Showing posts with label ITC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ITC. Show all posts

Monday, August 13, 2012

Study: Solar ITC Pays For Itself

Source:  Novogradac & Company Renewable Energy Tax Credit Resource Center

The U.S. Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance (US PREF) yesterday released a study that says that the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy projects is more than offset by the tax revenues generated in leases and power purchase agreements (PPA). US PREF’s “Paid in Full” reports that a $300,000 commercial solar credit can create for the federal government a $677,627 nominal benefit in lease and PPA scenarios during a 30-year period. Additionally, the report said that the ITC provides a 10 percent internal rate of return to the federal government and has enabled financing mechanisms that generate a positive return for the government.


* The investment tax credit (ITC) for solar photovoltaic (PV) projects, expanded under the

George W. Bush administration as a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and modified

as a grant-in-lieu of tax credit program under the Obama Administration, has enabled

financing mechanisms that generate a positive return for the federal government.


* Over the life of a solar photovoltaic (PV) asset, the initial cost of federal expenditures

associated with the ITC can be more than offset by the tax revenues generated in lease and

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) scenarios, both of which create fixed payment structures

and provide a positive financial return on investment to the federal taxpayer.

*This paper demonstrates that, over the life of solar assets, lease and PPA financing
structures can deliver a nominal 10% internal rate of return (IRR) to the federal government
on the federal investment tax credit (ITC) for residential and commercial solar projects.

* Based on this analysis, a $10,500 residential solar credit can deliver a $22,882 nominal
benefit to the government and a $300,000 commercial solar credit can create a $677,627
nominal benefit in lease and PPA scenarios over a 30-year period (the minimum expected
life of the assets).

* The fiscal return demonstrated in this model is independent of, and additive to the
numerous other benefits of solar projects, including job creation, energy independence,
the preservation of natural resources and the health benefits of cleaner air.


For questions about the ITC, contact Stephen Tracy at (415) 356-8000 or at stephen.tracy@novoco.com.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

State of the Renewable Energy Finance Markets

Post-stimulus Financing: Will Renewable Growth Continue?
Will private lenders and investors pick up where government leaves off in a post-stimulus world?

LONDON – Money is flowing worldwide for many forms of renewable energy, as the industry presses forward with dramatic growth. CleanEdge reported US$188.1 billion in global revenue for biofuels, solar and wind energy in 2010, a 35.2% surge over 2009. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) found that clean energy investment worldwide reached $243 billion in 2010, nearly double the sector investment just four years earlier. And venture capital investment for clean technology in the US rose 54% in the first quarter of 2011 compared with the same period one year earlier, in a trend led by solar energy companies, according to Ernst & Young.

What has buoyed the market? Many in the renewable energy sector thank stimulus funds infused into the industry by governments throughout the world. But will the growth continue as stimulus funding winds down? Will private lenders and investors pick up where government leaves off in a post-stimulus world?

Several deal makers describe the state of today’s finance markets and provide their outlook into 2012 and beyond, including how hard – or easy – it is to attract private tax equity, project finance, venture capital and other types of loans and investments. Even as the world economy continues to struggle, renewable energy fares far better than many sectors.

REVIVAL OF U.S. TAX EQUITY?
Jonathon Gross, a principal with US accounting firm Reznick Group and head of the firm’s alternative energy practice in North Carolina, helps match renewable energy project developers with investors. He specialises in tax equity investments, where the investor, in effect, buys a project’s tax benefits to offset tax liability. Goldman Sachs was one of the more notable tax equity investors before the financial collapse. But when profits dropped after the crash, so did tax liabilities. As a result, tax credits had little value and investors fled.

In response, the US government created a cash grant to help renewable energy projects during this phase. The grant differed from a traditional tax credit in that developers received money up front, rather than after the project was built or operating. This helped renewable energy developers secure project financing when tax equity investors vanished. The grant, however, is being phased out beginning in 2012.

Fortunately, tax investors are returning to the market, said Gross. But, he added, “I don’t know if it will be fast enough for the developers who are getting the grant.” Gross predicts a dip in US project development in early 2012 when the federal cash grant expires for projects that do not meet certain predevelopment requirements.

Meanwhile, a player known as the tax equity syndicator is increasingly moving into energy. Syndicators, such as Stonehenge Capital Company and Red Stone, connect private equity investors with developers. They more commonly work in low-income housing investment, but syndicators lately have been attracted to state renewable energy credits, Gross said.

Flat Water Wind Farm, a 60-MW Nebraska project, was a recent beneficiary of a tax equity deal. Completed in April 2011, the deal was arranged between U.S. Bancorp (USB), Gestamp Wind North America, Spanish Banco Santander and other lenders. USB has committed more than $400 million of renewable energy tax equity to finance over $800 million of renewable energy projects in the US, primarily in the solar and wind energy markets.

INNOVATIONS, CREDITS AND PROJECT FINANCING
In Europe, it’s unclear where the renewable energy sector will find the capital to build enough projects to meet 2020 renewable energy targets. Assuming it will cost about €350 billion to achieve the goals, each of Europe’s 40 banks that are active in the sector would need to loan €750 million annually for the next 10 years, according to Ernst & Young’s paper, Funding Renewable Energy in a Capital-Constrained World.

What will those sources be? European utilities might fill in some of the gap, but renewable energy will still need alternative pools of equity and debt to finance projects. One source might be industrials, especially those that act as supply chain co-sponsors in the project development phase, said Ernst & Young.

In the US, renewable energy credits are gaining importance in helping developers secure financing. Banks are apt to take an applicant more seriously if it has a long-term contract to sell its RECs to a utility or other credit-worthy buyer (as opposed to selling RECs on the spot market or under short-term deals).

Solar renewable energy credits (SRECs), only available in certain states, are created by solar energy projects. One MWh generated by a solar installation equals one SREC. Utilities and retail suppliers buy the credits from projects and use them to meet state government requirements that a certain amount of the electricity they sell comes from solar.

But there was much talk in Spring 2011 about the collapse of the famed New Jersey SREC market. New Jersey is a crucial market for solar developers in the US, the second largest to California, with an exceptionally mature SREC market, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association’s US Solar Market Insight: First Quarter 2011.

New Jersey’s SREC was a victim of its own success. The state’s high SREC prices attracted so much solar development that the market became oversupplied with SRECS and trading prices plummeted for the credits. SEIA predicts an end to New Jersey’s market growth in late 2011/early 2012 as a result of the overheated SREC market.

However, Kent Rowey, head of Freshfields’ Americas Energy and Infrastructure practice, says that stories are overblown about the death of New Jersey’s SREC market. “Smart traders think that the market has mispriced the SREC, that the forward curve is incorrect,” he said.

Why? Too often analysts forecast SREC supply based on the project applications that are before regulatory bodies, and not on the actual projects being built, according to Rowey. This creates an overly high forecast for solar development. In reality, a good number of the projects that are proposed will never be built. Rather than counting applications, savvy financiers conduct their due diligence “the old-fashioned way” – they count rooftops from helicopters to determine what’s really being installed. What they are finding is that fewer projects are being built than expected, and therefore fewer SRECs will be available in the future than is now believed. Therefore, the New Jersey SREC market may not be as overheated as some believe.

Beyond SRECs, Rowey sees the overall debt market for renewable energy as buoyant. “If there is any kind of limiting factor, it is probably that there is an inverse relationship between the size of the deal and the work that goes into it,” he said. Big banks prefer large loans because it takes just as much work to administer a large loan as a small loan, but the returns are lower.

German commercial banks are leaders in providing debt capital for project finance. Rowey also sees more US banks eyeing renewable energy projects; some are teaming up with pension funds.
“There still is liquidity in the debt market for renewable projects. It is one of the sectors in the infrastructure market that hasn’t really been hit as hard,” he said. Even though underwriting standards are more stringent since the market crash of 2008, “for the right project and right sponsor, renewable energy is a space where traditional financing is available.”

WHAT FINANCIERS LIKE
Michael Lorusso, managing director and group head for US-based CIT Energy, which focuses on project and structured finance, shares this view. He says that if the developer offers a financeable project, the lender will be there. “It is incumbent on the developers to do something that is financeable and not push the market to the point where they are stuck with a project that cannot be financed,” Lorusso said.

CIT Energy evaluates projects much the way large banks do. The financing and advisory firm prefers proven technologies and shies away from technology risk. Projects should have equipment contracts with established manufacturers, and a solid construction contract, Lorusso said. Applicants for finance also should produce a power purchase agreement with a solid buyer, like a utility or industrial customer, which minimises the project’s price risk in the eyes of the investor. Or the project may use a short-term contract that relies on commodity price hedges with third parties, like Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley. All government permits must be in place.

Lorusso likes wind, solar and geothermal energy, as well as hydroelectricity, although he noted that less hydroelectricity is in development than the other three resources. He is skeptical about biomass because he sees its fuel source as less reliable, or at least harder to quantify through statistical analysis than wind, solar and geothermal. He receives many inquiries for new technologies that use fuel cells, wave energy, biofuels and gasification, but says often they are unproven, unreliable or uneconomic, and therefore not yet good candidates for financing.

Even though wind energy is high on his list of strong investments, Lorusso sees that market slowing. The sentiment is that “the best sites have been taken, the low hanging fruit has been picked,” so it’s becoming more difficult to develop wind farms, he said. In addition, utilities are less apt to enter into lucrative long-term power sales agreements with wind farms, given today’s low natural gas prices and depressed demand for electricity. Solar energy, on the other hand, appears to be more quickly moving toward grid parity. It also offers the promise of adaptable consumer applications as it becomes integrated into shingles, windows and signs, he said.

Not all solar, however, is created equal when it comes to financing. The industry seems to be developing under what Lorusso described as a bifurcated “barbell effect.” On one side of the barbell is the proliferation of small rooftop solar installations, almost “real estate plays,” he said, that are increasingly aggregated to make them more appealing to financers. On the other side of the barbell are fewer, but massive, utility-scale projects with well-structured deals that attract financial backing. One example is the 392-MW Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System, being built in California’s Mojave Desert with the help of a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy.

While small and large deals make it onto the barbell, mid-sized solar projects often find it hard to secure traditional financing. These $2-3 million installations on commercial roofs lack the economies of scale to attract large banks. As far as the banks are concerned, he said, conducting due diligence on these projects takes too much time for the size of the transaction. Therefore this mid-range solar project often must rely on all equity deals, aggregation, or in some cases small regional banks.
A solar company needs roughly a $20-$50 million pipeline of projects just to catch financiers’ attention, said Scott Wiater, president of Standard Solar, the highest ranking renewable energy company on Inc. magazine’s top 500 fastest growing American companies for 2010. “It’s all about scale, you have to have scale,” he said.

Having a signed power purchase agreement is crucial, Wiater added. “The people that offer tax equity and debt – their mindset is we don’t want to take any pre-development risk.” With a power purchase agreement in hand, a solar company can secure debt financing relatively easily now; tax equity financing less so, he said. “You can find tax equity, but it is expensive.”

Meanwhile, Standard Solar has seen an uptick in the number of commercial enterprises that install solar panels to hedge against future energy rate hikes. Some of these deals are all cash and others operate under power purchase agreements. ‘We are seeing just normal commercial customers installing fairly large systems,’ he said, adding, “If natural gas pricing wasn’t as low as it is, we would have much more business. But with that said, we can still be competitive even with the currently depressed energy prices.”

COMMUNITY BANKS FOR SMALL PROJECTS
For the truly small renewable project, conventional financing can be extremely hard to find. But small specialised or community banks are increasingly filling this niche by lending to ventures that have a hard time accessing conventional capital. Many of these banks function as non-profit institutions that do not have to answer to shareholders, so focus on investments with social impact, such as day care centers or schools. For such projects, “there are a world of government programmes that aren’t going to go anywhere, that are not in danger of being zeroed. We have been looking for how to take those tools and put capital in the green economy,” said Melissa Malkin-Weber, green initiatives manager for Self-Help Credit Union, nonprofit community development lender, real estate developer, and credit union with offices in California, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.

For example, in the US small renewable energy projects can take advantage of the new markets tax credit, set up in 2000 for real estate construction and renovation in low-income areas. “Renewable energy looks a lot like commercial real estate from an underwriting perspective,” she said.
Renewable energy developers, such as solar installers, can use such credits to attract private capital. The developer can parlay the credit into a below-market interest rate and more flexible loan term. Loans can be as small as $5000, although the sweet spot tends to be $75,000 to $10 million, she said.

YOUNG AND UNSUBSIDISED
New technologies, those just getting off the ground, typically seek out a different kind of investor than those already accepted by commercial markets. Still unproven, and not ready for full-scale commercial deployment, these technologies often look to angel investors, venture capitalists and government funding.

The good news is that an increasing amount of VC money has been flowing to renewables. In the US, investors in new technologies look to renewable energy as the “next major economic transformation frontier,” according to Venture Capital’s Role in the US Renewable Energy Sector, a white paper by the US Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance. Before 2005, renewable energy accounted for two percent of VC investment in the US; by 2010 it had reached 15 percent.
China, too, with its growing appetite for clean energy, can be a rich launching point for new renewable energy technology, according to Stephen Edkins, partner in Diverso, a Shanghai-based venture capitalist firm that specialises in connecting technology innovators with opportunity in China. Diverso’s clients included Ilika, a clean-tech materials company that works in energy storage, and TMO Renewables, the developer of a new process for converting biomass into fuel ethanol. Both are based in the UK.

Direct subsidy is difficult to come by in China, and that’s just fine with Diverso. Much like other VCs, Diverso looks for technology that can stand on its own.

“Technological innovation is about allowing renewable energy to be competitive in the absence of subsidy,” said Edkins. While direct subsidies may be hard to come by in China, the government backs renewable energy in other ways, particularly through favourable terms from its state-owned banks, which “act as a lever,” Edkins said.

Opportunity is great for new technology in China’s hungry energy market, but also daunting. The language barrier alone can stymie outside businesses, according to Diverso.

Brian Kinane, managing director at Yorkville Advisors, also works with junior energy companies, but in Europe, where the challenges are different. “Equity markets are difficult to access for companies at present. Many investors are concerned that there is correction coming in the market. There is a feeling that the market has had quite a high run-up and now there is a greater sense of volatility,” he said.
This slowdown is being spurred by government austerity measures throughout Europe, as well as talk that China’s economy is cooling. The correction is expected to be temporary, with a positive economic trend reasserting itself, but investors “don’t want to be caught up in that correction,” he said.
Longer term, Europe’s renewable energy finance sector is likely to benefit from Germany’s decision to close down its nuclear power stations, he added.

HELP FROM EXPORT BANKS
Meanwhile, government export credit agencies, such as the US’ Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank), Export Development Canada and Germany’s Hermes Cover, have been filling in the financing gaps for equipment suppliers. Export banks are especially well suited for small transactions that hold little interest to conventional lenders.

For example, Ex-Im Bank offers a streamlined application process known as Renewable Express. Solyndra saw its financing processed in just 41 days. The manufacturer used the programme to finance its sale of solar panels to an international supermarket chain in Belgium. The June 2011 deal offered Solynda not only a favourable interest rate, but also a long financing term. The US export bank guaranteed an 18-year €7.7 million loan ($10.3 million) to finance panels for the 3 MW project.

NOT A BUBBLE
Kathleen Marshall, managing director at Green Solar Finance, says that stimulus funding did what it set out to do. Financing is again available for renewable energy. “What we are seeing is tremendous movement on almost all fronts,’ she said. “We’re seeing many more financial entrants coming in – philanthropic investors, insurance and bank lenders.” She credits much of the movement to the cash grant offered in lieu of a tax credit. “It provided a strong initial catalyst to start moving things. I think what it really did is it created scale. It created tremendous scale and success in getting projects done.”
Ultimately, though, for a financing deal to work it takes “tremendous collaboration,” she said. If a subsidy goes away, parties must be willing to be flexible and realistic about yields. And then “a deal will get done,” she said. In any case, whether stimulus money stays or goes, what’s clear to renewable energy investors now is that this industry is “not a bubble – the horses are out of the gate and they are running,” Marshall said.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Studying Potential Loss of 1603 Cash Grant, 1705 Loan Guarantee, ITC and PTC

What Happens When the Incentives Expire?
By Bruce Hamilton, Director of Energy, Navigant Consulting, Inc.,
Reproduced from RenewableEnergyWorld.com

May 17, 2011

Sacramento, CA, USA -- Wind projects, along with other renewable energy technologies, have benefitted in a variety of ways from federal incentive programs. The Section 1603 cash grant program, the Department of Energy Section 1705 Loan Guarantee program and the Bonus Depreciation schedule are among the federal programs that are scheduled to expire by the end of 2012. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) are also scheduled to expire for wind projects at the end of 2012. In today's budget-cutting environment, it's possible that none of these incentives will be renewed.
The Section 1603 cash grant has been a popular and successful program and is generally credited for keeping the U.S. wind industry healthy during the 2009-2010 recession1. Since the program was initiated in 2009 through the first quarter of 2011, $5.6 billion in cash grants has been awarded for wind projects, representing more than 80 percent of all Section 1603 funding to date.
The DOE Section 1705 loan guarantee program has a current allocation of $2.5 billion that can support up to $30 billion of loan guarantees. As of April 2011, three wind plants have received commitments for loan guarantees totaling $1.5 billion, including $1.3 billion for Caithness's 845 MW Shepherd's Flat project.


Under the federal Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS), wind and other renewable energy properties are classified as five-year property for depreciation purposes. Eligible property placed in service after Sept. 8, 2010 and before Jan. 1, 2012 qualifies for 100 percent first-year bonus depreciation, meaning that 100 percent of the project cost can be expensed in the first year. For 2012, a 50 percent bonus depreciation is still available. After Dec. 31, 2012, the allowable deduction reverts to the original five-year MACRS recovery. The value of the 100 percent bonus is estimated to be 40 percent of the value of the Section 1603 cash grant.

To determine the impact of the pending expiration of these programs, Navigant calculated the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for a 100 MW wind plant in various time frames with the following project finance structures:

•Case 1. Circa 2008, using the PTC, equity from the project sponsor (20 percent), and a tax equity partnership flip (80 percent).2

•Case 2. Circa 2011, using the cash grant (30 percent), equity from the project sponsor (20 percent), a DOE loan guarantee (40 percent) and a private loan (10 percent). 3

•Case 3. Circa 2013, using the PTC, equity from the project sponsor (20 percent) and a tax equity partnership flip (80 percent), assuming that the PTC will be renewed.4

•Case 4. Circa 2013, using the project sponsor's equity (70 percent) and a private loan (30 percent), assuming that the PTC is not renewed.5

Navigant also calculated the range of LCOE prices from natural gas fired power plants during these same time periods.6 The results of the four cases are shown in the graph.

The case studies show that wind plants are competitive with gas plants in Cases 1 and 2, which is consistent with the fact that many utilities have installed wind plants well in excess of their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements. In comparing Cases 1 and 2, the combined effect of the cash grant and the DOE loan guarantee cuts the cost of a wind farm nearly in half. In comparing Cases 1 and 3, increased return requirements from tax equity investors are a significant factor in driving wind LCOEs higher. In comparing the wind plant LCOEs of Cases 3 and 4 with their corresponding gas plant LCOEs, wind will not be competitive with gas in 2013, either with or without the PTC. Plenty of wind plants will still be built, but with the current cost structures in place and unless federal incentives are renewed or replaced, post-2012 U.S. wind markets will be driven primarily by RPS requirements rather than competing head-to-head with gas projects.

Bruce Hamilton (left) is Director of Energy at Navigant Consulting, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
1. According to the DOE's Preliminary Evaluation of the Impact of the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program on Renewable Energy Deployment in 2009 (Bolinger, Wiser, and Darghouth, April 2010), the grant program may have helped directly motivate as much as 2,400 MW of wind capacity to be built that would not otherwise have come online in 2009.
2. Case 1 assumes a 6% annual return for tax equity investors, which was typical in 2008 when there were plenty of investors compared to the number of quality projects. The wind plant capital cost is assumed to be $2,000/kW for all cases.
3. Case 2 assumes a 2011 cost of debt of 4%/year plus a 2.5% up-front fee. The cost of tax equity is currently 9%/year, plus a 3% premium for projects with debt. Only Case 2 assumes bonus depreciation.
4. Case 3 assumes a 9% annual return for tax equity investors in 2013. If the number of tax equity investors does not significantly increase and new structures do not appear, the cost of tax equity will remain at the elevated 2011 levels.
5. Case 4 assumes that the cost of project debt in 2013 will follow inflation and return to 2008 levels of 6%/year plus a 2.5% up-front fee.
6. Natural gas prices are assumed to be $3.48 to $4.91/MMBtu in 2011 and $4.14 to $5.75/MMBtu in 2013.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Clean Energy Spared The Budget Axe - For Now. An Update from Politico

Alternative energy runs into headwind


By DARREN SAMUELSOHN, POLITICO.COM
Clean energy technology champions are scrambling to secure the tax breaks.  Photo by AP Photo

For the renewable energy sector, it’s a wonder either wind or solar power is still standing.

Austere budgets and small government have become Capitol Hill credos, and clean energy technology champions are scrambling to secure the tax breaks and loan guarantees they’ve depended on over the past decade to drive investments.

Cheap natural gas is beating renewables as the lowest-cost option for meeting the nation’s thirst for new electricity.

Scathing media reports have also raised questions about whether the Obama administration favored its green-tinted campaign contributors with federal stimulus dollars and wound up sending upward of three-quarters of the subsidies to companies that are now based overseas.

And when the industry does show signs of life, wildlife advocates and environmentalists have been making it difficult by blocking transmission lines to get the clean energy to urban centers.

Moderating an Import-Export Bank conference panel earlier last month alongside several top energy industry executives, Carol Browner, President Barack Obama’s former top energy adviser, bemoaned the lack of a long-term market signal to help renewables. Without private entrepreneurs, she said, the already small U.S. market could be swamped by foreign competitors.

“This is an industry evolving rapidly, whether it be on the supply or demand side,” Browner said. “From my perspective, on the public policy side, we need to do more to ensure there is demand for the technology. We are in danger of not being at the forefront of the industry. It’s because of people like this we’re at least able to hold on.”

John Denniston, a partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, sounded off on the disparity, too, ticking through the top 20 renewable energy companies in the world and noting that just four are American.

Exactly what the federal government can do is a question.

Obama promised to put solar panels on the White House roof last year and has continued to talk up renewable energy. During a visit earlier this month to a wind turbine manufacturer in suburban Philadelphia, Obama pledged to keep up the fight to make the renewable industry’s tax credits permanent — rather than leave them exposed to the often last-minute dash for renewal.

“I want to kick-start this industry,” the president said. “I want to make sure it’s got good customers, and I want to make sure the financing is there to meet that demand.”

But several market experts doubt Obama can live up to his promises. While the solar tax credits are secure through 2016, wind will see some of its most cherished benefits expire at the end of 2012, just after the presidential campaign.

“We’ve seen this movie a number of times,” said Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy at the American Wind Energy Association.

Some of the long-term options are also no longer looked at so kindly on Capitol Hill, either.

Former Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici had once floated the idea of establishing a “green bank” that would put financial experts in place in the evaluation of clean energy projects. A similar idea is now a centerpiece of the Democrats’ energy plan, which makes it more likely to fall to partisan sniping.

“The Republicans are calling it a Fannie and Freddie for clean energy, but they don’t mean it in a nice way,” said Kevin Book, managing director of the Washington research firm ClearView Energy Partners.

Renewable advocates insist they long ago gave up on the idea of pricing carbon emissions as a way to get a toehold against their coal, natural gas and nuclear rivals. Now, they’ve put their eggs in another basket: the “clean” energy standard that Obama mentioned in January’s State of the Union speech.

But even here, their preferred policy approach appears to be stuck in congressional low gear.

“I think the door is cracked open and therefore worth pursuing,” Gramlich said.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton may be the biggest barrier to a “clean” energy standard. He opposes federal mandates and has shown no interest in responding to the issue, even if the Senate somehow were to come up with 60 votes on legislation.

In an interview, the Michigan Republican insisted that he wants to expand the nation’s renewable portfolio. But he quickly ticked through a number of the industry’s downsides.

“Solar would be dead without the extension of the tax credits about a year and a half ago,” he said. “So they continue to push out.”

Upton also took issue with local activists and environmentalists who have made it more difficult to get wind energy into the transmission system by challenging various transmission projects.

“That’s the dilemma,” he said. “You’ve got different groups challenging the building to improve the grid. It’s a problem.”

Despite the hurdles, industry officials see themselves in a strong light.

Wind produces about 2 percent of the nation’s electricity. That’s up from less than 1 percent in 2005, with turbines now churning out more than 40,000 megawatts of power — enough to supply electricity to more than 10 million homes.

Solar power is in its own camp. It still hovers below 1 percent of the nation’s energy pie. Its small size makes its growth look even bigger. Investments jumped from $3.6 billion to $6 billion last year. As of 2010, there’s more than 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity, up from 320 megawatts in 2008.

“We’re the fastest-growing industry in the United States, period,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industry Association.

Indeed, both wind and solar can point to some useful figures as they try to sway political doubters. In 2010, 14 wind manufacturing plants opened, giving the industry 20,000 jobs stretched across 42 states. Fifty-eight new solar panel factories have opened in the past 18 months. Solar officials tout a similar number of jobs spread across 47 states.

Industry observers say wind and solar, while in different camps in terms of recent growth, can at least take heart in the policies they have been able to latch onto.

“It could have been worse,” Book said. “It could have been the case there was no stimulus to spend. It could have been the case that there was no grant program. It could have been the case there was no production tax credit.”

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Update on Treasury's Cash Grant Program

April 16, 2010

Tax Cuts, Renewable Energy Grants Attract Unlikely Allies


They might seem like strange traveling companions, but solar power companies and chemical manufacturers are riding the same bandwagon to urge Congress and the Obama administration to expand tax cuts and grants for clean energy.

The push in the past two days has corresponded nicely with Tax Day. With health care reform in the rearview mirror and talk of more economic stimulus bills around the bend, industries are going hat in hand to Congress for extensions of tax credits and government financing programs that could run out this year.

Wind and solar energy companies are desperate to maintain subsidies they say are needed to carve out a permanent place in the U.S. economy. Heavy industries, such as Dow Chemical Co., are looking for help retooling factories to shift some of their business to clean energy technology.
Two programs created by the 2009 economic stimulus package, the clean energy manufacturing tax credit and Section 1603 grants for renewable projects, are at the center of discussions. Since the departments of Energy and Treasury began administering the programs, hundreds of individual projects or companies have accessed the government's largesse.

Obama administration officials, along with industries that have benefited, tout the programs as big job creators, and according to DOE, they have created thousands of jobs. But in a political atmosphere colored by tea party protests, Congress battles perceptions among conservative Americans that the stimulus funding has not created jobs, even as companies press for expansions of the government financing programs that they say will yield concrete clean energy jobs growth this year and next year.
"The competition for these funds was oversubscribed 3-to-1 in competitive projects," said Matt Rogers, head of DOE's stimulus funding program, referring to the manufacturing tax credit.

Grant program made solar industry shine in '09

The Treasury Department had anticipated that it would distribute about $3 billion in renewable energy grants by the end of 2010. Treasury has already surpassed that figure. Companies ate up the $2.3 billion clean energy manufacturing tax credits quickly, and the administration has requested another $5 billion in its fiscal 2011 budget.

Wall Street has not fully recovered, according to the solar industry's top trade group. If it wasn't for the grant program, which pays companies upfront cash in lieu of tax credits, the industry in 2009 would have been held hostage to a banking sector that had frozen tax equity lending.

Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, yesterday called the Treasury program "instrumental in spurring industry's growth" and urged Congress to extend the program beyond this year. It expires at year's end.

By February, 182 solar projects had received Treasury grants totaling $81 million, which helped attract nearly $300 million in additional financing. The grant program "reduces the need for tax equity partners and significantly lowers the transaction costs for a solar project," the industry said in a report issued yesterday.

"The combination of the 48C program and 1603 renewable generation payments has put the United States on a path to doubling high-technology clean energy manufacturing and renewable generation capacity by 2012," Rogers said. "These programs are bringing private capital off the sidelines and back into the clean energy financing markets."

Chemical industry wants tax credits expanded

The manufacturing tax credit has been just as popular. Yesterday, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a powerful Washington-based industry group that represents the nation's largest chemical manufacturers, urged Congress to expand the so-called 48C program.

"Policies that drive expansion of low-emission industrial technologies and clean energy innovation are important elements of any national greenhouse gas emission reduction policy," said the ACC.

"ACC fully supports the effort to encourage investment in energy efficiency and re-tooling for clean energy manufacturing via programs such as a manufacturing revolving loan fund, expansion in the 48 (c) advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, and other tax incentives," it said.

Officials from the trade group said Dow Chemical, for example, has used the manufacturing tax credit to encourage the development of an advanced auto battery that will make use of clean energy technology. The credit has also been of use in Dow's development of solar shingles. The profitability remains uncertain, but the tax credit has gotten the manufacturing off the ground.

Chemical companies are an active player in a group of major industry trade organizations pushing for industry-friendly policies in energy and climate change policy being crafted in the Senate. The ACC, while mentioning its interest in additional tax credits, said Congress should take the lead on any climate-related policy ahead of pending U.S. EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.


For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.climatewire.net.
ClimateWire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing. Read More »

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Kaiser Permanente Uses PPA Model to Create Distributed Energy

Kaiser Permanente Launches 15 MW Solar Initiative


OAKLAND, CA — Kaiser Permanente will install solar power systems totaling 15 megawatts at California facilities in the first wave of renewable energy projects planned by the largest managed care organization in the U.S.

Starting in April at a receiving warehouse in the San Francisco Bay Area city of Livermore, Kaiser Permanente will roll through a series of installations that are expected to bring solar power systems to 15 medical centers and other facilities in California by the end of summer 2011.

Kaiser Permanente announced its plans this morning. In interviews yesterday, sustainability and green building leaders of the organization provided details about the first stage of KP's broad renewable energy initiative.

"This is just the tip of the iceberg," said John Kouletsis, director of strategy, planning and design for Kaiser Permanente’s National Facilities Services group.

When they are complete, the 15 installations are expected to provide 10 percent of the power used at the Kaiser Permanente sites that host them and prevent the equivalent of 15,890 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually.

Kaiser Permanente's plunge into solar power follows an initial venture at its nearly 2-year-old Modesto Medical Center, which was designed as a high-performance energy efficient campus and included a 50-kilowatt solar energy system (pictured right) among its environmentally friendly attributes.

As planned, the installations also represent one of the larger solar power projects -- and possibly the largest thus far, Kaiser Permanente believes -- within the healthcare industry.


The organization has been a leader of an industry effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by curbing energy consumption; increasing efficiency of facilities, equipment and business operations; finding substitutes for toxic chemicals in products; cutting waste; and providing food choices that are better for patients and employees as well as the environment. Kaiser Permanente also helped develop standards for greening healthcare.

"This is about health," said Kaiser Permanente's Environmental Stewardship Officer Kathy Gerwig, who is also vice president for workplace safety. "We're doing this because we see a direct connection between reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving public health."

Kaiser Permanente's sustainability efforts are core to its goals of providing affordable healthcare and enhancing the communities inside and outside their hospital walls, she said.
"Facilities that perform better are better for the community, better for patients and better for employees," said Gerwig.

Kaiser Permanente, which serves 8.6 million members in nine states and the District of Columbia, will extend the solar program within its service area and is exploring other forms of renewal energy including geothermal, wind power, cogeneration and advanced technology fuel cells such as the Bloom Box, Kouletsis said. Kaiser Permanente has a goal of meeting 25 percent if its energy needs through on-site generation by 2020.

"If each of our sites had something, that would be terrific -- that's what we're looking at as an aspirational goal," Kouletsis said.

The organization's real estate portfolio spans 73 million square feet with about 1,100 buildings, including 36 hospitals, 450 medical office buildings, plus ambulatory surgery centers, administration buildings, parking structures and others, he said.

The roots of the company's renewable energy initiative lie in the fact that Kaiser Permanente controls 60 to 70 percent of the property it occupies. "Because we do own and operate so many of our buildings, we have great opportunities to reduce costs for our operations and our members," Kouletsis said. "And with such a big portfolio, we thought that it should speak to who we are, show that Kaiser is serious about public health and [show] what we can do to lessen harmful impacts to the environment and improve communities."

By starting the solar program in California, the initial projects have the benefit of being located in Kaiser Permanente's home state -- the organization is based in Oakland -- and can take advantage of state as well as federal rebates. The largest utility that works with the system, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., also is headquartered in California, and that provides a good opportunity for Kaiser Permanente to showcase how a strong relationship with an energy company is an important component for successful renewable energy projects, Kouletsis said.

The solar program is designed to be cost-neutral for Kaiser Permanente. Project partner Recurrent Energy, based in San Francisco, will own and operate the solar power systems and is eligible for a 30 percent tax credit. Kaiser Permanente will buy the solar power through a power purchase agreement with Recurrent Energy at rates that are less than or equal to those or energy on the grid.

"This is a long-term, ongoing commitment for us," Kouletsis said. "We're already actively starting to look for the next 15 to 20 sites."

Kaiser Permanente's renewable energy initiative dovetails a $36 billion, 12-year plan to expand and renovate more than 150 hospitals and medical office buildings by the close of 2015.  More information about it sustainability efforts is available at www.kp.org/green.

Top Image: A view of the planned 1 MW elevated solar installation atop existing parking garages at the Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center. Rendering courtesy of Recurrent Energy.
Inset: The solar installation at the Modesto Medical Center. Courtesy of Kaiser Permanente.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Chadborne & Parke Project Finance Feb 2010 NewsWire

Chadborne & Parke Project Finance NewsWire contains great up-to-date information on the word of clean energy project finance.

Click here to link to the Newswire in PDF form


Table of Contents
1 The Year Ahead: What to Expect from Washington
11 DOE Moves on Loan Guarantees
17 Treasury Cash Grant Update
22 Update: M&A Market
28 Update: Tax Equity and Debt Markets
35 Islamic Project Finance: Structures and Challenges
40 Cross-Border Renewables — Baja to California
43 Finding Development Capital
48 A New Transmission Superhighway Takes Shape in the West
54 Environmental Update

Monday, July 20, 2009

ITC vs. PTC vs. Cash Grant

Renewable Project Finance Options: ITC, PTC, or Cash Grant?

Norbert Richter, Power Magazine

(Click here to review the white paper from The National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Dozens of institutional investors in U.S. renewable energy projects pulled out of the market when the nation’s liquidity reserves dried up late last year. Some left the renewable market sector in search of more lucrative investment opportunities. Others found themselves unable to take advantage of the attractive tax credits because they themselves lacked profits against which to use the credits. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, approved February 13, changed the investor ground rules — again.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) gives investors, owners, operators, and financiers a choice of government credits that may help push forward renewable projects that otherwise might be turned down. The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of the ARRA as it affects federal support for renewable energy projects as well as an explanation of how the renewable investment rules of the road have changed with the stimulus incentive package.

Large insurance companies and investment banks that engage with project developers provide the bulk of renewable energy project financing. The ARRA offers to those financiers a number of very useful incentives for renewable energy projects that can be tailored to individual project needs. By using complex financial models and structures that are designed to leverage the federal government’s support for renewable technologies, investors can use accelerated depreciation and tax credits to offset tax liabilities. Now, with the expanded variety of production tax credits (PTC), investment tax credits (ITC), and cash grants to choose from, investors must consider the benefits of each incentive for their respective projects (see sidebar).

Good News for Renewables

The ARRA has several finance-based provisions that renewable stakeholders can now consider. These changes will influence how financing decisions are made on both qualitative and quantitative issues. The key changes include these:

  • The PTC in-service deadline is extended through 2012 for wind projects and through 2013 for open- and closed-loop biomass, geothermal, municipal solid waste, qualified hydroelectric, and marine hydrokinetic facilities.

  • Project financiers may now elect the ITC in lieu of the PTC. The ARRA allows PTC-qualified facilities installed in 2009 through 2013 (2009 through 2012 in the case of wind) to elect a 30% ITC in lieu of the PTC. If the ITC is chosen, the election is irrevocable and requires the depreciable basis of the property to be reduced by one-half the amount of the ITC.

  • Project financiers may also elect a cash grant in lieu of the ITC. This new program provides grants that cover up to 30% of the cost basis of qualified renewable energy projects that are in service in 2009 – 2010 or that commence construction during 2009 – 2010 and are in service prior to 2013 for wind, 2017 for solar, and 2014 for other qualified technologies. The grant is excluded from gross income, and the depreciable basis of the property must be reduced by one-half of the grant amount.

  • The ITC-subsidized energy financing penalty is removed, allowing projects that elect the ITC to also utilize "subsidized energy financing" (such as tax-exempt bonds or low-interest loan programs) without suffering a corresponding tax credit basis reduction. This provision also applies to the new cash grant option.

  • Bonus depreciation of 50% is extended (that is, the ability to write off 50% of the depreciable basis in the first year, with the remaining basis depreciated as normal, according to the applicable schedules) to qualified renewable energy projects acquired and placed in service in 2009.

  • The loss carrryback period is extended from two to five years for small businesses (those with average annual gross receipts of $15 million or less over the most recent three-year period). This carryback extension can only be applied to a single tax year, which must either begin or end in 2008.

  • ITC dollar caps are removed, eliminating the preexisting maximum dollar caps on residential small wind, solar hot water, and geothermal heat pump ITCs. The dollar cap on the commercial small wind 30% ITC is also eliminated, and credits may be claimed against the Alternative Minimum Tax.

  • The existing loan guarantee programs to cover commercial projects are expanded to include support of up to $60 billion to $100 billion in loans, depending on the risk profiles of the underlying projects.

  • Clean renewable energy bonds (CREB) get more funding: $1.6 billion in new CREBs is added for eligible technologies owned by governmental and tribal entities, municipal utilities, and cooperatives. Combined with the $800 million of new CREB funding added in October 2008, new CREB funding totals $2.4 billion.

Pick Your Poison

Cash flow model studies funded by the Department of Energy have been developed to help quantify the benefit of PTC and ITC incentives. Given installed project costs and expected capacity factors — along with assumed federal and state tax rates — the models calculate the present value of the ITC, PTC, and cash grant at nominal discount rates of 5%, 7.5%, and 10%. Depending on the project type and constraints, your tradeoff choice between the federal incentives may be clear or marginal.

For example, a wind project that uses a discount rate of 7.5%, costs $2,000/kW installed, and with an expected capacity factor of 30% results in a 1.3% net value advantage for using the ITC instead of the PTC. Using the same assumptions, but with a project cost of $1,700/kW and an expected capacity factor of 40%, yields a 10.4% increased value for the PTC.

Generally, wind projects with lower installed costs and higher capacity factors find that the PTC provides greater benefit than the ITC. Because a higher capacity factor results in more production, the PTC seems to have higher project value for projects that can operate near the plant’s rated output for more hours each year.

Consider another example of an open-loop biomass project, the same discount rate, a capacity factor between 60% and 90%, and a project installed cost ranging from $3,000/kW to $5,000/kW. Using these parameters and several other assumptions (depreciation schedules and PTC applicability to biomass projects), calculations show that the ITC produces more financial benefits for the project than the PTC.

More Details to Consider

The relative value of each federal credit is among the most important considerations when deciding among the PTC, ITC, and cash grant. However, there are other qualitative considerations that may affect a manager’s decision, such as those that follow, especially when the quantitative differences between the PTC and ITC are slim.

Subsidized Energy Financing. The stimulus package removed the "double-dipping" penalty for the ITC, but not for the PTC. As a result, any PTC-eligible project that can secure "subsidized energy financing" may be better off electing to take the ITC (or equivalent cash grant) rather than sticking with a diminished PTC. Prior to the stimulus bill, the values of both the ITC and the PTC were reduced proportionally (with the PTC reduction limited to a maximum of 50%) by the amount of a project’s installed costs that was financed using "subsidized energy financing" (such as government-sponsored low-interest loan programs).

Option to Elect Equivalent Cash Grant. The ARRA not only enables PTC-eligible projects to elect a 30% ITC, but it also allows projects eligible for a 30% ITC to elect a cash grant of equivalent value instead. The availability of a U.S. Treasury – backed cash source might drive some PTC-leaning projects toward the 30% cash grant option, even if the PTC promises a higher expected value.

Owner/Operator Requirement. The ITC does not require the owner and operator to be the same entity, which opens the door to a variety of leasing structures, including sale/leasebacks and inverted pass-through leases. With the exception of biomass projects, the project owner must also operate the project in order to claim the PTC.

Performance Risk. Receiving ITC or cash grants is not dependent on project performance, whereas the PTC is dependent on asset output. The certainty offered by the ITC over the performance risk inherent in the PTC — even if the PTC promises a higher expected value — may make the ITC more attractive.

Power Sale Requirement. The ITC does not impose a power sale requirement, making it a more widely applicable incentive. In order to be PTC eligible, the qualifying renewable power must be sold to an unrelated party.

Tax Credit Demand. Tax equity investors rely on having a tax base that can fully absorb all of a project’s tax benefits over the coming decade before they invest in a 10-year PTC project. Even though depreciation deductions still occur for a multi-year period, the ITC greatly reduces the need for future tax shelter because the full credit is realized in the project’s first year. This also means that to fully absorb the ITC, an investor must have a larger tax base (compared to the PTC) during the first year of the project. Should a project elect to take the 30% cash grant instead of the ITC, the importance of tax equity investors and the tax credit demand is reduced (though it may still be needed in order to maximize allowable depreciation deductions).

Liquidity. The fact that the ITC, or equivalent cash grant, is selected in the project’s first year leads to a relatively more illiquid investment. Potential buyers of the project no longer have access to the credit once the project owner realizes the ITC. Consequently, the ITC vests linearly over a five-year period, forcing the investor to hold on to the project for at least five years in order to fully realize the ITC value. With the PTC, credits are realized in real time over a 10-year period as the project generates power. The sale of a PTC project can then occur at virtually any time (ignoring the influence of depreciation recapture), whereupon any remaining PTCs transfer to the new owner.
—Norbert Richter (norbert.richter@duke.edu) is an industry consultant specializing in renewable energy project evaluation and finance.


For More Information

An excellent reference source on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the modeling techniques described in this article is found in "PTC, ITC, or Cash Grant? An Analysis of the Choice Facing Renewable Power Projects in the United States" published in March by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The entire report is available at http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/reports/lbnl-1642e.pdf.