Sound Bites from REFF Wall Street

Jul 1, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

“YieldCo is a total return vehicle with yield and growth.  A large portion of the total return is growth.”

- Jerry Hanrahan, Managing Director, John Hancock – Power & Infrastructure Team

“YieldCo is a new term but not a new structure.”

- John Eber, Managing Director – Energy Investments, J.P. Morgan

“We’re going to see more YieldCos participating in partnership flip transactions [in the role of developer].”

- Katherine Breaks, Tax Managing Director, KPMG

“I’m going to leave it to somebody else to solve the problem of YieldCos with tax equity [in the same project].”

- Lyndon Rive, Chief Executive Officer, SolarCity

“YieldCos aren’t going to have enough taxable income for quite some time to use tax credits efficiently.”

- Darren  Van’t Hof, Business Development, U.S. Bank

“If a YieldCo has 12-years of tax deferral, it would need to come with some fancy financial engineering to outbid a current taxpayer.”

- Ray Wood, Director-Head of US Power & Renewables, Bank of America Merrill Lynch

“Very few YieldCos will [have enough taxable income to efficiently] self-shelter [using tax credits and depreciation from their projects].  You have to have a lot of taxable income to do that efficiently.”

- John Eber

“Since we are a passive investor, if we are going to partner with YieldCo it needs to have employees or be appropriately married to a sponsor that has employees.”

- John Eber

 

Tax Equity Market

“Since 2009 tax equity has been a constraint.  The solar industry has been growing 50 percent year-over-year, so unless tax equity grows at that rate there will be a mismatch of supply and demand.  So we’ve been focused on bringing in more tax equity investors.”

- Lyndon Rive

 “Try to find a risk adjusted return that beats tax equity.  Tax equity is a good business.”

- Lyndon Rive

“All we see is continued growth and opportunity for tax equity.”

- John Eber

“A corporate investor usually needs a strategic reason to go into tax equity because returns are lower than their core business.”

- John Eber

“Financial institutions are a natural home for tax equity.”

- John Eber

“The first time I talked to Google about tax equity, I said they needed to project tax appetite for the 10-year production tax credit period.  They said, ‘We haven’t been in business for 10 years.’”

- John Eber

“Nine out of 10 times, [GAAP] accounting is the killer for a new corporate investor.”

- Lyndon Rive

“Hypothetical liquidation at book value (HLBV) [GAAP] accounting is just a killer [for tax equity partnership investments].  The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) gave favorable treatment to low income housing tax credits; that market is off to the races with the above the line benefits.”

- Katherine Breaks

“The GAAP accounting for earnings is much better in an inverted lease [than a partnership flip].”

- Lyndon Rive

“It is a 12 to 18 month education process for a corporate investor.  [A new corporate investor needs to grasp] that a tax equity investment has no opportunity cost: you’re going to be paying your taxes. Would you rather earn a return on [that cash by investing in tax equity]?”

- Lyndon Rive

“We didn’t design the pre-tax/after-tax partnership structure (PAPS), [in which the developer is distributed all of the available cash until it recovers its investment and then the tax equity investor is distributed all of the cash until it achieves its after-tax internal rate of return;] the developers did. We can easily change the cash distribution percentages.”

- John Eber

“In 2013, almost 50 percent of the volume in tax equity was solar.”

- John Eber

 

Renewable Energy Capital Markets

“Renewables are no longer a niche specialty play.  It is just a category under the broad heading of infrastructure.”

- David Giordano

“To get to 40% [of electricity coming from renewables] by 2040, we’d have to do 400 GW a year [of new renewable energy capacity] starting today.  The industry needs every source of capital available”

Lyndon Rive

“Another source of funding is private funding.  I think that has a lot of potential.  In the spring, we will be coming out with our first private funding offering.”

Lyndon Rive

“Our institution lends all the time to widget makers who haven’t pre-sold their output.  So why do we saddle energy projects that don’t have a power purchase agreement with the label ‘merchant’?  There must be some level of debt that could be lent to a merchant project.”

Andrew Redinger, Managing Director, Group Head Utilities, Power & Renewable Energy, KeyBanc Capital Markets

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.