to the fleet average given the lower production costs at our Chennai facility.
Since the announcement of the IRA, we have amended certain existing contracts to provide U.S. manufactured products as well as to supply domestically produced Series 7 module in place of Series 6. Consequently, over the past 5 quarters to the end of Q3 2023 plus approximately 11 gigawatts, we've increased our contracted revenue by approximately $354 million, an increase of $42 million from the prior earnings call.
As we previously addressed, the substantial portion of our overall backlog includes the opportunity to increase base ASP through the application of adjusters if we are able to realize achievements within our technology road map as to the required timing of delivery of the product. As of the end of the third quarter, we had approximately 40.3 gigawatts of contracted volume with these adjusters, which, if fully realized, could result in additional revenue of up to approximately $0.4 million or approximately $0.01 per watt, the majority of which we will recognize between 2025-2027. As previously discussed, this amount does not include potential adjustments, which are generally applicable to the total contracted backlog, both the ultimate bin produced and delivered to the customer, which may adjust the ASP under the sales contract upwards or downwards and for sales -- increases in sales rate applicable to aluminum or steel commodity price changes.
Our contracted backlog extended into 2030, and excluding India, we're sold out to 2026. Note, total approximately 1.5 gigawatts of production from our India facility is expected to be used to support U.S. deliveries in 2024-2025.
As reflected on Slide 6, our pipeline of potential bookings remains robust. Total bookings opportunities of 65.9 gigawatts decreased approximately 12.4 gigawatts the previous quarter. Our mid- to late-stage opportunities decreased by approximately 16 gigawatts to 32.5 gigawatts and includes 27.1 gigawatts in North America, 3.8 gigawatts in India, 1.3 gigawatts for the EU and 0.3 gigawatts across all other geographies.
Decreases in our total mid- to late-stage pipeline in Q2, Q3 result both by converting certain opportunities to bookings as well as the removal of certain other opportunities given our sold-out position diminished available supply. As we previously stated, given the diminished available supply, the long-dated time frame into which we are now selling and aligning customer project visibility with our balanced approach to ASPs, deal security and other key contractual terms, we would expect to see a reduction in new booking volumes in upcoming quarters.
We will continue to forward contract with customers who prioritize long-term relationships and value our differentiation. And given the strength and duration of our contracted backlog, we will be strategic and selective in our approach to future contracts.
Including with our mid- to late-stage pipeline are 5.1 gigawatts of opportunities that are contracted subject to conditions present, which includes 1.7 gigawatts in India. Given the shorter time frame between contracting and product delivery in India relative to other markets, we would not expect the same multiyear contract commitment that we currently see in the U.S. As a reminder, signed contracts in India will not be recognized as bookings until we have received full security against the offtake.
Now on Slide 7, I'll cover our financial results for the third quarter. Net sales in the third quarter were $801 million, a decrease of $10 million compared to the second quarter. Decrease in net sales were primarily driven by lower non-volume revenue associated with project earnouts from our former systems business as well as within the module segment, a slight reduction in volumes sold, partially offset by an increase in ASPs as we continue to see favorable pricing trends.
Gross margin was 47% in the third quarter compared to 38% in the second quarter. This increase was primarily driven by higher module ASPs, lower sales rate costs with higher volumes of modules produced and sold in the U.S., resulting in additional credits from the Inflation Reduction Act.
Previously mentioned, based on our differentiated vertically integrated manufacturing model, the current form factor of our modules, we expect to qualify for an IRA credit of approximately $0.17 per watt for each module produced in the U.S. and sold to a third party, which is recognized as a reduction to cost of sales in the period of sale.
During the third quarter, we recognized $205 million of such credits compared to $155 million in the second quarter. We encourage you to review the safe harbor statements contained in today's press release and presentation, the risks related to our receiving the full amount of the benefits we believe we are entitled to under the IRA.
Continued reduction in our sales rate costs during the quarter reflected improved ocean, land rates along with a beneficial domestic versus international mix of volumes sold. Lower sales rate costs reduced gross margin 7 percentage points during the third quarter compared to 8 percentage points in the second quarter.
Ramp and underutilization costs, which include costs associated with operating a new factory, the lower target utilization and performance levels were $25 million during the third quarter compared to $29 million in the second quarter. Ramp costs reduced gross margin by 3 percentage points during the third quarter compared to 4 percentage points during the second quarter. Our year-to-date ramp costs are primarily attributable to our Series 7 factory in Ohio, which is expected to reach its initial target operating capacity end of this year and our new Series 7 factory in India, which commenced production during the quarter.
SG&A and R&D expenses totaled $91 million in the third quarter, an increase of $8 million compared to the second quarter. This increase was primarily driven by expected credit losses associated with our higher accounts receivable balance additional investments in our R&D capabilities, costs relating to the implementation and support of our new global enterprise resource planning system.
Production start-up expense, which is included in operating expenses, was $12 million in the third quarter, a decrease of approximately $11 million compared to the second quarter. This decrease was attributable to the start-up reduction in our factory in India, partially offset by certain start-up activities for our new Series 7 factory in Alabama.
Our third quarter operating results did not include any significant nonmodule activity. However, the year-to-date operating loss impact from the legacy systems business related activities remains at approximately $22 million.
Our third quarter operating income was $273 million, which included depreciation and amortization and accretion of $78 million, ramp cost of $25 million, production start-up expense of $12 million and share-based compensation expense of $8 million. We recorded tax expense of $22 million in the third quarter compared to tax expense of $18 million in the second quarter, primarily driven by higher pretax income. Combination of the forementioned items led to a third quarter diluted earnings per share of $2.50 per to $1.59 in the second quarter.
Next, turn to Slide 8 to discuss select balance sheet items and summary cash flow information. Our cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, restricted cash equivalents and marketable securities ended the quarter at $1.8 billion compared to $1.9 billion at the end of the prior quarter. This decrease was primarily driven by capital expenditures associated with our new facilities in Ohio, Alabama and India, along with a higher accounts receivable balance, partially offset by advanced payments received from future module sales.
Total debt at the end of the third quarter was $499 million, an increase of $62 million from the second quarter as a result of the final loan drawdown and credit facility for our factory in India. Our net cash position decreased by approximately $0.2 billion to $1.3 billion as a result of the aforementioned factors. Cash flows from operations were $165 million in the third quarter.
Global liquidity and the strength of our balance sheet remains one of our key differentiating factors. However, as discussed at our Analyst Day, the majority of our cash is offshore, while the majority of our forecasted future CapEx spend between 2024 and 2026 is in the United States.
As we invest significantly in the U.S. manufacturing ahead of any IRA cash proceeds, we continue to evaluate options once we balance this expected temporary jurisdictional cash imbalance, which include cash repatriation, use of our existing undrawn revolving credit facility or other sources of [CAFD]. Whilst we expect our $1 billion of revolver capacity to provide sufficient liquidity, we continue to evaluate other options to optimize cost of capital for any bridge financing.
On Slide 9, turning to our guidance update. Our volumes sold and net sales guidance remains unchanged. Within gross margin, we are reducing the high end of our forecasted ramp under the utilization expenses by $10 million between $110 million and $120 million, and narrowing the range of our Section 45X tax credit guidance by $10 million, both the low and high end, to between $670 million and $700 million. Given their size, these combined changes do not impact our guided gross margin range of $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion.
We've reduced our production start-up expenses guidance to $75 million to $85 million, which implies operating expenses guidance of $440 million to $470 million. Combining these changes provide some resiliency to the low end of both the operating income guidance range, which is updated to $770 million to $870 million and the earnings per share guidance range, which is updated to $7.20 to $8. Net cash and capital expenditures guidance remained unchanged.
Turn to Slide 10. I'll summarize the key messages from today's call. Demand continues to be robust with 27.8 gigawatts of net bookings year-to-date, including 6.8 gigawatts of net bookings with our last earnings call at an average ASP $0.30 per watt, including India and before the application of adjusters were applicable, leading to a record contracted backlog of 81.8 gigawatts.
Our continued focus on manufacturing and technology excellence resulted in a record quarterly production of 3.2 gigawatts. Our India manufacturing facility commenced production and our Alabama, Louisiana and Ohio manufacturing expansions remain on schedule.
Financially, we're on $2.50 diluted share, and we ended the quarter with a gross balance of $1.8 billion or $1.3 billion net of debt. We maintain full year 2023 revenue guidance and raised the midpoint of our EPS guidance from $7.50 to $7.60.
With that, we conclude our prepared remarks and open the call to questions. Operator?

Question and Answer Session

Operator

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Philip Shen from ROTH MKM.

Philip Shen

Congrats on the strong bookings, at what appears to be strong pricing. Mark, can you talk through the pricing at $0.30 a watt that's without India? And I think the prior quarter, there were some nuance around a contract without freight. And so if you adjusted that where you typically include freight, was your prior pricing kind of closer to $0.31? So you guys are sitting close to $0.30 this quarter to maybe a bit of a drop, but really compared to the crystalline silicon price collapse, it looks like you're holding price pretty well.
And then looking ahead, I think you guys said you may be selective and strategic with bookings. So should we expect things to slow down from here and maybe fewer bookings in general coming up in this full quarter here in Q4 and maybe in Q1 as well, especially since UFLPA module -- UFLPA compliance module pricing has come down so much there? So just curious what you expect ahead there as well.

Mark R. Widmar

Yes. So from a [branding] standpoint, Phil, and if you look at the bookings for this quarter all the way out into 2029, so it's totally weighted in -- actually in 2029. And so you're booking much further out in the horizon, which also kind of creates the dynamic of what is our base price and then what is the impact of the adders, which, as we indicated, the $0.30, excluding India, does not include the adders and 70% of the volume includes adders, and they're in a horizon that, especially for the benefits of temperature coefficient and long-term degradation rate, that we'll be in a much better position to capture those upsides.
And as we indicated in the call, we're starting our initial [bifac] production already in Ohio. And so when you look at the impact to the average ASP and if you were to include the benefit of the adders to -- or -- and marry that up and align it to our technology road map, as I indicated in my prepared remarks, you'd add about $0.02 or so to the ASP.
So when you look -- when you make that adjustment, you compare it to last quarter, you look at the period at which we're booking out into, but I would say the pricing is pretty stable quarter-to-quarter. And you're right. Last quarter, we had a relatively large deal that did not include sales rate, so there was a little bit of an impact to the average ASP because of that.
But I would say, largely, it's pretty stable. We're very pleased with our ability to go further out into the horizon and still get very attractive pricing in the backdrop of a lot of changes in a very dynamic environment over the last 60, 90 days.
As it relates to the comment about being disciplined, we are going to continue to be disciplined. We are still supply constrained, and we have a road map that will get us to 25 gigawatts. We're starting to see '27 fill up very nicely and starting to put more points on the board that go out '28, '29 and we touched '30 in some of the prior deals that we've done. If we come to the terms with customers on what makes sense for us, not just on ASP but security, overall terms of conditions, provisions to the extent they're applicable to domestic content, all that has to balance itself out into a deal that makes sense for us.
And so look, that's how we're going to continue to engage the market, and there's -- we'll see how the market reacts and especially the further you go into the horizon, there will probably be some pause to some of our customers not willing to commit yet to that horizon, but we'll see how it plays out. But there's -- potentially, we would see bookings to stabilize where they are now and maybe potentially decline slightly as we'll cross the next several quarters.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Julien Dumoulin-Smith from Bank of America.

Alexander John Vrabel

It's Alex on for Julien. Just a follow-up if I can to that, Mark. When you think about where you guys are booking -- and I'll say this like you guys used to be in the development game as well, so I think you obviously understand the lead times on these projects. I mean how much is that mid- to late-stage compression a function of just, listen, there's a lot of uncertainty as far as timing of interconnects, permitting, et cetera and looking out in 2028, it's sort of hard to say which projects will be first versus second versus third?
Or is this more that the market is kind of getting back to some level of normalcy as far as supply and demand in modules and buyers are just electing to it? I guess sort of parse that for us relative to it just being really long dated as opposed to a sort of a shift in buyer sentiment or market conditions if you will.

Mark R. Widmar

I don't see it as a huge shift in our customers' sentiment as they think about their realization against their development pipeline. Look, there are challenges, as you indicated, permitting, interconnection and what have you. But I think they all still are very bullish about ability to realize their contracted pipeline and secure offtake agreements.
The issue, I think, is around when do you actually (inaudible) if we're contracting for module deliveries in 2029 and we're asking for security, clearly, the project is not in a condition at that point in time where they would be able to get financing put in place. So you're talking about corporate liquidity capacity that's going to have to be used in order to provide the security whether it's a parent guarantee, an LC or actual cash.
As you know, the project has to be much further along as it relates to financing debt and structure of tax equity before that liquidity is brought into the mix at the project level. So I think part of it is wanting to have the certainty of the delivery but balancing that with capacity to -- from a security standpoint that we're requiring on our contracts, and it's just a matter of finding a good balance that can work.
Parent guarantees for certain entities can work, but we want to make sure they're creditworthy parent guarantees and the entities that guarantees are issued against, and that sometimes for some of our customers becomes a little bit more challenging. So you kind of got this balance of wanting certainty, wanting to engage, clearly want to partner with First Solar, and they also know that we're a loyal supplier to especially our partners that have been with us for an extended period of time but then also balancing their near-term liquidity constraints to the extent that they have them and when do they want to enter into a contract.
So I don't see it so much as a sentiment to realization against the development pipeline. I just think it's -- you're going out to the horizon right now that people are maybe not as ready yet to commit capital and commit to the liquidity that we need to get comfortable with around security for the module agreement.

Alexander R. Bradley

Two things I might note. One is, at the Analyst Day, we talked around the fact that we actually over allocate in the near term. And we do that deliberately because we tend to see projects move out to the horizon. That gives us some comfort.
The other reason we do that is a lot of our recent bookings have been framework agreements with customers, whereby they don't necessarily have a specific project allocating the modules they're buying from us. They just know they're going to need that total volume over a period of time. And those frameworks can be more challenging to plan for because there is often some flexibility in timing there but also shows that customers in very long-dated bookings are willing to buy without necessarily learning exactly where the products go in because they value that certainty, and they know that, over time, they'll find a home for it.
So we've been seeing a lot more of that behavior, which runs a little counter to your question, I think. But we're seeing people booking out at times and they don't necessarily know exactly where it's going, but they're still willing to make that commitment because of the value to them doing so.
But as Mark said, the further we get out, the fact that we're now booking out into 2028, '29, it becomes hard if people put meaningful deposits down and there's just less visibility on the framework side. That's why we talked about potentially seeing bookings slower.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee from Goldman Sachs.

This is [Grace] on for Brian. I guess my question on competition. So one of your crystalline silicon peers recently announced a 5-gigawatt cell expansion. It's -- I think it's the first sign of vertical integration from China in the U.S. I think the CapEx was like about $1 billion for that 5 gigawatt or so. So the CapEx is lower, but can you speak to your understanding of the cost structure for overseas peer building -- in building manufacturing in the U.S. and how your Series 7 compare?

Mark R. Widmar

Sure. So there's a lot out there -- yes, so there's an announcement that was made recently this week, one of our competitors that will be putting cells in the U.S. And look, there are others that are doing cells in U.S. Meyer Burger has made a commitment to do cells in the U.S., handle a few cells, doing cells in the U.S. They're not alone from that standpoint.
But one thing I want to make sure is clear when you said vertically integrated, it's not vertically integrated all the way through to the polysilicon. So yes, it's a module assembly with cell manufacturing. The wafers still are not manufactured in the U.S. The ingots, obviously not in the U.S., and nor is the uncertainty where -- exactly where the polysilicon is coming from. It could be from the U.S. manufacturer or potentially, Europe or Korean, I guess.
So it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. But what I'll say is that if you look at the announcements that they've made, there's about $800 million for the cell and a few hundred million, $200 million, $300 million for the module, which is pretty comparable to or fully vertically integrated. So they're about $1.1 billion.
But the -- what I think is maybe the most telling number to look at from a competitive standpoint is the headcount. I think it's -- for 5 gigawatts, it's 2,700 heads for just cell and module. We are on a road map that will be 14 gigawatts of fully vertically integrated. So think about that from the production of the polysilicon all the way forward. And our entire head count for 14 gigawatts in the U.S. will be comparable to that 2,700.
So on a head count basis, we're about -- they're about 2.5x higher on a headcount basis than we are. That adds about $0.02, $0.025 on a cost per watt base using kind of U.S. labor rates. So I think that's one thing for sure that will create a much higher cost profile for them manufacturing in the U.S.
The other is they don't have a local supply chain. As we indicated in our call, we have localized our supply chain. We have been in front of that game. So our glass is here in the U.S. As we indicated, our back rails on Series 7 are here in the U.S. The 10 components or so that are identified through the domestic content from underneath the IRA, all of our components for our Series 7 product will be made in the U.S. That factory will most likely have one, at least one major component.
Glass is not going to be available in the U.S. There are no [fiberglass] manufacturers today in the U.S. It could happen, but it will be much more expensive than it would be to source from Southeast Asia or China. But then they have to pay the freight, and it's expensive to ship glass, which is heavy from Southeast Asia or China into the U.S.
They're also going to have to potentially deal with duties no different than the comment that we made on our prepared remarks. There are duties now that are being considered for extruded aluminum. And there's a potential that it could be applicable to the frame. Our Series 7 product, as an example, does not use aluminum. It's steel and it's domestically sourced, so it doesn't have that type of exposure.
So I am very confident, and this is one of the things that we said before, is that all we want is a level playing field that we all compete on the same basis and under the same policy environment. As long as we have that, I have no doubt that we are materially cost advantaged to any other U.S. manufacturer for the various reasons that I've mentioned.
We feel like we're in a position to strike. We believe that we have a key point of differentiation around our manufacturing excellence, and we're more happy to compete with anyone who would choose to manufacture in the U.S., and we welcome it. We believe the IRA in order to be successful is to create a diversified supply chain with many different types of technology, crystalline silicon, thin films, whether it's CadTel or eventually perovskites or others. We need that if we want to ensure long-term energy independence and security and for the U.S. to become a technology leader. We need more manufacturing. We need more innovation and different types of technologies to continue to move this forward.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Joseph Osha from Guggenheim Partners.

Joseph Amil Osha

Following on the previous question, assuming that most of what we see in the U.S. is going to be modules sourced with domestic cell but almost certainly overseas wafer and poly. Based on what you see right now, can you see those suppliers managing to meet domestic content requirements under the IRA? And if so, just why we're not? I'm curious as to what your thinking is on that.

Mark R. Widmar

So as we currently understand the supply chain and the availability of the domestically sourced components that were identified under the IRA domestic content guidance that was provided, the only and really identifiable component that we believe -- I mean there could be some small stuff like adhesives and stuff like that, but that's not going to move the needle.
But most likely, [one really applicable] component that will move the needle and that will drive some meaningful amount of domestic content will be the cell. If you look at this most recent announcement, I think that you said they'll be up and running by the end of '25, which means largely that those cells would be available for production and shipments and then eventually installation into -- or assembled into modules and then eventually installation on your project in '26. And I believe the requirements under IRA and '26 is close to -- I think it's 60%, so they have to -- so you're starting off at 40% domestic content and it steps its way up all the way to 55%.
So they've got a window now that by the time they can actually realize the benefit of domestic content that requirements will be at a higher threshold than it is right now. At least the math that we run just looking at the cell and understanding the direct material, direct labor cost crystalline silicon module will be very difficult for the cell-only domestically sourced module to meet the project level requirements to achieve the domestic content bonus.
Series 7, as I indicated, which is the vast majority of our 14 gigawatts of domestic production, is 100% domestically sourced. Therefore, it qualifies as a domestic product. It will be materially advantaged in enabling of domestic content bonus at the project level versus just a crystalline silicon module with domestically sourced cell.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri from Citi.

Vikram Bagri

I wanted to ask about capital allocation. At the Analyst Day, we understood that there is some downside to tech CapEx by implementing some processes at the supplier level. Any updates to share there? Also, Alex, you mentioned that repatriating cash, it sounds like, is not the most efficient part to fund CapEx in the U.S. So wondering what the cost of repatriation is.
And staying on the same topic, I understand that funding buybacks with IRA cash is not on the table yet. I was wondering if repatriating the cash longer term can fund for the buybacks longer term. And then finally, I was wondering if common equity is still off the table completely.

Mark R. Widmar

I'll take the first one, and Alex, take all the rest of them. So yes, we are still working through with our supplier to enable various coating capabilities that would result in us not having to make substantial capital investments related to our upgrades for our CuRe technology.
Testing is ongoing. What I'll say is the early indications -- a long way still ago. I want to make sure it's very clear. It's a long way still to go, but early indications on what we've seen so far is very promising that we will be able to find a way to provide -- or to have a supplier provide the coatings to the glass without us having to do it on our own.
Now look, there's some trade-offs with that such as the CapEx dollars. It's also the opportunity to further optimize the buffer layer, which is what they've been putting on to capture better performance at the semiconductor level. So we'll have to continue to assess with respect to trade-offs. But I would say, at least as of right now, early, early innings. I want to continue to stress that. There's a pretty positive indication of their capabilities in that regard.

Alexander R. Bradley

So if you think about CapEx, we -- at the Analyst Day, we showed you a CapEx plan for '24, '25 and '26 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, if you think about the near term, the majority of the spend for 2024 is not related to that as capacity expansion, R&D facility interest, maintenance and sustaining CapEx. So the guide that we've talked about in the Analyst Day of 1.6, 1.9 to next year doesn't have a lot related to that technology but a little bit. As you get into the outer 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 2026.
So as we look through next year's capital spend program, still a significant CapEx program that we're looking at. And I think to have fund there, if you go back to the tax reform in 2017, what that effectively did was you paid a onetime transition tax, which is the equivalent of paying federal taxes though you're repatriating the money.
So the federal expense is basically done. However, there would be state and local tax implications of bringing money back. So today, we are 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 until the capital is brought back, that you would see an impact tax expense on the P&L at the time you change that assertion. So I haven't given a number of what that would be, but there would be some potentially significant state and local tax implications 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 a need for equity today. 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 Section 45X 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 whilst the IRA capital is not coming in yet. So we'll think about that when the time comes, but that's not where we're at right now. We're going to invest [inside].

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Colin Rusch from Oppenheimer & Co.

Colin William Rusch

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 R. Widmar

So let me make sure, Colin. So you want to know the enterprise-wide finished good inventory amount. Is that the question, not just India, right?

Colin William Rusch

Yes, that's the -- for the whole company and then understanding where you're at in terms of the production run rate in India right now?

Mark R. 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 in inventory. We don't have the certifications yet to allow us to start shipping. So there was a little bit of 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 (inaudible) [4] 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 70% -- 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 3 months or so out. They we're making 10,000 modules a day. That was obviously a step function improvement, so -- but it's great to see where it demonstrated 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 various permitting restrictions and things that needed 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 run that very quickly moved into our plant [qual] 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. A long way still to go and a lot of work still in front of us but pretty happy with how that factory is performing right now.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Ben Kallo from Baird.

Benjamin Joseph Kallo

Just on that note. I guess the question is twofold. What do we think about your customers like breaking contracts as that can happen because someone's 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 R. 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 onto a deal with a partner we've had 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 derisk their projects. I mean that's their primary focus.
These projects are meaningful multiyear investments with meaningful amount of capital and that are starting to evolve now with higher CapEx dollars for 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 photons and make electrons, 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 derisks 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 -- would have degrees of uncertainty associated with them. 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.
The other thing is a portion of that offtake is going to be for self-consumption for their development arm, no different than the factory in Ohio, which has an equity investor that is looking to take a meaningful amount of that volume for their own development pipeline. That creates a different perception to some of our partners around why do I want to buy a technology or modules from the competitor right, somebody that's going to be competing with me, which our primary business model is to be a developer, primary business model is to be the IPP, the utility, to own the generating assets, to get the return on investment against the project. To feed my competitor, to better position them to take market share from me is not in a position of strength that a lot of our partners choose to be in.
And there's still uncertainty. I mean there's a lot of things that are changing. As it relates to -- I mentioned already the potential duties imposed on the aluminum coming in from China and Southeast Asia. That's another risk profile that somebody has to be willing to expect. They could be glass next. I mean who knows what the next step in the journey is going to be.
And all our partners know is that, with First Solar, they completely derisk those dimensions, and they've got a great partner who's going to deliver a great product, great technology at a great price on top. So that's a sense of where our customers, I think, view us.
And our contracts, yes, we have penalties and there's ways to potentially pay those penalties. And customers potentially could break a contract, and we'll take those penalties. And we'll look to sell that technology on -- into the marketplace to somebody else. But when they step back and reflect that the significant amount of risk that they would be taking for small nominal impact that is uncertain whether it's even a meaningful impact, it could even be a worse off position for them, especially if they're jeopardizing the domestic content on your ITC, why would you want to do all that brain damage for potentially little or, if any, benefit or make yourself -- put yourself in a worse position.
As it relates to the factories and the start-ups, I mean the ROIC -- every one of these factories that we start up sooner just accelerates the ROIC, especially for U.S. manufacturing. That means we get more IRA dollars faster. And so anything we can do to get product into the market faster just enhances the return on invested capital. And as we see that ability, then as we think about alternatives for another factory, yes, we'll factor that in and say that our ability from announcement to high-volume manufacturing is if it's a shorter time line, then it potentially creates a lens that says that the payback obviously could be more attractive for manufacturing.

Alexander R. Bradley

Ben, just to talk about couple of numbers around the termination fees. We told at our Analyst Day that about 14% of the megawatts is in our backlog at that point, was subject to a termination for convenience clause. If you look at that, I mean 86% of our backlog at that point had no ability to terminate a contract short of default.
Now we can never stop people trying to default out of a contract, but in a default scenario, a developer then puts themselves in a very difficult position because they have an ongoing desist on contractual breach, which will make it very hard for them to seek financing and tax equity for a project going forward. But for the vast majority of our backlog, there is no ability to terminate for convenience.
For those contracts that we do have that clause, which typically is when we have larger long-dated contracts and we have a small portion of that contract where we subject some of the megawatts to termination for convenience, we then have an agreed fee typically up to 20%, which we look to collect and the idea there being that we could then resell those modules and be at least made whole on that transaction. So just to give you some color around the numbers.

Operator

Our final question comes from Andrew Percoco from Morgan Stanley.

Andrew Salvatore Percoco

Mark, you sort of answered my question already, but I kind of just want to dive into the cost of capital environment. It's obviously having an impact on the market or the perceived economics of renewables. So I'm just wondering if you're seeing any developers or customers that maybe haven't been big for solar customers historically that are maybe turning to your technology because maybe they see your technology and your supply chain as more bankable than someone else. UFLPA, AD/CVD combined with a more expensive cost of capital environment, I'm just wondering if that's becoming a bigger competitive advantage than it maybe was a year or 2 ago.

Mark R. Widmar

Yes. I think Alex actually referenced it in his section, but if you look at our bookings this last quarter, we had -- we highlighted 3 large contracts that were over 1 gigawatt and then total bookings [drawn]. One of them is a returning customer that we made an announcement on with Longroad Energy. I think we made that right around [RA plus] September, around September time frame.
But then we announced there was 2 other new customers. One is an IPP and another is effectively an asset management entity with a portfolio company and multiple developers, both new customers, right? And we're very happy with those in the first step of our journey of developing a deeper partnership with those counterparties. And look, they've come to First Solar for understanding of the unique value proposition and what we can provide. One of them, in particular, I know who's -- would have liked to have gotten on First Solar's books earlier. We just didn't have capacity. And so now when they look forward and they see there is some supplies you get out in '27, '28, '29, they want to secure some of that supply. They would have lumped it on the books in '24, '25 and '26, in particular, because we didn't have the supply.
So yes, I do think that the environment that we're in right now and First Solar's capabilities and value proposition, I think, are more compelling and is driving new customers into our portfolio and our overall contracted backlog, which is now north of 80 gigawatts. I mean just if I can reflect on that number, I mean, that's a huge multiyear contracted backlog and commitments with dozens of different partners that uniquely understand First Solar and understand the value proposition that we can trade that enable the success of our business model.

Operator

And this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect.