In 2025, more than $14 billion in clean energy investments has already been canceled or delayed in the United States, according to a May analysis by the group E2 and consultancy Atlas Public Policy. Major reasons include rising policy uncertainty, permitting hurdles and development risk, especially around site control and project readiness.
While much of the conversation focuses on tax credits and federal policy, the less-discussed reality remains land strategy, which often breaks or accelerates projects long before the poured concrete. Land was once the easy part — secure a multi-year option for a few thousand dollars; close when ready to build. But for today’s solar developers, that model no longer holds.
Land now moves faster. Owners push for immediate value. Project timelines keep shrinking. Storage complicates site design. And yet, land strategy often sits at the bottom of the capital stack disconnected from how developers build and finance projects.
That gap introduces friction, risk and lost opportunities. Developers need a new way to think about land — not as a real estate transaction, but as a financial tool that can make or break execution.
Land risk comes earlier than it used to
In the past, developers could take their time. They’d sign a long option, pay a nominal fee and wait until notice to proceed (NTP) before committing real capital.
Solar developers often need to secure land years before reaching a project’s NTP, a shift that adds financial risk early in the project lifecycle when uncertainty remains high.
That risk grows in high-demand and urban areas. As an example, San Diego land prices have reportedly reached as high as $10 million per acre. In contrast, West Texas land might cost $3,000 to $5,000 per acre until developers show interest. In the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) territory, that kind of demand can drive prices, sometimes approaching up to $20,000 per acre.
At the same time, landowners are less willing to offer multi-year options, often demanding immediate purchases or lease commitments. As a result, developers will need to move faster, pay more and carry land costs longer, often without knowing whether the project will proceed.
For solar developers adding energy storage, this pressure only increases. Batteries require more space, updated site layouts and permitting that aligns with fire codes and local ordinances. These variables add uncertainty, even as landowners demand fast decisions.
Equity isn’t always the smartest tool
Most teams default to sponsor equity when they need to buy land early. That works on paper, but it drains capital that could go to higher-yielding parts of the project.
Land doesn’t generate revenue. It doesn’t qualify for the investment tax credit (ITC). And it can’t be depreciated. When developers roll land into the project company, they dilute the tax credit basis and lose future flexibility.
Debt doesn’t offer much help either. Banks usually lend against appraised value and not market price. So when landowners demand premiums, the financing gap widens. Throw in conservative loan-to-value ratios, and developers may only get 30% of what they need.
This capital mismatch puts real pressure on the stack, especially for storage-integrated projects, which already carry higher interconnection costs and evolving technical scopes.
Land finance can solve the timing problem
There’s a better way. Some developers now use land finance as a targeted tool to stay nimble without draining equity or chasing slow-moving lenders.
In a land finance structure, a third-party capital provider acquires the parcel, then leases it back to the developer under a long-term agreement. The developer gets site control. The project stays on track. And the capital stack remains intact.
Unlike traditional project finance, land finance typically does not require independent engineering reports or detailed underwriting of interconnection and permitting. While real estate diligence is still required, often with support from internal teams or specialized advisors, it is generally a more streamlined process that developers can manage in-house.
These are real estate transactions, not project closings. Developers can typically handle the process in-house.
Many land finance providers close in 30-60 days. That speed matters, especially when developers face deadlines from landowners, power buyers or grid operators.
Case study: $21 million land position secured ahead of NTP
Recently, Accelerate successfully executed a $21 million sale-leaseback for land designated to host a 460-MW utility-scale solar project in Texas. The transaction occurred during the pre-NTP phase, enabling the developer to secure its land position well ahead of construction. The deal was structured and closed in under 30 days, highlighting the approach’s speed. The project benefits from an existing long-term power purchase agreement with an investment-grade technology company, providing strong offtake security and long-term revenue stability.
Planning pays off
Too many developers wait until land becomes a problem before they consider their options. By then, it’s often too late. The parcel has gone under contract with someone else.
Instead, developers should build a land strategy into their early-stage planning. Even if they plan to self-fund, they should understand what third-party land capital entails. These conversations cost nothing, but they often save months.
Where possible, developers should also consider separate land ownership from the project company. A standalone land-holding entity might add minimal complexity but also creates options for future sale, refinance or restructuring. That structure protects flexibility when the project scales.
Bottom line
Land no longer plays a background role in solar and storage development. It shapes project timelines, drives early capital decisions and often determines whether a deal moves forward or stalls.
Developers who treat land strategy as a financial priority (not only a real estate task) gain more control over execution, budgeting and flexibility. That mindset becomes even more important as storage enters the equation and timelines compress.
Success now depends on more than site selection. It depends on structuring land in a way that supports capital efficiency, accelerates development and keeps options open.
Maria Klutey is the senior vice president of renewables at Accelerate. She brings more than 20 years of experience in renewable energy finance and has supported hundreds of land transactions across solar, wind and storage projects nationwide.
