Two weeks ago I included the looming 2016 expiration of the federal Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) as one of the “Top 5 reasons you shouldn’t wait to go solar“. The 30% ITC rebate for residential and commercial solar projects is slated to drop to 10% for commercial projects (effectively stopping utility-scale solar growth) and to zero for residential projects (making going solar much less feasible for many homeowners). I mentioned that the likelihood of an extension is far from certain given our partisan federal ‘climate’.
Then…on Monday the White House released President Obama’s fiscal budget for 2016. To my delight the budget includes:
The $7.4 billion figure is up from the $6.9 billion proposed in Obama’s fiscal 2015 budget, a 7.2 percent rise, and over the $6.5 billion actually passed by Congress for this year. The extension of the ITC and further state incentives to reduce emissions would be immensely valuable to keep the ball rolling in the solar field. Given that solar is booming - providing over 170,000 living-wage jobs and eliminating over 13 million metric tons of harmful CO2 emissions in 2014 alone - it makes sense to continue to incentivize.
However, it may come as no surprise to hear that some lawmakers have said they plan to block the President’s budget priorities entirely. An article in Politico titled “Republicans: Obama Budget ‘Laughable’” cites many congressional Republicans disdain for the budget.
“Obama’s budget is a retread of past proposals that died instantly on the Hill.”
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
The website www.gop.gov cites the singular case of Solyndra as definitive evidence to oppose funding clean energy…despite also claiming to support job growth. (See here as to why Solyndra just doesn’t matter.) With Republicans now controlling both the Senate and the House of Representative, this party line opposition will be a serious challenge to overcome.
Even with the President himself in favor of extending the ITC, and improving funding to support clean energy, the fate of federal support for the solar industry is still quite uncertain.
Watch this space.
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to record an interview for the Disruption! podcast, hosted by Roger Willhite. We talked about my book, Commercial Solar: Step-by-Step, the origin and future of Run on Sun, and larger solar industry trends.
In case you are not familiar with Roger’s work, you should check out his website, Second Silicon, which operates under the tagline, “Get absorbed in Solar” - a sentiment we strongly endorse!
His podcast series, Disruption!, has now recorded fifteen segments, and has included such well known solar industry players as Danny Kennedy, Tor “Solar Fred” Valenza, Frank Andorka, and Jigar Shah, to name a few. Heady company indeed, and we were honored to be invited to participate. (One interesting thing about the process - Roger lives in South Korea so the interview was recorded over Skype—pretty cool!)
In any event, here’s the interview - the opening audio features some sound bites from prior podcasts before we get started - how many of those voices can you identify?
Thanks again to Roger for including me in his wonderful series.
We have been teasing out bits and pieces of our new book, Commercial Solar: Step-by-Step, all summer as we neared the end of the publication process. Well today we can formally announce that it is available both at the Run on Sun Publishing eStore (where we get a better royalty - hint, hint!) and on Amazon.com!
Commercial Solar is intended for two primary audiences:
As the title suggests, the book provides an overview of the process by which an interested party - say, a facilities manager - can go from knowing next to nothing about commercial solar to identifying appropriate contractors to provide bids, analyzing those bids to make meaningful comparisons, determining financing options that are appropriate and even overseeing the actual installation process.
The book features a Foreword written by Boaz Soifer, VP of Sales at Focused Energy:
The material could be dry (much of the reading on this subject is), but is instead casual but precise, clearly laid out, and made accessible through handy use of a narrative in which the Facilities Manager of a fictional company undertakes a commercial solar project himself…
In his typical style—approachable, honest, quirky, and occasionally scathing—Jim has thoughtfully flattened out the complex world of commercial solar PV into an understandable roadmap that anyone can follow to project success.
Interested? You can download a two-chapter excerpt of the book for free, here. Better yet, you can purchase the book today from either our eStore or Amazon for just $9.95. If you are interested in bulk sales (i.e., ten or more copies), discounts are available. Please contact us at Bulk Sales for more information.
And of course, we welcome your comments either here on the blog or at Amazon. Thanks for your support.
In Part 1 of this series on financing commercial solar power systems we explored the basics - cash purchases and commercial loans. Now in Part 2 we move on to examine the pros and cons of solar leasing arrangements and Power Purchase Agreements (PPA’s).
An option that has gained significant traction in the past few years are leases. (Indeed, it is the explosion of solar leasing in the residential market that has fueled the growth of major players like SolarCity and Verengo.) But leases can come with unexpected traps for the unwary and a commercial customer needs to look closely at the details before signing on to a lease agreement for a commercial solar power system.
In a solar lease arrangement the right to use the solar power system is transferred from the owner, referred to as the lessor, to the lessee. From an accounting perspective, all leases are either considered a capital lease (or finance lease) or an operating lease. Generally speaking, “capital leases are considered equivalent to a purchase, while operating leases cover the use of an asset for a period of time.”
When leases are applied to solar power systems, other important considerations apply.
Under accounting standards, a capital lease is defined as “a lease that transfers substantially all the benefits and risks of ownership to the lessee.”
Therefore, with a capital lease, as with a cash purchase or loan, the solar client is treated as the owner of the system and receives the benefits of ownership: utility rebates and tax incentives (if applicable). The capital lease is often for a longer term – the basic criteria is that the lease must run for at least 75 percent of the estimated economic life of the system – that is, between 15 and 19 years or longer.
The longer term can keep payments lower, but because the solar client lessee receives the rebate and tax incentives, the capital lease might carry a higher interest rate than does an operating lease. At the end of the term, the lessee can typically purchase the system at below market cost, perhaps for as little as a nominal one dollar.
In contrast, with an operating lease the solar client lessee does not effectively own the system and the lessor retains the utility rebate and the tax incentives. Rather, the lessee is simply acquiring the right to use the system for a limited time in exchange for periodic rental payments. Typically an operating lease will be for a shorter period of time, and potentially at a lower interest rate. However, at the end of the lease term the lessee either has the system removed by the lessor, enters into a new lease arrangement, or must purchase the system for fair market value.
A related, but different vehicle for making use of a solar power system is a Power Purchase Agreement or PPA. As with an operating lease, the solar client under a PPA does not own the system. Rather, they purchase the electricity that the system produces from the system owner. (Presumably at a price lower than what they would be paying their utility for the same quantity of energy.)
Since the solar client under a PPA only pays for the energy actually produced by the system, the system owner has a greater incentive to maintain the system at peak efficiency and the solar client may receive more of the “benefit of their bargain” under a PPA than they would under an operating lease.
PPA’s typically contain “escalator clauses” by which the price paid per kilowatt hour generated may increase over time. As long as PPA costs increase more slowly than do utility rate increases, the solar client’s savings will grow over time. However, it is possible under a PPA to actually end up paying more for energy to the system owner than the client would have to the local utility. (Indeed, this possibility is what gave rise to a class action lawsuit against Sunrun.)
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the federal agency charged with regulating false or deceptive marketing claims, and solar leasing options can surprisingly lead to unwanted scrutiny from the FTC. The FTC’s concern is “double counting” - multiple entities taking credit for the same environmental benefit. This sort of double counting can occur when a company hosts a solar power system, but does not own it.
The FTC provides this as an illustrative example:
A toy manufacturer places solar panels on the roof of its plant to generate power, and advertises that its plant is “100% solar-powered.” The manufacturer, however, sells renewable energy certificates based on the renewable attributes of all the power it generates. Even if the manufacturer uses the electricity generated by the solar panels, it has, by selling renewable energy certificates, transferred the right to characterize that electricity as renewable. The manufacturer’s claim is therefore deceptive. It also would be deceptive for this manufacturer to advertise that it “hosts” a renewable power facility because reasonable consumers likely interpret this claim to mean that the manufacturer uses renewable energy. It would not be deceptive, however, for the manufacturer to advertise, “We generate renewable energy, but sell all of it to others.”
Deceptive claims are actionable under the FTC’s mandate and offending companies could be subject to enforcement actions and fines. Under either an operating lease or a PPA (though likely not under a capital lease unless the Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) associated with the system are assigned to the utility), the solar client does not own the solar power system and any claim to be “solar-powered” or “using green energy” would be deceptive under the FTC’s guidance.
The series concludes with Part 3 - Commercial PACE and Crowd Funding.
The preceding is an excerpt from Jim Jenal’s upcoming book, “Commercial Solar: Step-by-Step,” due out in July.
Installing a solar power system is a major investment, and part of what determines your return on that investment is how the system is financed. In this three-part excerpt from our upcoming book, Commercial Solar: Step-by-Step, we explain the most common methods for financing a small to medium-sized commercial solar power system.
In recent years a great deal of creativity (some would say perhaps too much creativity) has been brought to bear on the subject of how to finance solar systems resulting in the introduction of myriad financing schemes from the terribly simple (straight cash purchase) to the terribly complex (e.g., flips and swaps) - and as the amount of money at stake grows, the more complex the schemes become.
Fortunately or unfortunately, in the realm of small to mid-sized commercial solar systems, the options are more limited and include cash purchases, loans, various types of leases, Power Purchase Agreements (PPA’s) and a handful of more novel approaches. In Part 1 today, we will look at the pros and cons of cash purchases and loans. Part 2 will explore leases and PPA and Part 3 will conclude with a handful of novel approaches and overall limitations.
The simplest financing method is the cash purchase – simple, that is, if you have the cash on hand and it isn’t needed elsewhere.
When a company self-finances through a cash purchase, they own the system outright and receive the rebate payment from the utility and all of the tax benefits. For those entities with the cash on hand, a cash purchase may be the best possible option since, unlike all of the other methods available, there is no added cost to the price of the system. Instead, a solar power system that is purchased outright should be looked at in terms of its opportunity cost. That is, what advantage/disadvantage does the solar investment provide compared to where the same capital could have otherwise been invested.
These days, with interest rates at historic lows, capital invested in traditional savings instruments - savings accounts or certificates of deposit (CD’s) - provide safety, but returns in the 1-2% range - not terribly attractive. On the other hand, investments with higher returns - individual stocks or stock funds - come with substantial risk, as the crash of 2008 painfully reminded us.
As a result, a solar power system - with next to no risk and an IRR of 12-19% - compares quite favorably. Put most simply, a safer investment will provide a far, far worse rate of return whereas an investment with a higher yield will be far, far riskier.
When viewed through such a lens, a solar power system becomes a very attractive investment indeed. In fact, when analyzed in that fashion, investing in solar even makes sense as a way of employing endowment funds designated for the maintenance of non-profit organizations like private schools and churches.
Unfortunately, not every entity that would like to add solar is in a position to self-finance. For those who must seek other financing sources, a conventional loan is the obvious alternative — if it is available. While interest rates remain at historic lows, many banks are historically reluctant to make loans at all, let alone for “exotic” projects like solar power installations. Or if they are willing to consider it at all, they may impose onerous terms or prohibitively restrictive conditions that keep solar loans more of a theoretical option than a practical one.
Bankers are focused on collateral and cash flow considerations, with solar being strong on the latter but notoriously weak on the former. Normally a loan for an equipment acquisition could be collateralized by the equipment itself — if you don’t pay on your car loan, for example, the bank simply repossess the car. But repossessing a solar power system is a complicated project and, unlike a used car which has a known resale value, the resale value of used solar equipment is uncertain, at best.
On the other hand, solar power systems significantly enhance the cash flow situation of the loan customer since the combination of remnant electric bill and loan payment will be substantially less than the old electric bill, with that difference only improving over time.
In the end, it comes down to a question of the banker’s comfort level with solar. Does the reduced risk that the customer will default thanks to the improved cash-flow prospects outweigh the downside increased risk of poor or no collateral? Some banks are starting to emerge with a specialized practice in solar loans but for the moment, loans for small to mid-sized commercial solar projects remain painfully hard to come by.
The series continues with Part 2: Leases and PPAs.
The preceding is an excerpt from Jim Jenal’s upcoming book, “Commercial Solar: Step-by-Step,” due out in July.
«climate change» cpuc enphase «enphase energy» «feed-in tariff» fit gwp «jim jenal» ladwp «net metering» pg&e pwp «run on sun» sce seia «solar power» «solar rebates» solarcity usc «westridge school for girls»