Solterra Energy in 2025: The Portfolio Expanded, but 2026 Is Still a Funding Test

Company Introduction

At first glance, Solterra looks like a renewable-energy company with a large pipeline and a European footprint. That is only partly true. In practice it is still a very small, thinly traded public development platform trying to turn a collection of solar and storage projects across Italy, Poland, and Germany into sales, partnerships, or eventually some longer-term ownership under an IPP-like model. This is not yet a power producer with recurring cash flow. It is a development platform that lives on permits, partners, financing, and time.

What is working now is the option set. As of the report date, the group is advancing 23 solar projects with aggregate capacity of about 299 MW, 2 solar-plus-storage projects with 6 MW of solar and 36 MW, 144 MWh of storage, and 8 storage projects with 1,559 MW, 6,236 MWh. On top of that sits Melz in Germany, an additional project with estimated capacity of about 115 MW that already received a grid connection approval and reached the point at which development costs began to be capitalized.

But anyone who stops at the MW count misses the active bottleneck. Solterra's problem today is not a shortage of projects. It is funding, value leakage through layered structures, and the time needed to turn development rights into realizations. At the listed-company level, year-end cash was only €287 thousand, the equity deficit stood at €5.805 million, the working-capital deficit at €4.509 million, and operating cash outflow at €3.081 million. That is the core gap between "pipeline" and "value that can actually reach shareholders."

Another easy mistake is to read the project portfolio as if it belongs cleanly and fully to Solterra. It does not. Italy and Poland largely sit inside joint structures with Brand, and specific projects are already shared with partners and financiers such as ACP and N2Off. Germany, too, already carries service-provider layers, loans, and profit-sharing. So the gross project count describes activity scale, but it does not by itself describe what really belongs to the listed shareholders, or when.

The quick screen looks like this: on one side the company now has more strategic paths than before, including the possible Brand merger, ACP and N2Off in Italy, a framework agreement with A2A, and a term sheet in Poland with Airngy Tech. On the other side, the report carries an explicit going-concern warning, states that current funding sources are not sufficient for the next 12 months without project milestones, further partnerships, or fundraising, and the latest market snapshot shows a market value of roughly NIS 17.2 million with daily turnover of only NIS 515. This is not only a valuation question. It is also an actionability question.

The quick orientation map looks like this:

That chart matters because it shows what the headline can hide. Solterra already has a meaningful development surface, especially in Poland and in storage. But it has not yet proven that it can turn that surface into sales, funded partnerships, or operating assets quickly enough to justify the current capital structure.

Events and Triggers

The Brand merger changed the center of gravity

The most important event in the report is not another project. It is the September 2025 merger agreement with Brand Group and Brand Energy, amended in January and March 2026. If it closes, Brand will receive 19.48 million new shares and reach up to 66.3% of the company's equity on a fully diluted basis. This is a two-sided move: it could relieve part of the funding pressure and broaden the geographic base into the UK, but it also turns Solterra's story from that of a small standalone developer into one of dilution, control transfer, and injected activity.

This is not just an equity issue. During the interim period the company agreed not to raise capital without Brand's consent. Until the merger either closes or falls away, Solterra is therefore not fully free to run its capital strategy on its own. Brand also provided a bridge loan that was increased to NIS 7 million, at 9% annual interest, and if the merger does not close in certain circumstances it will fall due by February 28, 2027. So the merger is not only upside. It is also part of the company's current oxygen system.

Italy and Poland gained more routes, but also more layers

Italy added three separate strategic layers in 2025. With ACP, a joint structure for 100 MW was set up in January 2024, with the company holding 51% and ACP 49%, but by year-end ACP had already provided €4.246 million of JV loans versus only €77 thousand from the company. With N2Off, the company signed a February 2025 transaction to finance two Italian battery projects with total capacity of 195 MW, in which N2Off holds 70% of the project company and the company is entitled to 30% to 50% of project profits. And in September 2025 the company signed a framework agreement with A2A for roughly 200 MW of photovoltaic development in Italy, but without certainty that A2A will actually acquire the projects.

Those three layers clearly expand the option set. They also sharpen the key analytical point: Solterra is building optionality through partners, but at the cost of ownership share and economic cleanliness. That is not necessarily a mistake. A company of this size would struggle to move a European development surface without partner structures. But it does mean that backlog, financing, ownership, and control are intertwined, and that one MW is not economically identical to another.

Poland shows the same pattern. The local platform holds 13 solar projects totaling 78 MW, 2 solar-plus-storage projects, and 6 storage projects totaling 1,364 MW. But the Polish associate ended 2025 with only PLN 75 thousand of cash, a comprehensive loss of PLN 5.925 million, and long-term shareholder loans of PLN 13.405 million. In February 2026, it also added a non-binding term sheet with Airngy Tech around projects totaling roughly 120 MW of solar, 360 MWh of storage, and 8 MW of wind, but that thread still depends on a detailed agreement and institutional fundraising. So here too there is direction, but not yet funding proof.

Melz is the closest monetization test

Melz in Germany is probably the most important asset in Solterra's story right now, not because it is the largest in MW terms, but because it may be the first relatively advanced monetization test. The project received a binding grid connection approval on August 6, 2024, a detailed zoning and development plan was filed on December 27, 2024, and from that point development costs began to be capitalized. By year-end 2025, the "project in development" asset already stood at €630 thousand, essentially all Melz.

But here too the simple read is misleading. The German partnership loan, with nominal amount of about €2.705 million, was fair-valued at €2.497 million at year-end 2025. Under its terms, the lenders are entitled to repayment of the loan and 50% of partnership profits after project sale, and the rights in the German partnership were pledged. So Melz is not simply a project that may be sold. It is also a financing event with a real value-sharing layer ahead of common shareholders.

Efficiency, Profitability, and Competition

The key number in this report is not that the loss became smaller. The key number is that there is still no stable profit engine underneath all the expansion.

Revenue in 2025 was €721 thousand, almost unchanged from €722 thousand in 2024. This is service revenue from held companies. There is still no meaningful layer of electricity sales, and there have not yet been large project realizations replacing service fees. So while the company operates in a sector with strong structural tailwinds for renewables and storage, it still has not shown that the portfolio translates into a real breakout in the top line.

An operating loss of €2.375 million looks better at first glance than the €3.005 million operating loss of 2024. That is a misleading read. In 2024 the company recorded a one-off €1.103 million reverse-listing expense. Strip that out and the adjusted 2024 operating loss was closer to €1.902 million. In other words, on a regular operating basis 2025 looks weaker, not stronger.

There is another subtle point here. In 2024 the company recorded €577 thousand of project development expenses. In 2025 that line disappeared. Not because development stopped, but because Melz reached the stage at which development costs began to be capitalized to the balance sheet. So part of the optical improvement in the income statement is a classification shift from current expense to asset. That is legitimate accounting, but it does not mean the platform stopped consuming resources.

The weakness also shows up when the year is split into two halves. Revenue was almost flat between the first half, €359 thousand, and the second half, €362 thousand. But G&A rose from €892 thousand to €1.139 million, the share of equity-accounted losses rose from €486 thousand to €579 thousand, and operating loss widened from €1.019 million to €1.356 million. So even inside 2025 the direction is not one of stabilization. It is one of a more expensive development machine against a flat revenue base.

The layer below operating profit does not tell a clean breakout story either. Net finance expense dropped from €1.164 million to €423 thousand, which clearly helped reduce the pre-tax loss. But that was not the result of a stronger business engine. It mostly reflects movements in the measurement of loans and financial liabilities. The cash-flow statement and the balance sheet both show that the financing pressure itself did not go away.

Competitive dynamics matter here in a specific way. Solterra is not yet competing like an experienced power producer on operating margins or utilization. It is competing on land sourcing, permits, grid access, financing partners, and speed to RTB. That matters because the company's own sector review says the European bottleneck is increasingly about grid infrastructure, storage, and system integration, not only demand for green electricity. So the value of Solterra will depend less on "how many MW exist" and more on "how many reach monetization before the cash runs out."

Cash Flow, Debt, and Capital Structure

The relevant cash frame here is all-in cash flexibility

For Solterra, it does not make much analytical sense to build a normalized / maintenance cash-generation frame as if this were already a mature operating business with maintenance CAPEX. It is not. This is still a platform that spends first and may realize value later. The right bridge is all-in cash flexibility, meaning how much cash is really left after actual uses.

On that basis, 2025 was straightforward. Operating activities used €3.081 million. Investing activities used another €789 thousand, mainly through funding to held companies and project advancement. Financing activities brought in €3.163 million. The result was a €707 thousand decline in cash to year-end cash of €287 thousand. In other words, financing mostly filled the hole. It did not create a cushion.

That chart matters because it removes the illusion that the company may simply be narrowing the accounting loss on its way to balance. In reality, Solterra is still funding its life through loans, investors, structural deals, and partners. That is not unusual for an early-stage developer, but it does define the real test.

The short-term pressure is lender pressure, not supplier pressure

The balance sheet tells the same story from another angle. Current assets fell from €1.420 million to €1.134 million. Current liabilities, by contrast, rose from €3.979 million to €5.643 million. Inside that, loans from interested parties and other investors jumped from €2.315 million to €4.369 million, while suppliers and service providers actually fell to only €147 thousand and other payables dropped to €465 thousand.

So the year-end short-term pressure at Solterra is not a story of unpaid operating bills. It is a capital-structure story. That is the difference between a company that needs to close routine payment loops and a company that needs to solve the financing layer itself.

That pressure layer is also more complicated than plain debt. At year-end, in addition to the loans, the company carried €573 thousand of derivative financial instruments and another €47 thousand of an additional derivative instrument, mainly around the convertible loan and options. So the issue is not only how much debt sits there. It is also under what terms and who already holds optionality on future value.

The going-concern warning rests on hard numbers, not cautious wording

The company and the auditor are not using soft language. In the general note, the company states explicitly that existing funding sources are not sufficient to sustain the current form of operations for at least 12 months from the approval of the financial statements unless it succeeds in completing German milestones, entering further revenue-generating partnerships, or raising money. That is not a theoretical warning. It is the center of the case.

One more point matters here. The company states that neither it nor the group has taken loans from financial institutions, and that funding in practice relies on outside investors and certain shareholders, although it also notes an unused Bank Hapoalim credit line. In other words, the real funding base of the activity today is still related parties, private financiers, and partners, not an already-built banking structure carrying the story.

Italy and Poland already show what happens when pipeline outruns funding

The issue does not sit only at the parent level. It is already visible in the associates.

In Poland the mismatch is especially sharp. The local company has assets of PLN 5.976 million against liabilities of PLN 14.372 million and an equity deficit of PLN 8.396 million. Italy is less extreme in nominal terms but still clear: €575 thousand of assets against €2.453 million of liabilities and an equity deficit of €1.878 million. These are not platforms moving toward realization from surplus resources. They are platforms that need financing or a buyer.

Forecasts and Forward View

The four points to hold before looking into 2026 are these:

• The Brand merger now matters at least as much as another MW headline, because it directly affects both funding and control.
• Melz is first a monetization and financing test, and only then another project story.
• Italy and Poland show that a broad pipeline without long capital remains optionality, not cash flow.
• The strategic shift toward holding some projects under an IPP-like model may improve value capture, but it also raises the capital bar materially.

2026 looks like a bridge-and-proof year

The most accurate label for the coming year is a bridge year. Not a breakout year, not a stabilization year. A bridge year. The company now has a wider platform, more partnership routes, and a stated intention to hold some projects longer. But it has not yet shown that the current capital structure can carry that ambition.

There is also an important tension here. On one hand, the March 2026 decision to retain some projects into construction and operation may be economically sensible, because it can keep more value inside the group instead of forcing early sales. On the other hand, this very same report states that current funding sources are not enough for the coming 12 months without milestones, cooperation agreements, and fundraising. So the strategic direction sounds stronger than the balance sheet from which it has to be launched.

What must happen in the next 2 to 4 quarters

First, the Brand merger needs to close, or the company needs to show a credible alternative funding path. Without one of those two, Solterra will remain dependent on bridge money, extensions, and point financing.

Second, Melz needs to move. It is not enough simply to continue development. The market needs to see it moving toward RTB, structured financing, or a monetization event that creates real cash. As long as Melz remains mostly a capitalized development asset and a valuation story, it will support the thesis less than the German headline suggests.

Third, Poland needs a funding solution. The Airngy term sheet shows there is a route to broader activity, but until an investor or institutional financing enters, that remains another option layered onto a platform that is already running on credit.

Fourth, Italy needs conversion, not only frameworks. That market offers more routes than any other part of the group, but the market will want to see at least one of them turn into visible income, a sale, or a binding milestone toward RTB. Without that, Italy remains a strong narrative with too many open boxes.

What could change the market read in the near to medium term

In the near term, the market is unlikely to focus first on revenue figures because they are still too small. It will focus on sequencing. The Brand merger deadline, the sufficiency of the bridge, any concrete Melz update, and any movement by Airngy, A2A, or N2Off from framework stage toward binding monetization are the points most likely to change interpretation.

There is also a clear dissonance here. On one hand, the market cap is tiny relative to the gross project surface. On the other hand, liquidity is so weak that even a good signal may take time to reach price. So the shortest-term trigger is not necessarily "good news." It is news that reduces financing risk.

Risks

Risk number one is still funding, not renewable-energy demand

The industry review in the report describes a European market with strong structural support for renewables, storage, and grid investment. That matters, but it is not what threatens Solterra today. The central risk is that the company will fail to turn those tailwinds into funding on time. Once the auditor says current funding sources are not sufficient for the next 12 months without material progress, that is no longer a background risk.

Risk number two is dilution and control transfer inside the funding solution

If the Brand merger closes, it may relieve part of the financing pressure. But it will also heavily dilute existing shareholders and shift the center of control. So even a relatively constructive scenario is not one-directional. It improves survivability and scale, but it changes the value split.

Risk number three is that value stays above the common-shareholder layer

That is especially true in Melz and in partner structures more broadly. A project can look excellent at the MW level, the headline valuation level, or the theoretical sale-profit level, and still leave much less for common shareholders after loans, profit-sharing, partners, and pledges. That is not theoretical here. It is already built into part of the structure.

Risk number four is operating and regulatory delay

A development company lives on pace. Delays in permits, grid access, institutional fundraising, or the move to RTB do not merely defer revenue. They also extend the period in which the platform carries overhead and financing burden without a compensating liquidity event. So even a favorable market backdrop may not be enough if actual execution remains slow.

Risk number five is the market-actionability constraint

The weak trading screen has practical meaning. A market value of roughly NIS 17.2 million and daily turnover of NIS 515 in the latest market snapshot create a double trap. It is hard to rely on the market as a convenient capital source, and it is hard to expect quick and efficient repricing of positive developments. That is a real actionability constraint, not a side note.

---

Conclusions

Solterra ends 2025 with more options, more projects, and more partners, but not with a cleaner thesis. What supports the story now is that the platform has genuinely broadened, Melz has moved into a more advanced stage, and several partnership threads could still turn into income or realizations. The main blocker is that the whole structure still rests on funding, bridge capital, and value-sharing with lenders and partners. That means the near-to-medium term market reaction will be driven less by the dream of the pipeline and more by the question of who brings the money, and when.

Current thesis: Solterra now holds a broader European option set, but at the listed-company level the story is still determined by funding, lender priority, and the ability to turn development optionality into accessible cash.

What changed: The company is no longer merely a tiny listed shell with a renewable-energy narrative. The Brand merger, Melz, ACP, N2Off, A2A, and Airngy have built a broader platform. Precisely because of that, the test has shifted from "is there a pipeline" to "is there a capital structure that can carry it."

Counter-thesis: If the Brand merger closes, Melz reaches monetization, and one or two Italy or Poland threads turn into a sale or institutional financing, the current market value may materially understate the platform's embedded option value.

What may change the market read: A completed merger, a concrete Melz update, and proof that the Italian or Polish partnerships generate cash rather than only presentations.

Why this matters: This is not a theoretical debate about renewable-power demand. It is a test of whether a small development platform can turn a relatively large European project surface into value that truly reaches shareholders before financing absorbs too much of it.

What must happen in the next 2 to 4 quarters: The company needs to resolve the Brand junction or present an alternative funding path, move Melz into a commercial or financing event, bring structured funding into Poland, and show that at least one route in Italy has crossed from promise into revenue or realization.