the relevant project or, consistent with FERC precedent, to seek refunds of past amounts paid. This could cause the loss of some or all of our revenues payable pursuant to the related power purchase agreements, result in significant liability for refunds of past amounts paid, or otherwise impair the value of our projects. If a power purchaser were to cease taking and paying for electricity or seek to obtain refunds of past amounts paid, there can be no assurance that the costs incurred in connection with the project could be recovered through sales to other purchasers or that we would have sufficient funds to make such payments. In addition, the loss of Qualifying Facility status would be an event of default under the financing arrangements currently in place for some of our projects, which would enable the lenders to exercise their remedies and enforce the liens on the relevant project.

Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the FERC was also given authority to prospectively lift the mandatory obligation of a utility under PURPA to purchase the electricity from a Qualifying Facility if the utility operates in a workably competitive market. Existing power purchase agreements between a Qualifying Facility and a utility are not affected. On January 19, 2006, the FERC proposed regulations under which it would eliminate utilities' mandatory purchase obligation from Qualifying Facilities in certain regions of the country. The proposed regions do not include areas in which our domestic projects operate. However, FERC has the authority under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to act, on a case-by-case basis, to eliminate the mandatory purchase obligation in other regions. In the proposed rulemaking, the FERC expressly noted that the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has the right to file an application to seek relief from the mandatory purchase obligation. If the utilities in the regions in which our domestic projects operate were to be relieved of the mandatory purchase obligation, they would not be required to purchase energy from the project in the region under Federal law upon termination of the existing power purchase agreement or with respect to new projects, which could have an adverse effect on our revenues.

Our financial performance is significantly dependent on the successful operation of our projects, which is subject to changes in the legal and regulatory environment affecting our projects.

All of our projects are subject to extensive regulation and, therefore, changes in applicable laws or regulations, or interpretations of those laws and regulations, could result in increased compliance costs, the need for additional capital expenditures or the reduction of certain benefits currently available to our projects. The structure of federal and state energy regulation currently is, and may continue to be, subject to challenges, modifications, the imposition of additional regulatory requirements, and restructuring proposals. Our power purchasers or we may not be able to obtain all regulatory approvals that may be required in the future, or any necessary modifications to existing regulatory approvals, or maintain all required regulatory approvals. In addition, the cost of operation and maintenance and the operating performance of geothermal power plants may be adversely affected by changes in certain laws and regulations, including tax laws.

The federal government also encourages production of electricity from geothermal resources through certain tax subsidies. We are permitted to claim in our consolidated federal tax returns either an investment tax credit for approximately 10% of the cost of each new geothermal power plant or ‘‘production tax credits’’ of 1.9 cents a kilowatt hour on the first ten years of electricity output. (Production tax credits can only be claimed on new plants put into service between October 23, 2004 and December 31, 2005.) We are also permitted to deduct most of the cost of the power plant as ‘‘depreciation’’ over five years on an accelerated basis. The fact that the deductions are accelerated means that more of the cost is deducted in the first few years than during the remainder of the depreciation period. In addition, we have the ability to transfer the value of these tax incentives when we are not in a position to use them directly. For instance, energy credits can be transferred through lease financing, and production tax credits may be transferred by bringing in another company who can use them as a partner in the project.

President Bush has made it a central theme of his second term to simplify the U.S. tax code. Among the options that may be under consideration are replacing or supplementing the corporate income tax with a value-added-tax, stripping away many tax subsidies, and eliminating taxes on interest, dividends and other returns to capital. Significant tax reform has the potential to have a material effect on our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow. It could reduce or

46

eliminate the value that geothermal companies receive from the current tax subsidies. Any restrictions or tightening of the rules for lease or partnership transactions — whether or not part of major tax reform — could also materially affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

Any such changes could significantly increase the regulatory-related compliance and other expenses incurred by the projects and could significantly reduce or entirely eliminate the revenues generated by one or more of the projects, which in turn would reduce our net income and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

The costs of compliance with environmental laws and of obtaining and maintaining environmental permits and governmental approvals required for construction and/or operation, which currently are significant, may increase in the future and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow; any non-compliance with such laws or regulations may result in the imposition of liabilities which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

Our projects are required to comply with numerous domestic and foreign federal, regional, state and local statutory and regulatory environmental standards and to maintain numerous environmental permits and governmental approvals required for construction and/or operation. Some of the environmental permits and governmental approvals that have been issued to the projects contain conditions and restrictions, including restrictions or limits on emissions and discharges of pollutants and contaminants, or may have limited terms. If we fail to satisfy these conditions or comply with these restrictions, or with any statutory or regulatory environmental standards, we may become subject to regulatory enforcement action and the operation of the projects could be adversely affected or be subject to fines, penalties or additional costs. In addition, we may not be able to renew, maintain or obtain all environmental permits and governmental approvals required for the continued operation or further development of the projects. As of the date of this registration statement, we have not yet obtained certain permits and government approvals required for the completion and successful operation of projects under construction or enhancement. In addition, a nearby municipality has informed our Amatitlan project that an additional building permit should be obtained from such municipality before construction commences. In what appears to be a related occurrence, a group of demonstrators from the municipality have attempted to disrupt the access road to our Amatitlan project. A separate group of demonstrators from another municipality have turned out in support of the project, and Guatemalan authorities have assisted in maintaining access to the project. Our failure to renew, maintain or obtain required permits or governmental approvals, including the permits and approvals necessary for operating projects under construction or enhancement and the Amatitlan project, could cause our operations to be limited or suspended. Environmental laws, ordinances and regulations affecting us can be subject to change and such change could result in increased compliance costs, the need for additional capital expenditures, or otherwise adversely affect us.

We could be exposed to significant liability for violations of hazardous substances laws because of the use or presence of such substances at our projects.

Our projects are subject to numerous domestic and foreign federal, regional, state and local statutory and regulatory standards relating to the use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances. We use isobutane, isopentane, industrial lubricants and other substances at our projects which are or could become classified as hazardous substances. If any hazardous substances are found to have been released into the environment at or by the projects, we could become liable for the investigation and removal of those substances, regardless of their source and time of release. If we fail to comply with these laws, ordinances or regulations (or any change thereto), we could be subject to civil or criminal liability, the imposition of liens or fines, and large expenditures to bring the projects into compliance. Furthermore, in the United States, we can be held liable for the cleanup of releases of hazardous substances at other locations where we arranged for disposal of those substances, even if we did not cause the release at that location. The cost of any remediation activities in connection with a spill or other release of such substances could be significant.

We believe that at one time there may have been a gas station located on the Mammoth project site, but because of significant surface disturbance and construction since that time further physical

47

---

evaluation of the former gas station site has been impractical. There may be soil or groundwater contamination and related potential liabilities of which we are unaware related to this site, which may be significant and may adversely and materially affect our operations and revenues.

We may not be able to successfully integrate companies which we may acquire in the future, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

Our strategy is to continue to expand in the future, including through acquisitions. Integrating acquisitions is often costly, and we may not be able to successfully integrate our acquired companies with our existing operations without substantial costs, delays or other adverse operational or financial consequences. Integrating our acquired companies involves a number of risks that could materially and adversely affect our business, including:

	•	failure of the acquired companies to achieve the results we expect;

	•	inability to retain key personnel of the acquired companies;

	•	risks associated with unanticipated events or liabilities; and

	•	the difficulty of establishing and maintaining uniform standards, controls, procedures and policies, including accounting controls and procedures.

If any of our acquired companies suffers customer dissatisfaction or performance problems, the same could adversely affect the reputation of our group of companies and could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

The power generation industry is characterized by intense competition, and we encounter competition from electric utilities, other power producers, and power marketers that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

The power generation industry is characterized by intense competition from electric utilities, other power producers and power marketers. In recent years, there has been increasing competition in the sale of electricity, in part due to excess capacity in a number of U.S. markets and an emphasis on short-term or ‘‘spot’’ markets, and competition has contributed to a reduction in electricity prices. For the most part, we expect that power purchasers interested in long-term arrangements will engage in ‘‘competitive bid’’ solicitations to satisfy new capacity demands. This competition could adversely affect our ability to obtain power purchase agreements and the price paid for electricity by the relevant power purchasers. There is also increasing competition between electric utilities. This competition has put pressure on electric utilities to lower their costs, including the cost of purchased electricity, and increasing competition in the future will put further pressure on power purchasers to reduce the prices at which they purchase electricity from us.

The existence of a prolonged force majeure event or a forced outage affecting a project could reduce our net income and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

The operation of our subsidiaries' geothermal power plants is subject to a variety of risks discussed elsewhere in these risk factors, including events such as fires, explosions, earthquakes, landslides, floods, severe storms or other similar events.

If a project experiences an occurrence resulting in a force majeure event, our subsidiary owning that project would be excused from its obligations under the relevant power purchase agreement. However, the relevant power purchaser may not be required to make any capacity and/or energy payments with respect to the affected project or plant so long as the force majeure event continues and, pursuant to certain of our power purchase agreements, will have the right to prematurely terminate the power purchase agreement. Additionally, to the extent that a forced outage has occurred, the relevant power purchaser may not be required to make any capacity and/or energy payments to the affected project, and if as a result the project fails to attain certain performance requirements under certain of our power purchase agreements, the purchaser may have the right to permanently reduce the contract capacity (and, correspondingly, the amount of capacity payments due pursuant to such agreements in the future), seek refunds of certain past capacity payments, and/or

48

---

prematurely terminate the power purchase agreement. As a consequence, we may not receive any net revenues from the affected project or plant other than the proceeds from any business interruption insurance that applies to the force majeure event or forced outage after the relevant waiting period, and may incur significant liabilities in respect of past amounts required to be refunded. Accordingly, our business, financial condition, future results and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. Recently, due to hurricane activity, the access roads and the piping from the wells to the Zunil power plant were damaged and as a result, the project was not in operation from October 14, 2005 to March 10, 2006.

The existence of a force majeure event or a forced outage affecting the transmission system of the Imperial Irrigation District could reduce our net income and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

If the transmission system of the Imperial Irrigation District experiences a force majeure event or a forced outage which prevents it from transmitting the electricity from the Heber 1 and 2 projects or the Ormesa project to the relevant power purchaser, the relevant power purchaser would not be required to make energy payments for such non-delivered electricity and may not be required to make any capacity payments with respect to the affected project so long as such force majeure event or forced outage continues. Our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2005, from the projects utilizing the Imperial Irrigation District transmission system, were approximately $85.9 million. The impact of such force majeure would depend on the duration thereof, with longer outages resulting in greater revenue loss.

Some of our leases will terminate if we do not extract geothermal resources in ‘‘commercial quantities’’, thus requiring us to enter into new leases or secure rights to alternate geothermal resources, none of which may be available on terms as favorable to us as any such terminated lease, if at all.

Most of our geothermal resource leases are for a fixed primary term, and then continue for so long as geothermal resources are extracted in ‘‘commercial quantities’’ or pursuant to other terms of extension. The land covered by some of our leases is undeveloped and has not yet produced geothermal resources in ‘‘commercial quantities’’. Leases that cover land which remains undeveloped and does not produce, or does not continue to produce, geothermal resources in commercial quantities and leases that we allow to expire, will terminate. In the event that a lease is terminated and we determine that we will need that lease once the applicable project is operating, we would need to enter into one or more new leases with the owner(s) of the premises that are the subject of the terminated lease(s) in order to develop geothermal resources from, or inject geothermal resources into, such premises or secure rights to alternate geothermal resources or lands suitable for injection, all of which may not be possible or could result in increased cost to us, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

Our Bureau of Land Management leases may be terminated if we fail to comply with any of the provisions of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 or if we fail to comply with the terms or stipulations of such leases, which may materially and adversely affect our business and operations.

Pursuant to the terms of our Bureau of Land Management (which we refer to as BLM) leases, we are required to conduct our operations on BLM-leased land in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and BLM directives and to take all mitigating actions required by the BLM to protect the surface of and the environment surrounding the relevant land. Additionally, certain BLM leases contain additional requirements, some of which relate to the mitigation or avoidance of disturbance of any antiquities, cultural values or threatened or endangered plants or animals, the payment of royalties for timber and the imposition of certain restrictions on residential development on the leased land. In the event of a default under any BLM lease, or the failure to comply with such requirements, or any non-compliance with any of the provisions of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 or regulations issued thereunder, the BLM may, 30 days after notice of default is provided to our relevant project subsidiary, suspend our operations until the requested action is taken or terminate the lease, either of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

49

---

Some of our leases (or subleases) could terminate if the lessor (or sublessor) under any such lease (or sublease) defaults on any debt secured by the relevant property, thus terminating our rights to access the underlying geothermal resources at that location.

The fee interest in the land which is the subject of some of our leases (or subleases) may currently be or may become subject to encumbrances securing loans from third party lenders to the lessor (or sublessor). Our rights as lessee (or sublessee) under such leases (or subleases) are or may be subject and subordinate to the rights of any such lender. Accordingly, a default by the lessor (or sublessor) under any such loan could result in a foreclosure on the underlying fee interest in the property and thereby terminate our leasehold interest and result in the shutdown of the project located on the relevant property and/or terminate our right of access to the underlying geothermal resources required for our operations.

In addition, a default by a sublessor under its lease with the owner of the property that is the subject of our sublease could result in the termination of such lease and thereby terminate our sublease interest and our right to access the underlying geothermal resources required for our operations.

Current and future urbanizing activities and related residential, commercial and industrial developments may encroach on or limit geothermal activities in the areas of our projects, thereby affecting our ability to utilize, access, inject and/or transport geothermal resources on or underneath the affected surface areas.

Current and future urbanizing activities and related residential, commercial and industrial development may encroach on or limit geothermal activities in the areas of our projects, thereby affecting our ability to utilize, access, inject and/or transport geothermal resources on or underneath the affected surface areas. In particular, the Heber projects and the Gould project rely on an area, which we refer to as the Heber Known Geothermal Resource Area or Heber KGRA, for the geothermal resource necessary to generate electricity at the Heber projects and Gould project. Imperial County has adopted a ‘‘specific plan area’’ that covers the Heber KGRA, which we refer to as the ‘‘Heber Specific Plan Area’’. The Heber Specific Plan Area allows commercial, residential, industrial and other employment oriented development in a mixed-use orientation, which currently includes geothermal uses. Several of the landowners from whom we hold geothermal leases have expressed an interest in developing their land for residential, commercial, industrial or other surface uses in accordance with the parameters of the Heber Specific Plan Area. Currently, Imperial County's Heber Specific Plan Area is coordinated with the cities of El Centro and Calexio. There has been ongoing underlying interest since the early 1990s to incorporate the community of Heber. While any incorporation process would likely take several years, if Heber were to be incorporated, the City of Heber could replace Imperial County as the governing land use authority, which, depending on its policies, could have a significant effect on land use and availability of geothermal resources.

Current and future development proposals within Imperial County and the City of Calexico, applications for annexations to the City of Calexico, and plans to expand public infrastructure may affect surface areas within the Heber KGRA, thereby limiting our ability to utilize, access, inject and/or transport the geothermal resource on or underneath the affected surface area that is necessary for the operation of our Heber projects and Gould project, which could adversely affect our operations and reduce our revenues.

Current transportation construction works and urban developments in the vicinity of our Steamboat complex of projects in Nevada may also affect future permitting for geothermal operations relating to those projects. Such works and developments include the extension of an interstate highway (to be named U.S. 580) by the Nevada Department of Transportation, the construction of a new casino hotel and other commercial or industrial developments on land in the vicinity of our Steamboat projects.

We depend on key personnel for the success of our business.

Our success is largely dependent on the skills, experience and efforts of our senior management team and other key personnel. In particular, our success depends on the continued efforts of Lucien

50

---

Bronicki, Dita Bronicki, Hezy Ram, Nadav Amir, Yoram Bronicki and other key employees. The loss of the services of any key employee could materially harm our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow. Although to date we have been successful in retaining the services of senior management and have entered into employment agreements with Lucien Bronicki, Dita Bronicki, Hezy Ram and Yoram Bronicki, such members of our senior management may terminate their employment agreements without cause and with notice periods ranging from 90 to 180 days. We may also not be able to locate or employ on acceptable terms qualified replacements for our senior management or key employees if their services were no longer available.

Our projects have generally been financed through a combination of parent company loans and limited− or non-recourse project finance debt and lease financing. If our project subsidiaries default on their obligations under such limited− or non-recourse debt or lease financing, we may be required to make certain payments to the relevant debt holders and if the collateral supporting such leveraged financing structures is foreclosed upon, we may lose certain of our projects.

Our projects have generally been financed using a combination of parent company loans and limited or non-recourse project finance debt or lease financing. Non-recourse project finance debt or lease financing refers to financing arrangements that are repaid solely from the project’s revenues and are secured by the project’s physical assets, major contracts, cash accounts and, in many cases, our ownership interest in the project subsidiary. Limited− recourse project finance debt refers to our additional agreement, as part of the financing of a project, to provide limited financial support for the project subsidiary in the form of limited guarantees, indemnities, capital contributions and agreements to pay certain debt service deficiencies. If our project subsidiaries default on their obligations under the relevant debt documents, creditors of a limited recourse project financing will have direct recourse to us, to the extent of our limited recourse obligations, which may require us to use distributions received by us from other projects, as well as other sources of cash available to us, in order to satisfy such obligations. In addition, if our project subsidiaries default on their obligations under the relevant debt documents (or a default under such debt documents arises as a result of a cross-default to the debt documents of some of our other projects) and the creditors foreclose on the relevant collateral, we may lose our ownership interest in the relevant project subsidiary or our project subsidiary owning the project would only retain an interest in the physical assets, if any, remaining after all debts and obligations were paid in full.

Changes in costs and technology may significantly impact our business by making our power plants and products less competitive.

A basic premise of our business model is that generating baseload power at geothermal power plants achieves economies of scale and produces electricity at a competitive price. However, traditional coal-fired systems and gas-fired systems may under certain economic conditions produce electricity at lower average prices than our geothermal plants. In addition, there are other technologies that can produce electricity, most notably fossil fuel power systems, hydroelectric systems, fuel cells, microturbines, windmills and photovoltaic (solar) cells. Some of these alternative technologies currently produce electricity at a higher average price than our geothermal plants; however, research and development activities are ongoing to seek improvements in such alternate technologies and their cost of producing electricity is gradually declining. It is possible that advances will further reduce the cost of alternate methods of power generation to a level that is equal to or below that of most geothermal power generation technologies. If this were to happen, the competitive advantage of our projects may be significantly impaired.

Our expectations regarding the market potential for the development of recovered energy-based power generation may not materialize, and as a result we may not derive any significant revenues from this line of business.

We have identified recovered energy-based power generation as a significant market opportunity for us. Demand for our recovered energy-based power generation units may not materialize or grow at the levels that we expect. We currently face competition in this market from manufacturers of conventional steam turbines and may face competition from other related technologies in the future.

51

---

If this market does not materialize at the levels that we expect, such failure may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

Our intellectual property rights may not be adequate to protect our business.

Our intellectual property rights may not be adequate to protect our business. While we occasionally file patent applications, patents may not be issued on the basis of such applications or, if patents are issued, they may not be sufficiently broad to protect our technology. In addition, any patents issued to us or for which we have use rights may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented.

In order to safeguard our unpatented proprietary know-how, trade secrets and technology, we rely primarily upon trade secret protection and non-disclosure provisions in agreements with employees and others having access to confidential information. These measures may not adequately protect us from disclosure or misappropriation of our proprietary information.

Even if we adequately protect our intellectual property rights, litigation may be necessary to enforce these rights, which could result in substantial costs to us and a substantial diversion of management attention. Also, while we have attempted to ensure that our technology and the operation of our business do not infringe other parties’ patents and proprietary rights, our competitors or other parties may assert that certain aspects of our business or technology may be covered by patents held by them. Infringement or other intellectual property claims, regardless of merit or ultimate outcome, can be expensive and time-consuming and can divert management’s attention from our core business.

We are subject to risks associated with a changing economic and political environment, which may adversely affect our financial stability or the financial stability of our counterparties.

The risk of terrorist attacks in the United States or elsewhere continues to remain a potential source of disruption to the nation’s economy and financial markets in general. The availability and cost of capital for our business and that of our competitors has been adversely affected by the bankruptcy of Enron Corp. and events related to the California electric market crisis. Additionally, the recent rise in fuel costs may make it more expensive for our customers to operate their businesses. These events could constrain the capital available to our industry and could adversely affect our financial stability and the financial stability of our transaction counterparties.

Possible fluctuations in the cost of construction, raw materials and drilling may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

Our manufacturing operations are dependent on the supply of various raw materials, including primarily steel and aluminum, and on the supply of various industrial equipment components that we use. We currently obtain all such materials and equipment at prevailing market prices. We are not dependent on any one supplier and do not have any long-term agreements with any of our suppliers. We have recently experienced increases in the cost of raw materials and in transportation costs. We have also experienced an increase in construction costs, which we expect may intensify due to recent hurricane activity, and an increase in drilling costs. To the extent not otherwise passed along to our customers, these and future cost increases of such raw materials and equipment could adversely affect our profit margins.

Conditions in Israel, where the majority of our senior management and all of our production and manufacturing facilities are located, may adversely affect our operations and may limit our ability to produce and sell our products or manage our projects.

Operations in Israel accounted for approximately 25.2%, 25.6% and 51% of our operating expenses in the year ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Political, economic and security conditions in Israel directly affect our operations. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, a number of armed conflicts have taken place between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and the continued state of hostility, varying in degree and intensity, has led to security and economic problems for Israel. Since October 2000, there has been a significant increase in violence, primarily in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As a result, negotiations between Israel and representatives of the Palestinian Authority have been sporadic and have failed to result in peace. We could be adversely

52

---

affected by hostilities involving Israel, the interruption or curtailment of trade between Israel and its trading partners, or a significant downturn in the economic or financial condition of Israel. In addition, the sale of products manufactured in Israel may be adversely affected in certain countries by restrictive laws, policies or practices directed toward Israel or companies having operations in Israel.

In addition, some of our employees in Israel are subject to being called upon to perform military service in Israel, and their absence may have an adverse effect upon our operations. Generally, unless exempt, male adult citizens of Israel under the age of 41 are obligated to perform up to 36 days of military reserve duty annually. Additionally, all such citizens are subject to being called to active duty at any time under emergency circumstances.

These events and conditions could disrupt our operations in Israel, which could materially harm our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

Failure to comply with certain conditions and restrictions associated with tax benefits provided to Ormat Systems Ltd. by the Government of Israel as an ‘‘approved enterprise’’ may require us to refund such tax benefits and pay future taxes in Israel at higher rates.

Our subsidiary, Ormat Systems Ltd., which we refer to as Ormat Systems, has received ‘‘approved enterprise’’ status under Israel’s Law for Encouragement of Capital Investments, 1959, with respect to two of its investment programs. As an approved enterprise, our subsidiary is exempt from Israeli income taxes with respect to revenues derived from the approved investment program for a period of two years commencing on the year it first generates profits from the approved investment program, and thereafter such revenues are subject to a reduced Israeli income tax rate of 25% for an additional five years. These benefits are subject to certain conditions set forth in the certificate of approval from Israel’s Investment Center, which include, among other things, a requirement that Ormat Systems comply with Israeli intellectual property law, that all transactions between Ormat Systems and our affiliates be at arms length, and that there will be no change in control of, on a cumulative basis, more than 49% of Ormat Systems’ capital stock (including by way of a public or private offering) without the prior written approval of the Investment Center. If Ormat Systems does not comply with these conditions, in whole or in part, it would be required to refund the amount of tax benefits (as adjusted by the Israeli consumer price index and for accrued interest) and would no longer benefit from the reduced Israeli tax rate, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, future results and cash flow. If Ormat Systems distributes dividends out of revenues derived during the tax exemption period from the approved investment program, it will be subject, in the year in which such dividend is paid, to Israeli income tax on the distributed dividend.

If our parent defaults on its lease agreement with the Israel Land Administration, or is involved in a bankruptcy or similar proceeding, our rights and remedies under certain agreements pursuant to which we acquired our products business and pursuant to which we sublease our land and manufacturing facilities from our parent may be adversely affected.

We acquired our business relating to the manufacture and sale of products for electricity generation and related services from our parent, Ormat Industries. In connection with that acquisition, we entered into a sublease with Ormat Industries for the lease of the land and facilities in Yavne, Israel where our manufacturing and production operations are conducted and where our Israeli offices are located. Under the terms of our parent’s lease agreement with the Israel Land Administration, any sublease for a period of more than five years may require the prior approval of the Israel Land Administration. As a result, the initial term of our sublease with Ormat Industries is for a period of four years and eleven months beginning on July 1, 2004, extendable to twenty-five years less one day (which includes the initial term). The consent of the Israel Land Administration was obtained for a period of the shorter of (i) 25 years or (ii) the remaining period of the underlying lease agreement with the Israel Land Administration, which terminates between 2018 and 2047. If our parent was to breach its obligations to the Israel Land Administration under its lease agreement, the Israel Land Administration could terminate the lease agreement and, consequently, our sublease would terminate as well.

As part of the acquisition described in the preceding paragraph, we also entered into a patent license agreement with Ormat Industries, pursuant to which we were granted an exclusive license for

53

---

certain patents and trademarks relating to certain technologies that are used in our business. If a bankruptcy case were commenced by or against our parent, it is possible that performance of all or part of the agreements entered into in connection with such acquisition (including the lease of land and facilities described above) could be stayed by the bankruptcy court in Israel or rejected by a liquidator appointed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Ordinance in Israel and thus not be enforceable. Any of these events could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

We are a holding company and our revenues depend substantially on the performance of our subsidiaries and the projects they operate, most of which are subject to restrictions and taxation on dividends and distributions.

We are a holding company whose primary assets are our ownership of the equity interests in our subsidiaries. We conduct no other business and, as a result, we depend entirely upon our subsidiaries’ earnings and cash flow.

The agreements pursuant to which most of our subsidiaries have incurred debt restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to pay dividends, make distributions or otherwise transfer funds to us prior to the satisfaction of other obligations, including the payment of operating expenses, debt service and replenishment or maintenance of cash reserves. In the case of some of our projects, such as the Mammoth project, there may be certain additional restrictions on dividend distributions pursuant to our agreements with our partners. Further, if we elect to receive distributions of earnings from our foreign operations, we may incur United States taxes on account of such distributions, net of any available foreign tax credits. In all of the foreign countries where our existing projects are located, dividend payments to us are also subject to withholding taxes. Each of the events described above may reduce or eliminate the aggregate amount of revenues we can receive from our subsidiaries.

Some of our directors that also hold positions with our parent may have conflicts of interest with respect to matters involving both companies.

Three of our seven directors are directors and/or officers of Ormat Industries. These directors will have fiduciary duties to both companies and may have conflicts of interest on matters affecting both us and our parent, and in some circumstances may have interests adverse to our interests. Our Chairman, Director and Chief Technology Officer, Mr. Bronicki, is the Chairman of our parent, and our Chief Executive Officer and Director, Mrs. Bronicki, is the Chief Executive Officer of our parent.

Our controlling stockholders may take actions that conflict with your interests.

Ormat Industries holds approximately 77.2% of our common stock. Bronicki Investments Ltd. holds approximately 29.82% of outstanding shares of common stock of Ormat Industries Ltd. as of March 5, 2006 (27.50% on a fully diluted basis). Bronicki Investments Ltd. is a privately held Israeli company and is controlled by Lucien and Dita Bronicki. Because of these holdings, our parent company will be able to exercise control over all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, amendment of our certificate of incorporation and approval of significant corporate transactions, and they will have significant control over our management and policies. The directors elected by these stockholders will be able to significantly influence decisions affecting our capital structure. This control may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes in control or changes in management, or limiting the ability of our other stockholders to approve transactions that they may deem to be in their best interest. For example, our controlling stockholders will be able to control the sale or other disposition of our products business to another entity or the transfer of such business outside of the State of Israel; as such action requires the affirmative vote of at least 75% of our outstanding shares.

The price of our common stock may fluctuate substantially and your investment may decline in value.

The market price of our common stock is likely to be highly volatile and may fluctuate substantially due to many factors, including:

54

---

	•	actual or anticipated fluctuations in our results of operations including as a result of seasonal variations in our electricity-based revenues;

	•	variance in our financial performance from the expectations of market analysts;

	•	conditions and trends in the end markets we serve and changes in the estimation of the size and growth rate of these markets;

	•	announcements of significant contracts by us or our competitors;

	•	changes in our pricing policies or the pricing policies of our competitors;

	•	loss of one or more of our significant customers;

	•	legislation;

	•	changes in market valuation or earnings of our competitors;

	•	the trading volume of our common stock; and

	•	general economic conditions.

In addition, the stock market in general, and the New York Stock Exchange and the market for energy companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies affected. These broad market and industry factors may materially harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against that company. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could materially harm our business, financial condition, future results and cash flow.

Future sales of common stock by some of our existing stockholders could cause our stock price to decline.

As of the date of this report, our parent, Ormat Industries, holds approximately 77.2% of our outstanding common stock and some of our directors, officers and employees also hold shares of our outstanding common stock. Sales of such shares in the public market, as well as shares we may issue upon exercise of outstanding options, could cause the market price of our common stock to decline. On November 10, 2004, we entered into a registration rights agreement with Ormat Industries whereby Ormat Industries may require us to register our common stock held by it or its directors, officers and employees with the Securities and Exchange Commission or to include our common stock held by it or its directors, officers and employees in an offering and sale by us.

Provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law may delay or prevent acquisition of us, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

Our restated certificate of incorporation and our bylaws contain provisions that could make it harder for a third party to acquire us without the consent of our Board of Directors. These provisions do not permit actions by our stockholders by written consent. In addition, these provisions include procedural requirements relating to stockholder meetings and stockholder proposals that could make stockholder actions more difficult. Our Board of Directors is classified into three classes of directors serving staggered, three-year terms and may be removed only for cause. Any vacancy on the Board of Directors may be filled only by the vote of the majority of directors then in office. Our Board of Directors has the right to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval, which could be used to institute a ‘‘poison pill’’ that would work to dilute the stock ownership of a potential hostile acquirer, effectively preventing acquisitions that have not been approved by our Board of Directors. Delaware law also imposes some restrictions on mergers and other business combinations between us and any holder of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock. Although we believe these provisions provide for an opportunity to receive a higher bid by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our Board of Directors, these provisions apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders.

55

---

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes significant regulatory, corporate and operational requirements on the Company. Failure to comply with such provisions may have significant adverse consequences to the Company

As a public company, we are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the SOX Act). The SOX Act contains a variety of provisions affecting public companies, including but not limited to, corporate governance requirements, our relationship with our auditors, evaluation of our internal disclosure controls and procedures and evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting. See Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and Item 9A.—"Controls and Procedures".

ITEM 1B.    UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2.    PROPERTIES

We currently lease corporate offices at 980 Greg Street, Sparks, Nevada 89431 and at 6225 Neil Road, Reno, Nevada 89511-1136. We plan to move all of our corporate offices to the Neil Road location during 2006 and thereafter terminate the lease at 980 Greg Street. We also occupy an approximately 66,000 square meter office and manufacturing facility located in the Industrial Park of Yavne, Israel, which we sublease from Ormat Industries. See ‘‘Certain Relationships and Related Transactions’’. We also lease small offices in each of the countries in which we operate.

We believe that our current facilities are adequate for our operations as currently conducted. If additional facilities are required, we believe that we could obtain additional facilities at commercially reasonable prices.

Each of our projects is located on property leased or owned by us or one of our subsidiaries, or is a property that is subject to a concession agreement.

Information and descriptions of our plants and properties are included in Item 1, ‘‘Business’’, of this annual report.

ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

There were no material developments in any legal proceedings to which the Company is a party during the fiscal year 2005, other than as described below.

As a result of our acquisition of the Steamboat 1 and 1A plants, our subsidiary Steamboat Geothermal LLC has become a party to litigation pending in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County, Nevada with Geothermal Development Associates and Delphi Securities, Inc. In April 2002, these plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against the former owner and operator of the Steamboat 1/1A project. The plaintiffs dispute amounts owed to them pursuant to an agreement, dated July 14, 1985, pursuant to which Geothermal Development Associates assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the subject geothermal leasehold property in exchange for a net operating royalty interest in the revenues of the Steamboat 1 plant. The plaintiffs allege damages based upon three separate theories: (i) that the actions of the former owner in developing the Steamboat 1A plant have decreased the output of the Steamboat 1 plant; (ii) that general, administrative, and corporate expenses included by the former owner in the calculation of the net royalty amount were overstated for the years 2000 and 2001; and (iii) that, in addition to its royalty interest in the revenues from the Steamboat 1 plant, plaintiffs are entitled to a net revenue royalty interest from the Steamboat 1A plant. The matter was originally set for a trial in September 2003, but the trial date was adjourned in order to allow the plaintiffs to obtain substitute counsel. Initial evidentiary disclosures and discovery requests had been made before the trial was adjourned. No dispositive motions are pending before the Court and the trial date has not been rescheduled. We have initiated settlement discussions with the plaintiffs. As of December 31, 2005 and January 9, 2006, Steamboat Geothermal LLC entered into a sales, settlement and release agreement and an assignment agreement, respectively, with Woodside

56

---

Properties LLC, the assignee of 37% of Geothermal Development Associates’ right to net operating revenues, whereby Steamboat Geothermal LLC was assigned 37% of the net operating revenues of Steamboat 1 in partial settlement of the dispute with Geothermal Development Associates. As part of this litigation, we have received a letter from the plaintiffs in which they assert that, in addition to the amounts they claim are owed to them, they are also entitled to a reasonable net operating royalty payment from our Burdette project. We believe that such assertion is without merit, and that any outcome of such litigation or settlement discussions will not have a material impact on our results of operations.

In connection with the power purchase agreements for the Ormesa project, Southern California Edison has expressed its intent not to pay the contract rate for the power supplied by the GEM 2 and GEM 3 plants to the Ormesa project. Southern California Edison contends that California ISO real-time prices should apply, while management believes that SP-15 prices quoted by NYMEX should apply. According to Southern California Edison’s estimation, the amount under dispute is approximately $2.5 million. The parties have signed an interim agreement; whereby Southern California Edison will continue procure the GEM 2 and GEM 3 power at the current energy rate of 5.37 Cents/kWh until May 1, 2007. In addition, a long-term power purchase agreement is expected to be entered into for the GEM 2 and GEM 3 power. The negotiations in connection with the long-term power purchase agreement are still under way and there is no guarantee that such negotiations will be successfully completed. Management believes that such settlement agreement will not have a material financial impact on us.

We are a party in a third-party complaint filed on November 15, 2005 by Lacy M. Henry and Judy B. Henry (the Henrys) in a bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Henrys are debtors in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filed in the Bankruptcy Court. The Henrys were the sole shareholders of MPS Generation, Inc. (MPSG). We entered into a supply contract with MPSG dated as of December 29, 2003, under which we were retained as a subcontractor to produce four waste heat energy converters for a project for which MPSG had entered into a contract with Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin). Basin filed a lawsuit on February 24, 2005 against, among others, MPSG and the Henrys in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, alleging various causes of action including breach of contract, actual and constructive fraud, and conversion, and demanding the piercing of MPSG's corporate veil to establish the personal liability of the Henrys for MPSG’s debts. On September 15, 2005, Basin filed a complaint commencing the bankruptcy proceeding, seeking a determination that the claims which Basin alleged against the Henrys in the North Dakota lawsuit were not dischargeable. On November 15, 2005, the Henrys answered Basin's complaint in the bankruptcy proceeding and also filed a third-party complaint against us, alleging that to the extent the Henrys are found personally liable to Basin for MPSG’s debts, the Henrys have claims against us for breach of contract/breach of warranty, tortious interference with contract, unfair or deceptive trade practices and fraud. The Henrys alleged damages in excess of $100 million. On December 15, 2005, we filed an answer denying the Henrys' claims and asserting counterclaims against the Henrys. We believe that we have no liability to the Henrys and intend to defend vigorously against the Henrys’ claims in the bankruptcy proceeding.

From time to time, we (including our subsidiaries) are a party to various other lawsuits, claims and other legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our (and their) 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, we accrue reserves in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. We do not believe that any of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, future results or cash flows.

ITEM 4.    SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

No matters were submitted to a vote of our security holders during the quarter ended December 31, 2005.

57

---

PART II

ITEM 5.	MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol ‘‘ORA’’. Public trading of our stock commenced on November 11, 2004. Prior to that, there was no public market for our stock. The approximate number of holders of record of our common stock was seven on March 24, 2006. On March 24, 2006, our stock’s closing price as reported on the New York Stock Exchange was $41.05 per share.

We have adopted a dividend policy pursuant to which we currently expect to distribute at least 20% of our annual profits available for distribution by way of quarterly dividends. In determining whether there are profits available for distribution, our Board of Directors will take into account our business plan and current and expected obligations, and no distribution will be made that in the judgment of our Board of Directors would prevent us from meeting such business plan or obligations.

Notwithstanding this policy, dividends will be paid only when, as and if approved by our Board of Directors out of funds legally available therefore. The actual amount and timing of dividend payments will depend upon our financial condition, results of operations, business prospects and such other matters as the board may deem relevant from time to time. Even if profits are available for the payment of dividends, the Board of Directors could determine that such profits should be retained for an extended period of time, used for working capital purposes, expansion or acquisition of businesses or any other appropriate purpose. As a holding company, we are dependent upon the earnings and cash flow of our subsidiaries in order to fund any dividend distributions and, as a result, we may not be able to pay dividends in accordance with our policy. Our Board of Directors may, from time to time, examine our dividend policy and may, in its absolute discretion, change such policy.

In fiscal year 2004, we declared, approved and authorized the payment of a dividend to our stockholders of record on October 21, 2004, related to the year 2004 profits in the aggregate amount of $2.5 million ($0.1025 per share). The dividend was paid on March 2, 2005. On March 22, 2005 we declared, approved and authorized payment of an additional dividend of $0.03 per share, based on the number of shares issued and outstanding at March 22, 2005, on account of fourth quarter profits, to all holders of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock on April 4, 2005. This additional dividend was paid on April 18, 2005. On May 10, 2005, we declared, approved and authorized payment of a quarterly dividend of $947,000 ($0.03 per share) to all holders of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock on May 23, 2005, which was paid on June 6, 2005. On August 11, 2005, we declared, approved and authorized payment of a quarterly dividend of $947,000 ($0.03 per share) to all holders of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock on August 22, 2005, which was paid on September 1, 2005. On November 9, 2005, we declared, approved and authorized payment of a quarterly dividend of $947,000 ($0.03 per share) to all holders of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock on November 29, 2005, payable on December 6, 2005. On March 7, 2006, we declared, approved and authorized payment of a quarterly dividend of $947,000 ($0.03 per share) to all holders of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock on March 28, 2006, payable on April 4, 2006.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. (ORA) – High and Low Prices for the years 2004 and 2005, and from January 1 until March 24, 2006:

				Fourth Quarter 2004*				First Quarter 2005				Second Quarter 2005				Third Quarter 2005				Fourth Quarter 2005				January 1 to March 24, 2006
High:				$	18.70			$	16.50			$	19.20			$	24.10			$	29.10			$	43.94
Low:				$	15.20			$	14.50			$	13.88			$	18.25			$	18.80			$	26.34

* Note: Our common stock began public trading on November 2004 and no prior information is therefore available.

58

---

Equity Compensation Plan Information

For information on our equity compensation plan, refer to Item 12 ‘‘Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management’’.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities

On June 30, 2004, we issued 1,160,714 shares of our common stock to Ormat Industries in connection with the conversion of a $20.0 million loan to equity. We have relied on the private placement exemption pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, with respect to the issuance of such shares.

Registration Statement on Form S-1

On November 10, 2004, the SEC declared effective our registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-117527) (Registration Statement) for our Initial Public Offering. Under the Registration Statement, we registered and sold 7,187,500 shares of our common stock. All of the 7,187,500 shares sold in that offering were sold at $15.00 per share. The offering closed on November 16, 2004. The underwriting syndicate was managed by Lehman Brothers Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation and Wells Fargo Securities LLC.

The aggregate gross proceeds from the sale of 7,187,500 shares of common stock were $107.8 million. The aggregate net proceeds to us after the offering were $97.0 million, after deducting an aggregate of $7.5 million in underwriting discounts and commissions paid to the underwriters and $3.3 million in other expenses incurred in connection with the offering.

As of the date of this annual report, we have repaid third party loans in the amount of $26.4 million and used $70.6 million for corporate purposes, including $45.0 million for capital expenditures and $7.0 million to repay loans from our parent Ormat Industries Ltd.

In view of the above, it the Company’s belief that all proceeds in connection with the events stated above have been fully used and, therefore, that the reporting of such use in quarterly and annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission is hereby completed.

Registration Statement on Form S-3

On January 17, 2006, we filed a universal shelf registration statement on Form S-3, which was declared effective by the SEC on January 31, 2006. The shelf registration statement provides us with the opportunity to issue various types of securities, including debt securities, common stock, warrants and units of our company, from time to time during a period of three years, in one or more offerings up to a total dollar amount of $1 billion. As of the date of the filing of this annual report, we have not issued any securities or received any proceeds pursuant to the shelf registration.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table sets forth our selected consolidated financial data for the years ended and at the dates indicated. We have derived the selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 and as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 from our audited consolidated financial statements set forth in Part II Item 8 of this annual report. We have derived the selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, and as of December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 from our audited consolidated financial statements not included herein.

The information set forth below should be read in conjunction with Item 7 — ‘‘Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations’’ and our consolidated financial statements set forth in Part II Item 8 of this annual report.

59

---

				Year Ended December 31,
				2005				2004				2003				2002				2001
				(in thousands, except per share data)
Statements of Operations Data:
Revenues:
Electricity Segment:
Energy and capacity				$	104,975			$	100,281			$	77,752			$	65,491			$	33,956
Lease portion of energy and capacity					70,963				58,550				—				—				—
Lease income					1,431				—				—				—				—
Total Electricity Segment					177,369				158,831				77,752				65,491				33,956
Products Segment					60,623				60,399				41,688				20,138				13,959
Total revenues					237,992				219,230				119,440				85,629				47,915
Cost of revenues:
Electricity Segment:
Energy and capacity					70,328				63,300				46,726				33,482				12,536
Lease portion of energy and capacity					30,215				26,442				—				—				—
Lease expense					3,072				—				—				—				—
Total Electricity Segment					103,615				89,742				46,726				33,482				12,536
Products Segment					45,236				46,336				29,494				17,293				17,454
Total cost of revenues					148,851				136,078				76,220				50,775				29,990
Gross margin:					89,141				83,152				43,220				34,854				17,925
Operating expenses (income):
Research and development expenses					3,036				2,175				1,391				1,503				1,729
Selling and marketing expenses					7,876				7,769				7,087				6,051				6,535
General and administrative expenses					14,320				11,609				9,252				7,073				5,444
Gain on sale of geothermal resource rights					—				(845	)			—				—				—
Operating income					63,909				62,444				25,490				20,227				4,217
Other income (expense):
Interest income					4,308				1,316				607				609				1,323
Interest expense					(55,317	)			(42,785	)			(8,120	)			(6,179	)			(4,333	)
Foreign currency translation and
transaction gain (loss)					(439	)			(146	)			(316	)			(323	)			305
Other non-operating income					512				112				464				1,195				300
Income from continuing operations
before income taxes, minority
interest and equity in income of investees					12,973				20,941				18,125				15,529				1,812
Income tax provision					(4,690	)			(6,609	)			(2,506	)			(6,135	)			(3,065	)
Minority interest in earnings of subsidiaries					—				(108	)			(519	)			(1,194	)			(645	)
Equity in income of investees					6,894				3,567				559				314				166
Income (loss) from continuing operations					15,177				17,791				15,659				8,514				(1,732	)
Discontinued operations:
Loss from operations of discontinued
activities in Kazakhstan					—				—				—				(3,114	)			(4,681	)
Loss on sale of Kazakhstan operations					—				—				—				(6,444	)			—
Income (loss) before cumulative effect of