Yieldcos – The New “Promised Land” of the Renewable Energy Space?

Aug 19, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

Unfortunately for the renewable energy industry, the perception of the investing public about the industry, with its heavy dependence on tax credits and sophisticated tax structuring, new and untested technology and equipment, resource uncertainty, transmission issues and other factors, was that it was not “low risk.”  In fact, however, for many wind and solar projects, there is a portion of the revenue stream from those projects that is quite “low risk.” Most utility scale wind and solar projects have a contract for the sale of their power at a fixed or escalating price to a large local utility for a term of 15 to 20 years.  With the development over the past 10 to 12 years of very reliable wind and solar energy equipment (thank you, GE, Siemens, Sunpower and others), and advances in wind and solar resource prediction, the income streams from many wind and solar projects are, actually, quite predictable and very “low risk.” The challenge is how to get that low-risk portion of the wind and solar projects into the hands of the investing public. Enter the Yieldco.

For definitional purposes, a Yieldco is a publically traded company that is typically majority- owned or controlled by a large renewable energy developer.  The company itself will hold assets or will purchase assets typically viewed as “low risk” in the power industry in that they have a (1) a long-term contract for off-take from a large utility, (2) a proven or well-known resource, (3) proven technology, often from a major manufacturer, and (4) in some cases, a significant operating history. The projects selected for inclusion in the Yieldco must produce a steady cash flow that will allow for a constant dividend to the shareholders.  It is critically important to note that this steady cash flow is independent of the tax benefits of the renewable project, which must still be sold to third parties.  In almost all cases, assets are added to or included in Yieldcos only after the tax benefits have been sold to third parties.  Thus, the amount available to Yieldco investors is limited to the cash flow from the projects only after any payments due the tax equity investors have first been made.

Other structures that are often mentioned in the Yieldco family include renewable energy REITs, which receive revenues from the real estate underlying wind and solar projects and securitizations of revenue streams from commercial and residential rooftop solar.  It is noteworthy that, so far, the six or so Yieldcos that have come to market have differences with each other and with other companies that have been classified as Yieldcos.  The structures tend to be somewhat complicated, and no two are alike.

Our next post will examine recent Yieldcos, along with a discussion of the yield they generated.

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.