Energy Exchange

On-Bill Repayment In California: A Step Forward And A Missed Opportunity

By Brad Copithorne / Published: September 17, 2013

This commentary originally appeared on EDF’s California Dream 2.0 blog.

Yesterday, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) updated their June 25 proposed decision that included implementation rules for an On-Bill Repayment (“OBR”) program for public and commercial properties.  An OBR program allows property owners to finance energy efficiency upgrades on their buildings and repay the obligations through their utility bills.  Banks and other private investors provide the funding and borrowers get low interest rates because the obligations are an integral part of the utility bill and, under the EDF proposal, are fully transferable upon change in ownership or occupancy.

The CPUC’s revised decision contains many of the elements necessary for a successful program including making the OBR obligation an integral part of the utility bill through a tariff.  Ed Wojtowicz, VP of Finance at Honeywell recently told me, “By integrating the financing charge into the utility bill, we expect that OBR will help many towns, cities and school districts approve money saving energy efficiency projects.”  We have heard similar sentiments from other market participants and are optimistic that this OBR program will accelerate money-saving clean energy investments in municipal and school properties.

Unfortunately, our California utilities — PG&E, SoCal Edison and Sempra —  have been fighting OBR tooth and nail for the past two years, as they fear that a successful OBR program would increase investment in distributed solar, potentially reduce utility control of energy efficiency programs and allow other companies to have access to the utility bill and customer relationships. Over the past three weeks, the utilities have had ten separate private meetings with CPUC commissioners or staff in an attempt to halt the OBR program.

Read More »

Posted in On-bill repayment / Comments are closed

Aloha for Clean Energy Finance: A Tale of Two States

By Brad Copithorne / Published: September 3, 2013

This commentary originally appeared on EDF’s California Dream 2.0 blog.

For over two years, EDF has been working to establish an On-Bill Repayment program in California that would allow property owners to finance energy efficiency or renewable generation projects and repay the obligation through their utility bill.  Since utility bills tend to get paid and the obligation could ‘run with the meter’, defaults are expected to be low, which will improve the availability and reduce the cost of financing.  In May 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) agreed with our position and ordered the large utilities in California to develop a program for commercial properties.  EDF estimates that this program could generate $5B of investment over 12 years, which is expected to support 36,000 jobs.

Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the nonresidential OBR pilot in California to be implemented and if the utilities get their way, we may be waiting for close to another full year.  The California utilities appear to be fearful of change, distributed generation, and the impact of reduced demand.  They have employed aggressive tactics with teams of lawyers arguing and re-arguing every potential issue, even after the issues have presumably been settled by the CPUC.

This stands in sharp contrast to what is happening in Hawaii.  On March 25, the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission (“HPUC”) ordered the primary Hawaii utility, Hawaiian Electric Company, (“HECO”) to establish an OBR program for residential and commercial customers.  I just returned from 3 days in Honolulu and it appears that they are working cooperatively to get the program running in the first quarter of 2014.  This timetable of 12 months from HPUC order to implementation is less than half of what we seem to need in California, despite the fact that the Hawaii program covers a much broader range of property types and relies on public as well as private sources of financing.

Read More »

Posted in California, Energy Efficiency, On-bill repayment / Tagged , , , | Read 1 Response

Auto dealers vs. Tesla: Why the market will decide

By Brad Copithorne / Published: August 29, 2013

This commentary originally appeared on EDF’s Voices blog.

Source: jurvetson/Flickr

The European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia and the State of California have all set ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. Given that a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions comes from transportation (including 29% of U.S. emissions), it will be very tough to meet this goal without “decarbonizing” our cars and trucks.

The most obvious solution is electric vehicles (EVs) charged by clean energy sources like solar or wind. While several startup EV companies – including Fisker, Coda and Better Place – have struggled, the Tesla car company seems to be succeeding. At least that’s the current view of the markets: Tesla shares have more than tripled since March and in May the company raised almost $1 billion in new capital.

Read More »

Posted in California, Electric Vehicles / Tagged , | Comments are closed

Combining Solar And PACE In Connecticut: A Potential Game Changer For Commercial Properties

By Brad Copithorne / Published: July 19, 2013

In my last post about Connecticut’s clean energy finance efforts, I alluded to an important innovation in their Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) financing program for commercial properties.  PACE programs have been in place for several years, and the basic concept is that property owners are able to pay back clean energy financing through their property tax bill over time.  Rates tend to be low because property taxes are almost always paid back and the PACE assessment will survive foreclosures.

To date, PACE transactions have generally been structured as a set of fixed payments to finance retrofits managed by the property owner.  Functionally, these transactions have been quite similar to loans.  In the solar industry, however, the vast majority of financings have been structured as leases or power purchase agreements (PPAs) in order to fully capture the tax benefits associated with solar investments.  This has generally resulted in fairly low use of PACE by solar installers and limited installations of solar on commercial properties.  (Most commercial properties have large mortgages and are not good candidates for additional financing unless PACE or On-Bill Repayment (OBR) can be used to improve credit quality.  The exceptions are buildings that are owned or occupied by very high quality credits, such as a large corporation or city.)

Connecticut is breaking new ground by allowing leases and PPAs to participate.  The lease or PPA payments would simply become part of the property tax bill.  If necessary, true-up mechanisms could be used to adjust payments and ensure that customers are not overbilled.  Additionally, we understand that this flexibility will likely be available for innovative energy efficiency financing for commercial properties.  EDF has long advocated for this type of flexibility (and we see this as a major benefit of OBR), but – to date – PACE programs have not incorporated this feature.

Hats off to Connecticut for once again showing us how to get things done!

Posted in On-bill repayment, Utility Business Models / Tagged , , , | Read 1 Response

Financing Clean Energy: Innovations From The Nutmeg State

By Brad Copithorne / Published: July 17, 2013

Connecticut’s Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority (“CEFIA”) was created in 2011 to help the state increase public and private investment in clean energy solutions that are cheaper and more reliable than traditional solutions.  I had the chance last week to catch up with Bryan Garcia, CEFIA’s CEO, and his impressive team.  I found three of their initiatives to be particularly innovative and impactful.

  • Commercial PACE (C-PACE) – Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) is an innovative, market-based approach that helps alleviate the steep, upfront costs that property owners generally incur for energy improvements by using loans that are seamlessly repaid through an additional charge on their property tax bills. While many jurisdictions have implemented PACE programs, CEFIA has had a particularly hands-on approach of working with property owners, contractors, lenders and mortgage holders to reach agreement on transactions that meet the needs of each party.  This strategy appears to be paying off as CEFIA has received 190 applications since the program was launched in April 2013.  Additionally, the Connecticut program appears to be the first PACE program that supports commercial solar installations with the lowest-cost financing structures such as leases and power purchase agreements.  I believe this could be a game changer for installing solar projects and plan to write about this in greater detail in a blog post coming soon. Read More »
Posted in Energy Efficiency, On-bill repayment / Tagged , , , , | Read 7 Responses

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

By Brad Copithorne / Published: July 2, 2013

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. Read More »

Posted in California, Energy Efficiency, On-bill repayment, Renewable Energy, Utility Business Models / Read 2 Responses