Q&A: Outlook for renewable energy in the US

January 2022 | SPECIAL REPORT: ENERGY & UTILITIES

Financier Worldwide Magazine

January 2022 Issue

FW discusses the outlook for renewable energy in the US with Chris LeWand at FTI Consulting, Inc., Dan Sinaiko at Allen & Overy LLP, Nuno Andrade at Santander, Himanshu Saxena at Starwood Energy, and R. Andrew de Pass at Vitol Inc.

FW: Climate change and infrastructure are key to the Biden administration’s agenda. What are the key measures that will be taken to encourage the growth that is needed to achieve the administration’s ambitious targets for the industry?

Sinaiko: The most important aspects of the Biden agenda are threefold. First, extension of the existing production tax credits (PTCs) and investment tax credits (ITCs) for five to 10 years to create policy certainty around these incentives. Second, expansion of the credits to include new technologies at higher levels of availability. And third, direct pay of the tax credits to obviate the need for tax credit monetisation.

Andrade: I believe the key constraints to the development of renewable energy in the US are the availability of tax equity and the inadequate development of transmission. Any measures that aspire to accelerate the development of renewables need to address those issues. Not surprisingly, both the Infrastructure Bill and the Build Back Better (BBB) bill address these in a meaningful way, with a substantial amount of capital earmarked for transmission and the ability to claim direct pay. The tax incentives for storage on a standalone basis included in the BBB framework, and the supply-side push from the Infrastructure Bill on storage, will also be crucial to bring down that cost curve of solar plus storage, which is a very important part of the whole puzzle in this energy transition we need to accelerate.

de Pass: Extension of tax credits to include all forms of energy storage will be critical to achieve the administration’s ambitious targets for renewable energy generation. In addition, we should incentivise a clean capacity market to replace gas peakers over time. Practically, we do not need any more intermittent, non-baseload solar or wind generation. Regulators should insist that new build renewables are paired with energy storage to create a closer to baseload generation profile. If we do not, we will end up with the California ‘duck curve’ in many of the other independent system operators (ISOs); already the duck has migrated to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Finally, the administration should support research & development (R&D) for new energy storage technologies, including long duration storage. In the meantime, we need to be very careful not to force existing baseload or peaking generation to come offline – meaning gas plants – or we will face a public backlash if we have blackouts, energy shortages and so on.

Saxena: We believe in an ‘all of the above’ strategy to meet these ambitious targets. On one hand, this includes incentivising renewable generation sources such as wind and solar, but it also should include support for carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) projects. Thermal assets, mainly gas-fired power plants, will be needed for decades to come, and identifying ways to reduce their carbon footprint will be crucial to achieving any decarbonisation objectives. Investing in transmission development will also be needed to serve states that are not as rich in abundant solar or wind. Additionally, investments in renewable natural gas (RNG), renewable diesel (RD), ammonia and hydrogen are all going to be necessary to achieve this goal. This is what we would call an ‘all of the above’ strategy.

LeWand: The Infrastructure Bill provides critical support with a focus on e-mobility and electric vehicle (EV) charging, new technologies, energy efficiency, nuclear power and grid improvement. The measures in the BBB bill have the opportunity to ramp this up further and provide a major boost to the industry, mainly through the enhancement, extension and broadening of existing tax credit programmes and the creation of new tax credit programmes. The provisions in both represent windfalls for the industry and will be key to achieving the administration’s ambitious goals, but the devil will be in the detail on how these are implemented, who benefits and how much. Of course, the use of a direct pay mechanism will provide a key lift by removing barriers to entry for a variety of potential market participants.

“The cost of green hydrogen will need to come down materially – by around $2-plus per kilogram – for hydrogen to play a meaningful role in the energy transition in the US.”

— R. Andrew de Pass

FW: What would direct pay mean for the renewables sector and how would this be likely to be implemented in practice?

Andrade: Direct pay is huge – a game changer, really. If implemented correctly and in an efficient manner, it will allow capital to be deployed more quickly at a lower cost, including transaction costs, and more importantly would allow exploration of different debt structures. These could be more creative and more suitable for the projects we are seeing, which want more flexibility with respect to off-taker arrangements. I trust that in terms of implementation it can replicate the cash grant programme, even though back in the day there was a lot of talk about projects that should not have been built. I believe the dynamics in the current market are completely different, with renewables having the lowest levelised cost of energy (LCOE), so hopefully this will be less of an issue this time around.

de Pass: A direct payment option would allow taxpayers to receive a cash payment from the government equal to the credit value such as a PTC, ITC and 45Q, among others. Tax equity availability and complexity has always been a constraint for many developers and has curtailed renewable generation growth. Given the amount of tax equity required in offshore wind alone, the direct pay option will be a huge benefit for offshore wind developers and improve the probability that multiple GW of offshore wind actually get built. However, there are requirements that need to be met to elect the direct pay option, including domestic content and labour requirements. The requirements and a discount to the ITC should be substantial, but reasonable to keep the moral hazard in line.

LeWand: Direct pay would provide substantial additional funding to the sector, which will be critical to meet demand and keep growth on track. It will broaden access to financing beyond the tax equity market, support the development of newer technologies, facilitate the participation of tax-exempt entities in the sector and reduce structuring inefficiencies. There are some concerns around domestic content requirements and related potential haircuts under direct pay. Timing considerations for disbursements under direct pay will also be a key factor. On the flip side, the tax equity market and investors perform a vetting and due diligence function on projects which would not be the case under direct pay and begs the question as to whether direct pay may encourage riskier projects.

Saxena: The majority of renewable energy incentives are in the form of tax credits, whether PTC or ITC. For project owners that do not have a tax appetite, these tax incentives have to be monetised in partnerships with tax equity investors. Although the universe of tax equity investors has expanded somewhat over the years, the cost, availability and demands of tax equity investors remain a major hurdle for development of renewable energy assets. Additional demands on tax equity investors’ appetite, especially from 45Q tax credits for carbon capture, are likely to exhaust supply of tax equity capital in the market. Thus, as long as tax policy – as opposed to carbon tax and pricing – remains the primary tool for decarbonisation, simplifying this policy could be a game changer. One way to do that is to make these credits direct pay, which will reduce or remove the need for tax equity investors as intermediaries. It could be hugely beneficial to enable more projects to materialise. It could be implemented the same way as 1603 grants were implemented, and project owners, financiers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) all have significant past learnings to look to in order to ensure simpler implementation of direct pay.

Sinaiko: Direct pay would be helpful insofar as it will reduce the need for tax-efficient investors to monetise tax credits. Given the tax investment market is thin, this is an important policy objective. At the same time, direct pay will not help with the monetisation of depreciation, leaving potentially some role for tax-motivated investors. The details on how direct pay would be administered are a bit hazy. Taxpayers would not need to elect direct pay until after the tax credit would otherwise become available to the taxpayer. Beyond that, the rules on when payments will actually be made remain vague.

“Although the universe of tax equity investors has expanded somewhat over the years, the cost, availability and demands of tax equity investors remain a major hurdle for development of renewable energy assets.”

— Himanshu Saxena

FW: The M&A environment for solar and wind projects has become extremely competitive. What are the factors that are most important to acquirers, how are they differentiating themselves beyond cost of capital considerations and how are they seeking to optimise returns?

de Pass: We are seeing fewer renewables projects for sale as most independent developers in the US seek to build pipeline for a sale where valuation is predicated on probability weighted pipeline. For those projects that are for sale, one of the key considerations is what energy and renewable energy credit (REC) price curves are used post contracted period. With project life getting longer and power purchase agreements (PPA) periods shorter, such assumptions drive the ultimate returns. In this way, an internal rate of return (IRR) is meaningless without including the merchant tail price curves. Most projects today have significantly lower returns – often less than 5 percent, with realistic post PPA curves – buoyed by a consultant energy forecast to get the project back to acceptable returns. So, infrastructure funds and others rely on these curves to justify the investment. Regarding differentiation beyond cost of capital considerations, sellers do focus on the capitalisation and credit of the acquirer as well as the financing strategy for the project. Buyers that do not need third party tax equity or construction project finance have a leg up on other developers. Capitalisation and credit of buyer are both important to survive the current supply chain crisis.

Sinaiko: Most acquirers are looking for an opportunity to earn higher returns than the market for low-risk investments will allow in current conditions – this is particularly problematic with inflation becoming more of a concern. They are interested in stable cash flows, but increasingly willing to underwrite merchant exposures on projects that are ready to construct. To achieve higher returns, many investors are buying projects at earlier stages or acquiring functional development businesses. Other investors are offering development capital to support completion. We have also seen developers offering strategic assets, such as equipment or engineering, procurement & construction (EPC) contracting, to support the continued development of projects.

Saxena: Many acquirers are looking to build scale and diversification in their portfolios. Despite strong advances in forecasting methodologies, renewable projects are still subject to volatile cashflows. Well-diversified portfolios provide more reliable cashflows and are more financeable. Additionally, acquirers are continuing to mix acquisition of brownfield assets with acquisitions of development assets or development platforms. Adding greenfield assets to their portfolios increases risk, but also increases the likelihood of better returns. Additionally, better operation of these projects has become even more critical to squeeze out every ounce of returns these projects can offer. Finally, for projects with market risks, strong price risk management has become even more critical in this volatile commodity price environment.

LeWand: For development projects, an appropriate structure where there is an alignment of interests between the developer and the ultimate owner – whether through milestones or other mechanisms – is vital. Execution risk needs to be properly allocated and reflected in the transaction consideration. For operating projects, deep operational and technical due diligence is crucial, as is a review of the operating history of the asset. Commercial considerations including offtake structure, credit quality of PPA counterparties, PPA tenors and merchant exposure are key, as are production and operating assumptions regardless of the development stage of a given project. The evaluation of the merchant tail is important and approaches vary given that prices need to be projected far into the future. Assumptions on the tail can drive a more or less aggressive purchase price.

Andrade: Acquirers are very interested in long term PPAs with good counterparties with ‘as produced’ delivery. These have become more and more difficult to find, so for these types of assets it became a race to the bottom in terms of yield, and buyers started looking for larger platforms or assets that still have some development risk. So, the main differentiator we are seeing is buyers that can underwrite development risk or write big cheques to acquire larger platforms. We are seeing some getting deeper and deeper in the early development cycle, too. Another differentiating factor is the ability to be more comfortable with technologies that are less proven, such as waste to energy, different types of storage, and so on.

“We are very bullish about hydrogen. We believe it can be the missing piece of the energy transition. Our base case is that its deployment and implementation will be much quicker than some of the studies are saying.”

— Nuno Andrade

FW: The US dealt with its fair share of inclement weather in 2021, including a cold front in Texas, fires throughout the West and hurricanes in the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico – and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency. How are developers, investors and creditors adapting and seeking to mitigate this risk?

Saxena: Extreme weather events have further highlighted the need for prudent operations and market price risk management for these assets. Owners have to ensure their assets can run in severe weather, and that might require further investments in weatherproofing these assets. We are seeing owners install cold weather packages for new wind farms even in milder climates, just as insurance against extreme weather events. Additionally, prudent implementation of insurance products is becoming critical.

LeWand: Insurers experienced severe losses on natural catastrophe events in 2020 and 2021. With this anticipated to continue or worsen, insurers are expected to continue raising premiums on such policies. The market is extremely tight, with projects with significant climate-related exposure subject to steep premiums. Developers are already having to cope with significantly increased insurance costs and will want to factor climate and weather considerations into project planning, including project design and location. Sponsors with projects that have potential related exposure may look to insure such projects through a corporate policy or offset increasing premiums with reductions in other costs. Credit agencies are also incorporating climate resilience into their overall evaluation of creditworthiness, with companies that look to proactively address climate vulnerabilities likely to be rewarded on this count.

Andrade: From a creditor’s perspective, we always try to have the most robust insurance package possible, but we have seen the insurance market become less liquid for some types of peril. Given the size of projects, total loss events are very rare in this industry. The expectation is that only a portion of the project would be affected, so we are always dealing with a partial rebuild. That is at least the theory. We are also seeing corporate insurance programmes being used on top of the asset-specific insurance, and also self-insurance. The truth is that this risk is expanded to the overall economy: transition and physical risk will be the new norm in the future. Insurance providers might also rethink their models and see how they can play a bigger role in this field.

Sinaiko: We have seen some production insurance products in the marketplace, which are designed to assure plant production. To some extent, companies can mitigate risks through improved engineering and operational redundancies. Managing construction risks that relate to weather events is proving increasingly challenging, as the supply chain becomes stretched and the availability of human resources scarcer. Another real challenge for the market has been increasing insurance costs, which put more stress on the ability to mitigate climate risks.

de Pass: First, regarding the cold front in Texas and fixed shape hedges in ERCOT, the cost to project owners was enormous and has resulted in numerous distressed situations. As a result, the fixed shape hedge is largely dead as tax equity – creditors and even sponsors will not take such a risk again. That said, ‘as produced’ hedges are primarily available from corporate and institutional (C&I) PPAs and other direct PPAs, and luckily this market is growing exponentially. Second, regarding fires and the smoke they create, as well as hurricanes and generally wetter summers, these are impacting irradiance, and solar projects are underperforming. It seems logical that climate change will impact wind and irradiance forecasts based on historic information – if it gets hotter there will be less wind and more moisture, which means less sun. That said, in speaking to independent engineers, they will not yet commit to any link to weather underperformance and climate change.

FW: There has been much debate around green hydrogen and its potential role in the energy transition, although the sector is still nascent. How do you see this evolving? What are the challenges and opportunities?

Andrade: We are very bullish about hydrogen. We believe it can be the missing piece of the energy transition. Our base case is that its deployment and implementation will be much quicker than some of the studies are saying – probably boosted by massive amounts of public money that will be injected in some parts of the world to accelerate hydrogen deployment. We see a lot of similarities with technologies that we have pioneered financing in the past, and where we have seen the cost curve coming down at a faster pace than was previously anticipated. In fact, we have already executed some interesting M&A mandates in the space and are actively discussing project financing opportunities. The main challenges is the chicken and egg problem – to escalate the industry so the cost curve comes down. In terms of opportunities, there are already some sectoral and niche applications given that hydrogen storage play is more competitive against lithium-ion batteries. I believe we will start seeing some projects serving this area. How to finance a renewables project that is feeding a hydrogen plant is also more challenging for non-recourse financing, but it can be done and we continue to work on ideas.

Sinaiko: The biggest challenge with green hydrogen is distribution. Where will the product be created, what is the use case and how do you get it where it is needed? Some are believers in the hydrogen supply chain for the transportation sector, though hydrogen vehicles are in a battle with EVs for the sector’s soul, and EVs seem to be winning. On-site solutions that are not to scale can be interesting plays, but given the expense and size of projects like this, there are likely to be challenges to widespread adoption. The biggest opportunities may come with a solution that combines transportation with an overseas export solution, such as liquefaction and marine transport.

LeWand: There is tremendous potential for green hydrogen but it is going to take years for the full value chain to develop and become cost competitive, with each step subject to varying challenges. For example, infrastructure, such as natural gas pipelines, are insufficient for transporting hydrogen and new builds, along with retrofitting, will be required. However, the application potential is extensive and includes transportation, heating and as a resource for storing renewable energy at scale. When combined with renewable generation, green hydrogen can be produced and then used as needed instead of exporting electricity to the grid during periods of curtailment or if it is not economic to do so.

de Pass: The cost of green hydrogen will need to come down materially – by around $2-plus per kilogram – for hydrogen to play a meaningful role in the energy transition in the US. Europe is a different story, given the highly supportive subsidy and regulatory regimes. We will also need to build robust use cases for hydrogen, generally following the Michael Liebreich hydrogen use case ladder adapted for the US. That all said, to achieve our net zero targets, hydrogen will need to play an important role in the energy transition in transportation and mobility, industrial energy, building heat and power, storage and industrial feedstock. Cheap renewables, lower cost electrolyzers and viable transportation and logistics strategies will be key success factors. I guess I feel bad for the owners of all these ‘cheap’ renewables and their returns, unless they vertically integrate into hydrogen production.

Saxena: We expect not just green hydrogen, but also blue hydrogen – and blue and green ammonia – to play an important role in energy transition. This is critical not just for the power sector but also to decarbonise the transportation and industrial sectors. However, the cost to produce blue or green hydrogen is still prohibitive, and we are still a bit farther away from widescale commercialisation and use. Cost to produce has to come down, and the transportation and storage infrastructure has to be built before this will truly have an impact. The BBB bill that just passed the house has significant incentives for production of hydrogen, and we believe those incentives, combined with significant demand for hydrogen and ammonia, will enable this space to continue to evolve.

“Managing construction risks that relate to weather events is proving increasingly challenging, as the supply chain becomes stretched and the availability of human resources scarcer.”

— Dan Sinaiko

FW: Does platform M&A provide a more compelling investment thesis in the current market? What does the future hold for independent developers?

LeWand: There have been a great number of platform transactions in recent months, with still more platforms coming to market. Acquiring a platform provides a development engine for strategic and financial investors alike and in many cases an entrée into a new technology. This can be particularly attractive to aspiring market entrants as a ready-made way to make a push while reducing risk. In the current environment, with consolidation well underway, it will become harder for independent developers to compete with better-capitalised rivals. There are few independents remaining in the wind sector and solar appears to be following suit. It will be important for acquirers to allow their targets to remain nimble, motivated and incentivised, with management teams keeping significant ownership stakes. With that in mind there will likely be a number of newly acquired platforms that remain fairly autonomous from a day-to-day perspective but have the financial backing of major partners and benefit from other synergies. The trick will be not to kill the entrepreneurial approach which drives many of these platforms while effectively integrating them into larger organisations.

Sinaiko: Platform M&A is a prevalent strategy for reaching acceptable returns. It has merits as investors need to arrive early and place a number of bets to have favourable outcomes. Contrarily, entering into a process to buy NTP-ready projects seems to be a race to the bottom. An emerging risk around platform investment is availability of equipment and human resource – we are seeing these issues impair, if not unravel, a number of projects. Independent developers will likely need very strong backing from investors with deep pockets – smaller developers will likely be squeezed out of the market by peer firms that have access to critical resources and the scale needed to obtain procurement on reasonable terms.

de Pass: It seems like almost every independent developer in the US is for sale. Pipelines are exaggerated and teams are bloated as the bankers say this builds value. While I understand the ‘weight’ of capital and environmental, social and governance (ESG) rush to invest, platform M&A in the current environment is not compelling. Platforms are a function of the present value of the development fee – avoided in transition from developer to independent power producer (IPP) – for a project pipeline probability weighted. Correct deal structures include milestone payments as the pipeline progresses to NTP and COD, given the probability that many projects will fail in a large, multi-GW portfolio. In today’s market, buyers are paying too much cash up front. These Devcos are supported by development fees – in the case of IPPs by project cashflow – which are shrinking while many developers are simply overstaffed with these shrinking margins. Finally, it is absurd to think of Devcos with terminal values based on EBITDA multiples in the high teens. This euphoria will not end well.

Saxena: Platform M&A is tricky for a number of reasons. You are not underwriting actual projects, but underwriting a developer or management team. It is a crowded market and we are seeing probably a dozen developers for sale in this market. I believe the key is to identify platforms that share the same view of development and market risks as the investors, otherwise the potential for misalignment is significant.

Andrade: At the asset-by-asset level, this has become a race to the bottom. The real value creation seems to be around platforms that have the ability to develop from scratch. The investment thesis becomes much more compelling if you acquire those capabilities. Obviously, this comes with more risk attached, but also greater potential rewards. Today, it is a developers’ market. If you have projects that are ready to go from a development standpoint, you will be able to find a buyer. Following COP26 in Glasgow, the world is realising more and more that capital is not the issue – it is the lack of projects that are ready to go, including having tax equity lined up, which seems to be slowing the deployment of renewables.

“Recent performance suggests that ESG investors do not need to sacrifice returns, although there could inherently be more challenges when required to invest within certain limitations.”

— Chris LeWand

FW: The core premise behind sustainable investing is doing well while doing good, and that these are not mutually exclusive. How do you view ESG-driven investments – in particular with regard to the ‘E’ – and is it following this premise, or are lower returns to be expected by ‘doing good’?

Sinaiko: ESG, at its core, is an economic concept, in my view. Shareholder value depends on engagement with consumers and regulators. Products that do not resonate with consumers on sustainability, environmental or social issues will not be consumed. Companies that suffer punitive regulation will not be able to function in the marketplace. It is these forces that are driving corporations to ensure not only that they are producing useful products, but that they are doing it the right way – it is a question of creating value for shareholders. So, when we see traditional exploration & production (E&P) supermajors investing in renewables and sustainability, I view this behaviour as driven by the obligation of officers and directors to deliver value to shareholders, as opposed to corporate altruism. That said, altruism is not a necessary ingredient for good outcomes – the fact is, energy companies are becoming much more reflective of important societal values, which is a good thing.

de Pass: There are plenty of ESG-driven investments with appropriate returns vs risk – with patience and discipline – over time. We do not need to sacrifice returns to ‘do good’. That said, we are seeing a number of large decarbonisation funds where return is not the only requirement – ‘impact’ may be the priority.

Saxena: ESG-driven investments can produce decent returns, but investors have to pick their battles wisely. Investing in conventional renewables, namely contracted wind and solar, has become a race to the bottom for returns. However, folks with some appetite for merchant risks can selectively make better returns if they pick the right projects in the right markets. Given the amount of capital flocking to the ESG space, we do expect returns to continue to compress, thus investors will have to be taking incrementally more risk to keep up with their target returns. This risk taking would come in the form of more development risk or more market risk. Also, investors that can operate assets better and can be opportunistic in areas such as repowering and recontracting will earn better returns than more passive or purely financial investors.

Andrade: I do not think you necessarily need lower returns to do good. The real problem is that pollution is an externality and, as any economist knows, the best way to deal with externalities in the marketplace is to tax it. For me, it is unbelievable that we do not have a global price on carbon yet. Renewables became the cheaper source of energy even without pricing the externalities. That is amazing in itself. It is just a matter of time, but carbon will be priced somehow for sure. When that happens, perhaps the perceived discount we are seeing today will not be a discount but a premium.

LeWand: Recent performance suggests that ESG investors do not need to sacrifice returns, although there could inherently be more challenges when required to invest within certain limitations. Returns for ESG-focused mutual funds and exchange traded funds have been strong, with many outperforming their competition and the S&P 500 in 2020 and 2021. Investors in the space are doing their diligence and demanding competitive returns as they would otherwise. Recognising that, as with other investment themes, there is always uncertainty around performance, recent experience indicates that an ESG investment focus does not run contrary to financial returns.

FW: What are the most exciting trends, developments or opportunities that you are seeing in clean energy? How will they be impactful in the years ahead?

de Pass: The energy transition is real. It is embraced by many more organisations than in the past. We are seeing real commitment by oil & gas companies to the energy transition, even private ones. For me, this time seems different compared to any other time over the past 20 years. This is exciting. Not only capital but knowledge and execution capability are entering the market and the addressable verticals are expanding from just renewables generation to storage, EVs, hydrogen, carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), renewable fuels, and so on.

Saxena: We are excited about the global push toward renewables and sustainability. Numerous stakeholders, including corporations, governments, investors and developers, are pushing together to move this forward. It is an exciting time to be in this space, with tremendous tailwinds. We expect to continue to make investments across the board in clean energy, including buying or building conventional wind and solar, battery storage, RNG, RD, CCUS, ammonia, hydrogen, EVs, microgrids and fuel cells, and so on. We also expect to continue to see investments in developing transmission solutions to meet the needs of this new economy. The investment opportunity is immense and we remain excited about the prospects.

Andrade: Hydrogen is pretty exciting but it will take a while to develop. What is already a reality in the US is offshore wind. This reality would be enhanced by the arrival of new technologies, such as floating offshore wind, which could allow offshore wind technology to debark on the West coast. The years ahead will be pretty exciting for offshore wind. More generally, there is tremendous momentum as the world realises we need to move as quickly as we can with all the new technologies we can find. The amount of capital pouring in to find solutions is just astonishing, and I would not be surprised if we were to see some technological breakthroughs in the near future.

LeWand: We are in the midst of such a major transition that there is a tremendous diversity of exciting changes occurring. The entire cycle of energy creation to use is being disrupted for myriad reasons, and the catalysts for ramping change seem to be exponentially growing. The federal and state government support programmes in the US, as well as around the world, for renewables have been repositioned for advanced carbon reduction purposes, but also with a redistribution of investment allowed by stimulus programmes driven by the challenges of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic to world economies. Ten years ago it was solar and wind advancements taking centre stage; as these have matured it is hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuels, energy storage advancements, smart grids, carbon capture, digitalisation driving efficiencies, offshore wind advancements, e-mobility and all the potential impacts that it will bring with it, which are now driving the discussion of the future of energy.

Sinaiko: The most exciting trend I see is the transformation of the clean energy industry from a subsidy driven niche area to a self-sustaining industry. The subsidies for clean energy are still important and compelling, but the societal demand that companies govern themselves responsibly has caused industry players from all different corporate walks of life to pay attention and invest. More than anything else, this fundamental shift from the quirky to the mainstream positions the industry for sustained success. Jobs in clean energy are one of the real success stories in the US and global economy, with the potential to lift millions of people to healthier and more fruitful lives.

Chris LeWand is a senior managing director in FTI Consulting’s Corporate Finance Segment, Global Power, Renewables & Energy Transition (PRET) leader and a member of FTI Capital Advisors. Mr LeWand has assisted a wide diversity of renewable energy clients in developing and implementing new business models, with strategic advisory services, optimising businesses, navigating key events and in supporting and leading M&A and capital advisory transactions. Mr LeWand has served on boards, acted as board adviser, and taken roles as interim management for multibillion-dollar enterprises. He can be contacted on +1 (303) 689 8839 or by email: chris.lewand@fticonsulting.com.

Dan Sinaiko is a partner in the global Projects, Energy, Natural Resources and Infrastructure practice of Allen & Overy LLP, based in Los Angeles, California. He represents developers, sponsors, lenders and investors in capital and infrastructure projects. Focusing on the renewable energy sector, he handles transactions including development, debt finance, equity finance and mergers & acquisitions. Mr Sinaiko is a ranked lawyer in the Chambers Global, Projects: Renewables & Alternative Energy (2020-2021) and Chambers US, Nationwide Projects: Renewables and Alternative Energy (2019-2021). He can be contacted on +1 (424) 512 7160 or by email: daniel.sinaiko@allenovery.com.

Nuno Andrade is a managing director and head of project & acquisition finance US for Santander Corporate and Investment Banking. He has more than 10 years of experience in project finance structuring and execution globally. Since 2008, Santander’s project & acquisition finance team has structured and originated more than 100 projects in North America with a particular focus on the renewable energy sector. Mr Andrade has experience across multiple sectors, including infrastructure, oil & gas, conventional power, and renewable energy. He can be contacted on +1 (212) 350 3684 or by email: nandrade@santander.us.

Himanshu Saxena is chief executive officer of Starwood Energy and is responsible for supervision of the firm’s investment programme and strategy, as well as overall management of the firm. Mr Saxena sits on both the investment committee and the boards of portfolio companies. Mr Saxena is also responsible for the development and management of the investment team. In addition, he maintains responsibilities for origination, structuring, execution, monitoring and exiting investments across the energy industry. He can be contacted on +1 (203) 422 7878 or by email: hsaxena@starwood.com.

R. Andrew de Pass, CFA joined Vitol Inc. in May 2018 as the head of renewables, based in Houston, Texas. He is responsible for investments in the renewables and alternative energy sectors, as part of Vitol’s energy transition efforts, with a focus on solar, wind, energy storage and other renewable generation, as a developer through to long term asset owner. Between 2013 and 2017, Mr de Pass was executive chairman and then CEO of Conergy. He can be contacted on +1 (713) 230 1290 or by email: adp@vitol.com.

THE PANELLISTS

Chris LeWand

FTI Consulting

Dan Sinaiko

Allen & Overy LLP

Santander

Starwood Energy

Vitol Inc.