NOTE 1 — GENERAL AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

These unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Ormat Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for interim financial statements. Accordingly, they do not contain all information and notes required by U.S. GAAP for annual financial statements. In the opinion of management, these unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements reflect all adjustments, which include normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of the Company’s consolidated financial position as of June 30, 2013, the consolidated results of operations and comprehensive income for the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 and the consolidated cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2013 and 2012.

The financial data and other information disclosed in the notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements related to these periods are unaudited. The results for the three and six-month period ended June 30, 2013 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the year ending December 31, 2013.

These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. The condensed consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2012 was derived from the audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP.

Dollar amounts, except per share data, in the notes to these financial statements are rounded to the closest $1,000.

Revision of previously issued financial statements

The Company identified an error this quarter related to the calculation and presentation of income tax provision and the related deferred tax asset for the year ended December 31, 2012 and the three months ended March 31, 2013, which was a direct result of the deferred tax effects of the non-cash asset impairment charge recorded in the fourth quarter of 2012. The Company understated the valuation allowance against the U.S. deferred tax assets by $32.7 million and $3.1 million at December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2013, respectively. As a result, for the year ended December 31, 2012 the Company revised the valuation allowance by $32.7 million, of which $26.1 million was recorded against property, plant and equipment where the Company recognized the deferred tax effects of grants received during 2012 and the remaining $6.6 million to the income tax provision. For the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company revised the valuation allowance by an additional $3.1 million which also increased the tax provision for the period by the same amount.

The Company assessed the materiality of this error in accordance with the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin 99 and concluded that the previously issued financial statements were not materially misstated. However, if the entire correction of the error was recorded during the second quarter of fiscal 2013, the impact would be significant to the quarter ended June 30, 2013.  In accordance with the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin 108, the Company will correct these errors by revising the affected financial statements previously included in the Company’s 2012 Annual Report of Form 10-K and March 31, 2013 Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q.

This revision had no impact on the Company’s revenues, gross margin, operating income (loss), income (loss) before taxes and equity income (loss) of investees. There was also no impact on the Company's consolidated net operating, investing or financing cash flows; however, the revisions impacted line items within the balance sheet at December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2013 and cash flows from operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2012 and the three months ended March 31, 2013. The revision impacted the Company income tax benefit (provision), net income (loss) from continuing operations, net income (loss) attributable to the Company's stockholders, comprehensive income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share (“EPS”) in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2012 and the three months ended March 31, 2013. 

The consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income, consolidated balance sheet, and consolidated statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2012 will be revised in the Company's 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K and for the three months ended March 31, 2013 will be revised to correct the errors described above prospectively in the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2014. 

The effect of the revision on the line items within the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2012 is as follows:

The effect of the revision on the line items within the Company's consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2012 is as follows:

The effect of the revision on the line items within the Company's consolidated statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2012 is as follows:

The effect of the revision on the line items within our consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2013 is as follows:

The effect of the revision on the line items within the Company's consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) for the three months ended March 31, 2013 is as follows:

The effect of the revision on the line items within the Company's condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2013 is as follows:

Other comprehensive income

For the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 the Company classified $84,000 and $93,000, respectively, from other comprehensive income, of which $136,000 and $150,000, respectively, were recorded to reduce interest expense and $52,000 and $57,000, respectively, were recorded against the income tax provision, in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. For the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, the Company classified $42,000 and $47,000, respectively, from other comprehensive income, of which $68,000 and $76,000, respectively, were recorded to reduce interest expense and $26,000 and $29,000, respectively, were recorded against the income tax provision in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

Termination fee

On March 15, 2013, the Company finalized the agreement with Southern California Edison Company (“Southern California Edison”), by which the G1 and G3 Standard Offer #4 power purchase agreements (“PPAs”) were terminated and a termination fee of $9.0 million was recorded in the first quarter of 2013 in selling and marketing expenses. Under the agreement, the Company will continue to sell power from G2, the third plant of the Mammoth complex, under its existing PPA with Southern California Edison, with the term of the contract extended by an additional six years until early 2027.

Concentration of credit risk

Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to a concentration of credit risk consist principally of temporary cash investments and accounts receivable.

The Company places its temporary cash investments with high credit quality financial institutions located in the United States (“U.S.”) and in foreign countries. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company had deposits totaling $18,792,000 and $41,231,000, respectively, in seven U.S. financial institutions that were federally insured up to $250,000 per account. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company’s deposits in foreign countries amounted to approximately $18,551,000 and $33,215,000, respectively.

At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, accounts receivable related to operations in foreign countries amounted to approximately $33,070,000 and $17,606,000, respectively. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, accounts receivable from the Company’s primary customers (listed below) amounted to approximately 56.7% and 45.0% of the Company’s accounts receivable, respectively.

Sierra Pacific Power Company and Nevada Power Company (subsidiaries of NV Energy, Inc.) accounted for 14.9% and 14.7% of the Company’s total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and 17.8% and 13.9% for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Southern California Edison accounted for 12.4% and 17.0% of the Company’s total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and 12.1% and 18.6% for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Hawaii Electric Light Company accounted for 8.6% and 10.3% of the Company’s total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and 8.9% and 9.9% for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd. accounted for 10.3% and 7.8% of the Company’s total revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and 9.5% and 7.6% for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition. The Company has historically been able to collect on all of its receivable balances, and accordingly, no provision for doubtful accounts has been made.

NOTE 2 — NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

New accounting pronouncements effective in the six-month period ended June 30, 2013

Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities

In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued accounting guidance to amend the existing disclosure requirements for offsetting financial assets and liabilities to enhance current disclosures, as well as to improve the comparability of balance sheets prepared under GAAP and those prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards. In January 2013, the FASB issued additional guidance on the scope of these disclosures. The revised disclosure guidance applies to derivative instruments and securities borrowing and lending transactions that are subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. The revised disclosure guidance is effective on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2013. As this guidance only imposes additional disclosure requirements, its adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income

In February 2013, the FASB updated accounting guidance to add new disclosure requirements for items reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income. Although the update does not change the current requirements for reporting net income or other comprehensive income in financial statements, it does require an entity to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component. In addition, an entity is required to present, either on the face of the statement where net income is presented or in the notes thereto, significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by the respective line items of net income, but only if the amount reclassified is required to be reclassified to net income in its entirety in the same reporting period. For other amounts that are not required to be reclassified in their entirety to net income, an entity is required to cross-reference to other disclosures that provide additional detail about those amounts. The amendments included in this guidance are required to be applied on a retrospective basis for interim and annual periods beginning January 1, 2013. As this guidance only imposes additional disclosure requirements, its adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 3 — INVENTORIES 

Inventories consist of the following:

NOTE 4 — UNCONSOLIDATED INVESTMENTS 

Unconsolidated investments consist of the following:

The Company is a 12.75% member of a consortium which is in the process of developing the Sarulla geothermal power project in Indonesia with expected generating capacity of approximately 330 megawatts (“MW”). The Sarulla project is located in Tapanuli Utara, North Sumatra, Indonesia and will be owned and operated by the consortium members under the framework of a Joint Operating Contract (“JOC”) and Energy Sales Contract (“ESC”) that were signed on April 4, 2013. Under the JOC, PT Pertamina Geothermal Energy (“PGE”), the concession holder for the project has provided the consortium with the right to use the geothermal field, and under the ESC, PT PLN, the state electric utility will be the off-taker at Sarulla for a period of 30 years. In addition to its equity holdings in the consortium, the Company designed the Sarulla plant and will supply its Ormat Energy Converters (“OECs”) to the power plant.

The consortium has started preliminary testing and development activities at the site and recently signed an engineering procurement and construction agreement (“EPC”) with an unrelated third party. The project will be constructed in three phases of 110 MW each, utilizing both steam and brine extracted from the geothermal field to increase the power plant’s efficiency. Construction is expected to begin after the consortium obtains financing, which is expected to take approximately one year from the signing of the JOC and ESC. The first phase is scheduled to commence in 2016, and the remaining two phases are scheduled to be completed in stages within 18 months thereafter.

The Company’s share in the results of operations of the Sarulla project was not significant for each of the periods presented in these condensed consolidated financial statements.

Watts & More Ltd.

In December 2012, the Company acquired additional shares in Watts & More Ltd. (“W&M”) and as a result holds 60% of W&M’s outstanding ordinary shares and W&M was consolidated as of December 31, 2012.

The Company’s investment in W&M prior to its consolidation was not significant for the related period presented in these consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 5 — FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

The fair value measurement guidance clarifies that fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received upon selling an asset or paid upon transferring a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. The guidance establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy under the fair value measurement guidance are described below:

Level 1 — Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities;

Level 2 — Quoted prices in markets that are not active, or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability;

Level 3 — Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (supported by little or no market activity).

The following table sets forth certain fair value information at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 for financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value by level within the fair value hierarchy, as well as cost or amortized cost. As required by the fair value measurement guidance, assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of inputs that is significant to the fair value measurement.

The following table presents the amounts of gain (loss) recognized in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss) on derivative instruments not designated as hedges:

The Company’s financial assets measured at fair value (including restricted cash accounts) at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 include short-term bank deposits and money market funds (which are included in cash equivalents). Those assets are classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued using quoted market prices in an active market.

There were no transfers of assets or liabilities between Level 1 and Level 2 during the six months ended June 30, 2013.

The fair value of the Company’s long-term debt approximates its carrying amount, except for the following:

The fair value of OFC Senior Secured Notes is determined using observable market prices as these securities are traded. The fair value of other long-term debt is determined by a valuation model, which is based on a conventional discounted cash flow methodology and utilizes assumptions of estimated current borrowing rates. The fair value of revolving lines of credit is determined using comparison of market-based price sources that are reflective of similar credit ratings to those of the Company.

The carrying value of other financial instruments, such as revolving lines of credit, deposits, and other long-term debt approximates fair value.

The following table presents the fair value of financial instruments as of June 30, 2013:

NOTE 6 — STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

The 2004 Incentive Compensation Plan

In 2004, the Company’s Board of Directors adopted the 2004 Incentive Compensation Plan (“2004 Incentive Plan”), which provides for the grant of the following types of awards: incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options, restricted stock, stock appreciation rights (“SARs”), stock units, performance awards, phantom stock, incentive bonuses, and other possible related dividend equivalents to employees of the Company, directors and independent contractors. Under the 2004 Incentive Plan, a total of 3,750,000 shares of the Company’s common stock have been reserved for issuance, all of which could be issued as options or as other forms of awards. Options and SARs granted to employees under the 2004 Incentive Plan cliff vest and are exercisable from the grant date as follows: 25% after 24 months, 25% after 36 months, and the remaining 50% after 48 months. Options granted to non-employee directors under the 2004 Incentive Plan cliff vest and become fully exercisable one year after the grant date. Vested shares may be exercised for up to ten years from the date of grant. The shares of common stock will be issued upon exercise of options or SARs from the Company’s authorized share capital. The 2004 Incentive Plan expired in May 2012 upon adoption of the 2012 Incentive Plan, except as to share based awards outstanding on that date.

The 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan

In May 2012, the Company’s shareholders adopted the 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan (“2012 Incentive Plan”), which provides for the grant of the following types of awards: incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options, restricted stock, SARs, stock units, performance awards, phantom stock, incentive bonuses, and other possible related dividend equivalents to employees of the Company, directors and independent contractors. Under the 2012 Incentive Plan, a total of 4,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock have been reserved for issuance, all of which could be issued as options or as other forms of awards. Options and SARs granted to employees under the 2012 Incentive Plan will vest and become exercisable as follows: 25% vest 24 months after the grant date, an additional 25% vest 36 months after the grant date, and the remaining 50% vest 48 months after the grant date. Options granted to non-employee directors under the 2012 Incentive Plan will vest and become fully exercisable one year after the grant date. Vested stock-based awards may be exercised for up to ten years from the date of grant. Upon exercise, SARs entitle the recipient to receive shares of common stock equal to the increase in the fair market value of the Company’s common stock from the grant date to the date of exercise. The shares of common stock will be issued upon exercise of options or SARs from the Company’s authorized share capital.

On April 3, 2013, the Company granted its Chief Financial Officer120,000 SARs under the 2012 Incentive Plan. The exercise price of each SAR is $20.54, which represented the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant. Such SARs will expire six years from the date of grant, and will vest in equal annual installments over a period of four years from the grant date.

The fair value of each SAR on the date of grant was $5.64. The Company calculated the fair value of each SAR on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes valuation model based on the following assumptions:

On June 4, 2013, the Company granted its employees 1,150,100 SARs under the 2012 Incentive Plan. The exercise price of each SAR is $23.34, which represented the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant. Such SARs will expire six years from the date of grant, and will vest fully after four years starting from the grant date, 25% at the end of the second year, 25% at the end of the third year, and 50% at the end of the fourth year.

The fair value of each SAR on the date of grant was $7.21. The Company calculated the fair value of each SAR on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes valuation model based on the following assumptions:

NOTE 7 — INTEREST EXPENSE, NET 

The components of interest expense, net, are as follows:

NOTE 8 — EARNINGS PER SHARE

Basic earnings per share attributable to the Company’s stockholders is computed by dividing net income or loss attributable to the Company’s stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding for the period. The Company does not have any equity instruments that are dilutive, except for employee stock-based awards.

The table below shows the reconciliation of the number of shares used in the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:

The number of stock-based awards that could potentially dilute future earnings per share and that were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because to do so would have been anti-dilutive was 5,302,613 and 5,337,772 for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and 5,371,661 and 5,410,278 for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

NOTE 9 — BUSINESS SEGMENTS

The Company has two reporting segments: Electricity and Product Segments. These segments are managed and reported separately as each offers different products and serves different markets. The Electricity Segment is engaged in the sale of electricity from the Company’s power plants pursuant to PPAs. The Product Segment is engaged in the manufacture, including design and development, of turbines and power units for the supply of electrical energy and in the associated construction of power plants utilizing the power units manufactured by the Company to supply energy from geothermal fields and other alternative energy sources. Transfer prices between the operating segments are determined based on current market values or cost plus markup of the seller’s business segment.

Summarized financial information concerning the Company’s reportable segments is shown in the following tables:

Reconciling information between reportable segments and the Company’s consolidated totals is shown in the following table:

NOTE 10 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On December 24, 2012, Laborers’ International Union of North America Local Union No. 783 (“LiUNA”), an organized labor union, filed a petition in Mono County Superior Court, naming Mono County and the Company as defendant and real party in interest, respectively. The petitioners brought this action to challenge the November 13, 2012 decision of the Mono County Board of Supervisors in adopting Resolutions No. 12-78, denying petitioners’ administrative appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”), adoption of findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and adoption of the final environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Mammoth Pacific I replacement project. The petition asked the court to set aside the approval of the CUP and adoption of the EIR and cause a new EIR to be prepared and circulated.

The Company believes that the petition is without merit and intends to respond and take necessary legal action to dismiss the proceedings. The Company responded to LiUNA’s petition. Filing of the petition in and of itself does not have any immediate adverse implications for the Mammoth enhancement.

On January 4, 2012, the California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) filed a petition in Alameda Superior Court, naming the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) and the Company as defendant and real party in interest, respectively. The petition asked the court to order the CEC to vacate its decision which denied, with prejudice, the complaint filed by CURE against the Company with the CEC. The CURE complaint alleged that the Company’s North Brawley Project and East Brawley Project both exceed the CEC’s 50 MW jurisdictional threshold and therefore are subject to the CEC licensing authority rather than Imperial County licensing authority. In addition, the CURE petition asks the court to investigate and halt any ongoing violation of the Warren Alquist Act by the Company, and to award CURE attorney’s fees and costs. As to North Brawley, CURE alleges that the CEC decision violated the Warren Alquist Act because it failed to consider provisions of the County permit for North Brawley, which CURE contends authorizes the Company to build a generating facility with a number of OECs capable of generating more than 50 MW. As to East Brawley, CURE alleges that the CEC decision violated the Warren Alquist Act because it failed to consider the conditional use permit application for East Brawley, which CURE contends shows that the Company requested authorization to build a facility with a number of OECs capable of generating more than 50 MW.

The court held two hearings and on November 15, 2012, CURE’s petition was denied. Any appeal of the court's decision had to be filed by March 4, 2013, and no appeal was filed.

From time to time, the Company is named as a party in various other lawsuits, claims and other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, breach of contract, property damage, punitive damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, the Company accrues reserves when a loss is probable and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the outcome of these proceedings, individually and collectively, will not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.

NOTE 11 — INCOME TAXES

The Company’s effective tax rate for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was 21.3% and 33.6%, respectively. The Company’s effective tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was 38.3% and 37.6%, respectively. The effective tax rate differs from the federal statutory rate of 35% for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 primarily due to unbenefited losses in the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions, offset by (i) lower tax rates in Israel; and (ii) a tax credit and tax exemption related to the Company’s subsidiaries in Guatemala. The effect of the tax credit and tax exemption for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, was $1,395,000 and $2,576,000, respectively. The effect of the tax credit and tax exemption for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, was $444,000 and $1,299,000, respectively.    

At December 31, 2012, the Company had U.S. federal NOL carryforwards of approximately $267.6 million and state NOL carryforwards of approximately $193.4 available to reduce future taxable income, which expire between 2021 and 2032 for federal NOLs and between 2013 and 2032 for state NOLs. Investment tax credits in the amount of $2.0 million at December 31, 2012 are available for a 20-year period and expire between 2022 and 2024. Production tax credits (“PTCs”) in the amount of $69.0 million at December 31, 2012 are available for a 20-year period and expire between 2026 and 2032.

Realization of the deferred tax assets is dependent on generating sufficient taxable income in appropriate jurisdictions prior to expiration of the NOL carryforwards and tax credits. The scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, and tax planning strategies were considered in determining the amount of valuation allowance. A full valuation allowance was recorded against the U.S. deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2012 and June 30, 2013, as at that point in time, it was more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will not be realized. If sufficient evidence of the Company’s ability to generate taxable income is established in the future, the Company may be required to reduce this valuation allowance, resulting in income tax benefits in its consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income.

The Company’s subsidiary, Ormat Systems Ltd. (“Ormat Systems”), received “Benefited Enterprise” status under Israel’s Law for Encouragement of Capital Investments, 1959 (the “Investment Law”), with respect to two of its investment programs. As a Benefited Enterprise, Ormat Systems was exempt from Israeli income taxes with respect to income derived from the first benefited investment for a period of two years beginning in 2004, and thereafter such income was subject to reduced Israeli income tax rates, which will not exceed 25% for an additional five years until 2010. Ormat Systems was also exempt from Israeli income taxes with respect to income derived from the second benefited investment for a period of two years beginning in 2007. Thereafter, such income is subject to reduced Israeli income tax rates, which will not exceed 25% for an additional five years until 2013. These benefits are subject to certain conditions, including among other things, that all transactions between Ormat Systems and its affiliates are done on an arm’s length basis, and that the management of Ormat Systems will be located in, and the control will be conducted from, Israel during the entire period of the tax benefits. A change in control of Ormat Systems would need to be reported to the Israel Tax Authority in order for Ormat Systems to maintain the tax benefits. In January 2011, new legislation amending the Investment Law was enacted. Under the new legislation, a uniform rate of corporate tax will apply to all qualified income of certain industrial companies, as opposed to the previous law’s incentives that are limited to income from a “Benefited Enterprise” during their benefits period. According to the amendment, the uniform tax rate applicable to the zone where the production facilities of Ormat Systems are located would be 15% in 2011 and 2012, 12.5% in 2013 and 2014, and 12% in 2015 and thereafter. Under the transitory provisions of the new legislation, Ormat Systems had the option either to irrevocably comply with the new law while waiving benefits provided under the previous law or to continue to comply with the previous law during a transition period with the option to move from the previous law to the new law at any stage. Ormat Systems decided to irrevocably comply with the new law starting in 2011.

In November 2012, new legislation amending the Investment Law was enacted. Under the new legislation, companies that have retained earnings as of December 31, 2011 from Benefited Enterprises may elect by November 11, 2013 to pay a reduced corporate tax rate set forth in the new legislation on such undistributed income and distribute a dividend from such income without being required to pay additional corporate tax with respect to such income. A company that makes this election will be required to make certain investments in its Benefited Enterprise by: (i) purchasing productive assets (other than buildings); (ii) investing in research and development in Israel; and/or (iii) paying salaries of new employees (other than directors and officers of the company) of the Benefited Enterprise. The number of new employees for these purposes will be determined in comparison to the number of employees employed by the Benefited Enterprise at the end of 2011. Such investment must be made over a period of five years commencing in the tax year in which the election is made. The amount of the required investment is determined pursuant to a formula set forth in the new legislation. A company that makes the election allowed under the new legislation cannot later undo its election. As of the date of this quarterly report Ormat Systems has not yet decided whether to make such election.

A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amounts of unrecognized tax benefits is as follows:

NOTE 12 — ORTP TAX MONETIZATION TRANSACTION

On January 24, 2013, Ormat Nevada entered into agreements with JP Morgan (“JPM”) under which JPM purchased interests in a newly formed subsidiary of Ormat Nevada, ORTP, LLC (“ORTP”), entitling JPM to certain tax benefits (such as PTCs and accelerated depreciation) associated with certain geothermal power plants in California and Nevada.

Under the terms of the transaction, Ormat Nevada transferred the Heber complex, the Mammoth complex, the Ormesa complex, and the Steamboat 2 and 3, Burdette (Galena 1) and Brady power plants to ORTP, and sold class B membership units in ORTP to JPM. In connection with the closing, JPM paid approximately $35.7 million to Ormat Nevada and will make additional payments to ORTP of 25% of the value of PTCs generated by the portfolio over time. The additional payments are expected to be made until December 31, 2016 and total approximately $8.7 million.

Ormat Nevada will continue to operate and maintain the power plants. Under the agreements, Ormat Nevada will initially receive all of the distributable cash flow generated by the power plants, while JPM will receive substantially all of PTCs and the taxable income or loss (together, the “Economic Benefits”). JPM’s return is limited by the terms of the transaction. Once JPM reaches a target after-tax yield on its investment in ORTP (the “ORTP Flip Date”), Ormat Nevada will receive 97.5% of the distributable cash and 95% of the taxable income, on a going forward basis. At any time during the twelve-month period after the end of the fiscal year in which the ORTP Flip Date occurs (but no earlier than the expiration of five years following the date that the last of the power plants was placed in service for purposes of federal income taxes), Ormat Nevada also has the option to buy out JPM’s remaining interest in ORTP at the then-current fair market value. If Ormat Nevada were to exercise this purchase option, it would become the sole owner of the power plants again.

The Class B membership units entitle the holder to 5.0% (allocation of income and loss) and 2.5% (allocation of cash) residual economic interest in ORTP. The 5.0% and 2.5% residual interest commences on achievement by JPM of a contractually stipulated return that triggers the ORTP Flip Date. The actual ORTP Flip Date is not known with certainty. This residual 5.0% and 2.5% interest represents a noncontrolling interest and is not subject to mandatory redemption or guaranteed payments.

The Company’s voting rights in ORTP are based on a capital structure that is comprised of Class A and Class B membership units. Through Ormat Nevada the Company owns all of the Class A membership units, which represent 75% of the voting rights in ORTP. JPM owns all of the Class B membership units, which represent 25% of the voting rights of ORTP. Other than in respect of customary protective rights, all operational decisions in ORTP are decided by the vote of a majority of the membership units. Ormat Nevada retains the controlling voting interest in ORTP both before and after the ORTP Flip Date and therefore will continue to consolidate ORTP.

For the three months and six months ended June 30, 2013, the impact of the ORTP transaction was a net gain of $3.0 million and $4.1 million, respectively, on the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. For the three months and six months ended June 30, 2013, revenues of $4.2 million and $6.4 million, respectively, were recognized in income attributable to the sale of tax benefits and a $1.2 million and $2.3 million finance charge was recognized in interest expense, for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2013, respectively.

NOTE 13 — DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

On May 30, 2013, the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, Ormat Holding Corp., sold the Momotombo Power Company (“MPC”), which operates the Momotombo power plant, located in Nicaragua to a third party for $7,751,000 approximately one year before the scheduled termination of the concession arrangement with the Nicaraguan owner. The Company recorded an after-tax gain on sale of approximately $3.6 million in the three and six months ended June 30, 2013.

In conjunction with the sale, the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, Ormat International, Inc, and the buyer signed a technical support agreement, whereby Ormat International, Inc, will provide technical consulting services, which can be terminated by either party with 60 days advance notice. The Company is of the opinion that the expected continuing cash flows from this agreement are insignificant and that there is no significant continuing involvement by the Company, including its subsidiaries, in the operations of the MPC after the sale. Therefore, the related income from operations prior to the date of the sale and the gain on the sale of the MPC have been included as discontinued operations in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for all comparative periods presented. 

The summarized financial information related to the discontinued operations is as follows: