Hot Issues in PV Performance and

Solar Project Finance

Webinar Series, Session #2:

PV Project Performance Guarantees Commercial, Legal and
Technical Considerations

Jenya Meydbray Ric OConnell Andrew T. Braff

Co-Founder and CEO Director, Solar PV Senior Associate
jenya@pvel.com OConnellRM@bv.com abraff@wsgr.com

DOC# October 31, 2012

1
 Introduction and Overview
Purpose of Performance Guarantees Why Have
Them?

Type of Guarantees What is Being Guaranteed

and by Whom?

Impact of Different Contracting Structures on the

Provision of Performance Guarantees

Technical Considerations for Assessing Compliance

Common Gaps in Guaranteeing Solar PV Project

Performance

Legal Considerations in Structuring Performance

Guarantees

Q&A
DOC#
2
 Purpose of Performance Guarantees and Performance LDs:
A Legal Perspective

Ensure satisfaction of Power Purchase Agreement requirements

Reduces the risk that Owner will have liability to the power offtaker
If liability cannot be avoided due to project underperformance, performance
guarantees and damages payable by a third party serves to provide partial or
total compensation to the Owner for such liabilities.

Benefits of Pre-COD Performance Guarantees:

Assist in ensuring that the EPC Contractor has properly completed the Project
prior to its acceptance by owner; and
Help to verify that the modules supplied by the supplier/manufacturer (either to
EPC Contractor directly or to Owner who provides these Modules to the EPC
Contractor) work as intended and warranted in the Module Supply Agreement.
Owner is in the strongest position to demand correction of defects, re-tests, etc.
prior to acceptance and payment of the final one or two milestone payments.

Clear remedies for Project underperformance facilitate quicker resolution to

potential disputes, thereby reducing litigation risk.
DOC#
3
 Purpose of Performance Guarantees and Performance LDs:
A Business Perspective

Reduce revenue return risk borne by equity investors and debt

servicing risk borne by lenders by:
shifting risk of project underperformance to a third party or
spreading risk of project underperformance among multiple
potentially responsible parties

Key Factor in ensuring non-recourse/project financing

Ensure Project Performance by all parties (Manufacturers, EPC

Contractor, Owner)

DOC#
4
 What kind of Guarantees Exist?

Short term
Capacity guarantee (based on ASTM E2848 or other test)
Short term energy yield or performance ratio
Typically tested at COD in order to declare substantial
and/or final completion
LDs are NPV based to reflect a reduced plant output
Provided by EPC contractor

Longer term
Energy yield or performance ratio
LDs can either be NPV based or loss of revenue based
Provided by EPC contractor or O&M contractor
Backed by manufacturers

DOC#
5
 What are common terms for guarantees?

Typical terms are 1-5 years for longer term energy

guarantees from EPC contractors
Longer term guarantees (5+ years) are not typically
available from EPC contractors

Module manufacturers do offer longer term product

warranties
Insurance products exist that offer longer term
guarantees

DOC#
6
 Contracting Model affects Performance
Guarantees
Full wrap EPC preferred model for providing both short
and long term guarantees
If owner purchases some or all major equipment,
contractor is less willing to wrap major equipment
warranties.

Equipment Suppliers (Module+Inverter)

Warranty

EPC Contractor
Energy
Guarantee

Owner
DOC#
7
 Example 20 MW Power Plant

NPV of Annual Typical

AC Capacity 20 MW Lost Value of LD
DC Capacity 24 MWp Revenue Lost
Revenue
EPC Contract $50 Million
Value
Estimated 80% 1% PR $400K $50K $1 M
Performance Shortfall
Ratio
Annual 50 GWh 5% PR $2 M $250K $4 M
Production Shortfall
Annual $5 Million
Revenue 1 MW $2 M $250K $4 M
capacity
Typical O&M $500K shortfall
Annual Value
DOC#
8
 Example Plant

Short term test at COD:

Plant tests 1% low in capacity or Performance Ratio
$1 M LD, payable by EPC, 2% of EPC contract
Plant tests 5% low in capacity or Performance Ratio
$5 M LD, payable by EPC 10% of EPC contract

At year one:
Plant has performed 1% low in performance ratio
NPV based LDs would be ~$1M, 200% annual O&M
contract amount
Revenue based LDs would be $50K, 10% of contract
amount

DOC#
9
 Why not just a short term test?

Industry would prefer Technical drawbacks

short term tests: with Short Term
Guarantees:
EPC contractors unwilling to Solar plants are energy, not
carry risk long term
Prefer long term guarantees in
capacity, resources.
O&M Contract Validating energy generation
takes time
Short term test has high
Owners dont want to uncertainty
provide longer term
guarantees to lenders. Immature industry
Lack of track record with
utility scale plants
Concerns about long term
reliability of equipment

DOC#
10
 Drafting a successful performance guarantee
Performance Guarantees can be complex:
Legally
Commercially
Technically

Important to have all parties have a common

understanding of performance testing goals and
methodologies.
How LDs are calculated (NPV based, loss of output)
Test protocol is clear and unambiguous
Commercial goals of all parties are met

Technical issues are critical

Industry lacking in standards, expertise

DOC#
11
 What is being guaranteed? Jenya Meydbray, CEO
Jenya@PVEL.com
Sunlight in, Electricity out. Simple, right?
The devil is in the details

Sunlight In
Intensity (W/m2)
Spectrum (AM 1.5)
Angle of incidence

Electricity Out
Temperature
Panel response to varying conditions
Panel consistency (mismatch, degradation)

Only as good as initial prediction (PVSyst)

DOC#
12
 Sunlight Measurement

Accurate measurement of sunlight is critical

Need to know gallons of fuel to measure MPG
Necessary to measure degradation rate

Chart shows spectral response of several PV PVEL solar reference cell

technologies and pyranometer

DOC#
13 Thermopile pyranometer
 What is being guaranteed?

Energy projections are determined using PVSyst

All modules have .pan files that define how efficiency varies
with environmental conditions
B&V and PVEL offer .pan file generation service

STC

DOC#
14
 What is being guaranteed?

Panel manufacturers sell power

Power plant operators sell energy (power over time)
Performance Ratio: irradiance normalized performance
But not temperature normalized typically

Module Power [kW] System Power [kW]

Preferred by manufacturer (warranty) Capacity guarantee
Under controlled conditions: STC Typically restricted environ conditions
1kW/m2, 25C, AM1.5 Needs to be normalized
Measurement in the field has high Standard for MWAC: ASTM E2848
uncertainty and requires normalization Irradiance measurement method must be
Spectral normalization not always defined and agreed upon
DOC#
15 possible Can be impacted by module mismatch
 Long-Term Guarantees

PR or Modeled / Measured Energy Guarantee [kWh]

Guarantee [%]
Typical long-term guarantee today Preferred by system owner
Affected by many factors including Similar considerations as performance
environment, system design, ratio
module mismatch Guarantee provider takes on weather risk
Need to specify AC or DC in addition to equipment performance risk
Requires sophisticated field monitoring

Guarantee vs. Expectation

Owners expect their PVSyst model
Guarantees always discount expected
Can be substantial $ difference
Degradation rate
Equipment quality
DOC#
16
 >200 modules recently tested at PVEL Jenya Meydbray, CEO
Jenya@PVEL.com

Even though most modules look the same out of the box
Not all modules are created equal

DOC#
17
 Equipment Quality Jenya Meydbray, CEO
Jenya@PVEL.com
Pricing pressure on manufacturers is intense
Raw materials, staff turn-over, tool aging, incremental
process improvement, etc. all contribute to module quality

PV Evolution Labs can help you mitigate technology risk

Supplier Qualification / Evaluation
Approved Vendor List (AVL) Management
.pan files and IAM
IEC and spec verification
Energy Yield Testing
Solar Reference Cells
DOC#
18
Soiling Stations
 Legal Considerations
Performance Guarantees From A Legal Perspective
Other Contract Mechanisms to Help Ensure Project Performance
Covenants regarding the Modules (in the case of a MSA) or the Works (in the case
of an EPC Contract) compliance with:

MSA and EPC EPC

Specifications PIP/GIP/GUP/PEP
Applicable Laws Utility Requirements
Standards and Codes Installation Manuals
Product warranties

Defining defect broadly

Covenants to comply with QA/QC Plans
Including pre-shipment and post-delivery inspection and testing regimes
Including shipping and packaging requirements
Timing of Acceptance
Warranties (equipment and work)

DOC#
19
 Legal Considerations
Performance Guarantees From A Legal Perspective (Cont.)

Significance of Performance Guarantees from a Legal Perspective

A performance guarantee is a guarantee

that a particular result will be achieved.

By providing a performance guarantee, does a contractor (or vendor)

assume increased project risks? Not necessarily.

Defenses to performance guarantees

Impossibility
Impracticability

Can a projects performance be guaranteed without an express

guarantee?
DOC#
20 Design Specifications vs. Performance Specifications
 Legal Considerations
Use of Liquidated Damages as a Prescribed Remedy
What are Liquidated Damages?
Amounts fixed, settled and agreed upon in advance by the parties to a
contract a stipulated sum, estimated by the parties, that acts as a
proxy for the extent of injury or actual damages that a specified breach
by the promisor (Contractor) would cause the promisee (Owner)
-- Modified from Pacific Hardware Steel Co. v. United States and Williston, Contracts 776

Why Use Liquidated Damages?

Permits quantification of the cost of compliance in advance, which permits
informed decision-making
Reduces enforcement costs (e.g., ability to easily offset)
No duty on promisee (Owner) to mitigate damages
Permits specific allocation of risks Owner can decide for certain reasons to
allow for undercompensatory liquidated damages
Allows for computation of consequential damages, even if the contract contains a
waiver of consequential damages (which most do)
DOC#
21 Deterrence*
 Legal Considerations
Necessary/Desirable Attributes of Enforceable LD Provisions
Not a Penalty

Actual damages are difficult to

calculate at the time the contract is
entered
per MW a/c

Reasonably calculated to address the

likely damage/harm based on a
defined breach of contract that are
reasonably foreseeable and
measured at the time the contract is
entered

DOC#
Sole/Exclusive Remedy
22
 Legal Considerations
Liquidated Damages under California Law
Contracts Generally
LD provisions are presumed valid unless it can be shown that the
liquidated damage provision was unreasonable under the circumstances
existing at the time the contract was made [Cal.Civ. Code 1671(b)].
Must represent the result of a reasonable endeavor by the parties to estimate
a fair average compensation for the loss that may be sustained [Firemans Fund
Ins. Co. v. Morse Signal Devices, 151 Cal. App. 3d 681 (2d Dist. 1984)]
Any analyses subsequent to the agreement relating to the reasonableness of
the damages provisions is not relevant to their validity [Ballard v. Equifax Check
Services, Inc., 158 F.Supp. 2d 1163 (E.D. Cal. 2001)]

Factors (Evaluated as of the time the contract is entered)

Relationship of the liquidated damages to the anticipated range of harm
Relative equality of bargaining power
Whether parties were (one or both) represented by counsel
Parties belief that proof of actual damages would be costly inconvenient
Difficulty in proving causation and foreseeability
DOC# Whether the liquidated damages provision was an inclusion in a form contract
23
 Legal Considerations
Liquidated Damages under California Law (Cont.)
Consumer Contracts
A liquidated damages provision in a consumer contract is presumed
void [Cal.Civ.Code 1671(d)]
Presumption can be rebutted if the proponent of enforcing the clause
demonstrates that:
it was impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage, and
the amount of liquidated damages represents the result of a reasonable
endeavor by the parties to estimate a fair average compensation for any
loss that may be sustained. [Utility Consumers Action Network, Inv. v. AT&T Broadband
of Southern California, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 1023 (2d Dist. 2006)]

Effect of LD Provision on the

Ultimate Relief Granted
If LD provision upheld, then the Plaintiff
need not show actual damages in order to
recover [McCarthy v. Tally, 46 Cal. 2d 577 (1956)]
Voided LD clause = Plaintiff may sue for
DOC#
24
actual damages
 Legal Considerations
Liquidated Damages Under New York Law
General Rules:
Courts uphold liquidated damage provisions fixing damages for
breach when the terms constitute a reasonable mechanism for
estimating the compensation that should be paid to satisfy any loss
flowing from the breach. [McKinley Associates, LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc.]

Invalidation: Invalidation of a liquidated damages clause may

result from one of the following circumstances:
the damages flowing from a prospective breach were readily
ascertainable at the time of contracting or
they constitute a penalty. [JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Financial Corp., 4 N.Y. 3d 373,
380 (2005)]

DOC#
25
 Legal Considerations
Liquidated Damages: General Trends under CA and NY Law

Both states have show a growing deference to liquidated

damages clauses in the commercial context, particularly in arms-
length transactions, but they must be properly structured to
survive challenge.

For California consumer contracts, the law is much more

protective for consumers. Liquidated damage provisions must be
drafted carefully to be valid.

New York has not developed the same distinction between

consumer and commercial contracts, but courts often take into
consideration the circumstances surrounding contract formation
including the sophistication of the parties and their representation
DOC#
by able counsel.
26
 Legal Considerations
Interplay of Performance LDs with Other Contractual Provisions

Interplay With Limitations of Liability

EPC Contracts almost always cap the Contractors aggregate liability to the Owner
under the contract (usually at 100% of the contract price)
Often Performance LDs and Delay LDs will be subject to further sublimits/buckets
10-20% Performance LDs
10-20% Delay LDs
25%+ for all LDs

Termination
Tiered approach
Minimum Performance Guarantees (no buy-down with LDs); ability to terminate if
minimum guarantees are not met
Performance Guarantees (buy-down with LDs)
If Performance LD sublimit of liability reached, then termination

DOC#
27
 CLOSING THOUGHTS
Performance Guarantees are critical components of any large energy project, and
the purpose of these guarantees have both legal and commercial benefits.

While getting closer, the solar industry has not settled on standard guarantees
and project structures

The longer-term nature of the guarantees in this industry present unique

structural issues for owners and contractors, including bankruptcy risk, thereby
requiring the parties to consider additional credit support, reserves and
insurance. They also in-part shape deal requirements (e.g., EPC Contractor will
require the long-term O&M work to ensure it has control over the facility achieving
the guarantee)

Short term power is not necessarily indicative of long-term energy and project
performance

The boilerplate can be important. If the parties desire performance liquidated

damages, make sure that the liquidated damages provisions are properly drafted
based on governing state law.
DOC#
28
 QUESTIONS

Please use the Q&A or Chat feature of the webinar software

DOC#
29