By Bryan Manabat
[email protected]
Variety News Staff
THE Commonwealth Utilities Corporation is moving forward with its multimillion-dollar renewable energy procurement even as AP Energy continues its challenge in Superior Court, arguing that the process was not conducted fairly or transparently.
AP Energy said Friday that although the court denied its request for a stay and temporary restraining order, the company’s concerns about the integrity of the procurement remain unresolved.
“From our perspective, the issue is no longer about AP Energy’s proposal, but whether the procurement process itself was conducted in a fair, transparent, and unbiased manner,” said Perry Inos Jr., a company representative.
Before bringing the matter to court, AP Energy appealed the executive director’s decision to disqualify the company to the CUC board, which reaffirmed the disqualification, prompting the company to seek judicial review.
The company is asking the court to reverse CUC’s decision to disqualify it from Phase 2 of the procurement. The public utility has advanced three proponents to Phase 2: Easter Power Solutions, HDF Energy, and Solar Pacific Energy Corporation.
Associate Judge Lillian Ada Tenorio denied AP Energy’s motion on March 16, finding that the company was unlikely to prevail and that delaying the procurement could jeopardize CUC’s ability to secure federal tax credits tied to the project. A status conference is set for April 8 at 9 a.m.
The dispute centers on CUC-RFP-25-021, issued Aug. 26, 2025, seeking an independent power producer to build solar photovoltaic systems with battery energy storage across all islands. The selected proponent will enter a 25-year, multimillion-dollar contract to construct solar installations, storage systems, and grid improvements.
In a statement Sunday, Inos said AP Energy believes the procurement must be evaluated under a process “fully transparent and free from any potential conflicts.”
He noted concerns involving Easter Power Solutions and its representative, Gary Sword, whose wife, attorney Rosemond Santos, serves on the CUC board.
“We were not fully aware of those connections at the time of submission,” Inos said. “Once those connections were brought to light, we raised the issue through the appropriate channels.”
He added that AP Energy is not drawing conclusions but believes any potential conflicts should be reviewed by CUC, the Office of the Public Auditor, and the Attorney General’s Office.
“At the end of the day, this is not about any one proponent — it is about ensuring that a project of this magnitude is conducted under a fair, consistent, and transparent procurement process for all parties involved,” he said.
AP Energy said its proposal was fully structured and financeable, backed by a consortium of local and international partners with experience in utility-scale renewable energy. The team includes Siemens for grid control and systems integration, Apadana Energy, Ion Ventures, TurboMech E&C, HYC Corporation, and advanced systems providers such as Brodersen, COPA-DATA, and ARE.
Tier 1 equipment providers include SMA and ZNShine Solar. Local participation was supported by Hofschneider Engineering Corporation, GUMA Architects, EMCE Consulting Engineers, and other CNMI-based professionals.
The company said its consortium structure reflects standard industry practice for projects of this scale, combining development, financing, engineering, and construction expertise.
AP Energy said it submitted financial documentation consistent with RFP requirements, including audited financial statements from its construction partner and annual reports from consortium members.
The company emphasized the distinction between proposal responsiveness and offeror responsibility, arguing that its submission met the RFP’s stated requirements, which allowed for “audited financial statements or annual reports, including affiliates.” It added that further evaluation of financial capacity typically occurs in later procurement phases.
AP Energy also raised broader concerns about project timelines and federal incentive structures. While early procurement milestones may be achievable, the company said full project completion — required to realize federal investment tax credits — must occur by December 2027, a schedule it described as challenging given permitting, environmental review, logistics, and construction demands across the CNMI.
The company clarified that under an independent power producer model, federal tax credits are realized by developers and investors over time, not paid directly to utilities.
As a locally domiciled company, AP Energy said its proposal was designed to retain economic benefits within the Commonwealth through local workforce participation, subcontracting opportunities, and reinvestment. It also said its pricing structure aimed to deliver one of the most cost-effective energy solutions available.
“At its core, this is not a question of capability,” the company said. “The question is whether the procurement process was conducted fairly, transparently, and consistently under the requirements of the RFP.”
AP Energy said it remains committed to long-term reliability, affordability, and transparency in the Commonwealth’s energy future.
Bryan Manabat was a liberal arts student of Northern Marianas College where he also studied criminal justice. He is the recipient of the NMI Humanities Award as an Outstanding Teacher (Non-Classroom) in 2013, and has worked for the CNMI Motheread/Fatheread Literacy Program as lead facilitator.
