Equally positioned to de-deliver these renewable fuels using a third intermediate stream, oils and extractive, which as mentioned, was not included in our previous plans. Over the long term, we see the potential for these cellulose-derived low carbon intensity fuels to be used in transportation and marine fuel, industrial applications, and heat and power generation. We are currently in preliminary discussions with multiple strategic partners to advance this exciting development, and we plan to provide you with periodic updates as we make progress on this important new business initiative. Moving to slide 14. In February, we announced a strategic partnership with Avantium, a leading technology company in renewable chemistry, to accelerate the mass production of FDCA and PEF for advanced chemicals and plastics.
The partnership aims to bring together the strengths of Origin's patented carbon negative technology platform, which turns the carbon found in sustainable wood residues into useful materials, including chloromethylfurfural or CMF and its derivatives. With Avantium's YXY technology, which can be used to convert Origin CMF derivatives into FDCA, the chemical building block for the polymer PEF. The partnership represents a potential breakthrough in the commercialization of PEF, a polymer that we've been excited about for a long time. PEF offers an attractive combination of performance characteristics for packaging and other applications, including strong gas barrier properties, high heat resistance, improved degradability, and full recyclability. PEF can also serve as a replacement for glass and aluminum, offering superior break protection and inexpensive light weighting for shipping, making it well suited for action-sensitive products like carbonated sodas, protein shakes, and teas.
The PEF produced is expected to be 100% plant-based, fully recyclable, have attractive unit economics, and to offer a significantly reduced carbon footprint with superior strength, thermal properties, barrier properties, and degradability compared to today's widely used petroleum-based materials. We see an approximately $225 billion TAM for PEF across apparel, packaging, and PET applications. Furandicarboxylic acid, or FDCA, a precursor to PEF, has many additional applications beyond PEF. Some have called FDCA the sleeping giant, named for its potentially massive impact across a broad range of industrial molecules, including polyesters, polyamides, polyurethanes, coating resins, plasticizers, and other chemical products. At the molecular level, the structure of FDCA is kinked, and consequently it doesn't lie flat. When FDCA is assembled on a plane, it tends not to internally rotate.
It turns out that a polymer's ability to rotate or not affects its functionality in important ways. One of those functions is gas barrier. When the molecules of a polymer can spin freely, gas molecules can pass through it like a revolving door. Since FDCA has a kink, it cannot rotate and gas cannot pass through it as easily. The structure of FDCA also changes the way it crystallizes. When FDCA is incorporated into a polymer, it crystallizes differently than a planar molecule like PET, and this feature allows us to change the applications that we can consider for polyesters. These are just some of the reasons why we are excited, not just about PEF, but about incorporating FDCA into polyesters more broadly.
Regarding our relationship with Avantium to accelerate the mass production of these materials, the partnership includes a licensing agreement providing Origin with access to Avantium's process technology for making FDCA and a conditional offtake agreement under which Avantium will supply Origin Materials with FDCA and PEF from its plants while we incorporate Avantium's process technology into the supply chain for future plants. By combining our platform, which can produce the FDCA precursor CMF and its derivatives from sustainable wood residues, with Avantium's YXY process technology, we aim to do something truly special in the polymers and materials industry at unit economics that work for our customers and us. To summarize, I'm proud of how our team continued to execute against our Origin 1 and Origin 2 construction milestones.
The mechanical completion of Origin 1 is an important milestone in our mission to enable the world's transition to sustainable materials. We are seeing significant opportunities to leverage our versatile platform technology to commercialize pathways for several interesting higher value applications, and we are excited to accelerate development of high-performance products through innovative partnerships. With that, I will turn it over to Nate to discuss some of the financial details.
Thanks, John. I'll begin with commentary on our fourth quarter results, then provide our financing expectations for Origin 2, finish with our outlook for 2023 revenue and adjusted EBITDA. Speaking to slide 16, fourth quarter operating expenses were $13.0 million compared to $7.8 million during the same period in the prior year. Full year 2022 operating expenses were $38.9 million compared to $26.9 million in the prior year period. Net income was $16.0 million in the fourth quarter compared to net income of $5.2 million in the same period in the prior year. Full year 2022 net income was $78.6 million compared to $42.1 million in the prior year period.
Adjusted EBITDA loss was $9.2 million for the fourth quarter compared to a loss of $6.6 million in the same period in the prior year. Full year 2022 adjusted EBITDA loss was $31.0 million compared to $20.0 million in the prior year period. Turning to our balance sheet, Origin ended the fourth quarter with $323.8 million in cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities. Regarding the financing of Origin 2, in early January, we announced that the Louisiana State Bond Commission unanimously passed a resolution granting its final approval of the issuance of up to $1.5 billion of tax-exempt bonds to support the construction and commissioning of Origin 2.
This amount is inclusive of and builds on the strong foundation of the previously announced expected $400 million in private activity bond volume cap allocation. Origin's use of solid waste feedstock to produce carbon negative materials enables the company to use these tax-exempt bonds towards the financing of the Origin 2 project. Bank of America, a global investment bank and financial services company, has been engaged by Origin to underwrite the bonds and market them to investors, which could enable the debt financing of Origin 2 using entirely tax-exempt bonds. As we previously discussed, we also anticipate various federal tax credit, grant, loan, and other programs promoting advanced manufacturing from the Inflation Reduction Act to be incrementally beneficial for the financing of Origin 2, once the details of those programs are finalized by the relevant government agencies. We expect to provide an update on Origin 2 in mid-2023.
As we've highlighted on our previous earnings calls, inflationary pressures remain an area of focus and something that we continue to monitor closely. Origin continues to work with leading financial institutions on other forms of traditional private financing and federal loan programs, including through the United States Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy, pursue other local, state, and federal incentive programs to optimize the financing of Origin 2, including certain 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and 2022 Inflation Reduction Act provisions. As John mentioned, we continue to expect that Origin 2 can be fully funded from its existing cash on hand, previously indicated traditional project financing and potentially strategic partnerships. Given Origin's ongoing global technology licensing effort and an active governmental affairs team, we anticipate potentially strategic partnerships and federal incentive programs to play a meaningful role in the financing of Origin 2.
To wrap up with our outlook for the full year 2023, we are providing 2023 guidance for revenue of $40 million-$60 million and adjusted EBITDA loss of $50 million-$60 million. As Rich mentioned, our estimates assume a gradual production ramp at Origin 1 as the new supply chain becomes established, with revenue expected to begin in Q3 of this year. With that, I will turn it back to Rich for closing remarks.
Thank you, Nate. In closing, I'm incredibly proud of our team's continued execution as we draw closer to commercial production at Origin 1, encouraged by the strong momentum that we continue to see for our industry-leading technology as the world moves aggressively to a zero carbon future. I would like to thank all of our customers for their commitments to Origin, our team and construction and engineering partners for their contribution to our company's success and our shareholders for their continuous support. With that, I would like to ask-
Thank you. We'll now begin the question -and- answer session. To join the question queue, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. You'll hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing any keys. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. Our first question is from sorry, Frank Mitsch with Fermium Research. Please go ahead.
Thank you, and good afternoon, guys, and congrats on the Origin 1 progress and of course the progress in the other areas. I was struck by the discussion of the third intermediate line on the biofuel side, you know, that had not been previously discussed. Did this come about in terms of research, or why is this now a possibility for your production process and, you know, any more color on it would be terrific.
Yeah, sure. Hey, Frank. I think the way to think about our technology platform is really sort of a refining platform. The mental model I use is one that looks kind of like a refinery, where you're putting in a feedstock and you're converting into a variety of different streams. The way we've looked at this, has always been, you know, CMF and HTC are the two primary streams. We've always had a collection of other, sort of minority materials that end up getting produced. Generally speaking, we had expected to either decompose those into, HTC, which can be done with our process, or frankly just feed it back into the centralized boiler for our facilities and use them for BTU value to drive the process.
Of course, if you're using it for energy to drive the process, that sets sort of a cap on the maximum value that you can get from those materials. I think we all know that liquid fuels command a much higher premium than boiler fuels. Really, we had always expected that eventually we would be able to take these materials that we were feeding back into our boiler and turn them into some sort of liquid fuel or even a chemical product. We just didn't really expect it to happen so soon, frankly speaking. This is, I'd say, in the broader sense, this is just part of the sort of wave of acceleration of market interest in newer materials coming off of our platform. Does that make sense?
I hear you. I hear you. As you look at the process economics for generating these renewable fuels, where is the price point, or where do you think the price points are relative to, you know, what's out there on the market today? Obviously, it's very volatile, but, you know, given where it is today. Can you talk a little bit about the process economics?
Yeah, sure. The first thing to understand is that since we were anticipating originally to use them for boiler fuel, that means that basically sets our alternative disposition value, which is pretty low value when it comes to biofuels, right? Incrementally, we view the ability to put these into a transportation fuel market as a significant, you know, benefit to our overall unit economics. That said, it's not, let's call it straight-run gasoline coming out of our process, right? The materials that we take out of our process, natively, you don't just put in a gas tank. You've got to do a little bit of work to those to get them into the various kinds of transportation fuels.
What part of what we're doing right now is, we've sort of checked the box on, yeah, this is really interesting and, is over the hurdle, that this should go into a fuel of some sort. Now, we're in the work with customers and partners to understand, what's the right spot to put them and in what order and what time sequence. Does that make sense? I think that the overall unit economics may be a broader way to say that is the overall unit economics, we aren't sure yet, but we are sure that, it's gonna be significantly more valuable in a liquid transportation fuel than it is as a boiler fuel, which was the original sort of estimation of where this stuff was gonna go.
Okay. Understood. Thanks so much, John.
Thanks, Frank.
The next question is from Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Yes, thank you. Is it fair to say that existing PET users are those that you're in discussions with about PEF? Are they the most likely, you know, offtakers of this product? Can you characterize their level of interest? Is this something they would move towards replacing PET with PEF? Or is this a, you know, a few percentage inclusion in the PET as a blend? Where are you seeing the most interest?
Yeah. Hi, Steve. great question. We see interest across the board, so certainly from our existing large PET users. They are almost all familiar with FDCA and PEF in concept and interested in it. I think excited to see it coming to commercial scale with our partnership. It also opens up a new set of potential customers, and John alluded to some of these. For example, companies that today are required to put a lot of things in glass because of the barrier qualities now have an alternative to glass they didn't have with PET.
There's examples like that that open up some really new interesting conversations with people who need very large quantities of materials, some of which have, you know, very challenging carbon footprints and, you know, are heavy or hard to recycle, et cetera. This really opens up the door to those kinds of conversations.
Is there a reasonable way we could estimate the value of PEF versus PET, given the additional functionalities that you described, the PET bottle would have to have other additives or unit ops to provide those functions? Is there a way to value this PEF that would lead to this higher margin? We're also of the view that you might be able to produce it for less than PET. Is that also a component of your assessment of higher margins?
Yeah. I think both parts, both things you just mentioned are salient. The value of PEF and let's say more broadly, FDCA-based polymers, 'cause, you know, you are alluding to polyesters that may not have just 100%, FDCA as a diacid, but may include, you know, some FDCA and some other diacids in the polyester. But I think in those applications, you know, on an application by application basis, you can understand exactly what the improved value proposition is to the customer. In the case that Rich was just mentioning, and I'll just give sort of a hypothetical logic around it, right? There's, you know, glass has breakage rates, which are meaningful. It has a high carbon emission.
Even when it's recycled, it has relatively high carbon emissions. It's heavy. So, you can look at PEF and say, okay, well, if we reduce the breakage rates and we reduce the carbon emissions significantly by using PEF instead of glass, and we can lightweight significantly the package, then that's a really attractive value proposition in practice for PEF. You can do sort of similar kinds of value estimations in different applications. Broadly speaking, we see a significant value uplift for a lot of these applications in using PEF versus using PET. I think that's in your, in your allocation of where the margin's coming from, I would say, especially in the earlier days, most of it is coming from the value of the applications, right?
PEF in those applications is much more valuable than PET. Over the medium to longer term, I think, the other thing you said, which is that we expect to be able to produce FDCA less expensively than PTA or paraxylene correspondingly. That's also true, but I think, that's something that probably will obtain over a longer period of time. Not so much necessarily right off the bat.
Thank you.
The next question is from Eric Stine with Craig-Hallum. Please go ahead.
Hi, everyone. Thanks for taking the questions.
Eric-
Hey, great to see the, you know, the demand obviously at $9.3 billion now. You know, that has slowed a little bit versus the growth rate in the last few quarters. I mean, is that simply this change in focus to these higher margin products? I mean, is that something that we should think about here, at least in the near term?
Yeah. It's, you know, our customer demand continues to be exceptionally strong. As we said on our last earnings call, and you're alluding to, you know, we have evolved our go-to-market strategy to focus more energy on higher margin products, developing the platform, in really accelerating some of the products that we, you know, previously thought were many, many years out and in doing joint development agreements and those kind of things. Let me know as we focus there, that could impact the overall growth in the order book. You know, since we've really proven out the demand for paraxylene and PET, we think it makes a lot of sense to focus on these other markets.
Yep, absolutely. I mean, maybe the better question is, obviously you've got a pipeline beyond the, you know, what you quote for total demand. You know, curious if you're able to, you know, maybe from a well, size, but you know, at least from a high level kind of characterize this new focus into some of these other areas that have developed faster. You know, what has that meant for your pipeline beyond the total demand that you quote?
Yeah. Well, it certainly opens up a lot of markets that we had previously characterized as sort of longer term addressable markets into what feel now, not as far out, as we once thought. You know, those include some of the markets like surfactants and epoxies and adhesives and, you know, large classes of products where we think we can bring our carbon advantage as well as functional advantages and some truly unique properties. You know, our pipeline reflects adding those kinds of conversations into the mix.
Got it. Maybe last one for me, and I'm just curious. Obviously, we're getting really close to start up of Origin 1. I mean, is that an event that you think of as something that can really, you know, accelerate the total demand, you know, that 9.3 there, or do you think it's more that potentially spurs conversion of the capacity reservations to full offtakes?
Yeah, we think of it as a significant milestone. We think, one, our ability to get large scale samples to lots of potential partners, which is very exciting. Getting, you know, CMF, for example, into the hands of lots of partners to go develop on top of the platform and accelerate in that manner is exciting. We also think the proof of technology scale up is meaningful to many that we have a, you know, large operating commercial scale plant. Yeah, we view it as a significant milestone and think it'll really help across the board.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Once again, if you have a question, please press star then 1. The next question is from Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James. Please go ahead.
Thanks for for taking the question, and appreciate the guidance. You're obviously giving guidance on a full year basis rather than quarterly, but can you maybe just looking kind of further ahead, what timetable do you anticipate for Origin One to reach steady state operations, which I think is 35 million pounds a year, as I recall, per quarter?
Yeah. Yeah. Hey, Pavel. I think, you know, first I'd like to emphasize that, you know, we've talked about this before, but just to be really clear, we view Origin One as an asset that really can strategically produce materials for application development of higher value products, such as some of the ones we just mentioned. You know, FDCA, epoxies, resins, surfactants, carbon black, asphalt, that kind of stuff. Since we're using it for those kind of strategic applications, we really expect that we're gonna be doing, you know, some combination of campaigning and then also, you know, tuning it to produce those kinds of materials. I think you could say, you know, we're gonna take a little bit of time to bring it and run it at nameplate capacity.
Now, that said, for the purposes of OM2 technology demonstration, right. We will run campaigns of this with this plant at the OM2 relevant parameters for some, you know, extended periods of time to generate data and learning from those kinds of things. We'll report back with that. I think it will be probably sometime in 2024 that we're actually trying to run this for extended periods of time at nameplate capacity. It's gonna be, you know, because the demands of application development and market development really supersede, frankly, the just produce as much product as possible that we possibly could off the plant, if that makes sense.
Yeah, no, appreciate that. You know, as far as the entry into the fuels market, you know, historically, I mean, you and plenty of other biomaterials companies have looked at specialty biomaterials as a higher value, right, source of revenue compared to fuels. Are there certain fuel categories, you know, maybe jet fuel, for example, that can match chemicals, you know, in terms of a, you know, dollar per pound, dollar per gallon basis?
Yeah. Certainly there are fuel categories that can pretty easily match even high value chemicals as on a dollar per pound base. No question about that, especially in today's environment. I think, you know, from our perspective, as I mentioned, the alternative disposition or alternative use for the material that we're looking to use for biofuels was really a pretty low value boiler fuel kind of application. For us, we don't really see it as a trade off between the value of the chemicals that we're gonna produce and the value of the biofuel that we put into the market. We see it as I mean, frankly, it's just a straight up net add to the value of all the materials that we're producing off of our plant.
To your point, we think there are some pretty high watermark kind of interesting molecules that you can produce even just for fuels. I think this is, you know, this is frankly, for us, it's pretty exciting. You know, this is a meaningful opportunity and I think over the medium to long term, we have the opportunity to really generate meaningful value off of biofuels in addition to off of this material stream, in addition to the CMF derived chemicals and the HTC derived products that we can make.
Okay. Lastly, kind of an ESG question. You know, as you guys are well aware, you know, there is, let's say a faction of the environmental community that does not appreciate the use of forestry in bioenergy. You know, particularly if you're getting into fuels, how are you gonna be addressing this pushback, you know, that trees are being, you know, chopped down, so to speak, for, you know, putting it into vehicle engines?
I think there are two layers to that. The first is, you know, of course, we're actually using residuals in the first place to fuel our plant. I think these are materials and residuals that were going to be produced as a result of other product production anyway, for example, dimensional lumber, et cetera. I think the first layer is, you know, we really see that as the predominant feedstock for our process, which is very different than in, you know, purpose growing timber specifically to harvest and put into our process. I think the second layer to that is that, you know, even this fuel is actually, you know, you could think of it as a byproduct of the production of our materials and chemicals.
I think in both cases, you know, this is finding the highest and best use and value for a material that was going to be produced anyway, rather than on-purpose production exclusively of fuels or something along those lines.
Thank you very much, John.
Thanks for that.
That concludes today's live Q&A session. I'd now like to turn the call over to Ashish Gupta, Investor Relations, to conduct the next segment of our investor Q&A.
Thank you, Gaily. Before we get into investor Q&A, I want to apologize to everyone on the line who had problems connecting to the webcast due to technical issues. Obviously something we strive to avoid, but in this case it couldn't be. As we've done on previous earnings calls, for today's call, we invited all investors to submit questions as part of our Ask Origin campaign. Once again, we are pleased to have such a high level of participation and want to thank everyone who participated. In the interest of time, we'll be taking the most commonly asked questions. Our first question is for Rich. Rich, does the IRA provide any benefit to Origin? Is Origin seeking money from the IRA or other federal opportunities?
Yeah, that's a great question. We remain optimistic that the funding offered by the IRA is very relevant to us, and we're exploring several paths of eligibility for programs, including the Section 48C Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit and the Advanced Industrial Facilities Deployment Program. These programs are expected to start receiving initial applications in the next month or 2, and decisions anticipated by the end of the year. In addition to the IRA, we're exploring opportunities for funding and financing under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In that act, we've, you know, identified more than a dozen initiatives that we think could potentially assist us in financing a variety of Origin investments, and most notably Origin 2 and infrastructure improvements in and around the Geismar, Louisiana site.
Great. Thanks for fleshing that out a bit. Just turning to geographic expansion, can you help us understand if Origin will expand to the EU and Asia?
Yeah. We have extensive customer relationships in the EU and Asia. We certainly have a very global set of partners and customers. We don't have any specific plans to share at this time in terms of building plants, you know, outside of North America. There's certainly plenty of interest in our materials from those parts of the world. You know, would hope over the long term that we would certainly have assets around the world, but nothing to announce at this time.
Thank you, Rich. With that, we'll now turn to some questions for John. John, could you discuss some of the longer term product opportunities where you see the highest potential?
Yeah, sure. You know, obviously we've been talking about FDCA, PEF and biofuels quite a bit on this call, which I think we're incredibly excited about. You know, with a lot of these materials, you're talking about not just a 10% or 20% value uplift relative to drop-in materials, but really sometimes, you know, 100%, 200% even more increase in the value of those materials. That's obviously, you know, really exciting because it demonstrates that we can get a great margin and profitability, but also that we're actually adding that much value to the economy by producing this material.
The FDCA, I think we talk about it in the context of PEF and polyesters all the time, but it's a material that's relevant quite a bit beyond that as well. You can see it in, you know, obviously there's been work done with nylons or polyamides using FDCA that's incredibly interesting. As we've mentioned before, you know, epoxies and coatings is another area where FDCA has some pretty unique properties that we think could make it a really, really interesting material or monomer to add into those materials. We continue to be, you know, really excited about FDCA again, even beyond its use in polyesters and PEF, more specifically. For biofuels, you know, we've talked about some of the shape of the biofuels opportunity from our perspective.
I think to Pavel's comment earlier, I think it was, you know, there are a lot of different fuels. Not all fuels are created equal. As we penetrate into the biofuels market and can qualify our material in different areas, I think there's a lot of opportunity for large value uplift even beyond just getting into liquid transportation fuels in the first place over time. I think that's gonna be a really exciting and frankly, a pretty rich and deep area for us. I think just to pick another one that is exciting and maybe is worth talking about a little more is surfactants.
You know, surfactants are interesting because they sound incredibly esoteric, but they're something that we deal with everywhere in our life. Everything from, you know, paint and coatings, right? When people talk about things like latex paints or emulsion paints, those emulsions are typically stabilized by surfactants. That's sort of the key component of the paint that drives the fact that it stays relatively stable and that it disperses nicely and that it smooths and coats nicely whatever surfaces you put it on. Surfactants are, you know, that makes them really a key functional component of that. Also things like personal care. Laundry detergents, right? The detergent component of a laundry detergent or a dish soap is in fact the surfactant itself.
You know, you could say surfactant is another way of saying soap, for a little bit more colloquial definition. Performance of those kinds of materials is really, really important. You know, people are relatively familiar with it in things like shampoo and hair care, but you actually need different kinds of surfactants depending on the environment that they're living in, right? If the surfactant is in a hard water versus soft water environment, you need a different kind of surfactant formulation. Similarly, the less surfactant you need to use to accomplish your goal, not only does that give you a higher value for the amount of surfactant you're putting in, but that also means that because surfactants are characteristically washed into the environment, right?
As you wash your hair, you're putting it down the drain, and then that surfactant is ultimately gonna go through and, it sounds like there's a little bit of background noise. Ashish, is that you?
Yeah, apologies. Sorry.
Surfactants, obviously, as you wash your hair, you're actually gonna wash that surfactant down the drain, right? It's gonna end up going into the water treatment system and the drainage system and ultimately in the water. Being able to use less surfactant in those kinds of situations is really valuable because it means that you're putting less stuff down into the environment. What we've seen with furan-based surfactants is that they really do perform exceptionally well in almost all of these categories. They often perform better in more rigorous surfactant environments like a hard water kinds environment. They do it at a lower, what's called critical micelle concentration or CMC. That means that you don't need as much surfactant to get the effect that you're looking for.
So, you know, what we're seeing is that these furan-based surfactants really do just straight up perform better in a whole bunch of applications, and sometimes by almost an order of magnitude. The second thing is that not only are they performing better in the application itself, but then after the application, you know, when you wash it down the drain, furans are inherently a much more degradable material than the associated aromatic species that you would usually replace with the furans. When you wash your shampoo down the drain, you wanna make sure it degrades as quickly as possible, so it's not, you know, contaminating your river water with shampoo or conditioner or whatever else. It turns out that the furan-based and CMF-based surfactants do that better too.
We're really excited about applications like surfactants that really are incredibly relevant in sort of everyday life for people. I think, you know, that's just one example among the others like FDCA and biofuels that I mentioned of really exciting products that we can develop over the medium and long term.
Thank you for that very thorough explanation, John. My apologies for interrupting your thoughts there. Can you provide us with an update on the company's plans for Origin 3?
Yeah, sure. You know, it's a great question because obviously on our schedule, we have indicated that we would begin project development for Origin 3 right around now, and in fact, we have. We've started project development for Origin 3, and we're making good progress, but we don't have anything else beyond that to update at this time.
Great. Thanks so much, John. Really appreciate it. We'll wrap up with a question for Nate. Nate, will the Louisiana private activity bonds cover all of Origin 2, or are there other financing options being considered?
Sure. First, and again, we're very grateful to the State of Louisiana, the State Bond Commission, the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority for their continued support of the development of Origin 2. Our recently announced approvals from the State Bond Commission and LPFA for up to $1.5 billion, which is inclusive of the expected $400 million in private activity bond volume cap allocation, they are important milestones towards potentially using entirely tax-exempt bonds for the debt financing of Origin 2. That said, we continue to simultaneously pursue other forms of financing, grants, federal tax credits, including programs from the USDA and the DOE and others, which have come out of the IIJA and IRA that Rich was referring to earlier to optimize the capital structure and financing cost for Origin 2.
Great. Thanks again, to Rich, John, and Nate. That'll conclude the investor Q&A portion of today's call. I'll now turn it back to Rich for closing remarks.
Thank you, Ashish, and thanks everyone for your interest in Origin and for joining us today. This concludes our call.
This concludes today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating and have a pleasant day.