Sunrun Inc.

Previous wording

The solar energy industry is an emerging market which is constantly evolving and may not develop to the size or at the rate we expect.

Current wording

The battery storage and solar energy industry is an emerging market which is constantly evolving and may not develop to the size or at the rate we expect.

Previous wording

The solar energy industry is an emerging and constantly evolving market opportunity. We believe the solar energy industry is still developing and maturing, and we cannot be certain that the market will grow to the size or at the rate we expect. For example, we have experienced increases in cancellations of our Customer Agreements in certain geographic markets during various periods in our operating history. Any future growth of the solar energy market and the success of our solar service offerings depend on many factors beyond our control, including recognition and acceptance of the solar service market by consumers, the pricing of alternative sources of energy, a favorable regulatory environment, the continuation of expected tax benefits and other incentives, and our ability to provide our solar service offerings cost effectively. If the markets for solar energy do not develop to the size or at the rate we expect, our business may be adversely affected.

Current wording

The battery storage and solar energy industry is an emerging and constantly evolving market opportunity. We believe the battery storage and solar energy industry is evolving and maturing, and we cannot be certain that the market will grow to the size or at the rate we expect. For example, we have experienced increases in cancellations of our Customer Agreements in certain geographic markets during various periods in our operating history. Any future growth of the solar energy market and the success of our offerings depend on many factors beyond our control, including recognition and acceptance of the battery storage and solar service market by consumers, the pricing of alternative sources of energy, a favorable regulatory environment, the continuation of expected tax benefits and other incentives, and our ability to provide our solar service offerings cost effectively. If the markets for battery storage and solar energy do not develop to the size or at the rate we expect, our business may be adversely affected.

Previous wording

Solar energy has yet to achieve broad market acceptance and depends in part on continued support in the form of rebates, tax credits, and other incentives from federal, state and local governments. Additionally, there have been significant changes in the residential solar policy and pricing framework in California, which is one of our key markets and represents over 45% of our customer base. Changes to California’s net metering policy adopted in December 2022, with the new billing regime implemented in April 2023, present a significant change to the financial benefits California customers receive from our solar systems and may limit the financial attractiveness of our offerings in this market, particularly for solar-only systems. Originations in California are below levels prior to the Net Billing Tariff (“NBT”) transition, and without further increases in originations, our new installations in California may continue to decline compared to prior periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations and financial performance. Further, if support diminishes materially for solar policy related to rebates, tax credits, bill crediting, or other incentives, our ability to obtain external financing on acceptable terms, or at all, could be materially adversely affected. These types of funding limitations could lead to inadequate financing support for the anticipated growth in our business. Furthermore, growth in residential solar energy depends in part on macroeconomic conditions, retail prices of electricity and customer preferences, each of which can change quickly. Declining macroeconomic conditions, including in job markets and residential real estate markets, could contribute to instability and uncertainty among customers and impact their financial wherewithal, credit scores or interest in entering into long-term contracts, even if such contracts would generate immediate and long-term savings.

Current wording

Home battery storage and solar energy has yet to achieve broad market acceptance and depends in part on continued support in the form of rebates, tax credits, and other incentives from federal, state and local governments. For example, the most notable recent federal tax legislation affecting our business is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ("OBBB"), that President Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025. The new law makes adverse changes to tax policies that we rely upon, including the Section 48E Clean Electricity Investment Credit and its associated “bonus” credits. The law maintains the Section 48E credit for energy storage through 2033, and it shortens the availability of the 48E credit for solar facilities to the end of 2027. The law also applies new “Foreign Entity of Concern” (“FEOC”) restrictions to the Section 48E credit, which could potentially deny tax credits to projects that use certain components or receive "material assistance" from FEOC entities, thereby potentially increasing costs and potentially reducing demand. Further, the law ends the Section 25D Residential Clean Energy Credit starting in 2026. Additionally, there have been significant changes in the residential solar policy and pricing framework in California, which is one of our key markets and represents over 45% of our customer base. Changes to California’s net metering policy, with the new billing regime implemented in April 2023, presented a significant change to the financial credits California customers receive from our solar and battery systems and may limit the financial attractiveness of our offerings in this market, particularly for solar-only systems. Originations in California are below levels prior to the Net Billing Tariff (“NBT”) transition, and without further increases in originations, our new installations in California may continue to decline compared to prior periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations and financial performance. If support diminishes materially for solar or storage policy related to rebates, tax credits, bill crediting, or other incentives, our ability to obtain external financing on acceptable terms, or at all, could be materially adversely affected. These types of funding limitations could lead to inadequate financing support for the anticipated growth in our business. Furthermore, growth in residential solar energy depends in part on macroeconomic conditions, retail prices of electricity and customer preferences, each of which can change quickly. Declining macroeconomic conditions, including in job markets and residential real estate markets, could contribute to instability and uncertainty among customers and impact their financial wherewithal, credit scores or interest in entering into long-term contracts, even if such contracts would generate immediate and long-term savings.

Previous wording

In addition, U.S. laws and regulations intended to prevent the importation of goods manufactured with forced labor has and could continue to affect our business operation and supply chain, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and the withhold release order (“WRO”) that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issued on June 24, 2021 applicable to certain silica-based products manufactured in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. Intensive examinations, withhold release orders, and related governmental procedures have resulted in supply chain and operational delays throughout the industry, and we have implemented policies and procedures to maintain compliance and minimize delays. These and similar trade restrictions that may be imposed in the future could cause delivery and installation delays, and restrict the global supply of polysilicon and solar products. This could result in near-term demand for available solar energy systems despite higher costs, increased costs of polysilicon and the overall cost of solar energy systems, and equipment shortages, potentially reducing overall demand for and limiting the supply of our products and services.

Current wording

In addition, U.S. laws and regulations intended to prevent the importation of goods manufactured with forced labor has and could continue to affect our business operation and supply chain, including ongoing enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and the withhold release order (“WRO”) that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issued on June 24, 2021 applicable to certain silica-based products manufactured in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. Intensive examinations, withhold release orders, and related governmental procedures have resulted in supply chain and operational delays throughout the industry, and we have implemented policies and procedures to maintain compliance and minimize delays. These and similar trade restrictions that may be imposed in the future could cause delivery and installation delays, and restrict the global supply of polysilicon and solar products. This could result in near-term demand for available solar energy systems despite higher costs, increased costs of polysilicon and the overall cost of solar energy systems, and equipment shortages, potentially reducing overall demand for and limiting the supply of our products and services.

Previous wording

These developments compound existing trade measures, including the previously discussed AD/CVD tariffs on solar cells and modules and the 25% Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. The cumulative effect impacts both our direct equipment procurement costs and the expenses faced by our U.S.-based component suppliers, whose manufacturing inputs are subject to these tariffs.

Current wording

These developments compound existing trade measures, including the previously discussed AD/CVD tariffs on solar cells and modules and the 50% Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. The cumulative effect impacts both our direct equipment procurement costs and the expenses faced by our U.S.-based component suppliers, whose manufacturing inputs are subject to these tariffs.

Previous wording

The solar energy industry is highly competitive and continually evolving as participants strive to distinguish themselves within their markets and compete with large utilities. We believe that our primary competitors are the established utilities that supply energy to homeowners by traditional means. We compete with these utilities primarily based on price, predictability of price, and the ease by which homeowners can switch to electricity generated by our solar service offerings. If we cannot offer compelling value to customers based on these factors, then our business and revenue will not grow. Utilities generally have substantially greater financial, technical, operational and other resources than we do. As a result of their greater size, utilities may be able to devote more resources to the research, development, promotion and sale of their products or respond more quickly to evolving industry standards and changes in market conditions than we can. Furthermore, these competitors are able to devote substantially more resources and funding to regulatory and lobbying efforts.

Current wording

The battery storage and solar energy industry is highly competitive and continually evolving as participants strive to distinguish themselves within their markets and compete with large utilities. We believe that our primary competitors are the established utilities that supply energy to homeowners by traditional means. We compete with these utilities primarily based on price, predictability of price, and the ease by which homeowners can switch to electricity generated by our solar service offerings. If we cannot offer compelling value to customers based on these factors, then our business and revenue will not grow. Utilities generally have substantially greater financial, technical, operational and other resources than we do. As a result of their greater size, utilities may be able to devote more resources to the research, development, promotion and sale of their products or respond more quickly to evolving industry standards and changes in market conditions than we can. Furthermore, these competitors are able to devote substantially more resources and funding to regulatory and lobbying efforts.

Previous wording

We face competition from other residential solar service providers, and we also may face competition from new entrants into the market as a result of the passage of the IRA and its impacts and benefits to the solar industry. Some of these competitors may have a higher degree of brand name recognition, differing business and pricing strategies, lower barriers to entry into the solar market, and greater capital resources than we have, as well as extensive knowledge of our target markets. For example, more recently, we have seen some of these competitors offer significantly higher turnkey prices and sales commissions than prevailing industry norms. If we are unable to establish or maintain a consumer brand that resonates with customers, maintain high customer satisfaction, or compete with the pricing offered by our competitors, our sales and market share position may be adversely affected, as our growth is primarily dependent on originating new customers. We also face competitive pressure from companies that may offer lower-priced consumer offerings than we do.

Current wording

We face competition from other residential battery storage and solar service providers, and we also may face competition from new entrants into the third-party ownership market as a result of the passage of the OBBB and its impacts to customer-claimed tax credits. Some of these competitors may have a higher degree of brand name recognition, differing business and pricing strategies, lower barriers to entry into the solar market, and greater capital resources than we have, as well as extensive knowledge of our target markets. For example, more recently, we have seen some of these competitors offer significantly higher turnkey prices and sales commissions than prevailing industry norms. If we are unable to establish or maintain a consumer brand that resonates with customers, maintain high customer satisfaction, or compete with the pricing offered by our competitors, our sales and market share position may be adversely affected, as our growth is primarily dependent on originating new customers. We also face competitive pressure from companies that may offer lower-priced consumer offerings than we do.

Previous wording

As the solar industry grows and evolves, we will continue to face existing competitors as well as new competitors who are not currently in the market (including those resulting from the consolidation of existing competitors) that achieve significant developments in alternative technologies or new products such as storage solutions, EV chargers, loan products, or other programs related to third-party ownership. Our failure to adapt to changing market conditions, to compete successfully with existing or new competitors and to adopt new or enhanced technologies could limit our growth and have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

Current wording

As the battery storage and solar industry grows and evolves, we will continue to face existing competitors as well as new competitors who are not currently in the market (including those resulting from the consolidation of existing competitors) that achieve significant developments in alternative technologies or new products such as storage solutions, EV chargers, loan products, or other programs related to third-party ownership. Our failure to adapt to changing market conditions, to compete successfully with existing or new competitors and to adopt new or enhanced technologies could limit our growth and have a material adverse effect on our business and prospects.

Previous wording

Climate change may have long-term impacts on our business, our industry, and the global economy.

Current wording

Extreme weather events and climate change may have long-term impacts on our business, our industry, and the global economy.

Previous wording

Climate change poses a systemic threat to the global economy and will continue to do so until our society transitions to renewable energy and decarbonizes. While our core business model seeks to accelerate this transition to renewable energy, there are inherent climate-related risks to our business operations. Warming temperatures throughout the United States, and in California, our biggest market, in particular, have contributed to extreme weather, intense drought, and increased wildfire risks. These extreme weather events have the potential to disrupt our business, our third-party suppliers, and our customers, and may cause us to incur additional operational costs. They can also cause a decrease in the output from our systems due to smoke or haze. Additionally, if weather patterns significantly shift due to climate change, it may be harder to predict the average annual amount of sunlight striking each location where our solar energy systems are installed. This could make our solar service offerings less economical overall or make individual systems less economical.

Current wording

Extreme weather, impacts from climate change, and dramatic increase in demand for electricity on the grid, present unprecedented challenges for energy systems, and we anticipate volatility for our industry. While our core business model seeks to accelerate a transition to renewable energy, there are inherent climate-related risks to our business operations. Warming temperatures throughout the United States, and in California, our biggest market, in particular, have contributed to extreme weather, intense drought, and increased wildfire risks. These extreme weather events have the potential to disrupt our business, our third-party suppliers, and our customers, and may cause us to incur additional operational costs. They can also cause a decrease in the output from our systems due to smoke or haze. Additionally, if weather patterns significantly shift due to climate change, it may be harder to predict the average annual amount of sunlight striking each location where our solar energy systems are installed. This could make our solar service offerings less economical overall or make individual systems less economical.

Previous wording

The passage of the IRA, which extended subsidies for various renewable energy technologies, is expected to lead to additional demands for tax equity. As a result, availability of tax equity may present constraints to our growth and harm our financial performance. In addition, terms for tax equity funds, including the realization of tax credit value through potential structures that utilize transferability of the ITC, may not be at terms we view as favorable.

Current wording

The passage of the OBBB in July 2025, adjusted the availability of federal tax credits for various energy technologies, and is expected to lead to additional changes for tax equity. As a result, availability of tax equity may present constraints to our growth and harm our financial performance. In addition, terms for tax equity funds, including the realization of tax credit value through potential structures that utilize transferability of the ITC, may not be on terms that we view as favorable.

Previous wording

During the first quarter of 2024, we transitioned a large portion of our funding from a traditional tax equity framework (where tax equity funding is typically provided at or before installation) to a tax credit transfer framework under the IRA’s transferability provisions (where the timing of tax equity or cash equity funding can be dependent on the timing of the transfer of the tax credits, which occurs in arrears following the date the associated solar system is placed in service). Under this new transferability framework, any transfers of tax credits that occur in arrears can occur in a range from monthly up to a year or more following the date the associated solar system is placed in service. As a result, the timing of tax equity and/or cash equity funding can be delayed, which may adversely impact our business and operations and may cause volatility to our cash flows as we have an increased mix of transferability funds.

Current wording

During the first quarter of 2024, we transitioned a large portion of our funding from a traditional tax equity framework (where tax equity funding is typically provided at or before installation) to a tax credit transfer framework under transferability provisions (where the timing of tax equity or cash equity funding can be dependent on the timing of the transfer of the tax credits, which occurs in arrears following the date the associated solar system is placed in service). Under this transferability framework, any transfers of tax credits that occur in arrears can occur in a range from monthly to up to a year or more following the date the associated solar system is placed in service. As a result, the timing of tax equity and/or cash equity funding can be delayed, which may adversely impact our business and operations and may cause volatility to our cash flows as we have an increased mix of transferability funds. Although the OBBB made certain adverse changes to the availability of federal tax credits for various energy technologies, transferability generally was maintained with the passage of the OBBB.

Previous wording

The customer value proposition for distributed solar, storage, and home electrification products is influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the retail price of electricity, the valuation of electricity not consumed on site and exported to the grid, the rate design mechanisms of customers’ utility bills, various policies related to the permitting and interconnection costs of our products to homes and the grid, the availability of incentives for solar, batteries, and other electrification products, and other policies which allow aggregations of our systems to provide the grid value. Significant changes to any of these factors may impact the competitiveness of our service offerings to customers.

Current wording

The customer value proposition for home solar, storage, and home electrification products is influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the retail price of electricity, the valuation of electricity not consumed on site and exported to the grid, the rate design mechanisms of customers’ utility bills, various policies related to the permitting and interconnection costs of our products to homes and the grid, the availability of incentives for solar, batteries, and other electrification products, and other policies which allow aggregations of our systems to provide the grid value. Significant changes to any of these factors may impact the competitiveness of our service offerings to customers.

Previous wording

In connection with the value attributed to exported electricity, net metering (“NEM”) has traditionally been the main policy mechanism to measure and value exported electricity sent back to the grid in the markets within which we do business. That value has always varied depending on the retail price of power in a certain market, substantial differences in rate design per market, and NEM market specific differences, including detail around how to carry over NEM credits, whether or not to cap the amount of net metered solar in a specific market, or how a specific market values the exported electricity. A substantial majority of the markets in which we operate have implemented NEM policies, allowing end customers to receive credits for the electricity not consumed on site and exported to the grid.

Current wording

In connection with the value attributed to exported electricity, net metering (“NEM”) had traditionally been a main policy mechanism to measure and value exported electricity sent back to the grid in the markets within which we do business. That value has always varied depending on the retail price of power in a certain market, substantial differences in rate design per market, and NEM market specific differences, including billing details around how to carry over NEM credits, whether or not to cap the amount of net metered solar in a specific market, or how a specific market values the exported electricity. A substantial majority of the markets in which we operate have implemented various styles of NEM policies, allowing end customers to receive credits for the electricity not consumed on site and exported to the grid.

Previous wording

Some states, including our largest market of California, have moved away from the traditional retail NEM credit structure of paying the full retail rate for exported electricity, and instead, such states have chosen to value excess generation by customers’ solar systems in different ways. In 2016, the Arizona Corporation Commission (“ACC”) replaced retail NEM with a declining fixed export rate. In 2017, Nevada implemented a reduced credit step down to NEM credits over time. Hawaii ended retail NEM in 2016 and has since developed programs that utilize values from rooftop solar paired with batteries to support grid needs. At the end of 2024, Illinois transitioned from traditional retail NEM to a Smart Solar Billing tariff, which includes an upfront distribution system payment paired with a time-varying export rate that can be responded to by utilizing solar paired with batteries. Many states across the United States have traditionally set limits on the amount of rooftop solar that can be exported for retail credit and there is a long legislative and regulatory history of those limitations being extended in various states, including California, New Jersey, Illinois, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Current wording

Some states, including our largest market of California, have moved away from the traditional retail NEM credit structure of paying the full retail rate for exported electricity, and instead, such states have chosen to value excess generation by customers’ solar systems in different ways. Arizona moved to a declining export rate in 2016, and Nevada similarly transitioned to a step-down export credit over time starting in 2017. Hawaii transitioned from retail NEM in 2016 and developed programs that utilize values from rooftop solar paired with batteries to support grid needs. At the end of 2024, Illinois transitioned from traditional retail NEM to a Smart Solar Billing tariff, which includes an upfront distribution system payment paired with a time-varying export rate, which maintained customer value by utilizing solar paired with batteries. In 2024, the Fiscal Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico filed a lawsuit that would require the Puerto Rico Energy Board to review and determine the future of NEM, which could revise or reverse Puerto Rico’s Act 10, which had unanimously extended NEM through 2031. The lawsuit is still ongoing. Additionally, some states like New Jersey and Maryland have established caps or thresholds that will trigger regulatory review of net metering policies in the coming years.

Previous wording

Most notably, as a result of the finalization of the NEM proceeding on December 15, 2022 by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), California moved to a NBT structure in which exported electricity is no longer valued at the retail rate and is instead valued by the state’s “avoided cost” annual calculations, which substantially decreases the credit allocated to an exported electron during the day. The final California NEM decision rejected a very controversial solar-specific fixed charge and rejected the creation of new non-bypassable charges, minimum bills, and grid participation charges for solar and solar plus storage customers. Additionally, the final California NEM decision made no retroactive changes to legacy NEM 1.0 or 2.0 California customers. In April 2023, new California solar customers located in areas serviced by investor-owned utilities (“IOU”) began applying for service under the new NBT. Also, in April 2023, the California IOUs and other parties filed initial proposals that would represent the highest fixed charges in the United States. In a June 2023 ruling, the CPUC indicated that it will approve by July 2024 guidelines for future development and implementation of income-graduated fixed charges, but the implementation of the first iteration of these charges is not expected to occur until late 2025 or early 2026. In May 2024, the CPUC approved a final decision instituting a fixed charge of $24.15/month for most customers of the three major investor-owned utility territories, with no change in existing income-tiers. The decision added a smaller fixed monthly charge of $6/month and $12/month, respectively, for the two-tiers of existing low-income customers.

Current wording

Most notably, in 2023, California moved to a net billing tariff (NBT) structure in which exported electricity is no longer valued at the retail rate and is instead valued by the state’s “avoided cost” annual calculations. The California Public Utilities Commission in its final decision also rejected a solar-specific fixed charge and rejected the creation of new non-bypassable charges, minimum bills, and grid participation charges for solar and solar plus storage customers.

Previous wording

The final California NEM decision presents a significant change to the residential solar market in California. Under this new framework, storage paired with solar has a heightened value proposition to customers, and we have seen an increased demand for our solar plus storage offerings, thereby increasing the importance of procuring a variety of battery storage products and potentially accentuating supply chain risks related to battery storage systems. The new NBT pricing framework may also result in the introduction of new product offerings and pricing structures by our competitors throughout the solar and utilities industries, and led to our introduction of Sunrun Shift™, our home solar subscription offering that maximizes the value of solar energy under California’s NBT by increasing self-consumption during peak hours when rates are highest and reducing low-value exports back to the grid through the use of a new storage configuration. This may also result in increased competition and uncertainty regarding the demand for such new products and offerings, which may adversely impact our business and results of operations. Recently, California Governor Newsom issued an executive order directing the CPUC and other state agencies to evaluate and report on efforts to address rising electricity costs, and the potential impact of this executive order is still unclear.

Current wording

Under the new California NBT framework, storage paired with solar has a heightened value proposition to customers, and we have seen an increased demand for our solar plus storage offerings, thereby increasing the importance of procuring a variety of battery storage products and potentially accentuating supply chain risks related to battery storage systems. The new NBT framework may also result in the introduction of new product offerings and pricing structures by our competitors throughout the solar and utilities industries. This may also result in increased competition and uncertainty regarding the demand for such new products and offerings, which may adversely impact our business and results of operations. Existing customers utilizing net metering under NEM1 or NEM2 billing regimes have also been routinely protected. Most recently in 2025, legislation was introduced (AB942) which would have retroactively eliminated net metering billing contracts for existing customers. However, the Senate Energy Committee on July 15, 2025 approved a version of the bill that protects existing customers from any retroactive changes.

Previous wording

Electric utility statutes and regulations and changes to such statutes or regulations may present technical, regulatory and economic barriers to the purchase and use of our solar service offerings that may significantly reduce demand for such offerings.

Current wording

Electric utility statutes and regulations and changes to such statutes or regulations may present technical, regulatory and economic barriers to the purchase and use of our solar and battery service offerings that may significantly reduce demand for such offerings.

Previous wording

Federal, state, and local government statutes and regulations concerning electricity heavily influence the market for our solar service offerings and are constantly evolving. These statutes, regulations, and administrative rulings relate to electricity pricing, net metering, consumer protection, incentives, taxation, competition with utilities and the interconnection of homeowner-owned and third party-owned solar energy systems to the electrical grid. These statutes and regulations are constantly evolving. Governments, often acting through state utility or public service commissions, change and adopt different rates for residential customers on a regular basis and these changes can have a negative impact on our ability to deliver savings, or energy bill management, to customers.

Current wording

Federal, state, and local government statutes and regulations concerning electricity heavily influence the market for our solar service offerings and are constantly evolving. These statutes, regulations, and administrative rulings relate to electricity pricing, net metering, consumer protection, incentives, taxation, competition with utilities and the interconnection of home solar energy and battery systems to the electrical grid. These statutes and regulations are constantly evolving. Governments, often acting through state utility or public service commissions, change and adopt different rates for residential customers on a regular basis and these changes can have a negative impact on our ability to deliver savings, or energy bill management, to customers.

Previous wording

All states regulate investor-owned utility retail electricity pricing. In addition, there are numerous publicly owned utilities and electric cooperatives that establish their own retail electricity pricing through some form of regulation or internal process. These regulations and policies could deter potential customers from purchasing our solar service offerings. For example, some utilities in states such as Arizona and Utah have sought and secured rate design changes that reduce the credit for residential solar exports to below the retail rate and impose new charges for rooftop solar customers. Utilities in additional states may follow suit. Such rate changes can include changing rates to charge lower volume-based rates—the rates charged for kilowatt hours of electricity purchased by a residential customer—while raising unavoidable fixed charges that an end customer is subject to when they purchase solar energy from third parties, and levying charges on homeowners based on their point of maximum demand during a month (referred to as “demand charge”). For example, the Arizona Public Service Company offers residential demand charge rate plans and if our solar customers have subscribed to those plans, they may not realize typical savings from our offerings. These forms of rate design could adversely impact our business by reducing the value of the electricity our solar energy systems produce compared to retail net metering, and reducing any savings customers realize by purchasing our solar service offerings. These proposals could continue or be replicated in other states. In addition to changes in general rates charged to all residential customers, utilities sometimes have proposed solar-specific charges (which may be fixed charges, capacity-based charges, or other rate charges). Any of these changes could materially reduce the demand for our offerings and could limit the number of markets in which our offerings are competitive with electricity provided by the utilities.

Current wording

All states regulate investor-owned utility retail electricity pricing. In addition, there are numerous publicly owned utilities and electric cooperatives that establish their own retail electricity pricing through some form of regulation or internal process. These regulations and policies could deter potential customers from purchasing our solar service offerings. For example, some utilities in states such as Arizona and Utah have sought and secured rate design changes that reduce the credit for residential solar exports to below the retail rate and impose new charges for rooftop solar customers. Utilities in additional states may follow suit. Such rate changes can include changing rates to charge lower volume-based rates—the rates charged for kilowatt hours of electricity purchased by a residential customer—while raising unavoidable fixed charges and levying charges on homeowners based on their point of maximum demand during a month (referred to as “demand charge”). These forms of rate design could adversely impact our business by reducing the value of the electricity our solar energy systems produce, and reducing any savings customers realize by purchasing our solar and battery service offerings. These proposals could be replicated in other states. In addition to changes in general rates charged to all residential customers, utilities sometimes have proposed solar-specific charges (which may be fixed charges, capacity-based charges, or other rate charges). Any of these changes could materially reduce the demand for our offerings and could limit the number of markets in which our offerings are competitive with electricity provided by the utilities.

Previous wording

Our Customer Agreements are third-party ownership arrangements. Sales of electricity by third parties face regulatory challenges in some states and jurisdictions. These challenges pertain to issues such as whether third-party-owned systems qualify for the same rebates, tax exemptions or other non-tax incentives available for homeowner-owned solar energy systems, whether third-party-owned systems are eligible at all for these incentives, whether our Customer Agreements are properly characterized as leases or PPAs, and whether third-party-owned systems are eligible for net metering and the associated significant cost savings. Texas and Connecticut clarified through legislation that third-party-owned residential solar systems would be treated the same as customer-owned systems, and would qualify for the existing residential solar property tax exemption. Additionally, Virginia passed legislation in 2024 that clarified leased systems are allowed. Adverse regulatory treatment of third-party ownership arrangements could reduce demand for our solar service offerings, adversely impact our access to capital and cause us to increase the price we charge customers for energy.

Current wording

Our Customer Agreements are third-party ownership arrangements. Sales of electricity by third parties face regulatory challenges in some states and jurisdictions. These challenges pertain to issues such as whether third-party-owned systems qualify for the same rebates, tax exemptions or other non-tax incentives available for homeowner-owned solar energy systems, whether third-party-owned systems are eligible at all for these incentives, whether our Customer Agreements are properly characterized as leases or PPAs, and whether third-party-owned systems are eligible for net metering and the associated significant cost savings. Texas and Connecticut clarified through legislation that third-party-owned residential solar systems would be treated the same as customer-owned systems, and would qualify for the existing residential solar property tax exemption. Additionally, Virginia passed legislation in 2024 that clarified leased systems are allowed. Adverse regulatory treatment of third-party ownership arrangements could reduce demand for our solar and battery service offerings, adversely impact our access to capital and cause us to increase the price we charge customers for energy.

Previous wording

Interconnection limits or circuit-level caps imposed by regulators may significantly reduce our ability to sell electricity from our solar service offerings in certain markets or slow interconnections, harming our growth rate and customer satisfaction scores.

Current wording

Interconnection limits or circuit-level caps imposed by utilities or regulators may significantly reduce our ability to sell electricity from our solar service offerings in certain markets or slow interconnections, harming our growth rate and customer satisfaction scores.

Previous wording

Interconnection rules establish the circumstances in which rooftop solar will be connected to the electricity grid. Interconnection limits or circuit-level caps imposed by regulators may curb our growth in key markets. Utilities throughout the country have different rules and regulations regarding interconnection and some utilities cap or limit the amount of solar energy that can be interconnected to the grid. Our systems do not provide power to customers until they are interconnected to the grid, and some relevant laws and regulations in certain markets may considerably slow the timing of interconnection, which may in turn impact the system production and our business and sales results.

Current wording

Interconnection rules establish the circumstances in which rooftop solar and batteries will be connected to the electricity grid. Interconnection limits or circuit-level caps imposed by regulators or utilities may curb our growth in key markets. Utilities throughout the country have different rules and regulations regarding interconnection and some utilities cap or limit the amount of solar energy that can be interconnected to the grid. Our systems do not provide power to customers until they are interconnected to the grid, and some relevant laws and regulations in certain markets may considerably slow the timing or increase costs of interconnection, which may in turn impact the system production and our business and sales results.

Previous wording

Interconnection regulations are based on claims from utilities regarding the amount of solar energy that can be connected to the grid without causing grid reliability issues or requiring significant grid upgrades. Although recent rulings from the Hawaii Utilities Commission have helped resolve some problems, historically, interconnection limits or circuit-level caps have slowed the pace of our installations in Hawaii. Similar interconnection limits could slow our future installations in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Colorado, New Jersey, or other markets, harming our growth rate and customer satisfaction scores. Similarly, the California, Illinois, and Hawaii Public Utilities Commissions require the activation of some advanced inverter functionality to head off presumed grid reliability issues, which may require more oversight of the operation of the solar energy systems over time, but may also help ensure circuits remain open or interconnection costs remain low. Interconnection constraints and limits may hamper our ability to sell our offerings in certain markets and increase our costs, adversely affecting our business, operating results, financial condition, and prospects. We expect utility requirements to incorporate these advanced functions provided by the IEEE 1547-2018/UL-1741 SB inverters and that they will become more commonplace. Additional states are expected to adopt the usage of advanced inverters to align with California’s anticipated requirement that all new systems use inverters certified to the new UL 1741 SB standard. This requirement became effective in March 2023. All of our vendors are certified to this standard.

Current wording

Interconnection regulations are based on claims from utilities regarding the amount of solar energy that can be connected to the grid without causing grid reliability issues or requiring significant grid upgrades. Interconnection limits could slow our future installations, harming our growth rate and customer satisfaction scores. Additionally, the California, Illinois, and Hawaii public utilities commissions require the activation of some advanced inverter functionality to head off presumed grid reliability issues, which may require more oversight of the operation of the solar energy systems over time, but may also help ensure circuits remain open or interconnection costs remain low. We expect utility requirements to incorporate these advanced functions provided by the IEEE 1547-2018/UL-1741 SB inverters and that they will become more commonplace. Additional states are expected to adopt the usage of advanced inverters to align with California’s anticipated requirement that all new systems use inverters certified to the new UL 1741 SB standard. This requirement became effective in March 2023. All of our vendors are certified to this standard.

Previous wording

We and our solar partners purchase solar panels, inverters, batteries, and other system components from a limited number of suppliers, making us susceptible to quality issues, shortages, bottlenecks, and price changes. If we or our solar partners fail to develop, maintain and expand our relationships with these or other suppliers, we may be unable to adequately meet anticipated demand for our solar service offerings, or we may only be able to offer our systems at higher costs or after delays. If one or more of the suppliers that we or our solar partners rely upon to meet anticipated demand ceases or reduces production, we may be unable to quickly identify alternate suppliers or to qualify alternative products on commercially reasonable terms, and we may be unable to satisfy this demand.

Current wording

We and our solar partners purchase solar panels, inverters, batteries, and other system components from a limited number of suppliers, making us susceptible to quality issues, shortages, bottlenecks, regulatory risks, and price changes. If we or our solar partners fail to develop, maintain and expand our relationships with these or other suppliers, we may be unable to adequately meet anticipated demand for our solar service offerings, or we may only be able to offer our systems at higher costs or after delays. If one or more of the suppliers that we or our solar partners rely upon to meet anticipated demand ceases or reduces production, we may be unable to quickly identify alternate suppliers or to qualify alternative products on commercially reasonable terms, and we may be unable to satisfy this demand.

Previous wording

Human rights issues in foreign countries and the U.S. government response to them could also disrupt our supply chain and operations. In particular, the WRO issued by the CBP on June 24, 2021 applicable to certain silica-based products manufactured in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, and any other allegations regarding forced labor in China and U.S. trade regulations to prohibit the importation of any goods derived from forced labor, could affect our operations. Further, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that President Biden signed into law on December 23, 2021, which took effect on June 21, 2022, has affected, and may continue to affect, our supply chain and operations. Intensive examinations, withhold release orders, and related governmental procedures have resulted in supply chain and operational delays throughout the industry, and we have implemented policies and procedures to maintain compliance and minimize delays. These and other similar trade restrictions that may be imposed in the future could cause delivery and installation delays, and restrict the global supply of polysilicon and solar products. This, coupled with the passage of the IRA, could result in near-term demand for available solar energy systems despite higher costs, as well as increased costs of polysilicon and the overall cost of solar energy systems, potentially reducing overall demand for our products and services.

Current wording

Human rights issues in foreign countries and the U.S. government response to them could also disrupt our supply chain and operations. In particular, the WRO issued by the CBP on June 24, 2021 applicable to certain silica-based products manufactured in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, and any other allegations regarding forced labor in China and U.S. trade regulations to prohibit the importation of any goods derived from forced labor, could affect our operations. Further, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that President Biden signed into law on December 23, 2021, which took effect on June 21, 2022, has affected, and may continue to affect, our supply chain and operations. Intensive examinations, withhold release orders, and related governmental procedures have resulted in supply chain and operational delays throughout the industry, and we have implemented policies and procedures to maintain compliance and minimize delays. These and other similar trade restrictions that may be imposed in the future could cause delivery and installation delays, and restrict the global supply of polysilicon and solar products. This, coupled with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the "IRA"), could result in near-term demand for available solar energy systems despite higher costs, as well as increased costs of polysilicon and the overall cost of solar energy systems, potentially reducing overall demand for our products and services.

Previous wording

Policy can impact solar installation completion timelines. For example, in fall 2022, California passed SB 379, which imposes a required timeline for cities and counties to implement an online, automated solar permitting platform like SolarAPP+. Cities with populations over 50,000 and counties with populations over 150,000 were required to have instant, online, automated residential solar and storage permitting as of September 30, 2023, which may increase the speed at which we install solar systems. The remaining, smaller jurisdictions were required to implement instant, online residential solar and storage permitting by September 30, 2024.

Current wording

Policy can impact solar installation completion timelines. For example, California passed SB 379 in 2022, which imposes a required timeline for cities and counties to implement an online, automated solar permitting platform. In 2024 and 2025, Maryland, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey similarly passed streamlined permitting legislation that can reduce installation timelines.

Previous wording

As of March 31, 2025, California represented over 45% of our customer base. This concentration of our customer base and operational infrastructure could lead to our business and results of operations being particularly susceptible to adverse economic, regulatory, political, weather and other conditions in this market and in other markets that may become similarly concentrated, in particular the east coast, where we have seen significant growth recently. Recent changes to net metering policy and the tariff structure in California in December 2022 have created additional uncertainty and challenges, given the size of our customer base in California. Originations in California continue to be below levels prior to the NBT transition, and without further increases in originations, our new installations in California may continue to decline compared to prior periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations and financial performance.

Current wording

As of June 30, 2025, California represented over 45% of our customer base. This concentration of our customer base and operational infrastructure could lead to our business and results of operations being particularly susceptible to adverse economic, regulatory, political, weather and other conditions in this market and in other markets that may become similarly concentrated, in particular the east coast, where we have seen significant growth recently. Changes to California's net metering and tariff structure in 2023 created additional uncertainty and challenges, and thus a shift to more solar-paired-with-storage offerings, given the size of our customer base in California. Originations in California continue to be below levels prior to the NBT transition, and without further increases in originations, our new installations in California may continue to decline compared to prior periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business operations and financial performance.

Previous wording

The value of our solar energy systems at the end of the associated term of the lease or PPA may be lower than projected, which may adversely affect our financial performance and valuation.

Current wording

The value of our solar energy systems at the end of the associated term of the lease or PPA may be lower than projected, and future removal, disposal and recycling obligations could change, all of which may adversely affect our financial performance and valuation.

Previous wording

Furthermore, it is difficult to predict how future environmental regulations may affect the costs associated with the removal, disposal or recycling of our solar energy systems. If the value in trade or renewal revenue is less than we expect, we may be required to recognize all or some of the remaining unamortized costs. This could materially impair our future results of operations.

Current wording

Furthermore, it is difficult to predict how future environmental regulations may affect the costs associated with the removal, disposal or recycling of our solar energy systems. These uncertainties could affect our calculation of AROs associated with our solar energy systems, which could increase in the future. If the value in trade or renewal revenue is less than we expect, we may be required to recognize all or some of the remaining unamortized costs without corresponding revenues to offset the net effect of the cost. The foregoing risks could have a material effect on our future balance sheets, cash flows, and results of operations.

Previous wording

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market and other applicable rules and regulations, including, among other requirements, U.S. laws regarding requirements to disclose efforts to identify the origin and existence of certain “conflict minerals.” Compliance with these rules and regulations has increased our legal and financial compliance costs, made some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and increased demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and results of operations and maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. Maintaining our disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with this standard requires significant resources and management oversight. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could harm our business and results of operations.

Current wording

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Stock Market and other applicable rules and regulations, including, among other requirements, U.S. laws regarding requirements to disclose efforts to identify the origin and existence of certain “conflict minerals.” Compliance with these rules and regulations has increased our legal and financial compliance costs, made some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and increased demand on our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and results of operations and maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. Maintaining our disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with this standard requires significant resources and management oversight. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could harm our business and results of operations. Although we have already hired additional employees to comply with these requirements, we may need to hire more employees in the future, which will increase our costs and expenses.

Previous wording

Our solar service offerings have been eligible for federal investment tax credits, U.S. Treasury grants, and other tax benefits. We have relied on, and will continue to rely on, tax equity investment funds, which are financing structures that monetize a substantial portion of those benefits, in order to finance our solar service offerings. If, for any reason, we are unable to continue to monetize those benefits through these arrangements, we may be unable to provide and maintain our solar service offerings for customers on an economically viable basis.

Current wording

Our solar service offerings have been eligible for federal ITCs, U.S. Treasury grants, and other tax benefits. We have relied on, and will continue to rely on, tax equity investment funds, which are financing structures that monetize a substantial portion of those benefits, in order to finance our solar service offerings. If, for any reason, we are unable to continue to monetize those benefits through these arrangements, we may be unable to provide and maintain our solar service offerings for customers on an economically viable basis.

Previous wording

The federal government currently offers ITCs under Section 48(a) (for solar facilities that began construction prior to January 1, 2025) and 48E of the Code, for the installation of certain energy properties, including solar power and storage facilities owned for business purposes. The 48(a) credit was extended and expanded upon and the 48E credit was created by the IRA, which was signed into law by President Biden on August 16, 2022. The IRA also created several ITC “bonus credits” to further incentivize various types of solar and storage facilities.

Current wording

The federal government currently offers ITCs under Sections 48(a) (for solar facilities that began construction prior to January 1, 2025) and 48E of the Code, for the installation of certain energy properties, including solar power and storage facilities owned for business purposes. The 48(a) credit was extended and expanded upon and the 48E credit was created by the IRA, which was signed into law by President Biden on August 16, 2022. The IRA also created several ITC “bonus credits” to further incentivize various types of solar and storage facilities.

Previous wording

Our inability to operationalize these tax credits, avail ourselves of IRA benefits in a timely fashion, or ensure the facilities we intend to qualify under the ITC bonus credits satisfy the applicable requirements could impact our ability to compete, and compromise or eliminate opportunities to financially benefit from these tax credits, which would adversely impact our business.

Current wording

In addition, our inability to operationalize these tax credits, avail ourselves of tax credit benefits in a timely fashion, or ensure the facilities we intend to qualify under the ITC bonus credits satisfy the applicable requirements could impact our ability to compete, and compromise or eliminate opportunities to financially benefit from these tax credits, which would adversely impact our business.

Previous wording

The federal government also currently offers a Residential Clean Energy Credit, for the installation of certain solar power facilities owned by residential taxpayers, which is applicable to customers who purchase a solar energy system outright as opposed to entering into a Customer Agreement.

Current wording

The federal government also currently offers a Residential Clean Energy Credit, for the installation of certain solar power facilities owned by residential taxpayers, which is applicable to customers who purchase a solar energy system outright as opposed to entering into a Customer Agreement. As a result of the tax policy changes in the OBBB this credit will expire on December 31, 2025. Expiration of the Residential Clean Energy Credit could reduce the number of customers who choose to purchase our solar energy systems and may further adversely impact our financial results and operational metrics.

Previous wording

We and our tax equity partners have claimed and expect to continue to claim ITCs with respect to qualifying solar energy projects. However, the application of law and guidance regarding ITC eligibility to the facts of particular solar energy projects is subject to a number of uncertainties. In particular with respect to the new IRA provisions for which U.S. Treasury regulations (“Treasury Regulations”) had been proposed and were only recently finalized, there can be no assurance that the IRS will agree with our approach in the event of an audit. While the U.S. Department of the Treasury addressed and clarified certain outstanding issues from the proposed Treasury Regulations regarding energy property and aggregation, the final rules may be subject to further interpretation and guidance. The U.S. Congress and Executive branches may enact legislation or issue executive orders that impact the newly enacted IRA provisions, and the IRS and U.S. Treasury may modify existing guidance, possibly with retroactive effect. For example, on January 20, 2025, the current U.S. administration issued an executive order for all federal agencies to immediately review all agency actions that potentially burden development of domestic energy resources, including any clean energy-related federal disbursements, followed by additional guidance and judicial action that generally make the fate of clean energy tax credits unclear. Additionally, on January 1, 2025, the ITC framework of Section 48 that the solar industry has historically relied upon shifted to the “tech-neutral” 48E credit applied separately to a qualified facility and energy storage technology. This transition may create uncertainty regarding the implementation of Section 48E of the Code under this new framework, which may cause delays or potentially adverse impacts on our business. Any of the foregoing items could reduce the amount of ITCs available to us and our tax equity partners. In this event, we could be required to indemnify tax equity partners for disallowed ITCs, adjust the terms of future tax equity partnerships, or seek alternative sources of funding for solar energy projects, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current wording

We and our tax equity partners have claimed and expect to continue to claim ITCs with respect to qualifying solar energy and energy storage projects, subject to the accelerated expiration of such ITCs under the OBBB. However, the application of law and guidance regarding ITC eligibility to the facts of particular solar energy projects remains subject to a number of uncertainties. With respect to the Section 48E final rule that the U.S. Treasury issued on January 15, 2025 (“Treasury Regulations”), there can be no assurance that the IRS will agree with our approach in the event of an audit. While the U.S. Department of the Treasury addressed and clarified certain outstanding issues from the proposed Treasury Regulations regarding energy property and aggregation, the final rules may be subject to further interpretation and guidance. The IRS and U.S. Treasury may modify existing guidance, possibly with retroactive effect. For example, President Trump’s July 7, 2025 executive order regarding solar and wind tax credits could change current IRS guidance on the beginning of construction, potentially limiting taxpayers’ ability to safe-harbor equipment and claim the 48E credit in the future. Additionally, on January 1, 2025, the ITC framework of Section 48 that the solar industry has historically relied upon shifted to the “tech-neutral” 48E credit applied separately to a qualified facility and energy storage technology. This transition may create uncertainty regarding the implementation of Section 48E of the Code under this new framework, which may cause delays or potentially adverse impacts on our business. Any of the foregoing items could reduce the amount of ITCs available to us and our tax equity partners. In this event, we could be required to indemnify tax equity partners for disallowed ITCs, adjust the terms of future tax equity partnerships, or seek alternative sources of funding for solar energy projects, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Previous wording

We have purchased insurance policies insuring us and related parties for additional taxes owed in respect of lost Commercial ITCs, depreciation, gross-up costs and expenses incurred in defending the types of claims described above. However, these policies only cover certain investment funds and have negotiated exclusions from, and limitations to, coverage and therefore may not cover us for all such lost Commercial ITCs, taxes, costs and expenses.

Current wording

We have purchased insurance policies insuring us and related parties for additional taxes owed in respect of lost ITCs, depreciation, gross-up costs and expenses incurred in defending the types of claims described above. However, these policies only cover certain investment funds and have negotiated exclusions from, and limitations to, coverage and therefore may not cover us for all such lost ITCs, taxes, costs and expenses.

Previous wording

Our business currently depends on the availability of utility rebates, tax credits and other benefits, tax exemptions and exclusions, and other financial incentives on the federal, state, and/or local levels. We may be adversely affected by changes in, and application of, these laws or other incentives to us, and the expiration, elimination or reduction of these benefits could adversely impact our business.

Current wording

Our business currently depends in part on the availability of utility rebates, tax credits and other benefits, tax exemptions and exclusions, and other financial incentives on the federal, state, and/or local levels. We may be adversely affected by changes in, and application of, these laws or other incentives to us, and the expiration, elimination or reduction of these benefits could adversely impact our business.

Previous wording

Our business depends on government policies that promote and support solar energy and enhance the economic viability of owning solar energy systems. U.S. federal, state and local governmental bodies provide incentives to owners, distributors, installers and manufacturers of solar energy systems to promote solar energy. These incentives include ITCs and Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit, as discussed above, as well as other tax credits, rebates and SRECs associated with solar energy generation. Some markets, such as New Jersey and Maryland, currently utilize SRECs. SRECs can be volatile and their value could decrease over time as the supply of SREC-producing solar energy systems installed in a particular market increases. We rely on these incentives to lower our cost of capital and to attract investors, all of which enable us to lower the price we charge customers for our solar service offerings. These incentives have had a significant impact on the development of solar energy but they could change at any time, especially after changes in the Administration or Congress. These incentives may also expire on a particular date, when the allocated funding is exhausted, or be reduced, terminated or repealed without notice. The financial value of certain incentives may also decrease over time.

Current wording

Our business depends in part on government policies that promote and support solar energy and enhance the economic viability of owning solar energy systems. U.S. federal, state and local governmental bodies have provided incentives to owners, distributors, installers and manufacturers of solar energy systems to promote solar energy. These incentives include ITCs and Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit, as discussed above, as well as other tax credits, rebates and SRECs associated with solar energy generation. The OBBB made significant changes to these incentives at the federal level, as described above under “Our ability to provide our solar service offerings to customers on an economically viable basis depends in part on our ability to finance these systems with fund investors who seek particular tax and other benefits.” Some markets, such as New Jersey and Maryland, currently utilize SRECs. SRECs can be volatile and their value could decrease over time as the supply of SREC- producing solar energy systems installed in a particular market increases. We rely on these incentives to lower our cost of capital and to attract investors, all of which enable us to lower the price we charge customers for our solar service offerings. These incentives have had a significant impact on the development of solar energy but they have undergone significant changes and could change further at any time, especially after changes in the Administration or Congress. These incentives may also expire on a particular date, when the allocated funding is exhausted, or be reduced, terminated or repealed without notice. The financial value of certain incentives may also decrease over time.

Previous wording

In December 2017, significant federal tax legislation was enacted, including a change to the corporate tax rate (the “Tax Act”). As part of the Tax Act, the current corporate income tax rate was reduced, and there were other changes including limiting or eliminating various other deductions, credits and tax preferences. This reduction in the corporate income tax rate may have reduced appetite for the ITC and depreciation benefits available with respect to solar facilities. The IRA implemented a corporate alternative minimum tax of 15% of financial statement income (subject to certain adjustments) for companies that report over $1 billion in profits to shareholders; similar to existing law, business credits (including Commercial ITCs) are limited to 75% of income in excess of $25,000 (with no limit against the first $25,000). We cannot predict whether and to what extent the U.S. corporate income tax rate will change as a result of the new White House administration and changes in Congress. Congress has been consistently considering changes to the tax code. For example, Congress and the current administration are discussing several approaches to adjust the 48E credit and other tax credits. Further limitations on, or elimination of, the tax benefits that support the financing of solar energy under current U.S. law could significantly impact our ability to raise tax equity investment funds or impact the terms thereof, including the amount of cash distributable to our investors. Similarly, any unfavorable interpretations of tax law by the IRS and/or the courts with respect to our financing structures could reduce the willingness of investors to invest in our funds associated with any such structure.

Current wording

In addition to the OBBB, prior federal tax legislation, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the "TCJA"), was enacted in December 2017. As part of the TCJA, the current corporate income tax rate was reduced, and there were other changes including limiting or eliminating various other deductions, credits and tax preferences. The OBBB generally continued these policies into the future after 2025, when some of them were set to expire. This reduction in the corporate income tax rate may have reduced appetite for the ITC and depreciation benefits available with respect to solar facilities. The IRA also implemented a corporate alternative minimum tax of 15% of financial statement income (subject to certain adjustments) for companies that report over $1 billion in profits to shareholders; similar to existing law, business credits (including ITCs) are limited to 75% of income in excess of $25,000 (with no limit against the first $25,000). The OBBB permanently extended many provisions of the TCJA and did not change the corporate income tax rate, although we cannot predict whether and to what extent such rate may change in the future as a result of further changes to the Code. Further limitations on, or elimination of, the tax benefits that support the financing of solar energy under the OBBB and other aspects of current U.S. law could significantly impact our ability to raise tax equity investment funds or impact the terms thereof, including the amount of cash distributable to our investors. Similarly, any unfavorable interpretations of tax law by the IRS and/or the courts with respect to our financing structures could reduce the willingness of investors to invest in our funds associated with any such structure.