A Comparative Analysis of Community Wind Power Development Options in Oregon

1. A Comparative Analysis of Community Wind Power Development Optionsin Oregon

2. Project Background Objectives: Describe �community wind� ownership structures potentially of use in Oregon Present strengths and weaknesses of each structure Model amount of revenue required to make each structure viable, and compare to likely revenue Funder: Energy Trust of Oregon (Peter West) Project Team: Mark Bolinger, Ryan Wiser, Tom Wind, Dan Juhl, Bob Grace Timeline: Began April 2004, complete July 2004

3. Report Contents Introduction Community Wind in Europe Community Wind in the United States Potential Barriers to Community Wind in the US (and Oregon) Development of a Standard Set of Assumptions for Comparative Financial Analysis Description and Modeling of Potential Ownership Structures Conclusions

4. What this report does NOT do� Estimate, represent, or model the costs of a specific wind project (instead, we try to be broadly representative of small project costs in Oregon) Analyze or consider the potential merits of community wind relative to other types of wind power development Delve into the socio-economic aspects of community wind Conclude that any particular ownership structure is �best� (though we do narrow the field) Dictate the kind of program or incentives the Energy Trust might or should consider

5. Take Away Points Community wind has been popular in Europe and, with policy support, is beginning to gain popularity in the U.S. There appears to be significant potential for low-cost community wind in Oregon, given BETC and SELP (and possibly PURPA?) Given existing policies, barriers, and economics, some ownership models are more attractive than others in Oregon Projects directly serving customer load are not viable at present in most cases Projects whose output is sold to a local utility appear to be more viable; initially, best options may be multiple local owner and Minnesota-style flip structures Smaller community wind projects (~1.5 MW) may be more �competitive� than larger community wind projects (>10.5 MW) Policy support may still be needed to narrow the financial gap, but the level of necessary support may be reasonably modest Key first step is revision to standard offer avoided cost tariff for PacifiCorp/PGE Second step may be modest financial support from the Energy Trust, combined with infrastructure development support and resolution of key legal/tax questions in order to develop replicable business models

6. Defining �Community Wind� Locally Owned: One or more members of local community have a direct financial stake in the project, other than through land lease or tax revenue Utility-Scale Turbines: 600 kW threshold for new projects, lower for older projects On Either Side of Meter: Power consumed on site or sold to unrelated party (or both)

7. Experience in Northern Europe (2000)

8. Drivers of Community Wind in Europe

9. Lessons from European Experience

10. US Experience � Minnesota

11. US Experience � Rest of Country

12. Lessons Learned from US Experience

13. Ownership Structures Examined Consumer Cooperative �Aggregate� or �Group� Net Metering On-Site (Customer Side of Meter) Multiple Local Owner Minnesota-Style Flip Wisconsin-Style Flip Town-Owned (Utility Side of Meter)

14. Barriers to Community Wind in the US

15. Consumer Cooperative Examples: none (!) Strengths: Cooperative principles appealing Weaknesses: Unable to utilize PTC Requires either utility cooperation or customer choice; otherwise, difficult to document �patronage� With customer choice, cooperative must effectively act as an energy service provider (difficult!) Relatively high organizational burden Power would have to be delivered to each cooperative member, or otherwise financially netted by the local utility against the consumers� electric consumption, to document patronage. In the second case, the only real option for a coop in oregon with no retail choice for residential customers, model basically looks like aggregate net metering, which is described next. Non-taxable generally, so unable to use PTC.Power would have to be delivered to each cooperative member, or otherwise financially netted by the local utility against the consumers� electric consumption, to document patronage. In the second case, the only real option for a coop in oregon with no retail choice for residential customers, model basically looks like aggregate net metering, which is described next. Non-taxable generally, so unable to use PTC.

16. �Aggregate� or �Group� Net Metering Examples: limited versions for biogas in VT and CA Strengths: Potentially earns full residential retail rate Low minimum investment (< $1,000 per share) Weaknesses: Requires utility cooperation, or more likely, legislative or regulatory change Unable to utilize PTC May need to register project shares as �securities� Relatively high organizational burden Similar to coop, but more likely to use LLC structure because of tax advantages in US. Attempt to benefit from offsetting full retail residential rates. Used in SwedenSimilar to coop, but more likely to use LLC structure because of tax advantages in US. Attempt to benefit from offsetting full retail residential rates. Used in Sweden

17. On-Site (Customer Side of Meter) Examples: Iowa schools (e.g., Spirit Lake) Strengths: Potential to offset retail (rather than earn wholesale) rates Weaknesses: Sites with both large enough load and good wind are rare Net metering capacity limits usually well below nameplate capacity of modern utility-scale wind turbines Large loads typically face demand (and standby) charges PTC (or REPI) not available for power consumed on site Electric bill savings are taxable income (to a taxable owner)

18. Multiple Local Owner Examples: Minwind I & II Strengths: Straightforward, no corporate equity involved, purely local Don�t have to wait 10 years for serious cash Weaknesses: To maximize return, need investors with passive income to take advantage of PTC Project shares may need to be registered as �securities� Relatively high organizational burden Must secure a power purchase agreement MN shares sold for 5k eachMN shares sold for 5k each

19. Minnesota-Style Flip Examples: Dan Juhl projects Strengths: Innovative way to ensure capture of PTC and improve project economics Weaknesses: Local makes above-normal returns (sub-optimal) Local return may be heavily back-loaded (after year 10) Need to engage corporate equity partner Must secure a power purchase agreement

20. Wisconsin-Style Flip Examples: none (but see Wisconsin Business Plan) Strengths: Lower required power sales price than MN-style flip, because local return limited to hurdle rate Weaknesses: Securities registration, administrative burden, engaging corporate partner and power purchaser Does pre-sale arrangement satisfy the IRS? Hybrid between MN-flip and multiple owner. Differences from MN flip include: Multiple investors Provide funds in terms of loan in year one Higher local contribution in early yearsHybrid between MN-flip and multiple owner. Differences from MN flip include: Multiple investors Provide funds in terms of loan in year one Higher local contribution in early years

21. Town-Owned (Utility Side of Meter) Examples: Northfield, MN and Massachusetts (both planned) Strengths: No land lease or property tax expense, municipal debt(?) Weaknesses: May not be legal� �Private use� issues may restrict ability to finance project using tax-exempt municipal debt Economics depend heavily on availability of REPI Relatively weak opportunities for local citizen participation Must secure a power purchase agreement

22. Key Barriers in Oregon

23. Cash Flow Modeling Approach

24. CapitalCosts(MN-Style Flip) Once BETC and Energy Loan Program fees, as well as debt service reserve fund, are added in, total project costs increase to about $1250/kW for the 1.5 MW project, and roughly $1,160/kW for the 10.5 MW project (~7% cheaper due to economies of scale). These costs are higher than experienced in MN, but perhaps lower than initial projects in OR. According to Dan Juhl, the Kas Brothers 1.5 MW project � the first farmer-owned project in the US � was installed for $866/kW.Once BETC and Energy Loan Program fees, as well as debt service reserve fund, are added in, total project costs increase to about $1250/kW for the 1.5 MW project, and roughly $1,160/kW for the 10.5 MW project (~7% cheaper due to economies of scale). These costs are higher than experienced in MN, but perhaps lower than initial projects in OR. According to Dan Juhl, the Kas Brothers 1.5 MW project � the first farmer-owned project in the US � was installed for $866/kW.

25. First-Year Operating Costs

26. Other Key Assumptions: Base-Case

27. Base-Case Results � 1.5 MW

28. Base-Case Results � 1.5 MW

29. Base-Case Results � 10.5 MW given higher benchmark prices, $10 million BETC limit, USDA grant limits of $500k, and securities regulations given higher benchmark prices, $10 million BETC limit, USDA grant limits of $500k, and securities regulations

30. Base-Case Results � 10.5 MW

31. Additional Sensitivity Analysis Because results hinge on numerous assumptions, we conducted additional sensitivity analysis, e.g.: BETC: 5-year and lump sum cash payment Benchmark price for on-site project: multiple scenarios representing net metering rules, project size, standby/demand charge assumptions 25% USDA grant: availability improves economics Debt interest rates: higher rates associated with commercial debt worsens economics �Transfer� payments reduce attractiveness of MN-style flip: transfer payment improves economics 5-year property tax exemption: improves economics No PTC/BETC monetization for SELP: worsens economics No PTC renewal: worsens economics Local investor required IRR: higher IRR worsens economics PTC efficiency for multiple local owner model: lower efficiency worsens economics REPI capture for town-owned model: lower capture worsens economics For results, see complete report and, for partial results, backup slides to this presentation

32. Conclusions There appears to be significant potential for community wind in OR, given BETC and SELP (and possibly PURPA?), though some incremental incentive may still be required Some models are more attractive than others in Oregon: On-site projects are not competitive in Oregon, and true cooperative ownership is not desirable Group net metering is potentially most competitive, but faces significant regulatory and implementation hurdles Among remaining structures, competitiveness of multiple local owner and town-owned models depend heavily on ability to use PTC/REPI Open questions remain on legality of town-owned and Wisconsin-style flip, but if resolved, these may be attractive models In near term, best options appear to be multiple local owner (if can find sufficient local tax credit appetite and address securities regulation) and Minnesota-style flip (if cannot) Smaller community wind projects (~1.5 MW) may be more �competitive� than larger community wind projects (>10.5 MW)

33. Policy Considerations On-Site Projects: Adjustments to utility tariffs and net metering are necessary to make on-site projects competitive, though modeling shows that even aggressive policy changes still leave on-site projects only marginally attractive Aggregate Net Metering: Regulatory or legislative action is likely needed to implement aggregate net metering; no state has yet implemented this structure to the extent necessary to support community wind Multiple Local Owner, Flip, and Town-Owned Models: Need for revenue certainty highlights: (1) the importance of the current PURPA proceeding to lock-in power sales revenue (15 years may be necessary), and (2) a potential role for the Energy Trust, if avoided costs are insufficient to make community wind viable

34. Open Questions Energy Loan Program Will taxable loans from the Energy Loan Program trigger a PTC haircut? Can the $20 million cap on the Loan Program�s ability to issue �private use� (taxable) bonds be increased? BETC Does the BETC (both as a 5-year credit and pass-through payment) trigger the PTC�s anti-double-dipping provisions? Should the BETC pass-through payment be treated as taxable income, or as a reduction in depreciable basis (and if so, for Oregon and/or Federal purposes)? USDA: Should Section 9006 USDA grants be treated as taxable income, or as a reduction in depreciable basis (and if so, for Oregon and/or Federal purposes)? Securities Regulation: What requirements must be met to avoid having to register securities in Oregon? Municipal Ownership: Are municipalities in Oregon permitted to own wind projects? If so, under what conditions may they use their bonding authority to issue tax-exempt municipal debt to finance a wind project? Wisconsin-Style Flip: Does the Wisconsin-style flip structure pass muster with the IRS?

35. Base-Case Results � 1.5 MW

36. Base-Case Results � 10.5 MW

37. Sensitivity Results � Multiple Local Owner USDA grant worth $5.23/MWh (not worth nearly as much to 10.5 MW project, due to $500,000 cap). Rural Renewable Energy Development Zones worth $1.5/MWh. PTC/BETC monetization worth $2.68/MWh. PTC worth $13.65/MWh, BUT�$13.65/MWh should not be considered the full value of the PTC to community wind projects, since the PTC is not fully utilized in the base case (due to a haircut triggered by the BETC) and because the sensitivity case assumes a lower debt interest rate than in the base case (4.5% rather than 5.5%). Both of these factors dampen the impact of transitioning to a no-PTC environment. USDA grant worth $5.23/MWh (not worth nearly as much to 10.5 MW project, due to $500,000 cap). Rural Renewable Energy Development Zones worth $1.5/MWh. PTC/BETC monetization worth $2.68/MWh. PTC worth $13.65/MWh, BUT�$13.65/MWh should not be considered the full value of the PTC to community wind projects, since the PTC is not fully utilized in the base case (due to a haircut triggered by the BETC) and because the sensitivity case assumes a lower debt interest rate than in the base case (4.5% rather than 5.5%). Both of these factors dampen the impact of transitioning to a no-PTC environment.

38. Sensitivity to After-Tax IRR(Multiple Local Owner Structure)

39. Sensitivity to PTC Efficiency(Multiple Local Owner Structure) Multiple local owner matches Minnesota-style flip at around 65% PTC efficiency.Multiple local owner matches Minnesota-style flip at around 65% PTC efficiency.

40. Sensitivity to REPI Capture(Town-Owned Structure)