The Growing Energy Finance Tool Kit
by Joel on February 9th, 2010
Energy finance is clearly a hot topic if a panel on the subject at the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance annual conference has an overflow crowd. In years past, the topic might have garnered a couple of dozen of attendees and not the capacity crowd seen last month.
Panelists who were representing a wide array of energy efficiency financing models – from Property Assessed Clean Energy programs (PACE), to on-bill financing options, to governmentally supported private and public financing efforts – illuminated similarities among the programs. These similarities offer the following important lessons for financing programs targeting the residential sector:
1. No model fits all areas. Because no one financing option is perfectly suited for all geographies, incomes, and housing types, a variety models is needed. For instance, although the PACE model is likely to prove quite helpful for many localities, this model may not be feasible for a municipality with elevated levels of foreclosure or a very low tax base, or for one teetering on bankruptcy. Likewise, an on-bill financing program that relies solely upon a utility’s coffers to fund the loans may have too small a capital base to cover a meaningful portion of the units in the utility’s territory. This problem is particularly acute for dense urban areas, such as Chicago, where the capital need is conservatively estimated to be in the billions.
2. Tie the financing to the property or meter. If utility savings are the source of repayment of the loan, the financing should be tied to the property or meter. Otherwise, depending upon the timing of the sale or move, the savings could fall well short of what is needed for repayment, leaving the homeowner or renter to fund the difference. However, equally important, if the financing remains in place after the initial owner or tenant leaves, the improvements should be limited to ones that are not easily removed, such as air-sealing, insulation, HVAC systems, and windows, which will continue to generate savings well after the original owner departs.
3. New sources of liquidity are entering the field. Development Finance Organizations (DFOs), in particular, could represent an important new source of liquidity for energy finance programs. DFOs are public finance entities capable of issuing bonds to support public purpose projects. A development finance entity, for instance, could potentially issue bonds to provide the capital for an on-bill financing program, thereby lessening the need for the utility to find the funds internally or to have to borrow them directly.
As the number of energy finance pilots grows and diversity of program types multiplies, there is an acute need for dialogue among the practitioners about lessons learned, limitations for other locales, and opportunities for collaboration. I applaud the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance for beginning this critical conversation.
Tags: energy finance, green banking, Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, on-bill financing, ShoreBank, triple bottom line
