Save Money

Archived Posts from this Category

October 11, 2011

Solar@Work Offers Huge Discounts To Commercial Building Owners And Lease Holders

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Free, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Photovoltaic, Save Money, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

A new program in San Francisco, Solar@Work, offers discounts, and in some cases free installation, on solar arrays for commercial building owners and lease holders.  Almost any size business can qualify for the program that will lower energy costs for participants.  For businesses proactively addressing San Francisco’s required energy audits, this program requires a closer look. (For full analysis of San Francisco’s commercial building energy audit program, click here)

Solar@Work groups commercial building owners and/or lease holders together to reduce costs through economies of scale.  Participants generate the greatest savings on energy costs through the purchase of a solar array.  The cost of purchasing and installing a system can be prohibitive, so Solar@Work creates a discount on installation and financing through volume pricing.  A “traditional” solar lease is also available with no up front cost, but the savings on energy bills are markedly less significant.

The Collaborative Solar Procurement model created by the World Resources Institute allows the Solar@Work program to offer four financing options.  Owners can purchase systems at a discount, secure a solar lease, secure a capital loan, or finance through other options including power purchase agreements.

The goal is to collect enough businesses in the program to collectively generate 2 megawatts of power or more.  Applications are being accepted until October 31, 2011, and an informational conference call is scheduled for October 21, 2011.

The ideal applicants are owner/occupiers or long-term leasers whose available space on a roof or parking area is 5,000 square feet or more.

Solar City is the exclusive vendor for the program created by the World Resources Institute, the City and County of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment (SF Environment), in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Optony.

Solar City was selected through a competitive process to provide the installation services for the program.  The company anticipates hiring 400 new workers in the second half of 2011 including 100 in the Bay Area, partly due to Solar@Work.

Congratulations to WRI, San Francisco, and the other contributors to this program.  Solar@Work promises to be another great example of how sustainable development will lead a growth in the economy through reducing energy costs and increasing employment.

 

February 17, 2011

Mayor To Sign Commercial Buildings Energy Performance Ordinance Tomorrow

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Government, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Lease, Risk Transfer, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

First ever mobile post, so excuse the brevity.
Mayor Lee will sign the proposed ordinance into law tomorrow.

WHERE: Adobe headquarters, 601 Townsend

WHEN: 10 A.M., Friday, February 18, 2011

I wish I could be there, but I’m out of town.
Congrats, San Francisco!

For our comprehensive analysis, please click here

 

December 14, 2010

FTW! Largest Municipal Solar Project In California Comes Online

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Photovoltaic, Risk Transfer, Save Money, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Last week Mayor Gavin Newsom  and Recurrent Energy announced the completion of the Sunset Reservoir Solar Project.  We mentioned the story back when it started, and we’re glad to see it finished quickly! A year and a half is pretty good to install 24,000 solar panels (imagine 12 football fields) generating 5 megawatts of power (with some sources stating as high as 7 megawatts).  The energy generated can power 1,500 homes, but will be used instead by the city to power public transportation and city buildings.

The project is the result of a public-private partnership (P3) with Recurrent.  As a result, San Francisco owns the property, but leases the rights to operate the plant and sell the energy.  Under the current contract, Recurrent will sell energy to the city at $0.235 /kWh.  That price will allegedly save roughly $1 million per year in energy costs.  Through the P3 procurement method, San Francisco saves the up-front costs of implementing the system, and reaps the rewards of low cost sustainable energy.

And, let’s not forget.  The money paid to Recurrent stays right here in California.  The corporation was founded in California, pays taxes in California, and employs people in California.  71 general labor jobs – in a decimated construction industry – were created from this project.  30 percent of those jobs were for individuals from disadvantaged communities (Though they had to fight to keep those jobs).

This project looks like a win for proponents of sustainable energy, public-private partnerships, and green job promotion (The CGBB fits into that category).  It also looks to be a win for San Franciscans who will instantly see savings in energy costs to public services.

In the meantime, congratulations to Recurrent Energy and San Francisco.  The Sunset Reservoir Solar Project is currently the largest municipal solar installation in the state.  We hope more of these projects are built immediately all around California and the nation!

San Francisco Press Release Here

(For those of you wondering, “FTW” stands for “For The Win”)

 

October 20, 2010

PACE Lawsuit Update (BerkeleyFirst and GreenFinanceSF Still Suspended)

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, Mortgages, Risk Transfer, Save Money, Solar | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

The feud between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the PACE program is heating up.  I’m going to play devil’s advocate (for a moment), so let me quickly set the stage.  As you will recall, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and their parent entity (following the financial crisis of 2008) the Federal Housing Finance Agency (for convenience, collectively “FHFA”) single-handedly torpedoed the Property Assessed Clean Energy program (PACE), one of the best publicly and privately-funded tools for gaining energy independence.  California immediately sued to stop FHFA from interfering with the programs. (United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, Case 4:10-cv-03270-CW)  According to pacedata.org, five other parties have separately sued the FHFA.  Just last week, the FHFA filed a motion to dismiss the California lawsuit. I am not willing to join FHFA’s motion, but I am also willing to say we can’t just scapegoat FHFA. They are just doing their job.  Perhaps a compromise is in order?

For a copy of California’s lawsuit against the FHFA, click here.

For a copy of FHFA’s recently filed Motion To Dismiss, click here.

FHFA is in charge of protecting the integrity of the housing finance industry, and they have taken on PACE financing because it undermines the integrity of primary mortgages. They have a point, and they can’t just look the other way (as much as it appears they are looking straight into the pockets of big banks).

(See our previous posts on AB 811 backed PACE financing programs such as BerkelyFirst or SFGreenFinance by clicking here).

PACE debt is classified by municipalities as an assessment, and in case of non-payment the PACE debt becomes a tax lien against a home. The issue FHFA have is that in case of foreclosure, tax liens are paid first. That puts the PACE payout in front of a primary mortgage, and that undermines the integrity of the primary mortgage market.  If PACE programs explode in popularity across the nation (as they were prior to the FHFA advisory letter), that’s a big problem for FHFA.  The PACE debt is likely small, but if it is nationwide it is definitely an issue. If FHFA are going to be true to their mission they have to stand up to this (especially since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t show sound judgment leading up to the mortgage-backed securities financial crisis).

The sticking point is proponents of PACE financing aren’t interested in making the PACE debt secondary to a primary mortgage.  Recently, California Representative Mike Thompson (and many others) proposed a bill that’s a pretty good compromise, but still asks the FHFA to look the other way on PACE financing.  The devil’s advocate is not sure this is appropriate in situations where private entities finance PACE debt.

HR 5766 requires that:

“the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] shall adopt underwriting standards that are consistent with the Guidelines for Pilot PACE Financing Programs issued on May 7, 2010, by the Department of Energy.”

The DOE guidelines referred to in HR 5766 state:

“In states where non-acceleration of the lien is standard for other special assessments, it should also be standard for PACE assessments. After a foreclosure, the successor owners are responsible for future assessment payments. Non-acceleration is an important mortgage holder protection because liability for the assessment in foreclosure is limited to any amount in arrears at the time; the total outstanding assessed amount is not due in full.” (Full Guidelines Here)

The DOE guideline quoted above states that under a PACE program in a state where under foreclosure proceedings a primary mortgage holder can demand payment for the full amount of the debt, PACE assessments can only ask for the debt that was owed up to the time of the foreclosure.  This is an important distinction.  The problem is that the PACE lien still supersedes the primary mortgage to some degree.

I doubt this would be such a problem if municipalities provided all of the financing for PACE programs. Municipalities will always have the power to impose assessments.  The problem is that often PACE financing is provided by private enterprise.  Further, with the municipal budgets in pieces, the likelihood of private finance for PACE programs only increases.  I am all for PACE programs, but allowing a private entity to supersede a primary mortgage without asking the primary lender seems a little, shall we say, inconsistent (even if the motives are pure).

For my return from the devil’s side of the argument, and some suggestions for solutions, click the “more” link here:  (more…)

 

March 17, 2010

Efficiency Efforts Insulate Windows In Empire State Building

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Green Economy, Innovators, Make Money, Materials and Manufacturing, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Serious Materials, a California-based company, just announced an agreement with Johnson Controls (NYSE: JCI) to “super-insulate” over 6,500 windows as part of a $13.2 million energy efficiency retrofit program for the nearly 80 year-old Empire State Building.

Note, I wrote they will “insulate” the glass, not replace it.  According to Sustainable Materials, here’s how it works:

“The existing glass of the building’s 6,514 double-hung windows will be removed from the window frames, separated, and cleaned in the processing space. New super-insulating IGUs [Insulating Glass Units] will be produced using the old glass panes, new spacers, suspended coated film, and special gas fill [argon-krypton gas mixture]. The IGUs will be re-installed into the existing window frames.”

These efforts alone will directly reduce energy costs by over $400,000 per year, and the remarkable fact is Serious Materials is using the old glass!

The Empire State Building project is a model of what needs to happen across the nation.  Old buildings are highly inefficient, and provide the greatest opportunity to gain real energy savings.  The Empire State Building plan calls for eight separate measures in lighting, insulation, electricity controls, HVAC, and tenant training and incentives.  Once all measures are complete, the Empire State Building retrofit team predicts a 33% reduction in cooling load, and a reduction of peak energy load by 3.5 megawatts (yes that’s just the reduction).  The retrofit team also predicts a 38%reduction in total energy use and an eventual energy cost savings of $4.4 million / year.  How about that for ROI?

Click here to find out more regarding the Empire State Building’s eight measures

Click here for the press release from Serious Materials

Editor’s note: Don’t miss tonight’s Clean Tech Event at McCormick and Kuleto’s. Click here for more information

 

July 15, 2009

California To Get $183 Million to Weatherize Homes

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

California will get $183 million in federal funds just to weatherize homes. Now, this is a tremendous improvement from the $6.3 million originally budgeted, but I’m speculating there’s a dark side to this story…

The reason there is a push of money into the weatherization program is because money in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) that is set aside for construction is underutilized. Remember, projects need to be “shovel ready” to receive money under ARRA.  With state budgets in the tank before ARRA, there are not a lot of projects that fit the criteria. Now, money is still on the table, and the clock ticking. The federal government is looking for ways to spend and get the construction industry back on its feet.  

Weatherization is a good start.  It addresses remodeling, which is an area of construction that is woefully overlooked by the green building sector.

Check back here later to find out more about ARRA funds and green building.  In the meantime, click here  to read an article from the AP on the weatherization windfall.

 

May 25, 2009

Public-Private Partnership Installs Photovoltaics With No Up-Front Cost To Homeowners*

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Save Money | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

Every now and then there is one of those moments when you ask “why didn’t they do this before?”  Well, the launch of the Berkeley FIRST program is exactly one of those moments.  With the help of Renewable Funding, LLC, Berkeley, CA now offers a program where residential homeowners can install a photovoltaic solar array on their home with no money down.

Renewable Funding, LLC, a private company, created this “win-win” financial services product for municipalities and homeowners, and Berkeley, CA is the first taker.  For Berkeley, Renewable Funding underwrites (AKA bankrolls) revenue bonds that pay for the installation of solar arrays.  Then, through a separate line item on a property owner’s property tax bill, the bonds are paid down over a 20 year term.  If the property owner sells the home, the debt obligation for the solar array (just like the array itself) stays with the property.

Boulder County, CO took  a different approach. Berkeley hired Renewable Funding, LLC to finance and administer the bonds, but Boulder hired Renewable Funding to only administer the bonds.  Whether Renewable Funding bankrolls the program or not, the model seems to work, and solar arrays get installed faster.

Look for this type of program in your California community!  AB 811 (amending Streets and Highways Code 5898.12 et seq.) passed last year authorizes just such an initiative.  Under S&H Code 5898, Renewable Funding is working with the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to implement California FIRST this summer.

Read more about Renewable Funding, LLC by clicking here.

Read more about the Berkeley FIRST program by clicking here.

Read more about the California FIRST program by clicking here. 

 * A Public-Private Partnership is a partnership between a government entity and a private entity that results in the private entity delivering services traditionally offered by government. (e.g. a toll road).

 

 

May 19, 2009

A Solar Solution to the Economy*

Posted by kevinjeong under Carbon, Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Mortgages, Save Money | Tags: , , , , |
1 Comment 

Everyone seems to have a “solution” to the economic problem these days.  One attorney, perhaps a little self-servingly (and rightfully so), implores the government to forgive student loan debt to stimulate the economy. (Click here)   A group of Ohio University students continue with the decades-old mantra that America must protect its economic interest through restrictions on free trade.  (Click here)  While I am able to easily dismiss these solutions as fanciful ideas–more idealistic than pragmatic–there is one recent solution that has caught my attention.

A recent Forbes article written by an ex-Lehman Brothers VP raises an interesting solution to solving the ever-increasing foreclosure problem: subsidizing solar panels for distressed homeowners.  In his article, Robert Luty states that the government has already launched over a trillion dollars in spending programs designed to help distressed homeowners and banks.  His solution would, in his words, “help possibly a million homeowners, unleash strengthened bank capital for new lending and increase gross domestic product with the same solution and at the same time.”  In addition, it “could also make a significant advance in the country’s renewable energy goals in the process.”  Now imagine all of this, with the same trillion dollars the government is already spending.  Talk about teaching a person to fish!

At first glance, I was ready to throw this solution into the “it’s a great idea, but . . .” pile.  However, I decided to read on.  After all, here was a Wharton-educated Wall Street capitalist writing in favor of tree-hugging green technology.

Luty throws some fancy numbers and finance terms around, but the gist of his proposed solution is this:

Imagine an average homeowner who purchases a house in 2006 that loses 25% of its value.  Add to that lost household income of about 20%.  This puts the household’s debt-to-income (DTI) ratio at about 47% (ah, the good old days when your mortgage comprised only 20% of your income).  

Now, he roughly calculates a solar photovoltaic (PV) system would cost about 10% of the home value and generate 100% of the household energy needs.  The total cost of the solar PV system would be subsidized by the government of course.  In return, the homeowner would no longer be subject to increasing energy costs and the value of the solar PV system (both in terms of current energy savings and future potential) would bring the value of the house almost back to its pre-crisis value.  As a result, the homeowner would be able to refinance the home with current low interest rates and lower his or her DTI to the desired 31%.  

Yes, I had some trouble following the logic of a finance guru, but to put it in laymen terms:  (1) create value and equity by adding government-subsidized solar power to the home, (2) refinance the now “detoxified” asset, (3) save money, (4) produce clean energy, and (5) help the environment.  It seems like a win-win situation.

And yet, being the proverbial Chicken Little, I can’t help but be a bit skeptical and pessimistic at this overly-simplistic solution.  As a colleague of mine stated, “People won’t buy into this.  It’s like rewarding irresponsible individuals for overextending themselves.”  Maybe so, but isn’t the government already doing that for the same homeowners and banks?

(Click here for the full article)

* The author of this post is in no way advocating Luty’s proposal.  Rather this post is meant to be a simple observation on how green technology can possibly be an economically viable solution.

 

April 4, 2009

Homebuyer’s Tax Credit …Need I Say More

Posted by Steve Sacks under Finance, Incentives and Rebates, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Marketing Ideas, Mortgages, Save Money | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

According to state Franchise Tax Board, the applications for the $10,000 state tax credit for new home buyers has generated 2,624 applications in the first 28 days!

Get more information on the tax credit here 

The Sacramento Bee, reports:

“The credit, estimated to benefit about 10,000 homebuyers statewide this year, offers up to $3,333 off state taxes for each of the first three years after buying. First-time and move-up buyers alike are eligible, and there are no income limits. The state credit can also be combined with a new $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time buyers”

As mentioned above, applications are flooding in.  The allocation for the credit will likely be consumed by the middle of the summer. So, if you’re in the market, or know someone who is, grab it now.

 

January 27, 2009

Cisco Launches EnergyWise Software to Manage Green Building Technology

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Building Operations, Energy, Innovators, Materials and Manufacturing, Save Money | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Managing the disparate technologies in a high performance buildings is a key component to realizing the true energy saving potential of new technology.  Many companies offer tracking software for high performance buildings (e.g. PureChoice, Energy Control, Inc, and Control Technologies, Inc.)

Today, Cisco Systems, Inc. (Click Here For Press Release) the technology behemoth that rules the network router industry is applying its expertise to Green Buildings, and taking the idea of building energy management to a whole new level.

EnergyWise is a new technology that not only allows users to monitor and control large high performance components of a building (such as the HVAC, water, or elevators), it also allows managers to monitor and control the performance of anything plugged into a power source.  Imagine controlling every light switch in a building from a single work station.  Or how about creating mandatory settings that force computers to sleep after a certain amount of time.  Cisco states that all of this and more is possible with their new product (though the controls for HVAC and other large components are still being developed).

Obviously this raises interesting questions regarding office leases and leasee/lessor obligations regarding energy usage and permissions to control work environments.  It’s one thing to control the temperature in an office, but quite another to force tenants to have computers enter “standby” mode after five minutes of inactivity.  Stay tuned to the California Green Building Blog for an upcoming post on leases for green office space.

In the mean time, click here to visit Cisco’s home page for the EnergyWise product.

According to CNET, IBM is also contemplating entry into building systems management software (click here for full article).

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers