Fitch - Solar Power Criteria

Global Infrastructure & Project Finance

www.fitchratings.com February 23, 2011

Power Global Sector-Specific Criteria

Rating Criteria for Solar Power Projects Utility-Scale Photovoltaic and Concentrating Solar Power

Scope and Summary This criteria report applies to a broad range of utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) plants, including greenfield or existing plants, individual or portfolio assets, fully contracted or merchant sales, and proven or less-established technologies. Fitch Ratings defines utility-scale projects as freestanding constructions or host-mounted structures that typically rate 10 megawatts (MW) of nameplate capacity or more. These criteria do not consider the additional real estate risks inherent in solar projects mounted on host structures such as roof access and host maintenance. The solar projects discussed in this report are financed as stand-alone assets (or portfolios) with no formal guarantee of debt service from the sponsors (nonrecourse). Repayment is dependent upon the cash flows from construction, operation, and in some cases, hand-over of projects. These rating criteria are intended for global application. Ratings under these criteria are debt issue ratings and take into account the timeliness of payment, the instrument’s terms, and do not incorporate recovery prospects given a default.

Rating factors specific to solar power projects are identified and broadly grouped into “project analysis” and “financial analysis” factors as described in “Rating Criteria for Infrastructure and Project Finance,” the Master Criteria, as revised on Aug. 16, 2010. Fitch maintains data from numerous private ratings for PV and CSP projects primarily in the U.S. through the Department of Energy (DOE) programs, as well as in Canada and Europe. Fitch engaged in discussions with solar industry players including developers, third-party solar resource supply consultants, and third-party engineers for these criteria. The criteria is also informed by industry research including performance evaluations, field studies, and other literature reviews from numerous sources including the Doe’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the European Commission, and the International Energy Agency, among others.

Analysts

Americas Yvette Dennis +1 212 908-0668 [email protected]

Cynthia Howells +1 212 908-0685 [email protected]

EMEA Federico Gronda + 39 02 879-0871 [email protected]

David Zolynski +44 20 3530 1197 [email protected]

Asia Pacific Nandakumar Srinivasan +91 44 4340-1710 [email protected]

Related Research

• Solar Photovoltaic Feed-in Tariffs ⎯ Stability of Support Frameworks Questioned, Feb. 16, 2011 • Rating Criteria for Infrastructure and Project Finance, Aug. 16, 2010 • Rating Criteria for Thermal Power Projects, June 15, 2010

Key Rating Drivers

Major risk factors for solar projects include the following:

Project Analysis • Financial strength and experience of sponsors, particularly with newer technologies. • Reliable and accurate third-party reports on scope and quality of a solar resource

and project design. • Experience and financial strength of construction contractor with similar projects. • Terms of the construction contracts, and the complexity and time scale of the

construction phase. • Strength of warranties and/or guarantees for project design, parts, and operations. • Technology risk associated with the project. • Strength / weakness of the project cash flow stream.

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=528967

http://research.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=548345

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=604585


2 Rating Criteria for Solar Power Projects February 23, 2011

This report explains how Fitch tailors its general project finance approach in order to rate utility size solar projects. It focuses on the fundamental aspects Fitch deems most critical and relevant to the debt ratings of power plants in this sector. It should be read in conjunction with the Master Criteria, which is available at www.fitchratings.com.

Project Analysis ⎯ Structure and Information Ownership and Sponsors (◊) Fitch evaluates the sponsor’s commitment to the project. Sponsors with significant resources, time, and reputation invested in the project, including higher levels of direct equity investment or guarantees, are considered a stabilizing factor to the project. This is particularly true in the presence of sponsor covenants to retain adequate or a minimum capitalization level in the project. Strategic importance of the project to the sponsor is also considered. For example, the sponsor’s performance on a high profile or innovative solar project may heavily influence its reputation in general. In contrast, three or more owners without a controlling sponsor spearheading the project could be considered weaker.

Jurisdiction and Other Legal The legal framework of a solar project can have a direct impact on the project’s financial performance. Regulatory incentives such as feed-in tariffs, green certificates, loan guarantees, as well as tax incentives have been utilized in many jurisdictions to encourage the development of renewable energy. These regimes carry some risk of change of law. Fitch does not reflect a change of law in its ratings, but a change in regulatory incentives may have a significant impact on a project’s rating (please see the Project Analysis ⎯ Revenue Risk, and Project Analysis ⎯ Macro Risks sections for additional information).

Use of Third-Party Reports (◊) The two most important third-party reports for a solar project debt rating are a third-party solar resource supply assessment, and a third-party engineering report. A solar resource supply assessment evaluates the unique profile of solar energy (also called insolation or irradiance) available at the specific project site, and estimates the average and probability weighted annual electric energy outputs that could be generated by the specific proposed solar project (please see the Project Analysis ⎯ Operation Risk Supply section for more details). A third-party engineering report evaluates the viability of the design of the solar project, the technology, the budget, the construction timeline, and the long-term operations of the plant for the term of the debt, among other factors (please see the Project Analysis ⎯ Completion Risk section for more details). Where these reports contain matters of fact, Fitch will question the source and reliability. Where the information is a forecast or opinion, Fitch expects these reports to be based on well-reasoned analysis supported by the facts. Without these two third-party reports, Fitch may choose not to provide a rating.

Risk Factor Assessment: Sponsors (◊)

Stronger solar project sponsors have significant prior experience in the solar industry, either in manufacturing, construction, or operations. Midrange sponsors include newer sponsors to the solar sector with significant other power experience that does not necessarily include solar experience. Weaker sponsors reflect no power experience or history, but may possess industrial or construction expertise.

Financial Analysis

• Financial structure including amortizing debt characteristics, covenants, and reserve account mechanisms.

• Financial metrics, flexibility, and sensitivities.

These key ratings drivers are developed further in this report (highlighted using the ◊ symbol) along with supporting credit risk commentary on other aspects specific to solar power projects.

Risk Factor Assessment: Third-Party Reports (◊)

Stronger third-party reports are performed by consultants experienced with the technology, region, and solar industry; and are clear, thorough, and support conclusions based on facts or well-reasoned analyses rooted in the facts. Midrange third-party reports are performed by consultants with some experience with the technology, region, and solar industry, are clearly written overall, and include less well-supported conclusions or analysis of the facts. Weaker third-party reports are performed by consultants with little or no prior experience with solar projects or the specific technology or lack clarity, contain extensive caveats, are abbreviated, or were conducted under less relevant circumstances.


Rating Criteria for Solar Power Projects February 23, 2011 3

Limitations of Methodology These criteria outlines Fitch’s approach for evaluating the risks that solar power projects are generally expected to face, including short-term external shocks and individual project bankruptcies. It does not cover circumstances such as a significant change in energy demand, a complete realignment of the energy or electricity sector as currently structured in individual countries, or the potential impact of climate change. If one of these or similar events were to occur, Fitch would review the criteria and make appropriate changes to the methodology and to ratings covered by these criteria.

Project Analysis ⎯ Completion Risk Contractors (◊) Fitch looks for evidence that contractors have the ability to properly design, equip, and construct the proposed project and will look to the opinions of a third-party engineer. Fitch looks favorably on projects led by an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor, which serves as a single point of accountability to deliver a complete project on time and in accordance with performance requirements to achieve commercial operation. Construction for stronger projects will be executed by an EPC contractor with direct experience with projects of similar technology and size. However, Fitch is aware of limited or the absence of commercial application of some solar technologies and will consider the EPC contractor’s relevant experience.

Fitch considers the capacity of an EPC contractor to absorb possible cost overruns and to meet performance guarantees. Fitch views favorably large investment-grade EPC contractors that have a national or international market presence, long operating histories, and strong experience in the power sector including solar. However, smaller, experienced EPC contractors do not necessarily constrain a project’s rating depending on the technology’s complexity and whether it is proven. Fitch will also review whether the project has financial resources available to support a change in contractor if needed. In investment-grade projects, contractors will have reliable sources of sufficient liquidity and provide adequate performance guarantees. Fitch will look to liquidity dedicated to the project such as letters of credit and bonding to cover delay and performance penalties. A strong corporate parent may provide an irrevocable, unconditional guarantee of the EPC contractor’s obligations and liabilities, which can mitigate Fitch’s concerns of a capable contractor whose market presence is relatively recent.

Manufacturers Utility-scale solar power generation is a nascent sector with a proliferation of equipment manufacturers of relatively modest experience whose market presence may or may not endure. As such, Fitch views very few equipment manufacturers as investment-grade credit quality, making satisfactory completion less certain. Without an established history of successful manufacturer performance, projects will face greater stress in Fitch’s financial analysis. Whether a manufacturer constrains a project’s rating is dependent upon whether the technology is proven; the complexity of the project; the manufacturer’s direct experience with the proposed technology; reliability for timely equipment delivery; ease of manufacturer and parts replacement in case the manufacturer proves to be unreliable; and financial resources available to the project to support a change in manufacturer, if necessary.

Construction Contract Terms In reviewing the adequacy of construction contract terms, Fitch examines the responsibilities of contractors and project sponsors, the schedule for achieving commercial operation, performance requirements and guarantees, and liquidated damages (LD) for failure to perform by any party.

Risk Factor Assessment: Construction Contractors (◊)

Stronger projects are led by an experienced investment-grade contractor, either engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) or owner/constructor contractor. Midrange contractors are experienced and possibly investment grade. Weaker projects rely on multiple smaller contractors that may be financially weak and have no external support.



Stronger contracts will include an obligation of an EPC contractor to design and construct the project under a fixed price, date certain, and turnkey agreement. Fitch will review the terms for the EPC contractor to conduct engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, and start-up. In accordance with the Master Criteria, project sponsors will demonstrate that they have obtained all necessary rights for property access and construction permits and achieve compliance with environmental and other regulatory requirements. Given the large amounts of land obtained for some solar power projects, environmental issues may arise regarding the potential displacement of wildlife. In addition, some CSP projects have a need for vast amounts of water for cooling in areas that may have strong solar irradiation but scarce water resources. Therefore, proper permitting is key to project completion.

Demonstration of adequate transmission access including needed additions and upgrades, especially for projects that do not operate in close proximity to the load-serving area should also be addressed. An arrangement may exist where the project pays upfront for needed transmission that will be owned by a utility off-taker in which the utility reimburses the project for the capital expenditure. This ensures that transmission development occurs along side the project’s construction, mitigating the potential for delays in project completion.

Informed by the third-party engineer’s report, Fitch will assess the reasonableness of the construction and permitting schedule to achieve commercial operation, including a sufficient buffer in the event of delays. While permitting can last up to 18 months, smaller utility-scale PV plants can be built within six months. However, Fitch believes that it is important not to underestimate the potential for delays. Delays due to equipment delivery, permitting, improper ground mounting, and inclement weather are just a few examples that could disrupt a PV project. For CSP plants, the completion schedule can be similar to a fossil fuel plant with a regulatory and permitting process that may last longer than PV with a construction phase lasting between 24 and 30 months.

In stronger projects, the risk of power purchase agreement (PPA) termination due to delays is low but the project may still incur LDs. In well-structured contracts, LDs payable by the contractor fully cover financial penalties due to the utility off-taker as well as debt service obligations if the project is not delivered on time. Fitch considers the quality of the source of liquidity and whether it is dedicated to the project or must compete with other contractor obligations. As such, high-quality bonding and letters of credit dedicated to the project are considered stronger than relying on the contractor’s balance sheet for liquidity. Equally important, Fitch will consider the potential for disputes to impede timely and adequate payment of delay damages.

Upon review of the third-party engineering report, Fitch will assess the adequacy of tests to demonstrate the performance of the facility in accordance with design standards and the requirements of the off-take agreement to achieve commercial operation. Performance tests include but are not limited to start-up reliability, continuous hours of operation, as well as proper functioning of solar tracking equipment and inverters. Performance LDs will also be assessed based upon the quality of the payment source, as well as the potential for timely and adequate payment. Fitch will also refer to third-party engineering assessments of international or national certification, safety, reliability, and accelerated life testing.

Equipment warranties, electric output guarantees, and third-party insurance/guarantees demonstrate manufacturers’ and third parties’ willingness to stand behind the performance of solar equipment, which are only as strong as the entities behind them. As such, Fitch’s assessment of the value of these warranties is



based upon three factors: the terms of performance coverage (including limitations), the duration of the warranty/guarantee, and the quality of the provider. (◊)

Traditional manufacturer performance guarantees for PV projects include up to a five-year warranty for solar panel defects, and a power output warranty of 90% of initial nominal power in the first 10 years and 80% for the full 20 to 25 years. Some of these warranties are limited by conditions such as guaranteeing output by plus or minus 5%, which Fitch would consider in its financial analysis. Fitch recognizes that PV warranties are evolving. Future warranties could provide guarantees for degradation on a periodic basis such as five-year increments or on an annual basis, which would increase manufacturer accountability for specified levels of performance. Inverters are warranted for at least five years with an option to extend for 10 years, reflecting industry advances in inverter performance. In a few instances, Fitch has observed long-term output warranties based upon a maximum guaranteed degradation rate for concentrating PV. For CSP, Fitch has observed that there are various technical performance guarantees, which currently range from 24 to 36 months.

The financial analysis in Fitch’s rating case will reflect the performance and duration of guarantees of investment-grade counterparties, mitigating the amount of stress in Fitch’s financial analysis. Warranties from weaker manufacturers will have less weight in the financial analysis unless backed by strong third-party enhancement. A highly rated third-party counterparty such as an insurance provider may back up the performance guarantees of experienced manufacturers. In addition to the credit quality of the third party, the value of the guarantee in the project rating will depend on what the third party will guarantee and for how long. Third-party support may come with limitations that do not match the manufacturer’s warranty. In such cases, Fitch considers the value of what the third-party insurer will cover and considers all other performance areas as exposed to the risk of the manufacturer and technology.

Construction Technology Risk Technology risk in project completion is in Fitch’s view based upon the proven status of the technology, construction complexity, and scale-up risk. Due to its modularity and few moving parts, solar PV plant construction is simple and low risk compared with other forms of power generation. Panels are mounted onto steel support structures on a flat angle, fixed tilt, or in a tracking position. Installation of panels and structural support is identical from row to row reducing complexity. While the use of tracking is more complex, it is still considered to be proven. The inverter converts the panels’ direct current (DC) electricity to alternating current (AC) electricity to match the distribution grid. Scale-up risk is mitigated by the modular nature of plant assembly.

CSP construction is more complex, carrying greater risk as it is composed of a solar collection field, power block, and in some cases, thermal storage capability. Part of CSP construction is modular, as a solar collection field is installed. The remaining construction is similar to a traditional fossil fuel plant, which includes installation of a steam generator, steam turbine, condenser, cooling towers, and plant control systems. CSP scale-up risks may center on the increasing area of the solar collection field and the solar receiver but generally scale-up risk can be mitigated with multiple rather than larger solar receivers. Fitch will engage with the third-party engineer regarding how effective the project’s design can mitigate scale-up risks.

Risk Factor Assessment: Warranty Providers (◊)

Stronger warranty providers are investment-grade manufacturers that have a long history of generally stable operating and financial performance. While they have strong knowledge of the solar power sector, they are conglomerates that are not dependent on nascent sectors and have national or international market penetration. Midrange providers are investment-grade manufacturers concentrated in the solar manufacturing market or experienced conglomerates near investment grade with a solid financial position to fulfill guarantees. Weaker warranty providers include experienced but below investment-grade entities or newer manufacturers with questionable performance, longevity, and financial strength.



Project Analysis ⎯ Operation Risk Operator (◊) Fitch looks for an experienced operator with the same type of technology, in the same country or region, to manage the day-to-day monitoring and maintenance and longer term overhaul of the plant. Operators should have adequate resources and relevant qualified staff to execute operational tasks, as demonstrated by balance sheet strength and operating track record. Operator performance-based bonuses and incentives are considered a credit positive as an indication that the plant could operate above minimum thresholds dictated in the PPA or other operating agreements. Fitch also relies on the third-party engineer’s evaluation to assess the operator’s performance risks, especially for smaller, lesser known operators or operators who are untested in the solar industry.

Fitch has observed that operators in the solar power project sector are often affiliates of the sponsor, EPC contractor, or equipment manufacturer. The reputational importance for the operator of a high-profile project, either in respect of technology, scale, or national prestige, is unlikely to benefit the rating in isolation.

Operating Costs (◊) Operating costs are determined by the solar technology employed, PV or CSP, and the type of contract signed with the operator, either fixed price, a management fee with out-of-pocket cost reimbursements, cost-plus, or some other arrangement. Timing of solar plant maintenance costs is annual, while overhaul costs are typically periodic.

Risk Factor Assessment: Operator (◊)

Stronger solar project operators are investment-grade, leading solar technology manufacturers or large conglomerates with demonstrated operating success in the solar industry and the region, and are often affiliates of the sponsor. Midrange solar project operators have experience with the technology or have extensive experience operating nonsolar power projects. Weaker solar project operators have little to no experience with the solar technology or in the power industry.

Indicative Construction Terms for Investment-Grade Ratings Contractors EPC contractor with direct experience completing similar size and

technology projects; usually investment-grade rating; availability of potential replacement contractors; direct participation of equipment manufacturer; manufacturer has experience with the technology and a history of completed projects; favorable third-party engineer opinion regarding contractors’ ability to properly design, equip, and construct the project.

Contract Type Fixed-price or limited cost-based contract; adequate cost overrun contingencies, completion guarantees and liquidated damages provisions; performance guarantees assuring compliance with off-take agreement and design specifications; substantial price certainty through fixed prices and detailed design; favorable third-party engineer opinion regarding adequacy of budget, schedule, and project performance requirements; construction monitoring and reporting by third party engineer.

Liquidated Damages (LD), Bonding and Performance Guarantees

LDs sufficient to cover project’s delay penalties and fixed costs including debt service for at least three months; performance LDs sufficient to offset cash flow reduction due to failure to meet guaranteed performance levels or achievement of lower than expected tariff due to late commissioning; performance bonds for a significant percentage of the value of the EPC contract if contractor is below investment grade.

Performance Tests Performed to international engineering standards as confirmed by the third-party engineer; tests are structured to demonstrate the performance of the facility to design standards, meet off-take agreement requirements; and meet guaranteed levels of capacity, availability and electric energy output.

Warranties: Manufacturer Traditional industry warranties for PV regarding serial defects and long-term output; technical performance warranties for major components of 24−36 months for CSP; preferably investment-grade manufacturers with financial capacity to honor longer-term warranties.

Warranties: EPC Contractor Completed project performance warranted through final completion; preferably investment-grade contractor or bonding, or strong parent guarantee sufficient to meet warranty obligations.

EPC − Engineering, procurement, and construction. PV − Photovoltaic. CSP − Concentrating solar power. Source: Fitch.



Fitch expects a third-party engineering report to assess the make up and timing of solar project operating costs.

Fixed-price operating contracts that include overhaul costs and lack a pass-through of out-of-pocket charges are the most favorable to solar projects due to the lack of cost volatility. If the operating contract is not an all-in fixed-price contract, Fitch looks for a major maintenance reserve to cover the cost of inverter or turbine overhauls, as well as panel or heliostat replacements, on a regular cycle. An O&M reserve would also reduce volatility by providing flexibility to cover incidental higher costs of cleaning, monitoring, and maintaining the plant on an annual basis. Fitch finds these measures favorable mitigants to rising or unplanned costs. Inflation-based contracts, cost-plus contracts, and other similar arrangements will be evaluated for their effects on cash flows. Bonus incentives are considered a useful tool to keep the operator focused on optimal performance within existing costs.

Affiliate-operator agreements that appear underpriced are considered a credit negative based on the possibility, not the expectation, that an affiliate-operator could be replaced with a higher cost third-party operator in the future. Fitch would address this risk by adding additional stress to the operating contract to test the level of higher costs that could be borne by the project, and will use stresses that are consistent with the rating of the affiliate-operator. Both incentives and possible conflicts are considered with respect to an affiliate-operator. However, the key rating issue remains the alignment of operator’s interest with the rated debt holders.

Major costs of PV projects are expected to be lower than for a typical power project due to the solid state nature of PV technology with no moving parts. Costs unique to PV projects include inverter repair or replacement, and PV panel replacement due to defect or breakage. Overhaul costs for inverters can range from every five to 10 years. Major costs for CSP projects are expected to be higher than PV costs, more in line with a typical thermal power project, due to their complexity and various moving parts. Costs that are distinct for CSP plants compared with PV plants include turbine overhaul (much like a traditional thermal power plant), input water costs for running and cooling the turbines, regular replacement of the heat transfer fluid to maintain maximum conductivity, thermal storage piping, and/or tank replacement due to salt corrosion, harmonization and calibration of tracking systems, and mirror replacement primarily due to wind breakage. Cleaning of heliostats is another unique cost to CSP plants, however, these costs are usually fairly small in the overall plant budget. Fitch also expects CSP turbines to be overhauled periodically based on usage and third-party engineering assessments.

A unique operating cost risk that affects both PV and CSP relates to replacement parts. As part of a nascent solar energy sector, manufacturers may not remain in business to provide needed parts over the long term. In other cases, technological advances may render existing equipment obsolete. The ability and the cost to replace needed parts could be substantially different than originally budgeted. As a result, an assessment from the third-party engineer on budgeting for proprietary parts or parts needed in evolving technologies in O&M and major maintenance adds strength to the risk evaluation. Verifiable ability to substitute parts or the technology’s ability to achieve commodity-like availability would be considered stronger. If the operator relies on replacement parts from a weaker manufacturer, then the rating may be constrained to the rating of the weaker manufacturer.

With limited operating experience for solar plants in contrast to the terms of the debt, Fitch’s analysis will include additional O&M stress to PV plants after year 15, as well as to availability. Fitch applies these additional later-year operating stresses to PV plants

Risk Factor Assessment: Operating Contracts (◊)

Stronger O&M contracts for solar projects include fixed-price agreements with the operator that include overhaul costs and exclude reimbursement of out-of pocket expenses, effectively transferring operating cost risk to the operator. Midrange operating contracts reflect a fixed or escalating management fee plus out-of-pocket reimbursements, performance incentives, and an accrual reserve for major maintenance prior to the expense. Weaker operating contracts include cost-plus fees and out-of-pocket reimbursements and lack performance incentives.



only based on the view that O&M stresses for CSP are analogous to O&M stresses for traditional thermal power plants, which reflect changes in the balance of plant. This criteria report bases the O&M stresses for CSP on Fitch’s existing “Rating Criteria for Thermal Power Projects,” June 15, 2010 (thermal criteria), which does not currently apply additional O&M stress in the out years.

Supply Sunlight is an intermittent renewable fuel source. Similar to other renewable energy sources, it is not available on demand and its quantity can vary on a daily basis. Therefore, Fitch expects that each utility-sized solar project will have a third-party assessment of the variability of solar resource for the particular project site in order to better quantify the fuel supply. The specific solar irradiance at the project site will be the basis for the project’s expected electric energy output, measured in megawatt-hours (MWh), and also the basis for the project’s expected cash flow to meet debt obligations.

Fitch looks to a third-party solar resource supply assessment to address three major issues: (1) the quality of the data used to determine the characteristics of the solar resource; (2) a long-term estimate of the average electric energy output from the project, based on the solar resource evaluation and the design of the project; and (3) various statistical probability scenarios of the expected electric energy output.

Resource Data Quality (◊) Fitch looks to the solar resource consultant to evaluate the available solar irradiance data as it relates to the actual project site, and to opine on the quality of the data. A valid data set includes: readings of the applicable solar irradiance (also called solar energy or insolation), ambient temperature, wind speed, and precipitation at the project site on an hourly time scale.

Types of Solar Energy and Measurement Instruments

There are four main forms of solar energy or irradiance that should be evaluated in a solar resource assessment. Photovoltaic solar projects can use all forms of solar energy, direct and indirect, while CSP projects are designed to use direct solar energy only. All four forms of solar energy are measured in watts per meters squared (W/m2).

• Direct normal irradiation (DNI or direct radiation) is the incident solar radiation in a direct line from the sun, without having been reflected or scattered. DNI is the primary measure of a solar resource for CSP projects.

• Diffuse horizontal irradiation (DHI or diffuse radiation) is the incident solar radiation that has been scattered by clouds (droplets of water), dust, pollution in the air, etc. This measure of sunlight cannot be used by CSP projects, but is important for PV projects.

• Albedo (reflected radiation) is incident solar radiation reflected from the ground, roof, or topography. Albedo is also of little use for CSP projects, but is a component of the supply for PV projects.

• Global horizontal irradiation (GHI or global radiation) is the sum of all the three radiation sources described above, DNI, DHI, and Albedo. It is the primary measure of a solar resource for PV projects.

Readings of the various types of solar radiation are collected using specific instruments. Pyroheliometers are used to measure DNI specifically, and pyranometers are used to measure GHI, which includes all forms of solar irradiance. A rotating shadowband radiometer is a specific pyanometer that can measure all irradiance types as well as atmospheric parameters.



Fitch looks for a minimum of one year, hourly, well-maintained, onsite data for a complete solar resource supply assessment. Shorter data periods than one year will not capture the full seasonal and diurnal characteristics of solar irradiance at a particular site, and would be considered either midrange or weaker. Confirmation that the instruments used to collect the data were appropriate and properly calibrated and maintained is also expected. Fitch has encountered instances in which no onsite, local, or regional solar data is available, and the solar resource consultant had to rely solely on satellite data to evaluate solar irradiance. While not ideal, Fitch realizes the data constraints, and accepts this weaker data when no other appropriate sources exist. Fitch expects the solar resource consultant to include or recommend a reduction to the solar resource for the additional bias inherent in a weaker data set.

A comparison of the project’s solar data to other local or regional data sources is crucial to evaluating overall data quality. Fitch looks for information on each reference station’s period of record, elevation, and distance from the project site to validate this comparison. A high correlation of the project’s data set to the reference station’s data set would help to confirm its profile and general accuracy, and would be considered stronger. A low correlation to a local or regional data, or to a data set far removed from the project site, would be considered a weaker data set. Fitch looks for explanation of any adjustments used by the solar consultant to construct a final data set of the highest quality given the existing data constraints. The evaluation of the solar data will yield average solar and meteorological resource characteristics for a particular type of insolation (global horizontal irradiation [GHI] for PV, or direct normal irradiation [DNI] for CSP) calculated in kilowatt-hours per meters squared (kWh/m2) either per day or per year.

Finally, Fitch expects the solar resource consultant to create a long-term data set for the project site using the specific site data (discussed above) and an external, long-dated “typical meteorological year” (TMY) data. TMY data sets are time series data, modeled from satellite data, and are adjusted to exclude anomalous events such as volcanic eruptions. Fitch expects the resource consultant to use a reputable long-dated TMY data set, and to disclose the source.

Electric Output Estimate A solar project’s electric output estimate is the net, long-term average electric generation, calculated in MWh, attributed to the project. The electric output estimate will take into account the solar resource, the solar technology employed by the project, and expected losses for the technology and its operations that will reduce the electric output. Electric output estimates that present expected loss categories, with the percentage reduction used to produce MWh output, and a confidence interval for each loss category, are also viewed as stronger. Please see the chart at right for typical losses associated with solar technologies. Operational losses include reductions to the plant’s expected availability, reductions to expected annual degradation (applied to PV plants), and possible transmission curtailment, if any. Finally, Fitch takes an additional reduction to the

Risk Factor Assessment: Solar Data Sets (◊)

Most solar data sets Fitch reviews are likely to have midrange attributes that reflect one year or more of well-maintained, hourly ground-based data within a 10-mile radius of the project site (not onsite). Stronger solar data sets reflect actual onsite, 30-minute interval or hourly data for one year or more, from well-maintained instruments. Weaker solar data sets are likely to be exclusively from hourly satellite data without appropriate adjustments for data quality and the applied technology.

Risk Factor Assessment: Electric Output Estimates (◊)

Electric output estimates that present all loss categories with a percentage reduction used are viewed as stronger. Electric output estimates that present some loss categories with the percentage reduction employed in the estimate are considered midrange. Electric output estimates that do not specify any percentage of losses or that do not address sufficient loss factors are considered weaker.

Indicative Loss Factors due to Technologya Concentrating Solar Power Photovoltaic Solar Field Heat Losses Shading Tracking Error Glass Reflection/Absorption Geometric Accuracy Nonstandard Test Conditions Mirror Reflectivity Soiling Shading Module Mismatch Solar Transmittance Direct Current Wiring Solar Absorbance Inverter efficiency Mirror Soiling Inverter limitation Receiver Thermal Losses Alternate Current Cooling Lost Receiver Vacuum Parasitic Load Thermal Storage Losses Transformer Parasitic Load Alternate Current Wiring Turbine Efficiency aAdditional loss factors may apply, not an all inclusive listing. Source: Fitch.



electric output estimate for solar resource bias, in order to address endemic measurement irregularities in the data set. Fitch will look to the solar resource supply consultant, and Fitch experience, for the appropriate bias error estimate.

Fitch also reviews a metric that is unique to PV plants called the performance ratio, or PR, in relation to the electric output estimate. The performance ratio is a descriptive statistic, expressed as a percentage that estimates overall energy yield, i.e. the energy output after losses within the PV system relative to the system’s nominal output. The performance ratio is calculated as AC MWh output per the DC MW nameplate rating divided by the plane of array (POA) insolation in MWhs per meter squared, or (AC MWh/DC MW) / (POA MWh/m2). The performance ratio measures the project’s energy yield based on factors such as inverter efficiency, wiring, module mismatch, degradation, module temperature effects, and other system loss factors discussed above. Fitch regards the performance ratio as a useful data point in its analysis of a PV plant, but it is not a rating factor.

Finally, Fitch will expect the solar resource consultant to disclose the source of the computer model used to forecast electric output, and to discuss the suitability of the model. Resource consultants typically use an industry accepted model that Fitch views as stronger. In some cases, a solar resource consultant may be asked to use and evaluate output from a proprietary model developed by the sponsor or technology manufacturer. In this circumstance, Fitch looks to the third-party resource consultant to indentify the model developer and justify the use of an affiliate’s model as a substitute.

Output Probability Scenarios Similar to its criteria on wind projects, Fitch looks to probability scenarios to qualify the intermittent resource by providing an estimate of electric output that the solar resource consultant expects to be exceeded over a certain period of time with 50% confidence (P50), 90% confidence (P90), and 99% (P99) confidence. The probability scenario provides a theoretical floor output level based on a probability and time span.

Fitch considers a solar resource assessment that provides three output probability scenarios, a P50, a one-year P90, and a one-year P99, to be stronger.

• A P50 output profile is the long-term annual average output that has a 50% probability of being exceeded over the term of the debt. A P50 output profile will also, by definition, have a 50% probability of falling short of this level of output. This energy production level represents the solar resource consultant’s best estimate of the average annual electric yield achievable by the project. Fitch uses the P50 to formulate its base case electric output for a solar plant.

• A one-year P90 is defined as the output level that has a 90% probability of being exceeded in any given year over the life of the debt, and will provide a smaller expected output level than a P50. The one-year P90 will also have a 10% probability of falling short of this output level in any given year over the life of the debt. Fitch will use a one-year P90 output profile in its rating determination for the debt issue. Please see Financial Analysis ⎯ Debt Service section for further discussion of Fitch’s financial cases.

• A one-year P99 output profile will be the lowest output profile, and therefore, the most conservative. A P99 is the output level that has a 99% probability of being exceeded in any given year, and a 1% probability of falling short in any given year over the term of the debt. Fitch uses the one-year P99 as a stress case for rating a solar project.

A midrange solar resource assessment will provide a P50 and a P90 only, and a weaker solar resource assessment will provide only a P50 or will not categorize its output as



one of these three basic probability scenarios. Fitch may choose not to rate a solar debt issue that provides a P50 alone.

Transmission Supply A final supply issue is transmission availability. Fitch looks for a discussion of the amount of transmission that either exists or expects to be built in conjunction with the solar project, and a determination if the transmission plan is sufficient or in excess of the maximum output of the solar project. Part of the permitting for greenfield utility-scale solar projects often includes an interconnection agreement with the grid manager and/or direct off-taker of the project, and Fitch expects to examine this agreement for sufficiency, timeliness, and appropriate rights of way. Fitch also looks to the solar resource consultant to opine on this agreement. Any history of curtailment by the grid manager or off-taker, or congestion issues that could lead to possible unplanned curtailment, lower plant performance, or operational issues should be considered in transmission supply. Rooftop-mounted distributed generation systems are not dependent on transmission availability and would not face transmission supply limitations.

Technology (◊) Fitch evaluates solar technology based on its long-term ability to provide electric output and revenues to service debt. Fitch’s major concerns surround the technology’s complexity, commercial viability, performance uncertainty, and utility-scale applicability.

There are two classes of solar projects: PV and CSP. The primary difference between the two technologies is how they use the sun’s rays to generate electricity. In a PV plant, sunlight is converted directly into electricity through the acceleration of electrons in a semiconductor material that is embedded in the solar cell that creates an electrical current. In a CSP plant, the sun’s heat is concentrated by mirrors or lenses onto a working fluid, such as a hydrocarbon fluid, which heats water into steam and turns a conventional steam turbine. Please see the table below for a basic comparison of the two solar technologies.

Photovoltaic (PV) Currently there are three primary variations of PV technologies: crystalline silicon, thin film, and concentrating PV. Fitch attributes crystalline silicon (c-Si) panels, including monocrystalline and polycrystalline, a lower cost and performance uncertainty compared with other PV technologies based on approximately 30 years of operating history, mostly as a residential and distributed power source and with minimal scale-up risk due to their modularity. Thin film panel technologies, including amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), and copper indium (gallium) diselenide (CIGS and CIS), are attributed midrange cost and performance uncertainty because some of these technologies have a limited operating history of up to five years at the utility scale. Finally, concentrating PV (CPV) technologies are currently emerging in the solar power industry, and therefore entail relatively higher uncertainty in projecting lifetime costs and performance. Please see Appendix B for a discussion of the current PV technologies.

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Currently, there are four primary variations of CSP technologies: parabolic troughs, power towers, solar dish-engines, and linear Fresnel reflectors. Parabolic trough technologies are the oldest CSP technology, dating back to the mid-1980s as a utility-scale electricity source, and Fitch attributes the technology relatively low cost and performance uncertainty. Power tower technologies have been available at the utility scale since the late 2000s, and due to their more recent utility-scale experience, Fitch attributes power towers a midrange cost and performance uncertainty. Dish-engine and

Risk Factor Assessment: Solar Technology (◊)

Solar technologies that have a substantial and proven track record are considered to have less performance uncertainty and therefore stronger performance attributes. These technologies include crystalline silicon PV and parabolic trough CSP projects. Solar technologies that have limited but actual operating history at the utility scale are considered to have midrange performance uncertainty. These technologies include some thin film PV from a few strong manufacturers and power tower CPS projects. Solar technologies that are currently emerging, in development, or in the pilot phase, with no actual utility-scale operating history are considered to have higher performance uncertainty and therefore weaker performance attributes. Currently these technologies include some thin film PV, concentrating PV, dish-engine CSP, and linear Fresnel reflector CSP projects.



linear Fresnel reflector technologies are attributed relatively higher cost and performance uncertainty due to their status as technologies are currently in development. Please see Appendix B for a discussion of the current CSP technologies.

Project Analysis ⎯ Revenue Risk (◊) Solar power projects are not independently economically viable in a competitive energy market. Currently, their success is predicated on revenue stability through long-term PPAs as well as feed-in tariffs (FITs), subsidy payments, and other supporting regulatory frameworks. Revenue resources for both PV and CSP projects are likely to be from electricity deliveries rather than capacity and ancillary services. Revenues are netted against projects’ operating costs (discussed in the Project Analysis ⎯ Operation Risk section) to determine the financial margin available for debt repayment.

PPAs The credit quality of the power off-taker serves as a cap on the project rating since the reliability of revenue payment is based on the purchasing entity. A typical project will have a PPA with investment-grade off-takers (e.g. government entities, regional power market operators, and utilities.) As a below investment-grade off-taker will cap the project rating, Fitch will assess the off-taker’s financial performance and the strategic importance of the solar power project in fulfilling renewable energy mandates.

While strong solar power projects typically have a secure revenue stream through long-term contracts, some exposure to merchant market power prices does not necessarily preclude a project from achieving an investment-grade rating. In the case that a project has meaningful exposure to the merchant power market, Fitch will apply financial stresses to determine the project’s regional competitiveness in a low power price merchant market environment and its prospects for timely debt repayment.

Fitch reviews the PPA to determine how stringent power plant performance requirements are to receive projected payments and to avoid PPA termination. Some PPAs have a simple requirement that the utility off-taker purchase whatever electric energy output the project

Risk Factor Assessment: Revenue Risk (◊)

With stronger off-take agreements, there is no merchant market exposure and debt will mature before the revenue contract terminates. Midrange revenue contracts have a duration that matches the term of the rated debt and are within the useful life of the assets or have merchant exposure that covers a small portion of debt for a project that is price competitive under Fitch’s power price stress scenarios. Weaker revenue generating structures leave a meaningful portion of debt repayment subject to merchant market prices.

General Comparison of Solar Technologies Feature Photovoltaic Concentrating Solar Power Applicable Sunlight Global horizontal insolation (GHI) Direct normal insolation (DNI) Climates Suited All climates Hot climates only Solar Resource Intensity Any intensity permissible 2600 kWh/m2/year or > required Storage Possible No Yes Sunlight Collector PV cell Mirror or heliostat Semiconductor (PV) or

Conductor (CSP) Silicon, amorphous silicon, cadmium

telluride, others Hydrocarbon fluid, synthetic oil,

hydrogen, helium, molten dalt Turbine Required No Yes

Axis Tracking No tracking, single-axis tracking, or dual-axis tracking observed

Required to have single-axis or dual-axis tracking

Tilt Fixed or adjusting Adjusting required Concentration Ratio None for PV, up to 500 times for

concentrating PV 30 to 1,500 times

Water Cooling Needs None Maximum 500 to 800 gallons per MWh Current Produced Direct current (DC) Alternating current (AC) Dispatchability (without Storage) None None Conversion Efficiency (%) 6.5% to 19.0% PV, up to 30% for

concentrating PV 15.0% to 30.0%

Max Capacity Factor (%) 24.0% (no tracking) 33.0% (with dual-axis tracking)

25.0% (without storage) 40.0% (with 6 hours storage)

Plant Complexity Low High

M2 − Meters squared. Source: Fitch.



produces. Other PPAs have more stringent requirements that the project has to achieve minimal performance thresholds regarding the plant’s availability and capacity factors and total electric energy output. Fitch will stress the projected cash flow to determine the project’s capacity to meet PPA performance requirements.

Regulatory Incentives Countries where solar power, and specifically PV, has been most prevalent have been those providing effective and efficient incentive/support systems. Although these may come in various forms such as premiums and quota obligations/green certificates, FITs have been the most widely used.

FITs are established compensation rates for delivered electric output under contracts generally ranging from 10 years to 25 years. In some countries, the tariff is indexed to inflation while in others it is fixed for its entire term. FITs have been adopted throughout Europe and sporadically elsewhere. As is the case for any industry relying on government subsidies, the financial performance of solar projects is dependent on such regulations not being modified within the time frame of the financing. Fitch cautions that even in countries with strong credit ratings (‘AAA’/‘AA’), the threat to subsidy stability and longevity exists. Financial pressures and competing national priorities may force countries to reexamine the amount of subsidies they provide and the pace of their commitments to develop renewable energy projects. Declining costs of solar equipment may also drive a reduction in the amount of government subsidies that countries provide. Fitch recognizes the potential tension between meeting aggressive renewable energy mandates and sustaining costly subsidies to achieve those mandates. To this extent, Fitch reviews the relevant regulatory frameworks, also paying attention to whether the interests of incumbent operators have been preserved in the past when new laws have been enacted. A change in the regulatory regime that reduces a project’s subsidy support during the life of the debt will trigger Fitch’s reevaluation of the project’s credit quality.

In Fitch’s financial analysis, renewable energy credits (REC) and green certificates are considered in accordance with their market prevalence. In Fitch’s experience, RECs tend to be a minute part of a project’s revenue composition in the U.S., so Fitch generally excludes their contribution, unless they are contracted, in the financial stress scenarios to assess the project’s reliance on a subsidy that is not well-established. In other countries where green certificates have a longer history and are more significant, Fitch will stress their variability in its financial analysis.

Project Analysis ⎯ Macro Risks Consistent with the Master Criteria, Fitch’s macro risk analysis for solar power projects considers sovereign and political risk as well as the regulatory environment. Fitch will look for signs that renewable power generation is a national priority as indicated by mandates, such as renewable portfolio standards in the U.S., to achieve renewable energy goals or national strategic plans and directives.

Macro risks are out of the control of project sponsors as there are limited actions they can take to mitigate political, economic, and regulatory risks. Therefore, Fitch’s sovereign rating and country ceiling usually place an upper limit on a project rating. Fitch’s macro risk assessment considers whether a country has a reliable legal system, supportive regulatory regime, and long-term economic stability. Macro risks are given strong consideration in Fitch’s project ratings because even projects with solid operating potential can be undermined by these factors. Please refer to Fitch’s Master Criteria for further discussion.



Financial Analysis ⎯ Debt Structure As with any power project financing, Fitch considers each rated debt instrument’s individual characteristics, structural features, security rights, and other terms and conditions. While each debt issue is unique, Fitch looks for debt characteristics and terms at solar power projects that are overall typical and customary for the power industry.

Debt Characteristics and Terms Fitch will focus on the characteristics of the debt instrument, including maturity, amount, and currency. The amortization profile can be a key characteristic of a solar debt issue that can range from fully amortizing (mortgage style, front-loaded, or back-loaded), balloon, or bullet repayments. The agency views fully amortizing, front-loaded debt as stronger if it relies on cash flow during a plant’s most productive years, and back-loaded debt as weaker if it relies on higher cash flow during a plant’s declining productive years. In addition, Fitch considers debt maturities that are beyond the current industry average or that are not commensurate with the economic and commonly accepted life for the relevant technology to be weaker. As such, no credit is given to cash flows beyond the expected useful life of the project. Fitch will examine the structure of the debt at a PV plant in consideration of the expected degradation, in particular. The agency also looks at the priority of payment tranches (structural seniority or subordination positions) as well as principal and/or interest deferral features. Please refer to the Master Criteria for more detail.

Structural Features The structural features of a solar debt issue can have a significant impact on its rating. Solar debt issues that include a debt service reserve (principal and interest) of at least six months are considered midrange, while 12 months debt service is considered stronger. Additional reserves including an operating expense reserve of greater than six months, accrual of a major maintenance reserve prior to the expenditure, and accrual of a decommissioning reserve over the life of the plant are each considered stronger. Cash sweep mechanisms and prohibitions on additional debt are also positive structural features for the project rating. Fitch will examine exposure to interest rate volatility, inflation, or currency risk; ownership restrictions; distribution triggers and levels; liquidity; and payment waterfalls.

Financial Analysis ⎯ Debt Service Consistent with the Master Criteria, Fitch develops base case, rating case and individual financial stress scenarios to assess cash flow resiliency and capacity for debt repayment.

Fitch’s analysis starts with a cash flow-based financial model provided by the sponsor, where performance variables can be manipulated to assess the project’s performance under stress scenarios. The scenarios outlined below reflect Fitch’s indicative financial analysis scenarios. While the scenarios reflect Fitch’s typical approach in financial analysis, Fitch may apply more or less stress to key performance variables to adequately reflect distinct characteristics of each project with respect to technology, manufacturer, construction contractor, operator, warranties, and plant location. In addition, Fitch takes into consideration the reasonableness of the sponsor’s base case projections, recognizing that some budget estimates are more conservative while others are more optimistic. Based upon the third-party engineer’s opinion and peer comparisons of other Fitch-rated projects, Fitch will adjust stress scenarios accordingly.

Key performance variables include electric energy output estimate (expressed in MWh and calculated on the basis of P50, a one-year P90, and a one-year P99), plant availability, capacity factor, degradation, and operations and maintenance expenses (including major maintenance).



Base Case The base case reflects Fitch’s expectation of long-term sustainable economic and operating conditions. The Fitch base case is the baseline for surveillance over the life of the debt. Starting with the sponsor’s base case, Fitch will develop its own base case, incorporating adjustments to align our performance expectations of the project with the specific technology operating in similar environments and conditions. The adjustments are based upon Fitch’s experience and consultation with the third-party engineer. The base case includes an electric output estimate at P50. Indicative investment-grade debt service coverage ratios (DSCR) under the base case range from 1.40x to 1.50x and above.

Rating Case The rating case evaluates the resiliency of the projected cash flow with a combination of stresses that together simulate a scenario of material underperformance, which is conceivable but not expected to persist during the life of a PV or CSP project financing. Fitch typically combines risk factors assessed in the individual stress cases and applies a combination of stresses that are most likely to affect the plant’s performance. Fitch seeks to assess with a high level of confidence the probability that a project can meet debt service obligations. Therefore, Fitch’s rating case is based on a one-year P90 electric output estimate. The rating case also includes a reduction to the electric output due to solar resource bias measurement and an adjustment in degradation from the first year of operation through debt maturity. The availability factor and O&M cost for PV plants will be adjusted in year one of operation and again in year 16 due to expected declines in balance of system performance and possible O&M cost increases. While Fitch reviews third-party engineering estimates of the performance ratio, this metric does not drive the rating.

In evaluating projected financial performance in the rating case, Fitch considers the overall profile of DSCRs. This profile consists of the average of DSCRs over the life of the project; the degree that the minimum DSCR deviates from the average; and the magnitude and frequency with which DSCRs persist below the average. The DSCRs in the rating case reflect the levels of cash flow cushion available (on top of the transaction’s available internal liquidity) to mitigate other possible reductions in cash available for debt service. Some examples of the type of risks that this cushion is designed to accommodate are:

• Uncertainty of long-term solar panel and balance of system performance due to insufficient actual operating experience compared with the duration of warranties and rated debt.

Indicative Solar Project ‘BBB’ Category Cover Ratios DSCR Average Profile (x) Technology Revenue Contract Type Base Case Rating Case

Fully Contracted 1.40 and above 1.30 and above Partially Contracted 1.60 and above 1.40 and above

PV

Fully Merchant 2.50 and above based on risk profile

2.00 and above based on risk profile

Revenue Contract Type Base Case Rating Case Fully Contracted 1.50 and above 1.40 and above Partially Contracted 1.70 and above 1.50 and above

CSP

Fully Merchant 3.00 and above based on risk profile

2.50 and above based on risk profile

Note: The base case and rating case coverage ratios above are indicative only. In addition, the actual relationship between the base and rating cases may vary and is not static. Fitch reserves the right to determine the cushion above or below these ratios. Comparisons with similar projects and institutional Fitch knowledge will be a source for determining ratios in actual cases. Source: Fitch.



• Uncertainty regarding the impact of varying environmental conditions on panels and power production such as soiling, temperature, and moisture.

• Evolving nature of solar technology complicates the comparison of past performance to newer models perpetuating some degree of uncertainty.

• Complex technology that raises the probability of forced outages, resulting in less than projected electric energy production.

Under the rating case, investment-grade average DSCRs for fully contracted projects are 1.30x and above for PV projects and 1.40x and above for CSP projects. Fitch notes that for a fully contracted CSP project, the investment-grade DSCR profile is similar to Fitch’s criteria for fossil-fuel thermal power generation projects as discussed in the thermal criteria.

The profile of investment-grade debt service coverage ratios is a guide not a prescription for achieving a specific rating. While Fitch’s rating seeks to quantify major credit risks, as reflected in Fitch’s projection of DSCRs under stress scenarios, the rating is also informed by qualitative factors previously discussed such as technology risk, operation risk, debt structure, and Fitch’s view of the project’s competitive market position. On occasion, Fitch may have tolerance for lower DSCRs at the investment-grade level based upon structural and qualitative strengths of the project, which may not be fully reflected in the financial analysis. Conversely, Fitch may see a need for DSCRs that are higher than the indicative profile to provide greater financial protection due to structural and qualitative weaknesses not fully reflected in the financial analysis.

Projects meeting the coverage requirements for investment grade may be constrained to lower rating categories due to factors such as excessive technical risk, prolonged merchant tails, sub-investment-grade counterparties, or other key risk factor assessments. Projects otherwise meeting investment-grade requirements, but exhibiting coverage ratios lower than indicated for investment grade, are assessed based on the facts and circumstances particular to the project. For example, a contracted project with minimum coverage near 1.20x could be rated in the ‘BB’ category if it exhibits very low cash flow volatility, or could be rated in the ‘B’ category if it faces considerable cost risk. Projects with minimum coverage at or below 1.10x are generally constrained to the ‘B’ category. It is quite rare that a project is so heavily capitalized initially that its initial rating is above ‘BBB’.

Fitch recognizes that the utility-scale operating history of many solar technologies is relatively modest compared with the expected duration of debt for these projects. Unlike fossil fuel generating projects, there isn’t a long track record of actual cash flow generation compared with initial projections for utility-scale solar projects. Fitch’s expectations of utility-scale solar project financial performance will be fine-tuned as the industry matures and implements lessons learned.



Individual and Break-Even Financial Stresses Fitch places severe stress on individual key performance variables to determine the level of exposure and sensitivity of the project’s cash flow to individual events. For example, Fitch has found that higher-than-expected degradation can materially erode cash flow for PV projects, while they are less sensitive to plant availability stresses. Break-even stresses allow Fitch to determine the level of financial stress that a project could absorb while producing the minimum amount of cash flow to meet debt service payments just before the point of default, as reflected in DSCRs around 1.0x. Fitch will also run financial stresses based upon manufactures’ minimum performance guarantees for availability, capacity, degradation, and electric energy output.

Estimated Electric Output: For PV and CSP, Fitch may reduce the overall estimated electric output by up to 10% to account for measurement bias errors.

Availability/Capacity Factor: Fitch considers the impact of reduced availability and capacity factors for PV and CSP.

O&M: Fitch considers the cash flow impact of a sustained increase in O&M expenses, direct (including major maintenance) and indirect such as general administration, including property taxes.

Panel Degradation: The percentage of annual degradation that Fitch applies will be informed by the third-party engineer.

P99: Fitch will assess a project’s performance under a one-year P99 scenario in which investment-grade projects are expected to achieve DSCR results that are at or above 1.0x.

Merchant Prices: Fitch has observed that solar power projects generally do not face exposure to merchant market prices. However, Fitch may apply merchant price sensitivity analysis when there is a high-priced PPA with a weak counterparty, as there is a potential for contract termination causing the project to sell power on the open market. In cases where the project is exposed to merchant risk, Fitch will consider the level of market price decrease a project can sustain and still meet debt obligations at a particular rating level. Fitch generally relies on its third-party market consultants’ view

Indicative Solar Project Financial Cases Base Case Rating Case Break Even (BE)

PV Project Stresses Electric Output Probability Scenario P50 1-year P90 1-year P99 Solar Resource Bias Adjustment Up to 5% Up to 10% To BE Annual Panel Degradation 0.3% to 1.0% 0.5% to 2.5% To BE Availability, Years 1−15 97% to 99% 92% to 99% To BE Availability, Years 16+ 96% to 98% 91% to 98% To BE Costs (including O&M and MM), Years 1-−5 Third-party resource +5% to +10% To BE Costs (including O&M and MM), Years 16+ Third-party resource +10% to +15% To BE

CSP Project Stresses Electric Output Probability Scenario P50 1-year P90 1-year P99 Solar Resource Bias Adjustment Up to 5% Up to 10% To BE Availability 95% to 98% 90% to 98% To BE Costs (including O&M and MM) Third-party resource +5% to +20% To BE

MM − Major maintenance. Note: The base and rating case ranges above are indicative only. Base and rating case adjustments are predicated on Fitch's experience and consultation with the third-party engineer. A review of the third-party resource consultant's and third-party engineer's reports will be a source for assigning values in actual cases. Source: Fitch.



of market price projections and adjusts these projections based on Fitch’s experience and market outlook.

Fitch will also apply as it deems appropriate and in accordance with the project’s contractual agreements, additional stresses consistent with project financings in other power sectors. These additional stresses include construction delays, financing costs, and inflation.

Financial Analysis ⎯ Counterparty Risks Counterparty risk addresses the financial obligations of project counterparties such as off-takers, affiliate-contractors, affiliate-operators, affiliate or non-affiliate equipment warranty providers, and third-party insurers. It does not address third-party consultants that are not defined as financial counterparties by Fitch. As with any counterparty, Fitch’s rating of the counterparty is the starting point. There are typically more situations for solar project counterparties where a Fitch rating is not available, or the analyst relies on an internal or private credit opinion. In this case, an internal rating may need to be assigned to the counterparty. Legally binding counterparty contracts, no counterparty history of payment delays, or contract disputes, and a legally binding obligation with strong legal jurisdictional enforcement are considered stronger.

Risk Factor Assessment: Counterparty Risks (◊)

Stronger counterparties are rated above the senior project debt rating, are capable of replacement without impacting the rating, and have legally binding obligations to the project. Midrange counterparties are rated at the senior project debt rating, and contract enforcement is subject to the region or jurisdiction but with a precedent of enforcement. Weaker counterparties are rated below the senior project debt rating and are not capable of replacement. Weaker counterparties may also have a history of contract dispute or payment delays and some or all contracts may not be enforceable.



Appendix A: Key Rating Drivers for Solar Power Projects Completion Risk

Information Quality Completion Risk Warranties Operation Risk Revenue Risk Debt Structure

Stronger • Solar resource assessment applies most rigorous methods and measurement tools commensurate with project’s technology including at least one year on site data correlated to longer industry data set.

• Energy production under P50, 1-year P90, and 1-year P99 scenarios are developed.

• Third-party reports address the budget, technology, manufacturer, completion and operation risks.

Contractors • Investment-grade

EPC or owner/ constructor.

Contract Terms

• EPC fixed price, date certain, turnkey.

• Completion guarantee from creditworthy party.

• Liquidity covers liquidated damages, debt service.

• Schedule is adequate to complete project and avoid PPA/FIT termination.

Technology Risk

• Proven technology; low construction risk

Warranty Performance • Warranty exceeds

the industry standard.

Manufacturer

• Investment-grade manufacturer.

• Long history of stable operating and financial performance.

• National or international market presence.

• Conglomerate that is not dependent on nascent sectors.

• Fixed-price, long-term O&M agreement with investment-grade providers or,

• Incentive-based O&M agreement with investment grade provider,

• Major maintenance or O&M reserves is fully funded in advance to cover overhauls during the term of the debt

• Technology is proven with a long operating history and less performance uncertainty.

• No merchant market exposure.

• PPA/FIT maturity exceeds debt maturity.

• PPA/FIT with strong investment-grade counter party (AAA/AA).

• Oversized solar field that exceeds PPA requirement for energy delivery to mitigate risk of less-than-projected solar insolation.

• Fully amortizing, fixed rate with debt that matures prior to PPA/FIT maturity.

• Equity distribution threshold: at least 1.2x DSCR.

• Debt service reserve account greater than six months of debt service.

• Other covenants to ensure timely or early debt repayment; prevent over leveraging of assets; and provide adequate liquidity at project level.

Midrange • Solar assessment is based upon ground-based data located close to the site and correlated to longer satellite data set.

Third-party reports adequately address: • Energy production

under P50 and 1-year P90 scenarios.

• Technology risk. • Manufacturer risk. • Completion and

operational risk. • Adequacy of

sponsor’s budget.

Contractors • Experienced possibly

investment grade. Contract Terms

• Owner/contractor, with strong budget contingencies and creditworthy parent guarantees.

• Liquidity covers liquidated damages and debt service.

• Schedule is adequate to complete project and avoid PPA/FIT termination.

Technology Risk

• Proven technology; more complex.

Warranty Performance • Standard industry

warranty coverage for serial defects and long-term output. For PV this includes five-year warranty on panels and 90% of initial nominal output in first 10 years and 80% for 20−25 years. CSP technical warranties range 24−36 months.

Manufacturer

• Investment-grade manufacturer concentrated in the solar sector, or experienced conglomerate close to investment grade with solid financial position to fulfill guarantees.

• O&M agreement with experienced provider.

• Agreement is shorter than the term of the debt.

• Performance incentives.

• Agreement may have fixed or escalating management fees plus out-of- pocket reimbursements.

• Major maintenance is adequately funded on an accrual basis.

• Technology is proven with limited commercial application and midranging performance uncertainty.

• PPA/FIT matches full term of debt with investment-grade counterparty; or,

• Merchant exposure covers small portion of debt for a project that is price-competitive under Fitch’s power price stress scenarios.

• Fully amortizing, fixed rate, no tail risk.

• Distributions: 1.15x−1.19x DSCR.

• Debt service reserve equal to six months debt service, funded upfront.

• Other covenants to ensure timely debt repayment; prevent over leveraging of assets; and provide adequate liquidity at project level.

Weaker • No independent electric output estimate or only P50 is provided.

• Solar assessment is based solely on satellite data without appropriate adjustments for data quality and technology; subject to material caveats; limited scope.

• Inadequate review of completion, or operation risks.

Contractors • Multiple weak

contractors. Contract Terms

• Inadequate budget contingencies, weak parent guarantees.

• Delays easily lead to PPA/FIT termination or optimistic completion schedule.

Technology

• Unproven or demonstration-phase technology pose greater scale up and completion risks.

Warranty Performance • Warranty is below

the industry standard.

Manufacturer

• Experienced but below investment-grade manufacturer or,

• New manufacturer with little experience, questionable longevity, and financial strength, non-investment grade.

• O&M provider with little experience with the technology.

• Cost plus agreement lacking incentives.

• Inadequate maintenance reserves.

• Proprietary, new, or obsolete technology where parts are not easily replaceable or are expensive, and a high level of performance uncertainty over the long term.

• PPA/FIT with below investment-grade counterparty.

• Weak PPA termination provisions.

• Merchant exposure to cover significant portions of debt.

• Merchant project is not competitive under Fitch’s low-price merchant power projections.

• Tail and/or refinance risk.

• Debt maybe within useful life of asset but longer than industry average.

• Distributions below 1.15x.

• Debt service reserve less than six months or not fully funded upfront.

• Weak provisions allow overleveraging of assets.

EPC − Engineering, procurement, and construction. PPA − Purchase power agreement. FIT − Feed-in tariff. Source: Fitch.



Appendix B: Solar Technologies Photovoltaic (PV) PV panels are appealing as a generation source because of their simplicity, easy scalability, long history as a commercially viable product, and relatively simple operation and maintenance when compared with other forms of generation. The essential building block of a PV solar plant is the PV cell, a solid state technology with no moving parts. This very simple design is by definition modular: each cell is grouped with more replicas of itself into a panel, and any number of panels can be grouped to produce the desired output of electricity. Scale-up risk of PV is fairly small because panels are used in typical size, only in greater number, to reach the utility scale. PV panels were first applied as back-up power in space satellites in the mid-1960s, and have enjoyed a long history primarily as a distributed generation source or for residential use since that time.

Crystalline Silicon PV: The oldest PV technology employs crystalline silicon (c-Si) as the semiconductor material in the PV cell, including both monocrystalline and polycrystalline silicon panels. Fitch considers crystalline silicon PV technology commercially proven based on seven to 10 years of utility-scale use, its well known, well-researched properties, and more than 30-year commercial track record as non-utility-scale electric power source.

Thin Film PV: Considered the second generation of PV technology, thin film solar cells have been developed and commercially deployed in utility-scale projects since 2005. Fitch generally considers thin film PV technology a midrange risk based on its recent commercial use, and its current limited application at the utility-scale compared with crystalline silicon. The three most prevalent thin film technologies are amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), and copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS)/copper indium diselenide (CIS).

Concentrating PV: Concentrating PV (CPV) is considered an emerging technology because it does not have a commercial track record. While not yet employed at the utility scale, several utility-scale CPV plants are currently in development. CPV makes the cross between traditional PV and CSP (discussed in the next section) in that CPV concentrates sunlight onto a photovoltaic surface using either reflective mirrors or acrylic lenses. Current CPV panels include up to three layers of nonsilicon



semiconductors stacked on top of another that each convert a different portion of the solar spectrum into electricity to permit a higher conversion efficiency than traditional PV panels. CPV is only effective using DNI, and does not use diffuse or reflected light that is the mainstay of traditional PV. Therefore, CPV is limited to hot or desert-like climates, similar to traditional CSP plants.

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) CSP technology is appealing because of its ability to generate massive amounts of heat, and its ability to either convert that heat into electricity or store the heat temporarily using conventional thermal storage technologies. CSP is a proven but complex technology that can be susceptible to scale-up risks and operates more like a traditional power plant for operations and maintenance and use of water cooling. This technology employs reflective mirrors with tracking systems and conventional steam turbines that utilize many moving parts to produce electric output.

There are important differences that distinguish CSP plants from traditional thermal fossil fuel plants. Unlike fossil fuel plants, CSP plants with traditional turbines have no dispatchability without a storage mechanism, and even now storage acts to smooth output rather than permit dispatch based on demand. Heat storage systems capture excess concentrated heat and retain it in nitrate molten salts that can achieve temperatures approaching the concentrated heat of the plant. When the horizon is cloudy or the sun has set, the molten salts heat the steam that drives the turbines. In the middle of the schematic below, the hot and cold tanks show where the heated and cooled molten salt is stored. The risks of using molten salts for thermal storage include avoiding their “freezing” temperature (still above 200-degrees Celsius), and the corrosive properties of these materials that require higher maintenance outlays.

A final distinguishing factor of CSP plants versus traditional thermal fossil plants is the requirement of a solar tracking system. Solar tracking is a mechanical system that continually positions the mirrors or lenses of a solar thermal plant perpendicular to the sun as it moves across the sky. Because solar thermal plants use only DNI to generate heat, a tracking system is vital to maintaining their energy output. Tracking can be single-axis, which moves a maximum of 180 degrees from east to west in a linear fashion, or dual-axis, which can move a full 360 degrees in a circle as needed to collect direct sun. Tracking systems are electronically controlled, and are programmed to optimize DNI by time of day and time of year. The greatest common threat of damage to a CSP plant is wind, which can break the mirrors. Operators use

PV Technology Comparison Feature c-Si a-Si CdTe CIGS/CIS GalnP/GaAs/Ge Semiconductor Carbon silicon Amorphous

silicon Cadmium

telluride Copper indium

(gallium) diselenide

Gallium indium phosphide and/or gallium arsenide and/or germanium

Type Bulk silicon Thin Film silicon Thin Film non-silicon

Thin Film non-silicon

Concentrating PV, nonsilicon

First Application Space satellites in 1960s

Calculators in 1970s

Electricity in 2000s

Electricity generation

Space satellites

Utility-Scale History 7−10 years (2000)

5 years (2005) 3 years (2007) In development In development

Utility-Scale Use Proven Proven Proven Unproven Unproven Complexity Low Low Low Low High Efficiency (%) 14−19 6−12 10−12 10−15 20 + Panel Degradation (%) 0.3−1.0 0.7−1.5 0.7−1.5 1.0−2.0 Unknown

Source: Fitch.



the tracking system to turn the mirrors to “stow position” to protect them during high winds.

Currently there are four primary variations of CSP technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, dish engine, and linear Fresnel reflector.

Parabolic Trough: Parabolic troughs collect the sun’s energy using long rectangular, parabolic U-shaped mirrors and single-axis tracking. Fitch considers parabolic trough technology to be commercially proven, based on the 20-year or more operating history of the technology in the U.S. Parabolic troughs have more widespread successful application internationally than any other CSP technology. Parabolic troughs have successfully employed heat storage.

Solar Power Tower: Another, more recently implemented, utility-sized CSP technology is a solar power tower. A solar power tower utilizes a field of dual-axis tracking mirrors, called heliostats, which reflect direct radiation onto a receiver that is located at the top of a tall, centrally located tower. Based on its successful utility-size operating history since 2007, Fitch considers the power tower a proven technology with a limited



application, and therefore, a midrange technology risk. Solar towers have also successfully implemented heat storage.

Solar Dish Engine: Solar dish-engine technology to date is in utility-scale development. The technology is currently employed on a demonstration scale. Dish-engine technology uses a set of flat (or slightly curved) heliostats clustered into a parabolic-shaped dish that concentrates sunlight onto a receiver in the center of the dish. The most advanced solar dish technology employs a mini-generator on the receiver itself. Solar dish engines use dual-axis tracking and do not require water cooling. Fitch currently considers solar dish engines unproven, and a weaker technology risk. Solar dish engines do not currently use heat storage.

Linear Fresnel Reflector: No linear Fresnel reflectors are currently built to utility size, but the technology is very similar to a parabolic trough. Compact linear Fresnel reflectors have been deployed as pilots in the U.S. and Spain, but are currently unproven at the utility scale, and would be considered a weaker technology risk.

CSP Technology Comparison Type Parabolic Trough Power Tower Dish-Engine Fresnel Reflector Concentrator Linear Point Point Linear Concentration Level 80 times 1,500 times 1,500 times 30−80 times Utility Scale History 25 years (1985) 3 years (2007) None None Utility Scale Use Proven, trough field

modular Commercially proven

with limited recent application, heliostat field modular

Development, all modular

Pilot, reflectors modular

Generator Turbine power block Turbine power block Stirling engine Turbine power block Storage Possible Yes Yes Yes No Storage Duration 3−6 hours 3−6 hours Unknown None

Water Use Up to 800 gallons per MWh

Up to 500 gallons per MWh None Up to 800 gallons per

MWh Complexity High High High High Efficiency (%) 15 to 20 20 to 25 30 to 32 8 to 10

Source: Fitch.



Appendix C: Typical Risk Factor Assessments for Solar Power Projects (Investment-grade ratings are typically associated with projects, structures, and instruments displaying predominantly stronger or midrange attributes.) Risk Factor Typical Range Comments Ownership and Sponsors (◊) Midrange For most projects covered by this report, the sponsor group is likely to

have midrange attributes. With stronger attributes, the sponsor has extensive experience (multiple investments) in the sector and strong financial capacity and locked into the project during the key risk periods through ownership covenants, such as utilities as opposed to midsize independent power producers. Stronger attributes are more important for more complex or newer technologies.

Project Vehicle Status and Project Structure

Midrange

Jurisdiction and Other Legal Stronger Assuming country is rated AAA/AA. Midrange or Weaker would be associated with more unstable regimes or emerging markets.

Use of Expert Reports Midrange Mostly third-party technical reports on the solar resource, construction and operating activities, and market risk.

Information Quality Stronger/Midrange/Weaker Midrange/Weaker typically in the case of preliminary draft reports or missing information.

Contractors (◊) Stronger/Midrange/Weaker/N.A. (if in Operation)

For smaller PV projects with proven technology and simple construction, the contractor may have Midrange attributes. For larger or more complex projects (CSP and large PV), a midrange or stronger contractor would be necessary to achieve an investment-grade rating.

Cost Structure Midrange/N.A. (if in Operation) Assuming EPC contract. Delay Risk Midrange/N.A. (if in Operation) Assuming EPC contract. Contract Terms Midrange/N.A. (if in Operation) Assuming EPC contract. Technology Risk (Precompletion) Stronger/midrange/N.A. (if in Operation) Stronger usually for proven technology with greater certainty of operating risks

and costs and weaker for new and unproven technology with more operating and cost uncertainty, which may act as a rating constraint. However, a robust supporting warranty and performance guarantee from credit-worthy counterparty, among other structural mechanisms, would be necessary to avoid constraining the rating.

Operator Midrange Midrange attributes are generally associated with operators with extensive experience and familiarity with similar technology. Weaker attributes would relate to projects with new or revolutionary technology that does not lend itself to ease of operator replacement.

Costs (◊) Midrange Midrange attributes will generally be assigned to projects with hard FM and lifecycle cost allocated in the first instance to an experienced operator, with lifecycle cost provision in line or higher than peers. Weaker attributes would be associated with less experienced operators and a cost profile that is not fixed or performance-based.

Supply Risk Midrange Midrange attributes will generally be assigned to well-established and supportable projections by third-party assessment of an expert and well-mitigated mismatch risk were applicable. Weaker attributes would be associated with less proven resource base and would be rating constraining.

Technology Risk (Operations) Midrange Weaker attributes will generally be for revolutionary technology given the dearth of operators with such technology experience.

Tail Risk Stronger/Midrange/Weaker Generally midrange where contracts match the tenor of the debt and weaker projects have material exposure to the merchant market. This risk factor is generally an issue of cost recovery.

Gross Revenue/Off-take (◊) Midrange Power projects would typically have Midrange attributes in this category, unless the project is significantly exposed to merchant risk or weak off-take counterparty in which case Weaker attributes apply.

Obsolescence/Economic Life/Remediation

Midrange

Termination Event Risk Stronger/Midrange Country and Political Risks Stronger Assuming country is rated AAA/AA. Industry Risks Midrange Debt Characteristics and Terms Midrange

EPC − Engineering, procurement, and construction. PV − Photovoltaic. CSP − Concentrating solar power. FM − Facilities Management. N.A. − Not applicable. Source: Fitch.



ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONSAND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEB SITE ATWWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA, AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE, ANDOTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE CODE OF CONDUCT SECTION OF THIS SITE. Copyright © 2011 by Fitch, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. One State Street Plaza, NY, NY 10004.Telephone:1-800-753-4824, (212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings, Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonableinvestigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or ina given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch’s factual investigation and the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in whichthe rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and otherreports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third-party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch’sratings should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documentsand other reports. In issuing its ratings Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings are inherently forward-looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated atthe time a rating was issued or affirmed. The information in this report is provided “as is” without any representation or warranty of any kind. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion is based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch iscontinuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk,unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinionsstated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connectionwith the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at anytime for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold anysecurity. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor,or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers,insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issuedby a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, ordissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of GreatBritain, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers.

Documents

Fitch - Solar Power Criteria