Massachusetts Solar Renewable Energy Certificates

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

 

Settlement: $411.1Bid: $411.1Offer: $0

To Participate and Trade in Real-Time, Login to our Trading Platform.
Don't have an account with us yet? Sign up now for FREE.
Date
Time
Seller
Volume
Type
Settlement
8/13/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
Sparta Township
40
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$679
7/22/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
ACUA
244
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$683
7/8/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
N. Burlington Regional Schools
111
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$677.9
7/8/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
NW Bergen County Utilities Authority
118
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$677.9
6/24/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
Township of Verona
79
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$675
6/10/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
Lawrence Twp. Public Schools
238
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$678.1
5/27/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
NW Bergen County UA
100
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$678.25
5/20/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
Town of Morristown
190
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$676.25
4/29/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
ACUA
100
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$676.25
3/11/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
Lawrence Twp. Public Schools
533
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$674.4
2/17/2010
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
ACUA
114
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$680
12/22/2009
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
Town of Morristown
293
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$672
12/18/2009
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
ACUA
197
New Jersey 2010 SRECs
$677
8/12/2009
9:00 AM - 10:00 AM
Twp. of Verona
42
New Jersey 2009 SRECs
$677.5
8/11/2009
9:00 AM - 10:00 AM
PSE&G
1352
New Jersey 2009 SRECs
$688.52

No comments yet.

You are viewing historical pricing data for Massachusetts Solar Renewable Energy Certificates.
This information is subject to delay. Settlement prices also listed daily on Reuters news service.

Massachusetts and TransCanada Reach Partial Settlement

TransCanada and Massachusetts reached a partial settlement in a lawsuit in which TransCanada claimed that the mandate to buy only in-state environmental attributes such as SRECs (in this case focused on wind) violated Interstate Commerce. Transcanada dropped the suit when the Commonwealth’s Department of Energy agreed to grandfather supply contracts entered into before January 1, 2010.

Exempting electric suppliers from incremental changes in Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) changes are common. In New Jersey the latest changes in Solar Renewable Energy Certificate (SREC) purchase requirements exempts suppliers that have entered into existing Basic Generation Services (BGS) increases. The supplemental increases are shifted to those electric suppliers not contracted under BGS contracts. Once the contracts run out, which is generally 3 years or less, the SREC purchase increases shift back to an even distribution for all suppliers and future BGS auction participants can factor in the higher RPS requirements. These changes are generally a small percentage.

This settlement did not solve the constitutionality of the law in regards to Interstate Commerce. It does show that at this point a minority of electric suppliers may threaten the Interstate Commerce card to achieve a settlement. The downside is that a supplier risks damaging their reputation with their customers if it is perceived that they do not support renewable energy. Lawsuits of this type bring uncertainty for investors in renewable energy. Interstate Commerce was brought up in NJ Clean Energy meetings in the last month for the first time because of the Massachusetts suit.

The settlement will be welcome news for solar developers in Massachusetts and other states such as New Jersey which only accept SRECs from in state solar facilities.

Litigation Looms Over the Mass. SREC Market

Massachusetts based solar companies could lose a competitive advantage if a lawsuit filed by a Canadian company is successful. TransCanada Power, a Canadian utility provider who sells electricity to large commercial and industrial facilities in Northeast New England, is challenging a Massachusetts state law requiring utility providers to purchase all future renewable energy from firms based within the state.

According to the civil suit filed in Federal District Court on April 16th, 2010, TransCanada claims that the existing Massachusetts Solar Carve-Out and proposed Long-Term Renewable Energy Contract Program are unconstitutional and discriminatory on the grounds that they violate the Commerce Clause of US Constitution, which forbids restrictions on cross-state trading. The suit goes further claiming that the existing Carve-Out harms TransCanada and the public at large, forcing the purchase of Solar RECs at artificially and illegally high prices.

According to the suit, the current Solar Carve-Out “prevents the development of an efficient market for Solar RECs.” and, “will slow the development of an efficient market for solar energy.” TransCanada goes on to say, “Businesses and consumers will be forced to pay a higher price than they would need to pay for efficient production of renewable energy. As a result of artificially high prices, the purchasing public will be slower to adopt renewable energy.”

The suit takes direct aim at the ‘Green Communities Act’, passed in 2008, which calls for long term contracts to be entered exclusively with generators located in Massachusetts and Solar Renewable Energy Certificates to be purchased from generation units located in Massachusetts (or be forced to pay the Alternative Compliance Payment). TransCanada, whose subsidiary has committed over $300 million to construct the Kibby Wind Power Project along Kibby Mountain Range in Maine near the Canadian border, wishes to compete for Massachusetts long-term renewable energy contracts from the Kibby project and other sources located outside the state.

US Solar Capacity Surges in 2009 on New Economic Incentives

LOS ANGELES, APRIL 15, 2010 — (Reuters) — Installed solar capacity jumped an astonishing 37% in 2009 following an onslaught of state and federal incentives offered during the recent economic crisis to help prop-up demand for new solar equipment. Grants, subsidies, tax-credits and cash incentives helped push revenue past $4 Billion in 2009, a 36% increase from the previous year.

According to a report released last Thursday by solar advocates it was the fourth straight year of unprecedented growth for the solar photo-voltaic industry here in the United States. This contrasts with the long-standing European solar power industry, which has seen a decrease as it’s mainstay nations ramp-down their incentive programs.

New U.S. solar capacity reached 481 Megawatts (MW) last year, an increase of 130 MW from 351 in 2008. Solar thermal for water heating also rose, but at a more modest 10% on the year. The only decline was seen in solar-pool heating, which saw a 10% decline blamed mostly on the slowdown in the housing sector.

Analysts say that the spike in U.S. growth is also attributed to lower prices of solar hardware, which the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) reported fell an estimated 40% in recent years. “Despite the Great Recession of 2009, the U.S. solar industry had a winning year and posted strong growth numbers… Consumers took notice that now is the best time to go solar,” says SEIA CEO Thone Resch. The increase in solar was led by California, with New Jersey coming in second place, followed by Florida, then Arizona.

According to the SEIA, six solar utility projects also came on line in 2009, including both solar PV and solar concentration plants. Despite the increase, solar still remains under 1% of utilities generation within the United States. The SEIA is optimistic for the future however and predicts 17 Gigawatts of solar power down the line, enough to power over 3 million homes.

“Now we’re talking gigawatts of solar, not megawatts,” said Resch.

View the SEIA’s 2009 Industry Year in Review Here:

http://seia.org/galleries/default-file/2009%20Solar%20Industry%20Year%20in%20Review.pdf

View the original article from Reuters Here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN159853820100415

(Reporting by Dana Ford; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Solar Financing

Solar energy is attracting investment dollars. Competitive returns, lower barriers of entry, state and federal incentives, SREC revenue streams, and progressive Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS) are advancing solar to the forefront of renewable energy world. As the solar market evolves, so are the financial structures that are assisting investors in financing and completing projects. This article will examine various financing strategies, the risks and rewards associated with them, and the incentives involved with solar investing.

  • Self Financed (Most Risk/Most Reward)– Self financed solar facilities are for residents and entities who want control of their solar destiny. These parties absorb the upfront costs for developing solar and the challenges of operating and maintaining their solar facility. This is the most capital intensive structure and poses the most risk and reward. The risk lies in the development of the project, the failure in properly monitoring and maintaining the facility, and the price associated with the Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs). The rewards are a reduced rate of electricity for as long as the facility can generate solar energy, declining installation costs, and a revenue stream generated by SREC monetization. Self-financiers take the risk of developing solar because there is the potential for them to payoff the facility in a shortened period of time and realize increased upside profit potential.
  • Solar Lease Financing (Moderate Risk/Moderate Reward)– Solar lease financing structures are being executed in both the residential and commercial markets. The concept is simple, straightforward, and similar to an equipment or automobile lease. Instead of self financing your solar facility, parties can enter into a leasing contract and agree to make monthly lease payments on their solar installation. Similar to a PPA contract the client does not incur the expensive upfront installation costs or the responsibility of operating and maintaining the solar facility. In a best case scenario the lessee can take advantage of higher SREC values and an option to buy out the system in six years, while the lessor obtains the ITC and accelerated depreciation of the system. A solar lease structure is also an alternative to a PPA contract for non-profit organizations who want to take on SREC risk for potential reward, while the lessor passes on the ITC and accelerated depreciation indirectly through a lower lease payment. Solar leasing firms have a set of criteria that clients need to meet in order to participate in their solar leasing program: commercial clients may need to submit audited financial statements and residents may need to have a FICO score of 700 or greater to be considered. However there are also risks associated with solar leases. One risk is that a lessee could go upside down on their contract. This happens when the solar lease is more expensive than the SRECs being monetized. Another risk is the future price of electricity. Lessees could potentially pay more for solar electricity than basic generated electricity if demand diminishes. The financial crisis of 2008-2009 was a reminder that electricity prices do not always go up and that electricity demand could decline during lean economic times. Solar lease financing is becoming more popular because it is affordable, convenient, environmentally responsible, and lowers your electricity bills. However, interested parties should weigh the risks and rewards associated with solar leases and learn more about the leasing company before signing an extended contract.
  • PPA Financed (Less Risk/Less Reward)– A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is a contract between a solar electricity generator and a client seeking solar energy. This financial structure is designed to provide the client with a reduced rate of electricity for an extended period of time (10-20 years), no upfront installation cost, and the option to purchase the solar facility at the end of the contract. The PPA Provider designs, develops, operates, maintains, and owns the solar facility located on the client’s property. In turn the client pays the PPA Provider for the electricity generated from the solar facility. PPA Providers enter into these agreements because there is a profitable margin between where solar can be developed and what electricity can be sold for. The PPA Provider can also take advantage of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and accelerated depreciation. PPA Providers gain ownership of the SRECs which are generated from the solar facility and can monetize them on the Flett Exchange live markets. This solar structure is popular with non-profit organizations that cannot take advantage of the ITC and realize the accelerated depreciation of their solar facility.

Many solar projects are contingent on tax benefits, rebates, and long-term SREC contracts. Without these incentives and risk mitigation strategies solar projects can be difficult to finance and pose significant risk to investors. Let’s examine some of the incentives and strategies that are allowing the solar market to flourish.

  • Tax Benefits- At this juncture, tax incentives are an integral part of solar financing. The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) returns over 30% of a solar project’s capital cost to investors in the form of a tax credit. Sophisticated investors are utilizing solar as a tax-equity investment vehicle because tax credits can offset tax liability. Section 1603 of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus Bill) also allows investors to receive a grant in lieu of tax credit when the “specified energy property” is submitted to the “grant program.” This program runs out at the end of 2010, and the SEIA www.seia.org is lobbying to have it extended. Both the credit and grant programs promote renewable energy on the institutional level and help incentivize solar development.
  • Accelerated Depreciation- Developers of commercial projects can realize additional tax benefits from the depreciating cost of their solar facility. An entity “can depreciate the installed cost of the system minus 50% of the business Investment Tax Credit (ITC) over the first five years of ownership (SEIA 2008) using the modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) (DSIRE 2008). According to a report by Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, the tax benefit of this depreciation is equivalent to 26% of the installed cost of the system, 12% of which comes from the ability to accelerate it over a five year period (Bolinger 2009).” –National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Solar Leasing for Residential Photovoltaic Systems.”
  • Long-Term SREC Contracts- are helpful in financing proposed solar projects. Flett Exchange brokers long-term SREC contracts between qualified institutional counterparties. Our ability to facilitate and streamline long-term SREC contracts is value-added to both buyers and sellers. Buyers gain direct access to large pools of SRECs at a discounted price to satisfy their RPS, while sellers have the ability to mitigate risk and lock-in profits. Counterparty credit risk is paramount in this market. Buyers and sellers enter into bilateral contracts to secure price, quantity, and term of the SREC contract. Counterparties agree to pay or delivery SRECs at a specified future date. Flett Exchange augments this process by employing a stringent vetting process and presenting quality and creditworthy solar projects to the market. Flett Exchange is currently brokering 1-7 year SREC contracts in the open market and growing our ability to facilitate longer term deals for eligible commercial entities.

As the solar markets continue to evolve new and innovative thinking will be the most prized commodity. The emergence of banks, lenders, financial institutions, and new financial structures will be welcomed and as solar makes the transition form a subsidized market to a self-sustaining market.

Why Investors are Attracted to Solar

Solar energy is gaining momentum in the renewable energy world. It is being heralded as a smart investment due to growth prospects, favorable market conditions, federal and state incentives, and more stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Individual and institutional investors are committing capital and taking risk because of potential profits and tax benefits that are associated with developing solar. Existing and newfound factors are driving solar energy to become a more mainstream investment. This article will examine these factors and demonstrate how they are contributing to solar energy’s success.

  • Growth- Over the past decade, technological advancements have made solar energy more affordable, more reliable and less obtrusive. Lower barriers of entry have allowed solar installers, integrators, and developers to offer competitive pricing on residential and commercial facilities and reduce their installed cost per watt.
  • Value- Solar energy is a potential hedge against higher electricity prices. It is estimated that electricity prices could conservatively increase by 3.0% a year. Solar energy is a wise alternative to higher electricity bills and can provide clean, green, and cheaper power. Self-Financing, Solar Lease Financing, and Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Financing are all financial structures that can accomplish reduced electricity costs.
  • Tradable SREC Markets- Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs) are environmental attributes that can be transacted and monetized. SRECs are the driving financial component that makes solar economically feasible. SRECs are generated from the production of solar energy and can be monetized on Flett Exchange’s live SREC markets. SRECs are market based. Unlike feed-in tariffs SRECs pass savings on to ratepayers over time, if overdevelopment occurs or if solar becomes less expensive.
  • State Mandated Markets- SREC markets are state mandated. State governments are establishing stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and increasing their solar carve-outs. Electric suppliers need to procure SRECs to meet their RPS. If electric suppliers cannot procure enough SRECs in the open marketplace to satisfy their RPS they are subject to a Solar Alternative Compliance Payment (SACP) which is a penalty payment and can be considerably higher then the spot SREC market.
  • Tax Benefits- Many solar projects are candidates for federal tax incentives and state rebates. The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) returns over 30% of a solar project’s capital cost to investors in the form of a tax credit. Section 1603 of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus Bill) also allows investors to receive a grant in lieu of tax credit when the “specified energy property” is submitted to the “grant program.” State rebates may also be available for residential and commercial solar installations. Rebate programs can differ from state to state and exist on a sliding scale depending on the size of the proposed solar facility.
  • Escalating Fossil Fuel Demand- Global demand for fossil fuels is increasing while supplies are diminishing. Developed and emerging nations are competing for fossil fuels and all petroleum products come with political and environmental risk. Solar energy, on the other hand, is limitless, does not emit harmful emissions, and can be achieved without any political risks. Also if the US Dollar continues to depreciate the price of foreign fuel could continue to rise.
  • Climate Change- Private and public corporations, organizations, agencies, and municipalities are implementing clean energy programs. Climate change is a growing social and political issue, both domestically and internationally. Insightful entities understand the benefits of renewable energy and the risks associated with not staying ahead of the climate curve. These players are implementing clean energy programs and are well positioned if climate legislation gets passed. The recent US healthcare decision demonstrates that political winds can shift momentarily and legislation can be passed swiftly. Renewable energy strategies and sustainability teams are becoming more conventional, as private and public entities recognize their social responsibilities to the environment and potential legislative risk.

Solar energy is a favored renewable energy source. Solar is easy to install, is a hedge against higher electricity prices, generates a SREC revenue stream, and is beneficial to the environment. So far advantageous market conditions have attracted investors to solar.

However the future of the solar market also comes with challenges and risks. Increased competition could create an overpopulated market. Inexperienced players who are attracted by favorable market conditions could sacrifice engineering and construction quality for short term monetary gains. The reduction of federal and state incentives could make solar less appealing. As the solar market evolves it will be interesting to see if it could sustain itself and emerge as an established renewable energy source.

Massachusetts Introduces a Solar RPS Carve-Out

   Massachusetts is pursuing a solar Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) carve-out for its renewable energy policy. The state is planning to join other eastern states and institute a tradeable Solar Renewable Energy Certificate (SREC) program. Solar carve-outs can spur solar development and assist Massachusetts in achieving its renewable energy goal in an appropriate period of time.

 

   A tradeable SREC market is a key component to establishing a successful Solar (RPS) carve-out. Massachusetts is learning from the successes and shortcomings of other state programs and is introducing its solar program in stages. It plans to phase the solar carve-out in as the state rebate program winds down.

 


Source: Solar RPS Carve-Out STRAW PROPOSAL 8/26/2009

 

(Click To Enlarge)

 

   The Massachusetts Department of Energy (DOER) has set the solar 2010 minimum standard at 20 Megawatts. “This minimum standard will increase to allow for a 30% per year growth rate in new solar installations, unless adjusted (up or down) due to the market conditions as prescribed in regulations.” -Creating A Greener Energy Future For the Commonwealth, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. The Alternative Compliance Payment is set at $600/MWh for 2010 and the (DOER) has to reduce the ACP up to 10% a year. Each MA SREC will have a shelf life of two years and be transferable on the NEPOOL GIS Tracking System, which assists in the transfer, documentation, verification and authenticity of renewable energy certificates and environmental credits.

 

   Massachusetts’ solar RPS carve-out is a clear commitment to renewable energy. This proactive response can bring new jobs to the state, reduce its addiction to fossil fuels and enhance the Commonwealth’s environment by reducing harmful emissions. Flett Exchange looks forward to bringing transparency and price discovery to a budding Massachusetts SREC market. The introduction of Flett Exchange’s MA SREC spot market will allow buyers and sellers to easily meet on an online environmental exchange and transact MA SRECs in a secure and seamless manner. Our specialized team solar professionals have successfully developed and operated SREC markets in NJ, PA, DE, OH, MD and DC and are a trusted source in SREC monetization. Flett Exchange looks forward to bringing value to Massachusetts solar markets and educating the community in new solar occurrences.

 

Specifications

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) implemented a Solar Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) carve-out program in January 2010. The minimum standard percentage-compliance obligation is set for 30 MW or 0.0680% (approximately 33,000 SRECs) for installed solar energy. The DOER also established a Solar Credit Clearinghouse to support SREC pricing and minimum standard adjustments. A fixed-priced auction will occur in the final quarter of each year at a fixed price of $300 per SREC.

A Solar Renewable Energy Certificate (SREC) is tradable certificate that represents all the clean energy benefits of electricity generated from a solar electric system. An SREC can be sold or traded separately from the electric power. An SREC is issued once a solar facility has generated 1000kWh (1MWh), through either estimated or actual metered production.

Eligibility of Solar Projects:

  • Solar projects must be located in the state of Massachusetts.
  • Solar projects must be 2MW or smaller in size to qualify.
  • Solar projects must be installed on or after January 1, 2008.
  • Solar projects that have received support through the (Commonwealth Solar I, SRI, LORI, or ARRA related stimulus funds) are ineligible.
Highlights of Massachusetts SREC Program:

  • Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) rate for 2010 is $600/MWh. Electric suppliers with existing load contracts receive the following discounted ACP rates:
    • Compliance Year 2010- discounted rate of $400 MWh.
    • Compliance Year 2011- discounted rate of $450 MWh.
    • Compliance Year 2012- discounted rate of $500 MWh.
  • The ACP Rate is not inflation or Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted.
  • Depending on SREC market conditions, the DOER has discretion to reduce the ACP rate no more than 10% a year.
  • Massachusetts SREC schedule runs on a calendar year January 1 - December 31.
  • Massachusetts SRECs have an initial shelf life set for 2 years. (MA SRECs generated in 2010 are eligible for 2010 and 2011 monetization.)
  • Massachusetts SRECs can be transferred via the NE-GIS tracking system.

Massachusetts SREC Program Specifics:

  • Solar Credit Clearinghouse: The Massachusetts DOER has established the Solar Credit Clearinghouse to support SREC pricing and minimum standard adjustments.
  • Fixed Price Auction: will occur in the final quarter of each year and have a $300 price floor per SREC. If the fixed price auction is unsuccessful the life of the SREC increases and if still unsuccessful the requirement is increased.
  • Auction Opt-In Term: As part of the MA RPS solar carve-out, solar installations will be provided a set term and have the ability (but not the requirement) to deposit SRECs into the auction account. This Auction Opt-In Term begins in compliance year 2010, can be adjusted annually, and has a 10 year lifespan.
  • Base Growth Rate: The DOER has implemented a 30% Base Growth Rate. This minimum standard increases 30% more than the previous years increase and is capped at 400MW of installed solar. The Base Growth Rate promotes robust market demand for solar energy.
  • Market Balance Adjustments: The minimum standard will be adjusted each year depending on the shortage or oversupply of SRECs from the previous compliance year. The objective of Market Balance Adjustments is to establish a balanced and developed MA SREC market.
  • Qualified buyers are licensed Massachusetts retail electric suppliers that have RPS compliance obligation. Outside buyers are allowed to participate, but are required to submit financial security prior to the auction and cover the entire bid amount.
  • For further guidance and eligibility please refer to the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) at http://www.mass.gov.
  • For more information on the MA Solar Credit Clearinghouse Click Here.

Settlement Price

Flett Exchange publishes a daily settlement price for the Massachusetts SREC market. It is the price which represents the market value of SRECs based on our competitive marketplace. Significance is placed on the average traded prices along with current bids and offers at the end of the trading day. This is the most accurate price of SRECs anywhere. All market activity is governed by our market rules and monitored by our compliance staff to ensure accuracy and fairness.

Flett Exchange Settlement Procedure:

THE FOLLOWING FACTORS DETERMINE THE "SETTLEMENT PRICE" ON OUR MARKETS:
  1. The weighted average price of all trades done on the Flett Exchange Trading Platform in the 24 hour trading session. The session is between 3pm on the preceding day and 2:59:59 pm on the day in which settlement is being determined.
  2. If there are no trades done during the session in question then the following will determine settlement:
    1. The settlement will be the same as the previous session IF the previous session settlement is greater than the bid or less than the offer posted during the last 5 minutes of the session.
    2. If there are no trades and the bid is greater than the previous session's settlement then the settlement will be the bid price.
    3. If there are no trades and the offer is less than the previous sessions settlement, then the settlement will be the offer price.
  3. Submissions of bids and offers to be considered for settlement: bids and offers will only be considered for settlement purposes if they are entered onto the Flett Exchange trading platform 5 minutes prior to the end of the trading session (prior to: 2:55pm). Unfilled bids and offers entered prior to the last 5 min of trading take precedence over the volume weighted average of the day. The settlement price will be the price of the unfilled bid if the volume weighted average is below the bid; the settlement price will be the price of the unfilled offer if the volume weighted average price is higher than the offer.
  4. Disclaimer:

    The end result of the previous "settlement procedure" is a result of proprietary information that is property of Flett Exchange, LLC. The end result is defined as the "Flett Exchange, LLC settlement price or index" This "Flett Exchange, LLC settlement price or index" is for numerous Flett Exchange markets. Under no circumstance is anyone or entity allowed to refer to the "Flett Exchange, LLC settlement price or Index" without permission of Flett Exchange, LLC.

    ©2010 Flett Exchange, LLC.