Energy Finance Report

With Proper Policies, A $12.1 Trillion Investment Opportunity for Renewable Energy Can Be Realized

Posted by Van Hilderbrand on 2/19/16 1:20 PM

Solar_Investment.jpgCo-author Morgan M. Gerard

Despite the currently low prices of oil and natural gas, renewable electric power generation is poised for rapid growth. Based on a “business-as-usual” scenario, Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s New Energy Outlook, June 2015 predicted a $6.9 trillion investment in new renewable electric power generation over the next 25 years. A newly published report by Ceres, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and Ken Locklin, Managing Director for Impax Asset Management LLC, predicts a much greater opportunity for private sector companies and commercial financiers to invest in new renewable energy.

Mapping the Gap- the Road from Paris

Mapping the Gap: The Road from Paris concludes that achieving a temperature change goal of 2ºC or below, as outlined in the recent climate accord reached in Paris at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21), is now a $12.1 trillion investment opportunity. (This is in addition to a predicted $20 trillion investment in legacy low-carbon electric power generating sources such as large-scale hydro and nuclear.) Thus, the current investment trajectory of $6.9 trillion in a “business-as-usual” scenario leaves a massive gap of $5.2 trillion needed to reach international goals. Financial markets have the capability to close this gap, especially given the dropping price of renewables, a maturing market offering lower-cost capital deployment, an expanding need for global energy, and the ability of this level of investment to drive local jobs and economic growth.

United Nations Policy Analyst and Global Strategy Advisor of the Citizens Climate Lobby, Sarabeth Brockley, agrees. According to Ms. Brockley, who witnessed first-hand the participation at the conference by the private sector, particularly large power purchasers such as Google and Facebook could provide the catalyst for energy investments in renewables and drive the future direction of the global energy economy. Ms. Brockley notes that with the accord in place and with an increased push to decarbonize, the private sector recognizes that energy investments in zero- and low-carbon emitting resources are the planet’s future while the unknowns surrounding the future of fossil fuels make them a riskier proposition.

New Policies Are Needed to Bridge the Investment Gap

Some investment opportunities are available today under existing policy frameworks and market conditions; however, new policies will need to be deployed to assist in this endeavor. “There is huge opportunity for expanded clean energy investments today. But to fully bridge the investment gap, policymakers worldwide need to provide stable, long-lasting policies that will unleash far bigger capital flows. The Paris agreement sent a powerful signal, creating tremendous momentum for policymakers and investors to take actions to accelerate renewable energy growth at the levels needed” says Sue Reid, Vice-President of Climate & Clean Energy at Ceres, a nonprofit organization promoting corporate responsibility and environmental stewardship.

This article explores which incentives, policies, and approaches may be on the horizon for U.S. energy market participants – both generators and consumers – as the global energy mix moves towards carbon consciousness.

Carbon Pricing

As the world looks ahead to the twenty-second Conference of the Parties (COP 22) in Marrakesh, Morocco, Ms. Brockley believes that carbon pricing will certainly be on the agenda. Pricing carbon emissions will help create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies and to encourage demand reduction.

One way to price carbon is by placing a tax on harmful emissions. A carbon tax places a price on emissions and allows the market to determine the quantity of emission reductions. An alternative way to price carbon is through a cap-and-trade program. Here, the program sets the quantity of emissions reductions while giving market participants the opportunity to determine price and trade credits to meet overall emissions reduction goals which are lowered over time to reduce the amount of pollutants released.

Some countries are moving ahead with plans to implement carbon pricing. For example, in September 2015, President Xi Jinping of China made a landmark commitment to start a national program in 2017 that will limit and price greenhouse gas emissions in the country. Other countries are implementing similar measures based on discussions at COP 21. The United States, however, has a long road ahead. Congress came close to a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system in 2010 with the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill; however, the legislature ultimately balked at passing the bill and discussions involving climate change on Capitol Hill have been somewhat toxic ever since.

Moreover, any type of binding international agreement on a price for carbon will be difficult to adopt given the aggressive opposition towards President Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). The CPP is currently facing attack by Congressional Republicans and an omnibus litigation brought by twenty-seven states and an amalgam of private actors. The Supreme Court recently granted a delay for implementation of the CPP, leaving the policy strategy to lower carbon emissions in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, states and private companies in the U.S. are starting to act. California’s state-wide, expanded cap-and-trade program is off to the races and is being intently watched as a potential model that could be replicated in other states or regions. Amongst the private sector, Microsoft is leading the way by already accounting for the price of carbon internally, which industry leaders believe is both changing internal behaviors and saving the company more than $10 million annually. Additionally, many traditional fossil companies are pricing carbon. ExxonMobil is assuming a cost of $60 per metric ton by 2030, BP currently uses $40 per metric ton, and Royal Dutch Shell uses a price of $40 per ton.

Tax Incentives

Tax incentives use the U.S. tax code to subsidize the development of renewable energy. These incentives include accelerated depreciation for investment in renewable power-generating plants or manufacturing facilities and tax credits tied to a renewable power project’s output or overall capital expenditures. Conversely, there is increasing interest in phasing out traditional fossil fuel subsidies, long deployed in support of high carbon emitting resources.

The driving incentives behind renewable energy in the United States are the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The PTC has been the largest driver of the wind energy industry as it provides 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour generated. The ITC, which has been the major driver of solar energy and also has served as a potential alternative credit for wind energy, provides a credit for 30% of the development costs of a renewable energy project. The credit is applied as a reduction to the income taxes for that person or company claiming the credit.

The ITC was originally slated to be cut from 30% to 10% for non-residential and third-party-owned residential systems, and to zero for host-owned residential systems by the end of 2016. However, Congress authorized the extension of both the PTC and ITC at the end of 2015. The ITC will now be in place for an additional five years, including three years at the current value followed by graduated step-downs. The impact of the tax incentives extensions are set to be significant, and will likely inject new life into abandoned projects, protect existing jobs, support additional job creation, and ensure that the renewables sector remains poised for an upward growth trajectory.

Renewable Energy Targets

Governments can set renewable energy targets to drive lower carbon emissions. Also known as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), these targets generally requires local utilities to generate electricity through renewable energy sources or purchase Renewable Energy Credits (REC) that represent essentially the environmental benefit of the zero-carbon power system. Typically, these involve annual goals which increase over time.

In the aftermath of the defeat of the Waxman Markey Climate Bill, many renewable energy friendly states such as Massachusetts, New York, and California, enacted RPS frameworks. This approach has been successful in lowering carbon emissions, but remains a patchwork method that has no national systemization. There have been calls to create a national RPS, all of which have been soundly defeated in Congress to date.

Net Energy Metering

Net energy metering (NEM) programs allow renewable energy system owners, such as homeowners with photovoltaic solar systems, to sell their excess power back to the electric grid. NEM has been enacted domestically on the state level and is only available in certain jurisdictions, such as Maryland, California, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Although studies have found that NEM has greatly contributed to the adoption of rooftop solar generation, there are battles being waged around the country between utilities and distributed generation advocates about the future of the incentive.

For example, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (NPUC) voted recently to cut net metering payments by half while simultaneously raising the fixed fees for solar customers to around 40% by 2020. Additionally, the NPUC is applying these changes retroactively, which distinguishes actions in Nevada from those in other states that have altered their net metering. This means that these new prices will apply not only to new solar customers, but to existing customers as well. The result has been that many prominent rooftop solar companies have exited the market, and some solar customers have joined a class action law suit against the NPUC and their local utility, NV Energy.

On the other hand, some jurisdictions like New York are seeking to incorporate more distributed generation into their electricity grid systems and reevaluating NEM as an efficient mode of compensation to the non-utility generator. New York is trying to create an interactive distributed generation marketplace where generators sell their power not only to the electric grid, but also to neighboring energy customers. New York is exploring whether or not a fixed NEM charge is the best way to handle marketplace transactions, or if determining the value of distributed generation to the electric grid is more efficacious. If successful, New York’s model could become the template for growth in other states.

Feed-in-Tariffs

Feed-in-tariffs (FIT) enable renewable power generators to sell their electricity at a premium above typical market rates. Historically, FITs have been utilized in Germany and the rest of Europe, where the government mandates that utilities enter into long-term contracts with renewable generators at specified rates; typically well above the retail price of electricity.

On the federal level in the United States, regulators have chosen to enable tax credits versus utilizing the FIT approach. However, there is a recent example of a FIT from 2013 in Virginia where Dominion Virginia Power allowed a voluntary FIT for residential and commercial solar photovoltaic (PV) generators. Participants received 15 cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh) for a contract term of five years for all PV-generated electricity provided to the electric grid, and will continue to pay the retail rate for all electricity that they consume. In 2012, the average retail electricity price was 10.5 cents/kWh for residential customers and 7.8 cents/kWh for commercial customers.

Conclusion

The United States is already experimenting with many of the above incentives and approaches, but more work will be required on the policy side to meet the investment target projected by the Ceres-BNEF report.

While the scale of this new investment opportunity is massive, the report finds that it is dwarfed by the capacity of global financial markets to unleash the needed investment capital. In the United States alone, consumers borrowed $542 billion over the past year to purchase cars, and assumed $1.4 trillion in new mortgage debt. Clearly, the financial markets have the capacity to absorb the financing “gap” between “business-as-usual” and the 2ºC goal outlined at COP 21. Thus, Ceres remains optimistic about the investment opportunities. “Renewable energy investment volume needs to more than double in the next five years,” noted Ms. Reid. “With the tailwind of the Paris Climate Agreement, buttressed by advancements around the world such as the US renewable energy tax extenders, there is tremendous opportunity ahead for clean energy investors.”

Although our markets have the capability of achieving the COP 21 pledge, those looking to capitalize on this unprecedented opportunity should understand the policies on the horizon that could promote safe returns on their investments.

Topics: Carbon Emissions, Biomass, Solar Energy, Renewable Energy, COP21, ITC, Energy Investment, Investment Tax Credit, renewable energy investment, PTC, carbon tax, Wind Energy, Climate change, Ceres, United Nations, UNFCCC, production tax credit, cap-and-trade, renewable portfolio standard, feed-in-tariff, COP22, carbon pricing

Stay of Clean Power Plan Hampers Innovative Strategies to Reduce Carbon Emissions & Obscures Policy Signals for Investment

Posted by Hayden S. Baker on 2/10/16 9:18 PM

Co-authors Jeffrey M. Karp and Morgan M. Gerard

Clean_Power_Plan_Legal_Challenge.jpg

On February 9, 2016, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan (CPP), effectively halting the rule’s implementation until the D.C. Circuit and, in all likelihood, the high court itself reach a decision on the merits. The CPP is the principal climate change initiative put forward by the Obama administration, and the primary mechanism meant to achieve the goals agreed to in Paris at COP 21. Whatever else may be said of the CPP, it serves as a default national energy policy that would gradually transition the U.S. power sector to lower-carbon electricity generation. Although not a decision on the merits, yesterday’s ruling nonetheless obscures the clarity of that policy, making it more challenging to evaluate energy infrastructure development and investment opportunities in the near term. Thus, the stay not only has stopped implementation of the CPP, it also may halt the momentum and innovation that was starting to build among policy makers and industry.

Although the Supreme Court’s stay is unprecedented, so too is the magnitude of the CPP litigation before the Court. Hours after the regulation was published in the Federal Register, 27 states filed more than 15 separate cases against the U.S. EPA that were consolidated before the D.C. Circuit Court. Eighteen other states, including New York and California, have joined in the consolidated lawsuits in support of the CPP.  

The stay does not impact the hearing on the merits; indeed, the case is already scheduled for argument before the D.C. Circuit in June and the losing side will certainly petition the Supreme Court for review. Yesterday’s ruling does not affect that timeline or the underlying arguments to be advanced. (It is worth remembering that many were surprised that the CPP was not stayed at the Circuit Court level.) However, it does mean that the CPP’s deadlines are in limbo and states are no longer required to submit their state implementation plans (SIPs) in September of this year (or at least request an extension by that time). 

Even though the SIPs would not require any emission reductions until 2022, the process of preparing the SIPs already has sparked innovation among industry and regulators alike as they begin to think creatively about how to transition to a lower-carbon power sector. The CPP brought together federal and state environmental and energy regulators in a way that quite simply had never before happened. The question now is whether these incremental steps toward more innovative energy policy will continue or whether momentum will be lost without the September 2016 SIP deadline on the horizon.

As so often happens with federal environmental regulations – especially the so-called technology-forcing programs – initial complaints about unreasonable costs and unattainable timelines are followed by constructive policymaking and industry creativity. Prior to yesterday’s ruling we saw progress across the country, as even the states most outspoken against the CPP had started to plot paths toward a lower carbon future. 

Some such initiatives were taken independent of the CPP and will no doubt continue, driven primarily by market forces rather than regulatory programs. Take Xcel Energy as an example. In October they announced an accelerated transition from coal-fired generation to renewables, including 60 percent carbon reductions by 2030 – and this is before the submission of any SIP. However, other novel strategies now may stall out. Take West Virginia, one of the lead challengers in yesterday’s ruling.  Just last month, the governor himself was touting a novel strategy for reducing carbon emissions in his state through reforesting idled coal mines. Without the pressure of the 2016 SIP deadline, little political will may exist to advance that initiative.

Nevertheless, as the White House alluded to today, the bigger driver of clean energy investment in the next few years was expected to be the extended Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit, not the CPP. Previously, those incentives have proven very effective at funneling investment into wind and solar. With the extended tax incentives, a backstop is now in place that may buoy financial and technical innovation in renewables while the CPP works its way through its remaining litigation. Still, the difficulty now for investors will be to deploy the capital enabled by those incentives, given the uncertainty created by the Court’s stay and without the benefit of a clear national policy framework to help guide where infrastructure is most needed.   

Topics: Renewable Energy, United States Supreme Court, Investment Tax Credit, clean power plan, renewable energy investment, clean power plan delay, united states energy policy, Climate change, Clean Air Act, scotus, clean power plan stay

Solar Storm- Net Metering in Nevada

Posted by Joshua L. Sturtevant on 1/29/16 2:13 PM

Co-author Morgan M. Gerard

Battles over net energy metering (NEM) policy are currently raging nationwide, and are only expected to intensify in the face of the recent investment tax credit (ITC) extension. NEM, a state statute-Solar_Storm_.jpgbased policy incentive that allows small generators of electricity to sell their excess generation into the grid typically subject to an overall cap, has been a great contributor to the proliferation of residential rooftop solar. It has also stimulated commercial and industrial-sized facilities in some locations, particularly those jurisdictions that allow for the slightly more complicated ‘virtual’ net metering approach. 

However, as solar has gained greater market penetration, utilities have increasingly pushed back against NEM. As with many issues, the arguments on both sides of the NEM debate are complicated. Opponents, typically utilities, claim that NEM policies shifts pro rata grid costs from solar customers onto the rest of their rate-paying base. They also argue that the rates being paid to the small producers are too high. NEM advocates, on the other hand, claim that these arguments are overblown, and are merely smokescreens promoted by utilities more worried about embedded monopoly powers than pro-rata grid costs.

Even in jurisdictions where support for the practice remains, such as New York and Massachusetts, debates are occurring over the value of solar, grid cost sharing and caps, suggesting that the net metering of today may not look like the net metering of tomorrow. In other places, proponents are undermining net metering policies by using a ‘death by one thousand cuts’ approach, where benefits are chipped away to the extent that policies are rendered functionally moot.

Perhaps nowhere has this latter approach more prevalent in recent times than in Nevada where clashes have occurred at the legislative level, in front of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (NPUC), and have more recently spilled over to the courts.  After the NPUC surprisingly voted to enact changes which would essentially render the current NEM regime unviable, residential solar customers filed a class-action law suit on January 12 against their utility alleging, among other things, that NV Energy is seeking to monopolize energy production by crippling the solar market. They also allege that rising rates have caused net metering customers to experience a 40% cost-hike. 

How did the debate over NEM in Nevada get to this point?

Nevada has been one of the fastest growing solar markets in the country in recent years, particularly in the residential space. Rapid growth allowed the state to reach its 3 percent solar net metering cap in August of last year, leading the NPUC to extend payments under the old program until the end of 2015 to buy time to evaluate next steps. However in December, the NPUC voted to cut net metering payments by half while simultaneously raising the fixed fees for solar customers to around 40% by 2020. Additionally, the NPUC is applying these changes retroactively, which distinguishes actions in Nevada from those in other states that have altered their net metering, and means these new prices will apply not only to new solar customers, but to existing customers as well. 

This decision was met with significant backlash by local solar companies, customers and advocates and even gained the attention of the three major Democratic candidates for the 2016 presidential election. As a result of the decision and a general lack of support for solar, three major solar companies have decided to pull back significantly from Nevada. For example, Vivint suspended its plans to expand into Nevada right after the August cap was reached, but continues to release statements condemning Nevada’s continued actions as a barrier to it ever deciding to reenter the state. SolarCity announced on January 6, 2016 that it was ceasing operations in Nevada, thus eliminating more than 550 jobs and closing its newly minted training center.

Sunrun has also declared its exit from Nevada citing the actions of Nevada politicians, the NPUC and NV Energy. Additionally, on December 24, 2015, the Nevada Bureau of Consumer Protection filed a petition with the NPUC, explaining that the new ruling “is not consistent with the Governor's stated objectives of SB374 or the governor's initiatives and focus to increase jobs and employment for Nevada residents. Now, solar customers have joined the fight by filing the class-action suit with similar allegations against the NV Energy.

Potential Ripple Effects

In the wake of the extension of the ITC, many believe that debates in the solar space will take on a distinctly local flavor in the years to come. In the absence of an extension, it was likely that solar projects would have had difficulty attracting low cost capital.  However, with federal incentives secured, many believe that solar in general, and the residential market in particular, are set to explode over the next few years.  Although the credit extension will likely positively impact solar development, it has also made battle lines clear and has provided ammunition for opponents of rooftop solar who will now strategically pick at other incentives, arguing that the extension has rendered them unnecessary. Nevada provides a good, early example of this.

It is also true that as more distributed solar comes online, grid management policies will need to be reexamined to ensure both fairness and continuity of service. Recent battles at state utilities commissions have resulted in favorable outcomes for proponents of solar. However, if the NPUC ruling is a sign of the times, it is possible that it could be a bumpy road ahead, particularly in states nearing their NEM cap. 

Topics: Distributed Energy, Solar Energy, ITC, Net Metering, Net Energy Metering, Investment Tax Credit, NEM, DG, Distributed Generaton, rooftop Solar, Rooftop PV, NPUC, Solar Rooftop, Solar Roof, Nevada, NV Energy, Net Metering Battle, Nevada Public Utilities Commission

Odds on an Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Extension Seemingly Rising by the Minute

Posted by Joshua L. Sturtevant on 12/16/15 7:22 PM

Members_only.jpgDespite “grinchy” recent predictions from some, the solar industry looks set to receive some holiday cheer with the odds on an investment tax credit (ITC) extension seemingly rising by the minute. Many credit the ITC as one of the predominant factors behind the surge of solar in the U.S. Despite some pushback from House Republicans last week, the lower chamber is set to vote on an omnibus appropriations bill by the end of this week, which includes a five-year extension of the credit.

The five-year extension would include a three-year continuation of the current 30% credit, keeping the status quo intact through 2019. This would be followed by three years of graduated step-downs. The credit would step-down to 26% in 2020 and 22% in 2021. It would finally drop to 10% in 2022. Some have speculated that the extension was a trade for a repeal of the decades-long oil export ban, which has been a sore spot for the GOP in recent years.

Until recently, and despite some pockets of great optimism, everything from posts on this page to share prices to long faces at conferences reflected pessimism regarding the possibility of an extension. However, while the bill’s failure is always a possibility, odds on an extension for the solar investment tax credit have risen dramatically in recent weeks. In short, it looks like the optimists have won this round. Admitting that one is wrong doesn’t always have to be painful… 

Topics: Structured Transactions & Tax, Solar Energy, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas, ITC, Oil Export Ban, Investment Tax Credit, Congress

Is Preparing for an ITC Stepdown the Same as Preparing to Fail?

Posted by Joshua L. Sturtevant on 12/11/15 3:12 PM

Solar_Finance.jpgThe scheduled stepdown of the solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) from 30% to 10% at the end of 2016 has become a bit of a political football among the pro-solar crowd. Even mentioning the possibility of a stepdown occurring can lead to accusations of negativity from extension advocates. However, despite the negative connotations of discussing the ITC in the context of a decline rather than an extension, it would behoove participants in the solar markets to at least consider what life at 10% could mean to them. That is particularly true after a whirlwind of a week in Washington that, if anything, has made the fate of the ITC murkier than ever.

Anyone hoping for clarity on the possibility of an extension issue would have a hard time sifting through all of the data points that were floating around the market this week. It’s probable that even lawmakers had trouble keeping up with all the insertions and removals from various committees’ versions of the extenders package as well as a rife rumor mill that included whispers of a possible GOP offer to extend for a year. Even the exact nature of an extension is unclear, as everything from a straight extension to a more graduated stepdown to a start of construction rule has been mooted.

Despite headwinds created by the difficult operating environment that has been the hallmark of U.S. politics in recent years, advocates have been arguing strenuously in favor of an extension and their logic is sound. An extension of the ITC would certainly make for an easier operating environment, particularly for developers and suppliers going forward. An extension would also seem to make sense in the context of broader national goals and initiatives. For example, many states that have lagged behind leaders in deploying solar are currently working on legislative changes to third party ownership rules, net metering and other policies that might prove fruitless if the value of the ITC were to decrease. Additionally, the transition to the implementation phase of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) would certainly be eased by an extension.

It is also true that solar energy is no longer just a ‘blue’ issue. For example, Senate Republicans have been recently showing signs of support for an extension. The Green Tea Coalition groups in the Southeast and religious groups advocating for solar, not to mention job growth in red regions, have all ensured that it is no longer just Greens calling for support for solar.

However, despite some impassioned vocal support and some solid logic behind extending, the extension is no sure thing. In stark contrast to some of the data points above is the reality that a recent Republican uprising in the House and a Congress, which is expressly setting itself against a lame duck President, make deal-making a difficult proposition. Additionally, it stands repeating that the stepdown, already on the books, faces an uphill battle, whether principals are willing to come to the table or not.

It has been notable that, despite support for the major CPP initiative and a leadership role in the Paris talks, the Obama White House has not been inclined to show much public support for an extension. Perhaps it has been determined that the CPP will allow long-term goals to be accomplished, while the job losses in the short-term are viewed as a casualty to pure economics and the business cycle. Perhaps the White House simply has bigger fish to fry.

Given the uphill nature of the battle the solar industry is currently fighting, it would be prudent for business leaders to spend time preparing for an extension-free outcome. This could mean different things to different companies of course; M&A activity could increase as some will seek to become acquired and some will become acquisitive in the hopes that scale could provide insulation against negative outcomes. Others will shift business models to exploit boutique opportunities, or will depend on contractual relationships with solid partners to ensure continuity. However, not considering these options, or others, is akin to being the ostrich who sticks its heads in the sand at the sign of danger; ignoring the issue doesn’t ensure that it will go away.

Anecdotally, solar energy advocates seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of an ITC extension. While it is likely not a necessary factor in the long-term success of the technology, which is increasingly proving itself on its own merits, it is also true that a timely extension would increase the likelihood of short-term solar growth, particularly in the C&I sector. An extension will also almost certainly insulate tens of thousands of jobs from elimination over the next 18 months. For these reasons, it makes sense for the industry and its advocates to argue strenuously for an extension. Based on the events of the past week, it seems that the odds on an extension are potentially rising. Our best guess is that a start of construction rule will make its way into an Appropriations bill.  

However, despite best efforts, it may just end up being the case that the credit is not extended. Even if it is, a start of construction rule will still cause disruption in the market, as has been the case in the wind industry multiple times in recent years. Because of the possibility for turbulence, managers should be planning for a less stable future. Management teams have fiduciary obligations to investors (often friends and family in the solar world), contractual obligations to partners and customers and moral obligations to employees. To fail to prepare for the stepdown, or at least a bumpy ride, is to fail in those obligations and is short-sighted, particularly since there is still time to put plans in place to address various contingencies.  However, the clock is ticking…

Topics: Energy Policy, Energy Finance, Solar Energy, Renewable Energy, ITC, Investment Tax Credit

Sullivan & Worcester logo

About the Blog


The Energy Finance Report analyzes developments in energy finance as well as provides updates and perspectives on market trends and policies.

Subscribe to Blog

Recent Posts

Posts by Topic

see all