Foss & Company Closed One of the First Section 48E Tax Equity Deals: A $150 Million Aggregated Portfolio

Foss & Company announced on August 19 that it had closed approximately $150 million in Section 48E Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit tax equity generated by a portfolio of distributed energy projects in Illinois, owned through a joint venture between Summit Ridge Energy and Apollo Global Management. The announcement describes it as among the industry’s first announced 48E transactions, and the eighth transaction between Foss and Summit Ridge. The figure is the tax equity investment, the capital committed to monetize the credits, rather than a measure of credits alone.

More than half of the projects sit in Illinois’ Adjustable Block Program, with 15- or 20-year renewable energy credit streams backed by commercial subscribers. The portfolio carries Domestic Content, Energy Community and Low-Income adders.

The diligence framework. Foss partner Bryen Alperin framed the deal as “building a FEOC diligence framework for future transactions” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The framing is notable because it treats the reusable output of the transaction as the provenance documentation rather than the credit itself: the foreign-entity-of-concern restrictions are the gate, and the deliverable is a method for passing it repeatedly.

Scale, and what it does and does not prove. The transaction that closed was a multi-site portfolio spanning one state’s incentive program, not a single project. What the deal establishes is narrow and worth stating precisely: a distributed 48E portfolio of this size and structure can clear tax equity diligence with the OBBBA foreign-entity rules live. It does not establish that a single-site or smaller transaction cannot clear the same gate. No such deal has been tested publicly either way.

The analytical inference, and it is an inference rather than a demonstrated fact, is that the diligence economics favor aggregation. Tracing cell, inverter and component origin through a supply chain, then defending that trace to a tax equity investment committee, is work that scales with the complexity of the supply chain rather than with the nameplate capacity of the assets. Earlier reporting that credit buyers tend to skip sub-$10 million credits points in the same direction. Neither observation proves a floor exists; together they suggest one may.

For distributed storage specifically, the practical reading is that portfolio origination is worth treating as a financing consideration rather than purely as a growth strategy. A developer presenting multiple buildings under one bill of materials is presenting the structure that has been shown to work. A developer presenting one building is presenting a structure that has not yet been publicly tested.

Interim rules. Treasury and the IRS issued interim guidance in Notice 2026-15 covering the material assistance provisions that govern FEOC compliance. The framework Alperin describes building is therefore a framework built against rules that remain interim, with Treasury’s FEOC safe harbor tables due by December 31, 2026. That sequencing is what makes the transaction informative rather than merely procedural: it indicates that a tax equity investment committee will underwrite FEOC risk on guidance that is not final, given sufficient documentation and sufficient scale.

New York. On August 18 the New York Public Service Commission directed the state’s electric utilities to file tariff amendments improving the interconnection process for distributed generation and storage systems of 5 MW or less, and added transparency requirements on grid upgrades, according to RTO Insider. The Commission rejected several requests from NYSEIA, including a cap on developers’ cost responsibility for upgrade costs exceeding the utility’s own estimate.

A commercial customer signing an interconnection agreement in New York therefore retains open-ended exposure to upgrade cost overruns above the study estimate.

Set that against the financing structure the Foss transaction validates. Portfolio aggregation diversifies credit risk across subscribers and sites. It is less effective against uncapped upgrade cost exposure, because that exposure is not independent across sites within a single service territory: projects behind the same utility share one estimating methodology and one construction cost environment. Whatever number of projects an aggregator assembles behind Con Edison, the upgrade cost risk on those projects is correlated by construction.

Texas. The PUCT’s draft report in Project 58000 recommends moving ERCOT wholesale transmission cost allocation from four coincident peaks to a methodology using more coincident peaks, with a target implementation date of December 31, 2026. The same docket proposes eliminating interconnection cost allowances and establishing minimum demand charges based on contracted peak demand for up to 15 years for large loads, per K&L Gates’ summary of the draft. Draft recommendations issued March 16 and comments closed April 13.

Bavaria. Bayernwerk Netz replaced first-come, first-served grid connection allocation with criteria-based selection for battery systems above 300 kW import capacity and consumers above 1,000 kW, scoring project maturity, willingness to provide flexibility, co-location potential with renewables, climate-target contribution and locational constraints. Applications are collected semi-annually and ranked before technical assessment, with a realization deposit required to deter speculative requests. The digital portal opens October 12, 2026. Generators, hospitals, emergency services, educational facilities and municipal heating projects are exempt.

New York, Texas and Bavaria moved in the same direction this week, through three different mechanisms: the cost and priority risk of connecting to a distribution system is shifting toward the applicant and away from the ratepayer base.

Where the evidence stops. The Foss close demonstrates that a distributed 48E portfolio can be financed under live FEOC rules. It does not demonstrate that a storage portfolio can, because this portfolio was distributed solar, and the storage supply chain presents a different concentration profile than the module supply chain. Treasury’s forthcoming safe harbor tables will determine whether the diligence frameworks being built now survive contact with final rules.

What has changed is which question is open. The prior question in distributed clean energy finance was whether the credit could be monetized at all under the foreign-entity restrictions. One syndicator has now answered that in the affirmative, at roughly $150 million and eight deals of relationship history with a single sponsor. The question that follows is whether the interconnection cost of the underlying sites can be estimated within a range a portfolio investor will accept, and three regulators moved that question in an unhelpful direction in a single week.

Sources