Sol-Wind’s IPO Compared to YieldCos & Structures of Other MLPs

Dec 23, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

Background

While publicly traded entities are generally required to be taxed as corporations, there is an exception under I.R.C. § 7704 pursuant to which certain publicly traded master limited partnerships are taxed as partnerships.  Sol-Wind’s structure is a master limited partnership (MLP) that meets the exception in I.R.C. § 7704 to be publicly traded, yet taxed as a partnership. 

Because Sol-Wind’s underlying assets are renewable energy projects that do not generate “qualifying income” for purposes of I.R.C. § 7704(d), the structure includes a blocker corporation1 between the MLP and the assets.  As a result, the venture will owe corporate tax.  However, according to the disclosure in the S-1, Sol-Wind does not “expect [its] corporate subsidiaries to generate a significant amount of taxable income for at least the next 30 years.”  Thus, on a present value basis the use of the corporate blocker to meet the rules of I.R.C. § 7704(d) results in only a de minimis tax cost. The tax cost is minimal because Sol-Wind has bought and will buy renewable energy projects that qualify for accelerated depreciation and tax credits and these tax benefits should more than offset the taxable income of the corporation.  The tax attributes that are not used in the current year to zero out the blocker corporation’s tax liability can be carried forward 20 years.

The S-1 also discloses that Sol-Wind has and will generally enter into “tax equity transactions” as a means of providing capital to acquire the renewable energy assets.  As explained in the S-1:

U.S. federal [and] state…governments…have established various tax incentives to support the development of renewable energy assets, which permits for the sale of tax equity. The incentives include PTCs, ITCs, accelerated tax depreciation and certain state tax credits (collectively, "Tax Benefits"). Investors in tax equity typically receive all or virtually all of the Tax Benefits, including PTCs, ITCs and depreciation, from U.S. solar and wind power generation assets and a small amount of cash flows from each asset.

It is not entirely clear from the S-1 how Sol-Wind can both monetize the Tax Benefits in tax equity transactions and still not owe any corporate level tax for 30 years.  Presumably, it will monetize less than all of the Tax Benefits in the tax equity transactions to enable the corporate blocker to shelter its income for the next 30 years.

Comparison of Sol-Wind’s MLP to Other Structures

The Sol-Wind structure is like an upside down yieldco.  In the yieldco structure, the public entity is a corporation that owns a partnership; in the Sol-Wind structure, the public entity is a partnership that owns a corporation.  One drawback of the Sol-Wind structure is that the public investors will receive an IRS Schedule K-1 from the MLP, which causes tax filing complexity not present in the yieldco structure (where the public holds corporate stock).

The Sol-Wind structure is similar to the MLP structure used by private equity fund managers that went public (e.g., KKR).  These MLPs also had underlying assets that generated non-qualifying income under I.R.C. § 7704(d) and, therefore, had to have a blocker corporation between their business operations and the MLP.

The blocker structure used by Sol-Wind and the private equity fund manager MLPs is different from the classic structure used for oil and gas MLPs.  Oil and gas MLPs do not need to interpose a corporation between the MLP and the underlying business operations because oil and gas assets generate “qualifying income” under I.R.C. § 7704(d).  Thus, the corporate tax is avoided completely.

If the MLP Parity Act is enacted, then Sol-Wind’s solar and wind projects would be deemed to generate “qualifying income” and Sol-Wind could qualify as an MLP without the use of the corporate blocker.  In other words, passage of the MLP Parity Act means that Sol-Wind (and other MLPs owning renewable energy assets) could use the classic MLP structure and thereby avoid the extra corporate level tax, as is the case for oil and gas MLPs.  A discussion of the MLP Parity Act is available here


1 The blocker corporation is a limited liability company organized in Delaware that makes an election to be taxed as a corporation.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.