When Contracts Outlast Capital: Restructuring and Special Situations M&A in Solar and Renewable Energy

By 2024–2025, financial distress across solar and renewable energy has become far less about asset quality and far more about capital structure design. Long-dated power purchase agreements, contracted revenues, and policy-supported demand remain largely intact across the sector. However, a growing number of developers, independent power producers, and sponsor-backed portfolios now face special situations driven by higher interest rates, constrained tax equity markets, construction cost inflation, and balance sheets that were built for a materially different cost of capital environment.

‍

For boards and creditors, restructuring in renewables has evolved beyond an operational stabilization exercise. It has increasingly become a transaction pathway that determines ultimate ownership and control. In many cases, restructuring and M&A are no longer sequential steps but components of a single process, where outcomes hinge on who controls contracted cash flows, tax attributes, and future development rights. The central issue is not whether the assets perform, but whether the capital structure allows their value to be realized by existing stakeholders.

‍

Special situations investors underwrite renewable assets differently than traditional distressed buyers. Rather than focusing on liquidation value or headline leverage, underwriting begins with contract economics and cash flow durability. Buyers and lead creditors concentrate on PPA tenor, counterparty strength, escalation mechanisms, exposure to merchant revenue beyond contract expiry, tax equity consent rights, interconnection status, and remaining construction risk. Inflation linkage and fixed-cost exposure are evaluated explicitly, particularly where operating costs or financing assumptions no longer align with contracted revenue profiles.

‍

What has largely disappeared from investment committee approval is leverage premised on refinancing optionality. With tax equity capacity tighter, back-leverage costs elevated, and sponsor equity more selective, time has become an adversary rather than a neutral variable. If contracted cash flows cannot support a simplified post-restructuring balance sheet on a conservative basis, transactions are underwritten as control events rather than covenant resets. In this environment, patience alone is no longer rewarded.

‍

The value creation logic in renewable special situations is frequently misunderstood. These transactions are not growth-driven bets on energy transition upside. They are cash flow control transactions focused on reallocating risk and simplifying capital structures. Successful outcomes consolidate ownership of contracted revenues, rationalize or unwind tax equity and back-leverage complexity, remove development optionality that cannot be financed, and reset expectations around base-case PPA economics. While policy support for renewables remains strong, capital markets have repriced risk faster than incentives adjust, shifting value creation away from expansion and toward stabilization.

‍

Despite strong asset fundamentals, renewable restructurings often fail for consistent reasons. Tax equity partnership structures and consent rights can delay or derail control transfers, eroding value through time and transaction costs. Merchant revenue assumptions beyond PPA expiry are sometimes used to justify leverage that markets are unwilling to finance. Construction risk is frequently underestimated on projects approaching commercial operation, creating liquidity stress precisely when refinancing is assumed to be available. In other cases, amendment-driven strategies delay control decisions without a defined buyer endpoint, steadily shrinking the universe of credible acquirers. In most unsuccessful outcomes, the contracts remain sound, while capital sequencing proves flawed.

‍

Capital market conditions are decisive in shaping these outcomes. Higher interest rates have reduced back-leverage capacity, while tax equity investors have become more selective on structure, sponsor strength, and risk allocation. At the same time, infrastructure funds and yield-oriented capital remain active buyers of renewable assets, but only where ownership is clean and cash flows are predictable. The market has therefore bifurcated, with simplified, contracted assets transacting efficiently and complex, over-levered platforms stagnating in prolonged restructuring processes.

‍

Transaction structures have adapted accordingly. Special situations M&A in renewables increasingly relies on mechanisms designed to overcome contractual and capital friction, including tax equity buyouts or resets, debt-for-equity conversions that consolidate ownership, asset-level sales rather than platform exits, and staged recapitalizations tied to construction completion or PPA milestones. These approaches intentionally trade theoretical upside for bankability and certainty, an exchange most stakeholders accept once refinancing assumptions no longer hold.

‍

Boards and legacy sponsors often underestimate how quickly optionality erodes once capital markets close. Each quarter spent negotiating incremental relief reduces the pool of buyers willing to assume tax, construction, and refinancing risk. Disciplined boards focus instead on whether current stakeholders can fund assets through stabilization, whether control clarity improves financing outcomes, and whether restructuring actions expand or constrain buyer interest. In renewable energy, delay is rarely value-preserving.

‍

In solar and renewable energy, restructuring has increasingly become the gateway to M&A rather than an alternative to it. The assets are durable, the contracts are long, and demand is structural. What fails is the capital wrapper surrounding them. The restructurings that preserve value in 2024–2025 are those that recognize this reality early, simplify decisively, and convert financial stress into a clear transaction pathway. For boards and creditors, the strategic question is not whether the assets work, but whether the process transfers control before capital friction consumes the value those assets were designed to generate.