Law360 has published our article How The New Tax Law Blue Book Impacts Regulated Utilities.  The article is available at here or the full text is below.

The recently released the Joint Committee on Taxation’s Blue Book explanation[1] of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act[2] confirms that qualifying tangible property leased to a regulated public utility is eligible for the new 100 percent expensing rules, also called full expensing,[3] even if the property would not be eligible for full expensing if it were owned by the regulated utility.

As discussed below, there was some concern in the industry that an exception applicable to certain property used by a regulated utility, or the regulated utility exception,[4] might extend to an owner/lessor leasing to a regulated utility.  With the release of the Blue Book, we would expect there to be more lessors prepared to offer advantageous lease financing rates to regulated utilities, reflecting the lessor’s ability to claim full expensing.
Continue Reading

Here’s a presentation that Joseph Sebik, CPA of Siemens Financial Services and I gave to the Energy Subcommittee of the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association on January 22: Tax Equity Energy Subcommittee 1-22-19 of ELFA.

Despite being to a leasing trade association, the focus of the presentation is the partnership flip structure.  The presentation

Below are answers to questions we received during our tax equity webinar of October 23.  These questions were submitted online during the webinar.  The presentation from the webinar is available here.

Question: Commercial and industrial (C&I) has higher returns but how many projects raise tax equity versus other segments of the solar market? What

We were pleased to participate in Power Finance & Risk’s (PFR) Tax Equity Roundtable.  We were joined in the roundtable discussion by Rich Dovere of C2 Energy Capital, Marshal Salant of Citi, Kathyrn Rasmussen of Capital Dynamics Clean Energy and Infrastructure, Pedro Almeida of EDP Renewables North America and as moderator PFR’s editor, Richard Metcalf. 

Mayer Brown’s David K. Burton and Jeffrey G. Davis both Tax Transactions & Consulting partners and part of the firm’s Renewable Energy group co-hosted a heavily attended webinar on how tax reform is impacting the tax equity market and certain renewable energy structures with Vadim Ovchinnikov, CFA, CPA and Gintaras Sadauskas of Alfa Energy Advisors.

Please join Mayer Brown and Alfa Energy Advisors for a webinar.  The webinar will address how tax reform is impacting the tax equity market and certain structures in particular.  Additional topics include:

  • The latest industry trends
  • New bonus depreciation rules and their impact on tax equity transactions and modeling
  • Compressed financing margins for wind and

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

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

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