Detroit

Monetizing Formerly Contaminated Industrial Sites - "Brownfields" - Through Solar Development

Debtor estates and other distressed stakeholders can monetize formerly contaminated parcels which have no higher or better use than solar by leasing or selling those assets to specialized brownfields-to-solar developers. These niche developers can buy suitable parcels outright or offer twenty-year leases which can be transferred with the property. The Inflation Reduction Act and renewable energy-friendly states provide significant financial incentives which allow for generous lease rates. Bankruptcy trustees, debtor estates, creditors and other stakeholders have begun exploring this monetization strategy, which can be accomplished out of court, as long as the assets are at least partially remediated. What is the brownfields solar financial model, whether through lease or acquisition, and how much revenue would it generate in a sample project?
What types of real estate assets are suitable for solar siting (and no other, higher/better uses)?
What geographical locations/states provide the best financial incentives (tax incentives, rec programs, high power rates) to generate the highest lease rate or purchase price for a trustee, debtor estate or other stakeholder?
What are the relevant provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act?
What are some of the relevant provisions in states with favorable policies?
How can a trustee, debtor estate or other stakeholder mitigate the environmental risk associated with brownfields solar projects?
How can public sector creditors properly dispose of or monetize through lease brownfield properties where the property owner is missing or refuses to appear in court proceedings?
Can environmental liabilities be discharged under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code? Is that necessary in the context of developing solar on brownfields? Debtor Suggested Speakers Christy Searl christy@acpowerllc.com AC Power LLC

New Rules for the Automotive Supplier/Customer Game?

Dec 2023

It’s Virtually Impossible to Waive Discharge as an Affirmative Defense, Judge Tucker Says

Waiting four years to raise discharge as a defense does not invoke equitable estoppel or laches.