March 19, 2009
I Thought This Was a National Energy Crisis!
Innovating finance and marketing as if it is
by Mark Braly
Can I interest anyone in a $280 billion stimulus package for renewable
energy and efficiency that won't increase the federal deficit?
It could be more. It would come from property owners who invest in solar and
efficiency upgrades using long-term (as much as 25 years) low-interest
financing paid back monthly on their property tax bills. The initial capital
is from the sale of municipal bonds.
Pioneered in famously green Berkeley, CA, the program just completed its
first two solar photovoltaic installations, and there are 36 homeowners in
line for available funding and another 20 on the waiting list. Gail Feldman,
the city's sustainable energy programs manager, expects to go back to city
council for authorization to get additional funds in the fall when phase one
is complete.
Boulder County, CO, is presently briefing installers about its program,
which it hopes to launch by mid-year. The biggest city so far to announce
its program is San Diego. In Palm Desert, CA, with its 130 degree summers
some 200 loans are out with 52 solar systems installed using city general
funds, but the demand is so high the city plans to sell bonds to its
redevelopment agency. They would go to the bond market if tax exempt bonds
could be used for this purpose. Due to IRS rules, only taxable bonds can now
be used. Even so it's a good deal for borrowers, but it would be even better
if Palm Desert, Berkeley and other advocates succeed in changing the rule.
Sixty or more local governments are at some point in implementing their
programs, according to Cisco DeDvries, president of Renewable Funding in
Oakland, CA. DeVries says that "it's gone viral."
DeVries, who was formerly Mayor Tom Bates' chief of staff in Berkeley,
conceived the idea while he was putting together community assessment
districts for undergrounding utilities. He realized that every state has a
law that permits local governments to organize tax assessment districts for
neighborhoods to pay for any number of public improvements that benefit and
are paid for by the residents of just that neighborhood.
His new wrinkle was that the district could consist of individual homeowners
who may not be neighbors but would want to voluntarily join the district to
gain access to the financing. This required a minor change in California
state law enacted in AB-811, which became effective at the first of the
year. Oregon and several other states have enacted or are considering
similar changes.
"There was some self-interest involved," DeVries admits. "I was getting
solar bids for my house. It was a lot of money. I didn't know how long I
would live in the house. It would be a big hit on my equity line of credit
potential. Interest rates were high. I thought, there has got to be a better
way to pay for this; so I brought in some really smart people to help e
figure it out."
One was Chris Lynch, the city's bond counsel. Lynch told me that 1986 IRS
rule prevents use of tax-exempt bonds for individual private benefit. A
change in the rule, which would create a bigger market for the bonds and
better rates for borrowers. Currently the typical rate is 7%. DeVries and
his allies were successful in getting language into the big stimulus bill
just signed that allows homeowners who get this financing to also be
eligible for the new 30% federal tax credit. Interest on the loan is also
tax deductible.
DeVries' firm, Renewable Funding offers a turn-key program to local
governments who want to get into this. Facing a grim municipal bond market,
they've even developed micro-municipal bonds that they would sell to
individual investors, especially socially-conscious ones. The muni market
isn't interested in $30,000 bonds, but the small investor market appears
limitless for the microbonds with secure revenue streams, says DeVries.
For now, Renewable Funding is buying and holding the bonds. A quasi State of
California bond-issuing agency representing all of the cities and counties
in the state is studying aggregating the clean energy municipal bonds for
the conventional bond market.
The $280 billion figure comes from a study done by Kammen's UC Berkeley
group and published in Environment Magazine, which assumes a 15% penetration
of residential buildings in the U.S. with efficiency and solar upgrades.
(Both Berkeley and San Diego, however, include small businesses.)
"The issue is fairly simple," said DeVries. "If you had to buy 20 years of
cell phone minutes when you buy a cell phone, no one would have cell phones.
But (solar advocates) are asking people to buy 20 years of electricity in
advance. People are not going to do it. They don't have the money. It
violates the basic principle of buying things as you need them. We buy
energy on a monthly basis."
As persuasive as that argument might be, the UC Berkeley model shows that
the annual cost of solar photovoltaic power at today's prices is marginal
even with this kind of favorable financing and tax breaks. The model showed
that solar had a net present value over the term of the loan of just $87.
And even that required the attractive California incentives. The energy
efficiency investment looked better with a net present value of $1,738.
But to get to these dismal results you have to assume that conventional
energy prices will be fairly stable over the next 25 years. I don't.
Remarkably, the federal Energy Information Administration assumes they won't
increase by more than inflation. The Berkeley model's most radical
assumption was 4% above inflation, but the authors' note that this was close
to the annual electricity price rise the U.S. has seen since 2001. Natural
gas prices rose more, 8.4% a year.
But even with these projections everything looks better if you put a value
of $30 per ton on the carbon avoided — an estimated one gigaton of CO2 if
the 15% market penetration is reached, about 4% of what would be needed to
reach 1990 emission levels by 2020. That's projecting California's AB32 goal
to the whole country.
I asked the much-quoted Dan Kammen, professor in the energy and resources
group at UC Berkeley and a co-author of the Environment magazine piece,
where the homeowner might get cash for his carbon reduction. "What I'd like
to see is money from the proceeds of the proposed cap and trade program be
used to reimburse the homeowner for part of his investment," he said.
In any case, Kammen thinks the Obama Administration's stimulus program will
include a $1 billion property owner loan program. Could this be up and
running any time soon? Kammen notes that his former colleague at Berkeley,
Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, has committed himself to a plan to get all
green energy money out faster.
Kammen thinks that an important aspect of the municipal clean energy
financing and possibly the coming federal loan program is that they "remove
a barrier between financing solar and energy efficiency. You can do both
with one block of money."
But, for now, solar and much of the energy efficiency upgrades available are
not a compelling investment for most people in most places. Even with this
innovative financing we are still looking at the current market of motivated
consumers who want to do their part to change the nation's energy future and
won't be looking that closely at net present value and dubious projections
of energy costs.
But that market is largely untapped, deVries figures: "Nine out of 10 people
who get bids for rooftop solar don't buy it. It's too expensive, and they
think they might sell the home. If we can increase this to 5 out of 10 with
just the financing, we've got work."
And solar is getting cheaper, and, as its market and competition grows, it
will get cheaper faster, along with a growing variety of energy efficiency
investments.
Aside from first cost, however, there are other barriers to the homeowner
solar investment. A big one, says deVries, is information.
I hear him talking. I won't presume anybody read an earlier column on my
adventures in the marketplace for solar and efficiency improvements, so here
is the link. To sum it up, if someone wants to go beyond compact fluorescent
light bulbs and insulation, and invest some real money in efficiency
upgrades, you're on your own.
What are the most efficient and reliable products on the market? What is
your best deal? Who are the best installers? If I wait a year or two, what's
coming along. Will my HVAC guy know or just pretend to know? Does the clerk
at Home Depot know what and on what aisle the best available window
retrofits are? Even insulation: How much? What kind? What about radiant
barriers?
Pacific Gas and Electric, which serves northern California, offers no
customized services to homeowners because there are too many of us and we're
not cost effective. What they have to offer is on-line and raises more
questions than it answers. For example, they recommend whole house fans in
my climate zone and suggest it might save as much as 90% of my cooling
costs. And yet the only guidance to picking a fan is a list of dozens of
manufacturers and models, not even linked to webpages. The research would
take weeks and would make me the whole fan expert in my town. Even for the
retired, it's too much to expect. So you go to the yellow pages where the
first guy you call never heard of a fan that would seal itself up when not
in use so as not to leave a big leaking hole in your ceiling even through
they exist.
I thought this was a national crisis.
The easy long-term, low-cost financing is not nearly enough. Information is
also a high barrier, says DeVries — and so do I, for that matter.
What is needed is a one-stop climate action consumer center that would do
on-site energy audits; offer free weatherization low-income individuals;
know about, perhaps even demonstrate, the clean energy products on the
market or the ones coming, the permits needed, the financing, the tax
incentives and the installers; put on do-it-yourself workshops and much
more.
And here's a big upside: It could aggregate buyers to fetch lower prices —
make markets. Most solar installers I've talked to say that marketing is the
biggest part of the price they charge. Most cities seem to fear the
liability exposure of giving borrowers too much guidance on what to buy. One
who doesn't is Patrick Conlon, Palm Desert's energy management director. He
says that city's program finances highly efficient air conditioners as much
as solar because for now they are a better deal.
"Most of installers are okay, but some of them want to install the biggest
solar system the roof will support. I tell the homeowners they'll save $3 on
a 13-to-18 SEER new AC compared to every $1 they save with solar," says
Conlon. But in that heat, both have an excellent paybacks — 3 to 8 years.
It is not obvious that there is a business case for such an entity, which
would probably be a non-profit. But I'd like one for Davis. Revenue could
come from administration fees of the municipal bond financing program,
energy audits, low-income weatherization grants, and a variety of green
energy funding that is available from utilities, state governments, or
coming out of the federal government.
Fundamentally, it's about innovation, and not just in technology. Like Cisco
DeVries, President Obama and others in his administration do seem to get
that.
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com |