Search
November 25, 2025

Talen Entering NYISO in $1.2B Deal

By Rich Heidorn Jr.

Talen Energy announced its first post-spinoff acquisition Monday, agreeing to spend $1.175 billion to purchase 2,500 MW of combined-cycle generation that expands the company’s presence in ISO-NE and marks its entry into NYISO.

talen
(Click to zoom.)

The company, which completed its spinoff from PPL and Riverstone Holdings on June 1, announced it will acquire three generators from MACH Gen: the 1,080-MW New Athens plant in Athens, N.Y.; the 360-MW Millennium plant in Charlton, Mass.; and the 1,092-MW New Harquahala plant near Tonopah, Ariz.

The key to the deal for Talen is the two plants in NYISO and ISO-NE, regions in which the company had previously said it was setting its sights. The acquisition will increase its geographic diversity, reducing PJM’s share of its fleet from 83% to 71% while doubling ISO-NE’s share to 2%.

It also reduces its dependence on coal and nuclear power, with coal’s share of the fleet dropping from 40% to 34% while natural gas increases from 22% to 33%.

All of those numbers will change as a result of the company’s need to divest 1,300 MW to meet market power concerns. Pre-divestiture, the company’s fleet would total 17,600 MW. (See PPL, Riverstone Accept FERC Mitigation Plan on Talen Spinoff.)

Immediately Accretive

Talen said the acquisition brings substantial tax benefits and will be immediately accretive to earnings despite poor “market dynamics” that have limited the Arizona plant to less than a 20% capacity factor, resulting in losses. All three plants are powered by Siemens 501G engines installed between 2001 and 2004.

Talen also said it expects the economics of the Athens plant to improve with the completion of pipelines that will give the plant access to low-cost Marcellus shale gas and electric transmission improvements expected to reduce congestion in NYISO’s Zones F and G.

‘Powder’ for Future Deals

Importantly, said CEO Paul Farr, the deal will retain flexibility to make additional acquisitions. “We still have dry powder given the mitigation process underway,” Farr said in a conference call with stock analysts.

The purchase will be financed with a combination of debt and cash but the precise mix would depend on interest rates and the status of its divestiture efforts, Talen said. The company said earlier this month that it had a $1 billion “war chest” for future acquisitions.

The company is believed to be considering the acquisition of American Electric Power’s merchant fleet in Ohio and Indiana, which AEP announced in January it was putting on the block. (See AEP Considering Sale of 8,000 MW in Ohio, Indiana.)

UBS Investment Research says there is a 50% probability Talen will purchase AEP’s assets. It said Talen could swallow AEP’s assets even after the MACH Gen deal because an AEP deal is not likely to occur until late 2015 or early 2016 because of pending Ohio regulatory proceedings.

Arizona Plant a Throw-In

talen
(Click to zoom.)

It appears that taking on the money-losing Arizona plant was a condition for acquiring the assets Talen did want. Talen, which has no other assets in the region, said it may move the plant elsewhere or sell it for parts.

MACH Gen, which was owned by affiliates of Credit Suisse Group and Bank of America among others, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March 2014, saying it had assets of $750 million and liabilities of $1.6 billion. The company said it had a net loss of $120 million on $350 million in operating revenue in 2013.

The company said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s rejection of its plan to sell the Harquahala plant had undermined its efforts to cut its debt. FERC said the sale — to investors that also owned two of the four natural gas generating units in Gila Bend, Ariz. — would have harmed competition within the Arizona Public Service balancing authority area (EC13-11).

The company said most of its creditors had agreed to a prepackaged reorganization that would give its second-lien debt holders 93.5% of the restructured company and reduce about $1 billion of debt. FERC approved the restructuring in April 2014 (EC14-46).

FERC Rejects Rehearing on SPP Congestion Rights

By Tom Kleckner

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week rejected multiple requests for rehearing of its October 2014 order finding fault with SPP’s interpretation of long-term congestion rights (LTCRs).

sppSPP had joined with Kansas City Power & Light to request a rehearing in November. Also requesting rehearing were five transmission-dependent utilities.

FERC did conditionally accept SPP’s January compliance filing, saying the RTO had partially complied with the October order (ER14-2553).

In the October order, FERC ruled that SPP’s response to Order 681 did not meet the order’s requirement that long-term transmission rights made feasible by transmission upgrades or expansions must be available to any party that pays for the improvements under prevailing cost-allocation methods.

The commission said SPP’s proposal did not grant LTCRs to “‘any party’ that funds upgrades,” but instead awarded transmission-service revenue credits, “which are only available to transmission service customers and are not based on the value of congestion revenue.”

FERC also found SPP’s filing did not fully comply with Order 681’s requirement that load-serving entities have priority over non-LSEs in the allocation of long-term firm transmission rights supported by existing capacity.

No Opportunity for Profit

In denying SPP’s request for rehearing, the commission said it disagreed with the RTO’s contention that Attachment Z2 credits are “reasonable equivalents to LTCRs for financial entities.”

“SPP’s Attachment Z2 crediting process awards transmission service revenue credits up to the cost of the facility, but the value of a LTCR could exceed the cost of the facility,” FERC said. “Z2 credits up to the cost of the facility may be a reasonable incentive for some market participants to sponsor upgrades … However, the Attachment Z2 credits would not serve as an incentive for financial entities that fund transmission projects to sponsor any upgrades because the most they could receive is their initial investment with no opportunity to make a profit.”

The commission also denied SPP and KCP&L’s claims that the October 2014 order questioned the justness and reasonableness of Attachment Z2. “SPP’s decision to use tariff language that already existed in a prior context” to satisfy Order 681’s requirements, FERC said, did not absolve the commission of its responsibility to determine whether the proposed language is just and reasonable.

FERC also denied a rehearing request by the City of Independence, Kansas Power Pool, Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, Missouri River Energy Services and West Texas Municipal Power Agency (filing as TDU Intervenors).

The group expressed concern that adoption of a nomination process will not ensure LSEs obtain sufficient LTCRs. The commission said that SPP’s use of a nomination process before the simultaneous feasibility test “addresses TDU Intervenors’ concerns and render their proposed revisions unnecessary.”

The commission added that the intervenors failed to demonstrate how SPP’s process would result in their being unable to nominate LTCRs at a level equal to their “reasonable needs.”

Compliance Filing

Boston Energy Trading and Marketing protested SPP’s proposal to provide incremental LTCRs, in lieu of revenue credits, to entities that fund upgrades. SPP proposed network upgrades costs of $5 million or more be compensated with candidate incremental LTCRs, if elected, but Boston Energy said that inclusion is contrary to Order 681 and more restrictive than other ISOs and RTOs.

FERC conditionally accepted SPP’s proposal for awarding incremental LTCRs but required it to remove the $5 million threshold.

FERC also directed SPP to separate the provision of incremental LTCRs from the proposed nomination process and to establish a new process providing incremental LTCRs when the sponsored upgrade goes into service. The commission also asked SPP to inform FERC whether the LTCRs’ initial allocation will be implemented in the 2016 ARR/TCR year, and to explain how its process will treat the provision of LTCRs and incremental LTCRs for network upgrades funded through a combination of rolled-in transmission rates and directly assigned charges.

The American Wind Energy Association and the Wind Coalition had requested clarification on how the LTCR process will affect future transmission in the RTO’s planning and interconnection processes. They also requested clarification on how incremental LTCRs resulting from transmission capacity created by upgrade sponsors would impact transmission service customers.

FERC responded by saying SPP’s compliance filing showed its transmission-planning process “ensures the continued long-term feasibility of awarded LTCRs and incremental LTCRs, and therefore has complied with the transmission planning and expansion requirements of Order 681.”

‘Shared Renewables’ Approved in New York

By William Opalka

The New York Public Service Commission on Thursday approved rules designed to allow low- and moderate-income apartment dwellers to own renewable energy projects (15-E-0082).

New York PSC Bars Utility Ownership of Distributed Energy Resources.)

“Shared Renewables places customers who do not own homes on an equal footing with traditional single-home customers and creates opportunities for low- and moderate-income families who don’t have access to electricity generated from renewable resources,” PSC Chair Audrey Zibelman said.

Customers can band together to form larger groups that share in the benefits of renewable energy projects, such as solar energy installations and wind farms.

The plan contemplates “community solar” projects, where solar panels are erected on a shared site, such as a vacant lot, with the economic benefits shared among its participants.

Under the first phase of the program, from Oct. 19 through April 30, 2016, projects will be limited to those that site distributed generation in areas where it can provide the greatest benefits to the power grid or support economically distressed communities (at least 20% participation by low- and moderate-income customers).

A second phase beginning May 1, 2016, will make shared renewable projects available throughout entire utility service territories.

The program was proposed in Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s 2015 State of Opportunity Agenda. “This program is about protecting the environment and ensuring that all New Yorkers, regardless of their zip code or income, have the opportunity to access clean and affordable power,” he said.

FERC OKs MISO Tariff Change on Remote Network Loads

By Chris O’Malley

MISO has won approval to revise its Tariff to provide common treatment for network customers seeking to serve network load not physically interconnected with the RTO.

The tariff mechanism sought by MISO and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week is expected to eliminate the need for filing specific non-confirming network integration transmission service agreements on a case-by-case basis (ER15-1745).

miso
South Mississippi Electric Power Association delivers wholesale power to its cooperatives in three transmission areas.

The change stems from two non-conforming NITS requests: a 2013 request to allow South Mississippi Electric Power Association to take network service to serve a network load pseudo-tied to SMEPA but not physically interconnected with a transmission owner or independent transmission company within MISO (ER13-2008), and a 2014 MISO request  to allow Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. a similar right to serve pseudo-tied load (ER14-684).

A pseudo-tie is a mechanism for operationally transferring a resource from the balancing authority in which it is physically located to another BA, which becomes responsible for it for system reliability.

Some MISO transmission owners filed comments in those cases, raising concerns that the two utilities could be receiving special treatment. The transmission owners asked FERC to order MISO come up with a global solution to the issue through changes to its Tariff.

In response, FERC said it expected MISO to offer non-conforming service on a non-discriminatory basis to other transmission customers in similar situations.

After discussions with transmission operators, MISO proposed several changes to Section 31.3 of its Tariff, which required that network load be physically interconnected with a MISO transmission owner or independent transmission company.

The revised Tariff requires that the non-interconnected network load “be part of a pricing zone in MISO, so that the network customer is subject to a rate for network service.”

One way to meet such eligibility requirements is if a non-interconnected network load is pseudo-tied into the MISO balancing authority. MISO stated that provision is necessary because otherwise there wouldn’t be a mechanism to charge the network customer for network service, “meaning the network customer could receive this service for free.”

MISO noted that in its NITS agreements with SMEPA and AECC, it required them to pay a rate for network service based on the MISO zone in which the physically interconnected portion of their load is located.

The revised Tariff also requires network customers to have coordinating arrangements in place with the host transmission owner or independent transco for reporting network load.

The revisions are effective July 19.

FERC Asked to Determine ISO-NE Winter Reliability Program

By William Opalka

Unable to reach consensus on a winter reliability program, ISO-NE and the New England Power Pool have asked federal regulators to choose between competing proposals in a “jump ball” proceeding that would cover the next three winters (ER15-2208).

The proposals were filed Thursday with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in an attempt to break a logjam that even a commission order couldn’t weaken. (See FERC Orders Market-Based Reliability Program Next Winter in ISO-NE.)

ISO-NE has used a winter reliability program for the past two winters to create incentives for generators to secure fuel supplies during cold months until its Pay-for-Performance program, already approved by FERC, launches in late 2018 (ER14-1050).

Both ISO-NE and NEPOOL have proposed expansions of last winter’s program, but neither has received adequate support among stakeholders.

“Both proposals are intended to address the well-documented reliability challenges created by New England’s increased reliance on natural gas-fueled generation. Both are also intended to be stop-gap measures until revised incentives for capacity resources become fully effective in 2018,” the filing states.

The primary difference between the two proposals is what types of resources are eligible to receive compensation. NEPOOL’s proposal is based on the design of last winter’s program, which provided compensation for unused oil or liquefied natural gas remaining at the end of the winter and adds demand response.

ISO-NE’s proposal includes compensation for unused oil or LNG fuel and would also compensate nuclear, hydro, biomass and coal-fired resources but does not include DR.

FERC had ordered the RTO to develop a market-based approach for the 2015-2016 season in response to a complaint by the New England Power Generators Association. The commission in April reversed course when it determined the plan might not be finalized in time. (See FERC Backtracks from ISO-NE Winter Reliability Order.) It directed the RTO and its stakeholders to keep trying to develop a solution.

The petition asks FERC for an effective date for next winter’s program of Sept. 14.

FERC Rejects Ginna Jurisdiction Challenge

By William Opalka

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reaffirmed its authority Monday to regulate New York reliability support services agreements, rejecting a rehearing petition filed by the state Public Service Commission challenging its jurisdiction (ER15-1047).

The NYPSC had argued that it had sole jurisdiction over the rates and terms of an RSSA it had ordered between Exelon’s troubled R.E. Ginna nuclear plant and Rochester Gas & Electric. (See NYPSC Challenges FERC Jurisdiction over Ginna.) FERC in April rejected the proposed rate schedule in the agreement and ordered hearing and settlement proceedings.

FERC rejected the contention that it would be setting retail rates, asserting that it was properly exercising its authority under the Federal Power Act to regulate wholesale markets.

“Preventing the exercise of market power through [reliability-must-run] agreements is important to ensure that wholesale rates are just and reasonable,” FERC said. “Therefore, finding that the commission does not have authority to regulate such agreements — which keep RMR resources online, provide them out-of-market compensation and remedy a potential opportunity to exercise market power — would be inconsistent with the congressional intent behind the FPA.”

The agreement, set to be retroactive to April 1 once approved, would cost about $175 million a year and be effective through late 2018. Ginna says it lost more than $150 million between 2011 and 2013.

FERC did, however, reverse its stance from April when it said it would not consider the issue of Ginna “toggling” between the RSSA and NYISO. In its original order, the commission said it would only reconsider how much Ginna would have to repay in the event the plant returned to the market after the agreement’s expiration — saying that this provision was “a sufficient disincentive” to prevent toggling. (See FERC Rejects Ginna Rates, Orders Settlement Proceeding.)

“We find that the pleadings raise disputed issues of material fact concerning Ginna’s incentive to toggle between RSSA compensation and the NYISO markets,” FERC said. That issue has been added to the roster of items to be decided in the ongoing proceeding before a FERC administrative law judge.

In Monday’s order, FERC also rejected rehearing requests from several parties that challenged several aspects of the agreement. The commission

  • Again accepted the NYISO Ginna Reliability Study that justified the RSSA;
  • Upheld the September 2018 end date for the RSSA, saying early termination clauses in the contract are consistent with FERC policy to keep RMRs of limited duration; and
  • Reiterated its stance that consideration of the “price-suppressive” effects Ginna’s contract would have on the capacity market is beyond the scope of the proceeding.

Meanwhile …

In the concurrent proceeding before the administrative law judges of the NYPSC, RG&E last month requested a temporary rate surcharge to avoid rate compression over a shorter duration of the RSSA. Whatever rate increases it will eventually collect are being held in abeyance until the RSSA is approved by state and federal regulators.

RG&E estimates that its deferred collection will reach approximately $25 million from the effective date of the RSSA through July and will continue to grow, with interest. “By authorizing a temporary rate surcharge, the bill impacts resulting from the deferred collection amount would be mitigated,” it wrote.

In a brief filed Monday, RG&E said the commission “should find that the company’s proposed temporary rate surcharge tariffs are in the public interest and authorize the company to immediately implement the surcharges, subject to refund.”

PSC staff filed a brief Monday that supports the move, proposing Sept. 1 as the effective date.

The Utility Intervention Unit of the state Division of Consumer Protection, a coalition of consumer and clean energy advocates and commercial and industrial users, opposed the move, calling the dollar amounts RG&E cites as “hypothetical.”

“The RSSA is not in effect,” the state consumer advocate wrote. “Neither the commission nor FERC have reached a final conclusion to accept the RSSA, so RG&E has not, and might never, incur any financial obligations to Ginna under the RSSA.”

The administrative law judges said they will set a schedule to recommend a decision once reply briefs due July 20 are filed.

FirstEnergy to Spin off its Last Utility-Managed Tx Assets

By Suzanne Herel

FirstEnergy would spin off the transmission assets of Jersey Central Power & Light, Metropolitan Edison and Pennsylvania Electric into a new subsidiary under a plan it has submitted to regulators, saying the move would allow it to more cheaply and efficiently upgrade its grid (EC15-157).

With the formation of the new company, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission (MAIT), all 24,000 miles of the Akron, Ohio-based company’s system would be managed by transmission affiliates.

The plan must be approved by New Jersey and Pennsylvania regulators and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The company made no formal announcement of the proposal except for a June 19 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

firstenergy

“When you have a separate transmission-only company, typically it carries a more favorable credit rating, so it can borrow money for less, and that results in lower costs for customers,” FirstEnergy spokesman Doug Colafella said. “It’s an arrangement that really allows a company to make the significant investments in transmission that we’re looking at. It also allows our separate utilities to stay focused on the distribution system and respond quickly to customer needs.”

FirstEnergy already operates American Transmission Systems (ATSI) in Ohio and northwest Pennsylvania and Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. (TrAILCo) in western Pennsylvania.

The spinoff falls in line with FirstEnergy’s “Energizing the Future” initiative, announced in 2012, to enhance its high-voltage transmission system.

FirstEnergy expects to invest $2.5 billion to $3 billion over the next five to 10 years on upgrades in the JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec zones, Colafella said.

The company estimates that streamlining the projects through one company with a higher credit rating will save $135 million in interest over the 30-year life of $1.5 billion in projects, according to FirstEnergy’s filing with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.

“Consolidating all of the operating companies’ transmission assets in a stand-alone transmission company can reduce investors’ perception of financial risk, strengthen the credit profile of the transmission function and, in that way, provide improved access to capital and reasonable rates,” it said.

Ron Morano, a spokesman for JCP&L, said that being relieved of the task of operating its transmission system will allow the company to better focus on customers’ needs.

“For Jersey Central, it enables a more timely investment on new transmission projects,” he said.

Under the plan, MAIT would own and operate all transmission assets of the three utilities, which would lease to the transmission subsidiary their real estate and real property rights.

Colafella said the spinoff would not affect transmission-related jobs at the utilities.

“It won’t have any impact on employees day-to-day,” he said. “It’s more of an accounting arrangement.”

It is, however, expected to lead to the creation of about 200 FirstEnergy jobs in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, he said, and the projects should provide work for roughly 600 engineering, project management and construction jobs in those states.

MISO Proposes Earlier Day-Ahead Market Close

By Chris O’Malley

CARMEL, Ind. — MISO will propose closing the day-ahead market one hour earlier during Daylight Savings Time and reducing the clearing time by an hour in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s final rule on gas and electric schedules.

misoMISO officials said their proposal — Alternative 3 — was an effort to balance reliability and market efficiency concerns with stakeholder preferences. Most stakeholders preferred no changes.

FERC Order 809 moved the timely nomination cycle deadline for scheduling gas transportation from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. CT (from 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. ET) and added a third intraday nomination cycle. The commission ordered RTOs to adjust the posting of their day-ahead energy market and reliability unit commitment process results “sufficiently in advance” of the revised gas cycles or explain why it is not suitable for their markets.

Three Alternatives

The RTO rejected Alternative 2, which officials said was most in line with Order 809 but was opposed by most stakeholders. In addition to reducing the clearing time by one hour, it would have aligned the day-ahead market with the timely gas nomination cycle by closing the day-ahead two hours earlier during DST and one-hour earlier during standard time. Only 18% of stakeholders supported the change.

Alternative 3 won a bare majority with 53% support, making it the second choice to the status quo Alternative 1, which was backed by 78%.

Alternatives 2 and 3 got much of their support from gas-dependent members in Zones 8 and 9 (Louisiana, Arkansas and eastern Texas).

“I know not everybody is going to agree with [the choice] given the voting that took place. I hope that everybody can understand how we got there and [that] it makes sense,” Joseph Gardner, MISO’s vice president for forward markets and operations services, told the Market Subcommittee last week in announcing the decision.

Gardner told stakeholders MISO will have to make a partial show-cause filing to defend the choice to FERC. MISO also will ask FERC to delay the implementation of the new hours to November 2016 rather than next April as required by FERC.

More Units to Call On

Gardner said Alternative 3 had several benefits. Moving the market before the Intraday 2 gas nominations could free up about 5,000 MW more than under the current approach.

“From a reliability perspective, by moving our timeframe up by shortening our window, we bring more units into the mix. That basically allows more units to be considered as part of the normal day-to-day process, in terms of getting them online [and] in terms of committing them economically,” he said.

MISO estimates that natural gas-fired generation could rise to 50% of its generation pool in 2016/2017 as coal-fired plants are shuttered in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan is expected to spur gas use further.

From a market efficiency standpoint, Gardner pointed to the value of being able to trade during the “most liquid” time of the day “and then having that price discovery and know[ing] what price to put into the day-ahead market. So that’s a consideration, too, as to why we didn’t go with Alternative 2.”

Not Ideal for Some

The change may be hard for some stakeholders to swallow. Gardner acknowledged that many have indicated that they found ways to manage their gas supply risks and thus didn’t support moving up the day-ahead schedule.

Marc Nielsen of Alliant Energy said his company plans to add additional gas-fired generation and already conducted a great deal of modeling. “We supported Alternative No. 1. We’re able with our gas supply resources to handle things perfectly as they are now,” he said.

Gardner said he recognized Alliant’s concern. “I hope people can understand how we ended up here,” he said. “It’s been a long journey.”

But the tone among stakeholders at the Market Subcommittee was mostly supportive.

“I appreciate you guys looking at your processes and working toward also shortening the [market clearing] time. I think that was a big step, too, so thank you,” Ameren’s Jeff Moore told Gardner.

Moore asked whether Gardner thought FERC would be amenable to MISO’s choice.

“I think we have a much better chance of succeeding [than sticking with the status quo], but we still are going to have to make a good argument,” Gardner said.

PJM and SPP also will propose changes to their schedules in compliance filings due July 23. (See SPP Moving to 9:30 Day-Ahead Close.)

No Schedule Changes for NYISO, ISO-NE

NYISO and ISO-NE are not considering any schedule changes in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s April order on gas-electric coordination.

FERC Order 809 moved the timely nomination cycle deadline for scheduling gas transportation from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. CT (12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. ET). It also added a third intraday nomination cycle (RM14-2).

“We are not contemplating market timing changes at this point in time and believe the additional 1.5 hours for generators to arrange day-ahead gas purchases will be helpful to reliability,” NYISO spokesman Ken Klapp said.

ISO-NE, which shifted its day-ahead market schedule two years ago to align with the natural gas trading day, said it is already in compliance with the FERC rule.

— William Opalka

PJM to Propose Earlier Day-Ahead Schedule

PJM confirmed last week that it will seek to move the deadline for submitting day-ahead offers up 90 minutes, from noon to 10:30 a.m. ET.

Adam Keech, director of wholesale market operations, told the Operating Committee that the RTO will post day-ahead results as soon as they are complete — but no sooner than 12:30 p.m. — up from the current 4 p.m. The reliability assessment and commitment (RAC) run rebid window will be open until 2:15 p.m., up from the current 6 p.m.

Keech said PJM will seek to complete the RAC run assignments before the 3 p.m. deadline for the second intraday gas nomination cycle.

“We’re going to commit as much as we can by 3 p.m., recognizing that if system conditions change we’re going to need to make supplemental commitments,” Keech said.

The RTO’s explanation last week clarified the changes it outlined to the Markets and Reliability Committee on June 25. PJM officials acknowledged the lack of consensus among stakeholders on the changes but said they were necessitated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s April order moving the timely nomination cycle deadline for gas to 2 p.m. ET from 12:30 p.m. and adding a third intraday nomination cycle. (See PJM Moving on Day-Ahead Schedule Changes.)

Keech said PJM officials are considering changes to their algorithms as well as faster computer servers as a way to meet their goal of reducing the market-clearing time to three hours from four. He said FERC’s requirement that the RTO allow hourly pricing updates means it will have to process more data during the clearing process. (See “PJM Won’t Be Ready for Flexible Generator Offers by November” in PJM Markets and Reliability Committee Briefs.)

PJM told FERC in a report last week that it will implement hourly offers by Nov. 1, following consultations with stakeholders (EL15-73).

— Rich Heidorn Jr.

SunEdison Making $2B Bet on Wind in Midwest, Canada

By Tom Kleckner

Uncertainty over renewable tax credits and competition from low-priced natural gas may be discouraging some wind power investors — but not SunEdison’s TerraForm Power.

Established by SunEdison to own and operate its solar farms, TerraForm has since expanded its focus to wind and other clean-power assets, seeking long-term contracts that generate steady revenues for additional investments.

In the year since its July 2014 initial public offering, TerraForm has added 2 GW of wind assets to its portfolio. Last week, TerraForm made its biggest splash yet, joining with SunEdison to acquire a 930-MW energy portfolio for $2 billion from Invenergy Wind.

Just the week before, TerraForm and SunEdison announced they had finalized the acquisition of another 521-MW portfolio of operating wind farms in Idaho and Oklahoma from Atlantic Power. In January, the two companies closed a similar 521-MW package of wind and solar assets from First Wind Holdings.

The Deal

TerraForm said it intends to acquire net ownership of 460 MW of Invenergy’s wind plants, with the remaining 470 MW to be acquired by a “warehouse” facility, a financing mechanism that will be sponsored by SunEdison and third-party equity investors.

sunedison

The initial acquisition includes the 187-MW Rattlesnake farm in Texas, the 196-MW California Ridge project in Illinois and the 78-MW Raleigh wind farm in Ontario. The warehouse facility includes the three Prairie Breeze wind farms totaling 279 MW in Nebraska and the 190-MW Bishop Hill, Ill., facility.

The deal is expected to close in the fourth quarter, subject to the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

Bucking a Trend

The companies are upping their stake in wind at a time in which other developers have scaled back.

Second-quarter investments in U.S. wind projects were $9.4 billion, down 4% from the first quarter and 21% from 2014’s second quarter, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported that global clean energy investment dropped 28% in the second quarter versus a year earlier. The U.S. entered 2015 with 65.9 GW of installed wind, AWEA says.

Yieldco Strategy

TerraForm is seeking value by “aggregat[ing] a highly fragmented industry,” CEO Carlos Domenech said.

The company’s strategy is based on the use of “yieldcos,” an increasingly popular method of holding renewable energy assets. Yieldcos allow developers to raise capital at lower costs by selling — or dropping — completed projects to the yieldco and using the proceeds to fund new projects.

“The thinking with warehouse assets is that as you drop or acquire assets into the warehouse, you’ll be tranching those assets,” SunEdison CFO Brian Wuebbels explained in a conference call last week. “Equity investors, debt investors, us … we all want to know the quality of the assets we’re putting into the warehouse. Getting an investor to put down $2 billion into an empty warehouse without having an idea of the particular asset’s performance would be creating [higher] costs. … By having definitive, high-quality assets, we can drive down the cost of capital.”

The assets being acquired from Invenergy have a weighted average remaining contract life of 19 years.

UBS Securities noted only 93 MW will be under construction upon the deal’s close, easing concerns about developmental risk. The deal also diversifies the portfolio of SunEdison, the world’s largest renewable energy development company.

Invenergy

For Invenergy, a privately held company, the sale will provide capital to invest in more projects, CEO Michael Polsky told Bloomberg. “It’s a new phenomenon. It’s helped to proliferate renewable energy.”

sunedison
SunEdison’s TerraForm Power is acquiring 930 MW of wind capacity from Invenergy, including the Prairie Breeze (top) and under-construction Prairie Breeze II farms (bottom), both in Nebraska.

Domenech said he expects that TerraForm’s “ongoing partnership” with Invenergy will result in additional acquisitions in the future.

Invenergy bills itself as North America’s largest independent wind power generation company, with 51 wind farms in the U.S., Canada and Europe totaling more than 4.4 GW.

The company, which is selling 10% of its total contracted portfolio to TerraForm, will retain a 9.9% stake in the U.S. assets being sold, providing operation and maintenance services for the facilities.

Cash Flow

TerraForm and SunEdison say the assets they are purchasing should generate average unlevered cash available for distribution (CAFD) of $141 million annually over the next 10 years, a levered cash-on-cash return of about 8.4%.

Private equity investors have expressed “a lot of interest in the warehouse,” Wuebbels said.

In announcing the deal, TerraForm raised its 2016 dividend target 26% to $1.70/share from $1.53 and projected a 20% compound annual growth rate from its current first-quarter dividend “driven by the increased visibility and growth provided by this transaction.”

Market Reaction

Shares in both SunEdison and TerraForm stock rose following the sale announcement Monday, with TerraForm shares up 4.4% for the week.

Travis Hoium, a columnist for The Motley Fool, was less impressed, warning that yieldcos’ appeal could fade if they turn out to be based on overly aggressive assumptions.

“Adding $141 million in cash available for distribution may sound like a lot, but the $2 billion price tag is steep for that kind of return. Remember that the cash flow from projects has to cover the depreciating value of a wind turbine over time as well as pay for debt that will be used to acquire the assets, so the return for shareholders may not be as attractive as it seems. … Unless TerraForm Power can re-up contracts for equal or greater electricity prices well beyond the current contracts, the company may not even earn its cost of capital back.”