Clean Energy Financing: Collaboration in NYS

Yes The strength of this session is its specificity -- the propose to include at least one owner who has been through the program from application to closing and preconstruction.  I would like to see the discussion cover both the details of the program and the real-life experience of completing an application cycle.  We need to see the good and bad of these processes, as they will have to be refined and become widely understandable if they are to scale.

Yes.The program overview combined with owner case study is compelling. So far, many of NYSERDA's programs have been grants and incentives that need to be layered into traditional financing. Financing innovation and partnerships with the state will be key to scaling adoption of high-performance design. Eager to see how this plays out in practice.Key questions I would want answered: What is the barrier to entry for small/emerging developers (if the developer chosen is well-established and an experienced LIHTC or multifamily owner/developer)? How does the program specifically target/benefit DAC? By what metric are we measuring impact in DAC?

Yes.Agree with Paul, it'd be helpful to see examples of successful and less-than-successful applicants.Agree with Danielle, it'd be helpful to hear how impacts to DAC are measured.  Besides financing, I'm interested in learning what type of technical assistance is provided.Proposer seems open to breakout sessions, might make the session more engaging.

Yes. Winning topic with content that needs to be articulated, shared, and evolve. 

Round 1 Discussion:the owner perspective makes the session. Audience wants to hear from people using the program. Ask if they might be open to combining with proposal 118.

see Round 2 comments below

Overall judgement Round 2: YES
• The Clean Energy Initiative (CEI) is a cutting edge, never before presented program representing evolution of delivery of incentives coupled with financing and addressing EJ.  It is a collaboration of NYSERDA incentives and NYS HCR funding programs and addresses the cumbersome process of combining incentives with financing into one-stop shopping.

• I would like to curate this session.  It overlaps with another initiative I’m involved in to incorporate a non-PACE financing product into HPD/HDC financing programs when PACE financing is not a fit.

Items of discussion with proposer (includes topics raised by committee members under Round 1)
• Stressed importance to provide detail on historical context of this challenge and evolution to CEI Program and how it actually works.  Began with State goals of CLCPA being more focused on decarbonization and environmental justice.  The challenge was how to streamline process with interagency collaboration and make programs to decarbonize affordable housing projects more readily accessible.  Historically, NYSERDA and HCR worked together, without distributing funds directly to HCR as is the case with CEI.  Due to uncertainty of NYSERDA funding and timing, HCR couldn’t rely on incentives in the capital stack.  The developer’s fee was used as back-up in case the incentive didn’t materialize.  The result was smaller developers, who couldn’t afford to put their developer fee at risk of loss, did not pursue the program. Another benefit - most incentives are paid at completion of work.  CEI reduces need for bridge financing to pay contractors milestone payments before work is completed.  Does CEI move the needle on underwriting energy savings in HCR financing?  This can be covered.  The NYSERDA funds are simply another subsidy in the capital stack. It doesn’t enter the loan underwriting.
• Financing innovation and partnerships with the state will be key to scaling adoption of high-performance design. Focus panel on topic of scalability.  Can CEI be scaled further within and outside NYS?  Yes, HCR is exploring these options with HPD and creating a NYSERDA pilot with HPD.  Discussed adding Jen Leone to panel to discuss in more detail.
• Understand the funding gap between a standard high-efficient building and an all-electric high-performance building.  Do you think CEI can help articulate that funding gap and possibly create a metric? Can this topic be highlighted?  The program is in the process of asking developers to parcel out the funding gap.  This differs between new and existing buildings.  This is a big question and a process, but panel can share findings and challenges to date.
• CEI clearly reaches LMI community.  How does it benefit DAC? By what metric are we measuring impact in DAC?  DAC is not a fully defined term yet, first step is defining the term.  HCR portfolio will be serving DAC communities as a general statement. If a number of affordable housing projects in a geographic area uses CEI, that could be defined as a DAC.
• What is the barrier to entry for small/emerging developers (if the developer chosen is well-established and an experienced LIHTC or multifamily owner/developer)? See note above how CEI results in removing barriers to entry for small developers. Also, smaller developers have a limited technical bench.  CEI provides a technical advisor to help with integrated design.
• The owner perspective is key. Audience will want to hear from people using the Program.  Process will have to be widely understandable and refined to be able to scale.  What are successful as well as less successful candidate experiences? Will you go into program details and the real-life experience of completing an application cycle?  Can you show a not-so-good applicant experience with the process? Panel intends to invite an owner going through CEI and can walk through a project.  Technical assistance provider can join as well.  I think two owners is too much for scope and time of panel.
• Besides financing, what type of technical assistance is provided? This may be another reason to include the technical assistance provider on the panel.  Technical assistance is provided to all developers, small and large, to add another set of eyes to review project.
• Do you have a specific sense of panel format?  You indicated you are open to breakout sessions?  Do you think it might make the session more engaging?   This is intended as a panel, without break out sessions.  (Any indication in proposal for break-out sessions was a mistake in the electronic submission.) There will be an active Q&A built in, typical of NESEA sessions.  Idea is to keep as real world as possible, getting into weeds when appropriate. 
• Another proposal submitted is more general with an overview of market-based funding options.  Would you be open to combining with that panel to discuss CEI as a new innovative program?  Willing to be flexible, CEI is launching and there is a need to get word out to industry.  There is money funded with more to come, they want to put money into projects.  I think this panel is evolutionary and complex, not appropriate as a single product on a general financing panel (#118) and not relevant to HaaS (#131).
 

R2 Discussion:Struggle with integrating of incentives. Show how to collaborate and integrating programs, innovate model. Is going to used with other programs in the state. Combine with another session? Don't have an owner yet to speak but can get one. Samantha is a great speaker. Questions, Concerns, Suggestions: Innovatative. Improves the process. Removes barrier to smaller developers. Incentives open to smaller developers, different than previously. Compare to prior practice. Missing from this is High end, luxury developers. Why aren't they involved? How to get them to care? Can NYSERDA speak to this? Audience would be building owners, developers.Be aware of similarity to proposal 118 (session 106)