Greg Leventis

Electricity End Uses, Energy Efficiency, and Distributed Energy Resources Baseline

Author(s): Schwartz, Lisa; Wei, Max; Morrow, William; Deason, Jeff; Schiller, Steven R.; Leventis, Greg; Smith, Sarah; Leow, Woei Ling; Levin, Todd; Plotkin, Steven; Zhou, Yan

Lessons in Commercial PACE Leadership: The Path from Legislation to Launch

Author(s): Leventis, G; Schwartz, LC; Kramer, C; Deason, J | Abstract: Nonresidential buildings are responsible for over a quarter of primary energy consumption in the United States. Efficiency improvements in these buildings could result in significant energy and utility bill savings. To unlock those potential savings, a number of market barriers to energy efficiency must be addressed. Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) financing programs can help overcome several of these barriers with minimal investment from state and local governments. With programs established or under development in 22 states, and at least

Energy Upgrades at City-Owned Facilities: Understanding Accounting for Energy Efficiency Financing Options. City of Dubuque Case Study

521 million in investments so far, other state and local governments are interested in bringing the benefits of C-PACE to their jurisdictions. Lessons in Commercial PACE Leadership: The Path from Legislation to Launch, aims to fast track the set-up of C-PACE programs for state and local governments by capturing the lessons learned from leaders. The report examines the list of potential program design options and important decision points in setting up a C-PACE program, tradeoffs for available options, and experiences of stakeholders that have gone through (or are going through) the process. C-PACE uses a voluntary special property assessment to facilitate energy and other improvements in commercial buildings. For example: ~Long financing terms under C-PACE can produce cash flow-positive --projects to help overcome a focus on short paybacks. ~Payment obligations can transfer to subsequent owners, mitigating concern about investing in improvements for a building that may be sold before the return on the investment is fully realized. ~100% of both hard and soft costs can be financed. To capture the benefits of C-PACE financing, state and local governments must navigate numerous decision points and engage with stakeholders to set-up or join a program. Researchers interviewed experts (including state and local sponsors, program administrators, capital providers and industry experts) on their lessons learned and arrived at the following key takeaways for state and local leaders: Enabling legislation: Carefully developed enabling legislation (which includes certain key provisions) and early stakeholder input can greatly improve the chances of program success. Options for program administrative structure: At least four program administrative structures are in use; certain administrative structures inherently result in more standardized product offerings and, potentially, economies of scale. Approaches to program and project capitalization: Two approaches to capitalization have been used. Bonding (project capital is raised through a bond sale) and direct funding (capital providers fund projects directly); programs can rely on one capital provider (a closed market) or allow multiple capital providers to participate (an open market). What and who qualifies for the program: Some programs require a minimum project savings-to-investment ratio; other programs encourage it or are indifferent. Estimating and documenting project energy cost saving: Estimating and documenting energy and cost savings can add costs to projects but also demonstrate C-PACE program value. Stakeholder engagement: Key stakeholder groups to engage include community leaders, local governments, building owners, contractors, utilities, capital providers and mortgage holders; stakeholder engagement should be tailored to each particular group. Start-up and ongoing costs: Understanding set-up and ongoing costs can help program sponsors plan for funding C-PACE programs and projects. The U.S. Department of Energys Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs funded the report.

Energy Efficiency Financing for Low- and Moderate-Income Households: Current State of the Market, Issues, and Opportunities

Author(s): Leventis, G; Schiller, S; Kramer, C; Schwartz, L | Abstract: The city of Dubuque, Iowa, aimed for a twofer — lower energy costs for public facilities and reduced air emissions. To achieve that goal, the city partnered with the Iowa Economic Development Authority to establish a revolving loan fund to finance energy efficiency and other energy projects at city facilities. But the city needed to understand approaches for financing energy projects to achieve both of their goals in a manner that would not be considered debt — in this case, obligations booked as a liability on the city’s balance sheet. With funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Climate Action Champions Initiative, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) provided technical assistance to the city to identify strategies to achieve these goals. Revolving loans use a source of money to fund initial cost-saving projects, such as energy efficiency investments, then use the repayments and interest from these loans to support subsequent projects. Berkeley Lab and the city examined two approaches to explore whether revolving loans could potentially be treated as non-debt: 1) financing arrangements containing a non-appropriation clause and 2) shared savings agreements. This fact sheet discusses both, including considerations that may factor into their treatment as debt from an accounting perspective.

AVOIDED ELECTRICITY SUBSIDY PAYMENTS CAN FINANCE SUBSTANTIAL APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS: CASE STUDY OF MEXICO

Author(s): Leventis, G; Kramer, C; Schwartz, LC | Abstract: Ensuring that low- and moderate-income (LMI) households have access to energy efficiency is equitable, provides energy savings as a resource to meet energy needs, and can support multiple policy goals, such as affordable energy, job creation, and improved public health. Although the need is great, many LMI households may not be able to afford efficiency improvements or may be inhibited from adopting efficiency for other reasons. Decision-makers across the country are currently exploring the challenges and potential solutions to ramping up adoption of efficiency in LMI households, including the use of financing. The report’s objective is to offer state and local policymakers, state utility regulators, program administrators, financial institutions, consumer advocates and other LMI stakeholders with an understanding of: -The relationship between LMI communities and financing for energy efficiency, including important considerations for its use such as consumer protections -The larger programmatic context of grant-based assistance and other related resources supporting LMI household energy efficiency -Lessons learned from existing energy efficiency financing programs serving LMI households -Financing products used by these programs and their relative advantages and disadvantages in addressing barriers to financing or to energy efficiency uptake for LMI households

Design of incentive programs for accelerating penetration of energy-efficient appliances

E RNEST O RLANDO L AWRENCE B ERKELEY N ATIONAL L ABORATORY LBNL Report AVOIDED ELECTRICITY SUBSIDY PAYMENTS CAN FINANCE SUBSTANTIAL APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS: CASE STUDY OF MEXICO Greg Leventis Anand Gopal Stephane de la Rue du Can Amol Phadke Environmental Energy Technologies Division March 2013 This work was funded by the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State, and administered by the U.S. Department of Energy in support of the Super-efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment (SEAD) initiative through the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE- AC02-05CH11231.