Pine Gate Renewables has raised about $113 million from three banks to build Catalina, a 75 MW solar farm in Saluda County, South Carolina. Divided by capacity, that is roughly $1.5 million per MW, a sizeable sum for a project of that size. But the $113 million is not one loan. It is three different instruments, and only one of them is long-term debt.
Key takeaways
- Pine Gate Renewables secured a financing package of about $112.9 million from a consortium of banks, announced on 19 September 2024, for the construction of the 75 MW Catalina solar project in the US.
- The Catalina financing package consists of a construction-to-term loan, a tax equity bridge loan and a letter of credit facility, with the split between them undisclosed.
- Zions Bancorporation served as coordinating lead arranger and administrative agent for the Catalina financing, alongside Lloyds Bank and United Community Bank.
- The Catalina solar project in Saluda County, South Carolina, is expected to be operational by January 2026, and the proceeds fund its construction and long-term operation.
- Among seven 2024 US single-project solar loans in Leap for farms of 48 to 140 MW, construction-stage packages ranged from about $1.04 million to $2.38 million per MW; Pine Gate's Catalina package sits at about $1.51 million per MW.
What are the three parts of the Catalina package?
Each one does a different job, and only the first stays on the project for the long term.
A construction-to-term loan funds the build and then converts into a long-term loan once the plant is running, repaid from its revenue over many years. This is the part most people mean when they talk about project debt.
A tax equity bridge loan is short-term money. In the US, solar projects attract federal tax credits, and developers typically bring in a tax equity investor who funds part of the project in exchange for those credits. That investor usually pays only when the plant is complete. The bridge loan covers the gap during construction and is repaid when the tax equity arrives.
A letter of credit facility is a promise rather than cash. Banks issue letters of credit to guarantee a project's obligations to third parties, such as its grid connection or power buyer. They are drawn only if something goes wrong.
So the $112.9 million headline adds together long-term debt, a loan that disappears at completion, and a guarantee that may never be drawn. Leap does not record how Catalina's package splits between the three.
How much of a package like this is real long-term debt?
Sometimes much less than the headline suggests. One comparable package in Leap with a disclosed split is Doral Renewables' $114 million financing for the 48 MW Great Bend solar project in Ohio, signed in March 2024 with HSBC. It broke down into a $36 million construction-to-term loan, a $57 million tax equity bridge and a $21 million letter of credit facility. As Enerdatics found, only a third of the Great Bend package is term debt.
That does not mean Catalina's split is the same. Bridge sizes depend on how much tax equity a project expects to raise, and letters of credit depend on what its counterparties require. But it does mean a per-MW figure for a three-part package cannot be read as leverage on the plant.
The same structure appears elsewhere. In December 2024 Treaty Oak Clean Energy raised $123 million for its 100 MW Redfield solar project in Arkansas from CIBC, Credit Agricole and ING, again as a construction-to-term loan, a tax credit bridge loan and a letter of credit facility. At about $1.23 million per MW it sits below Catalina, with its own split equally undisclosed.
Enerdatics records 97 US solar debt financings announced in 2024. Set against six other single-project loans from that list for farms of between 48 and 140 MW, Catalina's package is in the middle of the range:
- Doral, Great Bend, 48 MW in Ohio: $114 million, about $2.38 million per MW.
- Origis Energy, Rice Creek, 75 MW in Florida: $136 million from MUFG, about $1.81 million per MW.
- Recurrent Energy, Bayou Galion, 98 MWac in Louisiana: $160 million from MUFG, about $1.63 million per MW.
- Pine Gate, Catalina, 75 MW in South Carolina: $112.9 million, about $1.51 million per MW.
- Treaty Oak, Redfield, 100 MW in Arkansas: $123 million, about $1.23 million per MW.
- National Renewable Solutions, Shallow Basket, 140 MW of solar with 50 MW of storage in New Mexico: $145 million from Deutsche Bank, about $1.04 million per MW of solar.
- Headwater Energy, Gum Swamp, 112.5 MW in North Carolina: $32 million for late-stage development, about $0.28 million per MW.
Catalina and Rice Creek are the same size, 75 MW, yet Rice Creek's financing is about $23 million larger. Rice Creek's is described as a construction facility converting to a term loan, contracted with the Florida Municipal Power Agency, while Catalina's includes a bridge and a letter of credit. Like-for-like comparison is not possible without the splits.
Who is lending, and what does that say about Pine Gate?
A regional lead with two partners. Zions Bancorporation, a US regional bank, arranged and administers the facility. Lloyds Bank and United Community Bank complete the group. McDermott Will & Emery advised Pine Gate and Winston & Strawn advised the lenders.
Pine Gate was active on several fronts in 2024. It raised $650 million in equity from Generate Capital, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan and HESTA, the largest equity raise by a US solar company Enerdatics records that year, as covered in HOOPP joins Generate behind Pine Gate's growth plan. Project-level packages like Catalina's sit underneath that corporate capital, funding individual plants one at a time.
What does the deal signal for US solar project finance?
It signals that the standard US solar construction financing is a bundle, not a loan. Bridges against expected tax equity and letters of credit are routinely packaged with the term debt, and announcements usually report the total. Headline amounts therefore overstate long-term leverage by an amount the public record rarely reveals.
It also signals continued appetite for mid-sized projects outside the organised power markets. Leap tags Catalina's power market as Independent, as it does Gum Swamp in North Carolina and Shallow Basket in New Mexico. Smaller projects in these regions are still raising construction finance from regional and international banks alike.
Finally, it is a reminder to read per-MW debt figures with care. Catalina's $1.51 million per MW looks high for a 75 MW plant, but part of it is likely to be short-term or contingent. Until the split is disclosed, the honest benchmark is the range, not a single number.
Frequently asked questions
How much did Pine Gate Renewables raise for the Catalina solar project? Pine Gate Renewables secured about $112.9 million from a consortium led by Zions Bancorporation, with Lloyds Bank and United Community Bank, announced on 19 September 2024, for the 75 MW Catalina solar project in South Carolina.
What does the Catalina financing package include? The package combines a construction-to-term loan, a tax equity bridge loan and a letter of credit facility. The amount of each component was not disclosed.
When will the Catalina solar project be operational? The 75 MW Catalina solar project in Saluda County, South Carolina, is expected to be operational by January 2026.
Ready to get deal-ready answers in seconds? Try Enerdatics Leap AI and access verified intelligence across M&A, financings, PPAs, projects, and energy market developments through natural language.
.jpeg)
