Walker Reid Strategies and Blue Energy Group Merge to Form Walker Blue, LLC
BOCA RATON, Fla. & LOUISVILLE, Ky.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Walker Reid Strategies and Blue Energy Group, two nationally recognized leaders in energy tax incentives, announce their merger and the formation of a new company: Walker Blue, LLC.
Walker Blue, LLC brings together the strengths of both firms to form a unified organization focused on delivering 179D and 45L tax certifications, ITC, domestic content and prevailing wage compliance along with energy engineering services. The combined firm will serve a wide range of clients, including CPA firms, specialty tax consultants, Energy Service Companies (ESCOs), real estate developers, building owners, architects, and engineers. The merger comes at a time of growing demand for energy tax incentive services.
The new firm will be led by a combined executive team from both organizations. Josh Howes, formerly CEO of Blue Energy Group, will serve as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and David Diaz, formerly Managing Partner at Walker Reid Strategies, will serve as Chief Strategy Officer (CSO). The leadership team brings deep expertise in both technical delivery and energy tax policy and will guide the firm through its next phase of growth.
"The merger of Walker Reid Strategies and Blue Energy Group to form Walker Blue is a strategic alignment that simply makes sense. By combining the strengths of both firms, we're now uniquely positioned to deliver unparalleled service and expertise across 179D, 45L, ITC, prevailing wage compliance, and engineering services. This merger not only enhances the value we bring to our clients, particularly in the CPA and ESCO sectors, but it also cements Walker Blue as the leading energy tax incentive firm in the industry," said David Diaz, Chief Strategy Officer, Walker Blue, LLC.
Integration efforts are underway, with a focus on aligning operations, expanding service delivery, and preserving the client-focused culture that has defined both organizations. Walker Blue, LLC will be fully operational mid-July.
In the meantime, Walker Reid Strategies and Blue Energy Group will continue to operate under their existing brands but will function collaboratively as one team. Clients may work with either firm and benefit from the combined expertise and services of the newly merged organization during this transition period.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Michigan transmission line project sparks fears of land seizures via eminent domain
ITC's Oneida Substation in Eaton County's Oneida Township, the starting point for a proposed transmission line. June 7, 2025 | Photo by Jon King Two electric transmission line projects pending state approval have some Michigan residents worried that their properties could be seized via eminent domain, but they might be getting some help from the Republican-controlled Michigan House of Representatives in fighting back. The projects proposed by ITC Holding Corp., doing business as the Michigan Electric Transmission Company, plan to build two approximately 50 mile spans of high-voltage electric transmission lines, one from the Indiana border starting in Branch County to a substation in Calhoun County, and the other stretching from Eaton County to Gratiot County. The projects were proposed in 2022 and are slated to cost nearly $850 million. They have been hailed by supporters as some of the first transmission line projects approved by MISO, a midwestern power grid operator, which could help bolster Michigan's electric grid. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX But the situation has some residents grappling with the possibility of an electricity rate increase that could affect all Michiganders, as well as concerns that their land might be seized in the process. One of those residents is Marcia Klein, who began organizing members in her community to fight against the project with the hope of getting more information on the company and possibly having the lines placed underground so that whole swaths of land remain in the hands of property owners. In an interview with Michigan Advance, Klein said she was concerned that ITC did not include a cost-benefit analysis in its applications and that the commission also noted that issue as one of their concerns. Klein also said that the company appears to be dismissive of calls to use existing utility or state land easements. She said she questioned the company's preferred approach to build on what is known as virgin land, untouched by other industries, and why the company hasn't sought to route its lines through state land, which would require permitting and approval from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Klein further questioned the logic of new siting laws for large scale energy projects that took local control away from cities and townships and placed those decisions in the hands of the Michigan Public Service Commission. 'I'm not against progress, or electricity, the grids, the expansion,' Klein said. 'It's just the wrong place.' She told the Advance that she felt that there weren't enough chances for public input and that any influence over a decision is well out of their reach. Klein also said that unlike the Gotion battery plant issue last year, too few local residents or Michigan citizens statewide knew about their struggle to circumvent the project's approval. In the case of the Gotion plant, the project has been put on hold, due in part to the large movement and political awareness that was organized against it. 'They're just ramrodding this through,' Klein said of the transmission line project. 'There weren't enough public hearings, I didn't get my notice [of those hearings] other than a bulk mail letter last August. … It wasn't in the newspapers or on the air.' Still, Klein was undeterred, and began organizing to make sure residents were informed about the issue, even as she was due for a hip surgery last year. Some of those residents have legal representation in case they have to go to court, many of them with bicentennial farm land that is in trust and at risk of potentially being seized as a part of the project. Klein said her land is also in trust, but she doesn't have the means to afford legal representation at this time. Applications and ongoing proceedings were consolidated by the Michigan Public Service Commission last year. The commission most recently collected feedback on the projects at its May 15 meeting. Commissioners will meet next in mid June but it is unclear if the ITC projects will be up for discussion. The matter was also before an administrative law judge and oral arguments were held in March. However, the administrative law judge in the case will not be issuing a recommendation, known as a proposal for decision. Those decisions typically involve an administrative law judge analyzing the evidentiary record and issuing findings for the commission to consider. A spokesperson for the commission told Michigan Advance that, instead, the commission, which is currently reviewing the matter, will read the entire case record and base its ultimate decision on the overall evidentiary record. A decision to move the projects forward is expected to be reached this summer. Commission approval is not the final battleground for residents opposed to the project, but state law makes it hard for residents to challenge those determinations or any eminent domain decisions in court. Public Service Commission determinations are binding on state courts when deciding whether a property acquisition for a utility – much like electric transmission lines – is a public necessity, and courts typically defer to the commission's determination. The state's eminent domain power also authorizes property condemnation as a pathway for a utility to acquire the rights to private land. Klein told the Advance that it was her understanding that ITC would be seeking to carve out easements along the routes if the applications are approved. She said the company has not proposed to use existing utility company, state land or railroad easements, which she called 'a disgrace.' Among those opposed to the Eaton to Gratiot line project is Scenic America, one the nation's only nonprofit organizations dedicated to preserving and protecting America's scenic beauty. In a letter dated May 13, Scenic America President Mark Falzone called for the transmission lines to be buried underground as opposed to strung up along Michigan's skyline. 'This project's reliance on overhead lines threatens the scenic character of some of Michigan's most ecologically sensitive areas and agriculturally important communities,' Falzone wrote. 'Despite the common belief that transmission lines are too expensive to [place] underground, undergrounding transmission lines can prove to be a cost-effective method for electrical infrastructure.' Klein believed the lines should at the very least be installed underground given Michigan's recent struggle with ice storms, tornadoes and other extreme weather events that have knocked out power lines for days or weeks at a time. A request for comment from ITC on resident concerns and the project at large was not returned at the time of publication. As residents like Klein await the Michigan Public Service Commission's decision on moving the projects forward, they may be getting some assistance from the Michigan House of Representatives. A Republican-sponsored bill introduced last week aims to guarantee property owners a fair opportunity to challenge eminent domain for transmission lines, much like the planned projects from ITC Holdings Corp. House Bill 4526, sponsored by freshman Rep. Jennifer Wortz (R-Quincy), was drafted and introduced after hearing from residents in Branch County and their opposition to the line running through their land. 'State government must always protect the people's fundamental rights – including property rights,' Wortz said in a statement. 'Farmers don't want the line to interfere with their irrigation systems. Homeowners don't want the line too close to their houses or ponds, and they don't want to see their trees chopped down to make way for the line.' Wortz's bill would eliminate the deference courts place on binding commission decisions. More specifically, the bill would instead require a transmission company to present clear and convincing evidence to a court that the proposed route of a new line was the most reasonable. Judges would have to instead prioritize routes within or adjacent to public land, routes within or adjacent to existing right-of-ways and easements, or routes adjacent to existing property boundaries. Wortz said that approach could help limit interference with private property as much as possible. If the commission approves the project, Wortz says area residents at least deserve their day in court. 'I'm standing up for Branch County families,' Wortz said. 'My new plan will level the playing field for property owners challenging a takeover of their land.' House Bill 4526 was introduced to the House Energy Committee last month but has yet to have a hearing. Klein, in response to the legislation, told the Advance that she appreciated Wortz's attempts to assist them and others who might be facing friction with utility companies looking to build large-scale projects in the future. Klein, however, feared that the slow pace of the Legislature would render Wortz's bill inapplicable to the ITC project without giving the bill some sort of retroactive effect.
Business Upturn
15 hours ago
- Business Upturn
Medicines, tractors emerge as sticking points in scrapping 12% GST slab: Report
According to a Moneycontrol report, efforts to scrap the 12 percent Goods and Services Tax (GST) slab have run into resistance, with medicines and tractors emerging as key sticking points due to their socio-economic impact and potential revenue implications. Sources told Moneycontrol that while there is consensus to eliminate the 12 percent GST bracket entirely, states are grappling with the potential revenue loss, estimated at Rs 3,000–4,000 crore, particularly if essential items like medicines and tractors are shifted to lower or exempted tax brackets. In order to rationalise the GST structure, most items under the 12 percent slab are proposed to be shifted either to the 5 percent or 18 percent categories. However, Moneycontrol reports that medicines—including allopathic, ayurvedic, homeopathic, veterinary drugs, diagnostic kits, and surgical dressings—pose a revenue risk if moved to the 5 percent slab. This change would add significantly to the shortfall. According to Moneycontrol , tractors also complicate the equation. As agricultural equipment, they cannot be taxed at 18 percent, and the prevailing recommendation is to exempt them altogether—without input tax credit (ITC)—to avoid tax inversion. Tax inversion, as explained in the report, occurs when the tax rate on inputs is higher than on final goods, leading to unutilised ITC and affecting business cash flow. A government official told Moneycontrol , 'There is consensus on removal of the 12 percent slab, but a Rs 3,000-4,000 crore revenue loss has to be made up from some other items. Most items can be moved out, but these two – medicines and tractors – are the sticking point.' To bridge this gap, the GST Council has considered increasing taxes on luxury items like high-end footwear and premium goods. But Moneycontrol cites government sources as saying that the low consumption in these segments means they cannot compensate for the anticipated shortfall. 'On luxury goods like high-end shoes, it was discussed to increase tax to compensate for this revenue loss, but consumption is low and is not covering the Rs 4,000 crore gap,' the source said. As per Moneycontrol , this creates a delicate balancing act for the Council. Medicines are considered essential and a hike would impact affordability and accessibility, especially for low-income families. Tractors are similarly vital for the agricultural sector and any cost escalation would burden farmers. The long-standing goal of GST reform is to simplify the rate structure. According to Moneycontrol , a three-rate structure—5 percent, 18 percent, and 28 percent (for demerit goods)—remains under serious consideration, but reconciling it with economic realities remains challenging.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
CEO T.J. Rodgers on Solar ITC Loss
'Free at last. Thank God Almighty we are free at last' OREM, Utah, June 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- SunPower (aka Complete Solaria, Inc.) ('SunPower' or the 'Company') (Nasdaq: SPWR), a solar technology, services, and installation company – today T.J. Rodgers, Chairman and CEO, issued the following statement regarding pending legislation to cancel or wind down the 30% solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The soaring Martin Luther King quote is appropriate to describe the great opportunity now offered to the solar industry and to SunPower, in particular to get the federal government out of our lives. In the chip business, I survived two waves of government subsidies, Sematech (1987-1997) and the CHIPS and Science Act (2022- ). These subsidies followed a downward spiral path of 1) free money (here called welfare), 2) money with added political strings, and finally 3) money with numbing speed- and profit-killing regulations. My direct experience is that, like tariffs, government subsidies are bad and always harm the industry they intend to help. That's because the strings force companies to build factories where they don't want them, to follow building codes that dramatically increase cost and slow down building schedules, to adopt wage and work rules that make the workforce expensive and inflexible, and to cause the subsidized industry to get used to living on welfare and to become unable to compete with lean un-subsidized companies. That downward spiral is clearly demonstrated in my recent Wall Street Journal op-ed (link here), which describes the cradle‑to‑grave record of the Sematech chip welfare program, now being replicated by the new CHIPS Act, which is giving away $280 billion of taxpayers' money to some of the wealthiest corporations in the world – money that will be used for low‑ROI projects that the companies themselves were unwilling to fund. Sematech was launched with its first $1 billion in 1987 and actually harmed All American semiconductor companies, Sematech members and non-members, based on my direct observations as the CEO of a chip company. This should serve as a warning to the solar industry to rapidly abandon the ITC solar welfare program. Last week we read that the congress worked 'all night' on a bill to eliminate the solar investment tax credit (ITC). This type of erratic oversight has undermined the solar industry since at least 1978. Why would anyone spend years and vast sums to build a business that could be shut down by some ill-conceived government mandate, like tariff proposals that change weekly or congressional plans cooked up in all-night sessions? Washington's exit from solar will be a great benefit to our industry, which should be lobbying for free markets, not subsidies. Yes, there will be a one-time hurdle, our customers' loss of the 30% ITC tax credit they now receive for installing a solar system, but after that dislocation, the solar companies that survive (over 100 have succumbed so far) will be able to hunker down and run their businesses properly. Some of my college classmates were sloppy about attending classes and studying hard – and had to do all-night cram sessions before exams. Some of those same C-students apparently got elected to Congress and still 'pull all-nighters,' but now to create multi-billion dollar, thousand-page bills that they sign without ever having read them. SunPower (1985) SunPower was founded in 1985 and has survived every crash – dot-com, Black Friday, the 2008 housing crisis – for 40 years with the big, Chapter 11 black mark on its ledger in 2024. In my opinion after working on the SunPower bankruptcy problems, the failure was – as always – one of management, not controlling costs and demanding profitability, but this bad behavior is enabled by the federal government and its ITC solar welfare program which provided subsidies to private companies to install solar inefficiently, and induced banks to make poor quality loans to harvest the ITC welfare. I was the chairman of SunPower in 2005 when it raised $138 million ($232 million today) on its initial public offering and soon became the world's pre-eminent solar company with $1.4 billion in revenue and $168 million in operating income in 2008. I left SunPower in 2010 after the giant French oil company, Total, mounted a successful greenwashing effort to take over SPWR by buying $1.37 billion of its stock (60%) from the open market. Total never even asked for a meeting with me to help them with running a high-tech Silicon Valley company. The resulting SunPower board was dominated by Total employees with little technical vision and no decision-making authority. Now you can see why French gasoline is $7.50 per gallon. SunPower survived that mismanagement and the other crises, but succumbed when its relentless losses had piled up almost $500 million in debt they could not pay back. They asked the banks for another $650 million; the banks said no; old-SunPower's credit dried up; and they went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy shortly thereafter. About 1,000 of old-SunPower's employees were hired by my startup solar company, Complete Solar (Nasdaq: CSLR), which we called the Ark – that is, a good place to be when the rains start, because we were a public company and had cash. We bought key SunPower assets, including its name and three businesses units. New SunPower emerged as a company with $320 million in annualized revenue that created its first operating profit just two quarters after becoming part of the new SunPower, the name we own and now use for the whole company. This quarter we are on track to have our second profitable quarter. Yet, even with this record of rapid success, our investors reasonably want to know if the proposed abrupt ITC cancellation would harm SunPower or even put it out of business. To answer that question, we first need to understand new SunPower's structure. Noah's Ark Startup Strategy This Complete Solar strategy for SunPower was approved by the old-SunPower board and presented a 'stalking horse' plan to the bankruptcy asset auction, which we won with a $45 million bid and no competing bids. Complete Solar bought the SunPower assets it wanted and hired and integrated about 1,000 SunPower people, but left the rest of the mess behind in the bankruptcy estate. Our Ark merger strategy is nothing but a typical Silicon Valley startup plan in disguise. Instead of trying to save a big company in trouble by borrowing a lot of money (old-SunPower asked for a $650 million bailout), the Ark Theory asserts, 'Your old company has great assets. Get venture funding for those assets (in our case $80 million), and build a new lean, flexible startup organization around them that can make a profit with the assets you already have.' In a way, it's better than a startup plan because the first-round accomplishment is already guaranteed. Our Ark was predicated on a plan for a $100 million quarter supporting 1,225 people. When the dust settled, SunPower's first two quarters were $80 million each, so the Ark was reduced to 980 passengers. After taking control of the assets on September 30, 2024, the newly combined SunPower focused on becoming quickly profitable at its new revenue point of $80 million per quarter. In just two quarters the combined losses went from a ($39.6 million) loss to a ($5.9 million) loss to a $1.3 million operating profit, the first profitable quarter in four years. Our current Q2'25 financial guidance is that it will continue to make money in this quarter with an internal target (not guidance) to exceed Q1'25 profit. We will give financial projections for Q3'25 after the details of the ITC shutdown are known. Effect of ITC Loss on Solar Market In this analysis, we use the worst-case ITC scenario with an abrupt cutoff in the end of Q4'25, and model the financial impact on SunPower. Our models give us a seven-quarter snapshot of various scenarios at one point in time and do not constitute our guidance. However, for business as usual under various stresses, they do predict our breakeven revenue, which is currently about $72 million (Figure D), and will fall further to $65 million (Figure F) when the cost reductions in progress are complete. Before modeling SunPower, we project scenarios for what might happen to the solar market when the ITC dries up and we compete in a market with higher prices and lower volume. Solar Market Analysis As shown in the data chart in Figure C, the last six years were the best ever in solar volume with shipments of 2,176 MW to 6,953 MW in 2015-2024 at relatively flat prices from $3.30 to $3.65 per watt. During that period, the least squares line fitting the vertical part of the L-shaped demand curve has a correlation coefficient of only R2=.06, showing that solar volume did not depend on price in that region, which is further demonstrated by an inverted elasticity curve in which raising price increases volume. Given that the price of $3.65/W had already been accepted by the market in 2015, we believe the current market price of $3.30 can return to $3.65 (10.6% increase) without affecting volume. After that, the volume penalty for increasing price is -584 MW/yr per $/W, as determined by the slope of the horizontal part of the demand curve in which volume is highly correlated to market price (R2 = 0.77). The short form: going forward, I believe the solar market will stay constant up to $3.65/W and then contract at the rate of -584 MW/yr per $/W our analysis predicts a price rise from $3.30/W to $3.88/W (17.6%) causing a volume loss of 134 MW relative to the chosen starting point 4,742 MW reported for 2024, itself a down year. If the -584 MW/yr per $/W gets applied the full $3.30 to $3.88 price change, the market would drop by 339 MW in 2026, to 4,403 MW. SPWR's revenue, assuming constant share of market, will drop from 4,742 MW to 4,403 MW (7.2%). SPWR's quarterly revenue would then drop from $80 million per quarter to $74.2 million per quarter. So, we stress tested our P&L to that number and worse. Figure D. P&L for $80 Million Q2'25 (Model) The model for our current company predicts if we can make $80 million of revenue per quarter at today's costs, we will generate about $2.2 million in profit in Q2'25. We next model our quarterly breakeven revenue to address how far our revenue can slip for us to remain profitable with current costs. Figure E. Breakeven Revenue with P&L at Current Cost Our revenue can drop to $74.3 million in Q2'25 and we will retain our operating income at $1.2 million because our Q1-Q2 cost-cutting measures will completely offset the revenue drop from $80.2 million to $74.3 million. What if we further cut headcount? The Figure shows our profit will return to the $1.2 million-$2.0 million range for the full seven-quarter period, even without any acquisitions. Of course, this stressed business-as-usual analysis will blow up if a major event occurs, such as vendor or customer failure. Why is our stock price so low? The Greentech company index shows a P/S ratio (defined as market cap/annualized revenue) of 2.6x declining to 2.1x over the last two years. The solar industry has been hit harder. Solar leader SunRun dropped from 1.6x to 0.9x sales, while SPWR has remained anomalously low at about 0.5x sales during the whole period – despite our record of rapid accomplishments during our first two quarters as a public company: buying SPWR assets, integrating 1,000 SPWR employees, rebranding as SunPower and reducing operating income losses from $39.6 million to a $1.2 million operating income profit. We have identified at least two causes for this valuation anomaly. In my detailed examination of our statement of Risk Factors in our 10Q report, on the day of the share price drop related to our 10Q, we actually wrote in the 10Q Risk Factors section that 'we may never be profitable' on the very same day we had reported an operating profit for the first time in four years. Our Risk Factors need to be better done, but the root cause fix must be to get rid of the 'going concern' rating – and that's exactly what we have been working on since taking over SunPower. Our goal is to get rid of the 'going concern' rating by year-end. A Media Snippet accompanying this announcement is available in this link. No Late Breaking News The solar industry is somewhat in a turmoil right now. While we don't have enough solid data to modify our guidance, rumors are starting to flow: 1) a financial company (not among our top two) may be in financial trouble, and 2) we have been sued by a major builder because we're shutting down its systems for 90-day-plus late payment (true). Finally, if the market contraction sets in a reaction to the ITC news, it may impact our revenue as early as this quarter, not in Q1'26. The solar industry, ethical heir to the aluminium siding industry, provides a test of character per week. I have had to pass many of those tests to start creating a long-term record that we can be proud of. What I do know is that we are going to be profitable again this quarter and I'll deal with the other problems as they come up. About SunPowerThe Company has been a leading residential solar services provider in North America since 1985. The Company's digital platform and installation services support energy needs for customers wishing to make the transition to a more energy-efficient lifestyle. For more information visit Forward Looking Statements This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, about us and our industry that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements generally relate to future events or our future financial or operating performance. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements because they contain words such as 'will,' 'goal,' 'prioritize,' 'plan,' 'target,' 'expect,' 'focus,' 'forecast,' 'look forward,' 'opportunity,' 'believe,' 'estimate,' 'continue,' 'anticipate,' and 'pursue' or the negative of these terms or similar expressions. Forward-looking statements in this presentation include, without limitation, our future quarterly revenue projections, our expectations regarding our future fiscal financial performance, including with respect to our future quarterly and fiscal combined revenues and profit before tax loss, expectations and plans relating to further headcount reduction, cost control efforts, and our expectations with respect to stock price and when we achieve breakeven operating income and positive operating income, including our models about achieving operating income breakeven or profitability. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation, our expectations relating to the ITC phase out and its impacts on our business and market demand, our ability to implement further headcount reductions and cost controls, our ability to integrate and operate the combined business with the SunPower assets, our ability to achieve the anticipated benefits of the SunPower acquisition, global market conditions, changes to domestic or foreign tariffs or tax incentives, any adjustments, changes or revisions to our financial results arising from our financial closing procedures, and other risks and uncertainties applicable to our business. For additional information on these risks and uncertainties and other potential factors that could affect our business and financial results or cause actual results to differ from the results predicted, readers should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties described in the 'Risk Factors' section of our annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on April 30, 2025, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC and other documents that we have filed with, or will file with, the SEC. Such filings identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this presentation speak only as of the date they are made. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and SunPower assumes no obligation and does not intend to update or revise these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Company Contacts: Dan 212-9594 Sioban HickieVP, Investor 477-5847 Source: SunPower A photo accompanying this announcement is available athttps://
