Research Document Prepared for Sustainable Prosperity, Think Tank, by Alina Acosta Romay.

• All currency values presented here are in United States dollars, unless otherwise stated

Abengoa Solar, Inc. – Solana

Project financed through US Department of Energy’ Innovative Clean Energy Projects (Title XVII) loan program through the Energy’s Loan Program Office (ELPO)

Program financing: $1.45 bn

Total project investment: $2 bn

Project Status: Operating, generating electricity, in good standing with ELPO

Project Location: Gila Bend, Arizona, USA

The Solana project is part of the Abengoa Solar Company, inc. that specializes in power generation from

renewable resources and that has solar power plants around the world, with a current combined

potential output of 1223 MW. Abengoa’s business model uses its global reach to develop and

manufacture components at the regional level, focusing on the promotion and sale of solar powered

energy at the local level.

The project is an example of a public-private joint venture, financed through the ELPO, in charged with

promoting clean energy projects. The United States Congress approved the Title XVII loan program to

disburse up to $32 billion, plus $10 billion to allow for the natural risks associated with the development

of new technologies. The program requires a minimum of 20percent participation from the private

sector proponent of the project.

The Solana project is considered the world’s largest parabolic trough1. A parabolic trough refers to the

production of electricity through the use of a conventional plant powered with heat energy harnessed

from solar panels2. The characteristics of a parabolic trough allow a project to increase or reduce the

1 http://www.abengoasolar.com/web/en/nuestras_plantas/plantas_en_operacion/estados_unidos/2 http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/power_plant_systems.html

amount of heat energy transferred to the plant – other projects use this advantage to use alternative

fuels to power the conventional plant if necessary. In the case of the Solana project, the flexibility

provided by the parabolic trough capability allows it to charge a molten-salt energy storage unit than

can store up to six hours of electricity that can be used to service customers during periods of low

sunlight or in the evening.

Solana has a capacity to produce 280 MW of electricity, enough to supply 70,000 homes, which is sold

through an exclusive 30 year agreement with the Arizona Public Service (APS) that buys 100percent of

the project’s production, as a way to meet its objective of having 15percent of electricity come from

renewable sources by 2025. Electricity from Solana enters the grid at the APS Panda substation located

18 km away and is sold at a reported price of 14c per KWh3.

3 http://www.powermag.com/solana-generating-station-maricopa-county-arizona/

Exelon Corporation – Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One

Project financed through US Department of Energy’ Innovative Clean Energy Projects (Title XVII) loan program

Program financing: $646 million

Total project investment: $1.36 bn

Project Status: Operating, generating electricity, in good standing with ELPO

Project Location: Los Angeles County, California USA

The Antelope Valley (AV) Solar Ranch One project was acquired by the Exelon Corporation in 2011 and

received approval for up to $646 million loan guarantee from the Energy Department. AV Solar Ranch

One is currently operating and can produce up to 230 MW of electricity, enough to power about 73,000

homes.

According to Exelon, the project is one of the largest solar photovoltaic projects (PV) in the world4.

Electricity from photovoltaic projects is obtained through the use of materials whose properties include

the photoelectric effect, where the material is able to absorb photons of light and release electrons

which are then captured to be used as electric current5. Part of the innovative features of the

technology used in this project (technology innovation is one of the eligibility requirements for the loan

guarantee program) is the capability of the panels to be tilted to follow the daily path of the sun, as well

as the use of voltage regulation techniques which will make the delivery of electricity much more stable.

The Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One project is able to sell 100percent of its electricity production to

Pacific Gas & Electric through a power purchase agreement approved for 25 years by the California

Public Utility Commission. The company states that the project will eliminate 140,000 metric tons of

carbon emissions per year or the equivalent of taking approximately 30,000 cars off the road6. 4 http://www.exeloncorp.com/PowerPlants/antelopevalleysolarranchone/Pages/profile.aspx5 http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/solarcells/6 http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=609723

According to a report commissioned by the US’s Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), solar

generation in the United States accounted for almost one third of new capacity added in 2014, for a

total of 6.2 GW of solar added of which 1.2 GW were incorporated through panels installed atop homes,

3.9 through utility-scale projects such as the Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One discussed here, and 1 GW

of commercial solar power7. This rapid rate of penetration of solar power in the United States –

expected to grow at 300percent from 2014 to 2018, is causing challenges for the existing distribution

system. There is an increasing need for technologies that will facilitate the delivery of electricity to the

grid, including through the use of secondary grid control equipment8.

The price per KWh agreed for the power purchase agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric was not readily

available to the public. It is worth noting however that according to a 2012 E1 – Electricity Schedule

from the utility, the listed cost of generation is of $0.09745 KWh9, which would represent a considerable

difference with electricity generated from solar energy such as that obtained at the Solana project, also

discussed in this paper, which operates in the neighboring state of Arizona and for which there is a listed

price of $0.14 KWh. The fact that operators are prepared to pay higher prices for energy from renewable

sources in order to comply with regulators, that in the case of the State of California expect power

generators and providers to source a minimum of 33percent of their product from renewable sources by

202010.

7 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-10/u-s-solar-jumps-30-as-residential-installs-exceed-1-gigawatt-i738dw27?source=socnet_fb_CC_20150310_bo_increased-energy_solar_1&utm_content=20150310_bo_increased-energy_solar_1&utm_medium=socnet&utm_campaign=socnet_fb_CC_20150310_bo_increased-energy_solar_1&utm_source=fb&awesm=ofa.bo_q3a78 file:///C:/Users/usere/Downloads/Advanced-Grid-Power-Electronics-2014-brochure.pdf9 http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf10 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/

Beacon Power, LLC – Stephentown Spindle

Project financed through US Department of Energy’ Innovative Clean Energy Projects (Title XVII) loan program

Program financing available: $43 million

Total project investment: $43 million (*)

Project Status: Operating, generating electricity, now in good standing with ELPO after being sold because of bankruptcy

Project Location: Stephentown, NY USA

The Stephentown Spindle project was built in 2009 and was initially operated by the Beacon Power

Corporation using $39 million from the $43 million in funds that had been approved by the US

Department of Energy’s Innovative Clean Energy Projects (Title XVII) loan program. The company

subsequently filed for bankruptcy in 2011 and was acquired by Rockland Capital, a New York based

investment firm with a portfolio that holds renewable energy as well as conventional energy (natural gas

and coal) generation projects. After the acquisition the company re-emerged as Beacon Power LLC and

was able to pay back the loan from the Department of Energy. In an interview with Power Magazine,

Barry Brits, CEO of Beacon Power indicated that the underlying reason for the company’s bankruptcy

was that frequency regulation services, which this project provides through the use of innovative

technologies, had not had monetary values assigned to them, which made it difficult for the company to

secure revenues11.

From its inception in 1997 Beacon power was conceived to develop short term energy storage

technology using flywheels. Short term energy storage is becoming an important part of the electricity

production and distribution industries as renewable sources take an increasing size of the market each

year. One of the drawbacks of producing energy from renewable sources is that production can be

unpredictable and tend to supply the grid intermittently, for example during cloudy days on a solar plant

or in days with little wind on wind farms. Flywheel technology allows energy to be stored in a way that it

can be discharged as needed, very quickly and with very high efficiency rate. This is achieved by using

spinning wheels that are connected to a generator that, in the case of the Stephentown Spindle project

can produce up to 20 MW of grid power when there is a reduction in the frequency of transmission,

11 http://www.powermag.com/beacon-power-makes-a-comeback/?pagenum=2

usually within 6 seconds. The generators use the kinetic energy stored in the flywheels as they spin at

over 16,000 rpm12.

As more projects from renewable sources are built, regulators are also catching up to the nuances of the

markets that have affected the development of alternative technologies. In 2011 the US’s Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission implemented rules geared towards valuing the benefits of short term

energy storage, referred to as “fast” response power. According to an article by Greentech Media, that

cites a Department of Energy report, the New York region, where the Stephentown project is located,

would support payments to regulation services providers of anywhere between $60,000 to $400,000 per

MW per year, which for the Beacon Power project would represent a reliable revenue of up to $8 million

per year13.

Solyndra Inc. - Solyndra

Project financed through US Department of Energy’ Innovative Clean Energy Projects (Title XVII) loan program

Program financing: $535 million

Total project investment: $1.5 bn

Project Status: Project shut down after bankruptcy

12http://beaconpower.com/carbon-fiber-flywheels/13 http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/beacon-powers-bankruptcy-autopsy

Project Location: Freemont, California USA

The Solyndra project was conceived to manufacture specialized solar panels. As opposed to the

conventional panels that are made from silicon, the panels manufactured by Solyndra were cylindrical in

shape and made from more expensive materials such as copper, indium and gallium14. The cylindrical

shape of the panels was designed to maximize the amount of sunlight that could be harnessed. All these

specialized qualities represented considerable challenges to the manufacturer that had to design the

machines to fabricate the panels.

All these complications, which were exacerbated by particular market conditions, forced the company

into bankruptcy in the third quarter of 2011, in a process that caught great attention from the media.

Solyndra eventually became an infamous case that was used by members of the Republican Party to

attack the Obama Administration’s policies, denouncing the program as part of the paternalistic efforts

of big government. Although the project’s bankruptcy did cost American taxpayers $535 million at the

time, by no means did it represent the failure of the program, as Solyndra was only one of four projects

that defaulted – for a total of $780 million or about 2percent of the program’s entire loan amount. The

program eventually made money presenting a surplus of about $30 million after receiving $810 million

in interests up to the end of 2014. Solyndra had requested an additional $468 million from the

Department of Energy’s Loan Program but was turned down.

There are no new loans are being disbursed through the Title XVII loan program as it is now considered

closed. In 2015 the ELPO continues to collect payments from the beneficiary projects that are all

reported to be in good standing with the agency15.

14 https://gigaom.com/2011/08/31/the-story-behind-solyndras-rise-and-fall/15 http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/can-we-finally-put-solyndra-to-bed-20141117

The US Department of Energy’ Innovative Clean Energy Projects (Title XVII) loan program, that financed

part of the Solyndra project – the other part was financed through Angel Investment Funds from such

heavy weights as Richard Branson and the Walton Family – was part of a policy supported by the Title

XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed into law by George W. Bush. The Title XVII loan program, as

implemented by the Obama Administration used funds from the Stimulus Package approved by

Congress after the 2008 recession and is now considered closed16.

As part of policy, the program that financed Solyndra could be considered conservative, as the company,

as one of its beneficiaries did not enjoy the sizeable and liberal support that its Chinese competitors did.

At the time Solyndra filed for bankruptcy China was the largest manufacturers of silicon solar panels in a

market that found itself in a price war due to the oversupply caused by low demand following a

pervasive uncertainty as regulators, particularly in Europe had began cutting existing incentives aimed at

promoting the use of solar technology17.

Tesla Motors, Inc. - Tesla

Project financed through US Department of Energy’ Innovative Clean Energy Projects (Title XVII) loan program

16 http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/technology/solyndra/17 https://gigaom.com/2011/08/31/the-story-behind-solyndras-rise-and-fall/

Program financing: $465 million

Market Capitalization (Sept. 2013): $20.9 bn

Project Status: Project paid off loan nine years early

Project Location: Palo Alto, California USA

Tesla Motors was initially incorporated in July 2003 in California by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs Marc

Tarpenning and Martin Eberhard. A start up, the company was conceived around the idea of building a

high performance electric sports car. From the technological point of view the main challenges that the

initial idea had to overcome was how to develop a battery that would allow a motor to run for an

acceptable distance before needing a charge. The original inventors settled for a Lithium ion battery and

an AC Induction engine.

The AC induction process, discovered by scientist Nicola Tesla (after whom the company was named)

allows a rotor to move at high speeds by using charges that create alternating magnetic fields with the

structure of a motor. The electric induction motor gave the car the advantage that the engine turns with

a high torque, uninterrupted by gear changes18. This has allowed the latest models to reach a velocity of

60 in 3.6 seconds, the same speed achievable only by F1 cars.

Although creating an alternative vehicle provides a lot of challenges, the set-up of the automotive

industry does provide some advantages for start-ups like Tesla. When Tarpenning and Eberhard set out

to find capital to develop their car in 2003 they promoted their project as a “fab-less” car company, as in

one that did not need a factory. This is because the car industry is considered a segmented network

where car makers focus mainly on engine design and final assembly, the only advantage for mega

companies (such as Ford and GM) being that they are able to source the same parts at a discount19.

18 http://woodgears.ca/motors/ac.html19 http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10

Because of this Tesla was able to develop the Roadster, its first concept vehicle by using the facilities of

an existing car manufacturer, using the chasis of the Lotus Elsie as the base model on which to develop

the engine, battery and any other parts that needed to be designed on specification. Elan Musk, with

whom the company is normally associated, joined the company in 2004 with a $7.4 million investment

which eventually grew to $55 million by 2008. Musk was able to navigate the company through a

number of difficulties related to faults in the design that saw delivery of their first orders delayed by at

least two years. By the time Tesla was approved to obtain the $465 million Title XVII loan from the US

department of Energy the company had already achieved an IPO for $100 million. It is difficult to

speculate how crucial the loan from the DOE was to the overall life of the company, although it seems

that opportune investments from other sources did save the company on more than one occasion20. The

company was able to pay back the loan in full by May 2013, a full nine years earlier than scheduled, after

shares tripled in value in less than six months21.

Fisker Automotive Holdings Inc – Fisker Automotive

Project financed through US Department of Energy’ Innovative Clean Energy Projects (Title XVII) loan program

Program financing: $529 million20 http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1306_fisker_vs_tesla/competing_business_models.html21 http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/tesla-motors-pays-its-government-loann

Project acquired after bankruptcy filing for $149 million

Project Status: Project defaulted on DOE’s loan and filed for bankruptcy, was sold

Project Location: Anaheim, California USA

Fisker automotive was founded in August 2007 by car designer Henrik Fisker, who had worked as a

contractor to Tesla Motors. Both companies started in California and both were involved in the pursuit

of creating a high end, high performance electric vehicle priced at around US$100,000 – a departure

from the idea, prevalent at the time of building inexpensive cars that would appeal to the environmental

crowd. Building inexpensive cars that use untested and still developing technology apparently

represented a very costly proposition because the product doesn’t have a mark up high enough to make

the venture profitable within a reasonable period of time, especially in light of the inherent risks of

creating something new.

According to Motor Trend magazine Fisker automotive initially faced the same technological challenges

as Tesla, though the two companies took a very different approach to overcoming these challenges, in

particular in what relates to the battery and the basic structure of the vehicle. Whereas people at Tesla

were focused on perfecting a new lithium-ion battery and improving the electric engine, while adapting

the rest of the car from existing designs, Henrik Fisker and his team opted for creating vehicle practically

from scratch. Fisker’s concept involved following General Motors’ lead and what it had done with the

Chevy Volt even using the idea of extending the range by utilizing an external combustion engine and

buying the battery system from A123 systems, a supplier discarded by GM – after trying several others22.

Fisker did not have time to test the new battery technology, as the first Karma – the company’s first

design was presented to the public in 2008, and delivery of the first units was offered for the end of

2009.

22 http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1306_fisker_vs_tesla/

Fisker’s approach of developing a brand new product proved too expensive and complicated for the

company to meet the milestones that had been presented to the Department of Energy, as part of the

application process to procure a $528.7 million credit line from the Title XVII Loan Program in September

2009. By May 2011 the DOE had frozen the credit line leaving the company scrambling to raise more

capital, which they did to the tune of $392 million in April 2012, but not before causing more

complications in the development of their Karma model. The April cash infusion was not enough to keep

the operation going however and all production had to be shut down by July of 201223. This process saw

changes in the management of the company and in March 2013 Henrik Fisker resigned from the

company after disagreements over how things should be run, in a move reminiscent of what had

happened at Tesla when Martin Eberhard ceded his position to Elon Musk.

The value in Fisker’s work, from his ambition to create an electric car from scratch was evident after the

company filed for Bankruptcy protection in November 2013. The bankruptcy process saw two

companies backed by Chinese capital, Hybrid Technology LLC and the Wanxiang America Corp., China’s

largest auto-parts supplier compete in a bid to take over Fisker’s 36 patents (18 approved and 18

pending) related to the development of electric car technology24.

Wanxiang won the auction for Fisk as approved by a Bankruptcy Court in February 2014 in which the

winner paid $149.2 million for the company, $126.2 million in cash plus $8 million in assumed

liabilities25. Wanxiang won the bid only after promising that the company would restart production,

which implied new jobs in the states where Fisker had its operation, something that had to be conveyed

by Wanxiang’s chairman directly to high level government figures including Vice-President Joe Biden26.

23 http://thenewfisker.com/past/24 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-06/why-would-anyone-want-fisker-in-a-word-patents25 http://www.mcguirewoods.com/Client-Resources/Alerts/2014/3/Fisker-Automotive-Holdings-Inc-Summary.aspx26 http://www.autonews.com/article/20140804/OEM05/308049944/chinese-supplier-lays-plans-to-revive-fisker-and-give-itself-a-jolt

Saskpower. – Boundary Dam Carbon Capture and Storage

Project financed by the Government of Canada and by the operator itself (Saskpower)

Federal financing: Cdn $240 million

Total project investment: Cdn $1.4 bn

Project Status: Project completed and operating

Project Location: Estevan, Saskatchewan Canada

The project was officially opened for operations in October 2014. The idea, which was to adapt an

existing coal fueled plant with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology in Saskatchewan came as a

way to comply with new Canadian Government’s strict regulations that apply to coal fired units that

have reached their useful life.

According to Saskpower, owner of the plant and the developer of the project, the province is not able to

take advantage of renewable energy sources because of climate and geography, with wind power being

available only 40 percent of the time and sun 15 percent of the time. Coal on the other hand is plentiful

(the province has an estimated 300 year supply), and therefore cheap and currently represents 47

percent of all the fuel used in Saskatchewan. These are all reasons why the utility opted to look for

alternatives to reduce emissions from coal fueled plants, with this project being part of larger scheme

that includes a Carbon Capture Test Facility already operating.

The Canadian Federal Government has also invested heavily in research and development of the CCS

technology to the tune of Cdn $585 million since 2008 through Natural Resources Canada's ecoEnergy

Technology Initiative (ecoETI), the Clean Energy Fund (CEF), ecoENERGY Innovation Initiative (ecoEII) and

the Program for Energy Research and Development (PERD) 27.

Through the implementation of this project Saskpower has been able to transform an existing unit of the

Boundary Dam power station that was reaching its useful life, into a reliable producer with a 110 MW

capacity with ten times less emissions than traditional coal powered units and that is four times cleaner

than a comparable gas unit28.

27 http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1421946/harper-government-celebrates-world-first-in-commercial-carbon-capture-and-storage28 http://www.saskpower.com/about-us/media-information/news-releases/ccs-performance-data-exceeding-expectations-at-world-first-boundary-dam-power-station-unit-3/

According to Saskpower the incorporation of the CCs technology in the unit will represent producing

energy with an annual reduction in emissions of one million tonnes of greenhouses or the equivalent of

taking 250,000 cars off the roads. The carbon dioxide that is captured is sold to the oil industry that uses

the element to pressure previously unreachable crude deposits in a technique called enhanced oil

production. The CO2 that is not sold is stored underground in a deep saline formation referred to as the

Aquistone Project29.

The Boundary Dam project is considered to be the world’s first coal-fired commercial power plant that

uses CCS technology successfully. Valuable data from the operation is being collected as industry looks

on to a project that has already being able to capture 135,000 tonnes of CO2 in the four months since its

opening.

From the economic point of view this project represents a long term investment that provides short

term savings as well as its success implies that Saskpower will be able to continue to use coal as a

reliable and inexpensive source of fuel for its plants.

Belectric Solarkraftwerke GmbH – Templin Solar Park

Project financed privately by the builder and through investment funds

Amount financed through the markets: approx. €80 million

Total project investment: €202 million

Project Status: Project completed and operating

Project Location: Templin, Brandenburg Germany

29 http://saskpowerccs.com/ccs-projects/boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project/7913percent20CSSpercent20Factsheet-Boundarypercent20Dam-newtense.pdf

The Templin Solar Park is the largest of 24 projects built by German contractor Belectric and also

Europe’s largest thin-film PV power plant. It has a nominal power capacity of 128.4 MW, enough to

supply 120 million KWh of electricity every year to 36,000 homes in the greater Berlin area30.

The project is part of a number of Solar Photovoltaic projects that have been successfully developed

since Germany passed the Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz – translated as Renewable Energy Act – in the

year 2000. The Templin project has benefited from this law, as have all other Solar PV projects because

the legislation guarantees a Feed in Tariff (in essence a fixed rate per KWh) for 20 years, at the same

time that it requires operators to give preference to electricity produced from renewable sources. The

FIT represented in late 2014 a surcharge of 6.24c per kilowatt hour that the operators are allowed to

charge back to the final user31, making this a format that follows the polluter pays principle. The latter is

an idea strongly endorsed by the OECD since the 1970s and which is used by Germany and other EU

countries to promote the use of energy from renewable sources among the public even at a higher

cost32. The Renewable Energy Act has enabled the German government to pass on the cost of the

development of Solar PV technology to the end-user, without affecting operators or other important

actors in the market (heavy electricity users in trade sensitive areas are partially exempt from paying this

levy) with such success that the cost of installation of Solar PV technology in rooftop applications has

decreased from €5.0/Watt in 2006 to €1.64/Watt in 201433. The success of the development of Solar PV

technology in Germany has allowed projects of all sizes to be viable, among the 24 projects that

Belectric has built Templin is the largest, but there are much smaller projects, such as the Oerlenbach

project built in 2012 with a capacity of 2.6 MW or the Alitzheim project built in 2012 with a capacity of

8.5 MW.

30 http://www.sma.de/en/products/references/templin.html31 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2014/10/07/energiewende-two-energy-lessons-for-the-united-states-from-germany/32 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/2%20Polluter%20Pays%20Principle_revised.pdf33 http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/resources/1053germany-closer-look.pdf

Angel Miranda et al and David Utiel et al – Private Investments

Two projects financed privately by the two main investors and their associates

Total project investment: €950,000

Project Status: Unknown, out of business

Project Location: Bernaberre and Albacete, Spain

The two projects listed are both small projects that were started by two out of a group of 62,000

ordinary Spanish citizens that started similar ventures, attracted by their Government’s “The Sun could

be yours” campaign of 2007. The costs of the campaign – intended to promote investment in the solar

power industry and that promised a 10% rate of return on investment – became a part of a set of

subsidies to energy from renewable sources which reached €8.1 billion in 2012 and that added to the

already considerable €26 billion deficit the electricity sector had accumulated in Spain by 2013. Spain’s

government followed policies aimed at keeping prices down to the end user34.

The projects showcased here have Angel Miranda investing €500,000 to set up 320 solar panels to

produce 56 KW of power near the city of Banabarre35, where as David Utiel had invested, along with 23

of his neighbors the sum of €450,000 in 360 panels to be set up near the city of Albacete in eastern

Spain36.

“The Sun could be yours” campaign was initially very successful, and the solar industry boomed in Spain

taking the installed capacity from 690 MW in 2007 to almost 2000 GW in 2013 in thermal solar capacity

alone. This format of subsidizing a new industry with developing technology – without passing the cost

either to the operator or to the end consumer – proved too costly for the Spanish government after the

2008 financial crisis. Cuts from the subsidy programs started in 2011, initially the government eliminated

34 http://www.thelocal.es/20140511/sun-sets-on-spanish-solar-power-dreams35 http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582018-sustainable-energy-meets-unsustainable-costs-cost-del-sol36 http://www.thelocal.es/20140511/sun-sets-on-spanish-solar-power-dreams

the ability of producers to receive a market price plus a premium, then it eliminated a set margin above

cost to then settle on a system where producers have their pre-tax profits capped at 3 percentage points

above the ten year yield for government bonds. All these changes were made on a retroactive basis,

leaving those companies that were developing energy projects from renewable sources with

outstanding loans in the amount of €30 billion in 201337.

37 http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582018-sustainable-energy-meets-unsustainable-costs-cost-del-sol