On-Bill Repayment in California: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

This commentary originally appeared on EDF's California Dream 2.0 Blog

Last week, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) issued a proposed decision with the final implementation rules to create the nation’s first On-Bill Repayment (“OBR”) program for commercial properties.  If properly constructed, the program is expected to allow building owners to finance clean energy retrofits with third party capital and repay the obligation through their utility bills.

The good news is the CPUC’s proposed decision contains the vast majority of the program elements necessary to create a flourishing financing market for energy efficiency and renewable projects.  The CPUC ordered robust disclosure to tenants and property owners of any OBR obligation in place, required a centralized program administrator to reduce expenses for market participants, required an equitable share of partial payments between the utility and the lender and agreed that nonpayment of an OBR obligation will result in the same collection procedures from the utility as nonpayment of an electricity charge.

Unfortunately, constructing a successful financing program is much like building a boat.  A boat with 90% of its hull in place will not travel very far.  The proposed decision appears to also have a potentially fatal flaw.  The CPUC has required all subsequent owners and tenants of a property to provide consent to ‘accepting’ the OBR obligation, but does not specifically state what will happen if the consent is not given.

OBR can work for lenders when it significantly reduces risk and simplifies the underwriting decision.  ‘If the lights are still on, then the lender is getting paid’ is a simple rule that will provide significant comfort to ratings agencies and credit committees.  Downtown office buildings and suburban shopping malls are foreclosed on a regular basis, but in almost all cases the lights stay on.  If an OBR obligation is sure to be paid — even after a foreclosure — the availability of investment and cost of financing will improve dramatically.

On the other hand, if repayment is somehow dependent on the next owner and tenant providing consent, then the bank will have a new and unknown underwriting risk.  Furthermore, the bank will likely assume that, given a choice, most new owners would choose not to provide consent.

Based on numerous conversations with financial institutions, EDF believes an OBR program that allows future tenants or landlords to change the nature of the OBR obligations will not generate any meaningful interest from lenders and investors.

Fortunately, the CPUC still has time to get it right.  EDF will be working closely with several financial institutions and project developers to make sure that the CPUC clarifies that a lack of consent will not affect the nature of the OBR obligation.

Assuming we get a good OBR program in place, there is a large group of project developers, lenders, ESCOs, solar investors and other vendors that are expected to participate in the program.  The CPUC proposed decision indicates an effective date near the beginning of 2014.

This entry was posted in California, Energy Efficiency, On-bill repayment, Renewable Energy, Utility Business Models. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

2 Comments

  1. Michael Burdette
    Posted July 5, 2013 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    I've provided a link about Las Vegas' Mandalay Bay getting solar energy. Quite a bit! I read your articles about On-Bill Repayment and these casinos are a perfect fit. Guys like you make things happen. There's hope for the future. I just hate my summer electric bill due to the air conditioner that you have to use here in the desert. Always wanted to add solar energy and it looks like I might get to when this program takes off. I know it will be a successful! Thanks for the hard work you put into it. I'm sixty years old and looking forward to lower summer bills in my future. http://lasvegascitylife.com/blog/town/energy-boost-and-mandalay-bay.html Thank you. Michael

    • Posted July 10, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

      I linked through to the OBR program page. The infographic is nice, but lacks the critical connection to reality I think any reasonable investor would want to see – measurement and verification of projected savings to actual savings.

      If you promise me $10 a month I want you to have skin in the game on that promise. If there is no transparent accountability for your promises, there is no disincentive for you to exaggerate. If you exaggerate, you hurt me. I don't want to be hurt.

      Fail.

      All the dots need to connect for balanced partnership to occur. Everyone's incentives need to be in alignment or you don't get a true partnership, instead you get friction, waste, lack of engagement…