Mr. John Melvin:

It was broadly the same plant from when the 2012 certificate was issued to the 2018 certificate. What has changed is the business case that the developer submitted. The business case in 2012 stacked up because there was a low cost of fuel. With the low-efficiency dryer that the developer installed, it made economic sense. In its 2018 business case, the developer acknowledged that the facility would burn an expensive fuel that was its own product. While we agreed that burning this expensive fuel in a high-efficiency dryer made economic sense, the justification the developer gave only used approximately one third of the energy of the actual plant. This was the case that Mayo Renewable Limited put to us and that we evaluated. We can only evaluate the cases put to us. Hence Ms MacEvilly's suggestion that we do not speculate on alternative cases. We will evaluate any case that is put to us. This element was a major difference between the 2012 and 2018 cases. We communicated that to Mayo Renewable Limited when it asked to see our report. It was, therefore, aware of the difference. It was for Mayo Renewable Limited to propose a different business case if one was tenable for it at the time.