Zelestra's Indiana Solar Borrows More per MW Than Its Texas Projects

Zelestra has raised $350 million from CIBC, BBVA and Societe Generale to build a 203 MW solar project on reclaimed coal mining land in Indiana, with Meta taking the power. Three months earlier the same company raised $181 million for a 176 MW project in Texas, also for Meta. The second project is barely larger than the first and the facility behind it is nearly twice the size.

Key takeaways

• Zelestra has secured a $350 million credit facility from a bank consortium for construction of the 203 MW Reclamation solar project in Gibson County, Indiana, with CIBC as left-lead arranger alongside BBVA and Societe Generale.
• The project sits on reclaimed former coal mining land in southwestern Indiana, is under construction, and is scheduled to reach commercial operations by the end of 2027. Enerdatics records its MISO interconnection agreement as executed.
• The facility will deliver energy directly to Meta under a long-term power purchase agreement.
• At $350 million across 203 MW the facility is $1.72 million per MW, against $1.33 million per MWac on the $181 million Zelestra raised in July 2026 for the 136 MWac Skull Creek project in Texas, which is also contracted to Meta.
• This is Zelestra's third US financing of 2026, taking its US total for the year to about $1.13 billion across $600 million in March, $181 million in July and $350 million now. The first two funded ERCOT assets and this is its first MISO financing of the year.

What is actually being financed here?

Construction, on a site that had to be remediated before it could host anything.

Enerdatics records the money as a credit facility provided by a bank consortium, with proceeds for construction of the project. A credit facility is a committed borrowing line a sponsor draws against as costs fall due, which is a different instrument from a term loan sized and amortised against a finished asset's cash flows. The distinction matters for how the headline number should be read, and it is the key to the per-MW arithmetic below.

The asset itself is straightforward: 203 MW of utility-scale photovoltaic capacity in Gibson County in the southwest corner of Indiana, on land previously used for coal mining, with commercial operations due by the end of 2027 and an executed MISO interconnection agreement already in hand. Enerdatics records the site as repurposed former mining land and nothing further about its condition, so the remediation history is context rather than a disclosed cost item.

Why is $1.72 million per MW high for a solar project?

Because it is more debt per megawatt than the same sponsor raised against a comparable project three months earlier, with the same offtaker.

Skull Creek is 176 MWdc and 136 MWac in Anderson County, Texas, inside ERCOT, and Enerdatics covered it when Zelestra locked a Meta contract on it before construction began. The $181 million Zelestra raised for it in July 2026 is $1.33 million per MWac, or $1.03 million per MWdc. Reclamation's 203 MW is recorded without a direct-current or alternating-current qualifier, which leaves a real margin in the comparison: at a typical 1.3 ratio a 203 MWdc project is roughly 156 MWac, which would put this facility at $2.24 million per MWac.

On any of those bases the figure is above Skull Creek, and capacity does not explain the gap. What a construction facility contains probably does. A single committed line can carry tranches a term loan does not, among them a tax equity bridge, a letter of credit facility and tax or transmission deposits, and Enerdatics records the headline commitment without a tranche split. So $1.72 million per MW is better read as a ceiling on the capital made available to the project than as a measure of how levered it will end up.

What does the Meta contract do for the financing?

It is the reason three international banks will lend into a construction project in southern Indiana at all.

Zelestra's sequence is consistent: secure the offtake, then raise against it. At Skull Creek the Meta agreement was announced before the company's ownership of the project was even public, and the asset traded in late-stage development on the strength of the contract rather than on a notice to proceed. Here the pattern repeats with the power delivered directly to Meta under a long-term agreement, and with a familiar lender group: BBVA appears on this facility and also on the $176 million Babilonia financing Zelestra closed in Peru in March 2026.

A single investment-grade corporate buyer taking the output directly is what converts a development asset into something a consortium will fund through construction. It removes the merchant price question that would otherwise sit underneath a MISO project for its whole operating life, and it does so before any of the capital is at risk.

Enerdatics records 248 US solar debt financings since the start of 2024, and Zelestra accounts for three of them in 2026 alone, totalling about $1.13 billion: $600 million from Societe Generale and HSBC in March for two utility-scale projects, $181 million from Natixis in July for Skull Creek, and $350 million now for Reclamation. The first two funded ERCOT assets and this one funds a MISO asset, making Indiana the company's first US financing of the year outside Texas. Against the closest utility-scale comparable in the same dataset that discloses a capacity, Primergy's $588 million facility for the 408 MW Ash Creek project in March 2024 at $1.44 million per MW, Reclamation's $1.72 million per MW is roughly 19 percent higher.

What does the deal signal for US solar financing?

It signals that hyperscaler offtake, not the grid position, is now the gating item for construction debt. Reclamation already had its interconnection agreement executed, which a few years ago would have been the scarce thing. What the lenders are underwriting is a long-term contract with Meta, and the project's location in MISO rather than ERCOT is a consequence of where that load is going rather than a constraint on raising the money.

Siting is the second signal. Reclaimed industrial land competes with nobody, which matters in a state where Enerdatics records 623 solar projects and where agricultural land increasingly attracts local opposition. Expect more former mining and industrial sites to carry utility-scale solar, and expect the financing structures to keep being reported as single headline numbers. They should not be read as leverage figures: a credit facility is a ceiling, and the market would learn more from the tranche split than from the total.

Frequently asked questions

How much did Zelestra raise for the Reclamation solar project?A $350 million credit facility from a bank consortium, with CIBC as left-lead arranger alongside BBVA and Societe Generale, for construction of the 203 MW project. That is $1.72 million per MW on the recorded capacity.

Who buys the power from the Reclamation project?Meta, under a long-term power purchase agreement delivering energy directly from the project. Commercial operations are scheduled by the end of 2027.

What is the difference between a credit facility and a term loan?A credit facility is a committed line a borrower draws against as costs arise, often covering several purposes at once. A term loan is a fixed amount sized and amortised against an asset's cash flows, so it is the better guide to how levered a finished project actually is.

Enerdatics records the lender group, the instrument and the offtake behind every US solar financing, which is how a headline facility stops being mistaken for a leverage figure. Browse more transaction analysis in the Enerdatics insights archive.