Published

1 year ago

May 9, 2025

Alice Rush

Disseminated on behalf of SolarBank Corporation

SolarBank Corporation (NASDAQ: SUUN; Cboe CA: SUNN; FSE: GY2) is growing its solar footprint in the U.S. It has signed a new deal with a California-based renowned real estate and infrastructure investor, CIM Group. This deal provides project-based funding of up to $100 million and will support solar projects with a combined capacity of 97 megawatts (MW) across the country.

Dr. Richard Lu, President and CEO of SolarBank, said,

“The financing is another major milestone in SolarBank’s plans to grow its status as an independent power producer. Assuming full funding, SolarBank will retain a majority ownership interest in what is expected to be 21 solar energy projects with a total capacity of 97 MW. The Transaction has been structured such that SolarBank does not have to issue any new shares, as the financing is being completed at the project company level.”

SolarBank’s Joint Venture Structure and Financing Details

CIM is a real estate and infrastructure firm focused on community development with ESG goals intact. Since 1994, it has invested over $60 billion to improve neighborhoods across the U.S. The company manages all stages of a project. From research and planning to daily operations and final sale.

Kyle Hatzes, Managing Director, Infrastructure & Impact Investments, CIM Group, further confirmed,

“CIM Group has a long history of developing and investing in essential infrastructure projects that seek to benefit communities and the environment. This transaction with SolarBank to grow its portfolio of solar projects underscores our ongoing commitment to the renewable energy sector and our focus on supporting innovative companies leading the energy transition across North America.”

The funding will be structured through a joint venture called “New HoldCo,” formed by CIM and Abundant Solar Power Inc. (ASP), a fully owned subsidiary of SolarBank.

Under the agreement, CIM will invest in non-convertible preferred equity in the newly created entity. Importantly, SolarBank is not issuing any shares or securities as part of this transaction.

New HoldCo is set to acquire project companies from ASP that collectively own 97 MW of solar capacity. The purchase will occur in two phases:

20% of the purchase price will be paid when a project reaches mechanical completion.
The remaining 80% will be provided upon substantial completion.

Tax Credit Transfers and Financial Returns

Each solar project will earn Investment Tax Credits (ITCs). These credits will be sold to qualified buyers. These sales will follow Section 6418 of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax credit transfer agreements (TCTAs) will formalize these transactions. CIM will keep 100% of the revenue from these tax credit sales.

CIM will earn a 3% annual coupon on its investment. This payment is made twice a year. After this payment, the remaining cash flow from the projects will go to ASP.

SEE MORE: Latest Solar Price Chart

Exit Strategy and Redemption Terms

New HoldCo can redeem CIM’s preferred equity 180 days after the fifth anniversary of the last project’s launch. The redemption value will be the higher of the fair market value or a set multiple of CIM’s initial investment.

Additionally, if New HoldCo decides not to redeem, CIM can request redemption at the lower value of the fair market price or the same investment multiple.

If a project is liquidated, damaged, or faces similar events, proceeds will be split according to the original contributions made by each party.

Challenges and Conditional Requirements

Despite the positive outlook, the deal comes with several risks. SolarBank must secure interconnection approvals, sign solar contracts, and obtain all required permits. The company also needs to secure third-party financing to keep the projects moving. Construction delays or cost overruns could pose further challenges.

Most importantly, if the government changes or removes solar incentives, the projects may no longer remain financially viable.

Moreover, the funding from CIM is subject to the signing of final agreements. If these aren’t finalized or key conditions fail, funds won’t be released. SolarBank also needs to secure capital for important construction milestones. The CIM funding comes only after achieving mechanical and substantial completion.

However, this deal with CIM Group shows great trust in SolarBank’s U.S. projects and growth plans. The $100 million financing will work if it gets regulatory approval. It also depends on construction moving forward and government policies supporting solar energy.

MUST READ:

Community Solar: Current Market Landscape and Growth Projections

As of June 2024, the United States has about 7.87 gigawatts (GW) of community solar capacity. This capacity is spread across 44 states and the District of Columbia.

In the third quarter of 2024, the community solar segment installed 291 megawatts direct current (MWdc). This is a 12% increase compared to the same period in the previous year. This growth underscores the sector’s resilience and expanding appeal.

Solar Bank’s community solar achievements include:

community solar

SolarBank: Opportunities Amid Tariff Hikes

With rising tariffs on solar products from Southeast Asia, U.S.-based companies like SolarBank Corporation could seize new opportunities. SolarBank, which focuses on solar energy, battery storage, and EV charging solutions, does not manufacture solar panels but imports them for its projects. Notably, the company does not source from the Southeast Asian nations affected by the new tariffs, minimizing immediate impact.

These tariffs are expected to drive up the cost of imported panels, potentially increasing demand for domestic solar products. SolarBank, with a strong U.S. presence, may benefit by sourcing panels locally. U.S. solar stocks have already seen a rise since the tariff announcement, strengthening the business case for companies like SolarBank, which can reduce supply chain risks by focusing on domestic production.

Regarding the recent tariffs, Dr. Richard Lu, President and CEO of SolarBank, commented:

“We continue to execute on our development pipeline of community solar projects. I also want to comment on the recent announcement of increased tariffs on south-east Asia solar cells and SolarBank’s plans to manage its supply chain.

SolarBank has not been importing solar panels from any of the four countries that are subject to the tariffs announced by the U.S. Department of Commerce on April 21, 2025. As a result its present operations are not affected by this announcement. In addition, SolarBank has been exploring sourcing solar panels from other jurisdictions such as the Middle East and North America, where (domestic assembled) solar panels are becoming cost competitive with the panels imported from Asia. SolarBank also has significant development opportunities in Canada where solar panels are not subject to the same tariffs. Finally, I am expecting that electricity costs will increase in response to these tariffs which will further mitigate the financial impact on projects.

Overall, SolarBank is well positioned to manage this risk.”

solarbank

SolarBank’s growth strategy in North America positions the company to capitalize on emerging clean energy markets in both the U.S. and Canada. By focusing on regions with high demand for renewable energy infrastructure, SolarBank is strategically aligning its operations to meet the growing need for community solar, energy storage, and sustainable energy solutions. This approach not only strengthens its market presence but also ensures the company is well-positioned to benefit from the ongoing transition toward green energy.

This report contains forward-looking information. Please refer to the SolarBank press release entitled “US$100 Million Transformative, Project Financing Announced by SolarBank and CIM Group to Fund 97 MW of Renewable Energy Assets in the United States” for details of the information, risks and assumptions.

Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: None.

Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.

Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.

The post SolarBank and CIM Group Announce $100M to Power 97 MW of U.S. Renewable Energy Projects appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Carbon Footprint

How to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD

Published

2 days ago

July 17, 2026

Alice Rush

For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.

Carbon Footprint

How community stewardship makes carbon credits durable

Published

2 days ago

July 17, 2026

Alice Rush

A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?

Carbon Footprint

Why Conventional Carbon Offsets Are Losing Boardroom Credibility

Published

4 days ago

July 15, 2026

Alice Rush

What replaced the cheap REDD credit on the boardroom slide deck, and why procurement is leading the rewrite.

Three years ago, a corporate slide showing a portfolio of cheap REDD+ credits could carry a board meeting. The number was big, the price was low, and the press release wrote itself. Today, that same slide gets sent back with questions. The questions are uncomfortable, the answers are unclear, and your general counsel is suddenly in the room.

Conventional carbon offsets are not dead. The voluntary carbon market retired 202 million tonnes in 2025, and the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 confirmed that interest from corporate buyers remains substantial. What changed is the credibility threshold. The integrity floor has risen, the disclosure scrutiny has tightened, and the buyer profile has shifted. This article tracks what changed, what sophisticated buyers now ask before signing, and what serious corporates are putting on the board slide instead.

What boards used to buy, and why it stopped working

The 2020 to 2022 model was simple: buy a large tranche of avoidance credits at low single-digit prices, retire them against the company footprint, announce the carbon-neutral claim, and move on. Most of those credits came from REDD+ projects, renewable energy installations in countries where the renewable energy was already economic, or methane projects with thin documentation.

Several things broke that model. Academic research published in 2023, including a widely cited Science paper, found that the majority of REDD+ credits issued under the most common methodologies did not represent additional reductions when tested against rigorous counterfactuals. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative published its Claims Code of Practice, which sets requirements for what companies can credibly claim from credit use. The European Union finalised its Green Claims Directive, restricting how companies can describe products as climate-neutral. France’s Décret 2022-539 already restricts carbon neutrality advertising. California’s AB 1305 imposes disclosure requirements on any company making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims while doing business in the state.

The collective effect: the cheap credit no longer buys the announcement, and the announcement now carries litigation risk.

The integrity reset: ICVCM, VCMI, and what changed

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market published the Core Carbon Principles in 2023 and began assessing methodologies against them in 2024. The first methodologies received the CCP label later that year. The point of the label is to give corporate buyers a defensible quality screen they can cite in disclosure.

The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative complements this on the demand side. Its Claims Code of Practice defines what a buyer can say (Silver, Gold, or Platinum claims, with associated requirements) based on the quality of credits used and the underlying decarbonisation strategy. Together, CCP and VCMI build a quality stack: CCP on the supply, VCMI on the claim, with the science-based target sitting underneath both.

The reset is not a ban on offsets. It is a ratchet. Credits that meet the new bar continue to clear; credits that do not, do not. The Morgan Stanley survey found that 61% of current buyers like the CCP label concept but that supply of labelled credits remains limited. That supply constraint is now visible in pricing.

What sophisticated buyers ask before they sign

The questions on the procurement scorecard have changed. A 2022 buyer might have asked about price, vintage, and project type. A 2026 buyer asks five different questions before any of those.

What does the counterfactual look like, and who validated it.
What is the permanence regime, and what is the buffer pool exposure.
What is the leakage risk, and how is it mitigated.
What rating has the project received from the independent ratings agencies (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx Global), and what was the rationale.
What is the documentation discipline that survives an audit four years from now when the procurement team that signed the contract has moved on.

If the vendor cannot answer those five questions on a first call, the conversation ends. Conversely, if the vendor can answer them with documented specificity, the conversation often expands beyond a single transaction toward a multi-year engagement.

Where this leaves your near-term commitments

You probably have near-term commitments that pre-date the integrity reset. Public targets to be carbon neutral by 2025 or 2030. Product-level claims that ran in last year’s marketing. Disclosed reduction trajectories that assumed continued access to cheap credits.

You have three workable paths. The first is to re-baseline your strategy, replacing the most exposed credits with higher-quality alternatives and adjusting the public language to match what you can defend. The second is to shift the underlying spend from offsetting outside your value chain to investing inside your value chain, where reductions count against Scope 3 directly and the audit trail is cleaner. The third is to keep the strategy and absorb the risk, which is increasingly the most expensive option once you price in litigation, restatement, and reputational exposure.

Most serious buyers are choosing the second path. It moves the carbon spend from a compliance cost to a procurement and resilience investment, and it removes the central failure point of the legacy model: the disconnect between where the emissions occurred and where the reductions sat. Nature-based supply chain investments, structured under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard and aligned to the SBTi FLAG Guidance, are the asset class that fits this brief. They generate inventory-grade reductions, they produce audit-grade documentation, and they survive the new claim restrictions because the carbon math sits inside the value chain that the disclosure already covers.

If you are reassessing a carbon strategy under the new integrity bar, or rebuilding a board narrative that has to survive a more skeptical audience, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help. The Dual-Value Model gives you a defensible alternative to legacy offset purchases, with the documentation and operational integration that survives the procurement scorecard and the audit. Schedule a consultation.