Transferability is transforming clean energy project finance, say dealmakers
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter.
The tax credit transferability provision included in the Inflation Reduction Act has introduced new deal structures and is allowing clean energy developers to secure project financing faster, said speakers at a Thursday panel at the American Council on Renewable Energy's Finance Forum.
'The closing of transactions has become so much easier,' said Gaurav Raniwala, global renewable energy leader at GE Vernova. 'You don't have to line up two different structures simultaneously and then close everything when there's already enough mess going on. And the type of players that are now able to enter the market has broadened significantly.'
A Wednesday report from Crux, a finance technology company that connects tax credit buyers and sellers, said lenders are 'increasingly' looking to finance less established technologies like carbon capture, and that 'this openness is supported by the robust and progressively more liquid market for transferable tax credits.'
Raniwala said that financing had previously relied on the tax equity market, which 'was limited in capacity. The industry wanted to be bigger.'
'If you really want to have a dominant energy industry which has abundance of supply to help with electrification, to help with all the AI stuff, we need all sources of energy out there,' he said. 'And I think what transferability did was it broadened the market from just traditional tax equity to a whole host of players.'
Crux's analysis said that 'tax equity structures have evolved to hybrid structures, or t-flips, which explicitly contemplate the sale of a portion of tax credits in the transfer market' and found that t-flips 'made up about 60% of the tax equity committed in 2024, and that share is expected to rise.'
'Historically, the tax equity market was about a $20 billion a year market dominated for many years by a handful of institutions,' said panelist Meghan Schultz, executive vice president and CFO at Invenergy. 'And with the transferability market, the size more than doubled … it allows the tax investor, the tax credit buyer, to be able to monetize those tax benefits without actually needing to be an owner in the project.'
Raniwala noted that transactions can also now be customized based on credit profile. 'As an example, you could do the traditional tax equity, but now you know you can transfer the credits, so you could also borrow against those credits from banks.'
Despite this sea change for project financing, transferability itself is endangered, as the budget bill that passed the House last month would eliminate or severely restrict transferability for the credits included in the IRA — and eliminate or shave down the credits themselves.
'The medium-term policy environment contains significant uncertainty, which investors in clean energy and manufacturing projects must navigate,' Crux said.
Crux's report noted that the Senate will have to pass its own version of the budget, and 'senators have telegraphed their desire to make substantive changes to the House's version. That said, the near-term uncertainty may lead some developers to face higher costs of capital, more limited capital availability, or higher equity requirements as they seek to finance their projects.'
Despite looming threats to the IRA, Crux's report took a bullish stance overall on the U.S. clean energy economy, noting that it 'directed nearly $340 billion in new investment in the United States last year.'
One factor driving new projects is the added transaction speed offered by transferability.
The tax credit trade has 'allowed people to close financing much more quickly, to not need to have that tax equity or tax credit buyer lined up at close, knowing that there is this liquid market for the tax credits,' Schultz said. 'It's facilitated speed to market for projects, because you can be efficient in your financing.' The lowered cost of debt and added flexibility of being able to lend against the expected transfer of your credits has also streamlined the process, she said.
David Haug, CEO of Bildmore Clean Energy, said the option to transfer the credits allows developers to choose 'whether you want to have a long term offtake contract, or a long term revenue contract or a hedge to lock in your revenues or not.'
'Most of the projects that we're providing [preferred] equity for have a significant component of merchant risk,' he said. 'So we do not require them to have long term offtake contracts. We also don't require them to have pre-sold the tax credit. If they want to go all the way to commercial operation with no tax credit sale agreement in place, we will do that because we're betting that the tax credit market is strong, and we're also betting that the merchant power market is strong.'
Recommended Reading
IRA tax credit transfer transactions could reach $25B this year, says Crux
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Is being ‘big' and ‘beautiful' enough for Trump's signature bill?
Advertisement That's a departure from time-honored bipartisan convention, which could present an unusual messaging challenge as Republicans attempt to enact the sweeping package. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Indeed, for many presidents, naming a bill is the first and most obvious chance to sell its contents or hoped-for effects. President Biden had his Inflation Reduction Act; President Obama his Affordable Care Act. Even the first-term version of Trump signed his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This package, however, is officially titled the Advertisement 'When we were thinking about doing it, we were going to break it down into three, four, five, six or even seven bills and I said,' Let's make it one big beautiful bill, Mike.' Right?' said Trump at the Thursday event, nodding to House Speaker Mike Johnson, who was in attendance. If nothing else, then, the bill's title reveals something essential about today's GOP: that what Trump says — or, in this case, says over and over and over — goes. Within the Republican ranks, there's little concern about the branding posing any messaging challenge. In interviews with the Globe, many said it was all but inevitable. Representative Doug LaMalfa of California said Trump used the 'big beautiful bill' phrase so much that 'it becomes the thing, and then our team picks up on it, and, you know, make sure he's happy with it and stuff, and so you just keep going with it.' To others, Trump's imprimatur is the point. 'No bill can get passed unless the president of the United States signs it,' said Representative Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, an influential ally of Trump's. 'He's done a yeoman's amount of work in making sure this bill happens, and I think he deserves the opportunity to name the bill.' The question of a bill's name or branding might seem trivial compared to actual provisions that are studied and debated for their potential impact on Americans' lives. The legislation that Advertisement But both parties historically take the opportunity provided by a name to underscore what they most want the public to know about their proposals. That can be meaningful in shaping opinion, said Lunna Lopes, a polling expert at KFF, a nonpartisan health policy organization that has surveyed attitudes on the GOP bill. If all people know is the name, she said, it 'can kind of sway some of that favorability and perception of the legislation.' Not every Republican is necessarily on the big, beautiful bandwagon. Among some GOP lawmakers, there was plenty of ambivalence — possibly even a touch of chagrin — over the name. 'I didn't name the bill,' said Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a leading GOP centrist. 'I don't get into naming bills, I care about the policy inside of it. And we'll see where it all ends.' Representative Dusty Johnson of South Dakota argued that Congress is prone to 'probably overthink bill names too much.' 'The ecosystem is going to call it what the ecosystem is going to call it,' he said. 'People would be calling this One Big Beautiful Bill regardless of what page one of the bill says.' But Democrats certainly see this bill's title as another example of congressional Republicans ceding even more of their identity and authority to Trump. 'I always thought it was interesting that they named their bill not after its contents or its public purposes, but after its looks and its size,' said Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland. 'That's a very strange way to describe a legislative product, but it's obviously paying homage to Donald Trump, who now defines everything for the Republican Party.' Advertisement 'He said it once, and they were like, 'Let's show him we love him, and that we'll do anything he wants,'' said Representative Maxwell Frost of his GOP colleagues. For the opposition in Congress, turning the other side's bill's branding into their own messaging foil is its own time-honored tradition. Conservatives sometimes re-dubbed the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's signature achievement, the Unaffordable Care Act. And they howled when President Biden christened his sprawling domestic policy bill the Inflation Reduction Act and sought to turn around the White House's bid to shore up their standing on their biggest weakness with voters. But some Democrats admit they're not totally sure what to do with this particular name. Party leadership and campaign organizations have gone for a simple turnaround by calling it the 'Big Ugly Bill.' Many progressives have used the name to riff on their arguments that the bill's tax cuts will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans. 'Trump believes that it's possible to market anything with the right handle. The One Big Beautiful Bill fits that description,' said Senator Ed Markey, a Malden Democrat. 'He doesn't want people to understand what the bill is about … It's one big, beautiful bill for the billionaires.' When Democrats aimed to pass Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, Representative Gabe Amo, a Rhode Island Democrat, was working in the White House. 'I remember the transition to the [IRA] and look, it had very specific political goals,' he said. 'I'm not sure what the political goal in calling this thing where you're cutting people's health care beautiful might be, but they clearly are trying to change public perception from like, something that's pretty horrific.' Advertisement The early polling on the legislation indicates that Republicans have serious work to do to improve voter perceptions. On Thursday, a 'It's safe to say he's very good at coining a catchphrase,' said Quinnipiac polling analyst Tim Malloy of Trump. 'This one hasn't caught on as far as our numbers show.' The more immediate issue for Trump is actually finishing the bill. It's wobbling in the Senate, where Republicans are squabbling over the extent of cuts to Medicaid, among other things, and contending with the fact that several key provisions have been ejected from the bill due to the rules that govern the special budget process Republicans are using to try to pass the bill with a simple majority vote. As those developments continued to build on Thursday, Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said he'd pondered the bill's name 'many times.' 'Obviously, we all know why it caught on, obviously because it was a contrast to two or three bills,' Cramer said. 'The term beautiful is a pretty good brand, I'm not sure it's convincing … I don't know if there's enough lipstick, let's put it that way.' Still, there's some confidence the branding will stick. 'Everybody knows what we're talking about. Even the media knows this — one big, beautiful bill,' said Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican. Sessions knows something about the subject. In 2016 and 2017, he worked on an Obamacare replacement bill that he dubbed the 'World's Greatest Healthcare Plan.' Advertisement 'And it didn't go anywhere,' he said. 'So, get [Trump] to name it, and it's amazing what will happen.' Tal Kopan and Jim Puzzanghera of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Sam Brodey can be reached at
New York Times
8 hours ago
- New York Times
G.O.P. Bill Adds Surprise Tax That Could Cripple Wind and Solar Power
Senate Republicans have quietly inserted provisions in President Trump's domestic policy bill that would not only end federal support for wind and solar energy but would impose an entirely new tax on future projects, a move that industry groups say could devastate the renewable power industry. The tax provision, tucked inside the 940-page bill that the Senate made public just after midnight on Friday, stunned observers. 'This is how you kill an industry,' said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan group of business leaders and investors. 'And at a time when electricity prices and demand are soaring.' The bill would rapidly phase out existing federal tax subsidies for wind and solar power by 2027. Doing so, many companies say, could derail hundreds of projects under development and could jeopardize billions of dollars in manufacturing facilities that had been planned around the country with the subsidies in mind. Those tax credits were at the heart of the Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats passed in 2022 in an attempt to nudge the country away from fossil fuels, the burning of which is driving climate change. President Trump, who has mocked climate science, has instead promoted fossil fuels and demanded that Republicans in Congress unwind the law. But the latest version of the Senate bill would go much further. It would impose a steep penalty on all new wind and solar farms that come online after 2027 — even if they didn't receive federal subsidies — unless they follow complicated and potentially unworkable requirements to disentangle their supply chains from China. Since China dominates global supply chains, that measure could affect a large number of companies. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Politico
10 hours ago
- Politico
Warner predicts Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" will cripple GOP support
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
