NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Master Limited Partnerships 

and Real Estate Investment 

Trusts: Opportunities and 

Potential Complications for 

Renewable Energy

David Feldman and Edward Settle

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-60413

November 2013
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Master Limited Partnerships 

and Real Estate Investment 

Trusts: Opportunities and 

Potential Complications for 

Renewable Energy

David Feldman and Edward Settle

Prepared under Task No. SM13.1030

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-60413

November 2013
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. 
iii

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, under 

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. 

The authors would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their 

contributions to and review of this work: 

• David Arfin, First Energy Finance, LLC 

• Ricardo Bracho, NREL 

• Donald Chung, NREL 

• Jason Coughlin, NREL 

• Kelly Kogan, Chadbourne & Parke 

• Mary Lyman, National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships 

• Keith Martin, Chadbourne & Parke 

• Michael Mendelsohn, NREL 

• Lee Peterson, The Reznick Group 

• Ammar Qusaibaty, DOE 

• Lidija Sekaric, DOE 

• Timothy M. Toy, Toy & Brown

• Adam Warren, NREL. 
iv

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are two 

proposed investment vehicles that have the potential to lower the high cost of capital for 

renewable energy assets—a critical factor in the U.S. Department of Energy’s goal for renewable 

energy to achieve grid-parity with traditional sources of electric generation. Due to current U.S. 

federal income tax laws, regulations, and administrative interpretations, REITs and MLPs cannot 

finance a significant portion of the cost of renewable energy assets. Efforts are underway to alter 

these rules by changing the definition of “real property” (REIT) and “qualified income” (MLP). 

However, even with rule changes, both investment vehicles have structural challenges to 

efficiently finance renewable energy assets. Among them are (1) effectively utilizing the U.S. 

federal income tax incentives; (2) administratively structuring the investments to not be overly 

onerous or complicated, given the potential for pooling a relatively large amount of small assets; 

and (3) attracting and retaining a large enough investment community to participate in the 

funding opportunities. This report summarizes these challenges so that if proposed federal 

changes are made, stakeholders have an understanding of the possible outcomes. 

The first section of this report summarizes current MLP and REIT markets and proposed rule 

changes. The second and third sections detail challenges to financing renewable energy assets 

with REITs and MLPs, respectively. Finally, the fourth section discusses possible investor 

responses to a renewable energy REIT or MLP.
v 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table ofContents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi

1 Introduction to Master Limited Partnerships and Real Estate Investment Trusts ........................ 1

1.1 REITs ............................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1.1 Background and Current Status ........................................................................................ 2

1.1.2 Proposed Broadening Definition of Qualifying Assets/Income ........................................ 3

1.2 Master Limited Partnerships ............................................................................................................ 5

1.2.1 Background and Current Status ........................................................................................ 5

1.2.2 Proposed Changes of “Qualifying Income” for MLPs...................................................... 7

2 Considerations If Changes Are Made to REITs ................................................................................. 9

2.1 Joint Ownership ............................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Complications with Existing Tax Code ......................................................................................... 10

2.3 Structural Issues with Using Tax Benefits ..................................................................................... 11

2.4 Prohibited Transaction Tax on Electricity Sales ............................................................................ 12

2.5 Complications with Third Party Ownership .................................................................................. 12

2.6 Other Complications ...................................................................................................................... 13

3 Considerations if Changes are Made to MLPs ................................................................................ 15

3.1 Loss limitations for Investors ......................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Mixed Portfolio Considerations ..................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Partnership Tax Management Challenges...................................................................................... 17

3.4 Challenges to Attracting Investors to MLPs .................................................................................. 18

3.5 Steady, Predictable Revenue .......................................................................................................... 19

4 Comparison of Solar MLP/REIT Investment to Traditional MLP/REIT Investment ...................... 20

5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 24

6 References .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................ 28
vi 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Figures

Figure 1. Expansion of REIT asset classes .............................................................................................. 3

Figure 2. MLP market cap by sector ......................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3. Percentage of residential PV capacity installed as third-party systems in select states.. 13

Figure 4. Returns and standard deviation across asset classes......................................................... 20

List of Tables

Table 1. Midstream MLP Business Profiles............................................................................................ 22

Table A-1. Comparison of Midstream Energy Partnership and Corollary Solar Energy Partnership 

Risk Factors ....................................................................................................................................... 28
1 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction to Master Limited Partnerships and 

Real Estate Investment Trusts

Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are investment 

vehicles organized under sections 7704 and 856 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (Code or 

IRC), respectively. These business structures combine advantages similar to those of a traditional 

publicly traded corporation with those of a private partnership. Public trading provides broad 

access to capital and liquidity, while a partnership-like model can avoid the double taxation that 

would otherwise occur at both the corporate and investor level in a public corporation.1 

MLPs and REITS are in many ways like a mutual fund; in fact, REITs are modeled directly off 

of the mutual fund structure. Mutual funds are equity investments registered with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (subject to various federal and state regulations) and publicly traded 

on market exchanges. Like mutual funds, MLPs and REITs are designed to allow a typical retail 

investor to make investments that the investor may not otherwise have the opportunity to make; 

namely, modest investments in assets (or pools of assets), such as real estate or natural gas 

pipelines. MLP and REIT assets have certain attractive qualities similar to debt, Treasuries, or 

high-quality bonds because they are designed to produce long-term, stable cash flow 

distributions for their passive investors.2

Key advantages of MLPs and REITs are highlighted as follows: 

• Long-term, stable cash flows, typically through long-term, stable contracts3

• Little to no MLP or REIT level tax, resulting in lower overall taxes on investment 

• Transferable ownership units, available to a wide pool of investors (accredited, 

institutional, retail, or otherwise)

• Liquidity of investment, providing for easier exit 

• Public exposure, providing transparency in price 

• Portfolio of assets, offering diversification benefits 

• Historically higher yields to investors than the S&P 500 

• Ability to raise capital for corporate needs, such as acquisitions, through public market 

sale of units. 

 

1 While an MLP is literally a partnership for federal income tax purposes, a REIT is not. However, special rules 

applicable to REITs (discussed later) provide them with a tax effect similar, though not identical, to a partnership, 

while not actually being a partnership and not using partnership income tax law. 2 See IRS Publication 925 for a definition of “passive.”

3

Investor return from a REIT is, in large part, structured to come from dividends (like coupons on a bond). However, 

unlike debt, a REIT is not required to return the REIT owner’s original investment; the investor may effectively 

receive this through sale of the asset. In other words, debt issued at 6% must pay back principal in addition to the 

coupons; a REIT structure’s predictable cash flows provide a 6% yield, and the original investment is paid back 

when the investor sells their units. 
2 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

These benefits have attracted considerable attention in the investor community, resulting in a 

lower cost of capital. Currently, approximately 172 REITs are listed on major exchanges and 

have a market cap of $600 billion (NAREIT 2013a). There are also approximately 120 MLPs 

trading on major exchanges with a market cap of $400 billion (NAPTP 2013). 

However, although the two structures share many of the same benefits and are often paired 

together, they have different sets of governing rules.

1.1 REITs

1.1.1 Background and Current Status

REITs were established in 1960 under the REIT Act contained in the Cigar Excise Tax Extension 

(NAREIT 2013). The effective elimination of corporate-level income tax was designed to give 

the same tax treatment to investors as they would have received if they had directly invested in 

the underlying assets. There were two intended benefits of this action. “First, Congress believed 

that this method of investment would give small investors the opportunity to pool their resources 

in a way that would secure for them investment advantages normally available to those with 

larger resources. Second, Congress wanted to remove taxation as much as possible as a factor in 

determining the relative size of investments in stocks and securities on the one hand and real 

estate equities and mortgages on the other" (Kogan 2012). This was particular important at the 

time because of the shortage of capital in real estate, which primarily relied on “governmentguaranteed money, and investments by special groups, such as insurance companies and pension 

trusts" (Kogan 2012).4

 

The qualifications for being a REIT are specified in Section 856 of the Code (26 USC 856). In 

short, to be considered a REIT, an entity must pass two tests: 

• Asset test: 75% of a REIT's assets must be real property, cash, and cash items (such as 

receivables).

5

 

• Income test: 95% of a REIT’s gross income must come from approved passive income 

sources (such as dividends, interest, and rent) and 75% of its gross income must come 

from real estate. 

Most REIT managers structure their investments to be well over the income and asset threshold 

requirements so that any unforeseen fluctuation does not disqualify the entity.6 Due to these 

tests, a REIT is limited in the types of assets in which it can invest. Over the past 50 years, the 

variety of assets in which REITs have invested has grown (e.g., buildings, railroads, mobile 

homes, LED billboards, cellular towers, and electric transmission assets). However, REITs are 

still limited, in large part, to what the IRS considers to be real property. Figure 1 shows a 

timeline of a limited selection of asset classes which the IRS has interpreted in a private letter 

 

4 This is not dissimilar to current capital constraints in the renewable energy space, which rely on government tax 

credits and tax equity investors.

5 The asset test must be met on a quarterly basis. Both parts of the income test must be met on an annual basis.

6 Subject to certain limited exceptions, a REIT that fails to meet either test is disqualified from electing the REIT tax 

treatment for five years. 
3 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

ruling (PLR) or revenue ruling (RR) to be real for purposes of REIT requirements, and the year 

in which the determination was made. 

Figure 1. Expansion of REIT asset classes

Sources: Feldman et al. (2012), and NAREIT (2013) 

However, land, buildings and certain improvements to such real estate are still the most common

REIT assets, as well as other assets clearly related to bona fide real estate such as certain 

qualified real estate mortgages. Though the IRS has over the years substantially expanded the list 

of qualified REIT activity, the focus has nonetheless remained on traditional assets. 

With respect to the portion of their assets (up to 25%) that do not need to be real property, cash, 

or cash items, many REITs own interests in Taxable REIT Subsidiaries (TRS). A TRS is a 

company, some or all of whose stock is owned directly or indirectly by a REIT, which has made 

a joint election with the REIT to be treated as a TRS. A TRS can engage in any business activity, 

including an activity that the REIT itself is prohibited from performing. In return, the TRS is

required to pay corporate-level taxes, with only its after-tax profits available for distribution to 

its shareholders.7

A REIT computes its taxable income like any other corporation, except that it is also allowed to 

adjust its net taxable income by deducting the portion of its taxable income that it distributes to 

unit holders (i.e., REIT shareholders). Because REITs are required to distribute at least 90% of 

their taxable income to unit holders, they typically avoid paying most, if not all, taxes at the 

corporate level.

1.1.2 Proposed Broadening Definition of Qualifying Assets/Income

Due to asset and income limitations, REITs currently cannot own a meaningful amount of 

renewable energy assets. Efforts are underway to expand the definitions of qualifying assets 

and/or income to include renewable energy. 

 

7

 Unlike REITs, TRSs do not have to distribute their profits. 
4 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

A renewable energy asset would qualify for REIT purposes under federal income tax rules if it 

was considered real property for federal income tax purposes.8 While renewable energy 

technology has been interpreted as equipment (personal property) under some provisions of the 

Code, some technologies, such as solar,9 share the same traits as some assets that qualify as real 

property under the REIT provisions.10 For more information on this topic, refer to NREL’s 

report, “The Technical Qualifications for Treating Photovoltaic Assets as Real Property by Real 

Estate Investment Trusts” (Feldman et al. 2012). The definition of real property for REIT 

purposes is frequently interpreted by the IRS. A company can request that the IRS make a 

targeted determination by asking for a PLR, in which the IRS would determine whether the 

company’s assets qualified as real property under the REIT rules. While a PLR would only apply 

to that individual company, the IRS is required to treat all taxpayers consistently, and a favorable 

ruling could encourage broader adoption of the underlying principles by other companies who 

believe they have the same type of assets as those covered in the ruling. The IRS could also issue 

a revenue ruling, preemptively, to address whether certain assets are real property.11 Currently, 

several companies are preparing requests for a PLR, are in discussions with the IRS, or have 

submitted a formal request to try to get renewable energy assets to qualify as real property. As of 

publication, the authors are unaware of any ruling that has significantly altered the tax treatment 

of renewable energy assets, or the likelihood that one will be issued in the future. 

If the efforts to make income from renewable energy assets qualify under REIT rules are 

successful, the implementation of investment by these vehicles will be dependent on the 

language in which rule changes are drafted. While altering the definitions of qualified income 

under IRC Section 856 are paramount to this endeavor, other sections of the Code and the market 

may dictate the success of using these proposed sources of capital for renewable energy assets.

 

8 See Treas. Reg. § 1.856-3(d), which defines “Real Property.” Note, the definition of real property is not provided 

for in the tax code itself, but rather in the regulations. 

9 For purposes of this paper, “solar” refers to photovoltaic generation devices, as opposed to concentrated solar 

power, solar water heating, or solar energy component manufacturing.

10 The sticking point of the current IRS position is that machinery cannot comprise more than 15% of the assets or 

income of a REIT unless the machinery serves only the building or other structure with which it is associated (thus, 

for example, solar panels that are able to delivery electricity into the grid at any point in time would not be REIT 

real property). The IRS holds to its position on machinery even where the machinery at issue is in and of itself an 

inherently permanent structure (such as a wind-driven generator or a utility-size solar facility). Many renewable 

energy facilities meet the requirement for inherent permanence: the facilities are attached to real property (e.g., land, 

buildings, parking canopies) and will ordinarily remain affixed indefinitely. The IRS has accepted the REIT-ability 

of many classes of non-building structures that conduct or store commodities such as electric and gas distribution 

assets because those assets are inherently permanent. At the same time the IRS has denied REIT treatment for 

similarly permanent assets that produce a commodity, such as renewable energy facilities. The distinction that the 

IRS draws between conduit/storage assets and productive assets is a distinction first imposed when the original 

REIT regulations were adopted in 1962. Since the distinction is not driven by the statute or by Congressional intent, 

the IRS can, by regulation alone, enable renewable energy REITs that invest in inherently permanent facilities.

11 A Revenue Rulings represents the IRS's interpretation of how the law applies to a particular set of facts. Unlike a 

PLR, which technically applies only to the taxpayer that requested it, a revenue ruling applies to all taxpayers with 

the same facts. 
5 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1.2 Master Limited Partnerships

1.2.1 Background and Current Status

In 1980, the top tax rate on corporate income was 46% and the top tax rate on individual income 

was 70%. Private partnerships were taxed at the individual level only, while investors owning 

shares in a public corporation were double taxed—both corporate and individual taxation.12

Apache Oil Company launched the first publicly-traded partnership in 1981, and the taxadvantaged structure rapidly gained popularity. The partnership was not subject to U.S. federal 

income tax as a corporation, so partners were only taxed at the individual level. In addition, 

unlike previous partnerships, Apache began trading on the established securities market with 

broad, attractive access to public capital, as a wider range of investors could participate in an 

investment opportunity that was more affordable and more liquid than a private partnership 

(NAPTP 2013). 

Restaurants, amusement parks, the Boston Celtics, hotels, and other businesses began shifting to 

operate as MLPs. Between 1981 and 1987 there were over 100 MLP initial public offerings

(IPO) (Fenn 2011). Fearing corporate tax avoidance and expanding erosion of tax revenue, in 

1987 Congress enacted IRC Section 7704 (26 USC 7704), which treats partnerships whose 

interests are traded on a securities market as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes.13

Subsequently, many of the real estate owning entities became REITs,

14 while other MLPs went 

private, were acquired, or otherwise abandoned the MLP structure.

MLPs, referred to as publicly traded partnerships in the Code, are not required to pay corporate 

taxes, provided that 90% or more of income generated is derived from specific sources. The 

general categories of qualifying sources of income are: 

• Interest, dividends, and capital gains 

• Rental income and capital gains from real estate15

• Income and capital gains from natural resources activities

o Natural resources include oil, gas, petroleum products, timber, etc.

 

12 In a “traditional corporate structure,” corporate profits are subject to corporate federal income taxes, and 

shareholders of the corporation are (usually) subject to personal federal income taxes when they receive dividends or 

distributions of those profits. Thus, there is a double layer of taxation, or double taxation.

13 Revenue Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-203), §10211(a). Congress made IRC Section 7704 prospective only and allowed 

master limited partnerships that were in existence prior to the effective date of this provision to retain partnership 

status as long as they do not substantially expand or terminate their business activities. 14The REIT structure is often viewed as more attractive to investors from a tax compliance perspective. Jeff Eckel, 

CEO of the REIT Hannon Armstrong states, “A REIT is friendlier to investors than an MLP. Investors get simple 

1099 forms at year end with the amount of their dividends. They do not have to fuss with complicated K-1 forms 

reporting cash distributions, allocations of various kinds of income, capital accounts, outside bases and the like 

(Chadbourne, 2013).” In addition, investors in MLPs are considered engaged in business in the states where the 

MLP does business and have to file state tax returns.

15 There is an interesting intersection between the REIT and MLP provisions of the Code: income from real 

property—rents, interest, and gains—are good income under the MLP provisions because the MLP provisions 

expressly adopt the REIT definitions of rent, income, and gains. 
6 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

o Natural resource activities include gathering, processing, pipelines, etc. 

• Income from commodity investments 

• Capital gains from sale of assets used to generate the above types of income. 

The above sources can generally be divided into two categories: various forms of passive 

income, such as rent, dividends, and interest; and exhaustible natural resources, such as mining 

or transporting minerals or timber. In the 1988 amendments to IRC Section 7704, Congress 

included language in the definition of qualifying income intended to clarify that it does not 

include income and gains from renewable energy sources.16 “Congress said that 'fishing, farming 

. . .[and] hydroelectric, solar, wind, or nuclear power production' are not activities that deal in 

minerals or natural resources. Inexhaustible resources, even if natural resources, do not qualify. 

Examples of inexhaustible resources are soil, sod, turf, water, air and minerals from sea water. 

Thus, wind farms, solar power plants and hydroelectric projects are generally not suitable assets 

for MLPs" (Martin 2006).17

Currently, avoiding double taxation through reliance on the partnership provisions of the U.S. 

income tax code may still be attractive. As of the date of this publication, from a regulatory 

perspective, the U.S. corporate federal income tax rate is 35%, the tax rate on dividends is 15% 

to 20%, and individual tax rates range from 10% to 39.6%. 

A prime example of an MLP in today’s public marketplace is an energy pipeline operator that

moves crude oil, natural gas, and refined petroleum products through its network of pipelines. 

The MLP is paid fees based on pipe capacity and volumes transported, not on the price of the 

underlying commodity in the pipe. Pipeline building requires significant capital, resulting in a 

captive market for customers and a barrier to competition. More successful MLPs are often 

paired with a sister corporation, which builds and then sells the qualifying source assets to the 

MLP, taking on the commodity and construction risk to the benefit of the MLP. As commodity 

demand rises, the MLP’s earnings and dividends grow. The MLP can grow as well by acquiring 

the income from other pipelines or building new pipelines. 

MLPs generally distribute their income to the unit holders on a quarterly basis18 and are 

characterized as having relatively low risk with relatively high yields (5% to 10%). Distributions 

are usually treated as tax deferred return of owner capital, lowering the owner’s tax basis while 

taxing gains only upon the sale of units. 

As illustrated in Figure 2, more than 90% of MLP investment is currently in “natural resource” 

activity. Oil and gas dominate the sector, and with the rise in shale gas, the total market cap, and 

the oil and gas industry’s share of it, should continue to grow. 

 

16 Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-647), § 2004(f)(4). See also House Report 100-795, 

at 400 (1988), Senate Report 100-445, at 424 (1988). 17 Efforts have been made to structure MLPs that avoid qualified income issues by forming a series of partnerships 

which issue dividends from non-qualified sources of income, and that are partially owned by the MLP. Because the 

MLP receives the cash flow as a dividend, which is passive, instead of non-qualified income, it has changed the 

nature of the cash flow. These arrangements are very hard to structure and come with a series of complications. See 

Martin (2007) for more details. 18 Two upstream MLPs, Linn and Vanguard, have adopted monthly distributions.
7 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 2. MLP market cap by sector

Source: NAPTP (2013) 

In summary, the MLP structure, by avoiding double taxation via federal partnership tax rules, 

deferring taxes, and providing access to a broad investor base through reliance on the public 

securities markets, provides a lower cost of capital than a traditional public corporation structure 

or a private partnership, which is crucial for a capital intensive industry. Assets with relatively 

low returns can be built while still providing an adequate yield for investors. MLPs distribute all 

available cash, which is attractive to investors seeking income with little investment risk, such as 

pensioners. 

1.2.2 Proposed Changes of “Qualifying Income” for MLPs

The renewable energy industries, particularly businesses that own and operate residential- to 

utility-scale solar photovoltaic assets, share many of the characteristics of the oil and gas pipeline 

business. Income is steady per asset deployed and is based on a long-term contract in the form of 

a power purchase agreement or equipment lease agreement. Income is often based off of the 

regional regulated utility rates for electricity. Upfront capital expense is intensive and operations 

and maintenance expenses are relatively low, making the cost of capital particularly important to 

a project’s economics. The solar energy industry, like the shale gas industry, has been growing 

rapidly in recent years, with annual installations growing from 160 MW in 2007 to 3,341 MW in 

2012 (Sherwood 2009, Sherwood 2013). Given the significant benefits associated with the MLP 

structure, many within the renewable energy industry are advocating for the ability to use the 

structure.

Presently, a limited amount of renewable energy assets are owned by publicly traded 

partnerships. In fact, solar energy systems can be found at most remote pipeline gathering 

locations, providing energy to the data and telemetry systems crucial to pipeline operations. 
8 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

However, if 10% or more of the partnership’s income is derived from renewable energy,

19 then it 

will not qualify as an MLP, and thus must pay corporate taxes. 

A PLR by the Internal Revenue Service dated February 19, 2008, analyzes the issue of MLPs 

and renewable energy power production (IRS, PLR- 200821021). The petitioner was intending 

an initial public offering as an MLP based on power plants fueled by various renewable energy 

resources. The letter refers to the Senate Report accompanying the Technical and Miscellaneous 

Revenue Act of 1988 that clarified that “qualifying income does not include, for example, 

income from ... hydroelectric, solar, wind, or nuclear power production.” The PLR made explicit 

that income derived from the sale of electrical energy generated using renewable resources not 

previously listed, such as geothermal energy and wood chips from timber, were not qualifying 

income. 

An act of Congress is necessary to open up the MLP structure for broader inclusion of renewable 

energy assets.

20 Several proposals have been discussed (including removing MLPs from the 

Code altogether). However, the most prominent efforts include the bipartisan MLP Parity Act, 

first introduced in June 2012 by Senators Chris Coons (DE) and Jerry Moran (KS). The bill was 

later re-introduced on a bipartisan basis into the new congress in April 2013 by Senators Chris 

Coons (DE), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jerry Moran (KS), and Lisa Murkowski (AK). 

As written, the proposed bill changes the definition of qualified income to include income 

derived from energy technologies that qualify under Sections 45 and 48 of the Code (production 

tax credit and investment tax credit, respectively), which are primarily renewable energy 

technologies, such as wind, solar, and geothermal. The proposed bill also includes income from 

“green” investments such as energy efficiency; grid-connected electrical energy storage; carbon 

capture and sequestration; and production, transportation and storage of renewable fuels and 

chemicals (Coons 2013). 

If the Code is revised to permit renewable energy to use the MLP structure, such arrangement 

should not carry the perceived or apparent difficulties in reinterpreting its different sections with 

regards to real property and personal property, as in the case of the REIT business model 

(discussed in further detail in section 2). The MLP change would merely add power generation 

from renewable resources to the list of qualifying income activities. 

If the efforts to make income from renewable energy assets qualify under REIT and MLP rules 

are successful, the attractiveness of these investment vehicles will be dependent on the final 

language of the rule changes. While altering the definitions of qualified income under IRC 

Sections 7704 and 856 are paramount to this endeavor, other sections of the Code, and the 

private sector’s comprehension and comfort with these changes, will ultimately determine the 

success (or not) of using these proposed sources of capital for renewable energy assets.

 

19 In other words, if 10% or more of the partnership’s income is derived from renewable energy, then less than 90% 

would come from “qualifying sources.”

20 The exception to this is “rental income and capital gains from real estate,” which would be qualifying income

under the presumption that solar assets were to qualify as real property. Again, the likelihood of this happening is 

unknown.
9 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Considerations If Changes Are Made to REITs 

2.1 Joint Ownership

An important factor in any IRS ruling on whether solar property constitutes real property is how 

the asset is divided into real or personal property, if at all. It has been argued that a solar energy 

asset is a self-contained system which must work holistically to generate electricity. However, 

within this single system are many different components and materials, such as modules, 

inverters, conduit, and racking. In its real property PLRs, the IRS typically concludes that some, 

but not necessarily all, of a project’s assets are real property. For example, Revenue Rule 75-424, 

1975-2 C.B. 269 (IRS 1/27/12) concerns which components of a microwave transmission system 

are real estate assets. In the ruling, the IRS determined that the transmitting and receiving tower 

itself was real property. However, the transmitting, multiplex, and receiving equipment, which 

did not require external support to operate, were held to be assets accessory to the operation of a 

business and, therefore, were not real property.

If a portion of the solar property causes the REIT to fail either the gross income or asset test, then 

a REIT would likely not be able to solely own the solar property and maintain its REIT status. 

Instead, a joint ownership structure could be instituted in which the REIT owns the real property, 

and a non-REIT owns the personal property. While this complicates financing, potentially 

increasing costs that could make the process uneconomical, this approach is currently used in at 

least one instance.

21 For example, the company “PowerREIT” operates in the solar energy space 

under current IRS guidelines by owning the land underneath solar energy systems. The company, 

which has closed transactions in Massachusetts and California, is able to pay for a portion of the 

initial capital structure of a solar energy asset (thus lowering the initial outlay by the solar 

property owner), and generate revenue through lease payments from the land. If a larger portion 

of the solar energy asset were classified as real property, then it is conceivable that a REIT could 

contribute that additional portion of the original capital structure as well. 

Certain complications may arise, particularly in the solar rooftop space, when connected assets 

are owned by different entities, for example, in the case of bankruptcy. This circumstance is 

common in the solar rooftop space due to third-party entities owning solar energy assets on other 

companies’ or homeowners’ roofs. There may be difficulties disentangling the solar asset and the 

roof in the event of default if they are both considered “permanent”. This becomes particularly 

problematic for balance of plant equipment, which may serve both the solar system and the 

building. However, to a certain degree, this has been solved for REIT ownership by the company 

Hannon Armstrong. Hannon Armstrong, which raised $167 million in an initial public offering

in 2013, is a REIT which primarily finances energy efficiency assets in buildings. Like plumbing 

and electric, energy efficiency assets are typically assimilated into the underlying building. In 

some instances, these buildings are owned by other entities, yet Hannon Armstrong was still able 

to structure these transactions to finance the ownership of the energy efficiency assets. It is 

believed that solar assets may also be able to find solutions to joint ownership in the event that 

only a portion is deemed real property. 

 

21 See, e.g., PLR 201323016 (holding land upon which a solar system was located was eligible for REIT ownership).
10 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2.2 Complications with Existing Tax Code

Designating solar assets as real property may cause unintended consequences that could 

significantly reduce the desired benefits of this new classification. Solar properties enjoy two 

prominent tax-related benefits: the investment tax credit (ITC), covered in IRC Section 48, and 

the five-year Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) depreciation schedule, 

covered in IRC Sections 167 and 168. The sections of Code that govern these benefits treat solar 

energy property primarily as tangible personal property. 

However, IRC Section 48(a)(1) and Treasury Regulation 1.48-1(c), which concerns federal 

investment tax credits, allows property on which a tax credit is claimed to be either “tangible 

personal property” or “other tangible property.” If a solar asset is designated real property, then it 

cannot be tangible personal property, but it has been argued that it could be considered “other 

tangible property.” In IRC Section 48, only certain types of real property are prohibited from 

receiving an investment tax credit, including buildings and structural components of buildings. If 

property serves as a “building component,” then it is part of the building and cannot be used for 

an ITC. However, if the asset provides a “special service,” it is not considered to be part of the 

building, and can receive the ITC while being treated as realty because its primary purpose is not 

building related, but energy related. The IRS has addressed “building components” for solar 

equipment in two separate PLRs (one involving a solar roofing membrane [PLR-200947027 

{August 11, 2009}], and one involving a solar collector for a window [PLR-201043023

{October 23, 2009}]). The IRS ruled in both instances that the property was not a building 

component, but rather performed a “special service,” meaning they could receive the ITC. 

Despite these rulings, there is still uncertainty over the matter, and solar owners and developers 

may be very concerned over the potential loss of such a large tax benefit.22

The depreciation schedule faces similar challenges. Real property is typically depreciated over a 

period of 27.5 or 39 years (or not depreciated at all, in the case of land). However, the relevant 

section of the Code23 states that all property eligible for the ITC,

24 including solar “equipment” 

(i.e., personal property), is also eligible to use the five-year MACRS depreciation schedule. If 

solar equipment is reclassified as real property, it may cast doubt as to which depreciation 

schedule is now most appropriate. 

Finally, the 1603 Treasury Program, which awards a cash grant in lieu of a 30% ITC, only gives 

grants on equipment, not real property. Businesses must have started construction of their asset 

before January 1, 2012; however, grants can be given to these projects placed in service before 

January 1, 2017. If a change in classification were made, this may affect projects which have not 

received a grant yet.

Because the Code is written to implement laws from the legislative branch, and these laws are 

not necessarily consistent, it also does not necessarily have to be internally consistent. It may be 

possible to conclude, based on legislative intent and judicial interpretations, that property that 

qualifies as real property for one purpose (e.g., REITs) may nonetheless qualify as personal 

 

22 However, this issue will be diminished if the tax credit reverts from 30% to 10% as scheduled in 2017. 23 168(e)(3)(B)(vi)(I) 24 Section 48(a)(3)
11 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

property for another purpose (e.g., depreciation). The way in which any change in classification 

is written will be important and may need further clarification by future rulings.

2.3 Structural Issues with Using Tax Benefits

Assuming that solar assets are eligible for using the five-year MACRS depreciation schedule and 

the investment tax credit, there are structural difficulties with REIT investors benefiting from 

such an arrangement. An advantage to forming a REIT is that the entity is only required to pay 

taxes on its undistributed taxable income, and because it is required to distribute at least 90% of 

its taxable income annually to its shareholders, and often distributes more, REITs pay little or no

income taxes. Therefore, the ITC may be of little value to a REIT, particularly if solar assets are 

a relatively large portion of its total asset base. In addition, a REIT cannot pass along the ITC to 

its unit holders because it is not a pass-through entity like a partnership, whose partners are 

allocated shares of the partnership’s income and losses (through a K-1 form); a REIT distributes

dividends to its unit holders, and the unit holders receive form 1099-DIV from the REIT at the 

end of the year showing their individual dividend income, which they then report on their tax 

return. In addition, to the extent a REIT distributes its taxable income to its shareholders, a pro 

rata portion of any investment tax credit it would otherwise be eligible to claim is disallowed.25

Unit holders of a REIT can benefit from the depreciation of its assets. Cash distributions by 

REITs are taxed in different ways depending on the price one paid for ownership in the REIT 

and the amount that the REIT’s assets have been depreciated. In fact, REITs are often thought of 

as tax-deferred investments because the cash distributions in initial years are not taxed due to 

depreciation expenses offsetting income at the REIT level, resulting in a non-taxable return of 

capital at the investor level. However, because the five-year depreciation schedule is so 

accelerated, the depreciation expense is often greater than a solar asset’s income, which 

generates a tax loss. Unit holders of a REIT are unable to take advantage of this loss by 

sheltering other income; they can only shelter the distribution they receive. Therefore, because 

these losses must be used in future years, much of the time value of the depreciation is lost. If 

solar assets were a significant portion of a REIT’s asset base, the REIT would either lose much 

of the benefit of the ITC and accelerated depreciation,

26 or need to structure a financial 

arrangement with an alternative equity source (tax equity provider), which would limit the 

amount of capital it could contribute.27 

Another option which companies are currently exploring is purchasing portfolios of solar energy

assets after their tax benefits are fully utilized (and the projects are allowed to be sold without 

 

25 See IRC Section 50(d)(1), which applies rules “similar to” IRC Section 46(e) effective prior to the date of 

enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990. Prior IRC Section 46(e)(1)(B) and (2)(B) limited the REIT to 

claiming a share of the ITC equal to the same pro rata share of taxable income that the REIT retained. The 

remaining portion of the ITC was disallowed. Further, if the REIT pays taxes on a smaller share of its income in any 

of the next four years, then the ITC it claimed may be subject to partial recapture. 

26 REITs can carry unused losses forward to reduce REIT taxable income in later years, though would lose some of 

its “time value.”

27 Certain financial arrangements (such as a partnership, or inverted lease) with a tax equity provider may also face 

complications due to a REIT’s tax classification. For example, if a tax equity provider entered a partnership with a 

REIT for the purpose of owning solar assets, the REIT may inhibit the tax equity provider from receiving the full 

ITC and benefits from the tax losses.
12 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

triggering the recapture rules in the Code). In doing this, a REIT would avoid the issue of how to 

use the tax benefits at the REIT level (since they were used by the prior owner), and thus have a 

portfolio of assets whose primary benefit is long-term stable cash flow (like other REIT asset 

classes). If REIT qualifications do change for solar, this may be one of the first strategies to be 

implemented. Conversely, because of the solar market’s rapid growth, not many solar projects 

are five years or older. A REIT could purchase a solar asset that received a Treasury grant (as the 

same recapture rules do not apply); however, the REIT acquisition must not have been planned 

as a method of circumventing the issue. 

2.4 Prohibited Transaction Tax on Electricity Sales 

A REIT cannot be used to own an operating business, and therefore, if it sells inventory, it is 

subject to a 100% tax on profits from the sale. Electricity is typically classified as inventory for 

companies that own generating assets and use them to generate electricity for sale (as opposed to 

leasing them to someone else). If electricity were to qualify as inventory for purposes of a solar 

asset, then its sale by a REIT would attract a tax equal to 100% of the REIT's net income from 

those sales.

28 In order for a solar REIT to generate revenues through power purchase agreements 

without it being a prohibited transaction, there would need to be a determination by the IRS that 

electricity generated by the REIT is not inventory, or Congress would need to pass legislation 

incorporating an exception into the rules (Congress passed this exception for the sale of timber in 

The Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008). An alternative would be to structure all 

transactions using a lease in lieu of a PPA. However, this practice is currently only used in the 

distributed solar space, and is likely to be problematic for a project contracted for a utility. 

2.5 Complications with Third Party Ownership

If solar assets were confirmed to be real property by the IRS, this could create uncertainty for 

current financing structures that use either leases or power purchase agreements (PPAs). Thirdparty businesses have gained significant market share in the United States, driving a considerable 

amount of distributed PV demand. For example, as noted in Figure 3, approximately 90% of 

residential systems installed in Arizona during 2012, and through the first half of 2013, were 

third-party owned. 

 

28 See section 857(b)(6)(A)
13 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 3. Percentage of residential PV capacity installed as third-party systems in select states

Source: Arizona Goes Solar (2013); CSI (2013); DOER (2013) 

Tax treatment of a lease as a true lease and not a capital lease or financed sale of the asset must 

meet certain requirements established primarily through case law. In 2001, the IRS reiterated its 

views on the factors supporting treatment of a lease as a true lease.29 Among these factors are 

issues relating to permanence: 1) the lease term cannot be more than 80% of the life of an asset; 

2) the owner must have a claim for the residual value of the asset; and 3) the lessor must have the 

ability to offer the services of the asset to someone else other than the lessee at the end of the 

lease. If it does not pass these tests, the leasing of the asset could be treated as a sale of the asset

to the lessee. A solar asset’s treatment as real property, and thus inherently permanent, might 

cause problems for a transaction passing the third, and possibly the second, test. 

2.6 Other Complications

Solar assets currently receive property tax exemptions in many states. These laws often treat

solar assets as personal property. This does not necessarily create a conflict with treating solar 

assets as real property for REIT purposes; federal and state laws often classify the same assets in 

different categories. Further, the REIT rules expressly state that local law definitions do not 

control for purposes of determining the definition of real property under the REIT rules.30 For 

example, many local laws classify property, such as machinery, as fixtures while federal law 

defines it as personal property. However, it should be identified as a potential complication, 

particularly in states and localities whose laws follow federal laws.

Finally, if solar assets are classified as real property, an investor in solar energy projects may 

incur tax on gains from the sale of such property under the Foreign Investors Real Property Tax 

Act (“FIRPTA”), as codified in Sections 897 and 1445 of the Code. In general, foreign persons 

are taxed in the United States only on investment income from U.S. sources and income that is 

 

29 See Rev. Proc. 2001-28. 30 See Treas. Reg. § 1.856-3(d).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Q4

'10

Q1

'11

Q2

'11

Q3

'11

Q4

'11

Q1

'12

Q2

'12

Q3

'12

Q4

'12

Q1

'13

Q2

'13

Q3

'13

% of Installed Capacity

Residential Systems

AZ CA MA
14 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by the foreign person. In 

contrast, gain from the sale of property is not generally subject to tax in the United States. 

However, FIRPTA changes the latter rule in the case of gains from the sale of U.S. real property 

and treats such gains as if they had been derived by the foreign person from a U.S. trade or 

business. The foreign seller of such property is subject to U.S. tax on the net gain from the sale, 

and the buyer is required to withhold 10% of the purchase price of the property and remit it to 

the IRS as a “prepayment” of the seller’s U.S. tax liability.

31 Thus, if solar is classified as real 

property, foreign investment in projects will also be subject to these rules, which may 

dampen investment.

 

31 Exceptions from this rule are available for certain investors who own interests in publicly traded REITs, or REITs 

in which foreign investors own in the aggregate less than 50% of the interests. However, applying these rules in 

practice is often difficult.
15 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 Considerations if Changes are Made to MLPs

3.1 Loss limitations for Investors

Investments in partnerships are much more complicated to track than investments in 

corporations. A partner’s investment in a partnership is tracked through two accounts. The first is 

the capital account, which represents the partner’s share of the equity contributed to the 

partnership. The second account calculates a partner’s outside basis, or the amount of a partner’s 

investment in his or her interest in the partnership. This amount determines how much gain (or 

loss) the partner would incur upon a sale of that interest. 

A partner’s capital account begins as the sum of the cash and the market value of any property

contributed by the partner to the partnership. A partner’s outside basis begins as the sum of the 

cash and the partner’s tax basis in property contributed by the partner to the partnership.32 Both 

amounts then increase by the amount of partnership income allocated to the partner and decrease 

by the amount of cash distributed and losses allocated to the partner. If the partnership has 

nonrecourse debt, then the partner’s share of this debt is added to his or her outside basis, and the 

partner’s share of any repayment of that debt is subtracted from his or her outside basis.33 These 

rules are particularly relevant to solar projects because the use of their accelerated depreciation 

schedule, and the potential use of debt, which can cause significant losses and low capital 

account and outside basis amounts in the first several years of a project.

If a partnership incurs an operating loss, partners who are individuals or closely-held 

corporations are subject to certain loss limitation rules in the Code that can prevent these 

investors from fully utilizing this loss. 

• Capital basis limitation: a partner cannot claim a loss to the extent it exceeds the 

amount in the partner’s capital account. When the capital account is reduced to zero, it 

means that for tax purposes, the partner has no capital invested in the partnership. The 

Code’s partnership rules do not allow a partner to claim losses beyond the partner’s 

equity investment in the partnership.34 

• At-risk limitation: Assuming basis is greater than zero, the partner’s capital must be at 

risk or the loss cannot be claimed. Capital may not be at risk if there are, for example, 

non-recourse loans, or loan guarantees that protect the investor’s capital. Like the capital 

basis limitation, this rule is designed so that a partner cannot receive benefits without risk 

in its investment. If the only capital at risk, for tax purposes, is non-recourse debt (in 

 

32 If a partner purchases his or her interest in the partnership from another person, outside basis starts as the amount 

paid by the partner for that interest.

33 Partnership-level nonrecourse debt does not affect the partners’ capital accounts. 34 Note, however, that there is an exception to this rule to the extent the losses are funded with nonrecourse debt 

allocated to the partner. This rule allows a partner to take deductions for losses that are funded with the partner’s 

share of nonrecourse debt (e.g., nonrecourse debt is used to purchase property that generates depreciation 

deductions) even if those losses exceed at some point the amount in the partner’s capital account (this amount is 

referred to as minimum gain). In return, as that debt is repaid, the partner is required to recognize gain equal to his or 

her share of the repaid debt (this amount is referred to as minimum gains chargeback income). The minimum gains 

chargeback income partially offsets the advantage of taking the depreciation expense.
16 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

which the debt is secured only by the project, not by the partners), then the partners are 

not entitled to benefit from the losses. 

• Passive loss limitation: Passive activity income can only be offset by passive activity 

losses. Passive activity is characterized as a partner who does not materially participate in 

the business. Other examples of passive income include rental income or investment 

income. Passive losses cannot be deducted from a partner’s earned income, such as a 

salary. To the extent passive activity income exceeds passive activities losses in a 

particular year, the excess loss is carried forward to future years. For publicly traded 

partnerships, a loss in one MLP cannot be used to offset income from a separate MLP, or 

any other investments generating passive income. 

The loss limitations are designed to prevent investors from using losses from investments, in 

which they are passive or in which they have no risk, to offset an investor’s income from other 

activities. These rules also apply to tax credits as well, meaning a partner of an MLP is limited to 

using tax credits it receives from the MLP to offset taxes owed on income it receives from 

investment in the same MLP. Currently, two of the main benefits of solar energy generation 

ownership are the tax losses associated with the accelerated depreciation schedule and the 30% 

ITC. Due to these loss limitation rules, it would be difficult for an individual or closely held 

corporate partner in an MLP to benefit from the accelerated depreciation and ITC without 

significant loss of the time-value of these benefits.35

3.2 Mixed Portfolio Considerations 

One method for avoiding the loss limitation rules to an MLP is to combine solar assets with other 

qualifying assets into one MLP. Losses and tax credits generated by a solar asset could be used 

to offset income and taxes owed from other assets, such as a natural gas pipeline, to the extent 

they are realized under the rules set forth above. Today’s MLPs are ordinarily focused on a 

specific niche business, and business focus is often viewed by the investment community as a 

characteristic of a well-managed business. However, MLPs are constantly evaluating their ability 

to grow the asset base and cash distributions. This may include, for example, addition of 

businesses that are directly related to the core business going beyond mere pipeline operations 

and adding various assets for gathering, processing, and shipping natural gas, natural gas liquids, 

and refined oil and gas products. Occasionally, the partnership may expand into an indirectly 

related business, such as fuel ethanol storage tanks, an asset category which was added as an 

MLP qualifying income source in The Energy Improvement and Extension Active of 2008. 

All else being equal, renewable energy businesses, such as third-party solar energy companies, 

may be attractive to those MLPs willing to evaluate them strictly as a growth opportunity that 

will add to the asset base, enhance depreciation charges, increase cash distributions to investors, 

and ultimately increase the distributions from the partnership. A diversified portfolio may 

achieve greater results through pairing certain types of assets (e.g., natural gas combined with 

hydroelectric power or solar combined with wind). A diversified portfolio may require more 

analysis of timing, tax avoidance, and cash flow benefits. 

 

35 Another complication with a partner in an MLP using the ITC is that if it sells its interest in the MLP during the 

first five years after a project is put in service, it will have a partial recapture of the ITC claimed on the project. 
17 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Market research might be able to gauge on a hypothetical basis whether existing MLPs or their 

investors would be interested in diversifying into renewable energy investments. Likewise, 

additional market research could help understand whether investors would be willing to invest in 

an MLP that is solely focused on renewable energy. Such studies could be useful for structuring 

transactions and compiling the prospectus in advance of an IPO, but ultimately, until several 

renewable energy MLPs are available to the market, the depth of investor interest cannot reliably 

be predicted. With that said, a similar business model has recently been deployed in the public 

capital markets by NRG. In July 2013, NRG Yield successfully raised over $400 million through 

an IPO, with a diversified portfolio of contracted renewable energy projects and conventional 

generation and thermal infrastructure assets in the United States.

36 NRG is in a unique position 

because it is one of the largest renewable energy and traditional energy asset owners in the 

United States. However, based on the IPO, public markets appear willing to invest in a mixedgeneration portfolio of assets, including solar. 

3.3 Partnership Tax Management Challenges

Financial reporting, tax accounting, corporate governance, and other compliance responsibilities 

of publicly traded entities can be quite complicated; even more so for MLPs. There are nuances 

that must be addressed differently from those entities taxed as corporations, beginning with the 

initial public offering and continuing into “normal operations.” Prior to an IPO, the various 

business structures and assets must be aligned for consistency in a pass-through environment. 

After the IPO, varying classes of equity such as common, preferred, and general partnership 

units must be tracked and managed. Continued growth and integration is also imperative to 

increase cash distributions to unit holders, demanding roll-ups, drop-downs, roll-outs, 

acquisitions, and divestitures. 

Managing a solar MLP has the potential to be even more complicated. Depreciation charges are 

one of the very attractive features in an MLP, sheltering income from tax. A partnership owning 

a solar or wind project is usually in a net tax loss position due to depreciation until the fourth 

year after the project is placed in service. Any excess depreciation is passed through to partners. 

They can carry it forward for up to 20 years. The excess depreciation is usually enough to shelter 

the income from a project for the first nine years after the project is placed in service (assuming 

they do not use the excess depreciation in earlier years). Assets like buildings and pipelines do 

not truly wear out, according to the schedules set forth by the IRS, but nonetheless, those long 

depreciation time frames allow for a long, steady return of capital to unit holders. Similarly, 

high-quality solar energy property is guaranteed by manufacturers to produce at more than 80% 

of its nameplate capacity after 25 years, while MACRS depreciation on the property is only five

years

 

36 A close review of the IPO prospectus for NRG Yield discloses that NRG Yield has developed a tax strategy to 

manage its taxable income in such a manner that, for a lengthy period of time, the bulk of its distributions to 

shareholders are treated as non-taxable returns of capital. Retaining the ability to distribute “return of dividend” nontaxable distributions will be difficult for NRG Yield given the manner in which accelerated depreciation and other 

beneficial tax attributes are effectively reversed in the “earnings and profits” account, an account which must be 

zeroed out (“cleansed”) in order to make return-of-capital distributions to shareholders. NRG Yield will have 

difficulty continuing to produce non-taxable distributions and it will be even tougher for others to replicate.
18 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

In the case of a third-party residential solar MLP, which manages and owns equipment on 

thousands of homes, each system would have a distinct tax fixed asset depreciation schedule, 

based on the date the equipment was placed in service. Managing all of these assets has the 

potential to complicate an already difficult accounting procedure. The responsibilities of a 

publicly traded partnership are well understood today by those active in the business, just as the 

responsibilities of managing a renewable energy company are well understood; the complexity 

will be in the marriage of these businesses.

3.4 Challenges to Attracting Investors to MLPs

Expanding the definition of “qualified income” to include income from solar assets would give 

the solar industry another vehicle in which to access public markets, thus potentially expanding 

the amount of capital able to be deployed in the industry, and ideally lowering the cost of this 

capital. However, current MLP laws also make it challenging for some investors as well, and 

their limitations would also apply for a solar MLP. First, unlike many forms of public 

investment, MLPs are partnerships, which have different accounting and reporting methods. 

Whereas a shareholder in a publicly-traded corporation might receive a 1099 stating either the 

gain or loss on shares for a given year, a unit holder in a partnership receives a K-1 form. The K1 form shows the investor’s share of each item of partnership income, gain, loss, deductions, and 

credits, and must be reported on the investor’s tax return. Additionally, for income from MLPs 

operating in multiple states, the investor will receive a state K-1 and may be required to file a 

state income tax return in each of those states with reported income. Further, MLPs must 

complete the partnership tax returns before the K-1 forms can be completed and sent to investors. 

Finally, K-1 amendments are frequent, and require amendments to individual taxpayer returns. 

Thus, many MLP investors find it necessary to request an extension for income tax filing. These 

unique investment characteristics specific to partnerships may disincentivize investment by 

average retail investors.

Because income from MLPs is often tax deferred, there is likely to be less inducement for 

investment from non-taxed accounts such as IRAs, 401(k)s, and other qualified retirement 

accounts. Further, if a tax-exempt entity invests in an MLP, the Code requires that they be 

treated as engaged in an "unrelated" trade or business and must pay taxes on the income as 

"unrelated business taxable income" (UBTI).37 All UBTI above $1,000 is taxed at the highest 

rate for a trust, currently 39.6% (NAPTP, 2013). A significant portion of U.S. investment is from 

tax-exempt entities, such as IRAs, universities, and pension funds. 

Foreign investors also have more complicated tax filing requirements when investing in an MLP. 

Foreign investors are required to file tax returns reporting their share of an MLP’s income and 

must withhold taxes at the highest applicable effective tax rate on MLP quarterly distributions. 

The foreign investors receive credit back on excess withholdings only after they have filed a U.S. 

federal tax return. 

The tax consequences, filings, and withholdings of MLP investment may discourage investment 

from less sophisticated investors, foreign investors, and non-profit organizations. While this 

would not be unique to a solar MLP, it should be recognized that allowing solar to qualify as 

 

37 Further complications may arise as tax exempt ownership typically inhibits a company from claiming an ITC.
19 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

“good income” for MLP purposes does not necessarily expand its potential investors to all U.S. 

public capital market participants.

3.5 Steady, Predictable Revenue

MLPs distribute cash on a quarterly basis, and MLPs generally predict, without guarantee, the 

amount of the quarterly distribution. Investors choosing the MLP vehicle often anticipate a 

steady distribution of cash from their investment. 

Production of electricity from solar assets is reasonably predictable and based on the equipment 

choice, angle, and positioning of the modules related to the path of the sun and other 

environmental and operational factors. However, production from solar is not steady throughout 

the year.38 If the customer agreements are based on actual production during each quarter, as 

opposed to levelized production over the year, the cash available for distribution each quarter 

will vary considerably. 

 

38 It should be noted that many businesses are seasonal, including natural gas pipelines. This may support the idea of 

bundling different asset classes into one MLP or REIT to potentially avoid peaks and troughs.
20 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Comparison of Solar MLP/REIT Investment to 

Traditional MLP/REIT Investment

Investment decisions are traditionally determined by an individual investor’s specific balance of 

desired risk and return. U.S. Treasury securities are globally liquid and considered riskless 

because they are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The remainder of the 

risk spectrum generally involves a range from money market funds and high-quality bonds to 

high-risk equities. MLPs and REITs have returned relatively high yields for their volatility 

compared to other investment choices over the last decade. Risk and return are typically 

considered highly correlated. In other words, the riskier an investment, the higher its expected 

return must be to attract investors. As compared to other investment classes in Figure 4, MLPs 

and REITs have higher returns than other investments with similar volatility (i.e. standard 

deviation, or risk), and have lower volatility than investments with similar returns. These

attractive qualities of MLP and REIT securities has caused demand from investors and produced 

a relatively large and stable investment industry.

Figure 4. Returns and standard deviation across asset classes

Source: finance.yahoo.com. Annual returns and standard deviation of annual returns based on adjusted close for 

stocks and indices with proxies of asset classes as follows: emerging markets (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets

[pricing only available from 2004-12]); fixed income (iShares Core Total US Bond Market ETF); MLPs (Alerian 

MLP Index); REITs (iShares Dow Jones US Real Estate); utilities (PHLX Utility Sector [pricing only available from 

2004-12]). 

Note: much of volatility in REIT return is due to the housing market crisis in 2007-08.

One of the advantages to expanding the eligibility of REITs and MLPs to include solar 

equipment is that solar development would have access to an entire industry of lawyers, 

financiers, and investors with the understanding, and experience, to deploy billions of dollars in 

capital efficiently and effectively through REITs and MLPs. In theory, by tapping into this 

knowledge-base and infrastructure, the solar industry will be able to more easily and more 

cheaply deploy assets.
21 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Certain characteristics of the solar industry differ from assets which have traditionally been 

financed in MLP or REIT vehicles. Most significantly, unfamiliarity with the asset class will 

require investors to be educated about the nuances of the industry. The U.S. solar industry has 

grown rapidly in recent years; 70% of total installed capacity came on-line in 2011-2012 alone 

(Sherwood 2013). Because it is a much newer asset class than the housing market, for example, 

there may be more perceived investment uncertainty, and thus riskiness, making solar REITs or 

MLPs more expensive than their more traditional counterparts. However, over the past 30 years, 

potential investors have been educated on the risk and return profiles of new asset classes, and as 

a result MLP and REIT securities have been issued in enterprises such as ethanol storage, 

cemeteries, fertilizer, and carbon dioxide, among others. Perceived riskiness of solar assets 

should decline over time through additional information provided to investors, such as the credit 

quality of PPA (or lease) countersigners, expected lifetime of asset, and the production and 

volatility of cash-flows from solar investments. Further, new production forecasting methods are 

in development to better estimate a solar asset’s electricity production, which will also reduce 

uncertainty.

It can be argued that the underlying risk of owning a solar asset is equivalent to or lower than 

many traditional MLP and REIT asset classes. The revenue stream of a midstream oil and gas 

MLP has potential volatility due to the current and future price of natural gas. A certain portion 

of its income is derived from the volume of natural gas processed and transported; if there is an 

increase in natural gas price, demand can fall leading to a reduction in income for the midstream 

MLP. If natural gas prices rise in the future, this could also impact a midstream MLP’s ability to 

renew or replace existing agreements. Furthermore, a midstream MLP faces the risk of 

government regulatory action, disaster (such as hazardous material spill or loss of life, man-made 

or otherwise), and higher than expected operations and maintenance costs. Finally, midstream 

MLPs have contracting risks due to the underlying creditworthiness of their customers and their 

ability to negotiate long-term contracts. As shown in Table 1, some natural gas pipeline contracts 

may be structured with durations longer than 10 years; however, other MLP sectors have much 

shorter average underlying contract lengths. 
22 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table 1. Midstream MLP Business Profiles

Cash 

Flow 

Stability

Type of Business Contract Length Revenue Type Type of Customers

Very 

High Natural gas pipelines 10+ years

Rental fee/"Ship-orpay"

Gas distributors, 

utilities, producers, 

marketers and others

Crude oil pipelines 5-10+ years Rental fee/Volume Refiners, producers, 

financials

Storage 3-5 years Rental fee/Volume Utilities, marketers, 

financials

Refined prod. 

pipelines 1-5 years Rental fee/Volume Refiners, marketers

NGL pipelines 1-5 years Rental fee/Volume Petrochemical plants, 

producers

Gathering

Ranging from 

month-to-month 

to life of lease 

dedications

Rental fee/Volume Producers

Fractionation

Typically shortterm contracts 

but trending 

more long-term

Fee-based/"Frac-orpay" Producers

Rail 1-5 years Fee-based/Distance Refiners, producers

Terminals 1-3 years

Volume/Ancillary

services Refiners, financials

Processing

Month-to-month 

to life of lease 

dedications

Fee-percar/Distance Producers

Marine Shipping 1-3 years

Fee-based/Indexed 

charter rates

Refiners, petrochemical 

companies, integrateds, 

marketers

Very 

Low E&P - Market 

rates/Hedging Midstream operators

Source: Maresca et al. (2013)

Appendix A highlights some of the risks given by the MLP Tallgrass Energy Partners in its 

recent initial public offering, as may be compared to those of a solar investment. 

A REIT which owns commercial property also has inherent investment risk. The underlying 

value of commercial properties is subject to change due to changes in population, employment, 

or ownership trends. This has a direct effect on a REIT’s ability to maintain and renew long-term 

leases and manage the creditworthiness of their customers. REITs are also subject to costs 

beyond their control, such as regulatory developments that affect their ability to dispossess or 

evict an occupant or increase rent. These costs can also include increases in real estate taxes, 

fees, insurance premiums, litigation costs, compliance costs, and any unforeseen environmental 

or structural issue with a building or property. 

A solar MLP or REIT would have a similar, or perhaps lower, risk profile to their traditional

counterparts. Like a natural gas pipeline, a solar energy asset has a degree of revenue volatility 

due to underlying annual and seasonal weather variability. The ability of a solar REIT to replace 

or renew existing agreements is similarly dependent on future competitive pricing. There is also 
23 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

the risk of future regulatory action, though the chance of a disaster is far lower for a solar facility 

than a natural gas pipeline or other midstream operations. Increased operations and maintenance 

costs are also less, due to fewer moving parts in a solar asset compared to a building or pipeline. 

With an expected life exceeding 30 years, a solar energy system typically has a long contract 

length compared to other industries using MLPs or REITs, with power purchase agreements (or 

leases) ranging from ten to twenty-five years. Finally, the underlying revenue stream of an asset 

is dependent upon the creditworthiness of its customer. Large solar energy systems often have 

agreements with regulated utilities; 99% of the public utilities rated by Moody’s and Fitch were 

investment grade (UWEB 2012). Transactions in the residential solar energy space are made 

with homeowners, with varying degrees of credit. However, most financing agreements, thus far, 

have required the homeowner to possess a minimum credit score of 680 to 700 (Marciano 2013). 

In summary, while there are risks associated with solar energy systems, they are reasonably 

similar and, in several aspects, less risky than many industries currently financed through MLP 

and REIT structures. In addition, perceived investment risk within the solar industry should 

decrease over time with increased information available to investors on asset and 

investment performance. 
24 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Conclusion

MLPs and REITs have the potential to lower renewable energy assets’ high cost of capital 

because of their ability to access public markets and the avoidance of double taxation. In order 

for MLPs and REITs to own a meaningful amount of solar energy assets, the IRS would have to 

change its definition of what qualifies as real property (for REITs) or legislation must be passed 

by Congress to change the definition of “qualifying sources of income” for MLPs. 

The details of these changes, if they were to happen, could play an important part in determining 

the success with which MLPs and REITs are adopted to own solar energy assets, due to the 

current complexities within the Code and the investment profile of solar energy assets. Financing 

solar equipment under the REIT structure may face challenges in maximizing the benefits of the 

accelerated depreciation schedule and the investment tax credit (though this is expected to 

become less of an issue in the future as installed prices—per watt—fall, and the tax credits 

expire). There may also be conflicting dynamics with current leasing practices within the solar 

market, foreign investment, and state property tax laws, if solar equipment is determined to be 

real property. MLPs also face complications due to loss limitation rules; the accounting and legal 

complexities of structuring MLPs; and the added tax procedures for retail investors, non-profits, 

and foreign investors. 

If these challenges are overcome, investors may be convinced to make investments in solar

MLPs or REITs because the underlying risk of owning a solar asset is equivalent to or lower than

many traditional MLP and REIT asset classes, while offering the same predictable cash flows.

Expanding the eligibility of REITs and MLPs to include solar equipment would also give the 

solar industry access to an entire industry of lawyers, financiers, and investors with the 

understanding, and experience, to deploy billions of dollars in capital efficiently and effectively 

through REITs and MLPs. In theory, by tapping into this knowledge base and infrastructure, the 

solar industry will be able to more easily and more cheaply deploy assets, helping the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s goal of solar achieving grid-parity with traditional sources of electric 

generation (DOE 2011). 
25 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

6 References

Arizona Goes Solar. (2013). Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project installation data. 

http://arizonagoessolar.org. Accessed October 2, 2013. 

California Solar Initiative (CSI). (2013). “California Solar Statistics.” 

http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/. Accessed September 30, 2013. 

Coons, Christopher. (2013). “The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act.” Accessed August 8, 

2013: http://www.coons.senate.gov/issues/master-limited-partnerships-parity-act. 

DOE. (2011). “DOE Pursues SunShot Initiative to Achieve Cost Competitive Solar Energy by 

2020.” Accessed September 25, 2013: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/news_detail.html?news_id=16701. 

Feldman, D.; Mendelsohn, M.; Coughlin, J. (2012). The Technical Qualifications for Treating 

Photovoltaic Assets as Real Property by Real Estate Investment Trusts. NREL/TP-6A20-55396. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed March 27, 2013: 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55396.pdf. 

Fenn, T. (2011). “MLP IPO Trends.” Midstream Business. 

Internal Revenue Service. (October 24, 2011). IRS PLR 201204006. Accessed 2013: 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1204006.pdf. 

Internal Revenue Service. (August 11, 2009). IRS PLR 200947027. Accessed 2013: 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0947027.pdf. 

Internal Revenue Service. (October 23, 2009). IRS PLR 201043023. Accessed 2013: 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1043023.pdf. 

Internal Revenue Service. (July 30, 2012). IRS PLR 201323016. Accessed 2013: 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1323016.pdf. 

Internal Revenue Service. (February 19, 2008). IRS PLR 200821021. Accessed 2013: 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0821021.pdf. 

Internal Revenue Service. (2013). “IRS Publication 925, Passive Activity and At-Risk Rules.” 

Accessed September 25, 2013: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Publication-925,-Passive-Activity-andAt-Risk-Rules. 

Kogan, K. (2012). “Can REITs Invest in Renewable Energy Projects?” Bloomberg BNA: Daily 

Tax Report.

Marciano, J. (May 17, 2013). “The March Toward Securitzation and SolarCity's $500 Million 

Goldman Transaction.” Chadbourne & Parke Project Finance News. Accessed August 14, 2013: 

http://www.pfnewswire.com/2013/05/the-march-toward-securitzation-and.html. 
26 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Maresca, S.; Kad, R.; Sheikh, S.; Lasky, B. (2013). Midstream Energy MLPs Primer 3.0. 

Morgan Stanley Research. 

Martin, K. (2006). “Master Limited Partnerships.” Chadbourne & Parke Project Finance News: 

March 2006. 

Martin, K. (2007). “A New Structure for MLP Roll Ups.” Chadbourne & Parke Project Finance 

News: January 2007. 

Martin, K. (2013). “New Financing Strategies.” Chadbourne & Parke Project Finance News: 

August 2013. 

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER). (2013). “RPS Solar Carve-Out 

Qualified Units.” http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/rps-aps/solar-carve-outunits.xlsx. Accessed September 30, 2013. 

National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships (NAPTP). (2013). “Master Limited 

Partnerships 101: Understanding MLPs.” Accessed August 8, 2013: 

http://www.naptp.org/documentlinks/Investor_Relations/MLP_101.pdf. 

National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships (NAPTP). (2013a). “REIT Industry 

Timeline.” Accessed August 8, 2013: http://www.reit.com/timeline/timeline.php. 

National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT). (2013). “REIT Industry 

Timeline.” Accessed August 8, 2013: http://www.reit.com/DataAndResearch/US-REITIndustry-MarketCap.aspx. 

National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT). (2013a). “US REIT Industry 

Equity Market Cap.” Accessed August 8, 2013: http://www.reit.com/DataAndResearch/USREIT-Industry-MarketCap.aspx.

Oppenheimer Funds. (2011). “Master Limited Partnership Primer: Understanding an Emerging 

Asset Class.”

Revenue Procedure 2001-28 - Leveraged Leases. (2001). Accessed September 25, 2013: 

http://www.novoco.com/energy/resource_files/irs_guidance/rulings/proc_01-28.pdf. 

Sherwood, L. (2009). U.S. Solar Market Trends 2008. Interstate Renewable Energy Council 

(IREC). Accessed 2013: http://irecusa.org/irec-programs/publications-reports. 

Sherwood, L. (2013). U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012. Interstate Renewable Energy Council 

(IREC). Accessed 2013: http://irecusa.org/irec-programs/publications-reports. 

Eugene Water & Electric Board (UWEB). (2012). “Memorandum to Commissioners, Subject: 

Credit Ratings History and Context.” Accessed August 16, 2013: 

http://www.eweb.org/public/commissioners/meetings/2012/120904/Corr_CreditRatingHistoryan

dContext.pdf. 
27 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

U.S. Congress. 26 United States Code (USC) 856 - Definition of real estate investment trust. 

U.S. Congress. 26 USC 46 – Amount of credit. 

U.S. Congress. 26 USC 50 – Other special rules.

U.S. Congress. 26 USC 48 - Energy Credit. 

U.S. Congress. 26 USC 7704 - Certain publicly traded partnerships treated as corporations. 

U.S. Congress. 26 USC 168 - Accelerated cost recovery system. 

U.S. Congress. 26 USC 857(b)(6)(A) - Taxation of real estate investment trusts and their 

beneficiaries.

U.S. Congress. (1988). House Report 100-795, at 400. 

U.S. Congress. (1987). Revenue Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-203), §10211(a). HR 3545. 100th

Congress, first session. H 100-495. 

U.S. Congress. (1988). Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-647), 

§2004(f)(4). HR 4333. 100th Congress, second session. H 100-1104. 

U.S. Congress. (1988). Senate Report 100-445, at 424. 

U.S. Congress. Treasury Regulation 1.856-3(d) Definitions – Real Property.
28 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix A

The table below summarizes several risk factors recently published in an initial public offering 

prospectus for a natural gas transportation and storage services partnership, Tallgrass Energy 

Partners, LP. It indicates whether there may be a corollary risk factor for a hypothetical solar 

energy partnership. 

Table A-1. Comparison of Midstream Energy Partnership and Corollary Solar Energy Partnership 

Risk Factors 

Midstream Energy Partnership Risk Factor Corollary Solar Energy Partnership Risk Factor

Level of firm transportation and storage capacity 

sold and the volume of natural gas we transport, 

store and process.

Solar energy sold to a subscribed customer would 

be based on sunshine, not market or consumer 

demand, once the initial contract is executed.

Level of production of oil and natural gas and the 

resultant market prices of natural gas and NGLs. 

Depending on sunshine, the level of production is 

reasonably established at the initial contract.

Market prices influence new contracts only.

Actual and anticipated future prices of natural gas 

impacting ability to renew and replace agreements. 

Actual and anticipated future prices of electricity 

may impact the ability to extend the power 

purchase or lease agreement with a host.

Regulatory action affecting supply, demand, rates, 

operating costs, operating flexibility, or method of 

contracting.

Regulatory action could affect rates, operating 

costs, or method of contracting.

Effect of seasonal variations in temperature on the 

amount of natural gas transported, stored, 

processed, and treated.

Temperature effects would be minimal; however, 

the amount of sunshine each quarter may differ 

materially from the longer term average forecast.

Competition from other midstream energy 

companies. 

Competition would be material for signing up new 

solar customers, but would not impact current sold 

properties and the underlying revenues.

Customer creditworthiness. Customer creditworthiness.

Operating and maintenance costs. Although the solar industry is less mature, the 

technology has far fewer moving parts and labor 

requirements than the natural gas industry.

Damages to equipment and properties from natural 

disasters and acts of terrorism.

Solar properties may face similar natural disaster 

risks, and vandalism in place of terrorism.

Outages at processing facilities, requiring extended 

and complex repairs.

Solar facilities may experience outages, with the 

inverter being a weaker link. Repair timing and 

complexity could be comparable to a home HVAC 

system or hot water heater.

Leaks or accidental releases of hazardous 

materials into the environment.

Not a risk factor for solar.

Cost of acquisitions affecting actual cash available 

for distributions, debt service requirements, etc.

Similar risk factor for solar.

Extent to which customers are willing to contract on 

a long-term basis. 

Solar faces a similar risk as the technology 

matures, customer profiles change, competition 

continues to increase, and power prices fluctuate.

Poor acquisition choice and assumptions. Similar but lower risk anticipated given low 

technology complexity, established records for 

operation, no environmental liability, etc.

Price and availability of other forms of energy. Solar energy rates are approaching grid parity as 

the technology adoption expands rapidly. Should 

another technology accomplish a similar path, it 

could present a risk to solar energy.

Increased costs to explore for, develop, produce, 

gather, process, and transport natural gas.

Solar enjoys a relatively steady profile for energy 
29 

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

production. After the first 25 years of operation,

solar modules continue to produce at more than 

80% of original capacity.

Nature and extent of, and changes in, 

governmental regulation such as greenhouse gas 

legislation.

Solar energy is likely to receive favorable treatment 

under greenhouse gas legislation.

Hazards that result in personal injury and loss of 

life. 

Solar energy requires fewer employees and they 

are exposed to materially fewer risks than those 

employees working in the natural gas industry.