Tonopah Solar Energy: Crescent Dunes CSP Sale Process

Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC, the owner and operator of the Crescent Dunes concentrated solar power plant near Tonopah, Nevada, filed for Chapter 11 on January 21, 2026 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The debtor’s asset is a 110 MW solar power tower project that uses heliostats and molten-salt thermal storage to deliver electricity after sunset, a configuration documented in project profiles and federal materials describing the facility’s 110 MW design and central-receiver tower technology. The filing comes after years of operating challenges, including repeated molten-salt leaks and extended outages documented in press coverage of a 2016 tank leak and later reports describing the project’s shutdowns and financial stress. The case is framed as a liquidity and asset-preservation effort centered on a court-supervised sale process backed by a $10 million DIP facility from the project’s secured lender.

Crescent Dunes has long been positioned as a first-of-its-kind storage-enabled solar tower facility, with early project materials highlighting a long-term power purchase contract and federal support for dispatchable solar generation. Financing announcements point to a DOE-backed loan guarantee and a 25-year PPA with NV Energy, while later reporting notes that the original contract was terminated and the plant struggled to operate reliably. With a short-term PPA set to expire on February 21, 2026 and no long-term replacement in place, the debtor’s Chapter 11 strategy is built around stabilizing operations, preserving the asset’s value, and executing a sale process on an accelerated timetable.

Debtor(s)	Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC
Case Number	26-10060
Court	U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware
Petition Date	January 21, 2026
Asset	Crescent Dunes 110 MW CSP plant
Employees	None (O&M contractor)
Primary Secured Creditor	Crescent Dunes Finance, Inc.
Prepetition Debt	~$173M
DIP Facility	$10M (new money)

Restructuring Strategy and First-Day Relief

Sale-driven Chapter 11 strategy. The debtor’s first-day filings present a restructuring framework centered on a rapid section 363 sale of substantially all assets. Rather than proposing a long-dated standalone reorganization, the debtor seeks to preserve plant value and execute a controlled sale process while operations continue under the existing O&M contractor. This approach reflects the project’s reliance on a time-limited PPA and the need to bring in a buyer that can either secure a new power contract or repurpose the asset for alternative market uses.

DIP financing and liquidity runway. Court filings indicate that the prepetition lender, Crescent Dunes Finance, Inc., is providing a $10 million DIP facility with $5 million available on an interim basis and the remainder available upon entry of a final order. The DIP is structured as new money and is accompanied by milestones tied to the sale process and confirmation timeline. The DIP lender’s role as both secured creditor and postpetition financier aligns incentives around a sale process that maximizes collateral value and reduces the risk of a plant shutdown during the case.

Milestones and case timeline. The DIP motion outlines milestones that are aggressive by Chapter 11 standards, including deadlines for entry of a final DIP order, approval of a sale order, plan confirmation, and consummation of a transaction. Those milestones reinforce that the debtor is operating under tight liquidity constraints and that the case is designed to move from filing to sale in a matter of months, not years.

Utilities, cash management, and operational continuity. The first-day relief also includes requests to maintain existing cash management systems, establish escrow accounts for professional fees and utilities, and provide adequate assurance deposits to utility providers. For a solar plant with a single operating asset, continuity in cash management and vendor payments is essential to avoid operational interruptions that could erode value or complicate a sale process. The debtor’s motions emphasize maintaining operations through a small number of key accounts rather than retooling banking relationships during the case.

Adequate assurance and utility continuity. The utilities motion seeks authority to provide a cash deposit as adequate assurance and to maintain service from key providers during the case. For a thermal solar plant, uninterrupted utility service is critical for operational safety and maintenance cycles, particularly when the facility must manage molten-salt storage and heat-transfer systems. The debtor’s filing posture reflects a focus on stabilizing routine operations while the sale process is underway.

Cash management structure. Court filings describe a cash management system spanning operating accounts and escrow accounts for DIP proceeds and professional fees, with accounts at PNC, Synovus, and PayPal. The debtor requests authority to maintain existing banking relationships and a limited waiver of technical cash management rules to avoid operational disruption. These motions are typical in asset-focused Chapter 11 cases but are especially important for a single-asset project where a payment interruption can quickly ripple into operational downtime.

No employees, contract-based operations. Court filings indicate the debtor has no direct employees and relies on a third-party O&M contractor for daily plant operations. This structure simplifies the restructuring from a labor perspective but heightens the need to keep vendor and contractor relationships stable. A sale process in this context is more likely to focus on the asset and contracts than on workforce retention issues.

Milestone	Target Date (Proposed)
Bid deadline	February 27, 2026
Qualified bid determination	March 3, 2026
Auction (if needed)	March 4, 2026
Sale objection deadline	March 11, 2026
Sale hearing	March 13, 2026

Asset Overview: Crescent Dunes Facility

Project scale and configuration. Crescent Dunes is a 110 MW concentrated solar power plant designed to use heliostats to reflect sunlight to a central tower receiver, heating molten salt that can be stored and used to generate power when the sun is not shining. The project is described in federal environmental materials as a central receiver tower plant with a large heliostat field, and industry profiles list a 110 MW nameplate capacity. Trade publications also describe the facility’s scale, including a tower-and-heliostat configuration and large molten-salt storage system designed to enable dispatchable output.

Thermal storage as a differentiator. The plant was positioned as a storage-enabled solar facility capable of dispatchable electricity. Press materials highlight a facility designed to deliver power day or night and emphasize storage characteristics in early project descriptions, including 10 hours of full-load storage and storage-enabled output described in project announcements and award write-ups. This storage capability distinguished Crescent Dunes from traditional photovoltaic projects and was a key rationale for its initial financing.

Location and land footprint. Crescent Dunes is located near Tonopah, Nevada, on federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Federal environmental documents describe the plant as a concentrated solar thermal facility situated northwest of Tonopah, with a land footprint spanning multiple acres and a long-term operating horizon. The project is part of the broader Nevada renewable portfolio and has been referenced in state energy documents that list the plant’s capacity and PPA attributes.

Project ownership and operator. The project has been associated with SolarReserve and construction partners including ACS Cobra, with Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC serving as the project operator. The project profile lists SolarReserve and ACS Cobra as developer partners and identifies Tonopah Solar Energy as the operator. This ownership and operational structure is important in the restructuring context because the debtor’s value is concentrated in a single asset with a defined operational history and limited diversification.

Facility Attribute	Detail
Technology	Concentrated solar power tower with molten-salt storage
Capacity	110 MW nameplate
Location	Tonopah, Nevada
Storage	10 hours full-load storage (design)
Commercial operation	2015 (reported)

Technology and Storage Value Proposition

Dispatchable solar design. Crescent Dunes was designed as a dispatchable solar plant, using molten-salt thermal storage to extend generation beyond daylight hours. Industry profiles describe the plant as a tower-based CSP system with storage sized to enable ten hours of full-load output, a design intended to deliver evening power when solar irradiance is low. This storage configuration was central to the project’s original investment thesis: a solar resource that could compete with conventional thermal generation during peak demand periods.

Heliostat field and tower infrastructure. The physical scale of the plant is unusual compared with typical solar projects. Reporting on the facility noted a field of more than 10,000 heliostats and a central tower that concentrates sunlight to heat molten salt, a configuration also described in federal materials outlining the project’s central receiver tower system. The scale of this infrastructure matters for restructuring because it creates both a high replacement cost and a complex operating footprint that is difficult to replicate.

Storage economics versus PV alternatives. When Crescent Dunes was financed, storage-capable solar generation was a differentiator, and the project’s long-term PPA price reflected both technology risk and storage value. Industry reporting later noted that the project’s 13.5 cent per kWh PPA became less competitive as photovoltaic costs declined and battery storage gained scale. In Chapter 11, this market shift is central: a buyer must either secure a PPA that values dispatchable solar output or find a repurposing strategy that leverages the existing infrastructure.

Strategic value of thermal storage. The plant’s molten-salt storage design provides a level of dispatchability that conventional PV projects without storage cannot match. That technical attribute may still have value in markets where grid operators need evening or overnight capacity. The restructuring process therefore hinges on whether the plant’s technology can be stabilized and monetized, or whether it is economically rational to redesign or repurpose the site in a way that better fits current market conditions.

Financing History and Capital Structure Context

DOE loan guarantee and early financing. Crescent Dunes was financed with a federal loan guarantee and private capital, a structure that allowed the project to secure long-term funding for a first-of-its-kind solar tower facility. Project financing announcements cite a DOE loan guarantee of $737 million and investor participation from infrastructure-focused partners. The loan guarantee is also listed in DOE loan program history references that document the issuance of a loan guarantee for Crescent Dunes, underscoring the project’s significance within the federal clean energy portfolio.

Power purchase agreement as financing foundation. Early financing hinged on a long-term PPA with NV Energy, which agreed to purchase output from the plant under a multi-decade contract. State and industry materials list the project as a 110 MW plant with a long-term PPA, while industry reporting notes a 25-year contract and a price level higher than conventional wholesale market rates. The PPA, combined with the federal loan guarantee, supported the capital-intensive construction of the facility.

Cost scale and project economics. Crescent Dunes has been described in reporting as a project with total costs around $1 billion and a PPA price that reflected the project’s technology risk and storage capability. Industry coverage notes a PPA price around 13.5 cents per kWh and the reliance on long-term offtake contracts to justify the project’s cost profile. These economics mattered because they made the plant competitive only under a specific contract framework; once that framework weakened, the project’s viability was exposed.

Prepetition capital structure in Chapter 11. Court filings indicate that the debtor’s prepetition capital structure is dominated by secured debt owed to Crescent Dunes Finance, Inc., totaling about $173 million as of the petition date. This secured creditor is also the DIP lender, which positions it as the primary stakeholder in the restructuring. The capital structure is relatively simple by Chapter 11 standards, but the asset itself is complex and requires substantial operating expertise to sustain value.

Federal involvement and stakeholder expectations. The DOE loan guarantee and the project’s status as a flagship solar tower facility have also shaped stakeholder expectations. Public reporting on later developments, including a settlement to recover taxpayer funds, underscores how the project attracted scrutiny because of its federal backing. These dynamics add a reputational layer to the restructuring that extends beyond ordinary secured creditor negotiations.

Project Development and Market Timeline

Early development milestones. Crescent Dunes moved from concept to financing during a period when CSP with thermal storage was viewed as a strategic complement to intermittent renewables. Financing announcements in 2011 highlighted the project as a large-scale storage-enabled solar tower supported by a DOE loan guarantee. Federal materials described the project as a long-life facility with a multi-decade operating horizon, while industry sources noted the project’s role as a demonstration of dispatchable solar generation. This early positioning shaped the project’s capital structure and long-term expectations for performance.

Construction and commissioning phase. By the mid-2010s, Crescent Dunes was being highlighted for its technical design and storage characteristics. Trade coverage described a facility with molten-salt storage and large-scale infrastructure, while project listings reported a commercial operation start in 2015 and a formal in-service date in state energy materials. The plant’s commissioning phase was accompanied by recognition in industry awards, including coverage that described the plant as a storage-enabled solar project and emphasized its role in delivering dispatchable output.

Shift in operational narrative. The operational narrative shifted quickly once the plant encountered technical problems. A 2016 molten-salt leak prompted extended downtime and drew attention to the complexity of maintaining a thermal storage system at scale. Subsequent reporting noted additional outages and performance limitations, which affected revenue and contributed to the eventual termination of the long-term PPA. The project’s early promise as a flagship CSP facility was increasingly weighed against its maintenance challenges and extended periods of reduced output.

2019–2020 inflection point. Industry reports describe the plant as being offline after April 2019, with NV Energy terminating the original PPA and the project entering bankruptcy in 2020. Renewable Energy World noted that the owner filed for bankruptcy in 2020, while other reporting documented the project’s financial distress and the broader market shift toward lower-cost PV alternatives. This period marked a transition from a long-term contracted asset to a project seeking to reestablish a viable revenue model through short-term contracts.

Post-bankruptcy operating attempts. Coverage in 2020 noted efforts to bring the plant back online after the prior bankruptcy and to restore output under new contractual arrangements. Industry reporting described a plan to restart operations and highlighted the project’s goal of regaining stability after extended downtime. These efforts signaled that the plant retained some operational value despite its technical challenges, but they also underscored that a long-term solution depended on both reliable operations and a durable offtake structure.

Current Chapter 11 context. The 2026 filing reflects the culmination of these developments: a high-cost storage-enabled asset with a history of technical issues, a loss of long-term contracted revenue, and a short-term PPA that is about to expire. In that context, the current restructuring is less about reversing a temporary downturn and more about determining whether the asset can be stabilized under new ownership or whether its value is best realized through a sale to a buyer capable of rethinking its operational or commercial strategy.

Year	Milestone
2011	Financing closed with DOE loan guarantee and equity investors.
2014	Project recognized for storage-enabled design in industry coverage.
2015	Commercial operations reported to begin.
2016	Molten-salt leak triggers extended outage.
2019	Long-term PPA terminated; extended offline period.
2020	Project enters bankruptcy and seeks restart.
2026	Chapter 11 filed with sale process and DIP funding.

Performance Challenges and Operational History

Early operations and commissioning. Crescent Dunes entered commercial operations in 2015, and early project materials described a plant designed to provide dispatchable solar energy using molten-salt storage. The facility’s design and storage characteristics are documented in industry sources that highlight its storage-enabled operation and status as a leading CSP project. The plant initially operated as an example of advanced solar tower technology, but its operating history soon became marked by technical challenges.

Molten-salt leaks and outages. The plant experienced repeated molten-salt tank leaks, including a well-publicized 2016 salt leak that caused extended shutdowns. Later reporting described additional leaks and periods of extended downtime, and industry coverage noted that the plant was frequently offline or operating at reduced output. These operational issues materially affected revenue stability and made it difficult to sustain a long-term power contract.

Offtake volatility and contract loss. NV Energy terminated the original long-term PPA in 2019, and later reporting described a shift to shorter-term contracts and reduced pricing. Industry coverage noted that the project was offline after April 2019 and that performance issues and cost pressures drove the project into financial distress. By the time of the 2026 filing, the debtor had relied on short-term PPAs that offered limited visibility and insufficient revenue to cover operating and capital obligations.

Market comparison with declining solar costs. The plant’s economic challenges were compounded by a broader shift in the solar market, where photovoltaic costs fell and storage alternatives emerged. Industry reporting noted that Crescent Dunes’ high PPA price and technical challenges made it difficult to compete in a market where lower-cost PV and battery storage became more prevalent. This broader market shift reduced the likelihood that a new long-term PPA could be negotiated at terms comparable to the original NV Energy agreement.

Impact on reliability and output. Court filings describe operating temperature reductions and output constraints implemented to reduce leak risk. These operational changes lowered maximum energy production and reinforced the mismatch between fixed capital costs and volatile revenue. The plant’s operating history therefore became a central narrative in the Chapter 11 case, as potential buyers will have to assess whether the asset can be stabilized or repurposed to generate consistent returns.

Operational Challenge	Observed Impact
2016 salt leak	Extended outage and repairs
Repeated leaks	Reduced output and recurring shutdowns
PPA termination	Loss of long-term revenue certainty
Temperature reductions	Lower power output and storage utilization

PPA and Revenue History

Original NV Energy PPA. The Crescent Dunes project was originally built around a long-term PPA with NV Energy. State and industry sources list the plant’s PPA as a 25-year contract with NV Energy, and industry coverage cites a 13.5 cent per kWh rate that reflected the project’s storage-enabled technology. State energy documents list a long-term PPA for “Tonopah Crescent Dunes,” including a commercial operation date in 2015 and a termination date extending to 2040, demonstrating how the contract was intended to anchor the project’s long-term revenue model.

Termination and short-term contracts. NV Energy terminated the long-term PPA in 2019. Subsequent reporting described the project’s reliance on short-term PPAs and reduced pricing, which left the asset without a stable long-term revenue stream. Industry coverage noted that the plant was offline since 2019 and highlighted the financial strain from the loss of a long-term offtake contract. Without a long-term PPA, Crescent Dunes became dependent on spot-market or short-term agreements that offered less certainty and lower margins.

Short-term PPA with Switch. Court filings indicate that the debtor entered into a short-term PPA with Switch (Switched On, LLC) that runs through February 21, 2026. That contract expiration is a central driver of the Chapter 11 timeline, as the debtor needs either a sale or a new offtake arrangement to avoid operational shutdowns when the contract ends. The short-term nature of the PPA also makes the asset less attractive without a buyer capable of negotiating long-term offtake or alternative revenue strategies.

Revenue implications for Chapter 11. The shift from a 25-year PPA to short-term contracts fundamentally changes the plant’s risk profile. Under the original NV Energy PPA, revenue stability supported large-scale financing and justified a high-cost project. Under short-term PPAs, revenue becomes volatile and heavily dependent on market pricing and operational reliability. The Chapter 11 process is therefore focused not only on restructuring debt but on finding a buyer who can secure a new revenue model or repurpose the asset for a different commercial use.

PPA Stage	Key Features
Original NV Energy PPA	25-year term; 13.5 cents/kWh; long-term offtake stability
Short-term PPAs	Limited duration; reduced pricing; revenue volatility
Switch PPA	Short-term contract ending February 21, 2026

Sale Process, Stakeholders, and Litigation Context

363 sale focus. The debtor’s restructuring plan is centered on a section 363 sale process designed to transfer the plant and related assets to a buyer that can either operate the facility or repurpose it. The proposed sale timeline targets a March 2026 auction and sale hearing, suggesting that the case is structured to move quickly in advance of the February 2026 PPA expiration and to avoid a prolonged operational limbo.

Secured lender role. Crescent Dunes Finance, Inc. is the secured lender, the DIP lender, and the most significant financial stakeholder. This dual role typically gives the lender substantial influence over the sale process and the timeline, and it aligns the lender’s incentives with a transaction that maximizes collateral recovery. The lender’s willingness to provide DIP funding indicates a preference for preserving asset value rather than immediate liquidation.

Operational counterparties. The project relies on an O&M contractor for day-to-day operations. Because the debtor has no employees, continuity of the O&M agreement is essential to maintaining plant operations during the bankruptcy. Any sale process will need to account for the operational transition to a new owner, including the potential assignment or renegotiation of key service contracts.

Litigation and stay relief. Court filings indicate that the debtor sought relief from the automatic stay to allow litigation related to CMB matters to proceed to judgment, while keeping enforcement stayed. This request suggests that the debtor is managing ongoing disputes that could affect creditor claims or the broader case environment, and it highlights the complexity of unwinding a project with a long operating history and multiple contractual relationships.

Buyer considerations. Potential buyers will evaluate several factors: the feasibility of restoring reliable operations, the possibility of securing a long-term PPA, the value of the facility’s land and infrastructure, and the implications of federal loan guarantee history. The plant’s unique technology may appeal to buyers looking for dispatchable renewable generation, but the operational history and PPA uncertainty will be key risks. The Chapter 11 sale process is intended to surface a market-based valuation and a buyer with the technical and commercial capacity to manage those risks.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Crescent Dunes project?

Crescent Dunes is a 110 MW concentrated solar power plant near Tonopah, Nevada that uses heliostats to focus sunlight on a central tower receiver, heating molten salt for thermal storage and dispatchable power generation. Project profiles describe a 110 MW CSP facility with storage designed to deliver energy after sunset.

Why did Tonopah Solar Energy file for Chapter 11?

Court filings indicate the debtor faced recurring operational issues, a loss of long-term offtake contracts, and a short-term PPA expiration in February 2026. The Chapter 11 process is designed to preserve the asset, fund operations through a DIP facility, and execute a sale process that can stabilize the project’s future.

What caused the project’s operational challenges?

Public reporting describes multiple molten-salt leaks and shutdowns, including a 2016 salt leak and later periods of extended downtime. These technical issues reduced output and undermined the long-term PPA economics that supported the project’s financing.

What is the DIP facility in this case?

Court filings describe a $10 million DIP facility from Crescent Dunes Finance, Inc., with $5 million available on an interim basis and $5 million upon a final order. The DIP funding supports continued operations and the sale process.

When does the current PPA expire?

Court filings indicate the current short-term PPA with Switch runs through February 21, 2026, a date that drives the debtor’s accelerated sale timeline.

What is the proposed sale timeline?

The debtor’s bidding procedures motion proposes a bid deadline of February 27, 2026, an auction on March 4, 2026 if needed, and a sale hearing on March 13, 2026. These dates reflect a fast-track effort to complete a transaction shortly after the current PPA expires.

Who is the claims agent for Tonopah Solar Energy?

Court filings identify Epiq as the claims and noticing agent. The firm maintains the official claims register and distributes case notices to creditors and parties in interest.

For more restructuring coverage and case updates, explore the ElevenFlo blog.