skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance

Technical Report ·
DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/1004219· OSTI ID:1004219

In the United States, the 'community wind' sector - loosely defined here as consisting of relatively small utility-scale wind power projects that sell power on the wholesale market and that are developed and owned primarily by local investors - has historically served as a 'test bed' or 'proving grounds' for up-and-coming wind turbine manufacturers that are trying to break into the U.S. wind power market. For example, community wind projects - and primarily those located in the state of Minnesota - have deployed the first U.S. installations of wind turbines from Suzlon (in 2003), DeWind (2008), Americas Wind Energy (2008) and later Emergya Wind Technologies (2010), Goldwind (2009), AAER/Pioneer (2009), Nordic Windpower (2010), Unison (2010), and Alstom (2011). Thus far, one of these turbine manufacturers - Suzlon - has subsequently achieved some success in the broader U.S. wind market as well. Just as it has provided a proving grounds for new turbines, so too has the community wind sector served as a laboratory for experimentation with innovative new financing structures. For example, a variation of one of the most common financing arrangements in the U.S. wind market today - the special allocation partnership flip structure (see Figure 1 in Section 2.1) - was first developed by community wind projects in Minnesota more than a decade ago (and is therefore sometimes referred to as the 'Minnesota flip' model) before being adopted by the broader wind market. More recently, a handful of community wind projects built over the past year have been financed via new and creative structures that push the envelope of wind project finance in the U.S. - in many cases, moving beyond the now-standard partnership flip structures involving strategic tax equity investors. These include: (1) a 4.5 MW project in Maine that combines low-cost government debt with local tax equity, (2) a 25.3 MW project in Minnesota using a sale/leaseback structure, (3) a 10.5 MW project in South Dakota financed by an intrastate offering of both debt and equity, (4) a 6 MW project in Washington state that taps into New Markets Tax Credits using an 'inverted' or 'pass-through' lease structure, and (5) a 9 MW project in Oregon that combines a variety of state and federal incentives and loans with unconventional equity from high-net-worth individuals. In most cases, these are first-of-their-kind structures that could serve as useful examples for other projects - both community and commercial wind alike. This report describes each of these innovative new financing structures in some detail, using a case-study approach. The purpose is twofold: (1) to disseminate useful information on these new financial structures, most of which are widely replicable; and (2) to highlight the recent policy changes - many of them temporary unless extended - that have facilitated this innovation. Although the community wind market is currently only a small sub-sector of the U.S. wind market - as defined here, less than 2% of the overall market at the end of 2009 (Wiser and Bolinger 2010) - its small size belies its relevance to the broader market. As such, the information provided in this report has relevance beyond its direct application to the community wind sector. The next two sections of this report briefly summarize how most community wind projects in the U.S. have been financed historically (i.e., prior to this latest wave of innovation) and describe the recent federal policy changes that have enabled a new wave of financial innovation to occur, respectively. Section 4 contains brief case studies of how each of the five projects mentioned above were financed, noting the financial significance of each. Finally, Section 5 concludes by distilling a number of general observations or pertinent lessons learned from the experiences of these five projects.

Research Organization:
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Organization:
Environmental Energy Technologies Division
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC02-05CH11231
OSTI ID:
1004219
Report Number(s):
LBNL-4193E; TRN: US201104%%918
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English