Showing posts with label Solar Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solar Energy. Show all posts

Why use a yield co to raise capital for solar projects?



This blog post extracts some interesting parts related to the benefits and challenges of using a yield co to raise capital for solar projects based on an article titled "New Horizons In Solar Financing" published on Law360 on 15 May 2014 by Freedman and McFayden - partners at Shearman and Sterling LLP. They noted that alongside public debt markets and crowdfunding, yield co can be helpful in financing solar projects.

What is a yield co?

Historically, developers raised equity at a parent level, requiring investors to optimally value an entire pipeline of projects in various stages of development and even (in some cases) non-development businesses. Recently, developers have shown growing interest in an alternative.

A yield co is a special purpose vehicle created to hold a portfolio of de-risked operating assets and monetize a portion of its value through the sale of equity on a public exchange.

The yield co distributes some or all of the projects’ revenues as dividends. The parent company may use the cash raised from the initial sale of shares and from ongoing dividends to develop additional assets to sell to the yield co or for general corporate purposes.

Any cash retained by the yield co may be used for operations and maintenance and to acquire additional projects.

Projects may be acquired from the parent or an affiliate, which may also be involved in managing the company, or from third parties.

The company may be established around a portfolio of identified projects, or it may be established as a blind pool of capital, with management exercising discretion to acquire projects opportunistically.

Benefits

First, in a yield co, the tax attributes of renewable generation can offset the tax obligations of other projects in the portfolio. In order for the yield co to utilize all of its tax benefits, some of the projects in the portfolio must have net profits resulting in tax liabilities, either because they are conventional generation assets or because they are older renewables projects that have already exhausted their tax benefits. The yield co’s ability to shelter its own tax obligations eliminates the need to access a potentially constrained pool of tax equity investors.

Second, a yield co may allow a parent to finance its corporate operations (and potentially its further project development activities) more cheaply than selling equity at the corporate level, if investors have not appropriately valued the assets’ potential as part of the parent or if investors will pay a premium for the high, stable yields of operating assets in isolation.

Third, selling assets into a yield co may provide certain tax benefits — the parent company can realize the tax value of net operating losses from retained operations immediately rather than over the several years of project cash flows; and the yield co’s investors enjoy the benefits of tax-free distributions (as return of basis — for as long as the yield co does not generate earnings and profits) and a tax shield resulting from incremental depreciation.

Challenges

Several challenges must be addressed in order to effectively use a yield co to monetize solar projects.

First, the yield co must have a large enough portfolio to justify the expense of a public offering.

Second, it must continue to acquire new projects to maintain its favorable tax position and to generate the growth that investors seek.

Third, affiliated entities (such as developer-managers) may incur high costs to protect against potential conflicts of interest when they want to sell assets to the yield co, a risk highlighted by ratings agency reports in connection with the NRG Yield offering.

Fourth, the portfolio must be carefully selected and marketed to match the risk appetite of the target investors, and the market’s lack of familiarity with either the technology or the applicable regulatory regimes can lead to underpriced or failed offerings. For example, in 2013 ,when AES Corp. withdrew its IPO of Silver Ridge Power, a solar yield co, reports attributed the offering’s failure to investor uncertainty about the applicable international regulatory regimes.


http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/NewsInsights/Publications/2014/05/New-Horizons-In-Solar-Financing-Freedman-McFadyen-Lamb-051614.pdf

PV market as of May 2014

This is what PV Crystalox Solar PLC commented about the PV market as of May 2014: 

PV market conditions remain challenging with pressure on pricing resuming in recent weeks  following the modest recovery seen at the beginning of the year and during the latter part of 2013.  

Weaker internal demand in China has renewed the global oversupply of wafers and driven down pricing, reversing most of the gains seen earlier in the year.  

Pricing remains below industry production costs as polysilicon, the key raw material, has maintained most of this year's increase and currently trades well above its price at the end of 2013.

Mini-bonds: Overview and examples













Mini-bonds and retail bonds

Similarity

  • They are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and considered as risky investments. (Hargreaves Lansdown investment expert Adrian Lowcock)
  • They are smaller in size compared with corporate bonds or government bonds and are issued by smaller firms.
Differences
  • Mini-bonds are not listed on the stock exchange, or on any other platform, while retail bonds are listed on the London Stock Exchange’s Order Book for Retail Bonds.
  • Mini-bonds need to be held until expiry some years later while retail bonds on the ORB can be bought and sold during normal market hours, allowing investors the opportunity to both value and sell the bond.
These are also the risks associated with investing in mini-bonds and, in exchange, the mini-bond yield is higher than retail bonds.

A few examples of mini-bonds in the UK renewable energy sector

October 2010 Ecotricity

Ecotricity, a UK-based provider of electricity through renewable energy, raised £10 million through the launch of “EcoBonds” to its 40,000 business customers including body shops, EMI and co-operative banks, small and medium sized businesses, organic food retailers, local authorities, and schools. These are four year bonds with an interest rate of 7% (Ecotricity customers qualify for an improved rate of 7.5%). Minimum investment was set at $500 to encourage small investors to participate. The £10 million raised will fund Ecotricity’s equity investment in 12 wind farms then in development in the UK. The total aggregate projects costs will be £25-£30 million. Ecotricity will fund the remainder through debt financing from the banks. The Ecobond funding will also go toward initial development of solar projects and research and development into tidal energy.

September 2013 A Shade Greener  

A similar offering came from UK-based A Shade Greener which is aiming to raise £10m from small investors (min. £1000) by offering 3 year retail bonds at 6% annual return, but with an interesting twist – all the interest paid upfront as a lump sum. The company will use the proceeds to install panels at no cost to the householder and collects the feed-in tariff payments. As with the CBD bond, this must be held for three years until maturity.

October 2013 Good Energy Group plc

Good Energy Group plc set out to raise £5 million through a retail bond offering to finance investment in solar and wind energy generation. Within three weeks, Good Energy easily met their target, closing the book at £15m three weeks ahead of schedule. The bond offers investors a coupon of 7.25% per annum, paid every half-year. It has an initial term of four years and investments can be executed in multiples of £500 with no upper limit.

December 2013 Secured Energy Bond

Australia-based CBD Energy offered a “Secured Energy Bond” to raise finance to install solar panels for chosen UK businesses at no cost to the business but with income derived from Feed-In Tariffs. The bond is secured against the assets of the company and also has a corporate guarantee from the parent company. It will pay an annual coupon of 6.5%. The minimum investment into the bond is £2,000 for a 3 year fixed term and as the bond is non-transferable, it has to be held to maturity in late 2016.

Three damaging proposals for the German solar power sector


















As of March 2014, German Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel was planning 2 damaging policies for the local solar power sector (in my view): 
  • Reducing solar subsidies available under the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) 
  • Cutting the annual installation target for 2013 to 2.5 GW from 3.5 GW
  • Much worse, introducing charges of about Eur0.044 per kWh on consumers that generate solar for their own use rather than sell it directly back to the grid.

The government will vote on the reform on April 8 and if approved, the proposals will be adopted as new legislation on August 1.


Source: BSW-Solar press release & Clean Energy Pipeline

Solar Feed-In-Tariff


This table will be regularly updated  


Country
State
Type
Time
FIT
VND
Notes
Australia (A$ cent)
Queensland
Residential
Before July 12
44
9,212




July 12 - now
8
1,675

Japan (JPY)


July 12 - April 13
42
10,761
World's highest



April 13 - now
 38
 8,310
Down by 10%
UK
(£ pence)

<50 KW




 



Sale-Leaseback & Inverted Lease


The two lease structures that are most commonly used to finance solar collection installations are the Sale-Leaseback Structure and the Inverted Lease Structure.

The Sale-Leaseback Structure

Under this structure, the system is sold by the Developer to the Investor and then leased back to the Developer, and the Developer delivers the power to the Off-taker via a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The Investor would be the owner, and would claim the tax depreciation and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Grant. In addition, the Developer would have a purchase option at the end of the lease term.
The advantages of a Sale-Leaseback Structure include:
  • Common project finance structure
  • Provides 100% financing for the system
  • Transfers 100% of the tax benefits to the Investor
  • Sale-Leaseback Structure can commence up to three months after the system has been placed into service
  • ITC Grant based upon FMV rather than Developer’s cost
The disadvantages of a Sale-Leaseback Structure include:
  • Generally not available for Production Tax Credit (PTC) because of ownership requirements
  • Developer’s purchase option is more expensive
  • Tax-exempt or government entities can’t be the Developer or Investor
  • Lease must qualify as a true lease for U.S. federal tax purposes

The Inverted Lease Structure

Under this structure, the Developer leases the system to the Investor. The Off-taker receives the energy from the system via a PPA, and in turn pays the Investor for the energy produced. The Developer may operate the system on behalf of the Investor pursuant to an Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Agreement. The Developer (as owner) claims any tax depreciation, and can elect whether the Investor can claim the ITC Grant. The Investor (as lessee) claims any tax deductions for the lease payments. At the conclusion of the lease term, the system automatically reverts to the Developer.
The advantages of the Inverted Lease Structure include:
  • Popularity and understanding of lease structures
  • Developer retains the residual interest
  • Easy exit for the Investor
  • Developer may capture some upside during lease term under an O&M Agreement
  • ITC Grant based upon FMV of the system rather than the Developer’s cost
  • Achieves separation of ITC Grant and depreciation
The disadvantages of the Inverted Lease Structure include:
  • Generally not available for PTC because of ownership requirements
  • Investor recognizes income equal to 50% of ITC Grant over initial five years of lease term
  • Tax-exempt or government entities can’t be Developer or Investor
  • Lease must qualify for credit pass-through election
  • Lease must qualify as a true lease for U.S. federal tax purposes