Posts Tagged ‘Solar finance’

SREC Price Determinants in 2011

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

What Will Drive SREC Prices in 2011?

Most market participants are familiar with the three basic drivers of solar renewable energy credit (SREC) prices – SREC supply, SREC demand, and state solar compliance penalties. Most of this information can be found on RTO and state commission websites and analyzing this data yields an adequate view of the current state of the SREC market. However, to fully understand the 2011 SREC markets, a better understanding of the drivers of supply and demand is required.

SREC Supply Forecast:

The price of panels and installation will be an important input in determining the future supply of SRECs. Panel prices and installation margins have decreased considerably over the last year, especially on the East Coast. Cheaper panels and installation margins mean more development and increased SREC supply. However, 2011 will also see the disappearance of many state solar rebate programs. States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia are finding their coffers running low for state money to support solar projects. This means that new projects in 2011 will have to rely more heavily on the value of SRECs, which should slow development and SREC supply considerably. We have also seen new interest from traditional banks, particularly in large scale solar projects, which should bring down the cost of financing for large scale developers. Private high yield investors have now moved into the commercial and light commercial space, which means more money for these projects but at a pricey cost. Together these market effects will work to determine SREC supply in 2011. For example, will panel prices and installation costs fall enough to compensate for the termination of many state solar rebate programs? These questions will be important to answer before estimating additional SREC supply in 2011.

SREC Demand Forecast:

SREC demand is legislated by the renewable portfolio standards in each state. Consequently, demand would appear to be easy to determine. However, an increasing number of long term SREC contracts and energy suppliers with their own projects will mean that the demand that appears to be in a market could already be “spoken for”. Furthermore, with compliance entities in some states filing for force majeure, demand that should be in the market may in fact be pardoned. Even with all of these moving parts, demand is remains far easier to predict than supply.

Comparing Supply and Demand:

The standard interstate analysis of supply and demand will become more complicated in 2011 as SREC sellers in states with crumbling SREC markets look to cross state lines to sell their SRECs into other states. Determining the pace of those cross-registrations and the flexibility of the market to move those SRECs from one state to another, keeping in mind that some portion of those SRECs are locked into long term contract, will be important to determining the supply and demand balances in each state. Brokers have also added some complication to the market, as offers and bids are multiplied across the market and often give the appearance of significance amounts of demand or supply. Neither of which is healthy for a developing market.

Legislative Changes:

Increased reliance by projects on SREC prices and increased scrutiny brought upon compliance entities to meet the RPS standards will both cause market participants to look more closely at RPS statutes to determine exactly what will and will not qualify in-state. Additionally, where SREC markets can no longer support solar development, the solar community will apply pressure to politicians to increase demand to support job growth in one of today’s few industries reporting job growth: solar.

In the end, the three primary market drivers will remain the same. But what is more important than today’s supply and demand are tomorrow’s. To get a clearer picture of those dynamics, one will have to combine a historic view of growth with the changing landscape ahead to arrive at any number of varied outcomes. After all, that is what makes a market.

Share

FERC Rulings on Solar Feed in-Tariffs

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

Solar feed-in tariffs (FIT) have served as one of the primary policy tools for increasing the deployment of solar energy in several countries. Yet a recent ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) makes the future of solar FITs in the U.S. uncertain.

A feed in tariff is basically a subscription program where the owner of a solar system can sell their electricity at a fixed rate to utilities. The utilities are required to purchase the solar electricity at this determined rate, which is higher than the normal wholesale electricity price. Feed-in tariffs, highlighted in places such as Canada and Germany, have the potential to be great for solar deployment because they guarantee a certain cash flow, thus minimizing the risk for those financing solar.

However, there also drawbacks to FITs. In the U.S., the success or failure of such a policy would depend on the ability of the state legislature to determine the correct fixed rate for solar electricity that incentivizes solar without oversubsidizing it. This fixed rate contract for purchasing electricity is more dependent on government funding and consistent political will than market forces.

Regardless of whether you agree more strongly with the advantages or the disadvantages of a solar FIT, it is important to note the FERC ruling on FITs this past year and its likely consequences. On July 15th of last year, the interstate electricity regulators at FERC affirmed the fact that they had exclusive authority over wholesale electricity sales.

The ruling was necessary because the California Legislature in 2007 established a feed-in tariff program for small combined heat and power systems in the state. Some utilities protested this program under the language of the Federal Power Act. FERC’s ruling was originally confusing, although seemed to support the belief that state legislatures are severely limited in their ability to mandate premium, fixed-price requirements.

This ruling was controversial and eventually led to a clarification by FERC in October 2010 that states do have the authority for certain feed-in tariffs when they set their rates through the Public Utilities Regulatory Act (PURPA). A spokesperson explained that since utilities may be mandated to buy power from different sources of electricity, a multi-tiered approach is admissible where states can calculate the utilities’ avoided cost for each separate electricity source.

Moving forward, it is unclear whether these FERC rulings will encourage or discourage more state FITs. Renewable policy experts have noted that the FIT structure allowed under these FERC rulings does not really resemble European FITs and has limited ability to dramatically increase renewable energy generation.

One of the options for FITs that FERC explicitly allows is for a state to establish a targeted range (for example for PV systems between 10 kW and 50 kW only), and let the market set the price. This is significant because it highlights FERC’s preference towards market solutions because they have the potential to be self-correcting and continually incentivize solar cost reductions.

A market solution for solar deployment that already exists is a solar “carve out “in a state’s RPS, which creates Solar Renewable Energy Credits or SRECs. Trading SRECs allows the market to dictate an appropriate price based on a state’s alternative compliance penalty and supply and demand factors.

Many U.S. states already have solar carve outs and healthy SREC markets. In fact, a FERC spokesperson indicated that Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) may be needed in addition a FIT to get to sufficient levels of renewable energy deployment. States previously considering FITs can look towards SRECs as a favored policy tool for enabling solar deployment and adopt legislation accordingly.

Share

Why Installers Need to be Careful about the Future Value of SRECs

Friday, February 11th, 2011

Solar Renewable Energy Credits, or SRECs, are a key part of financing solar PV systems, typically covering 20 to 40% of installation costs. Therefore, it is critical that solar installers, homeowners, and businesses be prudent when projecting future values of SRECs.

An SREC is a tradable credit that represents the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a solar electric system. Each time the electric system generates 1000 kWh, a SREC is issued that can be sold or traded separately from the power. SRECs are financially valuable because many states have Renewable Portfolio Standards (an RPS) with specific solar carve-outs that require energy suppliers to incorporate a certain percentage of solar generated electricity into their portfolio. Most energy suppliers do not have enough solar capacity to satisfy the RPS requirements with their own power and subsequently must purchase SRECs to meet the state requirement. This allows owners of solar systems to trade their SRECs as commodities and receive payments for them.

SRECs have functioned as an important tool for making solar systems more affordable, and therefore SRECs are typically a significant part of the sales pitch that installers use when explaining the economic benefits of going solar. Furthermore, as state grant and rebate programs diminish, SRECs represent a bigger piece of the way to finance solar. For example, in Ohio and D.C., state funds for solar rebate programs are currently depleted, and homeowners must now rely solely on the federal tax investment credit, SREC payments, and energy bill savings to offset the cost of their system.

In many states, the RPS requirements (that make SRECs valuable) increase annually until 2025. This leads some people to assume that SREC values will also increase annually as energy suppliers will need to purchase more SRECs to meet the solar carve our requirement. However, this is not necessarily the case. The amount of solar capacity is increasing along with RPS requirements, which means that in most states, the SREC values are actually coming down. For this reason, installers need to be honest and careful when describing the future value of SRECs, so that customers do not have false expectations about the ROI of their solar energy system.

In addition to the RPS requirement, the two key factors in determining SREC values are the Solar Alternative Compliance Penalty (SACP) and SREC supply.

The SACP is a fee that a regulated entity must surrender in the event they do not procure a sufficient amount of solar electricity. This fee acts as a price cap because a rational energy supplier would not be willing to purchase SRECs for greater than this value. The SACP is defined on a state-by-state basis, and virtually every state has a declining SACP schedule. For example, in Ohio the SACP declines by $50.00 every two years. The SACP alone will not determine the value of an SREC, but a declining SACP schedule will push the maximum value of SRECs down over time.

The supply of SRECs in the market is another essential factor to consider when predicting future values. Naturally, if there is a surplus of SRECs, then SREC prices will come down. This dynamic has already happened in states such as Pennsylvania and D.C., and solar system owners that locked into a long-term fixed contract are receiving higher values than those trying to trade on the spot market.

Since there is a lot of uncertainty about the future of SREC values, installers should make it clear that SRECs are a commodity and that their pricing can be quite volatile. They should also help their customers make an informed choice about how to sell their SRECs that accommodates their tolerance for SREC market risk. Installers will find that customers who have a good understanding of the SREC market volatility may be willing to accept a lot of risk and enter shorter contracts because they are bullish on the future of SREC markets. However, others may be risk adverse, and would prefer to lock in a fixed price for their SRECs for 3, 5, or even 10 year periods.

As long as installers adopt a cautious approach when discussing SRECs with clients, customers will sort themselves along the lines of risk preference.

Share

Sol Bridge Allows Business Owners to Go Solar with Low Out-of-Pocket Costs

Thursday, February 10th, 2011

Sol Systems, the oldest and largest solar renewable energy credit (SREC) aggregator in the U.S., recently announced a new financing solution for commercial-size solar energy systems called Sol Bridge. The bridge financing solves a problem that many prospective solar owners face: commercial-sized solar energy systems have high capital costs (typically more than $100,000), and system owners must pay for the system costs several months before they receive their federal and state solar incentives or solar renewable energy credit (SREC) payments. Because most businesses have limited cash and must reserve their capital for business-related expenses and investments, owning a solar energy system is a distant possibility.

Sol Bridge addresses this problem by providing a 90 day cash advance to system owners for the 30% federal tax grant and any applicable state incentives. This option allows business owners to go solar without tying up capital, while still retaining ownership of their system and all the benefits including SREC payments and electricity bill savings.

The cash advance is provided upon system completion and can be assigned to the solar installer, so that the installer reduces the customer’s payment amounts accordingly. Sol Bridge and the corresponding loan fees are due after 90 days, however, the loan fees can be wrapped into the total installation costs and therefore included in the amount that will be refunded upon receipt of the federal grant and state rebates.

In addition, Sol Bridge can be paired with the Sol Upfront SREC payment option which allows system owners to pre-sell the future SRECs to Sol Systems in exchange for a one-time lump-sum payment. When the Sol Bridge and Sol Upfront options are combined, the system owner is responsible for merely 10-30% of the remaining system costs; moreover, the business owner reaps the full benefits of their electricity savings because there is no ongoing solar lease fee or PPA payments.

Please visit the Sol Systems website for more information about Sol Bridge.

About Sol Systems:
Sol Systems is a solar energy finance and development firm that was built on the principle that solar energy should be an economically viable energy solution. With thousands of customers and hundreds of partners throughout the United States, Sol Systems is the largest and oldest SREC aggregator. We provide homeowners, businesses, solar installers, and developers with sophisticated financing solutions that help make solar energy more affordable. Sol Systems also helps energy suppliers and utilities manage and meet their solar RPS requirements efficiently by providing them with access to diverse portfolios of SRECs. For more information, please visit www.solsystemscompany.com.

Share

Why Big Solar is not Better Solar

Friday, February 4th, 2011

As solar energy systems become a more popular and profitable investment, many small and large scale projects are being developed. The idea of large solar projects may be attractive because of cost advantages due to scale, yet while the technology behind big and small solar projects is similar, some of the characteristics of big solar cancel out the advantages that are unique to solar energy.

Let’s define “big solar” as a photovoltaic (PV) system or a concentrated solar power (CSP) system that feeds energy into the grid as opposed to “small solar” which feeds the direct energy load of a given facility (most commercial facilities require less than 1 MW of power).

First, big solar is inefficient in terms of its land use. Instead of using the millions of acres of rooftop space and small vacant lots across the country, big solar is often built in deserts or remote areas, which could be potential agricultural or construction space, or even wildlife habitat.

Second, big solar requires significant transmission upgrades. Since large solar projects are far away from where electricity is used, long and costly transmission lines must be constructed to connect big solar projects with the grid. It costs approximately $1.5 million per mile for new transmission lines, a substantial cost that removes a lot of the economic advantages associated with large scale projects. Big solar projects will require the U.S. to engage in even more costly infrastructure upgrades over the next few decades; whereas small solar projects actually reduce the need for costly infrastructure upgrades.

Third, big solar does not alleviate grid-congestion. Even if new transmission lines can be financed, the electricity will only add to an already congested transmission and distribution system. Whereas, if small scale solar power is added near the power demand (such as the rooftop of a house or building), then it would not add at all to the congestion of the electrical system (one of the main causes of the 2003 blackout in the Northeast). Grid congestion is becoming even more important as U.S. electrical demand is increasing at a much higher rate than U.S. transmission capacity.

Fourth, big solar wastes a significant amount of energy during transmission. Transmission from a centralized power plant to a user wastes electricity: according to the EIA, line losses accounted for 6.5% of total electricity generation in 2007. Small solar, typically constructed on the roof or within a ¼ mile of the building it powers, has virtually no energy loss due to transmission.

Fifth, big solar has the same security disadvantages of large centralized power plants. In other words, large scale solar is just as susceptible as other power plants to national security threats from hackers or terrorist groups.

Now that solar technology is becoming more affordable on a residential and commercial scale, there is the potential to dramatically increase the prevalence of distributed generation power systems. Achieving this would insulate the U.S. against its current dependence on large scale power plants and an outdated electrical grid’s transmission ability. Yet, despite the relative disadvantages of large solar power plants, big solar and small solar often compete for solar incentives such as SRECs (Solar Renewable Energy Credits).

An SREC is a tradable credit that represents the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a solar electric system. Each time the electric system generates 1000 kWh, a SREC is issued that can be sold or traded separately from the power. SRECs have value because utilities and energy suppliers can purchase them from system owners in order to meet the requirements determined in a state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. Residential and commercial solar system owners can harness this value to offset the costs of their solar energy systems. In some states, big solar threatens to reduce the value of these incentives by flooding the SREC market and decreasing the price of SRECs.

When creating and adjusting renewable energy policies, legislators and policy makers should recognize the unique benefits of small solar and distributed generation. It is important to understand that even though “big solar” may have some cost advantages, it is not the “best solar”.

Share

Hedging SREC Price Volatility for Commercial PV Projects

Friday, January 28th, 2011

Solar Renewable Energy Credit (SREC) markets can be volatile, which can create significant concerns for a financier interested in investing in a commercial solar photovoltaic project. Exposure to price volatility can undermine the economics of solar projects, or simply prevent a project from ever taking off. As state rebate programs are depleted, and SREC values become even more critical to the financing of commercial-scale solar plants, minimizing SREC price volatility will be essential to success. For these reasons, more sophisticated SREC financing solutions will be required for commercial projects to address and mitigate price risk.

When discussing commercial scale solar projects, generally we are referring to projects that are larger than residential solar systems, but that are not large enough to negotiate an SREC contract directly with a regulated energy supplier or utility. Using this definition of commercial project, a commercial project can range anywhere between 20 KW to 2 MW, and produce approximately 24 to 2,400 SRECs annually.

In robust SREC markets, particularly the ones where state rebates and incentives are draining quickly (i.e. Ohio, New Jersey, DC), the value derived from SRECs may constitute 30 to 40% of the project’s returns over the first five years of operation. So, for example, a project in Pennsylvania may be a good investment if SREC values are stable during the first five years of the system’s production, but may be a very poor investment if SREC values drop by 20%, reducing the total yield on the investment of roughly 8%. In short, SREC price volatility can turn a relatively profitable investment into a wash for the investors backing the project.

The addition of new solar capacity, legislative changes to state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and other SREC market developments can all affect SREC values. This uncertainty poses a risk to the security of a solar investment, and addressing this risk will be essential for project developers.

Sol Systems makes it possible for project developers and system owners to address this risk by providing various SREC payment structures. For commercial projects, Sol Systems can partition portions of the SREC stream into forward contracts and/or brokerage arrangements. The forward contracts are available in 3 and 5 year terms. Sol Systems can also offer an upfront payment that pre-pays for the future rights to SREC generation. The upfront payment securitizes the SREC stream, providing the greatest insulation against SREC price volatility and regulatory risk. These options allow solar investors to hedge their exposure to SREC price volatility. Depending on the investor’s risk appetite, Sol Systems can provide SREC services that provide the right level of risk and reward to ensure that a project gets off the ground and pays investors the returns they expect.

Share

Why Businesses are Taking Advantage of Solar Power Purchase Agreements

Friday, January 21st, 2011

A Solar Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is a legal contract where a solar project developer installs and operates a system for a business owner, homeowner, or tenant (the “host”) who in turn agrees to buy the solar generated electricity for a fixed period, usually 10 to 20 years. The host typically purchases the solar power at a fixed rate equal to or less than their normal utility rate and does not pay the upfront capital costs of the installation, making PPAs a very attractive economic option.

Developers like the model because the PPA contract ensures that the developer will be able to sell the solar electricity for a fixed period of time at a pre-determined rate. The PPA contract also removes negotiation and transmission costs that could be associated with solar projects that do not have a guaranteed energy buyer.

Businesses benefit from the federal and state incentives in place for owning a solar system. Specifically, Solar PPAs in the United States rely on the federal solar investment tax credit, which was extended for eight years under the Emergency Economic Stabilization act of 2008 and then amended with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 so that the solar investment tax credit can now be combined with tax exempt financing. This investment tax credit covers 30% of the expenditures on a solar system. Several state rebate programs also reduce the capital necessary for PPAs by providing grants corresponding to the size of the solar system.

The host business that is buying the solar generated electricity does not receive any of these tax credits or rebates directly, rather, the developer or company that finances and subsequently owns the system receives these benefits. However, the developer passes these benefits on to the host in the form of lower fixed rates for their electricity.

Because the developer fully maximizes all the incentives associated with a solar energy system, in some situations a PPA can be a better deal than ownership of a system. For example, non-profits cannot receive tax credits, implying that a PPA would be the better financial decision since the developer could access the tax credits and consequently provide solar electricity at a reduced rate to the non-profit. Furthermore, a solar developer can raise funds for a project (or portfolio of projects) through tax equity investors.

Similarly, businesses and developers engaging in a Solar PPA can take advantage of Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs). An SREC is a tradable credit that represents the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a solar electric system. Each time the electric system generates 1000 kWh, a SREC is issued that can be sold or traded separately from the power. Therefore, the legal owner of the system can sell their rights to SRECs to utility companies that need SRECs to comply with state Renewable Portfolio Standards. This represents another substantial method to offset the cost of the system and allow businesses to reduce their net costs and ultimately the PPA rate. As state rebate programs diminish, SREC values will become more important for financing solar.

As PPAs and new solar financing tools become more prevalent, it is important to understand the difference between a PPA and a lease. A solar lease is another common financing tool where a solar company builds a solar energy system on a host’s property and then the host pays a lease payment for the benefits of the system’s electricity production. This is different from a PPA where the host pays directly for the solar power. Many companies that began exclusively in solar leasing are now offering the PPA model to customers as well. Typically, nuances in state laws or consumer preference determine whether a developer will offer a PPA or lease. Solar developers who offer solar PPAs have encountered a large number of interested customers. For example, Wal-Mart, Safeway, and Macy’s all use solar PPAs, and some estimates say that in 2008 PPAs represented over 60% of California’s non-residential solar market.

In short, PPAs allow businesses to take advantage of all sorts of solar incentives like SREC values, federal, and state incentives – all without any upfront capital. As large facility owners and tenants continue to demand solar without high upfront costs, PPAs will become more and more popular.

Share

An Outlook On Solar in 2011

Monday, January 17th, 2011

Competition is stiff in the solar manufacturing industry, with companies like Evergreen announcing their departure from the United States to China in order to reduce costs. Enormous global module supply has come online in the last two years to help fuel the rapid build-out in Europe, China and elsewhere, resulting in dramatic declines in solar module pricing. Some, like Gleacher and Company, are modeling module prices at around $1.30/watt right now. Others are actually predicting wholesale module costs at $1.10 in the next few weeks.

The result is a strange dichotomy of a manufacturing industry undergoing rapid growth and simultaneously undergoing a stressful reallocation of resources and a fairly pessimistic outlook on Wall Street. The WilderHill Clean Energy Index, which includes solar and other alternative-energy stocks, fell 5.3 percent last year, compared with a 12.8 percent rise in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. Companies like SunPower, Yingli, JA Solar, Trina, Canadian Solar, MEMC, Suntech and others all produced significant negative returns, some upward of negative 20 percent.

This fall in module prices, and the corresponding difficulties for module manufacturers, will likely continue through 2011 as the world’s top solar market, Germany, further cuts its solar subsidies and a growing supply of photovoltaic modules outstrips demand, putting pressure on prices and producers’ profits. As others have noted, a weak euro will compound the problem for Chinese and U.S. manufacturers. Last year, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Czech Republic all cut back their solar subsidies. Further cuts are expected in Germany and France in the first half of 2011 and in Italy in the second half. Those three markets account for around 70 percent of the global market, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Next year may be the first year in which more solar is built in the United States than in Germany.

For the solar installer and developer community this is presumably welcome news (ignoring the risks, of course, that similar reductions in incentives may take place here). As solar module costs decline, so are total system costs since modules compose a significant portion of the overall costs of a solar system.

However, cost reductions do not uniformly impact the solar community. Because of economies of scale, module costs account for a much larger portion of commercial-sized solar system’s costs than residential. The impact is still more powerful with regard to utility sized projects. As a result, falling module costs disproportionately benefit larger systems, as illustrated the figure below (care of SEIA).

Not only are commercial and utility costs already significantly lower than residential costs, they are also falling more rapidly. Indeed, utility projects are falling in price at three times the rate that residential projects are. This is an interesting window into the solar industry in the United States, which is that solar systems will undoubtedly get BIGGER.

To compound this trend, as states drastically reduce or altogether cut their rebate and grant programs for residential and small commercial systems, the economics that once favored smaller projects are starting to disappear. States like New Jersey, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio and many others have all gutted their tax-funded rebate or grant programs. American Recovery and Reinvestment monies that flowed through the states in much of 2009 and 2010 are nearing their ends. Although module costs are falling significantly, they are not falling (nor could they) by two to three dollars a watt , which was often the size of grant and rebate monies. The result is a further shift upward in size. In Massachusetts, for example, given the emphasis on a solar renewable energy credit (SREC) market, many developers are starting to focus exclusively on commercial and utility scale projects.

For residential focused installers and developers, this may be an opportunity or a challenge. Presumably, those firms that can secure large economies of scale in purchasing power will better weather these changes than those that cannot. Additionally, because size matters, the industry may see consolidation. Hopefully, it will also see aggregation or collaborative models, where residential and small commercial installers work together to secure better financing opportunities and engineer more sophisticated acquisition models. This, of course, is a primary focus of financing firms like Sol Systems. Additionally, power purchase agreements and lease agreements may gain prominence if effective costs rise for residential customers in the absence of rebates.

For commercial and utility developers, a move upward in size means a necessary move towards more complex financing instruments. It becomes a bit more difficult to make a pure equity play on a multimegawatt project – a blended debt/tax equity/first loss equity product is typically required to reduce risks and bring down the costs of capital. To see this approach succeed, the capital markets will have to open further to solar projects. A lack of access to debt markets and tax equity was a big part of what has slowed the growth in wind and large-scale solar in the last few years. So this may be a challenge. On the other hand, Chinese banks continue to push into the US market to debt finance multi-megawatt portfolios, so it may not only be Chinese modules the US industry is using, it may also be Chinese money.

In sum, as the industry grows, there will be a continued movement towards larger projects. To succeed, players will have to become more sophisticated. This will favor players in the residential space who are able to collaboratively or individually leverage economies of scale and acquisition models and players in the commercial and utility space who are able to better secure complex financing instruments.

Share

Sol Systems Reduces Costs of Going Solar in Massachusetts with Upfront SREC Financing and 0% Brokerage for SRECs

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011

Washington, DC: January 12, 2011

Sol Systems, the nation’s largest solar renewable energy credit (SREC) aggregator, is offering a new SREC option, “Sol Upfront,” for solar energy system owners in Massachusetts, and will waive commercial project brokerage fees for its spot market option “Sol Brokerage.

The upfront payment option allows homeowners and businesses who install solar energy systems to pre-sell 10 years of SRECs in exchange for a lump-sum payment, while the brokerage option allows commercial-sized system owners to seek the highest spot prices for their SRECs with no fees. Both options will improve the economics of going solar for Massachusetts solar project owners.

“Because the Massachusetts’ SREC market is new, and there is an element of risk compared to some other well-established SREC markets, we have created ways for our customers to address this risk in the way that best fits their financial profile,” said Sol Systems CEO, Yuri Horwitz. “Our Sol Brokerage option allows customers to take advantage of the risk with the highest spot prices available, while our Sol Upfront option removes SREC market risk and regulatory risk entirely.”

Sol Systems also offers 3 and 5 year fixed price “Sol Annuity” contracts to Massachusetts customers. Under the annuity arrangement, customers receive a fixed price for each SREC generated over the agreement term and are paid quarterly. The 5 year term pays $275/SREC and the 3 year term pays a guaranteed rate of $400/SREC. Both are backed by long-term utility contracts.

Sol Annuity, Sol Upfront, and Sol Brokerage are available to residential and commercial system owners. However, the Sol Brokerage fees will only be waived for systems that are larger than 20 kilowatts in size.

About Sol Systems

Sol Systems is a solar energy finance and development firm that was built on the principle that solar energy should be an economically viable energy solution. With thousands of customers and hundreds of partners across 13 states, Sol Systems is the largest and oldest SREC aggregator. We provide homeowners, businesses, solar installers, and developers with sophisticated financing solutions that help make solar energy more affordable. Sol Systems also helps energy suppliers and utilities manage and meet their solar RPS requirements efficiently by providing them with access to diverse portfolios of SRECs. For more information, please visit www.solsystemscompany.com.

Contact

Sudha Gollapudi
Director of Strategic Partnerships
888-235-1538 x2
info@solsystemscompany.com

Share

Governor O’Malley Appoints Leading Educator, Solar Innovator to Board of Maryland Clean Energy Center

Thursday, January 6th, 2011

January 6, 2011 – ANNAPOLIS, MD

Gov. Martin O’Malley has appointed a prominent academic researcher and a solar industry finance expert to fill two vacancies on the Board of Directors of the Maryland Clean Energy Center.

“We are privileged to have two such high-caliber and forceful clean energy advocates join us as we move into our second year of operation”

Eric Wachsman, PhD, Director of the University of Maryland’s Energy Research Center, will serve through June 2015. George Ashton, co-Founder and Chief Financial Officer of Sol Systems, LLC, a national leader in aggregating solar renewable energy credits, is fulfilling a term that runs through September 2012.

Wachsman and Ashton join existing members of the Center’s Board of Directors who oversee its mission of helping consumers, supporting businesses and advising lawmakers in Maryland as the state scales up its clean energy industries and energy efficiency initiatives. Other Board members include Jeremy Butz, Carol Collins, Ken Connolly, Jeff Eckel – who serves as the current Board Chairman – and Malcolm Woolf, Director of the Maryland Energy Administration.

“I am so proud to announce the appointment of two very talented individuals to the Board of the Maryland Clean Energy Center,” said Governor O’Malley. “As Maryland continues to emerge as a national leader in clean energy, their leadership will help us move toward a better and more sustainable future for our children. I’d like to thank them for their willingness to step up and serve the people of our State as we work to find innovative ways to reach our clean energy goals in the toughest of times.”

“We are privileged to have two such high-caliber and forceful clean energy advocates join us as we move into our second year of operation,” said I. Katherine Magruder, Executive Director of the Maryland Clean Energy Center. “They will help facilitate the adoption and generation of clean energy along with the new jobs, consumer savings and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that come with it.”

In addition to his leadership of UM Energy Research Center, Wachsman holds the William L. Crentz Centennial Chair in Energy Research at the University of Maryland, College Park. Previously, Wachsman was Director of the Florida Institute for Sustainable Energy and a professor of materials science and engineer at the University of Florida in Gainesville. He has authored dozens of research papers since beginning his career as an engineer for chip-maker Intel. He earned his PhD and Masters of Science from Stanford University. Wachsman is filling out the remainder of the Board term served by Dan Goodman.

Ashton has been instrumental in growing Sol Systems into one of the country’s leading aggregators of solar renewable energy credits, or SRECs. Solar system owners earn 1 SREC for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity their systems generate each year. Before Sol Systems, Ashton was a Senior Account Executive at Fannie Mae, a government-sponsored enterprise chartered by Congress chartered to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Ashton earned his MBA from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University Maryland in College Park.

About Sol Systems:
Sol Systems is a solar energy finance firm. With thousands of customers and hundreds of partners throughout the United States, Sol Systems is the largest and oldest SREC aggregator. We provide homeowners, businesses, solar installers, and developers with sophisticated financing solutions that help make solar energy more affordable. Sol Systems also helps energy suppliers and utilities manage and meet their solar RPS requirements by providing access to diverse SREC portfolios. For more information, please visit www.solsystemscompany.com.

Share