We have published our whitepaper: Gain Deferral Using Qualified Opportunity Zone Investment Strategies Legal Update.  “Qualified Opportunity Zones” are not specific to renewable energy and do not involve tax credits but provide a powerful new tax benefits as a result of their enactment last year as part of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.”

The whitepaper discusses Qualified Opportunity Zones generally.  Two aspects of them are of note to the renewable energy industry.  First, the statutory language appears to apply to ordinary and capital gains (the IRS may take a different view in its guidance).  The applicability to ordinary gains means that the Qualified Opportunity Zone rules could be used by developers to defer the tax gain they recognized on sales of projects to tax equity partnerships or lessors.

Second, the intersection of the Qualified Opportunity Zone rules and the partnership capital account rules requires clarification that we expect the IRS to provide in its guidance.  So the purchase by partnerships of solar projects in Qualified Opportunity Zones is a strategy that requires further guidance before the tax results can be certain.

 

In a letter dated May 8, 2018, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in support of his state’s coal industry, urges the U.S. Department of Treasury (“Treasury”) to make significant changes to the existing “beginning of construction” guidance issued by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in a series of notices (“IRS Notices”).  The IRS Notices include industry-friendly safe harbors that provide wind developers with more certainty in determining the beginning-of-construction date of a project, which is relevant for determining the amount of the tax credit for wind production (“PTC”) for which a project may be eligible.  The changes advocated for by Sen. Paul are intended, in his words, to be a “step toward a more competitive energy market” and reverse the “expansion of the [PTC] far beyond the text and intent of what Congress passed.”

The proposed changes include:

  • Requiring a project to be placed in service within two years from the beginning of construction, rather than within the four-year window under the current guidance.
  • Prohibiting a project from establishing an earlier beginning-of-construction date through the use of “safe harbor” turbines that were relocated or transferred to the project.
  • Requiring continuous construction from the beginning-of-construction date until the project is placed in service.
  • Requiring physical work to establish the beginning of construction that is “significantly beyond” beginning excavation for a foundation, setting anchor bolts into the ground, pouring concrete pads into the foundation or building onsite roads.
  • Update the list of acceptable delays to the continuous construction requirement, perhaps by requiring an explicit waiver from Treasury.
  • Prohibit wind energy from qualifying for the PTC if the energy is sold into the market at a negative value.
  • Although we have no reason to think that any of these proposals will gain traction with Treasury, it is worth noting that at least one member of Congress has the PTC in his crosshairs.

Many developers of renewable energy projects have experienced higher than expected transaction costs.  There can be a wide range of reasons for such overages.  One all-too-common reason is project documents that cause tax tensions.  These tax tensions lead to more lawyer time, which leads to higher transactions costs.  Thus, developers concerned about transaction costs should negotiate “tax-friendly” project documents to streamline the tax equity investor’s diligence process.

Project documents are typically presented by the developer to the tax equity investor’s counsel in executed form.  Counsel then reviews these to ensure consistency with the tax analysis of the transaction and for other issues.  When counsel identifies an apparent glitch, she typically tries to rationalize or mitigate it without requesting an amendment to the project document in question.  That analysis can take some time.  If she cannot find another solution, she will propose an amendment.  It takes time to prepare the amendment and often more time to persuade the applicable counter-party to sign it.  That request can then lead the counter-party to propose alternative language and a time-consuming (i.e., expensive) back and forth process.

Below is a list of tax issues for developers to keep in mind as they negotiate project documents.  The list is intended to provide trail markers for the most direct path for developers who would like to streamline the tax diligence process (and the associated costs) for their project documents. The list is not intended to be all-inclusive.  Further, the list is not to suggest that missing one or more of these is necessarily fatal to the tax analysis because (i) there are often multiple paths to reach the desired tax outcome and (ii) some of these are best practices, rather than fatal flaws.  Below is generally intended for wind or ground mounted solar projects, as roof-mounted solar is a somewhat different animal.

There are typically five “project documents” (i) the power purchase agreement  (“PPA”) or other revenue contract; (ii) the site lease or other right (which is sometimes combined with the power purchase agreement) to use the ground or roof on which the project is constructed; (iii) the interconnecting agreement that enables the project to transmit its power to the grid; (iv) the operations and maintenance agreement; and (v) the construction contract. Continue Reading Lower Transaction Costs with Tax-Friendly Project Documents

On June 22, 2018, the IRS released Notice 2018-59 (the “Guidance”).  The Guidance provides rules to determine when construction begins with respect to investment tax credit (“ITC”) eligible property, such as solar projects.  The Guidance was much awaited by the solar industry because the date upon which construction begins governs the determination of the percentage level of the ITC, which is ratcheted down for projects that begin construction after 2019.

In addition to applying to solar and (fiber-optic solar), the Guidance applies to the following energy generation technologies: geothermal, fuel cell, microturbine, combined heat and power and small wind.

Overview of Beginning of Construction

The ITC percentage for a solar project is determined based on the year in which construction of the project begins, provided the solar project is also placed in service before January 1, 2024, as follows: (i) before January 1, 2020, 30%, (ii) in 2020, 26%, (iii) in 2021, 22% and (iv) any time thereafter (regardless of the year in which the solar project is placed in service), 10%.

The Guidance is quite similar to existing guidance for utility scale wind projects.  The utility scale wind guidance is discussed in our 2016 Update.  As expected and consistent with the wind guidance, the Guidance provides two means for establishing the beginning of construction of a solar project (and other ITC technology projects): (i) engaging in significant physical work either directly or by contract the “Physical Work Method”) or (ii) paying or incurring (depending on the taxpayer’s method of accounting) five percent of the ultimate tax basis of the project (the “Five Percent Method”).[1]  As is the case with wind, the Guidance provides that the IRS will apply strict scrutiny of the facts and circumstances to determine if the project was continuously constructed from the deemed beginning of construction date through the date the project is placed in service.[2]

Four Year Placed-in-Service Window

The wind guidance provides a four year window for the project to be completed and to avoid the scrutiny as to whether the construction was continuous.   There had been speculation that the window for solar (or at least some classes of solar) would be shorter because the time to construct solar projects (especially rooftop solar) is generally shorter than the time to construct a wind project.  In what is a relief to the solar industry, the Guidance provides solar, and the other ITC technologies, a four year window as well.        Continue Reading Beginning of Construction Guidance for Solar and Other ITC Technologies

On May 30, A Word About Wind held its first annual Financing Wind New York conference.  Tickets to the conference sold out and the attendees were generally wind pros with considerable experience.  The panelists provided many useful insights regarding the wind industry.

Below are soundbites from the conference.  They are organized by topic, rather than chronologically, and were prepared without the benefit of a transcript or a recording.

Offshore Wind

“Right now, globally there is 18 GW of offshore wind.”  — North American Leader, European Based Offshore Wind Developer

“Expecting 20 to 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030.  So that means a couple of gigawatts a year of offshore wind.”   — North American Leader, European Based Offshore Wind Developer

“Offshore wind can be very close to the load centers, 20 to 30 miles away from where people are actually using the electricity.  That makes offshore wind easier than onshore wind, which is now facing transmission challenges to get their power to where people actually use it.” — North American Leader, European Based Offshore Wind Developer

“The European model has been to have the local utility build out to the offshore wind.  In the US, the trend appears to be wind generators are responsible for getting their wind to shore.  I expect wind developers will end up paying for the grid connection.  There is a discrete set of permitting and risks building that connection 30 miles out in the water to the project.” – President, Transmission Developer

“Energy is politically driven, so having manufacturing facilities set up here in the US is very important.”   — North American Leader, European Based Offshore Wind Developer

“Energy policy is very much driven by the states.  However, the federal government under Trump has been supportive of offshore wind.  The Trump administration has taken on board streamlining the offshore wind permitting process and has been supportive of new offshore wind leases.”  — North American Leader, European Based Offshore Wind Developer Continue Reading Financing Wind New York Soundbites

In a recent case, the Tax Court ruled in the taxpayer’s favor as to three California distributed generation solar projects’ eligibility for the energy credit under Section 48 and bonus depreciation under Section 168.  However, the Tax Court did reduce the taxpayer’s basis in the projects, and the taxpayer in the case enjoyed significant procedural advantages due to mistakes by the IRS.

In Golan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-76 (June 5, 2018), in late 2010 a solar contractor installed solar equipment on the roofs of three host properties and entered into power purchase agreements (“PPAs”) with the property owners.  The PPAs provided that the hosts would purchase electricity generated by the solar equipment at a discount to utility rates, while the solar contractor would retain the ownership of the equipment, including the right to any tax or other financial benefits, and would service and repair the equipment.

Mr. Golan, the taxpayer, in 2011 purchased the solar equipment, subject to the PPAs, from the solar contractor for a purported purchase price of $300,000, which was the sum of a purported $90,000 down payment, a $57,750 credit for certain rebates, and a $152,250 promissory note (which the taxpayer was the obligor under but the taxpayer also provided a personal guarantee thereof).  The solar projects were not connected to the grid until after the taxpayer acquired them in 2011.  The IRS unsuccessfully sought to disallow the taxpayer from taking energy credit and depreciation deduction with respect to the solar equipment. Continue Reading Tax Court Sustains Energy Credit and Bonus Depreciation for Distributed Generation Solar Projects

Below are soundbites from panelists at Infocast’s Solar Power Finance & Investment Summit from March 19th to 22nd in Carlsbad, CA.  It was an extremely well-attended event and the mood of the participants was generally upbeat.  Many people observed that there was more capital for projects under development or to buy operating portfolios than there was such supply of projects available to meet that demand.

The soundbites are edited for clarity and are organized by topic, rather than in chronological order.  They were prepared without the benefit of a transcript or recording.

Impact of Tax Reform on the Tax Equity Market

Impact of the Corporate Tax Rate Reduction on the Supply of Tax Equity, Yields and the Capital Stack

“This year we can do $9 million in tax credits; before we could do $15 million.”  [The implication is that a 21 percent federal corporate tax rate is 40 percent less than a 35 percent corporate tax rate, so the tax appetite has declined by 40 percent.]  Vice President, Industrial Bank

“The [supply side of the] tax equity market has declined by 40 percent; some tax equity investors are taking a pause.”  Vice President, Regional Bank

“Our bank this year is slightly below the billion dollars of tax equity it originated last year for its own book.” Vice President, Midwestern Bank

Some “mainstream tax equity investors have taken a pause [from investing] to figure out what the 21 percent corporate tax rate means for them.  It is an investors’ market, but we nervously see a sponsors’ market ahead.”  Managing Director, Financial Advisory Firm

Traditionally, rates for tax equity have been a function of supply and demand, but now we are seeing real pressure on rates.”  Managing Director, Money Center Bank

[It is difficult to jibe this banker’s quote regarding pressure on tax equity rates with the quotes above regarding the supply of the tax equity market being smaller due to tax reform.  Possibly, tax equity investors are agreeing to share some of the yield detriment of the depreciation being less valuable and that has resulted in reduced after-tax yields.]

“Some utilities that had tax appetite no longer have tax appetite and need to raise tax equity for their projects.”  Director, Money Center Bank

“We are trying to get back to the same all-in return where we were before tax reform.”  [As the depreciation is less valuable at a 21 percent tax rate than it was at a 35 percent tax rate, this means either (i) contributing less for the same 99 percent allocation of the investment tax credit or (ii) contributing the same amount and requiring a distribution of a larger share of the cash.]  Vice President, Midwestern Bank

“Tax reform helped us because it means tax equity contributes less to the project, so it makes our loan product more necessary.” General Manager Renewable Energy Finance, Small Business Bank

“The debt market has come in and is filling the decline in tax equity.” Executive Director, Manufacturing Corporation

“The buyouts of [tax equity investors’ post-flip interests] are more valuable because of the lower tax rate.”  Partner, Big 4 Firm

“We see sponsors’ financial returns over a 35-year project life increase due to the tax rate reduction.”  ” Managing Director, Structuring Advisory Firm Continue Reading Infocast’s 2018 Solar Power Finance & Investment Summit Soundbites

In a recently released private letter ruling (available here), the IRS confirmed that residential solar energy batteries are eligible for the tax credit under Section 25D of the Code (the “Residential Solar Credit”), subject to an important and unexpected caveat.

In Priv. Ltr. Rul. 2018-03-009 (Mar. 2, 2018) (the “PLR”), the taxpayers had previously installed a solar energy system on their home and claimed the Residential Solar Credit.  The taxpayers were now purchasing a battery to integrate into their existing solar energy system.  The battery was designed such that charging would only occur when the solar energy system was producing energy and only up to the instantaneous solar power, thereby ensuring that all energy that was used to charge the battery would come from the solar energy system. The remaining useful life of the solar energy system was expected to exceed the useful life of the battery.  The taxpayers posed two questions to the IRS: (1) Is the battery a type of property that is eligible for the Residential Solar Credit and, if so, (2) will the battery remain eligible for the Residential Solar Credit even though it was installed subsequent to the year in which the solar energy system was installed. Continue Reading Residential Solar Storage is Eligible for Tax Credit, Subject to a 100% Cliff

Pratt’s Energy Law Report has published our article 2018 and Onward: The Impact of Tax Reform on the Renewable Energy Market. We are pleased to be able to make a PDF version of the article available.  (The article starts on page 6 of the PDF).