By Lang Reynolds
YieldCos represent a surging trend in renewable energy finance and a
valuable innovation to access relatively low-cost capital for the right
players. Along with securitization and other financial innovations,
YieldCos represent a critical pathway to support renewable energy
project deployment and market growth past incentive expirations.
The general purpose of a YieldCo is to lower the cost of finance
through a specialized investment. By 1) transferring the project off
balance sheet, and 2) refinancing the project at a lower cost of
capital, sponsors can free up more capital with which to deploy more
projects, and sell the energy for a competitive price. Importantly,
YieldCos are generally affiliated with a parent company (i.e., a
developer or asset investor), but represent a separate investment
mechanism.
However, exactly how (or even if) currently operating YieldCos are
achieving this low cost of capital relative to their parent companies
has not been entirely transparent. Luckily, NRG Yield’s (NYLD) purchase
of the Alta Wind facility last summer offers just enough transparency to
suggest that, at least in this particular transaction, the YieldCo does
appear to enjoy a lower cost of capital than its parent company, NRG.
This article will walk through some back-of-the envelope calculations
pertinent to the transaction to illustrate how this works.
The Transaction
On June 4th, 2014, NYLD announced the purchase of Alta Wind from
Terra-Gen Power LLC. With a capacity of 947 MW, this wind facility in
Tehachapi, California is the largest in North America [2].
NYLD has a right of first offer (ROFO) to procure “drop-down
transactions” from NRG’s development portfolio. And although other
assets were procured thru the ROFO prior to the Alta Wind deal, this was
the first renewable energy asset in the YieldCo marketplace with
publicly-disclosed terms. The table below describes key terms of the
Alta Wind transaction.
| Alta Wind — Transaction Overview | |
| Developer/Operator | Terra-Gen Power LLC |
|---|---|
| Purchaser | NRG Yield, Inc |
| Nameplate Capacity | 947 MW |
| Power Purchase Agreement Counterparty | Southern California Edison |
| Weighted Average Contract Life | 22 Years |
| Purchase Price | $870MM + $1,600MM Assumption of Debt |
| Source: [3], [4] | |
Completed on August 12, 2014, the Alta acquisition was funded through
a 50/50 split of equity and debt. For the equity, NYLD closed a common
stock offering for net proceeds of $630 million, $442 million of which
were slated for the Alta purchase. For the debt, NYLD issued $500
million in senior unsecured notes due in 2024 with a coupon rate of
5.375%. Note: This debt issuance was increased by $100 million and
underwriters of the equity offering exercised their option to purchase
an additional 1.58 million shares, reflecting strong demand for both
capital offerings [4],[5].
Cost of Capital Analysis
Now let’s look at exactly how the Alta Wind transaction illustrates
the difference between NYLD’s cost of capital and that of its parent
company, NRG. We’ll start with the equity. Hypothetically, if two companies are
making the same acquisition at the same purchase price, the one with a
higher equity valuation (i.e. the stock price) would enjoy a lower cost
of equity. That is, a higher equity valuation allows a company to issue
fewer shares, thereby reducing any dilution of distributions per share.
In the case of the Alta Wind transaction, NYLD’s equity value rose over
100% from its IPO up to the purchase announcement, resulting in a
significantly higher valuation relative to its parent, NRG. At the time
of the transaction, investors valued NYLD equity at almost twice the
EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization)
of NRG over the six months prior to the equity offering. This suggests
that NYLD enjoyed, at the time, cost of equity advantage over its
parent.
Next, let’s take a look at the debt. The NYLD bond issue executed to
fund the transaction was priced with a 5.375% coupon. As shown in the
table below, this is a full 87.5 basis points lower than both of NRG’s
debt offerings in 2014. While the benchmark 10-Year Treasury yield fell
~24 basis points from the time of NRG’s two debt issuances to NYLD’s,
this difference accounts for less than one third of the total spread
between the offerings. Therefore NYLD appears to also enjoy a significant cost of debt advantage compared to NRG.
| Issuer | NRG | NRG | NYLD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offering Size | $1,100MM | $1,000MM | $500MM |
| Offering Date | Jan-14 | Apr-14 | July-14 |
| Maturity | 2022 | 2024 | 2024 |
| Type | Senior Unsecured | Senior Unsecured | Senior Unsecured |
| Coupon | 6.25% | 6.25% | 5.375% |
Summary
Based on this transaction, NYLD appears to possess advantages in both
the debt and equity components of cost of capital over its parent
company, providing tangible support to the cost of capital argument for
forming a YieldCo. However, it remains to be seen how much of this
advantage can be maintained over time and to what degree it persists
across other YieldCos. For example, it could be difficult to improve
upon the cost of capital of a diversified utility such as NextEra;
however for a pure-play developer with a relatively higher cost of
capital, the spread could likely be more favorable. Furthermore, market
conditions, especially interest rates, are expected to significantly
affect the YieldCo business model. That is, distribution yields would
need to keep pace with any significant increase in interest rates to
maintain investor interest.
Given the nascent state of the YieldCo marketplace, many questions
are yet to be answered and outcomes are yet to be determined. Future
acquisitions by other YieldCos, provided they make use of the public
markets as the Alta Wind transaction did will shed more light into the
relative financing costs of YieldCos and their parent companies. Over
time, YieldCos, securitizations, and other financial innovations could
provide significant capital-raising capabilities for developers and
owners of renewable energy projects, thus reducing financial barriers to
scaled deployment and competitive cost of energy.
References
2. “NRG Yield to buy North America’s largest wind power plant.” SNL Energy. Accessed August 28, 2014: http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?ID=28296998&KPLT=2.
3. Urdanick, M. (2014). “A Deeper Look into YieldCo Structuring.” https://financere.nrel.gov/finance/content/deeper-look-YieldCo-structuring.
4. “NRG Yield closes common stock offering SNL nyld equity offering.” SNL Energy. Accessed August 28, 2014: http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?ID=28758879&KPLT=2.
5. “NRG Yield Operating upsizes, prices senior note offering.” SNL Energy. Accessed August 28, 2014: http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?ID=28795824&KPLT=2.
3. Urdanick, M. (2014). “A Deeper Look into YieldCo Structuring.” https://financere.nrel.gov/finance/content/deeper-look-YieldCo-structuring.
4. “NRG Yield closes common stock offering SNL nyld equity offering.” SNL Energy. Accessed August 28, 2014: http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?ID=28758879&KPLT=2.
5. “NRG Yield Operating upsizes, prices senior note offering.” SNL Energy. Accessed August 28, 2014: http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?ID=28795824&KPLT=2.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/11/the-relative-cost-of-capital-of-a-yieldco-analyzing-a-recent-transaction/
No comments:
Post a Comment