Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, sunnypease said:

Do you mean that they receive 30% independent of taxes owed?  

I think Kallo is looking at it through the lens of supply & demand.  If there is less tax to apply ITC to, then there is a lower demand and a lower value for the ITC.  

Would that make sense?

Read this to understand the difference between PTC and ITC.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/in-senate-tax-bill-beat-isnt-sole-provision-harmful-to-renewables#gs.3C3WldQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lowering tax rate does not change the impact of the tax equity. If you are big enough you can get enough to pay if you pay 20%. The whole idea is that many corporations operating in the US use those to lower taxes globally, and not only in the US. However, they use it dominantly in the US.  The problem is there, but the problem is not impacting everyone and everything. The fact that it is impacting someone or something, is enough to kill the idea in the minds of the market.

Canadian was fully aware of the conditions. They used a news release from before the weekend, to show they are selling projects and tax equity does not interfere with the process.  FSLR should explain what is happening with them. Not everyone is impacted by it. Once again strong will survive over weak. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again we find ourselves at the crossroads. Tariffs in 2013. Judge rendering illegal reports from four big accounting firms working for Chinese. Tariffs again, tax equity ironically ignored here and on the market forever now weighing on stock prices. Even the strongest can get fed up. I do not know what this industry did, but clearly, the United States of America is making sure to make it hard for it.                                                                    

It appears that business outside of the US is the only one which may embrace it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How ironic, tax equity sold by CSIQ, is certainly to reduce GM for the projects being sold as it is a liability assumption by a new buyer via revenue recognition similar to debt pay off. Nevertheless, the market sold the stock, never giving the company a credit for it before.

It feels like being laughed at by the clowns. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick read over those articles that Robert posted & it is, I think, clear that this BEAT issue will not come to pass.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas & Iowa with 8 Republican senators.  No way something accidentally happens to damage financing for wind projects.

Also, no way does this Congress do something that'll hurt banks in any way.  Banks wouldn't suffer all that much -- but banks have a focus on clean energy, as they are international & internationally climate change is a Big Deal.  So I think some banks may raise an issue.  

I hope I do not have to eat these words!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the AMT issue, for those that didn't have time to read those articles, apparently the AMT somehow only affects PTC (wind) and not ITC (solar).  As the AMT issue is written now, it might redirect wind project dollars into solar project dollars.  Though the opinion is that the AMT issue won't make it into the final bill.

Seems that most are more afraid of the BEAT issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Klothilde said:

How come CSIQ is down so much more than FSLR? Can the U.S. project sales be renegotiated? Have they closed yet?

"In September and October 2017, the Company entered into definitive agreements with two Asian buyers, to sell a portfolio of six solar power projects in California, totaling 703 MWp. These transactions are subject to various government approvals." I quote this for you from the official release.

I look at the matter of the tax equity as a contractual agreement, making US Bank and GE FS responsible to deliver their end.  So if this was a loss of value, I am sure contract has disclosures. They are definitely binding.

I assume only creeps and misinformed were affected and we are not seeing a real problem impact. I believe to calm the public, old (Feb 1) news was released having tax equity arrangements. However, I do not know, as those transactions are not announced as closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×