Description
A solar panel is a set of solar photovoltaic modules electrically connected and mounted on a supporting structure.
Methodology
Rating Solar Power Projects
august 2012
CONTACT INFORMATION
Eric Beauchemin, CFA Managing Director Public Finance Tel. +1 416 597 7552 [email protected] Kent Wideman Chief Credit Of?cer Tel. +1 416 597 7535 [email protected]
DBRS is a full-service credit rating agency established in 1976. Privately owned and operated without af?liation to any ?nancial institution, DBRS is respected for its independent, third-party evaluations of corporate and government issues, spanning North America, Europe and Asia. DBRS’s extensive coverage of securitizations and structured ?nance transactions solidi?es our standing as a leading provider of comprehensive, in-depth credit analysis. All DBRS ratings and research are available in hard-copy format and electronically on Bloomberg and at DBRS.com, our lead delivery tool for organized, Web-based, up-to-the-minute information. We remain committed to continuously re?ning our expertise in the analysis of credit quality and are dedicated to maintaining objective and credible opinions within the global ?nancial marketplace.
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Rating Solar Power Projects
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to DBRS Methodologies Overview Structure and Overview Construction Period Risk Panel Supply Contractor and Panel Supplier Credit Enhancement Operating Period Risk Technology Risk Panel Warranties Inverters Independent Engineer’s Report – Operating Period Independent Solar Resource Report Legal and Financial Structure Legal and Regulatory Power Purchase Agreement Sponsor Risk Financial Risk Metrics Scenario and Break-Even Analysis Key Debt Terms 4 5 5 8 9 10 12 12 13 14 14 14 16 16 16 17 18 18 18 18
3
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Introduction to DBRS Methodologies
In general terms, DBRS ratings are opinions that re?ect the creditworthiness of an issuer, a security or an obligation. They are opinions based on forward-looking measurements that assess an issuer’s ability and willingness to make timely payments on outstanding obligations (whether principal, interest, dividend or distributions) with respect to the terms of an obligation. DBRS ratings are not based solely on statistical analysis but include a combination of both quantitative and qualitative considerations. The considerations outlined in DBRS methodologies are not intended to be exhaustive. In certain cases, a major strength can compensate for a weakness that would be more critical for a peer company and may also differ depending on the industry being considered. Conversely, there are cases where one weakness is so critical that it overrides the fact that the company may be strong in most other areas. DBRS rating methodologies are underpinned by a stable rating philosophy, which means that in order to minimize the rating changes due primarily to economic changes, DBRS strives to factor the impact of a cyclical economic environment into its rating as applicable. Consequently, DBRS takes a longer-term “through the cycle” view and, as such, rating changes are not based solely on normal economic cycles. Rating revisions do occur, however, when it is clear that a structural change, either positive or negative, has transpired or appears likely to transpire in the near future. An equally important aspect of DBRS’s analysis is our broad industry coverage, which allows us to understand the differences and subtle nuances within a particular industry and to form an appropriate rating of an issuer relative to its competitors. Critical in the determination of a rating is the application of the analyst’s experience and expertise in forming an initial rating opinion and recommendation for the DBRS rating committee and the role of the rating committee as the ?nal decision maker. DBRS rating committees, which comprise experienced and knowledgeable DBRS personnel, strive to provide objective and independent rating decisions that are based on all relevant information and factors, incorporate both global and local considerations, apply DBRS-approved methodologies and constitute the opinion of DBRS.
4
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Overview
Rated bond solutions for solar power projects are attracting increased market interest. However, bond funding of solar power generation is relatively new compared to the more established and market-accepted fuel types such as hydroelectric and natural gas-?red assets. This methodology outlines key factors considered by DBRS in determining the creditworthiness of ground-mounted, utility-scale solar projects of more than ten megawatts utilizing photovoltaic (PV) crystalline silicon or thin ?lm panel technologies. Solar project risk has many elements in common with other energy project ?nance transactions, but it also has unique aspects that must be separately considered. It is DBRS’s view that solar projects can potentially achieve investment grade credit ratings, if properly structured. This methodology ampli?es the commentary published in April 2012 and incorporates subsequent consultation with market participants and the results of the request for comments process. As this is a relatively new asset class where changes and new information are likely in the future, DBRS will continue to assess material developments and adjust this methodology accordingly. This methodology should be considered within the general framework of the DBRS methodology Rating Project Finance (April 2011). The cost of solar power is an important economic reality underlying the legal and ?nancial framework. Solar generation is not yet commercially competitive with other sources of electricity and sector viability currently relies on some form of public support. Above-market tariffs have been a common approach to addressing the need for policy support and subsidy, and some jurisdictions also offer favourable tax treatment, including tax credits or accelerated depreciation rates.
STRUCTURE AND OVERVIEW
Solar power projects are typically structured as special-purpose entities that service debt solely from project cash ?ow and have no recourse to their equity sponsors. In a typical utility-scale solar power project, the project company (ProjectCo) enters into a power purchase agreement (PPA) to sell electricity to the PPA counterparty. For green?eld projects, an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor assumes responsibility for project completion by a certain date at a ?xed price. During operations, an operation and maintenance (O&M) agreement engages a project operator and typically transfers operating risk of the asset from ProjectCo to the operator until contract maturity. A typical ProjectCo is structured with certain limitations and protections including, inter alia: (i) scope of business limited to operation of the project assets; (ii) permitted indebtedness and distribution tests; (iii) comprehensive insurance to cover perils not within control of the project; (iv) limited or no recourse to equity sponsors; and (v) bankruptcy remoteness from equity sponsors. DBRS project ratings separate the analysis into construction and operating phases, with the weaker of the two phases generally determining the rating.
5
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Solar Project Structure
PPA Counterparty
Electricity Payments
Dividends
PPA
Electricity
Debt Service
Sponsors
Equity
ProjectCo
Financing Warranty Construction Payments O&M Payments
Lenders
EPC Contract
O&M Agreement
EPC Contractor
Panel Supplier
O&M Contractor
Note: EPC stands for engineering, procurement and construction. The panel supplier may contract directly with the ProjectCo or subcontract to the EPC contractor.
In its analysis of solar projects, DBRS considers a wide range of factors organized in the following categories: (i) construction period risks; (ii) operating period risks; and (iii) the legal and ?nancial structure of the project. Solar projects are generally distinguished by the following core risk elements: (i) low to moderate construction risk; (ii) more reliable data and forecasts for the solar resource and energy production than for some other renewables (e.g., wind); (iii) risk related to long-term panel performance; and (iv) contracted revenue, typically with investment grade counterparties. Solar power projects, if properly structured, can potentially achieve investment grade ratings. Construction and operating periods must then have investment grade characteristics, backed by reliable legal documentation featuring risk mitigation and pass down, with ?nancing structures that accommodate resource variability and are capable of withstanding downside scenarios. However, solar projects can be exposed to rapidly evolving technology, shorter performance history and uncertainty with respect to panel degradation, and may be subject to changing market structures. These characteristics constrain the rating compared to the more mature hydroelectric and natural gas-?red project types that feature long, welldocumented performance histories. Accordingly, at this stage in the development of a rated market for utility-scale solar projects, solar project ratings are likely to be capped at the BBB category. Investment grade project quality will generally depend on: (i) an experienced panel supplier that is deemed investment grade or that bene?ts from structural enhancement to investment grade; (ii) low to moderate construction risk substantially transferred to an experienced contractor; (iii) a robust PPA with high credit quality counterparties, as lower rated PPA counterparties may constrain the project rating; (iv) moderate operating risk retained by an experienced sponsor or contracted to a quali?ed third party; (v) an established and experienced equity sponsor; and (vi) fully amortizing debt with ?nancial metrics that withstand reasonable downside scenarios. Project elements that could reduce ratings below investment grade include, inter alia:
6
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
(i) non-investment grade or inexperienced counterparties, including sponsors, panel suppliers, EPC contractors and PPA counterparties, where the project also lacks suf?cient structural enhancement(s); (ii) new technology risk of panel types that have limited utility-scale track records; (iii) low-quality panels with excessive risk of panel degradation/poor performance; (iv) insuf?cient tariff and/or partial market risk in the PPA; (v) credit metrics unable to withstand reasonable downside scenarios; and (vi) material ?aws/omissions in the ?nancing or legal structure.
7
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Construction Period Risk
While PV solar panels have been used in various applications for over ?fty years, the advent of utilityscale solar PV projects is relatively recent, and no single business model has emerged among industry players. Some market participants, including panel manufacturers, developers/sponsors, EPC contractors and operators are vertically integrated. In other cases, companies occupy only one segment of the value chain and may lack scale or have limited performance records. In both cases, market participants may be unrated or non-investment grade. As a result, a standardized project structure has yet to emerge, although two approaches to the construction task are commonly seen: (i) an EPC-anchored model where the EPC contractor takes on most of the construction risks, including panel delivery risk (but usually not future panel performance); and (ii) an owner-supplier model where the ProjectCo contracts directly with panel and inverter suppliers and an installation contractor on a ?xed-price basis, without the bene?t of an EPC wrap over the equipment supply and construction. The construction of a utility-scale PV solar facility is relatively straight forward. The construction task is less complex than for traditional project ?nanced power assets, such as natural gas-?red power plants, which have multiple, highly speci?ed moving components with more complex construction or hydro assets with complex design, excavation and civil construction requirements. Solar projects generally involve low complexity civil and foundation work and modularity in the work plan, which creates greater scheduling ?exibility in the installation and hookup of components manufactured off-site. While the panel market experienced very rapid expansion in recent years, current conditions include excess production capacity, high inventories and availability of contractors and suppliers. DBRS cautions that the market will likely continue to be prone to ?uctuations, although under present conditions, it is expected that a defaulting contractor or panel supplier can be replaced with minimal delay and without a material increase in construction cost. Assessment of the ability to replace contractors and panel suppliers is also included in the independent engineer’s (IE) scope of engagement. Solar projects also typically entail construction periods that are much shorter at approximately six to 18 months, versus three to ?ve-year construction periods for other power projects. The shorter time requirement and low complexity nature of the work is a key rating consideration. However, a shorter construction period can also create greater pressure for timely replacement of a defaulted contractor or panel manufacturer, which is also a key rating consideration. The modularity of the construction task allows for much of the build-out to be completed in parallel, rather than in sequence. As such, errors in one segment of the project can be quickly isolated before affecting the overall critical path. This generally supports a reasonably high probability of on-time and on-budget completion. Though completion is not necessarily impaired by a defaulting contractor or panel supplier, it can be. Prudent EPC contractual terms include ?exibility in the contractor’s schedule commitment, often in the form of three to nine months between substantial completion and ?nal completion. Also, project delays can be caused by regulatory obstacles or changes, and contract terms should provide for adjustments to the schedule to manage regulatory changes – a risk that is normally outside of the contractor’s/supplier’s reasonable control.
CONTRACT FRAMEWORK: EPC-ANCHORED AND OWNER-SUPPLIER APPROACHES
In an EPC-anchored approach, the ProjectCo transfers all construction risk to an EPC contractor by way of a ?xed-price, date certain EPC contract. The strength and quality of the EPC contractor is an important
8
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
consideration for the construction phase rating. Where the EPC contractor is not publicly rated (often the case), DBRS will conduct an internal assessment of the contractor focusing on track record, technical and ?nancial capability, and expertise. Construction phase ratings may be limited by a weak contractor but may then be notched up for potential performance security. The limiting effect of weak contractors is more of a factor in tight market conditions where replacement of defaulting contractors would be more dif?cult and could cause delays and cost increases. In markets characterized by excess capacity and high panel inventories, replacement risk is likely to be low. In an owner-supplier approach, ProjectCo is the general contractor and subcontracts the balance of construction to an installation contractor on a ?xed-price basis separate from the equipment supply. There is still a pass down of risk under ?xed-price contracts but with two separate contracts for the separate scopes of work. The credit quality of the panel and inverter suppliers is relatively more important to the rating than if ProjectCo had an EPC to wrap equipment delivery risk, and can be an important consideration for the construction phase rating. In the owner-supplier model, the installation contractor is also assessed, but as the cost of panels, inverters and other equipment is typically a high percentage of total construction cost, the installation contractor’s credit has less weight in the overall construction phase rating. If the panel/inverter suppliers are not publicly rated, DBRS will develop an internal assessment of panel and inverter supplier credit quality. Under both approaches, DBRS reviews the contractor, panel and inverter suppliers and equity sponsors’ track record and proven ability to complete contracts on time and on budget. The most common sources of schedule delay may include: (i) late panel deliveries; (ii) permitting; (iii) transmission interconnection approvals; (iv) construction of access roads; (v) severe weather; (vi) suboptimal placement of panels; and (vii) delays in meeting commissioning requirements. Commissioning tests should match or exceed the requirements of the PPA, including power production, uninterrupted operation and cycle-up performance. DBRS will assess the ability to replace non-performing panel or inverter suppliers. This risk is greater for the owner-supplier model but also relevant to an EPC-anchored model. DBRS considers construction risk to be a combination of the contractor and supplier credit quality as well as the nature of the construction task: low complexity, modular, fewer critical path constraints, and a reasonably good record of on-time, on-budget completion. DBRS expects the IE to opine on the ease and cost of replacement of defaulting contractors/suppliers.
PANEL SUPPLY
An EPC contract transfers responsibility for the delivery and, typically, the initial quality of panels from the ProjectCo to the contractor. Under an owner-supplier approach, this risk is managed directly with the supplier. In both cases, the project is ultimately exposed to the risk of panel delivery delays or default by a panel supplier. Delivery risk increases in periods of excess demand and low inventories but is much less signi?cant in an oversupplied market with excess capacity and unsold inventory. Panel supplier default risk is carefully assessed as even a smooth supplier replacement scenario can increase costs and delay completion. Replacement supply may also have to comply with local content rules, which can limit the number of suitable providers. The obligations of the panel supplier to the EPC contractor and/or ProjectCo (including warranties of panel performance) should survive a change in control of the panel supplier and must also be assignable to the ProjectCo in the event of an EPC contractor default. A project’s exposure to the supplier can be limited by provisions in the panel supply agreement. For example, panel suppliers may charge a premium to pre-build an order and allocate it to inventory. Alternatively, the EPC contractor/ProjectCo can separately schedule early delivery and incur the warehousing cost directly. Both approaches would effectively reduce delivery risk. Penalties for late delivery also encourage timely provision of panels. The panel supply agreement should also have clear requirements for inspection, certi?cation and testing at the plant site.
9
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
The PV panel industry has been characterized by rapid changes in leading competitors, wide swings in demand-supply balance and a sharp decrease in panel prices. These market conditions increase risk related to the supply of panels by pressuring the credit quality of panel suppliers. Investment grade manufacturers may provide rating strength, but investment grade solar panel manufacturers are not common. For non-investment grade manufacturers, credit enhancements may be required, including the transfer of supply risk to an EPC contractor on a ?xed-price basis. In any event, the panel supplier’s reliability and credit quality has the potential to materially affect the project rating, in both an EPC-anchored and owner-supplier project structure.
CONTRACTOR AND PANEL SUPPLIER CREDIT ENHANCEMENT
Credit and performance enhancements can be used to provide uplift to a construction phase rating. These may include (i) letters of credit (LCs); (ii) liquidated damages; (iii) performance bonds; (iv) warranties of performance after commissioning; and (v) parent guarantees. DBRS notes that LCs are the most direct support for the contractor and supplier credit pro?le during the construction phase. LCs issued by an acceptable ?nancial institution can lift the construction phase rating. For example, LCs of 5% to 10% can lift the rating by one to two notches, respectively. In addition, an EPC contract generally provides for liquidated damages (LDs) in case of delay in the construction schedule. For solar projects, LDs are typically between 10% and 20% of contract value and should cover potential costs of delay or performance shortfalls, including debt service to bondholders and penalties owed by the project to the PPA counterparty. Performance bonds commit a surety to complete construction if the contractor defaults on its EPC obligations. An LC is viewed by DBRS as superior to a performance bond, which relies on the surety’s process of assessing claims and selecting among numerous options for addressing a default. Given the likelihood that sector participants may be relatively small and likely to be non-investment grade, DBRS typically considers third-party credit enhancements, such as performance bonds and LCs, superior to liquidated damages obligations of the contractor, unless supported by an LC. Third-party guarantees, insurance or equipment warranties may be positive for credit quality, but require assessment of the entities underwriting the risk. These forms of support bene?t the project rating only if their credit quality is superior to the risks assumed under the related warranty or insurance instrument. Parent guarantees for af?liate contractor entities are a customary requirement. To be viewed as effective by DBRS, the guarantee should be irrevocable and not require exhaustion of recourse against the subsidiary. Approximately 60% of total project costs are attributable to the cost of panels and inverters. Accordingly, a liability cap of 20% of the contract price is normally considered suf?cient and supportive of an investment grade rating. Trapping mechanisms that withhold progress payments to a contractor until delays or overruns are resolved may form part of the ?nancing structure. Contractors can also be subject to a periodic test for value of work performed (as the modular nature of the construction task is convenient for checking progress against speci?c completion milestones) and not allowed to front-run drawdowns. DBRS notes that trapping mechanisms do not represent surplus funding for the project and so while such mechanisms can help to focus the EPC contractor on the timely completion of the project, no rating uplift is given.
INDEPENDENT ENGINEER’S REPORT – CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
DBRS carefully assesses the IE’s report and reviews its ?ndings to inform construction risk analysis. As is the case for traditional project ?nancings, and particularly given the early-stage nature of the technology and market, an IE is generally engaged to verify key technical and ?nancial assumptions such as panel supplier and contractor capability, construction design, budget and schedule, technology risk and the ability of the construction plan to meet output speci?cations and commissioning tests. Equipment warranties and minimum performance thresholds are also reviewed.
10
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
The IE scope should also include review of contractor and panel supplier replacement cost, risks of sourcing labour and materials, the impact of local content rules and any constraints that these may pose for the project. Site preparation, condition and access, regulatory requirements, environmental compliance and satisfaction of all permitting requirements are also reviewed.
11
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Operating Period Risk
During the operating phase of the project, ?xed-price contracts that transfer ProjectCo’s O&M risk to the operator are viewed as superior to self-performance with price exposure. However, the O&M budget is generally a small component of the cost. The low operating expense of solar projects supports project resilience and lowers the probability that some operating event could cause its termination. However, operator technical and ?nancial capability, the reasonableness of the pricing and operator obligations under the O&M agreement and the impact of replacing the operator in a default are all assessed by DBRS. Where the operator is an af?liate of the equity sponsor, panel manufacturer and/or the EPC contractor, the O&M agreement is reviewed for the potential for con?icts and the degree to which penalties and incentives are reasonable and promote reliable project performance.
TECHNOLOGY RISK
As operating costs are low, the primary operating period risk (apart from the solar resource risk itself and reliability of the solar resource forecast) is panel underperformance, where panel degradation exceeds the base case assumption. This risk is not usually borne by the operator, unless the operator is also the manufacturer and/or the EPC contractor. There are two main categories of PV panel technology: (i) crystalline silicon panels and (ii) thin ?lm panels. Crystalline panels have more historical data than thin ?lm panels and are more ef?cient in converting solar energy to electricity per unit of surface area. Conversely, thin ?lm panels have lower production costs and lower ef?ciency loss at high temperatures. Crystalline silicon panels have decades of operating history, most of which has been in micro applications on residential and commercial rooftops but not in the current utility-scale application. The longer dataset indicates lower risk of variance around panel degradation forecasts. Thin ?lm is a more recent technology with operating data of up to ?fteen years, but less than a decade in utility-scale applications, which are a more recent market development. The shorter dataset indicates higher risk of variance around panel degradation forecasts, particularly later in the life of a project. DBRS will carefully review panel performance datasets from the panel supplier and equity sponsor and will also focus on the IE’s analysis as part of its overall assessment of technology risk. For both technologies, manufacturers perform accelerated life-cycle testing to forecast performance. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) provides guidelines for panel testing at the factory for certi?cation purposes, quality assurance and accelerated life-cycle testing. Review of the certi?cation and other quality assurance by the manufacturer should be included in the IE’s scope. Panel modules are typically designed for a thirty-year life. Degradation is caused by three primary factors: (i) light-induced degradation occurring shortly after panels are ?rst exposed to sunlight; (ii) erosion of a module’s moisture protection; and (iii) breakdown of the protective layer between the module’s front glass and PV cells. Crystalline PV panels degrade approximately 1% to 2% in the ?rst year of operation as a result of light-induced degradation, and then annually at an approximate rate of 0.3% to 1%. For thin ?lm panels, the initial degradation can be 4% to 7% over one to three years, and then annually at an approximate rate of 0.3% to 1%. Over time, the effect of weather and sunlight causes moisture-protection materials to become more brittle, gradually trapping moisture, corroding electrical connections and reducing operating voltage. Breakdown of a protective layer immediately behind the panel glass gradually reduces the amount of sunlight that hits the PV cell, decreasing output current. Sensitivities around the core project risk from defective panels typically include more severe downside tests for the last half of the project life.
12
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
The combination of actual data from decades of crystalline panel performance (and up to ?fteen years of data for thin ?lm), protocols for accelerated testing and certi?cation at the factory, as well as IE review of certi?cation and a growing database for performance of different technologies, supports the expectation that degradation rates, in general, are between 0.3% and 1% annually for both technologies. DBRS notes that there are several factors that affect panel performance, and the data indicating that range of degradation are not homogenous. Differences in technology, suppliers, individual manufacturing facilities, as well as different climates and environments, levels of pollution, correctness of installation, panel con?guration and levels of shading can all affect panel performance. While testing and certi?cation establish the initial power output capability and acceptability of new panels, these tests cannot predict which panel will perform at a 0.3% annual degradation rate for the project life and those that will exhibit a 1.0% degradation rate over the same period. Those distinctions rely on proven performance from operating solar assets and are sometimes supported by long-term studies by independent research and development entities. That may be particularly important in competitive markets where lower prices can pressure some suppliers to cut costs to preserve margins. Accordingly, the experience of the IE and their knowledge of supplier capability and panel performance is critical to the assessment of the technology risk. In order to properly assess panel suppliers and degradation rates, effective IEs typically update their own database of panel performance with frequent ?eld surveys of installed solar projects. DBRS generally considers degradation rates of 0.5% to 1% to be a reasonable, conservative assumption for utility-scale solar project panel performance, depending on the type of technology used and subject to speci?c supplier review as well as the IE report conclusions. The degradation rate assumption used in the base case project model will also depend on a case-by-case review of the technology, supplier and other relevant factors speci?c to each project, as well as the IE’s assessment. In general, most projects can sustain degradation rate increases of roughly 2% each year over a typical project life of 20 years and still service debt (although that break-even resilience might be weaker for projects with higher operating costs and greater leverage). Degradation rates that are at least 100% higher than the already conservative assumption of 1% annual degradation, in each year over a typical project life, compares well to typical break-even resilience for key variables in the operating phase for other types of project bonds (e.g., 40% to 50% for hydrology risk in hydro projects or operating costs in other investment grade project types). The risk of degradation rates more than 100% higher than conservative assumptions is considered by DBRS to be low. In cases where the degradation assumption is viewed as aggressive, DBRS would adjust the assumption to a level considered reasonable for the purpose of a base case.
PANEL WARRANTIES
Most investment grade solar projects do not retain panel performance risk without some form of structural enhancement. The ProjectCo will generally seek partial risk transfer to the supplier or to a third-party insurer. Warranties or maintenance reserves are used to compensate the ProjectCo for revenue lost due to panel underperformance. This structural enhancement may also cover the cost of replacing PV panels (and inverters) if performance falls below a de?ned threshold. Typical warranties guarantee a 20% decrease in output over 20 to 25 years or an annual degradation of up to 1%. As this degradation threshold is generally above the actual performance data, the warranties represent an additional protection that may not be required. The terms of warranties or reserve mechanisms vary and may be de?ned in a separate agreement with the panel supplier or within an EPC contract or even the O&M contract. DBRS will assess the quality of the warranty and its relative reliability, including assessment of any technical termination provisions that could weaken the warranty. DBRS also reviews the quality of the warranty provider as even the most comprehensive warranty cannot confer a credit bene?t that exceeds the creditworthiness of its provider. Where third-party insurance is purchased to enhance a supplier warranty, the insurance coverage is
13
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
reviewed to determine the degree to which its terms mirror the supplier’s coverage. When a panel supplier’s rating is non-investment grade, an acceptable form of warranty together with third-party insurance and panel performance reserve can support the project rating. Typical supplier warranties include a three to ?ve-year warranty for panel defects (to cover signi?cant failure of initial panel performance) and a power output warranty of 97% of initial rated power in the ?rst year and a speci?c forecast system average panel output over the 20 to 25 year life of the project. Sensitivity analysis related to project output includes the effect of the panel warranties on the base case and likely effect of warranty failure.
INVERTERS
Inverters convert the direct current produced by solar cells into alternating current. One inverter will typically serve a signi?cant number of solar panels, so whereas one degraded or inoperable panel will have a limited impact on the amount of power produced by the project, failure of an inverter will typically cause a material loss of power. As such, the ProjectCo/O&M provider will need to be attentive to the proper maintenance and timely replacement of inverters. DBRS will consider the stocking of spare parts and the adequacy of the maintenance/replacement plan. Inverters also receive warranties for ?ve to ten years with obligations to replace for premature inverter failure or underperformance. There are only a handful of leading inverter suppliers including some high credit quality multi-national corporates in the segment. However, this portion of the solar market has also experienced bouts of oversupply and margin pressure from competitive pricing, and includes a number of vulnerable participants and the risk that well-capitalized new entrants could emerge. As inverter performance is a material concern, ProjectCo and debtholders could have some exposure to the inverter supplier’s ?nancial capability, and careful review of its credit quality is included in assessment of operating period risk. The ease and cost of replacement of inverters is also an important consideration in determining the creditworthiness of the project.
INDEPENDENT ENGINEER’S REPORT – OPERATING PERIOD
As with the IE’s assessment of construction risk, an IE provides separate veri?cation of project analysis for the operating phase. The IE’s scope provides validation for and informs separate analysis by DBRS. That scope reviews expected panel performance as well as panel supplier and operator capability, including ?nancial and technical capability as well as operational track record. The report should include an estimate of uncertainty related to newer technologies. The IE also reviews the base case panel degradation assumption and its potential variance. Operating period production and costs, including estimates for maintenance expense, cost of replacement parts and exposure to replacement of distressed suppliers are also reviewed. The IE’s scope may also include an economic summary that (i) con?rms base case economics, including budgeted costs and projected power generation corresponding to the solar energy resource forecast; (ii) reviews sensitivity analysis, including the reasonableness of key downside scenarios; and (iii) analyzes downside scenario results. As part of that review, the energy production forecast is veri?ed. Analysis should include estimated losses due to orientation/shading, temperature, soiling and snowfall. Soiling is a material source of losses, estimated at approximately 5% to 7% for an average rainfall year in a dry climate. The seasonal effect of snowfall in northern climates can cause between 40% and 70% reduction in solar energy (depending on location, environment, panel tilt angle and whether a tracking mechanism is used) and should be conservatively estimated in the project’s ?nancial model and reviewed by the IE. Factors affecting soiling include rainfall, traf?c, pollution and farming, as well as mining or construction activity nearby. The IE report may also review warranties and maintenance reserves covering panel performance, including assessment of the warranty formula for determining claims under a warranty or sizing of the maintenance reserve.
INDEPENDENT SOLAR RESOURCE REPORT
14
A comprehensive report from a reputable resource consultant with a proven track record and expertise in estimating solar energy volume is a vital component in rating solar projects and will be considered by
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
DBRS when developing its view on resource variability. The solar resource report should review methodology and measurement equipment for collecting solar data. Its projections inform the base case resource assumptions supporting the ?nancial model revenue forecast. A minimum of one year of hourly data is required to develop the statistical analysis for assessing variance of solar energy and the related variance of power production and project cash ?ow. The empirical data set is used to generate a long-term distribution for expected project performance. Sitespeci?c data is preferable to nearby data collection locations, which in turn are preferable to even more distant collection locations or datasets based on satellite information. However, as more approximate, non-site-speci?c datasets tend to introduce only modest forecast variance, they may be acceptable for project assessment, and DBRS notes that this is a relatively standard practice in the industry. The solar resource consultant assesses resource performance and power output expressed as a stochastic distribution with resource strength and economics of the plant (expected electricity losses, planned operating outage rates, panel degradation assumptions and possible transmission curtailment) at P50 (the level of solar energy that occurs 50% of the time), P90 and P99, which are common metrics for estimating expected project performance. Resource forecasts that include all three measures are superior to those with fewer measures. Annual power generation based on a P90 threshold is the underlying revenue assumption used for the DBRS base case. The standard deviation for solar energy is relatively low compared to other renewables (e.g., wind), and variance analysis of the solar resource data should form part of the resource consultant’s report. Annual variance in solar energy over the life of a project is generally between 5% and 10% from the long-term average. Note: Given the early-stage nature of the solar market and technology, the IE report and the solar resource report are especially critical to the rating process. Without these independent assessments, DBRS may not be able to provide a rating.
15
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Legal and Financial Structure
LEGAL AND REGULATORY
Solar projects are currently viable only where rates paid for solar generation are in excess of those paid for conventional forms of electricity or where pro?tability is achieved with some other form of subsidy. Accordingly, the regulatory and legal environment should have a track record of reliable contract integrity, enforceability and regulatory stability. The political commitment to renewable energy subsidies within the jurisdiction is assessed. Growth in solar assets has been most rapid where policy support is based on above-market, feed-in-tariff prices. However, even in highly rated economies, some risk exists of future economic and political pressure for revision to subsidized power prices for renewable energy projects. DBRS reviews the history and reliability of the legal jurisdiction to assess the risk of renegotiation of hightariff PPAs. Where there are cut-off dates for policy subsidies, DBRS would evaluate the risk of failing to commission a project within a prescribed deadline. The PPA is carefully reviewed by DBRS to assess the binding nature of the counterparty’s obligation to pay and the project’s obligation to perform.
POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
An investment grade PPA counterparty with a contracted tariff schedule suf?cient to generate robust project debt service coverage ratios (DSCRs) is a signi?cant rating strength. Where a PPA includes some component of merchant exposure to market prices, DBRS will apply sensitivity analysis to assess its ratings impact, although DBRS notes that even modest merchant exposure is likely to cause a ratings impact. PPAs are assessed for the reasonableness of availability thresholds or minimum output requirements, if any, and the term of the agreement should be at least one year greater than the project’s debt maturity. Where a project involves construction risk, the PPA should allow for a construction phase time overrun without immediately terminating. DBRS will consider the amount of time between the target completion/ generation date and the point at which the PPA counterparty may terminate the PPA. If this period is too short, the ProjectCo may not be able to replace either the EPC contractor, panel supplier or other subcontractors in a timely enough fashion to avoid a default. Solar projects that involve the construction of new transmission may be exposed to risk of delays in interconnect approval and commissioning. Where new transmission is outside the project scope, the PPA should provide relief against grid connection delays. A DBRS rating is provisional until approvals have been met and can only be ?nalized once all required authorizations have been granted.
16
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Sponsor Risk
An established, reputable equity sponsor with previous experience as a solar project investor will bring expertise to new projects and is more likely to closely monitor construction progress, provide guidance to the project’s management and contribute a sense of urgency to early detection of problems and their timely resolution. Project credit is supported by a sponsor with a proven track record, signi?cant volume of solar project completion and/or a portfolio of owned/managed solar assets and experience throughout the solar power value chain (including vendors, developers, ?nancial equity and EPC market participants). Sponsors that have worked closely with a number of suppliers and contractors and have consistently completed solar project assets on time and on budget will be viewed favourably. A single controlling sponsor with a reputational or strategic stake in a project is also a rating strength and usually superior to multiple sponsor partners with limited and/or passive investment strategies. Somewhat less satisfactory are investment grade companies with a track record in the power sector but limited experience with solar asset development and ownership. DBRS expects a sponsor to be suitably quali?ed to manage through the construction, operation and maintenance of a utility-scale solar project. When a sponsor is not quali?ed or suf?ciently experienced (particularly in the context of an owner-supplier model) the project may not be ratable. DBRS notes that the project’s rating does not incorporate any expectation of sponsor ?nancial support in excess of contractually obligated amounts.
17
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Financial Risk
Analysis of ?nancial risk includes assessment of certain metrics, scenario and break-even analysis and key ?nancial terms based on a conservative approach to the early-stage solar market. DBRS considers project metrics and related scenario and break-even analysis in the context of all other critical rating factors. That is, the overall pro?le of debt service coverage is a guide and does not, strictly by itself, determine a speci?c rating.
METRICS
The primary ?nancial metric for solar projects is the P90 minimum DSCR (the level exceeded for 90% of forecast outcomes). BBB range solar projects will generally have a minimum DBRS-adjusted base case P90 DSCR greater than 1.3 times (x), assuming reasonable panel degradation. Leverage is driven mainly by a speci?c jurisdiction’s revenue model, project cost structure and the desired DSCR threshold. In markets with generous feed-in tariffs, equity contributions may be lower than in jurisdictions that use tax incentives to provide more modest policy support. Where a project can achieve very low construction costs or for project bonds that fund acquisition of operating assets purchased at a low price, the investment grade DSCR threshold may also be achieved with lower equity contributions. In some cases, more highly-levered transactions can achieve investment grade ratings, provided other aspects of the project can compensate for the higher gearing including, but not limited to, a higher DSCR. Equity should be contributed at ?nancial close or be backed by an LC issued by a ?nancial institution acceptable to DBRS.
SCENARIO AND BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS
Sensitivity and break-even analysis should include reasonable downside estimates for the following: • Variance in solar resource. • Variance in energy produced given the level of solar resource (including panel degradation). • Construction and operating cost overrun. • In?ation.
KEY DEBT TERMS
Other critical contractual terms for the project debt include the following:
No Re?nancing Risk:
Project debt is fully amortizing with at least a one-year tail (between debt maturity and end of the PPA). Higher amortization in the early years of operation when power generation is highest is a strength. 6-12 months debt service reserve. The effect of additional debt service reserve may make a ratings difference, depending on overall credit pro?le. These support project credit quality and in addition to increasing project ?exibility can be used to smooth the cash ?ow impact of seasonal variation in the solar resource. Permitted if P90 DSCR > 1.2x (historical and projected). Permitted if P90 DSCR > 1.3x (historical and projected). Solar energy can be sharply reduced in winter the farther a project is located from the equator. Debt service payments can be sculpted to smooth the projected DSCR to match peak repayments with peak solar energy. Alternatively, some ?nancing structures may make use of a reserving mechanism. In any event, DBRS expects that the ?nancing would incorporate a mechanism to match revenues to cash out?ows. Should be administered by a trustee. Equal to 6-12 months of O&M costs.
Debt Service Reserve: Cash Sweep Mechanisms: Distribution Test: Additional Indebtedness: Sculpting:
Cash Flow Waterfall: Maintenance Reserve:
18
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Solar Power Projects – Summary of Primary Rating Drivers
Rating Criteria Strength Construction Period Risk BBB Adequate BB Weak
• Investment grade panel supplier and investment grade contractor with ?xed-price contract. • Non-investment grade supplier and/or contractor but with robust protections against delays, cost overruns and performance defaults. • Positive IE report conclusions for design, schedule, budget and debt service coverage. • Positive solar resource report conclusions con?rming solar energy volume estimates and projected power generation. • Established, experienced independent engineer and an IE report that drives conclusions with accurate, relevant data and well-reasoned analysis. • Conservative panel degradation assumption with investment grade supplier and acceptable warranty or suitable reserves, insurance or other credit enhancements. • Experienced and creditworthy O&M operator. • Fixed-price O&M contract with detailed performance criteria. • High-quality IE and solar resource reports with favourable opinions for expected performance and each report from providers with established track records. • Investment grade PPA counterparty. • Strong PPA with all conditions met by closing (e.g., government approvals, permits and transmission access). • PPA with reasonable performance criteria and tariff schedule suf?cient to generate adequate DSCRs. • PPA term at least one year greater than debt maturity. • A transparent legal environment with a record of supportive regulation and minimal change-in-law or contract repudiation.
• Non-investment grade supplier and contractor with insuf?cient enhancements or without ?xed-price contract. • Non-supportive or quali?ed IE report conclusions for design, schedule, budget and debt service coverage. • Negative or quali?ed solar resource report conclusions con?rming solar energy volume estimates and projected power generation. • IE may be less experienced, or IE report fails to support conclusions with accurate, relevant data and well-reasoned analysis.
Operating Period Risk
• Aggressive panel degradation assumption with non-investment grade supplier and weak warranty. • Inexperienced O&M operator. • Cost plus contract with operator not adequately aligned with ProjectCo and bondholder interests. • Inexperienced O&M operator. • Inadequate IE and solar resource reports with quali?ed opinions for expected performance and each report from providers with insuf?ciently established track records. • Non-investment grade PPA counterparty. • PPA may leave outstanding exposure to incomplete compliance with regulatory, permitting, and transmission access requirements. • PPA with onerous performance criteria and aggressive tariff schedule, likely to lead to weaker DSCRs. • No tail at end of PPA term, or PPA expires prior to maturity of longterm debt. • A less reliable or opaque legal jurisdiction with precedent for imperfect access to due process and recourse to fair court judgments, inadequate dispute resolution, and an inability of bondholders to enforce their rights, including security interests, in default. • Sponsor(s) with limited or no track record in the type of projects being developed and ?nanced. • Sponsor(s) with weak credit quality. • Multiple sponsors for which the investment has limited strategic importance.
Legal and Regulatory Risk
Sponsor
• Experienced, creditworthy sponsor(s) with proven track record. • Demonstrated sponsor commitment in the project with reasonable equity contribution and support. • Single sponsor or consortium with a strong leading sponsor.
19
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Solar Power Projects – Summary of Primary Rating Drivers
Rating Criteria Strength Country and Political Risk BBB Adequate BB Weak
• Countries with reasonably stable political, regulatory or economic environments. • In cases where potential issues exist, these risks are well mitigated. • Minimum P90 DSCR ? 1.3x. • Leverage is assessed case-by-case and is driven mainly by a speci?c jurisdiction’s revenue model, project cost structure and project DSCR. Feed-in tariff revenue models and low cost projects may bear lower equity contribution. • A minimum debt service reserve of six months to 12 months. • Normal investment grade standards for key term sheet items have been met.
• Countries with one or more political risk factors that are dif?cult to gauge or mitigate due to weakness in the legal framework or uncertainty in political, regulatory or economic environments. • Minimum P90 DSCR ? 1.3x. • Equity contributions that are too low to achieve target DSCR. • Minimum debt service reserve is less than six months or does not form part of the ?nancing structure. • Not all key term sheet items are acceptable to an investment grade standard.
Financial Risk
20
Copyright © 2012, DBRS Limited, DBRS, Inc. and DBRS Ratings Limited (collectively, DBRS). All rights reserved. The information upon which DBRS ratings and reports are based is obtained by DBRS from sources DBRS believes to be accurate and reliable. DBRS does not audit the information it receives in connection with the rating process, and it does not and cannot independently verify that information in every instance. The extent of any factual investigation or independent veri?cation depends on facts and circumstances. DBRS ratings, reports and any other information provided by DBRS are provided “as is” and without representation or warranty of any kind. DBRS hereby disclaims any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability, ?tness for any particular purpose or non-infringement of any of such information. In no event shall DBRS or its directors, of?cers, employees, independent contractors, agents and representatives (collectively, DBRS Representatives) be liable (1) for any inaccuracy, delay, loss of data, interruption in service, error or omission or for any damages resulting therefrom, or (2) for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, compensatory or consequential damages arising from any use of ratings and rating reports or arising from any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of DBRS or any DBRS Representative, in connection with or related to obtaining, collecting, compiling, analyzing, interpreting, communicating, publishing or delivering any such information. Ratings and other opinions issued by DBRS are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact as to credit worthiness or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. A report providing a DBRS rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, veri?ed and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. DBRS receives compensation for its rating activities from issuers, insurers, guarantors and/or underwriters of debt securities for assigning ratings and from subscribers to its website. DBRS is not responsible for the content or operation of third party websites accessed through hypertext or other computer links and DBRS shall have no liability to any person or entity for the use of such third party websites. This publication may not be reproduced, retransmitted or distributed in any form without the prior written consent of DBRS. ALL DBRS RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLAIMERS AND CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. PLEASE READ THESE DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS AT http://www.dbrs.com/about/disclaimer. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DBRS RATINGS, INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, POLICIES AND METHODOLOGIES, ARE AVAILABLE ON http://www.dbrs.com.
www.dbrs.com
Corporate Headquarters DBRS Tower 181 University Avenue Suite 700 Toronto, ON M5H 3M7 TEL +1 416 593 5577
doc_507105597.pdf
A solar panel is a set of solar photovoltaic modules electrically connected and mounted on a supporting structure.
Methodology
Rating Solar Power Projects
august 2012
CONTACT INFORMATION
Eric Beauchemin, CFA Managing Director Public Finance Tel. +1 416 597 7552 [email protected] Kent Wideman Chief Credit Of?cer Tel. +1 416 597 7535 [email protected]
DBRS is a full-service credit rating agency established in 1976. Privately owned and operated without af?liation to any ?nancial institution, DBRS is respected for its independent, third-party evaluations of corporate and government issues, spanning North America, Europe and Asia. DBRS’s extensive coverage of securitizations and structured ?nance transactions solidi?es our standing as a leading provider of comprehensive, in-depth credit analysis. All DBRS ratings and research are available in hard-copy format and electronically on Bloomberg and at DBRS.com, our lead delivery tool for organized, Web-based, up-to-the-minute information. We remain committed to continuously re?ning our expertise in the analysis of credit quality and are dedicated to maintaining objective and credible opinions within the global ?nancial marketplace.
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Rating Solar Power Projects
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to DBRS Methodologies Overview Structure and Overview Construction Period Risk Panel Supply Contractor and Panel Supplier Credit Enhancement Operating Period Risk Technology Risk Panel Warranties Inverters Independent Engineer’s Report – Operating Period Independent Solar Resource Report Legal and Financial Structure Legal and Regulatory Power Purchase Agreement Sponsor Risk Financial Risk Metrics Scenario and Break-Even Analysis Key Debt Terms 4 5 5 8 9 10 12 12 13 14 14 14 16 16 16 17 18 18 18 18
3
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Introduction to DBRS Methodologies
In general terms, DBRS ratings are opinions that re?ect the creditworthiness of an issuer, a security or an obligation. They are opinions based on forward-looking measurements that assess an issuer’s ability and willingness to make timely payments on outstanding obligations (whether principal, interest, dividend or distributions) with respect to the terms of an obligation. DBRS ratings are not based solely on statistical analysis but include a combination of both quantitative and qualitative considerations. The considerations outlined in DBRS methodologies are not intended to be exhaustive. In certain cases, a major strength can compensate for a weakness that would be more critical for a peer company and may also differ depending on the industry being considered. Conversely, there are cases where one weakness is so critical that it overrides the fact that the company may be strong in most other areas. DBRS rating methodologies are underpinned by a stable rating philosophy, which means that in order to minimize the rating changes due primarily to economic changes, DBRS strives to factor the impact of a cyclical economic environment into its rating as applicable. Consequently, DBRS takes a longer-term “through the cycle” view and, as such, rating changes are not based solely on normal economic cycles. Rating revisions do occur, however, when it is clear that a structural change, either positive or negative, has transpired or appears likely to transpire in the near future. An equally important aspect of DBRS’s analysis is our broad industry coverage, which allows us to understand the differences and subtle nuances within a particular industry and to form an appropriate rating of an issuer relative to its competitors. Critical in the determination of a rating is the application of the analyst’s experience and expertise in forming an initial rating opinion and recommendation for the DBRS rating committee and the role of the rating committee as the ?nal decision maker. DBRS rating committees, which comprise experienced and knowledgeable DBRS personnel, strive to provide objective and independent rating decisions that are based on all relevant information and factors, incorporate both global and local considerations, apply DBRS-approved methodologies and constitute the opinion of DBRS.
4
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Overview
Rated bond solutions for solar power projects are attracting increased market interest. However, bond funding of solar power generation is relatively new compared to the more established and market-accepted fuel types such as hydroelectric and natural gas-?red assets. This methodology outlines key factors considered by DBRS in determining the creditworthiness of ground-mounted, utility-scale solar projects of more than ten megawatts utilizing photovoltaic (PV) crystalline silicon or thin ?lm panel technologies. Solar project risk has many elements in common with other energy project ?nance transactions, but it also has unique aspects that must be separately considered. It is DBRS’s view that solar projects can potentially achieve investment grade credit ratings, if properly structured. This methodology ampli?es the commentary published in April 2012 and incorporates subsequent consultation with market participants and the results of the request for comments process. As this is a relatively new asset class where changes and new information are likely in the future, DBRS will continue to assess material developments and adjust this methodology accordingly. This methodology should be considered within the general framework of the DBRS methodology Rating Project Finance (April 2011). The cost of solar power is an important economic reality underlying the legal and ?nancial framework. Solar generation is not yet commercially competitive with other sources of electricity and sector viability currently relies on some form of public support. Above-market tariffs have been a common approach to addressing the need for policy support and subsidy, and some jurisdictions also offer favourable tax treatment, including tax credits or accelerated depreciation rates.
STRUCTURE AND OVERVIEW
Solar power projects are typically structured as special-purpose entities that service debt solely from project cash ?ow and have no recourse to their equity sponsors. In a typical utility-scale solar power project, the project company (ProjectCo) enters into a power purchase agreement (PPA) to sell electricity to the PPA counterparty. For green?eld projects, an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor assumes responsibility for project completion by a certain date at a ?xed price. During operations, an operation and maintenance (O&M) agreement engages a project operator and typically transfers operating risk of the asset from ProjectCo to the operator until contract maturity. A typical ProjectCo is structured with certain limitations and protections including, inter alia: (i) scope of business limited to operation of the project assets; (ii) permitted indebtedness and distribution tests; (iii) comprehensive insurance to cover perils not within control of the project; (iv) limited or no recourse to equity sponsors; and (v) bankruptcy remoteness from equity sponsors. DBRS project ratings separate the analysis into construction and operating phases, with the weaker of the two phases generally determining the rating.
5
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Solar Project Structure
PPA Counterparty
Electricity Payments
Dividends
PPA
Electricity
Debt Service
Sponsors
Equity
ProjectCo
Financing Warranty Construction Payments O&M Payments
Lenders
EPC Contract
O&M Agreement
EPC Contractor
Panel Supplier
O&M Contractor
Note: EPC stands for engineering, procurement and construction. The panel supplier may contract directly with the ProjectCo or subcontract to the EPC contractor.
In its analysis of solar projects, DBRS considers a wide range of factors organized in the following categories: (i) construction period risks; (ii) operating period risks; and (iii) the legal and ?nancial structure of the project. Solar projects are generally distinguished by the following core risk elements: (i) low to moderate construction risk; (ii) more reliable data and forecasts for the solar resource and energy production than for some other renewables (e.g., wind); (iii) risk related to long-term panel performance; and (iv) contracted revenue, typically with investment grade counterparties. Solar power projects, if properly structured, can potentially achieve investment grade ratings. Construction and operating periods must then have investment grade characteristics, backed by reliable legal documentation featuring risk mitigation and pass down, with ?nancing structures that accommodate resource variability and are capable of withstanding downside scenarios. However, solar projects can be exposed to rapidly evolving technology, shorter performance history and uncertainty with respect to panel degradation, and may be subject to changing market structures. These characteristics constrain the rating compared to the more mature hydroelectric and natural gas-?red project types that feature long, welldocumented performance histories. Accordingly, at this stage in the development of a rated market for utility-scale solar projects, solar project ratings are likely to be capped at the BBB category. Investment grade project quality will generally depend on: (i) an experienced panel supplier that is deemed investment grade or that bene?ts from structural enhancement to investment grade; (ii) low to moderate construction risk substantially transferred to an experienced contractor; (iii) a robust PPA with high credit quality counterparties, as lower rated PPA counterparties may constrain the project rating; (iv) moderate operating risk retained by an experienced sponsor or contracted to a quali?ed third party; (v) an established and experienced equity sponsor; and (vi) fully amortizing debt with ?nancial metrics that withstand reasonable downside scenarios. Project elements that could reduce ratings below investment grade include, inter alia:
6
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
(i) non-investment grade or inexperienced counterparties, including sponsors, panel suppliers, EPC contractors and PPA counterparties, where the project also lacks suf?cient structural enhancement(s); (ii) new technology risk of panel types that have limited utility-scale track records; (iii) low-quality panels with excessive risk of panel degradation/poor performance; (iv) insuf?cient tariff and/or partial market risk in the PPA; (v) credit metrics unable to withstand reasonable downside scenarios; and (vi) material ?aws/omissions in the ?nancing or legal structure.
7
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Construction Period Risk
While PV solar panels have been used in various applications for over ?fty years, the advent of utilityscale solar PV projects is relatively recent, and no single business model has emerged among industry players. Some market participants, including panel manufacturers, developers/sponsors, EPC contractors and operators are vertically integrated. In other cases, companies occupy only one segment of the value chain and may lack scale or have limited performance records. In both cases, market participants may be unrated or non-investment grade. As a result, a standardized project structure has yet to emerge, although two approaches to the construction task are commonly seen: (i) an EPC-anchored model where the EPC contractor takes on most of the construction risks, including panel delivery risk (but usually not future panel performance); and (ii) an owner-supplier model where the ProjectCo contracts directly with panel and inverter suppliers and an installation contractor on a ?xed-price basis, without the bene?t of an EPC wrap over the equipment supply and construction. The construction of a utility-scale PV solar facility is relatively straight forward. The construction task is less complex than for traditional project ?nanced power assets, such as natural gas-?red power plants, which have multiple, highly speci?ed moving components with more complex construction or hydro assets with complex design, excavation and civil construction requirements. Solar projects generally involve low complexity civil and foundation work and modularity in the work plan, which creates greater scheduling ?exibility in the installation and hookup of components manufactured off-site. While the panel market experienced very rapid expansion in recent years, current conditions include excess production capacity, high inventories and availability of contractors and suppliers. DBRS cautions that the market will likely continue to be prone to ?uctuations, although under present conditions, it is expected that a defaulting contractor or panel supplier can be replaced with minimal delay and without a material increase in construction cost. Assessment of the ability to replace contractors and panel suppliers is also included in the independent engineer’s (IE) scope of engagement. Solar projects also typically entail construction periods that are much shorter at approximately six to 18 months, versus three to ?ve-year construction periods for other power projects. The shorter time requirement and low complexity nature of the work is a key rating consideration. However, a shorter construction period can also create greater pressure for timely replacement of a defaulted contractor or panel manufacturer, which is also a key rating consideration. The modularity of the construction task allows for much of the build-out to be completed in parallel, rather than in sequence. As such, errors in one segment of the project can be quickly isolated before affecting the overall critical path. This generally supports a reasonably high probability of on-time and on-budget completion. Though completion is not necessarily impaired by a defaulting contractor or panel supplier, it can be. Prudent EPC contractual terms include ?exibility in the contractor’s schedule commitment, often in the form of three to nine months between substantial completion and ?nal completion. Also, project delays can be caused by regulatory obstacles or changes, and contract terms should provide for adjustments to the schedule to manage regulatory changes – a risk that is normally outside of the contractor’s/supplier’s reasonable control.
CONTRACT FRAMEWORK: EPC-ANCHORED AND OWNER-SUPPLIER APPROACHES
In an EPC-anchored approach, the ProjectCo transfers all construction risk to an EPC contractor by way of a ?xed-price, date certain EPC contract. The strength and quality of the EPC contractor is an important
8
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
consideration for the construction phase rating. Where the EPC contractor is not publicly rated (often the case), DBRS will conduct an internal assessment of the contractor focusing on track record, technical and ?nancial capability, and expertise. Construction phase ratings may be limited by a weak contractor but may then be notched up for potential performance security. The limiting effect of weak contractors is more of a factor in tight market conditions where replacement of defaulting contractors would be more dif?cult and could cause delays and cost increases. In markets characterized by excess capacity and high panel inventories, replacement risk is likely to be low. In an owner-supplier approach, ProjectCo is the general contractor and subcontracts the balance of construction to an installation contractor on a ?xed-price basis separate from the equipment supply. There is still a pass down of risk under ?xed-price contracts but with two separate contracts for the separate scopes of work. The credit quality of the panel and inverter suppliers is relatively more important to the rating than if ProjectCo had an EPC to wrap equipment delivery risk, and can be an important consideration for the construction phase rating. In the owner-supplier model, the installation contractor is also assessed, but as the cost of panels, inverters and other equipment is typically a high percentage of total construction cost, the installation contractor’s credit has less weight in the overall construction phase rating. If the panel/inverter suppliers are not publicly rated, DBRS will develop an internal assessment of panel and inverter supplier credit quality. Under both approaches, DBRS reviews the contractor, panel and inverter suppliers and equity sponsors’ track record and proven ability to complete contracts on time and on budget. The most common sources of schedule delay may include: (i) late panel deliveries; (ii) permitting; (iii) transmission interconnection approvals; (iv) construction of access roads; (v) severe weather; (vi) suboptimal placement of panels; and (vii) delays in meeting commissioning requirements. Commissioning tests should match or exceed the requirements of the PPA, including power production, uninterrupted operation and cycle-up performance. DBRS will assess the ability to replace non-performing panel or inverter suppliers. This risk is greater for the owner-supplier model but also relevant to an EPC-anchored model. DBRS considers construction risk to be a combination of the contractor and supplier credit quality as well as the nature of the construction task: low complexity, modular, fewer critical path constraints, and a reasonably good record of on-time, on-budget completion. DBRS expects the IE to opine on the ease and cost of replacement of defaulting contractors/suppliers.
PANEL SUPPLY
An EPC contract transfers responsibility for the delivery and, typically, the initial quality of panels from the ProjectCo to the contractor. Under an owner-supplier approach, this risk is managed directly with the supplier. In both cases, the project is ultimately exposed to the risk of panel delivery delays or default by a panel supplier. Delivery risk increases in periods of excess demand and low inventories but is much less signi?cant in an oversupplied market with excess capacity and unsold inventory. Panel supplier default risk is carefully assessed as even a smooth supplier replacement scenario can increase costs and delay completion. Replacement supply may also have to comply with local content rules, which can limit the number of suitable providers. The obligations of the panel supplier to the EPC contractor and/or ProjectCo (including warranties of panel performance) should survive a change in control of the panel supplier and must also be assignable to the ProjectCo in the event of an EPC contractor default. A project’s exposure to the supplier can be limited by provisions in the panel supply agreement. For example, panel suppliers may charge a premium to pre-build an order and allocate it to inventory. Alternatively, the EPC contractor/ProjectCo can separately schedule early delivery and incur the warehousing cost directly. Both approaches would effectively reduce delivery risk. Penalties for late delivery also encourage timely provision of panels. The panel supply agreement should also have clear requirements for inspection, certi?cation and testing at the plant site.
9
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
The PV panel industry has been characterized by rapid changes in leading competitors, wide swings in demand-supply balance and a sharp decrease in panel prices. These market conditions increase risk related to the supply of panels by pressuring the credit quality of panel suppliers. Investment grade manufacturers may provide rating strength, but investment grade solar panel manufacturers are not common. For non-investment grade manufacturers, credit enhancements may be required, including the transfer of supply risk to an EPC contractor on a ?xed-price basis. In any event, the panel supplier’s reliability and credit quality has the potential to materially affect the project rating, in both an EPC-anchored and owner-supplier project structure.
CONTRACTOR AND PANEL SUPPLIER CREDIT ENHANCEMENT
Credit and performance enhancements can be used to provide uplift to a construction phase rating. These may include (i) letters of credit (LCs); (ii) liquidated damages; (iii) performance bonds; (iv) warranties of performance after commissioning; and (v) parent guarantees. DBRS notes that LCs are the most direct support for the contractor and supplier credit pro?le during the construction phase. LCs issued by an acceptable ?nancial institution can lift the construction phase rating. For example, LCs of 5% to 10% can lift the rating by one to two notches, respectively. In addition, an EPC contract generally provides for liquidated damages (LDs) in case of delay in the construction schedule. For solar projects, LDs are typically between 10% and 20% of contract value and should cover potential costs of delay or performance shortfalls, including debt service to bondholders and penalties owed by the project to the PPA counterparty. Performance bonds commit a surety to complete construction if the contractor defaults on its EPC obligations. An LC is viewed by DBRS as superior to a performance bond, which relies on the surety’s process of assessing claims and selecting among numerous options for addressing a default. Given the likelihood that sector participants may be relatively small and likely to be non-investment grade, DBRS typically considers third-party credit enhancements, such as performance bonds and LCs, superior to liquidated damages obligations of the contractor, unless supported by an LC. Third-party guarantees, insurance or equipment warranties may be positive for credit quality, but require assessment of the entities underwriting the risk. These forms of support bene?t the project rating only if their credit quality is superior to the risks assumed under the related warranty or insurance instrument. Parent guarantees for af?liate contractor entities are a customary requirement. To be viewed as effective by DBRS, the guarantee should be irrevocable and not require exhaustion of recourse against the subsidiary. Approximately 60% of total project costs are attributable to the cost of panels and inverters. Accordingly, a liability cap of 20% of the contract price is normally considered suf?cient and supportive of an investment grade rating. Trapping mechanisms that withhold progress payments to a contractor until delays or overruns are resolved may form part of the ?nancing structure. Contractors can also be subject to a periodic test for value of work performed (as the modular nature of the construction task is convenient for checking progress against speci?c completion milestones) and not allowed to front-run drawdowns. DBRS notes that trapping mechanisms do not represent surplus funding for the project and so while such mechanisms can help to focus the EPC contractor on the timely completion of the project, no rating uplift is given.
INDEPENDENT ENGINEER’S REPORT – CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
DBRS carefully assesses the IE’s report and reviews its ?ndings to inform construction risk analysis. As is the case for traditional project ?nancings, and particularly given the early-stage nature of the technology and market, an IE is generally engaged to verify key technical and ?nancial assumptions such as panel supplier and contractor capability, construction design, budget and schedule, technology risk and the ability of the construction plan to meet output speci?cations and commissioning tests. Equipment warranties and minimum performance thresholds are also reviewed.
10
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
The IE scope should also include review of contractor and panel supplier replacement cost, risks of sourcing labour and materials, the impact of local content rules and any constraints that these may pose for the project. Site preparation, condition and access, regulatory requirements, environmental compliance and satisfaction of all permitting requirements are also reviewed.
11
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Operating Period Risk
During the operating phase of the project, ?xed-price contracts that transfer ProjectCo’s O&M risk to the operator are viewed as superior to self-performance with price exposure. However, the O&M budget is generally a small component of the cost. The low operating expense of solar projects supports project resilience and lowers the probability that some operating event could cause its termination. However, operator technical and ?nancial capability, the reasonableness of the pricing and operator obligations under the O&M agreement and the impact of replacing the operator in a default are all assessed by DBRS. Where the operator is an af?liate of the equity sponsor, panel manufacturer and/or the EPC contractor, the O&M agreement is reviewed for the potential for con?icts and the degree to which penalties and incentives are reasonable and promote reliable project performance.
TECHNOLOGY RISK
As operating costs are low, the primary operating period risk (apart from the solar resource risk itself and reliability of the solar resource forecast) is panel underperformance, where panel degradation exceeds the base case assumption. This risk is not usually borne by the operator, unless the operator is also the manufacturer and/or the EPC contractor. There are two main categories of PV panel technology: (i) crystalline silicon panels and (ii) thin ?lm panels. Crystalline panels have more historical data than thin ?lm panels and are more ef?cient in converting solar energy to electricity per unit of surface area. Conversely, thin ?lm panels have lower production costs and lower ef?ciency loss at high temperatures. Crystalline silicon panels have decades of operating history, most of which has been in micro applications on residential and commercial rooftops but not in the current utility-scale application. The longer dataset indicates lower risk of variance around panel degradation forecasts. Thin ?lm is a more recent technology with operating data of up to ?fteen years, but less than a decade in utility-scale applications, which are a more recent market development. The shorter dataset indicates higher risk of variance around panel degradation forecasts, particularly later in the life of a project. DBRS will carefully review panel performance datasets from the panel supplier and equity sponsor and will also focus on the IE’s analysis as part of its overall assessment of technology risk. For both technologies, manufacturers perform accelerated life-cycle testing to forecast performance. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) provides guidelines for panel testing at the factory for certi?cation purposes, quality assurance and accelerated life-cycle testing. Review of the certi?cation and other quality assurance by the manufacturer should be included in the IE’s scope. Panel modules are typically designed for a thirty-year life. Degradation is caused by three primary factors: (i) light-induced degradation occurring shortly after panels are ?rst exposed to sunlight; (ii) erosion of a module’s moisture protection; and (iii) breakdown of the protective layer between the module’s front glass and PV cells. Crystalline PV panels degrade approximately 1% to 2% in the ?rst year of operation as a result of light-induced degradation, and then annually at an approximate rate of 0.3% to 1%. For thin ?lm panels, the initial degradation can be 4% to 7% over one to three years, and then annually at an approximate rate of 0.3% to 1%. Over time, the effect of weather and sunlight causes moisture-protection materials to become more brittle, gradually trapping moisture, corroding electrical connections and reducing operating voltage. Breakdown of a protective layer immediately behind the panel glass gradually reduces the amount of sunlight that hits the PV cell, decreasing output current. Sensitivities around the core project risk from defective panels typically include more severe downside tests for the last half of the project life.
12
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
The combination of actual data from decades of crystalline panel performance (and up to ?fteen years of data for thin ?lm), protocols for accelerated testing and certi?cation at the factory, as well as IE review of certi?cation and a growing database for performance of different technologies, supports the expectation that degradation rates, in general, are between 0.3% and 1% annually for both technologies. DBRS notes that there are several factors that affect panel performance, and the data indicating that range of degradation are not homogenous. Differences in technology, suppliers, individual manufacturing facilities, as well as different climates and environments, levels of pollution, correctness of installation, panel con?guration and levels of shading can all affect panel performance. While testing and certi?cation establish the initial power output capability and acceptability of new panels, these tests cannot predict which panel will perform at a 0.3% annual degradation rate for the project life and those that will exhibit a 1.0% degradation rate over the same period. Those distinctions rely on proven performance from operating solar assets and are sometimes supported by long-term studies by independent research and development entities. That may be particularly important in competitive markets where lower prices can pressure some suppliers to cut costs to preserve margins. Accordingly, the experience of the IE and their knowledge of supplier capability and panel performance is critical to the assessment of the technology risk. In order to properly assess panel suppliers and degradation rates, effective IEs typically update their own database of panel performance with frequent ?eld surveys of installed solar projects. DBRS generally considers degradation rates of 0.5% to 1% to be a reasonable, conservative assumption for utility-scale solar project panel performance, depending on the type of technology used and subject to speci?c supplier review as well as the IE report conclusions. The degradation rate assumption used in the base case project model will also depend on a case-by-case review of the technology, supplier and other relevant factors speci?c to each project, as well as the IE’s assessment. In general, most projects can sustain degradation rate increases of roughly 2% each year over a typical project life of 20 years and still service debt (although that break-even resilience might be weaker for projects with higher operating costs and greater leverage). Degradation rates that are at least 100% higher than the already conservative assumption of 1% annual degradation, in each year over a typical project life, compares well to typical break-even resilience for key variables in the operating phase for other types of project bonds (e.g., 40% to 50% for hydrology risk in hydro projects or operating costs in other investment grade project types). The risk of degradation rates more than 100% higher than conservative assumptions is considered by DBRS to be low. In cases where the degradation assumption is viewed as aggressive, DBRS would adjust the assumption to a level considered reasonable for the purpose of a base case.
PANEL WARRANTIES
Most investment grade solar projects do not retain panel performance risk without some form of structural enhancement. The ProjectCo will generally seek partial risk transfer to the supplier or to a third-party insurer. Warranties or maintenance reserves are used to compensate the ProjectCo for revenue lost due to panel underperformance. This structural enhancement may also cover the cost of replacing PV panels (and inverters) if performance falls below a de?ned threshold. Typical warranties guarantee a 20% decrease in output over 20 to 25 years or an annual degradation of up to 1%. As this degradation threshold is generally above the actual performance data, the warranties represent an additional protection that may not be required. The terms of warranties or reserve mechanisms vary and may be de?ned in a separate agreement with the panel supplier or within an EPC contract or even the O&M contract. DBRS will assess the quality of the warranty and its relative reliability, including assessment of any technical termination provisions that could weaken the warranty. DBRS also reviews the quality of the warranty provider as even the most comprehensive warranty cannot confer a credit bene?t that exceeds the creditworthiness of its provider. Where third-party insurance is purchased to enhance a supplier warranty, the insurance coverage is
13
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
reviewed to determine the degree to which its terms mirror the supplier’s coverage. When a panel supplier’s rating is non-investment grade, an acceptable form of warranty together with third-party insurance and panel performance reserve can support the project rating. Typical supplier warranties include a three to ?ve-year warranty for panel defects (to cover signi?cant failure of initial panel performance) and a power output warranty of 97% of initial rated power in the ?rst year and a speci?c forecast system average panel output over the 20 to 25 year life of the project. Sensitivity analysis related to project output includes the effect of the panel warranties on the base case and likely effect of warranty failure.
INVERTERS
Inverters convert the direct current produced by solar cells into alternating current. One inverter will typically serve a signi?cant number of solar panels, so whereas one degraded or inoperable panel will have a limited impact on the amount of power produced by the project, failure of an inverter will typically cause a material loss of power. As such, the ProjectCo/O&M provider will need to be attentive to the proper maintenance and timely replacement of inverters. DBRS will consider the stocking of spare parts and the adequacy of the maintenance/replacement plan. Inverters also receive warranties for ?ve to ten years with obligations to replace for premature inverter failure or underperformance. There are only a handful of leading inverter suppliers including some high credit quality multi-national corporates in the segment. However, this portion of the solar market has also experienced bouts of oversupply and margin pressure from competitive pricing, and includes a number of vulnerable participants and the risk that well-capitalized new entrants could emerge. As inverter performance is a material concern, ProjectCo and debtholders could have some exposure to the inverter supplier’s ?nancial capability, and careful review of its credit quality is included in assessment of operating period risk. The ease and cost of replacement of inverters is also an important consideration in determining the creditworthiness of the project.
INDEPENDENT ENGINEER’S REPORT – OPERATING PERIOD
As with the IE’s assessment of construction risk, an IE provides separate veri?cation of project analysis for the operating phase. The IE’s scope provides validation for and informs separate analysis by DBRS. That scope reviews expected panel performance as well as panel supplier and operator capability, including ?nancial and technical capability as well as operational track record. The report should include an estimate of uncertainty related to newer technologies. The IE also reviews the base case panel degradation assumption and its potential variance. Operating period production and costs, including estimates for maintenance expense, cost of replacement parts and exposure to replacement of distressed suppliers are also reviewed. The IE’s scope may also include an economic summary that (i) con?rms base case economics, including budgeted costs and projected power generation corresponding to the solar energy resource forecast; (ii) reviews sensitivity analysis, including the reasonableness of key downside scenarios; and (iii) analyzes downside scenario results. As part of that review, the energy production forecast is veri?ed. Analysis should include estimated losses due to orientation/shading, temperature, soiling and snowfall. Soiling is a material source of losses, estimated at approximately 5% to 7% for an average rainfall year in a dry climate. The seasonal effect of snowfall in northern climates can cause between 40% and 70% reduction in solar energy (depending on location, environment, panel tilt angle and whether a tracking mechanism is used) and should be conservatively estimated in the project’s ?nancial model and reviewed by the IE. Factors affecting soiling include rainfall, traf?c, pollution and farming, as well as mining or construction activity nearby. The IE report may also review warranties and maintenance reserves covering panel performance, including assessment of the warranty formula for determining claims under a warranty or sizing of the maintenance reserve.
INDEPENDENT SOLAR RESOURCE REPORT
14
A comprehensive report from a reputable resource consultant with a proven track record and expertise in estimating solar energy volume is a vital component in rating solar projects and will be considered by
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
DBRS when developing its view on resource variability. The solar resource report should review methodology and measurement equipment for collecting solar data. Its projections inform the base case resource assumptions supporting the ?nancial model revenue forecast. A minimum of one year of hourly data is required to develop the statistical analysis for assessing variance of solar energy and the related variance of power production and project cash ?ow. The empirical data set is used to generate a long-term distribution for expected project performance. Sitespeci?c data is preferable to nearby data collection locations, which in turn are preferable to even more distant collection locations or datasets based on satellite information. However, as more approximate, non-site-speci?c datasets tend to introduce only modest forecast variance, they may be acceptable for project assessment, and DBRS notes that this is a relatively standard practice in the industry. The solar resource consultant assesses resource performance and power output expressed as a stochastic distribution with resource strength and economics of the plant (expected electricity losses, planned operating outage rates, panel degradation assumptions and possible transmission curtailment) at P50 (the level of solar energy that occurs 50% of the time), P90 and P99, which are common metrics for estimating expected project performance. Resource forecasts that include all three measures are superior to those with fewer measures. Annual power generation based on a P90 threshold is the underlying revenue assumption used for the DBRS base case. The standard deviation for solar energy is relatively low compared to other renewables (e.g., wind), and variance analysis of the solar resource data should form part of the resource consultant’s report. Annual variance in solar energy over the life of a project is generally between 5% and 10% from the long-term average. Note: Given the early-stage nature of the solar market and technology, the IE report and the solar resource report are especially critical to the rating process. Without these independent assessments, DBRS may not be able to provide a rating.
15
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Legal and Financial Structure
LEGAL AND REGULATORY
Solar projects are currently viable only where rates paid for solar generation are in excess of those paid for conventional forms of electricity or where pro?tability is achieved with some other form of subsidy. Accordingly, the regulatory and legal environment should have a track record of reliable contract integrity, enforceability and regulatory stability. The political commitment to renewable energy subsidies within the jurisdiction is assessed. Growth in solar assets has been most rapid where policy support is based on above-market, feed-in-tariff prices. However, even in highly rated economies, some risk exists of future economic and political pressure for revision to subsidized power prices for renewable energy projects. DBRS reviews the history and reliability of the legal jurisdiction to assess the risk of renegotiation of hightariff PPAs. Where there are cut-off dates for policy subsidies, DBRS would evaluate the risk of failing to commission a project within a prescribed deadline. The PPA is carefully reviewed by DBRS to assess the binding nature of the counterparty’s obligation to pay and the project’s obligation to perform.
POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
An investment grade PPA counterparty with a contracted tariff schedule suf?cient to generate robust project debt service coverage ratios (DSCRs) is a signi?cant rating strength. Where a PPA includes some component of merchant exposure to market prices, DBRS will apply sensitivity analysis to assess its ratings impact, although DBRS notes that even modest merchant exposure is likely to cause a ratings impact. PPAs are assessed for the reasonableness of availability thresholds or minimum output requirements, if any, and the term of the agreement should be at least one year greater than the project’s debt maturity. Where a project involves construction risk, the PPA should allow for a construction phase time overrun without immediately terminating. DBRS will consider the amount of time between the target completion/ generation date and the point at which the PPA counterparty may terminate the PPA. If this period is too short, the ProjectCo may not be able to replace either the EPC contractor, panel supplier or other subcontractors in a timely enough fashion to avoid a default. Solar projects that involve the construction of new transmission may be exposed to risk of delays in interconnect approval and commissioning. Where new transmission is outside the project scope, the PPA should provide relief against grid connection delays. A DBRS rating is provisional until approvals have been met and can only be ?nalized once all required authorizations have been granted.
16
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Sponsor Risk
An established, reputable equity sponsor with previous experience as a solar project investor will bring expertise to new projects and is more likely to closely monitor construction progress, provide guidance to the project’s management and contribute a sense of urgency to early detection of problems and their timely resolution. Project credit is supported by a sponsor with a proven track record, signi?cant volume of solar project completion and/or a portfolio of owned/managed solar assets and experience throughout the solar power value chain (including vendors, developers, ?nancial equity and EPC market participants). Sponsors that have worked closely with a number of suppliers and contractors and have consistently completed solar project assets on time and on budget will be viewed favourably. A single controlling sponsor with a reputational or strategic stake in a project is also a rating strength and usually superior to multiple sponsor partners with limited and/or passive investment strategies. Somewhat less satisfactory are investment grade companies with a track record in the power sector but limited experience with solar asset development and ownership. DBRS expects a sponsor to be suitably quali?ed to manage through the construction, operation and maintenance of a utility-scale solar project. When a sponsor is not quali?ed or suf?ciently experienced (particularly in the context of an owner-supplier model) the project may not be ratable. DBRS notes that the project’s rating does not incorporate any expectation of sponsor ?nancial support in excess of contractually obligated amounts.
17
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Financial Risk
Analysis of ?nancial risk includes assessment of certain metrics, scenario and break-even analysis and key ?nancial terms based on a conservative approach to the early-stage solar market. DBRS considers project metrics and related scenario and break-even analysis in the context of all other critical rating factors. That is, the overall pro?le of debt service coverage is a guide and does not, strictly by itself, determine a speci?c rating.
METRICS
The primary ?nancial metric for solar projects is the P90 minimum DSCR (the level exceeded for 90% of forecast outcomes). BBB range solar projects will generally have a minimum DBRS-adjusted base case P90 DSCR greater than 1.3 times (x), assuming reasonable panel degradation. Leverage is driven mainly by a speci?c jurisdiction’s revenue model, project cost structure and the desired DSCR threshold. In markets with generous feed-in tariffs, equity contributions may be lower than in jurisdictions that use tax incentives to provide more modest policy support. Where a project can achieve very low construction costs or for project bonds that fund acquisition of operating assets purchased at a low price, the investment grade DSCR threshold may also be achieved with lower equity contributions. In some cases, more highly-levered transactions can achieve investment grade ratings, provided other aspects of the project can compensate for the higher gearing including, but not limited to, a higher DSCR. Equity should be contributed at ?nancial close or be backed by an LC issued by a ?nancial institution acceptable to DBRS.
SCENARIO AND BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS
Sensitivity and break-even analysis should include reasonable downside estimates for the following: • Variance in solar resource. • Variance in energy produced given the level of solar resource (including panel degradation). • Construction and operating cost overrun. • In?ation.
KEY DEBT TERMS
Other critical contractual terms for the project debt include the following:
No Re?nancing Risk:
Project debt is fully amortizing with at least a one-year tail (between debt maturity and end of the PPA). Higher amortization in the early years of operation when power generation is highest is a strength. 6-12 months debt service reserve. The effect of additional debt service reserve may make a ratings difference, depending on overall credit pro?le. These support project credit quality and in addition to increasing project ?exibility can be used to smooth the cash ?ow impact of seasonal variation in the solar resource. Permitted if P90 DSCR > 1.2x (historical and projected). Permitted if P90 DSCR > 1.3x (historical and projected). Solar energy can be sharply reduced in winter the farther a project is located from the equator. Debt service payments can be sculpted to smooth the projected DSCR to match peak repayments with peak solar energy. Alternatively, some ?nancing structures may make use of a reserving mechanism. In any event, DBRS expects that the ?nancing would incorporate a mechanism to match revenues to cash out?ows. Should be administered by a trustee. Equal to 6-12 months of O&M costs.
Debt Service Reserve: Cash Sweep Mechanisms: Distribution Test: Additional Indebtedness: Sculpting:
Cash Flow Waterfall: Maintenance Reserve:
18
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Solar Power Projects – Summary of Primary Rating Drivers
Rating Criteria Strength Construction Period Risk BBB Adequate BB Weak
• Investment grade panel supplier and investment grade contractor with ?xed-price contract. • Non-investment grade supplier and/or contractor but with robust protections against delays, cost overruns and performance defaults. • Positive IE report conclusions for design, schedule, budget and debt service coverage. • Positive solar resource report conclusions con?rming solar energy volume estimates and projected power generation. • Established, experienced independent engineer and an IE report that drives conclusions with accurate, relevant data and well-reasoned analysis. • Conservative panel degradation assumption with investment grade supplier and acceptable warranty or suitable reserves, insurance or other credit enhancements. • Experienced and creditworthy O&M operator. • Fixed-price O&M contract with detailed performance criteria. • High-quality IE and solar resource reports with favourable opinions for expected performance and each report from providers with established track records. • Investment grade PPA counterparty. • Strong PPA with all conditions met by closing (e.g., government approvals, permits and transmission access). • PPA with reasonable performance criteria and tariff schedule suf?cient to generate adequate DSCRs. • PPA term at least one year greater than debt maturity. • A transparent legal environment with a record of supportive regulation and minimal change-in-law or contract repudiation.
• Non-investment grade supplier and contractor with insuf?cient enhancements or without ?xed-price contract. • Non-supportive or quali?ed IE report conclusions for design, schedule, budget and debt service coverage. • Negative or quali?ed solar resource report conclusions con?rming solar energy volume estimates and projected power generation. • IE may be less experienced, or IE report fails to support conclusions with accurate, relevant data and well-reasoned analysis.
Operating Period Risk
• Aggressive panel degradation assumption with non-investment grade supplier and weak warranty. • Inexperienced O&M operator. • Cost plus contract with operator not adequately aligned with ProjectCo and bondholder interests. • Inexperienced O&M operator. • Inadequate IE and solar resource reports with quali?ed opinions for expected performance and each report from providers with insuf?ciently established track records. • Non-investment grade PPA counterparty. • PPA may leave outstanding exposure to incomplete compliance with regulatory, permitting, and transmission access requirements. • PPA with onerous performance criteria and aggressive tariff schedule, likely to lead to weaker DSCRs. • No tail at end of PPA term, or PPA expires prior to maturity of longterm debt. • A less reliable or opaque legal jurisdiction with precedent for imperfect access to due process and recourse to fair court judgments, inadequate dispute resolution, and an inability of bondholders to enforce their rights, including security interests, in default. • Sponsor(s) with limited or no track record in the type of projects being developed and ?nanced. • Sponsor(s) with weak credit quality. • Multiple sponsors for which the investment has limited strategic importance.
Legal and Regulatory Risk
Sponsor
• Experienced, creditworthy sponsor(s) with proven track record. • Demonstrated sponsor commitment in the project with reasonable equity contribution and support. • Single sponsor or consortium with a strong leading sponsor.
19
Rating Solar Power Projects August 2012
Solar Power Projects – Summary of Primary Rating Drivers
Rating Criteria Strength Country and Political Risk BBB Adequate BB Weak
• Countries with reasonably stable political, regulatory or economic environments. • In cases where potential issues exist, these risks are well mitigated. • Minimum P90 DSCR ? 1.3x. • Leverage is assessed case-by-case and is driven mainly by a speci?c jurisdiction’s revenue model, project cost structure and project DSCR. Feed-in tariff revenue models and low cost projects may bear lower equity contribution. • A minimum debt service reserve of six months to 12 months. • Normal investment grade standards for key term sheet items have been met.
• Countries with one or more political risk factors that are dif?cult to gauge or mitigate due to weakness in the legal framework or uncertainty in political, regulatory or economic environments. • Minimum P90 DSCR ? 1.3x. • Equity contributions that are too low to achieve target DSCR. • Minimum debt service reserve is less than six months or does not form part of the ?nancing structure. • Not all key term sheet items are acceptable to an investment grade standard.
Financial Risk
20
Copyright © 2012, DBRS Limited, DBRS, Inc. and DBRS Ratings Limited (collectively, DBRS). All rights reserved. The information upon which DBRS ratings and reports are based is obtained by DBRS from sources DBRS believes to be accurate and reliable. DBRS does not audit the information it receives in connection with the rating process, and it does not and cannot independently verify that information in every instance. The extent of any factual investigation or independent veri?cation depends on facts and circumstances. DBRS ratings, reports and any other information provided by DBRS are provided “as is” and without representation or warranty of any kind. DBRS hereby disclaims any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability, ?tness for any particular purpose or non-infringement of any of such information. In no event shall DBRS or its directors, of?cers, employees, independent contractors, agents and representatives (collectively, DBRS Representatives) be liable (1) for any inaccuracy, delay, loss of data, interruption in service, error or omission or for any damages resulting therefrom, or (2) for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, compensatory or consequential damages arising from any use of ratings and rating reports or arising from any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of DBRS or any DBRS Representative, in connection with or related to obtaining, collecting, compiling, analyzing, interpreting, communicating, publishing or delivering any such information. Ratings and other opinions issued by DBRS are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact as to credit worthiness or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. A report providing a DBRS rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, veri?ed and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. DBRS receives compensation for its rating activities from issuers, insurers, guarantors and/or underwriters of debt securities for assigning ratings and from subscribers to its website. DBRS is not responsible for the content or operation of third party websites accessed through hypertext or other computer links and DBRS shall have no liability to any person or entity for the use of such third party websites. This publication may not be reproduced, retransmitted or distributed in any form without the prior written consent of DBRS. ALL DBRS RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO DISCLAIMERS AND CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. PLEASE READ THESE DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS AT http://www.dbrs.com/about/disclaimer. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DBRS RATINGS, INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, POLICIES AND METHODOLOGIES, ARE AVAILABLE ON http://www.dbrs.com.
www.dbrs.com
Corporate Headquarters DBRS Tower 181 University Avenue Suite 700 Toronto, ON M5H 3M7 TEL +1 416 593 5577
doc_507105597.pdf