Solar Value:: It’s Interest Rates, Not System Costs
September 7, 2011
Photovoltaic system costs have been dropping. In fact, as has been highly publicized, solar panel
prices have more than halved since 2009. For developers and electricity purchasers, this is welcome
news. Declining system costs should help solar projects compete with other types of power –
something that has happened infrequently in the U.S.. However, many in the solar industry
indus appear to
extrapolate from recent trends that solar project costs only will continue to decline in the future. In
anticipation of this brighter future, some industry participants are tempted to adjust PPA prices
downward (many “winning” PPA prices are now in the $0.10/kWh range) or to delay constructing
projects so as to hold out for higher returns. While we at PowerFin share in the excitement surrounding
the currently low system costs,, and while we are hopeful about cost declines in the future, we caution
caut
against overzealous PPA pricing or delaying project construction based upon inferences drawn from
the current industry cycle.
From PowerFin’s perspective, speculation that solar PPA power prices only will decline hinges on two
dangerous assumptions: (1) that further meaningful declines in system costs still are possible, and (2)
that the cost of capital for solar projects will remain at current levels or decrease. Although we believe
that there is room for debate regarding
garding how much system costs will come down in the coming years,
this article focuses on the second assumption – that interest rates will remain flat or decrease.
To begin, the cost of capital can have a much greater impact on solar project value than system costs.
Simply put and very generally speaking, a 1% increase in the cost of capital would require the same
project, with the same PPA, to be valued for roughly $0.
$0.50/Watt less! That is more than a 10% drop
in total asset value. What portion of system costs should be cut to recapture that $0.50/Watt
$0.
reduction in value? Panel prices? Developer fees?
Using a dividend discount model1, a system generating $0.19/Watt of annual cash flow with a cost of
capital of 6% and a negative growth rate of 0.7% (panel degradation), implies a system value of
roughly $2.80/Watt. Dividing that $2.80/Watt by 70% (1 – 30% Grant or ITC), we arrive at a gross
system value of $4.05/Watt. Using the same assumptions and only changing the
e cost of capital to
7%, implies a system value of $2.47/Watt. Dividing that $2.47/Watt by 70% implies a new system
value of $3.53/Watt, or a $0.52
2/Watt reduction in value. Given the long-lived and stable nature of
solar generating assets,, we believe that the dividend discount model is an appropriate,
appropriate albeit simple,
valuation tool.
There are two primary factors that contribute to the cost of capital (mostly debt) for solar projects: (1)
long-term
term treasury rates, and (2) the premium (spread) that must be paid above treasury rates.
Assuming a 20-year
year treasury rate of 3%, and assuming a project
project-specific
specific spread of 3%, the total cost
of capital is 6%. Of course, there are other elements that impact debt pricing (e.g. – coverage ratios,
duration, and underwriting
ing costs
costs, etc..),, but those are variables that tend to be sponsor-specific
sponsor
and
lender-specific;
specific; thus, they are beyond the scope of this article.
1
Dividend Discount Model: System Value = [Annual Cash Flow / (Cost of Capital – Growth Rate)]
Rate)
Page 1 of 3
We think that many market participants overlook treasury rates as a factor that contributes to the cost
of solar projects. As shown in the charts below, 10
10-year and 30-year
year treasury rates are at historically
low levels. At PowerFin, we are not macroeconomists; but, based on these charts – and based on our
experience with the cyclicality of capital markets – it appears that treasury rates most likely will
increase in the future. Granted, there are financial instruments, such as fixed
fixed-for-floating
floating treasury
swaps, that can alleviate treasury risk, but it is likely not possible for most developers to assume the
risk of such an instrument. Therefore, we believe that most developers who lower their PPA prices or
delay construction in anticipation of further declines in system costs fail to fully appreciate the risk of
treasury rate increases.
It could be argued that
at spreads (premiums above treasury rates) for solar projects should
compress as the capital markets come to understand solar projects better. We do not
disagree. However, we want to be realistic about the availability of money for solar projects,
aboutt the fact that most institutional lenders are unwilling to provide loans smaller than $20
million or for projects smaller than 10MW (10MW x $4.00/Watt x [1 - 30% Grant or ITC] x
80% Debt/Capital),, and about the fact that those who are willing to lend smaller
ler amounts or
into smaller projects certainly charge more than a 3% premium over risk
risk-free
free treasuries. U.S.
U
solar project finance, with its tax
tax-based
based incentives, is complex. That complexity has hindered
U.S. solar market growth and subsequently has impaired investor familiarity with the sector,
sector
which is necessary for yield spread compression. We believe that growth will remain slow as
the capital markets come to terms with the complexities of solar finance. Therefore, even if
system costs continue to
o decline over the next several years, interest rate increases easily
could make most solar projects with aggressive assumptions unbankable.
We
e believe that the best way to accelerate spread compression and to mitigate treasury rate
risk is by completing current projects quickly. It takes fewer than six months to construct a
solar project of less than 50MW, and the industry must not wait for system costs to decline
further or for the cost of capital to fall before completing projects
projects. Developers and off-takers
off
should not base PPA pricing solely on the expectation of further system cost declines. We
think that the current pricing environment for systems and capital is quite attractive, and we
believe that developers and off
off-takers should expedite project completion – now.
PowerFin Partners is a manager of institutional funds for solar projects in North
America. Its principals have meaningful experience in energy capital markets, legal
and regulatory matters, and renewable engineering.
www.powerfinpartners.com
[email protected]
Page 2 of 3
10-Year US Treasury Rates (%)
10-Year US Treasury Rates
(1962 – Present)
’62
’71
’80
’89
’98
‘07
Source: The Wall Street Journal
30-Year US Treasury Rates
(1985 – Present)
13
12
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Source: Bloomberg
Page 3 of 3
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
2
30-Year Treasury Rates (%)
11