Episode 21: Live from the PACENation Summit [av_image src=’https://cleancapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/podcast-image-pageheader2.jpg’ attachment=’4329′ attachment_size=’full’ align=’center’ styling=” hover=” link=’page,249′ target=” caption=” font_size=” appearance=” overlay_opacity=’0.4′ overlay_color=’#000000′ overlay_text_color=’#ffffff’ copyright=” animation=’no-animation’ av_uid=’av-jwwgyb48′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”][/av_image] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwwgxszg’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] Episode 21: Live from the PACENation Summit [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’10’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwl4lsb2′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] This week is the first ever life taping of Experts Only Podcast at the PACENation Summit 2018 in Denver, Colorado. This episode has a bipartisan panel that discusses the different perspectives on PACE, how it relates to policy goals and the wavering support from the federal government. The Panel is a lively discussion of PACE administrators who are well versed in federal policy, as well as leaders in both Residential and Commercial PACE, and affinity groups. The panelists on this podcast include Genevive Sherman, Head of New Markets and Partnerships of Greenworks Lending, Keith den Hollander, National Field Director of The Christian Coalition, Michele Combs, Chairman and Founding Partner of Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, and Cisco Devries, Founder, and CEO of Renew Financial. [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwwh5253′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] Listen now [/av_textblock] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwl43nfd’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=” custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock textblock_styling_align=” textblock_styling=” textblock_styling_gap=” textblock_styling_mobile=” size=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” font_color=” color=” id=” custom_class=” template_class=” av_uid=’av-l6atzj5v’ sc_version=’1.0′ admin_preview_bg=”] Transcript [/av_textblock] [av_textblock textblock_styling_align=” textblock_styling=” textblock_styling_gap=” textblock_styling_mobile=” size=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” font_color=” color=” id=” custom_class=” template_class=” av_uid=’av-l6au218c’ sc_version=’1.0′ admin_preview_bg=”] Jon Powers: Welcome to Experts Only Podcast, sponsored by CleanCapital. You can learn more at cleancapital.com. I’m your host Jon Powers. Each week, we explore the intersection of energy, innovation and finance with leaders across the industry. Thank you so much for joining and listening to CleanCapital’s Experts Only Podcast. Jon Powers: For folks in the room that aren’t unfamiliar with the podcast, what we do is explore the intersection of energy, innovation and finance and talk across the industry about what’s moving, what’s happening, what the future of the markets look like. It’s a great dialogue. For us at CleanCapital, a great way is to stay educated about where the industry’s moving. So I’ll be honest, this is our first live recording of a podcast. We’ll see how this turns out, but we’re pretty excited about it. Jon Powers: For folks listening, we are live at PACENation Summit 2018, here in Denver, Colorado. You can expect a really fascinating conversation on the perspectives of PACE from this really incredible panel. For those who are listening to the podcast and are unfamiliar with PACE, hopefully you in the room are pretty familiar with PACE, but we did an earlier episode. Jon Powers: So I challenged you to go to that first where I interviewed David and did a PACE 101 to help folks understand what’s happening in the market. It’s a great primer for this conversation. Just to level set, Property Assessed Clean Energy, PACE is a financing mechanism that enables low costs, long term funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation projects. Jon Powers: PACE financing is repaid through the assessment of the Property Tax Bill. And depending on the local legislation, it can be used for commercial nonprofit for residential. Most of you in the room probably understand, that’s more for the folks online. Our panel today is going to talk about different perspectives, not so much on the policy side, but the way we approach it on PACE and how it relates to our goals. Also about how to engage with policy makers so that we can get PACE into more jurisdictions and hopefully continue to grow to market. Jon Powers: And then just a warning for our podcast listeners. This episode is significant longer than our normal episode. So make sure you budget your time appropriately. You can find more episodes at cleancapital.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Jon Powers: I want to start off with a special thanks to the organizers who put incredible work in to make this happen. We’re really excited about the conversation. Let’s get started. I’m going to ask each of the speakers to introduce themselves through a question as we’re talking on this versus just reading bios. Jon Powers: But I think for the folks in the room, our first speaker, Cisco, really needs no introduction. But he’s the CEO of Renew Financial. After growing up in the mountains near Yosemite National Park, where he raised pigs, goats and chickens, Cisco’s also a licensed pilot and I learned last night, the chairman of a little league baseball league, which is fantastic. Jon Powers: For those in the room, you know him as a key leader in the industry. So Cisco, you’ve seen the progression of PACE from being an idea on the back of a napkin to an industry that is growing quarter after quarter and thriving in a new way. For the folks in the audience, can you talk a little bit about that history, some perspective on the history and then why today? Why are things really starting to click now? Cisco: Well, thanks. First, it’s great to be here. It’s great to be on stage with these folks. It’s kind of a dream come true after a lot of years. I’m really honored to be here. There are parts of the PACE story that I only tell over beer. It’s a morning session here. Some of us probably had too much beer last night, so I will stick to some of the other parts. Cisco: But I was reminded yesterday, a California energy commissioner recently said PACE is the single most successful energy retrofit program in the history of the state of California. Well, it sounds great and I’m super proud to have been part of that, but it does make you go back and think about when that wasn’t the case. This really all started for me and for all of us with a hole in the ground. Cisco: Back when I was at the city of Berkeley, California, we were trying to help a neighborhood who was putting all their poles and wires underground, underground utility district. It’s about the most boring thing you can do in government is to dig a hole and put wires in it. That process of a neighbor choosing to do this voluntarily, of choosing how to pay for it, of the city making this an option to them, and then these homeowners taking assessments on it to pay for this project that they wanted to get done really got me thinking about how we could use that tool potentially to solve some other challenges. We have notably the climate and energy issue. Cisco: For me, a lot of this started around climate. That very, very beginning, I think kind of starts off the story of PACE and how we built on something. It’s really important then as we go through the years and I won’t go through the years, but to say, what- Jon Powers: Give us a few years. Cisco: What made PACE different from the beginning that made it possible to be here, that made it true, that all of us would be here from our different backgrounds and that an energy commissioner would say something serves big and bold like that. I think a couple of things. First, local government exists to solve problems. And as much as politics has become difficult, there’s a place where a lot of stuff still gets done. Day in and day out, people fill potholes and turn on lights and do these things. Cisco: I think local government’s are core to that, and it’s really not been the partisan place that a lot of other government. You’re allowed to kind of try new things. The second about this, that made PACE really important over the years the real difference, I think gets down to Palm Desert California. Cisco: My work in Berkeley started with the folks in Palm Desert, California to get going on at their own PACE program. In fact, Berkeley’s in Palm Desert started at about the same time. Palm Desert is as Conservative as Berkeley is liberal. It’s as hot as Berkeley as temperate. They’re literally accepted, they’re in the same state, they are nearly opposite places. But PACE solved a problem for them too, which was very high energy cost, particularly in the hot summers in the desert. Cisco: They used PACE… It was even more popular there than it was in Berkeley, where I don’t think anybody in Palm desert was thinking, “I’m trying to solve a climate problem there.” No, they were trying to solve a, “How’s my home going to be comfortable and not super expensive,” problem. And that notion that we’re just trying to solve a problem with PACE and that problem doesn’t have to be ideological, it’s really simpler than that is kind of… It seems simple. That’s a breakthrough, right? Cisco: The energy policy to sort of put aside the rest of the motivations and just focus on how we’re helping people solve a problem. That I think has been core to PACE all along. Giving people individual choice, not putting taxpayer dollars to work, helping them solve problems. In the end, behind the scenes, I feel like we’re making a real difference in climate. But that’s not what motivated a lot of folks to start programs or to do projects and I really feel like the history of PACE is about figuring out how to do that. Jon Powers: When this was starting, you were a champion in Berkeley making this happen? Was there a champion in Palm Desert that was driving this and were you guys communicating? Cisco: There was. It’s funny. I’m reminded a couple years later and this is one of those stories that probably shouldn’t be told out loud, but I went to Texas… They had an event and they wanted me to speak about PACE in Texas. This is probably 2009. It reminds me about Palm Desert because Palm Desert, amazing folks, great folks. I got to be friends with them. They cannot say out loud that Berkeley had anything to do with the beginning of this program. Cisco: When I went to Texas to give this talk, right before, there was like hundreds of people. And they’re like, “Okay, so what are you going to talk about?” I’m like, “Well, let’s talk about the Berkeley story.” And they’re like, “Shh! Yeah. Not so much on the Berkeley.” I’m like, “Well, it’s fine. California, there’s a lot of great stories.” And they’re like, “Maybe not so much on the California.” Cisco: I’m like, “This is going to be kind of a short conversation I guess, but all right.” My point on that is they’re great, they did amazing work, they figured out a bunch of stuff that I didn’t figure out. They didn’t want to talk about Berkeley. That’s fine. I think when Rick Perry signed PACE legislation in Texas, he didn’t want to talk about Berkeley either. That’s fine too. Because it was solving a problem and it really shouldn’t matter where it came from. It’s rare that we actually get past where things came from and actually just work on solving problems. I do think us, all taking a back seat to fame and glory and just letting people go out there and be a… There’s been fathers to a 1,000 PACE programs has been a huge help. Jon Powers: Yeah. Part of the reason I asked this and we’ll talk more about this in the conversation later is with PACE and local programs, many times I’ll have a local champion, but need advocates to come in and help build that support. And you need to build it in a way that messages to that community because Palm Desert’s messaging will be completely different than Berkeley’s messaging. Jon Powers: For Genevieve Sherman, she’s the head of New Markets and Partnership at Greenworks Lending. Genevieve decided to get into public private partnerships for financing sustainable infrastructure. After working at the planning department in South Africa’s Western region, I have a 1,000 questions about that, but we’re not going to go there and where she witnessed firsthand the tough investment decisions that governments face when building for climate change. Jon Powers: Going from South Africa, you ended up going to Connecticut, similar places. You started working at the Green Bank on the Commercial PACE program and it grew to be the fastest in the nation. Can you describe a little bit about commercial PACE, but also in your perspective from the Green Bank, how did you begin to implement this policy, overcome these challenges and then overcome the obstacles so that commercial customers begun to trust this new program and the C group. Genevieve Sherman: Yeah, absolutely. Well, since I’m sitting right next to Cisco, you all know that the Green Bank did not invent PACE or Commercial PACE by any stretch of imagination. We were one of the actually much later states to start a commercial PACE program. We always liked to say we had the 28th state advantage because there were a lot of early attempts and ideas that we had the opportunity to observe and say, “How can we improve on this?” Genevieve Sherman: But when we launched our program in 2012, there were several commercial PACE programs around the country. Most of them were focusing on trying to fund a first project. Commercial PACE was very much a sort of boutique, sort of esoteric, structured finance opportunity or option for a building owner. There were a lot of challenges on the credit underwriting and the capital markets side for, well, what is commercial PACE as a financial asset class and who really is going to use it and who really is going to buy it. Genevieve Sherman: The Connecticut green bank had a very interesting mission as a governmental agency, speaking of things that local government can do. We were tasked with trying to find new ways to bring private capital into infrastructure and buildings and to move away from subsidies and rebates. That was our goal and we needed to find ways to raise private capital and put it to work. When we looked at PACE on paper, we said, “Wow, this is a really great idea and this is a really great way to not spend taxpayer dollars and to not use our bonding capacity.” We really should be able to raise private capital into this structure. Genevieve Sherman: That was always our vision. We made some decisions to innovate on commercial PACE in a way that we thought could really start to scale of the market. There are a lot of different things we did, but I think there were three pretty important ones. Genevieve Sherman: The first is that we took PACE from a local program, from municipal to state. Which at the time was quite innovative. Connecticut is of course a small state. It’s probably the size of the bay area in California, but it is a state and it’s comprised of almost 200 individual tax collectors. We knew that we needed to simplify the public side of the public private partnership. We took a lot of the administrative burden, if you will, of operationalizing PACE, we took it away from the cities and we moved it to the level of the state and that made it much easier for municipalities to just kind of opt in but allow the economic development tool to sort of be made available without them having to staff it and put time and resources in. Jon Powers: That’s great. Genevieve Sherman: A second thing we did was we brought the mortgage banking industry to the table. This was really important for us. We wanted commercial banks in Connecticut, in particular, to actually get involved in the Connecticut green bank. We wanted them to put their capital to work in solar loans and solar leases and so on and so forth. We needed them to be supportive of commercial pay. And we found a way to do that through things like mandatory consent of mortgage lenders, non-acceleration of PACE loans, but non-extinguishment of PACE loans. Genevieve Sherman: We did some working out of what that product needed to look like and it made both the mortgage banks and the PACE investment community safer and more secure. And the last thing that we did was we started pooling commercial PACE loans. This was a big innovation, which is to say every commercial building has kind of its own special snowflake. Genevieve Sherman: Unlike homes where there are many standard metrics for credit underwriting for homes, there are databases, there are decades and decades of analysis on what is a safe bet in terms of investing in a home. That does not exist for the vast majority of commercial building types. We’re talking everything from churches, YMCAs, big shopping centers, little strip centers, office buildings, hotels. We needed to start bringing all of these commercial properties together in a portfolio approach. That was really the beginning of, I think the capital markets and investment community, having an opportunity to kind of look under the hood of what a portfolio Commercial PACE asset looks like. I think the industry really took off from that point. Jon Powers: Is that what led that work? Your partners at Greenworks lending and you guys spun out of the Green Bank. Talk a little bit about that process and what motivated you to do that? Genevieve Sherman: Yeah, absolutely. We spun out a company. It’s called Greenworks Lending in 2015. It really sort of got going in 2016, but we had seen the Connecticut PACE program really rapidly kind of start to grow. I know some of the Green Bank folks are the audience, so I hope I get these numbers right still. But I think we did about $30 million in just our first year of operations. Genevieve Sherman: That quickly grew to about a hundred million dollars after the second year of operations. When we looked at what our strengths were, but what the limits to growth were, we sort of added up those columns. There was more in the limits to growth than there was in our advantages being in a small public interest bank. We knew that in order to really scale up and scale out, we had to spin out this company. Genevieve Sherman: But we very much we’re able to incubate this idea within a public agency and that is quite unique. But we’ve replicated many of the strategies I’ve just mentioned on the capital market side within Greenworks and we’ve been fortunate but also we’re very happy to see many of the states that have now either sort of rejiggered their PACE programs are started new ones, they have replicated in their own way, in their own local way a lot of the features of the Connecticut program. So not every state has a Green Bank, but many states have made an effort to have a statewide program or it to be standardized for there to be a single low cost administrator and to basically open up a commercial PACE sort of marketplace in the way that Connecticut was able to do. Genevieve Sherman: That has helped Greenworks with its mission of scaling up and scaling out the lending side of commercial PACE. Jon Powers: Yeah. It definitely brings efficiency through the whole process, right? Our next two speakers, I met for the first time in Washington D.C. I was invited to speak to a group of young Conservatives who have come to Washington to talk about clean energy and climate change. And I wanted to speak about my background was in the military and what we were doing in the military for clean energy. Jon Powers: I was absolutely blown away by the sorry for the pun, but the energy in the room of these group of Conservatives, who for me I had never envisioned were coming in to be champions and I was completely wrong because of the leadership of the next two speakers. Jon Powers: I’m going to start off with Michele Combs, who’s the founder and president of Young Conservatives for Energy Reform. Who would’ve thought that a very Conservative Republican girl from South Carolina who worked for the late Senator Strom Thurman, Lee Atwater and former president George W. Bush, would be heading up a group of young Conservatives advocating for clean energy. And especially at the time of such partisan divide here in our country, we’re now beginning to see, see something like clean energy or PACE, help bridge the divide. So Michele, can you talk a little bit about what makes you a believer and why you found this organization and what you are all doing for the community? Michele Combs: Sure. Thank you so much for inviting me here today. I’m thrilled to be here and learn more about PACE. The more I learn about it, the more I like the system. I have a personal story, growing up in South Carolina, very involved with Republican party, former state chairman of the young Republicans there and clean energy never really… Michele Combs: I think it was because it was so partisan and the messengers at the time. When I was pregnant, like the women in the rooms that have children, you cannot eat fish when you’re pregnant. I went to my doctor and I said, “Well, why can’t I eat fish?” And they said, “Because of the mercury.” I said, “Well, where did some mercury come from?” And I found out that it comes from coal fired plants that are all over the country. And I’m like, “I cannot believe as a Conservative family valued person that we’re not more involved with clean energy.” Michele Combs: I started talking to some of my concerted friends and they said, “That’s a liberal issue.” And I said, “No, it’s not. It’s a family issue.” So I decided to talk to a hero of mine who is also my Senator, Senator Lindsay Graham. We went to see Senator Graham and we talked to him about clean energy and he loved it. He said, “Yes, this is something we need to work on. And I am behind you 100% and I will work with you.” My mother, who is the National President of the Christian Coalition also got involved with this issue. So we started partnering with other groups around the country and started working on clean energy. Michele Combs: As I went around the country, I realized that the young Conservatives of this country really get it. They grew up with the renewables. They grew up recycling. They grew up with not the stigmas that the older Conservatives. I know from being grassroots all my life, the way you get things done is you have to organize. I organize grassroots, organize the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform. We have state chairman all around the country and we work with state legislatures, we work with the federal level and we’re really turning not just legislation, but we’re turning the minds of people in the Republican Party and the Conservatives. So I’m so excited to be here and to be a part of this and just see this is part of we’re… I feel like we’re all on the journey together. Jon Powers: Michele, for the audience who come from a lot of those 50 different states, how do they engage with those organizers in those states and maybe help educate them on what they’re doing in their estate about PACE. Michele Combs: How does my group… Jon Powers: How can some of the audience engage your group? Michele Combs: We’re organized in each state. We have about actually about 35 states organized now. We have state chairmen. And what we do is we work with the local min municipalities. We work on the State House level. Last year, we worked with solar legislation in Nevada, we’re working with solar legislation today, as a matter of fact, right now in South Carolina. We work with different clean energy legislation all over. Michele Combs: If you want to get… We have a very active website and we can get you involved with those people so you can work on a state level, because the young people, like John said, they’re excited, they’re motivated. We took a poll last year. We pulled a thousand young Conservatives from around the country and they actually see this as a value issue, which is very exciting to me because I grew up with the family issues and the marriage issue. But they see this as the new value issue of the young Conservatives. Jon Powers: What’s the website? Michele Combs: It’s yc4er.org. Jon Powers: Yc4er.org. Michele Combs: .org. Jon Powers: Gotcha. Michele Combs: Yes. Jon Powers: That’s great to hear by the way. I got into this issue as an Iraq veteran and there got interested in the ideas of energy security and climate change through that national security lens. There are now thousands of veterans across the country who engage in these issues. The same thing, they see it as a value, they see it as a mission for them to continue. Jon Powers: I feel because we can begin to communicate more with those stories and locally we can drive these critical policies forward to get hopefully the growth we need in the renewable space. Next I want to talk to Keith and Keith, I make sure I get your last name right. But it’s Keith den Hollander, right? Keith den Hollander: Right. Jon Powers: All right. Who is with the Christian Coalition. Keith grew up working on his grandparents’ farm outside of New Jersey in the border of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. His mom was one of eight. His dad was one of 12. I imagine the holidays were pretty crazy. Keith den Hollander: Just a little bit. Jon Powers: So talk for a little bit about your experience growing up that got you interested in this space. The Christian Coalition is not a group that many in the audience would traditionally tie to being clean energy advocates. Can you talk about the progression of the organization and this thinking and how we get to a place where today they’re really helping to lead the fight? Keith den Hollander: Absolutely. Again, thank you for having me here. It’s great to be here, as Michele said, learning more about PACE and learning more of the details. I did grow up in a big family. Energy efficiency came natural to us because I was one of seven children. So we had a household of nine. My parents decided to carry on the tradition of their parents and have a big family. I grew up in New Jersey and if you’re from that area, you know the cost of living there. Raising a family of nine. My dad wanted to send us all to private school. We had two choices, energy efficiency or summer vacation. Keith den Hollander: If we weren’t efficient with our energy, we weren’t going on vacation that summer because it just wasn’t going to be affordable. I had half the equation down already. I didn’t have the clean energy aspect of it, but the efficiency side, my dad would follow us around the house and turn off lights and close windows that we left open and things that we weren’t doing that we should have been doing. Keith den Hollander: I also watched as people like my grandparents tried to make a go of farming in a time when it was harder and harder to be a farmer. I saw projects like wind farms come in and provide lease options to people to be able to lease their land. And so clean energy was creating opportunities as well for people to be involved in their farming business for a longer time than they would otherwise be able to do. Fast forward to when I moved to Michigan, after I got out of high school and I spent eight years owning an insurance agency. Keith den Hollander: So I was in the risk mitigation field. We did all of it, property, casualty, health, life. I was used to people trying to limit their risk. And about five years ago, I decided to get out of the insurance business because I wanted to move. And insurance is very local. If you move your customers, aren’t going to follow you hours away. And so I decided to leave the insurance business and I responded to an ad from the Christian Coalition that they were looking for a state director for the state of Michigan. And I met Michele’s mother, Roberta, who’s just a wonderful woman and a wonderful mentor and a real visionary. I interviewed and long story short, I got the job as a state director and Roberta said to me, “I want you to work on clean energy policy.” Keith den Hollander: I was completely confused. “What do you mean? That’s what you’re looking for a state director, to work on clean energy?” And she said, “Yeah, let me tell you about why.” And she started talking about national security and she started talking about health implications and she started talking to me about the economics of what clean energy could mean for our country, hedging against fluctuating fossil fuel costs and the more she talked to me about it, the more it made perfect sense. I really was able to catch her vision and say, “Yeah, this makes sense.” Keith den Hollander: We started out working on state policy, trying to increase Michigan’s portfolio standard from 10% to 15%, increasing our energy efficiency standards and doing it in a state that had a Republican governor, a Republican legislature completely controlled by Republican rule. This was something that, to my knowledge had never been done before. Keith den Hollander: John was talking about, about the military aspect of this. I met with an admiral named Lee Gunn and he came in to speak about clean energy. He said something to me that really resonated with me. He said, “I want you to think about the Kuwait war. We went over there. They cut off 4 million barrels of oil a day. The price of gasoline in the United States doubled. Gasoline’s a globally traded commodity. And we can’t control the price here. Even though we have plenty of it, we can’t control the price because when there’s disruption in the rest of the world, it affects our prices here.” He said, “Imagine what would happen if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz and cut off 16 million barrels a day and suddenly the price of gasoline went not double, but four times. Our entire United States economy would collapse within 30 days, according to the Military Advisory Board’s risk assessment.” Keith den Hollander: He said, “The only way we get out from under that is to make ourselves less dependent on globally traded resources like that. As we have more electric vehicles, as things like that, we’re not going to be so dependent on this.” And he took it a step further and he explained to me how that was going to impact our energy markets going forward on the electricity side. Coal plants are closing all across the country. No utility will tell you they’re looking to open new coal plants today. Keith den Hollander: It’s just not feasible. We’re replacing almost all of them with natural gas plants, nuclear plants are struggling in a lot of places. There are organizations that have permits to build new nuclear and are not doing it because it’s not cost effective. We’re left with two options. We have natural gas plants and we have renewables. Keith den Hollander: Well, natural gas is not globally priced today, but I believe it was the last year of the Obama administration we opened that up and said it was allowed to be exported, but our ports still aren’t ready to export. We’re retrofitting our ports to be able to export and I’m sorry if many of you know this or not and I didn’t know this at the time. And it really touched me as I listened to it. Keith den Hollander: Once these ports are retrofitted and we can start exporting our natural gas, that’s going to be a commodity that’s going to become globally priced as well. I started looking at the prices here in United States compared to the prices around the world. If you look on FERC’s website, the landed price for natural gas in January was somewhere around 2.78, I think. When I looked at what it was in Belgium, it was $10 and 80-something cents. Keith den Hollander: There’s a huge disparity between what we pay and what everyone else in the rest of the world was paying. Canada was the closest and they were seven and something. And so I thought, well, once we start trading, this what’s going to happen? We’re not probably going to go to 10. But what happens if we go from $2 and 70 some cents to $5 or $6? That’s a doubling of the price of natural gas. If we’ve closed our coal plants and we’re left dependent on natural gas, everyone’s electric bill doubles too. Who can afford that? There’s enough people struggling to pay their utilities as it is today. Keith den Hollander: It’s important that we address this now, we don’t wait until down the road when that happens, because it’s going to take time to increase our use of renewables. We’ve got to build wind farms. We’ve got to build utility scale solar. We’ve got to put in residential solar, we’ve got all these projects to do, we’ve got to increase efficiency so we use less. So our demand is less. All these things to protect the American people from this burden that’s going to come on them if the price of natural gas were to increase that way. And so I realized it was a hedge. It fit right in with that hedging our risk that came from the insurance world. Keith den Hollander: This is a way for us to hedge against those rising costs by using domestically controlled energy. And then when you look deeper into it, I saw the jobs that came with it. Local communities when they put up a wind farm and all the people who were taking the leases that they were signing, taking that money and going and spending it in their local community. Keith den Hollander: I saw the solar projects doing the same thing, leasing land. I saw people becoming energy independent and that’s a very Conservative principle. Conservatives by nature tend to want greater independence. It fit very well with our Christian coalition member base to want to be energy independent. In order to make that a reality, we needed a fair system. Net metering suddenly came into play and then I learned about PACE and how PACE was putting these tools into the hands of everybody. Keith den Hollander: I thought, “This is really cool.” It’s been a journey for me. I spent two years in the state of Michigan. We did get the RPS increased from 10% to 15% through a Republican legislature and a Republican governor. We increased our energy efficiency requirements as well, so we have a combined goal of 35% now for the state by, I believe it’s 2021. Keith den Hollander: After two years as a State Director, I became the regional director for the Midwest. And then this year I became the National Field Director. So now we’re taking this program all over the country. We have programs in many states, we’re working on similar issues as well. Jon Powers: That’s amazing. Quick round of applause. That’s awesome. Now, that you’re a national field director, you can do it in all 50 states. Just get it done, right. For folks that don’t know, Keith mentioned the MAV, the Military Advisory Board, the Military Advisory Board is a group of retired four-star admirals in general is that now for well over a decade have been putting out some really fascinating thought leadership on climate change and energy security. It actually built into the Pentagon, the momentum for them to do significant programs to put in place. For instance, the Army, Navy and Air Force all have one gigawatt, renewable energy goals each. Not total, each. That many are on track to achieve through third party, long term financing. Jon Powers: But many in the federal space or more importantly, this current administration, the federal policy around clean energy is not as friendly or I would even argue right now is not really totally defined. It’s changing sort of regularly with the president, but also you’ve got Dr. Perry who in Texas signed PACE legislation, could be a champion on this, but at the same time is bringing coal empowering policies to try to get for it to change. Jon Powers: So it’s a really interesting time at the federal space, but it’s also a really interesting time for the industry as a whole, because we’ve matured, financing is coming in whole different buckets now that 10 years ago would not exist because people didn’t know if solar panels even worked or what energy efficiency was. Jon Powers: Cisco, can you talk a little bit about the role in energy financing to help accelerate the country’s position to increase renewables, increasing energy efficiency, but also maybe in specifically on the federal level, what the uncertainty of the policy footprint does for that and what’s the role of the financing community to maybe even change that? Cisco: Great. Yeah. A lot’s there. One of the things that’s great about this, when I first started off on it, I convinced the mayor we should work on this is, but we don’t have any money. Whatever you do, you’ve got to find other money. Immediately, there was this notion that we needed private capital, but then I needed some money to even figure out how to do it. So I wrote a grant proposal to the then George W. Bush EPA. They were, I believe the first, if not maybe the second, there were only two grants that came to get that first program working, going. Cisco: So from the very beginning, we had some national sponsorship and assistance from a Republican administration to try and figure out how this tool could work. That, I think, set on a really nice precedent. Hopefully we’ll continue that in the Trump administration, as they sort of settle into things. Cisco: But regardless there was this notion, there is not enough government money. Whether you’re at a city or a state or federal government, the change. Yesterday, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the retrofit of our housing stock, which is a crumbling infrastructure, if there ever was one, in order to be more energy efficient, to create energy independence, it’s going to take trillions of dollars. There isn’t any possible scenario in which the government provides that money. Cisco: The only way that works is if the private sector and private finance come in, in a public private partnership fully privately to help people make these changes. A lot of what we’re trying to do with PACE now is to say that for 100 years, billions of dollars of low cost capital went to build utility infrastructure. Cisco: We now need to take some of those trillions of dollars and move it towards individual homes, individual businesses, individuals making choices to do infrastructure there. Because a lot of the infrastructure needs right now are back at the end of the grid and we’re going to need the same large scale capital, low cost capital sources that built the grid to now build out the edge of it so that it is energy independent. Cisco: I think when you look then at where… There’s only one place where that capital comes from and you can like it or dislike it or we can talk about the financial crisis of the past, but ultimately it’s in Wall street. That is where that capital exists. A lot of what I did when I left the city to start Renew Financial was to figure out how do we connect that large scale, low cost capital into this market where it is so desperately needed and has never before. Cisco: I think again, the big part of the last 10 years has been the success we’ve had in getting that done. And in general, how the industry has now really made that connection. I’m very excited about what private capital can do. I’m also certain that without it, we can’t be successful. And then at the very end of that train, there’s homeowners making individual choices about what to do. I think that’s that individual choice, empowered by their local government, but funded by private sector capital is the best thing that we have going. Jon Powers: When I was at the White House, we launched a public private partnership program with the ESCOs and did over 6 billion in energy performance contract. Same idea. We did no upfront capital, we used private capital to do it. Jon Powers: We actually received a letter from 163 members of Congress, mostly Republicans. Your friend Lindsay Graham was on there. It was the most successful thing from the Obama administration that we had done from a bipartisan perspective, because we were going at an achieving goals, partnering with the public sector, actively bringing down our energy use in the public sector. Cisco: Exactly. I think we need to get back to that. What this panel says, if nothing else, is that these solutions do not have to have a partisan thing to them. And so as we look now at a very partisan, we say, “What can we as PACE do?” And the first is we’ve got to support PACE in Washington through Congress. There’ve been a lot of great bipartisan support in the house and the Senate side for this effort and I think that’s been very successful, as we’ve had some difficulties with mortgage bankers and others. Cisco: But the other part of that then is it kind of… PACE provides an immunity from federal policy. Not totally, but it really says look, regardless of what is happening there today, we can still empower local folks, communities to make choices that are going to make their home safer to make their energy more energy independent, to save energy, do something for the climate, do something for the environment. Cisco: Those things… PACE is one of those ones that can run, even if we’re not having for what I would consider a very helpful federal policy frame on these issues today. It can continue. And I think that’s one of the great things about us all being here is that it didn’t change. PACE continued to grow even as the things in Washington changed. I think we’re also providing an example that hopefully they can get behind and we can move past some of the partisan gridlock. Jon Powers: It, it’s not like it’s smooth sailing. There is an anti-PACE effort being led by folks that as an industry, we have to fight to overcome both at the federal level. But as you mentioned most of the clean energy fights today are moving to the state level because whether it be on RPSs, on PACE, on the Green Banks, on net metering, all these different policies are becoming state level fights. Jon Powers: I think which is exciting for the industry, but it makes the role of many of you in the audience that much more important. So you can engage folks at the state level and tell your stories. Genevieve, you were at that state level in Connecticut and now you’re working across a variety of them right now. Jon Powers: Can you talk a little bit about how to engage those states? Sort of the roles in the states? And then we’re also going to talk with Genevieve and Keith about how to go in and specifically start to message towards those more Conservative states and how do we bring those conversations forward? Genevieve Sherman: Yeah, sure. Well, certainly on the political side, Keith has a great deal of experience with these state battles, but I think that the major challenges at the state level always are trying to make sure that we have all of the tools that all of the different stakeholders need all at the same time. Genevieve Sherman: When changes are made like increasing in RPS or if there is a PACE law that has passed, I know we have some folks on the real estate side here, there are mandatory benchmarking and disclosure laws that are becoming more popular now from the city level that’s moving up to the state. Everyone is impacted by these changes at the state level. That could be the utility sector, real estate, labor and so on and so forth. Genevieve Sherman: What is so critical is to remember why. Why we are creating these new laws, why we’re increasing RPSs and so on and so forth. Cisco and Keith spoke so eloquently about those reasons. What can be a challenge on the political front is when you get one thing to move, but then you don’t get the other pieces of the puzzle you need to make sure that everyone is empowered to still sort of have economic prosperity out of these changes. Genevieve Sherman: As we transition our infrastructure, our energy infrastructure, also our buildings to be more energy efficient, to be more water efficient, to have renewable energy, we want to make sure that everyone is a winner and that there are not winners and losers. It’s really important to try to bring everyone along together. What I’ve seen with PACE, I’ve been involved in supporting lobbying efforts. We support legislators, we support stakeholder groups when they’re getting PACE legislation pulled together is PACE is one of the very few state level policies that really does create winners across all sectors of the economy. Genevieve Sherman: Because it’s going to open up the opportunity for financial institutions to lend money and to a great extent that is Wall Street, but increasingly that is local banking institutions and main street banks when they’re getting involved in PACE, it opens up opportunity for workers. They now just have more financial resources to sell the products and services that they’re out there doing already. Genevieve Sherman: It just makes it easier for them to renovate our buildings. It creates more options for commercial property owners and managers and it creates a new tool for economic development for local governments. It really is this kind of like win, win, win, win, win and it is very complimentary to other state initiatives or policies that might be happening more at the sort of utility energy sector. Jon Powers: What more can the industry now that it’s maturing and growing do to drive those, I think critical conversations and fights and education at that level. Genevieve Sherman: Each state is a little different. These fights are happening in different places, but I think actually a lot of it gets to the utility sector. It actually is not so much at the local level. We have to figure out how to really transform our entire electricity infrastructure and transit infrastructure to new technologies. That is very much a question of a new business model for everyone involved, for utility companies, for energy generation companies, both natural gas plants, solar farms, wind farms and for the companies that own the wires and deliver us all the energy and the buildings. The people, to Cisco’s point, that are at the end of the circuit who are part of that infrastructure. Genevieve Sherman: What is really going to drive this change in my opinion, is if everyone can kind of look at the end result. I think there are certain states that are much further along in that, for example, California, New York state in saying, “Well, if we could all look 50 years into the future, what would that actually look like?” It involves our existing grid, but it would be renovated. We would have more real time data and analytics and security infrastructure on our existing grid. Genevieve Sherman: Our grid would be plugged into new sources of energy, not just large solar farms, but also solar on homes. We would have real time information and new businesses entrepreneurs sort of growing up and jumping onto this grid and saying, well, we can provide services and we can add choice for consumers. I think there are a couple of states that have looked at that future and then they’ve tried to back out of it and say, “Well, what is the investment? What is the capital investment required to get us there? What information about our grid do we need? What do we need consumers to know so that they can make informed choices about what energy they’re purchasing and so on and so forth?” Genevieve Sherman: The laws that are getting us there are cobbled together. It’s a combination of renewable portfolio standards requiring utilities to actually map our grid infrastructure. So we all know what’s actually there so we can all plug in and do what is most economically efficient to bring us to that future. Those are the types of laws we’re going to have to see passed, but most states are kind of inching their way toward it because of the political realities of sort of who’s winning and who’s losing. So you’ve got to kind of get an inch here and there until you build it up. Jon Powers: A lot of folks today, much smarter than I have compared to what’s happening and to the power delivery system to what’s happened to the telecommunications in the 1990s, when we went from to distributed cell towers, to the smartphones we have in our pockets today. That was driven a lot by federal legislation. Jon Powers: There was a Telecommunications Act that broke up the and started that. We were not going to see that come out of Congress no matter what party is in charge for a long time, I think because of the stakeholders, which makes those state level fights that much more important. Jon Powers: Keith you’re really helping to engage at those state level fights. One of the things you’ve done, the Christian Coalition did was help to lead a fight against an anti-PACE initiative by ALEC. And for folks that don’t know ALEC, ALEC is the American Legislative Exchange Council, it’s mostly a Conservative group of policy makers around the country. They come together pretty regularly. ALEC has been known for really putting together framework, legislation that you’ll see pop up state after state, after state, because they get their policy makers and local legislators involved, educated and then literally take those documents and go and file them at the state level. The fact that the Christian Coalition led a fight to stop an anti-PACE initiative was significant there. Can you talk a little bit about how you did that? Keith den Hollander: I think like with any fight, ultimately the fight comes down to relationships, right? It’s got to be relationships. And the work that we’ve done across the states, working on clean energy policy, educating lawmakers really was the fertile ground that we sowed to be able to defeat that effort at ALEC. Keith den Hollander: We’re actually not members of ALEC. We were able to get in as a guest under someone else’s membership. It’s fairly expensive to become a member of ALEC. Nonprofits have a little bit better rate, but if you go to every meeting, you attend everything, you’re going to spend $30,000-$40,000 a year being a member of ALEC going to these meetings. Jon Powers: What does the membership gain to folks that are- Keith den Hollander: Voting privileges. Once you become a member… So membership allows you to attend the meeting. But if you actually want to sit on a committee, you have to also pay to join the committee. I want to say to become a nonprofit member, it’s maybe 3,500 a year and then for each committee, you want to sit on, it’s an additional $5,000 to have someone sit on that committee. So you can spend significant amount of money joining committees to be able to have a vote. Keith den Hollander: The committees are made up of a combination of lawmakers and public sector companies and individuals. If you want to have a vote on that committee, you have to join. And the resolutions come up before the committee, the committee either adopts them or doesn’t adopt them. And then it gets sent out to their committee as a whole. So we learned that this resolution was kind of circulating through three different committees, tax committee, energy committee, and one other, I don’t remember the other committee that was involved and that it was an attempt to basically condemn PACE and suggest that states back out of their approval of PACE and go in the opposite direction. Jon Powers: Do you have a sense of, if you could say, who was behind that, driving that from a stakeholder perspective? Keith den Hollander: My understanding from folks that were there was that the Edison Institute was quite involved and some other similar organizations were kind of leading that battle. We decided to actually go to this ALEC meeting, found a way to get invited and attend as someone’s guest. We started working the relationships we had built with the lawmakers there. We didn’t need all of them. We just needed enough to stop the measure. The way a measure works in committee is it has to pass both the legislator vote and the public sector vote. Keith den Hollander: There’s two votes taken. One of the private companies, one of the legislators and it has to pass both. We had a decent showing among the companies that were there. There was a decent number that had committed that they were opposed to this, but we were concerned about the legislators. Keith den Hollander: We started circulating amongst the legislators on the committee, speaking with them saying, “Hey, remember we talked to you about clean energy. Remember why clean energy’s such a good idea. Remember, this is no longer a right versus left issue. It’s a right versus wrong issue.” This is something that you need to support because this is creating greater access for people in your state to those clean energy resources they need. And if you fight this, you’re going to be moving in the wrong direction. You’re moving backwards from what your constituents want. Our polling within the Christian Coalition shows consistently 70 to 80% for more clean energy amongst our members. Keith den Hollander: The Young Conservatives, it’s the same thing. Michele was speaking about the results there, how supportive they are. You’re going to get on the wrong side of your constituents if you go down this road. It wasn’t that we were there giving them technical details to say, “Let us tell you all about how the intricate workings of PACE work and why you should continue to embrace it.” Keith den Hollander: It was the relationships that had been built and the understanding that there’s trust. I think that’s the important lesson learned is that you can have all the knowledge, you can have facts on your side, you can have fact sheets. When you get down to a vote, you already have to have the relationship built. You can’t wait until there’s somebody trying to attack what you’re doing to build the relationship and trying and say, “Okay, I’m coming in now. I’ve got all these facts for you. I’m going to hand you this fact sheet. You should look at this and this should convince you that you need to change your mind.” Keith den Hollander: You need to have built those relationships over the years and you need to have built them personally, so that when you go as an individual and you ask that legislator, “Don’t vote for this.” They go, “Okay. I know you, I trust you. I’ve met you before. Your information you’ve given me in the past has been good.” And so it was really all relationships and having the right messenger there. There were clean energy companies, there were several wind developers who were fighting. There were several companies that are represented here that were there fighting the battle. But you have to have the right messenger. That was I think the key takeaway in that battle was when the right messenger’s there to deliver the message, you can achieve the desired outcome. Jon Powers: Yeah. That’s interesting. Michele, I want to come back to you for a second for a question. I’m going to open it up to the audience, I think after this question. So if you’ve got one, please think about it. I know there’s going to be mics circulating the room, but before my question to Michele and Michele, I’m deviating a little from the script here, so I’m just warning you. Raise your hand if you’ve been to a meeting with your local legislator. Jon Powers: So for the folks who are listening to podcasts, about 40% of the room maybe. If there’s anything to take away from this panel today, it’s the need for us as the industry to go have these conversations and to engage through groups like PACENation to help those dialogues. Because as Keith just said, it’s those relationships when things get hot that make the difference and help drive. Jon Powers: Michele, with that in mind you guys are working, as you said in states all over the country. Can you talk a little bit about how folks that are engaging with perhaps a Conservative lawmaker that may not be as familiar with issues, how would they go in and have that conversation? What’s sort of the messaging that you have found that works in those dialogues? Michele Combs: Well, I agree with Keith. I think it’s the building the relationships, but it’s also the messenger. I think it’s a lack of knowledge to these legislators. What we do is we go in and we talk about clean energy and we talk about how important it is. It’s amazing though, especially when we’re on Capitol Hill, that when we go in and see the Republican legislators, they’re so excited that we’re there. They’re so excited that they’re talking about clean energy. Michele Combs: I think that they really like our group because we give them the cover. Like these maybe hard right Conservatives can’t really criticize them because they’re partnering with us. So when we go on the state level, we normally have a certain bill and we talk about the certain bill. For example, we went in last year to Nevada and talked about net metering. Michele Combs: Net metering is such a win-win, especially for the state of Nevada, but because of the utility companies and what the argument that they were giving, they were a little confused. So once we went in and talked about how it’s saving consumers, all this money, which are your constituents, which will help you. I think we go in from the savings part. Michele Combs: And we also use, I think the national security issue a lot. We bring in generals and admirals when we go into different states and start talking about what Keith was talking about, about what’s happening in the Middle East and sort of ease into this country. And our generals always says that the military wants to be faster, more efficient, safer. Michele Combs: I think that’s sort of a way to… Even the hardened, the real far right Conservatives. There was a story I have to tell you all we were at a Christian coalition meeting and there was a climatologist there, a Republican climatologist who was talking about climate change. Afterwards, he came up to this climatologist and he said I always thought this was a democratic conspiracy until I heard it from you. There really is a messenger problem in this country and I think that’s what we are trying to ease the part on the Republican side and on the Conservatives, that this is not a left right issue. This is not a Conservative liberal issue. This is an American issue. That’s what we’re really trying to do. And this is a family issue. Jon Powers: That’s awesome. You may not be comfortable talking about a specific bill. You may not know what the Senate bill, whatever is, but I think when you work with advocacy groups, they’ll go in and be the experts. It’s your stories that make the biggest difference, especially if you live locally within that district. It’s really how you connect with the lawmakers. Jon Powers: I just want to open it up quickly before… I’ve got other questions, but I would want to get the audience a chance to ask and please use the mic, because we are recording this as part of the podcast. Please introduce yourself. Any questions out there. Can we get a mic over here. Thank you. Paul Schwab: This question is to Michele and Keith. Thank you so much. I really appreciated your perspective. My name’s Paul Schwab. I work here at the National Renewable Energy, Colorado from the Republican side. I was curious how… I’ve a lot of perhaps the Tea Party side of the Republican party is very interested in some clean energy policies and that it’s freedom of choosing provider. How does your experiences within the Republican party fit, like Tea Party constituents. Is it primarily Tea Party constituents that are interested in clean energy or is it broader than just that sort of side of the Republican party? What are your experiences with that? Michele Combs: For me… I’ve heard… You’re talking about the Tea Party is what you’re- Paul Schwab: Yeah, Florida in particular. Michele Combs: Yeah, there was a group, I think a green Tea Party or something, but we work with all the groups. We work with just Republicans all around the country and different legislators, but that’s great, what they’re doing, the energy freedom. But we have done similar things all around the country. We welcome any group that wants to work with the Conservatives. Jon Powers: And I think what you’re asking, was it limited to the Tea Party? I think Michele you’re saying it’s sort of across the whole spectrum. Michele Combs: Yes, yes they are. I know that they’re in Florida or Georgia, but there are groups like that all over the country now that are partnering with us and with the Christian Coalition in different groups. Jon Powers: I think Michele maybe undersold us earlier when she talked about the net metering bill in Nevada. Her group was incredibly critical to overturning what was a terrible policy in Nevada and could have handcuffed solar growth there for decades. So the leadership that you all showed in those conversations, I think helped continue the growth that we’re seeing in that state. Michele Combs: Thank you. Jon Powers: Other audience questions before up front here? Stephanie Mah: Good morning, Stephanie Mah from Morningstar Credit Ratings. Thank you for a great podcast this morning. My question is, I’m curious to hear what the panelists think of Senate bill 2155 that was passed by the House, the Senate last week, which is proposing to include a provision to have PACE fall under the Truth and Lending Act. Jon Powers: Can anyone explain that? Cisco: I’ll take a crack at it. Last year, there was a bill introduced by Senator Cotton of Arkansas that would’ve probably pretty much killed all PACE programs. It may not have been the intent, but that was certainly what it would’ve done. That bill didn’t go anywhere. But as the Senate banking reform bill started to move, there’s been a discussion about whether there should be a component in there to bring some level of federal oversight to PACE. It’s sort of interesting because what you found then is this debate where there’s some more Conservatives who are asking for the CFPB to be regulating a state financing program and Democrats who are like, “Whoa, too much!” Cisco: That’s a overlook of federal overreach there guys. There was a little bit of irony which everybody enjoyed, but there was a lot of good discussion among senators and Senate staff on both sides of the aisle. At the end of it, what came out of it was legislation, which we can support. I can’t speak to the broader bill. I can only, this one little piece. Cisco: Which says one of the issues with PACE that people want to see some consistent standards is just making sure that we are consistently measuring people’s ability to repay a PACE obligation. That has been passed as part of the California legislation. The notion in the bill is that the CFPB should come up with some rules, ultimately that would create kind of an ability to pay rule for the country. Cisco: There’s a lot of complications, PACE, different laws in different states work very differently for PACE. It’s not a place where a large federal presence would actually probably work, but there are certain really key places where there could be some productive level setting. Cisco: This bill is moving forward. It does have language that the industry is supportive of, comfortable with and we’ll see whether it gets going. But I think it was one of those great examples of a bunch of debate, kind of, unfortunately, the last minute, where in the end, Senator Bennett was a great advocate of getting this done, came together, came up with Senator Warner with some good language. Everybody said, “Okay, let’s go forward together.” I was proud that we could have been a participant in that discussion and that we got to at least, a reasonably good outcome. Jon Powers: What were the forces behind Cotton’s initiative? Cisco: It is always easy to sort of ascribe motives to people. I don’t know. PACE is not particularly active in Arkansas. There’s no residential PACE at all in Arkansas. So this wasn’t coming from somebody who had a problem in Arkansas. The mortgage bankers have certainly claimed credit for it. I would go ahead and give them the credit for getting that more introduced. Cisco: I think in the end, the focus that the mortgage brought to it is pretty one sided there. There’s a disruption happening in industry in general and they’re not sure which way that’s going and that makes them concerned. But because you’ve got folks in political office who understand PACE, who are fighting for it and who are persuasive, in the end, we’ve got somewhere that we can all agree on. Jon Powers: I think we’ve got time for one more question, but before I open it up, if there aren’t any more questions, just a warning to the speakers. I’m going to start with Keith and work down for any final comments. Any questions out there? All right. With that in mind, Keith, any lessons you want to share or thoughts, final thoughts? Keith den Hollander: I think as you consider building relationships, sometimes you can be the messenger, but it can be valuable to have a validator with you. That’s a role that we’ve played across the country for a lot of different organizations where they’ve said we have a relationship, but at the end of the day, clean energy for years has been relatively partisan. Not necessarily clean energy as an industry, but clean energy as a movement, the environmental side of it, the organizations that have supported clean energy. Keith den Hollander: If you look back at groups like The League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, some of these groups that have typically fought for clean energy policies, they’ve also been out there attacking legislators on the right for years for not being supportive. Just because they can come and speak knowledgeably about the issue, it doesn’t mean that the legislator’s opinion of everything they’ve ever said about them over the years is going to change. Keith den Hollander: Sometimes those of you who work in the industry get painted with the brush of those in the activist space who have created some of those negative opinions. Sometimes it’s valuable as an industry person to say, “I’m going to take a validator with me.” Who’s going to say… I’ve done this with a solar company. I won’t mention their name because I didn’t ask them if we could, but we’ve worked with them and they wanted to have some meetings with legislators and asked us if we could come in and sit down with them with the legislators. We just were there not to provide technical knowledge. We were there to provide a validator role. Keith den Hollander: We were there to say, “We’ve worked with these guys. They’re great. We’ve seen what they’re doing in the community. We’ve seen the projects they’re working on. They’re good actors, they’re doing a great job and they’re really bringing value.” And just the fact that we were there with them provided the validation that the legislator needed to feel comfortable saying, “Okay, I can support.” Keith den Hollander: This because their natural mindset, otherwise would’ve been to validate them with one of the groups that used to attack them or was still attacking them. When you think about advocating for your own interests in this field, think about who has advocated for those interests in the past and the kind of taste they may have left in people’s mouth and how that might reflect on you and think about what you can do to change that by bringing in a new voice or a new validator who doesn’t have that same stigma attached when working with a legislator on the Conservative side of the aisle or working even with grassroots to help educate them. Jon Powers: Thank you, Michele. Michele Combs: I second everything Kieth said. I look forward to working with you guys around the country. I look forward to, if you guys want to work with our state chairman. I like the idea of PACE because it is non-discriminatory, it’s not a left, it’s not a right, it’s not a Republican or a Democrat it’s available to everyone and I think that’s great. And I think that’s very appealing to people across the country. I look forward to working with you guys. Cisco: One it’s been, it’s great having this conversation. I can’t tell you much I enjoy the fact that we’re all here together working on this. You step back and PACE has been successful because we’ve given people individual choices that help solve a problem that they have, whether it’s a business owner or a residential property owner, we’re not trying to push an ideology. I’m not trying to convince somebody of something they do or do not believe in, regardless of where I come from on that issue. Cisco: We’re trying to solve a problem in a way that makes our country better, our environment better and helps those folks live safer, better, cheaper, cleaner lives. A lot of what we’ve done over the last 10 years has been to figure out how best to do that, how to use this tool, to empower individuals and communities to make choices that make sense. That part of it is not ideological. Cisco: It has been very successful. As I hope, as we go forward in keeping that focus down on how you help an individual make a better choice for them and their family and for… We’re going to be successful. Ultimately the politics will fall away from that because the power of that choice is too much to deny. Genevieve Sherman: I don’t know that I have that much to add other than I also have really enjoyed this conversation. Particularly with perspectives of folks that I’ve recently met, because Cisco has been doing this for forever and I’ve been doing it almost forever. But if I could add anything, it’s that you asked Cisco, what is the role of financing in all of this. When you get very into the weeds on kind of what is PACE and what does it do? At the end of the day, it’s capital it’s money that is coming into a set of activities and priorities that a lot of other folks are interested in. There are many conversations I have with building owners candidly, when energy savings never even are discussed. Genevieve Sherman: They may just have a need, a problem. As Cisco said, they have something that’s breaking and they have a tenant who is uncomfortable and they need to solve that problem. I have always seen PACE as something that’s additive to the priorities of a lot of stakeholders in the energy efficiency space and renewable energy in jobs, in construction, in addition to having a validator and having folks help us to get this done at the state level. Genevieve Sherman: This is still happening in many states right now, in Pennsylvania and other places where there are bipartisan PACE bills that are moving their way through. What we all have to remember is that PACE will thrive even more in states where there are other policies that support clean energy and energy efficiency and so on and so forth. Getting the financial incentives fine tuned for everyone to buy into energy efficiency and clean energy technologies is as important as having PACE there to then put the money behind all of those folks that they want to kind of implement all of those technologies and services. That’s what we have to work together to accomplish. Jon Powers: First of all, thank you, fantastic panel. But I want to put a challenge to each of you in the audience, both sitting in the room today and those listening through the podcast. I think you’ve heard it loud and clear from this conversation that your voices are incredibly powerful here. Jon Powers: And so you’ve got to figure out how do you get involved? How can you bring your voice to the table? You don’t need to be a policy expert on whatever bill is moving through your local municipality or through Congress. You just need to bring your voice. I challenge you to make sure you pay attention to what’s happening at PACENation. There’s lobbying days, you need to take a part of, if you have a chance to meet with a local legislature. The simplest thing is that meeting, building that relationship. Jon Powers: To take it to the next step you own or manage or finance projects, great initiative for your summer interns is literally going through by zip code and figuring out who represents those projects. Why does that matter? Because if you need to influence that member, you can go in and have a conversation about a project in their community that used PACE or used whatever you’re advocating for in this space. Simple things you can do to make a big difference. I think if we continue this fight and continue this momentum, we’re going to be back next year continuing to talk about the growth in this space. Jon Powers: For those listening online, thank you for joining the podcast. For folks who are in the room. You can go to Experts Only, which is at cleancapital.com to learn more and listen to other episodes. I’d like to thank the staff for helping to organize this. It’s been a great conversation. We look forward to continuing this conversation well into the future. Thank you. Jon Powers: Thanks for listening in today’s conversation. Find more episodes on cleancapital.com, iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you hear, be sure to subscribe and leave us a five star review. We look forward to continuing our conversation on energy, innovation and finance with you. [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_social_share title=’Share this entry’ style=” buttons=” share_facebook=” share_twitter=” share_pinterest=” share_gplus=” share_reddit=” share_linkedin=” share_tumblr=” share_vk=” share_mail=” av-desktop-hide=” av-medium-hide=” av-small-hide=” av-mini-hide=” av_uid=’av-354olk’] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’40’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_button label=’More Podcasts’ link=’page,5266′ link_target=” size=’small’ position=’center’ label_display=” icon_select=’no’ icon=’ue800′ font=’entypo-fontello’ color=’theme-color’ custom_bg=’#444444′ custom_font=’#ffffff’ av_uid=’av-jx1x7jx3′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’40’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”]
CleanCapital and CarVal: Partners in Renewable Finance Growth and Innovation This was originally published by Matt Eastwick on LinkedIn. When I started at CleanCapital last year, I joined a team that was already making a mark in transforming the clean energy finance market. By bringing efficiency to deal process, we continue to make great strides in simplifying investments with the goal of introducing more institutional investors to the renewable markets. We achieved another significant milestone last week by signing a $250 million equity partnership with CarVal Investors, a well-established investment firm, that enables us to acquire $1 billion in clean energy assets. The purpose of the deal is to provide the capital and other resources to support our rapidly growing pipeline of solar acquisitions. It also puts the pieces in place for us to achieve a number of financial market objectives. Building a Flexible Capital Base There are a broad range of acquisition opportunities emanating out of CleanCapital’s origination program, and this deal gives us the ability to apply the right capital and structure to each one. Solar projects are underpinned by a robust base of high-quality contracted cash flows, and having a degree of flexibility allows us to optimize each investment opportunity. Adoption of Technology Platform Our use of data and technology is one of CleanCapital’s many differentiating characteristics in the market. By having an institutional partner that completely onboards and digests deal information through our proprietary technology platform, we believe that we are making advancements in streamlining the institutional investment process. Efficient Acquisitions To date, we’ve acquired nearly $100 million in operating solar, leveraging our proprietary platform to streamline and expedite due diligence, closing complex deals across ten states. We cut out the middle man, which means better prices. Our proprietary platform systematically processes due diligence and analysis, allowing deals with a wide range of complexity to all close in less than 60 days. Examples of our portfolios include assets such as a 100kW system in California (power sold to a hospital), a 1.2MW system in Colorado (power sold to a university) and a 2.4MW system in New Jersey (power sold to a Fortune 100 company). C&I Solar Securitization CarVal is a seasoned practitioner in the structured products market and shares our view that the most efficient debt can often be found there. Together, we will be working towards the first “pure” small scale solar C&I securitization transaction. Being able to pool these assets and to tranche (or divide) them according to risk, the core tenets of securitization, will open up additional financing markets going forward. In addition to CarVal’s equity commitment, we will access up to $750 million of debt capital that, in total, will provide for up to $1 billion in the coming months and years. The first tranche of this capital is being deployed immediately, and this stockpile even further accelerates our speed and ability to execute deals. The rationale of the transaction can be summed up by the words of CleanCapital CEO Thomas Byrne, “We leverage data and technology to attract more investors to clean energy and accelerate clean energy adoption.” We believe that CarVal, with its 30-year track record focused on credit-intensive investments and market inefficiencies, is the type of nimble, innovative capital partner that fits perfectly into CleanCapital’s capital markets strategy. Combined with our best-in-class underwriting and straight-forward approach to asset management, this deal brings us one step closer to our overarching objective of bringing great investment opportunities to a broader investor base. Clean energy projects provide solid, high-performing cash flows and should be a staple of every institutional investor’s asset allocation. Learn more about this exciting new partnership.
Episode 20: Grahm Smith [av_image src=’https://cleancapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/podcast-image-pageheader2.jpg’ attachment=’4329′ attachment_size=’full’ align=’center’ styling=” hover=” link=’page,249′ target=” caption=” font_size=” appearance=” overlay_opacity=’0.4′ overlay_color=’#000000′ overlay_text_color=’#ffffff’ copyright=” animation=’no-animation’ av_uid=’av-jwwgyb48′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”][/av_image] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwwgxszg’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] Episode 20: Grahm Smith [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’10’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwl4lsb2′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] On this podcast, Thomas Byrne, CEO of CleanCapital sits down with Grahm Smith, CEO, and Founder of Open Energy Group. They discuss the challenges of financing small scale solar as well as the opportunities presented by technology to simplify the process. Grahm has experienced first hand the evolution of the global clean energy landscape and offers a unique perspective on where the industry is headed. Since 2013, Grahm Smith began building out a renewable energy finance exchange at Open Energy that is delivering the financing capital that the U.S. commercial solar needs to scale and deliver on its potential. Open Energy is currently through $500mm of projects underwritten and fast approaching $1bn. Open Energy is excited to explore new renewable energy areas, such as energy efficiency and battery storage. [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwwh5253′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] Listen now [/av_textblock] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwl43nfd’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=” custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock textblock_styling_align=” textblock_styling=” textblock_styling_gap=” textblock_styling_mobile=” size=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” font_color=” color=” id=” custom_class=” template_class=” av_uid=’av-l66nz0ga’ sc_version=’1.0′ admin_preview_bg=”] Transcript [/av_textblock] [av_textblock textblock_styling_align=” textblock_styling=” textblock_styling_gap=” textblock_styling_mobile=” size=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” font_color=” color=” id=” custom_class=” template_class=” av_uid=’av-l66o0hvv’ sc_version=’1.0′ admin_preview_bg=”] Jon Powers: Welcome to Experts Only podcast, sponsored by CleanCapital. Learn more at cleancapital.com. I’m your host, Jon Powers. Each week we explore the intersection of energy, innovation and finance with leaders across the industry. Thank you so much for joining us. Tom Byrne: Welcome to this week’s episode of CleanCapital’s Experts Only podcast. I’m Tom Byrne, co-founder of CleanCapital, guest hosting this week. In this week’s episode we talk to Graham Smith, CEO and founder of Open Energy Group. We talk about the challenges of financing small scale solar, as well as the opportunities presented by technology to simplify the process. Graham Smith, welcome to the podcast. Graham Smith: Hi, Tom. Thank you very much for including me in the Experts Only. I’m delighted to play a part in it. Tom Byrne: Graham, one of the interesting facts that we learned about you was that you were an Olympic rower. Starting out with participating in the ’96 Olympics, how did you navigate your way into the renewable energy space? Graham Smith: I think the straight answer is that it was not a clear path. I think I could cite some important and pivotal moments for me. I think the first one was from an early age… I can’t describe exactly why I think personality-wise I was interested in the green movement. I remember a few years ago the importance of the Kyoto agreement in the early 90s and how I was… Simpler things as reading books about recycling on… At the time, it was a book that was printed on terribly bad recycled paper so it was… You really had to be into it to believe, and I think I had that. So that was a gut, for a very strong feeling of mine. And then to be honest, it took a long time to germinate into it professionally. So there was the hope of how to get involved and then professionally, and it was not until the late 2000s that the solar movement in the UK really began to take off and professionally I was in a place… Graham Smith: And often the way it’s a personality or friend of someone at the company I was then with who proposed an idea. So it was a conceptual idea and I really… So it was renewable energy, financing renewable energy, and there wasn’t that much more detail to it, but I knew that it was enough to… I think that was the moment for me when I knew this was financing renewable energy for me, this is how I was going to move forward. Tom Byrne: And you started your career certainly in finance, right? You’re a finance guy. You’ve done trading, brokerage finance. So looking back at that, the late 2000s, ’09, 2010, when you were first going to dive into it, what did the landscape look like at that time? And where did you see an opportunity for your business at that point? Graham Smith: The landscape was post-crisis. I think that’s the first thing to be said. In fact for renewables, it wasn’t actually very good. It was challenging because renewables were still perceived or had taken a big hit. So I wasn’t part of the renewables business cycle pre the crisis. And they had been undoubted success for instance, in Spain, and installing a lot of solar. But post-crisis, there was much less, if you like, tolerance was much less of a bubble, if you like, it was very clinical and sterile and sober. Tom Byrne: Was that mostly from the lender’s perspective or the investor’s perspective? Were people post-crisis anxious about this new asset class? Graham Smith: I don’t think they were anxious. I think they were scared, because the people that could converse about renewables had invariably been burnt. So if you were an investor, so if you invest as a VC, you might have invested in a startup that probably would’ve gone bankrupt through the crisis. If you were an investor in the assets, you might have fared okay, but the value of your asset might have been written down for regulatory reasons. A country like Spain had enacted tariffs that actually changed the value of your asset. Tom Byrne: Can you remind our listeners what that situation in Spain was? That was a pretty monumental moment in renewables on the tariffs. Graham Smith: Yeah, it was monumentally bad. What’s done is done. But essentially much of Europe funded the renewables’ growth using feed in tariffs, which were, it simply put, was set by the government. So it was per unit of energy kilowatt. Our generated the government would pay a certain price. So it was extremely attractive because it was basically guaranteed by the government. And then Spain decided to not only change the future tariffs that renewable projects would get, they made the catastrophic and systematically damaging decision to retrospectively change tariffs. So if you owned… There was an operating solar asset that was due nine cents a kilowatt hour, for example, they might have changed it for example to six cents. So that completely might have bankrupted projects or certainly changed the equity return and devalued these investments. And then lastly it hit lenders doubly bad because obviously they had the loan on it and if it couldn’t support the loan, then the loan was bad. And so it was just a terrible sort of cycle of damage that was inflicted like that. Tom Byrne: So within that rosy story, you decided to start your career in renewables. Graham Smith: Yeah, that’s right. What a perfect moment. I think that maybe the lesson to take is that if you believe, and you’re passionate about it then… And I remember actually reading Friedman’s books, the American journalist Friedman. Tom Byrne: Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Graham Smith: Exactly. And to be honest, I read it and it sort of sparked, it really just was such a catalyst for me. And then someone at work, at my then company Phoenix had this idea to finance in this case European projects because I was based in London. So there was a growing interest and Europe, I guess certainly historically has been inclined that way with Germany. So starting the solar movement arguably and having led it for so many years. So despite the sort of overall financial market, having a bearish view about renewables, there was still a sort of a regulatory and legal and executive commitment to build renewable. And there had been a renewable growth significantly through the early 2000s. Tom Byrne: It’s an interesting juxtaposition because I had been starting my career in renewables around the same time as a lawyer. And you had government policies out of the recession that really catalyzed renewable energy. You had the cash grant from the treasury, which was just a direct injection of cash into clean energy project. And you had even the DOE loan guarantee, that Department of Energy was guaranteeing loans on some of these projects. So it was actually out of the recession. The United States actually experienced almost the opposite impact, which was a very positive one for clean energy. Graham Smith: Yeah and I actually back that up and you’ve tweaked my memory because even less substantively when we were making the business case for what we do and clearly you can see our logic was or vaguely flawed. We saw the… When the Obama administration came in, there was mention of a carbon credit trading scheme. And in Europe it’s very or it was and has been quite robust. And so the idea, we were a securities trading house. So we saw the idea of carbon credit potentially starting up in the US as an opportunity to get into renewables. But that’s one of those, the ironies that it didn’t really take hold, but certainly got me going on my renewables career. Tom Byrne: So what exactly is a carbon credit? Graham Smith: Good question. A carbon credit is a per… If you attribute the carbon emitted from a fossil fuel generating power plant, carbon credit is essentially a ton of carbon dioxide emitted. And depending on the regime there is, essentially once you start to identify that and how much is produced by certain power plants and jurisdictions, countries, you can then… And then what happens is, connected to that is legislation around… Pretty complex, but very simply is the amount of, once a cap is set or a target for them, and then allowing how much is allowed to be produced, then you can start to create a pricing mechanism. And from there you can start to get to a market, so carbon credit. Tom Byrne: And I think there’s a lot of people who have navigated into this space similar to you through the lens of a trader and with carbon credits in the United States, it ultimately led to… Those folks sometimes then started working on SRX, which is a tradable commodity here in the United States. So it sort of was a logical flow from being a traditional trader in finance to ultimately looking at these assets and not the power necessarily, but these government created assets, carbon credits, SRX, things like that. Graham Smith: Yeah, absolutely. On the Genesis for our idea in 2009, it was to knowing that we would like to trade the credits. It was the underlying. So it was the idea that if we could bring finance in and own, or in some way, be involved with the origination of the credits you would control and have pricing power over the credits in due course. And then we thought, okay, well, how are we going to get into the finance of these assets? And then that started the process of well, which market? Wind, solar, biomass, et cetera, et cetera, that started that process off elimination. We were targeting the most attractive markets. Tom Byrne: And foreshadows conversation about the role of policy and renewable energy, I think this is a unique time in the United States where there’s a lot of different movements on the policy front. So here we’re trying to talk about finance, but inevitably in clean energy, you start talking about policy as a result. There’s a lot going on right now in the United States, from tax reform, that’s on the docket to the Suniva trade case. And I want to get your views on how you view those two material events, perhaps starting with the Suniva trade case. And it would be helpful, I think to give our listeners a little background on what that’s all about. Graham Smith: Yes, of course. And what I will try to do is be objective, but the reality is for both you, Tom and myself, these are huge, but have been huge for us. So this Suniva trade case came about because an otherwise unknown financing group provided a loan to Suniva as part of its day to day business is called SQN Capital Management. And Suniva being a panel maker, it took a loan from this company. Unfortunately, then what happened was that subsequent of that loan being made, Suniva went bankrupt or put in a bankruptcy filing in April of this year. Graham Smith: And thereafter it was… What happened was a series of steps that took an otherwise innocuous process to potentially having huge ramifications for our market. So during what SQN decided to do was to fund Suniva during bankruptcy, and then to take the next step of filing a complaint under US trade law, essentially saying that the lack of protection for US solar panel makers against panel makers coming into the country was unfair competitively. And what happened was they submitted a trade case to the ITC, the internal trade commission. And where we are now, so through 2017, there was a petition, there were hearings and the ITC, the international trade commission, excuse me, not internal, decided in favor of the complaint filed by Suniva. Tom Byrne: So very practically this means potentially developers were developing projects thinking that solar panels would cost X and now they potentially cost X plus Y. Graham Smith: Exactly and that in a market where… Exactly, that’s a great context. So if the pricing solar project is made up of many components, but principally inverters and panels, and there’s the cost of building it, and then the cost of financing and the development. And like anything, if there is an assumption around fixed costs, following a trend line, or even… A trend line against the cost of panels and that changes radically. And we’re talking about hard assets, these things take a long time to plan. There’s a long process of preparing, investing, and drawing up finance for these assets. So if your metrics are thrown out, because of the long time it takes to prepare these assets, then essentially there’s a few outcomes. It can either mean that because they’re more expensive, the financing is no longer capable of financing. And then the ramifications of that, you are likely to see potentially a lot of projects that colloquial don’t pencil, so they don’t get built. And that has a negative impact on the growth of solar. Tom Byrne: So just this seemingly or arguably simple concept of adding to the cost of solar panels runs the risk if too punitive of derailing substantial solar development here in the United States. Graham Smith: Absolutely. It absolutely runs the risk of derailing or challenging the rate of growth. I don’t want to be melodramatic, but it’s absolutely the case that we’ve seen during the second half of the year that the material effects, I can describe it, seeing a project getting built, but the owner of a project cannot get access to the panels because the panel suppliers are in high demand because there is an increasingly limited supply because the perceived costs has gone up. And as a result, they’re in danger of not competing their project. And that’s just one instance. So it’s a very real. We’ve seen the effects already. Tom Byrne: And fast forward from Suniva. We quickly started diving into tax reform, which also has an impact on the renewable energy space. As of the recording of this podcast, there’s a House bill and a Senate bill. It has not gone to conference yet, so we don’t know what the outcomes are, but at a high level Graham, why does tax matter? And why does the tax reform potentially matter? Graham Smith: So as you know and the listeners know there’s two things that are certain in life, death and taxes. I am not an expert in trying to decipher. There are certain… I’ll make a plug here for Keith Martin from Norton Rose, because he’s written some great stuff on this and I don’t see us doing a good job of explaining. But given the type of financing that solar requires under the current or up until now, the tax rules, it’s already complex and it’s about to be made more complex and that’s tough. The more complex it is, the more expensive it is, the less people understand it and the harder it becomes to roll out. I think there’s uncertainty with the way you described it reflects the uncertainty. And with uncertainty that makes things harder to price and ultimately less valuable. Tom Byrne: And these solar and wind projects and other renewables, they are in part finance by tax equity investors. Graham Smith: Exactly. Tom Byrne: These are investors who have tax liabilities that can be offset by tax credits to oversimplify things. But in order for them to know the value of their investment, they need to know what their tax rate is. And right now, going through, trying to navigate uncertainty about what that tax rate is and therefore what the cost of their investment is, is that accurate? Graham Smith: I think that’s actually very, very clearly articulated. I think one of the things the way has been described to me and I’ve picked up and I must say being a Brit, I’ve so struggled to understand the US tax system, even some of the basic elements. But some of the things that have cropped up in this current go round of the alternative minimum tax, it’s the idea that corporations did use the tax credits available from renewable energy products to reduce their tax. But there seems to be in between the House and the Senate bill, the fact that the case erosion tax is going to reduce the… Potentially I should say, potentially reduce the ability of companies to use the tax credits available on projects to reduce their tax bill, that then reduces the appetite for companies to invest in renewables, which could affect renewables. Tom Byrne: I’m going to put you on the spot a little bit. Do you think investment tax credit and tax credits are good for renewables? Graham Smith: I absolutely do. Yeah, I think the car business, the fossil fuel energy business have all been built. Substantial industries have been built, but they started often with sizable subsidies and support from the state to allow them to grow, to gain the economies of scale, to become ultimately enshrined and effective. And there can be no doubt that the solar sector has benefited, has created jobs and welfare following certain subsidies, tax benefit, tax credits or otherwise. So yes is the answer to your question. Tom Byrne: So I’m going to now turn to what you’re doing now, and particularly at Open Energy, want to hear a little bit about Open Energy and with the last four or five minutes here, really dive into what you guys are doing there and some of the particular nuances and complexities of the space that you guys are operating in. So maybe we can start very simply, what you guys are focused on at Open Energy? Graham Smith: We address the commercial solar markets in particular, so the non-residential are not to the utility scale. So there’s three areas, that’s residential, commercial and then at the very large scales utility. And we look at the commercial scale. And what we do is we are a platform lending, providing loans to finance projects in the commercial sector. Tom Byrne: And you guys embrace technology at various points in the transaction process. Can you give us a sense of why you think that’s an important piece of your processes to lend to this space? Graham Smith: Yeah, absolutely. So when we first looked at it, we looked at the type of financing that was going on and utility scale is a good example. It uses project finances and loans or financing comes in and it finances individual solar projects, but like mini gas fired power stations. And that’s an attractive form of financing. It works, but it can be quite expensive. It can be quite slow based on historically conventional approaches, partly because large scale financing could support, say of a gas fired power station could support with a lot of documentation, could support the costs that come with that, put very simply. Graham Smith: But if you’re looking to serve to finance, say a solar plant, that’s one megawatt and a 500th of a gas fired power station. Some of the documentation, some of the legal processing, some of the engineering, the ways to make a project finance will make it…. It’s just too expensive. So technology comes in because if we can look at that process, we can mimic and we can automate a lot of the commoditized areas of that process. So understanding the process and then using technology to standardize, make more transparent and ultimately reduce the cost, which then makes it possible to finance. Tom Byrne: And just taking a quick step back. What is… Maybe you could explain for the listeners who aren’t necessarily in banking and lending the financing process or how these assets are financed and what lenders and investors look to. Graham Smith: Yeah, that’s a great question. I’m clearly way too in the weeds. So what investors look at, whether that’s an equity investor’s going to own a solar asset or a lender, is they look at the cash flows coming off one of these assets and they say, well, how risky are these? Because if I’m going to lend or I’m going to buy something, then these are quite expensive. So there’s a high upfront investment, not dissimilar to say, building a house or a building. And it’s going to be the residual payments that come off this asset and how risky or not that will affect paying back my investment. So there’s an upfront payment whether owning or lending and over time that will get paid back. Graham Smith: So a lender investor says, okay, well, it’s a solar asset. How reliable are those? How does the equipment work? And you can… Quickly we can look at that and say, well, actually solar equipment is pretty reliable these days. So you look at the reliability and then we say, say, well, what likelihoods are there that the payments that are going to occur over time won’t occur and therefore affect our investment? So essentially it’s looking at what is generating the power and the risks against it, generating power and money over time to pay back and invest. Tom Byrne: Got it. And what’s so challenging about the small scale market? Graham Smith: It’s challenging because a one megawatt if I’m giving an example, which is quite small, it’s not very big and it’s not usually small, but the way a one megawatt or 500 kilo project for that matter works, is not wholly dissimilar to a very large solar project, such as a 100 megawatts plant. And so the ways to assess the asset, which I described, how do we know this project is going to perform? Number one, it’s the same process, but a bigger financing can support the engineer going to see it, the test being run on the panels, the projections of power. So essentially those actual fixed costs are not the same, but because you’re talking about a much smaller investment, the percentage of that investment and therefore the cost of the financing becomes higher. And then likewise, how you assess the risks to the cash flow are the very same. So what I’m trying to say is that we’ve used technology to make those tasks less, still to the same standard, but less expensive. And that’s the challenge for that small projects within the sector. Tom Byrne: Yeah and I think that’s one of the more exciting ways to tackle the space is by figuring out technology solutions that really streamline processes, so that’s super exciting. What do you see…. How do we get more capital markets participation in this segment of the market? Graham Smith: That’s a super question. I think our outlook is on bringing debt capital into the market. So that the idea of essentially with, again, the analogy with property, how do we get more mortgages available? On our view is quite nuanced, but it’s saying that institutional money, I think we start with, I would we say that money’s from pension funds, from banks is the key way to grow the sector. That’s where vast pools of capital are available to invest. And what these type of institutions or this institutional money needs is certain standards. They need to know that the way a loan is underwritten conforms to a particular standard. And so once you do that, once you create standards so that people can compare loans, can compare the way loans are or the way the asset is underwritten and therefore how a loan is made against a solar asset, then large pools of capital can be made. Graham Smith: For instance, insurance companies can’t invest in less, the particular investment is rated or has a public rating. So just a move towards securitization so that segment of the market can access the capital markets, some lower cost capital. Tom Byrne: That’s really exciting. And that’s really important work that you guys are doing to try to accelerate the capital markets’ participation in this space. So we’re winding down right now. And there’s a question that my co-founder Jon Powers always asks at the end of these podcasts that I’m going to ask to you as someone who’s had a great career in this space. If you could sit down with yourself, your younger self from high school or college, what advice would you give? Graham Smith: That’s a super question. I think for my own self, the advice would be to focus and maybe this is a reflection of the current dynamic in which we live, but it would be focus on some of the basics in life. So I’m taking for granted working hard or some of the things that we constantly have trotted out as advice and say kind of courtesy and some of the more fundamentals in the way of going about business, having respect for people, tolerance and persistence, because we live in a time when often those things are not forthcoming or the belief in the importance of those as being challenged. So while a bit generic, I think it would be to try and instill and to say, keep strong to some very important basic qualities, not just in business, but in life. Tom Byrne: Those are awesome words to end with Graham Smith, CEO of Open Energy. Thanks very much for joining us on the Experts Only podcast. Graham Smith: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure. Tom Byrne: Thank you to Graham Smith of Open Energy for joining us this week. I also want to thank our producers, Lauren Glickman and Emily Connor. Please visit cleancapital.com for more information on CleanCapital. And don’t forget to go to iTunes and give the Experts Only podcast, a five star review. Jon Powers: Thanks for listening in today’s conversation. Find more episodes on cleancapital.com, iTunes or wherever you get your podcast. If you like what you hear, be sure to subscribe and leave us a five star review. We look forward to continuing our conversation on energy, innovation and finance with you. [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_social_share title=’Share this entry’ style=” buttons=” share_facebook=” share_twitter=” share_pinterest=” share_gplus=” share_reddit=” share_linkedin=” share_tumblr=” share_vk=” share_mail=” av-desktop-hide=” av-medium-hide=” av-small-hide=” av-mini-hide=” av_uid=’av-354olk’] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’40’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_button label=’More Podcasts’ link=’page,5266′ link_target=” size=’small’ position=’center’ label_display=” icon_select=’no’ icon=’ue800′ font=’entypo-fontello’ color=’theme-color’ custom_bg=’#444444′ custom_font=’#ffffff’ av_uid=’av-jx1x7jx3′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’40’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Episode 19: David Gabrielson [av_image src=’https://cleancapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/podcast-image-pageheader2.jpg’ attachment=’4329′ attachment_size=’full’ align=’center’ styling=” hover=” link=’page,249′ target=” caption=” font_size=” appearance=” overlay_opacity=’0.4′ overlay_color=’#000000′ overlay_text_color=’#ffffff’ copyright=” animation=’no-animation’ av_uid=’av-jwwgyb48′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”][/av_image] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwwgxszg’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] Episode 19: David Gabrielson [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’10’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwl4lsb2′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] This weeks episode is around the industry interest in PACE financing, with guest David Gabrielson. David serves as the executive director and founder of PACEnation in 2010. PACE can be used for commercial, nonprofit, and residential properties. This episode is an introduction to this innovative and complex PACE financing for clean energy. PACE is property assessed clean energy, a financing mechanism that enables low cost, long term funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation projects for both residential and commercial and PACENation is an advocate for PACE. Before PACENation, David served as a Councilman for the Town of Bedford, NY and before his time in energy and politics, he spent over 20 years as an investment banker to governments. David holds an A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley and an MBA from the Yale School of Management. [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwwh5253′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] Listen now [/av_textblock] [av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” av_uid=’av-jwl43nfd’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=” custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_textblock textblock_styling_align=” textblock_styling=” textblock_styling_gap=” textblock_styling_mobile=” size=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” font_color=” color=” id=” custom_class=” template_class=” av_uid=’av-l66npkhw’ sc_version=’1.0′ admin_preview_bg=”] Transcript [/av_textblock] [av_textblock textblock_styling_align=” textblock_styling=” textblock_styling_gap=” textblock_styling_mobile=” size=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” font_color=” color=” id=” custom_class=” template_class=” av_uid=’av-l66nr72c’ sc_version=’1.0′ admin_preview_bg=”] Jon Powers: Welcome to Experts Only podcast, sponsored by CleanCapital. You can learn more at cleancapital.com. I’m your host, Jon Powers. Each week, we explore the intersection of energy, innovation, and finance with leaders across the industry. Thank you so much for joining us. Jon Powers: Welcome back and thank you so much for joining us today. This isn’t our traditional episode structure. We’re going to actually dive deep into an issue here that many folks in the industry are interested in: PACE financing. You hear a lot about it. Not everyone fully understands how it works. And today, we’re joined by PACENation’s David Gabrielson. David serves as the executive director and founded PACENation in 2010 when it was little more than an idea on a napkin. Jon Powers: So what is PACE? PACE is property assessed clean energy. It’s a financing mechanism that enables long-term, low-cost funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation, and other projects. PACE financing is repaid as an assessment on the property’s regular tax bill and is processed the same way as other local public benefits like sidewalks or sewers that have been repaid over decades. Depending on local legislation, PACE can be used for commercial, nonprofit, and even residential properties. You’re going to learn a lot more about PACE at PACENation’s summit in Denver from March 19th to the 21st. We’re actually going to be doing a live podcast at that summit, talking with policymakers and others about what’s happening in the industry today. Jon Powers: David, thank you so much for joining us here at Experts Only podcast. We’re going to be exploring PACE 101 and help our listeners really understand the power of PACE and what it’s doing around the country. But I wanted to first start off with your PACE story. What got you interested in PACE and to launching PACENation? David Gabrielson: Sure. And thanks, Jon. Thanks so much for asking me to do this. My introduction to PACE was really serendipitous. I was after working or even while I was still working in municipal finance as a public finance banker based in New York. I was persuaded to run for political office in my town at Bedford, New York, and had never, ever thought of doing anything like that. And instead of saying no, I said yes, and then I won and got elected to the town board. Bedford is a very sustainability-minded community. We’re one of the few towns in New York that has a climate action plan that’s part of our formal town master plan. And our energy advisory panel came to us one day and said, “Let’s start a PACE program.” And I got the finance side of it pretty quickly because it’s based on a tool that local governments have used for a long time to finance things. David Gabrielson: And I got the government side of it because my clients had all been government folks, public finance, and I was working in government. And I’ve always been, I think, an armchair environmentalist. And so those three things clicked. And I didn’t really know. I became the board member that really dug into it as we sought grant money and tried to begin developing a program. And then I just got absolutely… I think this is true of a lot of people. I actually would say I used to do something else, and now I do PACE. And so it was really an idea that captivated and galvanized me. Jon Powers: And that drove you to launching PACENation, which has been very influential in helping to galvanize, I think others around the country to help move PACE forward at a policy level. Can you talk for a second about PACENation and what you do for your members? David Gabrielson: Yeah. Well, PACENation was utterly coincidentally was founded by a guy who lives in the same town, at Bedford, New York. And he had, I think, gone to a conference and heard one of the fathers of PACE, the guy who really came up with the idea, a guy named Cisco DeVries out in California, and Jeff Tannenbaum, who was at the conference or heard Cisco talking about it, sought him out. And actually, Jeff coined the acronym PACE. I guess there was some earlier acronym that wasn’t so good. So property assessed clean energy of course is what the acronym is. And Jeff began evangelizing around PACE and talking to people about it and set up a website that everyone went to. Originally, it was called PACE Now. We’re just going to refer to it as PACENation, but we used to call ourselves PACE Now. David Gabrielson: And the website was where everybody went to get a copy of the California enabling legislation or some study that had been written about PACE or something PACE-related. It was really a link site. In late 2010 after I’d been trying to get PACE going in Bedford, we came up with some grant funding, and PACE Now hired me. I became the first full-time staffer at PACE Now, PACENation. Let me say who we are. We’re really advocates for PACE. And we have a pretty simple vision, and that is that PACE financing would be available to every building owner in America. And we envision a day where every building owner in America would know what PACE was and understand it and be able to make a decision about whether it was the right tool to use to make the building more energy-efficient or to do renewable energy. David Gabrielson: And so as advocates for that, we provide through our website a newsletter, webinars, information and resources, further that vision, further that goal. We do a lot of one-on-one talking with people. We’ve always been networkers. We’re like the hub in a wheel with spokes that go out to lots of different stakeholders that include state and local governments and other nonprofits that are similarly mission-oriented, at least in terms of environmental goals and economic development goals. And then a growing number of private sector stakeholders that have seen an opportunity to provide services or finance to make PACE really work. And then we’ve been conveners. We pull people together. And the best example of that now is planning for our third national PACENation summit, which will be in Denver, March 19th to 21st. It’s been, I think, a bigger success than we imagined when we first started planning, my little team who knew nothing about how to put on a conference. But it’s been a big success. Jon Powers: Yeah. And for our listeners, we’re going to be at PACENation Summit. You can find it at pacenationsummit.us/summit18. And we’re actually going to do a podcast interview there talking with some leaders in the industry about what’s going on in the space. And we’ll be rolling that out here in a few episodes. So please listen. Jon Powers: So David, that’s really helpful. I think PACE is not really a new concept, but it’s really caught fire in the last few years. And for folks, just to give a little simple 101, as David said, property assessed clean energy is a financing mechanism that enables low-cost, long-term funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation. But it’s repaid through the assessment of the property’s regular tax bill. So one, where did that idea come from? And then two, more importantly, why has it just really begun to catch fire and we’re seeing it pop up all over the country now? David Gabrielson: Yeah. And first of all, let me say, Jon, we’re really excited that you’re going to be at the summit and doing that podcast. We’ve not done anything like that before. And I think that the hopefully 500 or so people that come are really going to enjoy that. The state and local governments for decades, if not centuries, have used property tax assessments, an additional line item added to the property tax bill, to pay for improvements that benefit property owners, obviously, and meet a public purpose. And for most people, they’re familiar with sometimes a water or sewer assessment or a park district assessment or lighting district assessment, sidewalk assessment. The leap to PACE came… I think I mentioned Cisco DeVries earlier, who was working for the mayor of Berkeley, California and had a background in energy, and saw, I guess, a neighborhood… this is the story as I heard it… a neighbor in Berkeley that came together and said, “Look. We’d really like to put these utility lines that are above ground underground for a couple of reasons, for safety and just to get unsightly power lines out of sight.” David Gabrielson: And so they voluntarily went city of Berkeley and said, “Could we pay for this with an assessment on our tax bill?” And at the same time, Berkeley had a policy of encouraging people to put solar on their roofs. And so Cisco’s leap was to say, “Well, how about if we came up with the money and people could put solar on the roofs and then pay back that investment over time with the property tax assessment?” In a perfect world, that has all sorts of advantages. One is that it’s not a direct impact on an individual person’s credit. It’s based on the value of the property and the equity in the property, though we want to make sure that every building owner has the means to pay this back. It is voluntary, so assume they do. But the second thing is that property taxes and assessments don’t get paid off when you sell your property. The improvement that you put in place transfers to the buyer of the property, and in this instance with PACE, so are the obligations. David Gabrielson: So people don’t know how long they’re going to own a building. Sometimes, what keeps them from doing something they might like to do is because they’re thinking, “Boy, I’m just going to benefit from this for two or three years, then I’m going to have to pay it off.” So the transferability is big. And property taxes and assessments that have been unpaid, that are in arrears, are at the top of the stack for repayment. And that makes it a very strong credit to those who might want to invest in these projects. They can be pretty sure that they’re going to get paid back. Now, that’s also been a problem because quite frankly, the mortgage lenders don’t like that. So it’s one of the things we had to work on in the world of PACE. There are a couple of other reasons why the PACE mechanism is really an attractive one, but those are the primary ones. Jon Powers: Yeah. That’s really interesting and I think really good feedback on especially the transferability. I want to get into the legislative piece and the financing in one second, but there’s R-PACE, residential PACE, and C-PACE, commercial PACE. Just quickly, what is the major difference? And are you seeing one grow more rapidly than the other? David Gabrielson: Yeah. Well, it’s exactly the same mechanism. The difference is two completely different markets. And the commercial PACE marketplace is relatively uncontroversial, totally uncontroversial. All this starts with state enabling legislation. To date, 34 states have adopted legislation that would allow building owners, in some instances, just commercial building owners, in some, resi and commercial, to… 34 states have allowed their local governments to offer PACE. And we see commercial PACE programs now operating successfully completing projects in, I’m going to say 19 states in the District of Columbia. You can check all of this whenever you want on our website, www.pacenation.org. David Gabrielson: One of the reasons that commercial PACE has been uncontroversial is that building owners almost always receive the permission or the consent… we call it lender consent… of their existing mortgage lender if they have a mortgage lender. And so those mortgage lenders and consent has been granted by over 150 different lending institutions, close to 1,000 projects, because the lenders understand that the projects improve the value of their collateral. There’s a commercial arena. Business people don’t generally do things frivolously. They weigh the pros and cons, the payoffs, the financial impact to their business or their operation or their property. And so that’s an important part of it. David Gabrielson: And commercial projects too, if you think about it, a house is a house, and houses are big or small. But generally, the things that you would do to a house to make it more energy-efficient involve in some of its envelope and upgrading the heating or cooling system, improving its insulation. Commercial buildings, vastly greater universe of architecture and size and use and building material. So commercial projects tend to be vastly bigger. We’ve seen commercial PACE projects up to $20 million, $25 million, and they’re much more engineering-driven systems, related pumps and motors. They have a long sales cycle, long time to get to yes. So that’s the commercial landscape. David Gabrielson: And we’ve seen consistent entry. Our team is always working with groups in at least one or more states that would like to get PACE legislation passed. Just last year, made a couple of trips to Alaska to work with people from the state and Anchorage and Fairbanks and Juno who got commercial PACE legislation passed and now are using our resources and others to try to get a program started. So we see constant entry on the commercial side. Resi PACE, because it has been a bone of contention for the mortgage industry and for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage giants, and for their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, it’s been much harder to get Resi PACE dispersed throughout the United States. It got a toehold in California- Jon Powers: Because of that consent. David Gabrielson: Yeah. Back in 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac basically said that they would not buy a mortgage with a PACE assessment on it. So if your local bank added a PACE project to your home and your local mortgage lender tried to then sell that mortgage to Fannie and Freddie, Fannie and Freddie say they won’t buy it. They won’t consent to a PACE assessment on a property that’s in their portfolio. And there’s been a lot of concern about what impact that could have on homeowners. That’s made a lot of states and local governments reluctant to move down the path of offering resi PACE. David Gabrielson: In California, where it started and where it got a toehold that never got dislodged, PACE is now available to probably, I’m going to guess and say 80% of the population, all of the major metropolitan centers and populated counties in the state. There are a number of PACE programs operating, some operated by local governments, Placer County, for example, Sonoma County. They operate their own program, provide their own program administration, come up with their own funding for projects in most jurisdictions, and outside private third-party program administrator is authorized to offer funding to homeowners. And to date in California, I’m going to say 180, 190, close to 200,000 homes and bumping up on $5 billion of financing over the last two or three years. Jon Powers: Let’s talk about those program administrators because I think for folks, we talked about the 34 states that have the legislation. Really what happens is each locality develops their own program and there are some differences across the programs. Can you talk about the role of that third-party or maybe the municipality role in administering the program? David Gabrielson: Yeah. So let me start with the municipality role. I mean, Sonoma County, California was a real pioneer. Berkeley did a pilot, but then discontinued it for a while, and Sonoma County developed their own program. So they used county treasury funds to finance projects. They devoted staff. So what does a program administrator do? Well, program administrator sets up all the paperwork and all of the procedures and make sure that I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed to complete the project. And that involves making sure that the homeowner qualifies and that the amount of financing is appropriate, and that’s often defined in state law, and that the project qualifies. So the program administrator basically completes the project. And in the case of Sonoma County, they come up with the funding for it. David Gabrielson: At the other end of the spectrum, you could have a local government this is what we want to offer this to our residents, but we don’t really have the bandwidth to do all of that stuff that I described that Sonoma County does. So we will authorize a third party to provide all of that program administration and the funding, and we’ll put the assessment on our tax bill when everything’s done correctly. And when we collect that money from the homeowner, we’ll forward it to the appropriate party that’s receiving the money for the private party. David Gabrielson: So the way things have evolved in California, at least, most of the financing is provided by private sector third-party program administrators authorized by local governments to provide this service in their jurisdiction. Jon Powers: Yeah. Let’s talk about that a little bit. So I think what’s really interesting about this space is it grows in the finance side. PACE financing terms can extend out to 30 years. It’s possible to really undertake deep, comprehensive retrofits, real energy savings, and even renewable energy for customers affecting their bottom lines. It can cover 100% of project hard and soft costs. And you’ve got now companies like Greenworks taking these PACE financing programs and then bundling them them. And actually, if I’m correct, Greenworks did about a $300 million securitization this year on some PACE loans, which is very, very forward-leaning for the market. Talk about in that space, who are some of the folks that you see really leading, and where do you see that third-party financing piece go? David Gabrielson: Okay. So on the resi PACE side in California and Florida and trying to get a toehold in Missouri, there are a number of third-party program administrators. Renovate America been operating the longest and has done most, has the largest share of all of the projects that everyone done because they’ve been operating the longest. They’re the ones that probably recently did a $300 million securitization. They’ve done, as they have built a portfolio themselves of, I don’t know exactly what it is, but it’s well over $1 billion, is they’ve built up that portfolio of completed homes. They’ve gone the way of all assets that build to a substantial amount, and they get bundled together just as mortgages do or any other kind of receivable, and they get securitized. So the investment world, institutional investors, insurance companies and whatnot, which have long-term obligations and therefore long-term assets, good match for their portfolio. So- Jon Powers: Importance for that just for our listeners that don’t understand, what that really means is it’s bringing long-term, but often cheaper capital. So cheaper capital to go into these projects, cheaper capital to help bring down the cost for both the transactions and the actual deal. So it says a lot about the industry that it’s getting to securitization. David Gabrielson: Right. That’s right. They’re providing liquidity, just like your local bank. I have a mortgage from my local bank here in Massachusetts, the Florence Bank. And they’re a small bank and they lent me money. They don’t have to hold my mortgage forever. They can take my mortgage and sell it to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, who will then bundle it up in a big package and sell it off to investors all over the world. And that provides liquidity. It brings money into the local market. Your local government wouldn’t have the resources or the ability to do that, by and large. So it’s another thing that private sector program administrators are bringing. And these securities are now being rated strong, AA, I think, and by Kroll rating service and by DBRS. And so we’re beginning to build a market now. $4 billion, $5 billion sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but in the scheme of things on the financial markets, it’s still very small. David Gabrielson: Jon, you alluded to this. We’ve seen interest rates begin to come down because the market is getting bigger and more liquid. And what does liquid mean? That means that if you buy one of these, you’re an insurance company, you buy one of these PACE assets, you want to be able to go out and sell it tomorrow just as you go out, buy a share of Apple stock today and sell it tomorrow at exactly what the market will bear. An investment that you might make that you can’t necessarily get rid of tomorrow because the market is so small but won’t attract as high a price. So that’s what I mean by the market is more liquid and transparent. And so as the market grows, we’ll continue to see interest rates decline. Yeah. Jon Powers: No. That’s great. And I think first off, David, we’re limited on time. I appreciate the full view of this. So I think it shows the growth of the industry, the way it’s matured, that it can get to securitization. Just briefly, I think one, you’ll hear a lot about this at PACENation Summit in Denver, the 19th to 21st. So please make sure to sign up and attend if you can. Just last, where do you see the landscape look like in the next five years? David Gabrielson: Yeah. Well, let me do this because I didn’t want to full stop at renovators. There’s several other parties that I want to give some shout-outs to. Cisco DeVries, the father of PACE, if you will, leads a company called Renew Financial, and Ygrene Energy Fund is another, and PACE funding and Dividend. And so there are a number of companies and if you’re out in California and you Google PACE, you can come to our website and look them all up if you’re interested. You also mentioned Greenworks. They’re on the commercial side. I want to give them a little shout-out for a couple of reasons. The co-founder of that company was once my program grant provider at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. And I went down and pitched her on funding PACENation. We are still very largely foundation-funded. And she liked what she heard. David Gabrielson: And a year later, she called me up and said, “David, you’re not going to believe this, but I am going to run the Connecticut PACE program with the Connecticut Green Bank.” And then a couple of years after building what was the most successful, I think one of the most successful commercial PACE programs in the country, she went out and became an entrepreneur. They just completed their own securitization. It wasn’t 300 million. I think it was 75 million. And it was rated. And so another first in the commercial marketplace. And there are a bunch of companies like hers, CleanFund at California and PACE Equity and Petros Capital. And I’m sure I’m going to leave someone out and they’re going to call me up and yell at me. But they are in many different states working with local program administrators or setting up program administration. They are developing projects and funding them. And it’s very exciting to see. Jon Powers: Well, David, really appreciate it. We look forward to seeing you in Denver here in a few short weeks, and we appreciate you taking the time. And for folks who want to continue to learn more, you can always go to pacenation.org, and just thank you for your time. David Gabrielson: Jon, I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much. Jon Powers: Thank you David, for joining us. As we talked about, you can learn more about pace at pacenation.us and learn about how you can take part in the summit with over 450 attendees in Denver, Colorado, March 19th to the 21st. We’re actually going to be doing a live podcast there and talking to policymakers about the state of the art and what’s happening today across PACE. Please go to our website, cleancapital.com. Leave us your thoughts and ideas and what we should be talking about here at Experts Only. I’d like to put a special thank out to our producers, Warren Glickman and Emily Connor for their hard work. Till next time. I look forward to continuing the conversation. Jon Powers: Thanks for listening in today’s conversation. Find more episodes on cleancapital.com, iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you hear, be sure to subscribe and leave us a five-star review. We look forward to continuing our conversation on energy, innovation, and finance with you. [/av_textblock] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’20’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_social_share title=’Share this entry’ style=” buttons=” share_facebook=” share_twitter=” share_pinterest=” share_gplus=” share_reddit=” share_linkedin=” share_tumblr=” share_vk=” share_mail=” av-desktop-hide=” av-medium-hide=” av-small-hide=” av-mini-hide=” av_uid=’av-354olk’] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’40’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_button label=’More Podcasts’ link=’page,5266′ link_target=” size=’small’ position=’center’ label_display=” icon_select=’no’ icon=’ue800′ font=’entypo-fontello’ color=’theme-color’ custom_bg=’#444444′ custom_font=’#ffffff’ av_uid=’av-jx1x7jx3′ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”] [av_hr class=’invisible’ height=’40’ shadow=’no-shadow’ position=’center’ custom_border=’av-border-thin’ custom_width=’50px’ custom_border_color=” custom_margin_top=’30px’ custom_margin_bottom=’30px’ icon_select=’yes’ custom_icon_color=” icon=’ue808′ font=’entypo-fontello’ av_uid=’av-jwwgzkyu’ custom_class=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Experts Only Episode 18: My Conversation with David Gabrielson of PACENation This week we speak with David Gabrielson of PACE Nation and take a deep dive into understanding the growth of PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy), a finance tool that is a private-public partnership allowing for the cost of energy saving improvements to be spread out over a length of time. David introduces us to PACE and the industry that is emerging alongside it. A Background on Daniel Gabrielson and the emergence of PACE Jon Powers (JP): Today we’re gonna have not our traditional episode. I know there are a lot of folks in the industry who are interested in PACE Financing, but really don’t understand how it truly works. We are joined today by PACE Nation’s David Gabrielson. David serves as the Executive Director and founded PACE Nation in 2010 when the idea of PACE was little more than an idea on a napkin. David and I will talk about PACE, which is Property Assessed Clean Energy, which is a financing mechanism that enables low cost, long term funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation projects, for both residential and commercial. The PACE financing is repaid as an assessment on a property’s regular tax bill and is processed the same way that other local public benefit assessments are, like sidewalks and sewers. Those programs have been in place for decades. But a lot depends on local legislation. PACE can be used for commercial, non-profit, and residential properties as we’ve mentioned. You can learn a lot more about PACE at PACE Nation’s Summit 2018, which will be out in Denver in March. We’re gonna actually be doing a live Podcast there at the site. Talking with some real PACE advocates. You can go to pacenation.org to learn more. David really provides us good insight on the history of PACE and where it’s going. Let’s get started. From Local Government to PACENation JP: David, thank you so much for joining us here at Experts Only Podcast. We’re gonna be exploring PACE 101 and help our listeners really understand the power of PACE and what it’s doing around the country. I wanted to first start off with your PACE story. What got you interested in PACE and launching PACENation? DG: Sure Jon, and thanks so much for asking me to do this. My introduction to PACE was really kind of serendipitous. After working, or even while I was still working, in Municipal Finance as a Public Finance Banker based in New York, I was persuaded to run for a political office in my town, Bedford, New York. I had never ever thought of doing anything like that. Instead of saying no, I said yes. Then I won and got elected to the town Board. Bedford is a very sustainability minded community. We’re one of the few towns in New York that has a climate action plan, that’s part of our formal town master plan. Our energy advisory panel came to us one day, and said, “Let’s start a PACE program.” I understood the finance side of it pretty quickly, because it’s based on a tool that local governments have used for a long time to finance things. I got the government side of it, because my clients had all been government folks, public finance, and I was working in government. I’ve always been an armchair environmentalist. So, those three three things kind of clicked. I don’t really know how I sort of became the board member that really dug into it, as we sought at grant money and tried to began developing a program but I think this is true of a lot of people. I used to do something else, and now I do PACE. It was really an idea that captivated and galvanized me. JP: That drove you to launching PACE Nation, which has been very influential in helping to galvanize others around the country, to help move PACE forward at a policy level. Can you talk for a second about PACE Nation and what you do for your members? DG: Yeah. Well, PACE Nation was utterly coincidentally founded by a guy who lives in the same town of Bedford New York. He had gone to a conference and heard one of the fathers of PACE, the guy who really came up with the idea, a guy named Cisco DeVries out in California. Jeff Tenenbaum heard Cisco talking about it, sought him out, and actually Jeff coined the acronym PACE. I guess there was some earlier acronym that wasn’t so good. Property Assessed Clean Energy, of course, is what the acronym is. Jeff began evangelizing around PACE and talking to people about it, and set up a website that everyone went to. Originally it was called PACENow. We’re just going to refer to it as PACENation. We used to call ourself PACENow. The website was where everybody went to get a copy of the California Enabling Legislation, or some study that had been written about PACE or something PACE related. It was really a link site. In late 2010, after I’d been trying to get PACE going in Bedford, we came up with some grant funding, and then PACENow hired me. I became the full time staffer at PACENow, PACENation. Let me say what we are, we’re really advocates for PACE. We have a pretty simple vision and that is that PACE financing is available to every building owner in America. We envision a day where every building owner in America would know what PACE was and understand it, and be able to make a decision about whether it was the right tool to use, to make the building more energy efficient. As advocates for that, we provide through our website and newsletter and webinars, information and resources that further that vision, further that goal. We do a lot of one on one,talking with people. We’ve always been networkers. We’re kind of like the hub in a wheel with spokes that go out to lots of different stakeholders, that include state and local governments and other non-profits that are similarly mission oriented, at least in terms of environmental goals and economic development goals. And now a growing number private sector stakeholders that have seen an opportunity to provide services or finance to make PACE really work. Then we’ve been conveners. We pull people together. The best example of that now is planning for our third national PACENation summit, which will be in Denver March 19th to 21st. It’s been a bigger success than we imagined when we first started planning it, my little team who knew nothing about how to put on a conference. It’s been a big success. The story of PACE: Emerging from Berkeley JP: Yeah, and for our listeners, we’re going to be at PACENation summit. You can find it at pacenationsummit.us/summit18. We’re actually going to do a podcast interview there, talking with some leaders in the industry about what’s going on in the space. We’ll be rolling that out here in a few episodes, so please listen. David, that’s really helpful. I think PACE is not really a new concept, but it’s really caught fire in the last few years. For folks, just to give a little simple 101, as David said, property assessed clean energy is a financing mechanism that enables low cost, long term funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and water conservation, but it’s repaid through the assessment of the properties, regular tax bill. So first off, where did that idea come from? Then two, more importantly, why has it just really begun to catch fire and we’re seeing it pop up all over the country now? DG: Yeah, and first, let me say, Jon, we’re really excited that you’re going to be at the summit and doing that podcast. We’ve not done anything like that before. I think that the hopefully 500 or so people that come are really going to enjoy that. The state and local governments, for decades if not centuries, have used property tax assessments, an additional line item added to the property tax bill, to pay for improvements that benefit property owners, obviously, and meet a public purpose. For most people, they’re familiar with sometimes a water or sewer assessment or a park district assessment or lighting district assessment, sidewalk assessment. The leap to PACE came, I think I mentioned Cisco DeVries earlier, who was working for the mayor of Berkeley, California and had a background in energy, and saw a neighborhood—this is the story as I heard it—a neighborhood in Berkeley, that came together and said, “Look, we’d really like to put these utility lines that are above ground, underground for a couple of reasons. For safety and for just to get unsightly power lines out of site.” They voluntarily went to the city of Berkeley and said, “Could we pay for this with an assessment on our tax bill?” At the same time, Berkeley had a policy of encouraging people to put solar on their roofs. Cisco’s leap was to say, “Well how about if we came up with the money and people could put solar on their roofs and then pay back that investment over time with the property tax assessment?” In a perfect world, that has all sorts of advantages. One is that it’s not a direct impact on an individual person’s credit, it’s based on the value of the property and the equity in the property. Though, we want to make sure that every building owner has the means to pay this back. It is voluntary, so we assume they do. The second thing is that property taxes and assessments, don’t get paid off when you sell your property. The improvement that you put in place transfers to the buyer of the property, and in this instance with PACE, so are the obligations. People don’t know how long they’re going to own a building. Sometimes what keeps them from doing something they’d might like to do is thinking, “Boy, I’m just going to benefit from this for two or three years, then I’m going to have to pay it off.” The transferability is big. Property taxes and assessments that have been unpaid, that are in arrears are at the top of this stack for repayment. That makes it a very strong credit to those who might want to invest in these projects. They can be pretty sure that they’re going to get paid back. It’s also been a problem because quite frankly, the mortgage lenders don’t like that. It’s one of the things we’ve had to work on in the world of PACE. There are a couple of other reasons why the PACE mechanism is really an attractive one, but those are the primary ones. JP: That’s really interesting. I think really good feedback on, especially the transferability. I want to get into the legislative piece and the financing in one second, but there’s R-PACE, right? Residential PACE and C-PACE, commercial PACE. DG: That’s right. The Success of Commercial Pace and Struggles with Residential JP: Just quickly, what is the major difference and are you seeing one grow more rapidly than the other? DG: Well it’s exactly the same mechanism. The difference is two completely different markets. The commercial PACE marketplace is relatively uncontroversial, totally uncontroversial. All this starts with state enabling legislation, to date, 34 states have adopted legislation that would allow building owners, in some instances, just commercial building owners, and some residential and commercial. Three or four states have allowed their local governments to offer PACE. We see commercial PACE programs now operating successfully, completing projects in, I’m going to say, 19 states and the District of Columbia. You can check all of this, whenever you want, on our website, www.pacenation.org. One of the reasons that commercial PACE has been uncontroversial, is that building owners almost always receive the permission or the consent, we call it lender consent, of their existing mortgage lender if they have a mortgage lender. Those mortgage lenders, and consent has been granted by over 150 different lending institutions on close to 1,000 projects, because the lenders understand that the projects improve the value of their collateral. There’s a commercial arena, business people don’t generally do things frivolously. They weigh the pros and cons, the payoffs, the financial impact to their business or their operation or their property. That’s an important part of it. Commercial projects too. If you think about it,a house is a house, and houses are big or small, but generally, the things that you would do to a house to make it more energy efficient involve, some of it’s envelope and upgrading a heating or cooling system, and proving it’s insulation. Commercial buildings vastly greater universe of architecture, and size, and use, and building materials. Commercial projects tend to be bigger, vastly bigger. We’ve seen commercial PACE projects up to $20-25 million. They’re much more engineering driven, systems related pumps and motors. They have a long sales cycle. Long time to get to yes. That’s the commercial landscape. We have consistent entry. Our team is always working with groups in at least one or more states that would like to get PACE legislation passed. Just last year, made a couple of trips to Alaska to work with people from the state and Anchorage, and Fairbanks, and Juneau, who got commercial PACE legislation passed and now are using our resources and others to try to get a program started. We see constant entry on the commercial side. Resi PACE, because it has been a bone of contention for the mortgage industry, and for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage giants, and for their regulator, the federal housing finance agency. It’s been much harder to get resi PACE dispersed throughout the United States. It got a toe hold in California. JP: Because of that consent? DG: Yeah, back in 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac basically said that they would not buy a mortgage with a PACE assessment on it. If your local bank, if you added a PACE project to your home, and your local mortgage lender tried to then sell that mortgage to Fannie or Freddie, Fannie and Freddie said they won’t buy it. They won’t consent to a pay assessment on a property that’s in their portfolio. There’s been a lot of concern about what impact that could have on homeowners. It’s made a lot of states and local governments reluctant to move down the path of offering resi PACE. In California where it started, and where it got a toe hold that never got dislodged, PACE is now available to probably, I’m going to guess and say 80% of the population. All of the major metropolitan centers and populated counties in the state, there are a number of PACE programs operating, some operated by local governments, Placer county for example, Sonoma County. They operate their own program, provide their own program administration, come up with their own funding for projects in most jurisdictions and an outside private, third party program administrator is authorized to offer funding to homeowners. To date, in California, I’m going to say 180,000-200,000 homes and bumping up on five billion dollars of financing over the last two or three years. JP: Let’s talk about those program administrators. I think, for folks, we talked about the 34 states that have the legislation. Really what happens is each locality develops their own program and there are some differences across the programs. Can you talk about the role of that third party, or maybe the municipalities role in administering the program? DG: Yeah. Let me start with the municipality role. Sonoma County, California was a real pioneer. Berkeley did a pilot, but then discontinued it for a while. Sonoma county developed their own program. They used county treasury funds to finance projects. They devoted staff. What does a program administrator do? A program administrator sets up all the paperwork and all of the procedures and make sure all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed to complete the project. That involves making sure that the homeowner qualifies and that the financing is appropriate. That’s often defined in state law and that the project qualifies. The program administration basically completes the project. In the case of Sonoma county, they come up with the funding for it. At the other end of the spectrum, you could have a local government that says, “This is what we want, to offer this to our residents, but we don’t really have the bandwidth to do all of that stuff,” that I described that Sonoma county does. So, we will with authorize a third party to provide all of that program administration and the funding We’ll put the assessment on our tax bill, when everything’s done correctly. When we collect that money from the homeowner, we will forward it to the appropriate party that’s receiving the money for the private party. The way things have evolved in California, most of the financing is provided by private sector, third party program administrators, raised by local governments to provide this service in their jurisdiction. Making the Major Leagues: Securitization and Liquidity in Financial Markets JP: Yeah, let’s talk about that a little bit. I think what’s really interesting about this space, is the growth on the finance side, PACE financing terms, can extend out to 30 years. It’s possible to really undertake deep, comprehensive retrofits, really energy savings and even renewable energy for customers affecting their bottom lines. It can cover 100% of project hard and soft costs, and you’ve got now companies like Greenworks taking these PACE financing programs. Actually, if I’m correct, Greenworks did about a $300 million securitization this year on some PACE loans, which is very, very forward leaning for the market. Talk about in that space, who are some of the folks that you see really leading and where do you see that 3rd party financing piece go? DG: Okay, so on the resi PACE side, in California and Florida and trying to get a toe hold in Missouri, there are a number of third party program administrators: Renovate America has been operating the longest and has the largest share of all of the projects that have ever been done, because they’ve been operating the longest. They’re the ones that recently did a $300 million securitization. As they have built a portfolio themselves of, I don’t know exactly what it is, but it’s well over a billion dollars. They’ve built up that portfolio of completed homes. They’ve gone the way of all assets that build to a substantial amount, and they get bundled together, just as mortgages do or any other kind of receivable. They get securitized. The investment world, institutional investors, insurance companies and whatnot, which have long term obligations and therefore like long terms assets, good match for their portfolio. JP: Important for that, just for our listeners that don’t understand. What that really means is, it’s bringing long term, but often cheaper capital. Cheaper capital to go into these projects, cheaper capital to help bring down the cost for both the transactions and the actual deal. It says a lot about the industry, that it’s getting to securitization. DG: Right. That’s right. They’re providing liquidity, just like your local bank. I have a mortgage from my local bank here in Massachusetts, the Florence bank. They’re a small bank. They lent me money and don’t have to hold my mortgage forever. The bank can take my mortgage and sell it to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who will then bundle it up in a big package and sell it off to investors all over the world. That provides liquidity. It brings money into the local market. Your local government wouldn’t have the resources or the ability to do that, by and large. It’s another thing that a private sector program administrators are bringing. These securities are now being rated a strong AA, I think by Kroll Bond Rating Service (KBRS) and by DBRS. We’re beginning to build a market. Now four or five billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but in the scheme of thing on the financial markets, it’s still very small. Jon, you alluded to this, we’ve seen interest rates begin to come down because the market is getting bigger and more liquid. What does liquid mean? That means that if you’re an insurance company, you buy one of these PACE assets, you want to be able to go out and sell it tomorrow, just as you go out, buy a share of Apple stock today and sell it tomorrow at exactly what the market will bear. An investment you might make that you can’t necessarily get rid of tomorrow, because the market is so small won’t attract as high a price. That’s what I mean by the market is more liquid and transparent. As the market grows, we’ll continue to see interest rates decline. JP: No, that’s great. First of all David, we’re limited on time. I appreciate the full view of this. It shows the growth of the industry, the way it’s matured, that it can get to securitization. Just briefly, I think one you’ll hear a lot about this at PACE Nation’s summit in Denver, the 19th to 21st, please make sure to sign up and attend if you can. Where do you see the landscape look like in the next five years? DG: Let me do this, because I didn’t want to full stop at Renovate. There are several other parties that I want to give some shout outs too. Cisco DeVries, the father of PACE if you will, leads a company called Renew Financial and YGrene Energy Fund, is another and PACE funding and Dividend. There are a number of companies. If you’re out in California and you google PACE, you can come to our website and look them all up if you’re interested. You also mentioned Greenworks. They’re on the commercial side, I want to give them a little shout out for a couple reasons. The founder, co founder of that company, was once my program grant provider at the Rockefeller Brothers fund. I went down and pitched to her on funding PACE Nation. We are still very largely foundation funded. She liked what she heard. A year later, she called me up and said, “David, you’re not going to believe this, but I am going to run the Connecticut PACE program with the Connecticut Green bank.” Then a couple of years after building what was the most successful, I think, one of the most successful commercial PACE programs in the country, she went out and became an entrepreneur. They just completed their own securitization. It wasn’t $300 million, I think it was $75 million. It was rated, another first in the commercial marketplace. There are a bunch of companies like hers, Clean Fund, out in California, PACE equity, Petros Capital. I’m sure I’m going to leave someone out and they’re going to call me up and yell at me, but they are in many different states, working with local program administrators or setting up program administration. They are developing projects and funding them. It’s very exciting to see. JP: Well David, I really appreciate it. We look forward to see you in Denver here in a few short weeks. We appreciate you taking the time. For folks who wanted to continue to learn more, you can always go to pacenation.org. Just thank you for your time. DG: Jon I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much. JP: Well thanks to David for taking the time today and really taking a deep dive into PACE. It’s fine, we’re going to do a few more episodes like this at Experts Only, where we take an issue and try to dive deep into it for our listeners to help them better understand what’s happening. You can go to cleancapital.com, find all of our episodes for Experts Only podcasts. I’d like to thank Emily Connor and Lauren Glickman our producers, and I look forward to continuing the conversation. Catch us later this month for a live taping of the Experts Only Podcast at the PACENation Summit! Did you enjoy this episode? Find the rest of our Experts Only episodes on our website or wherever you listen to your podcast. Subscribe and never miss a conversation.
Experts Only Episode 17: My Conversation with Ethan Zindler, Head of Americas, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Join us this week for a great conversation with Ethan Zindler, Head of Americas at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Ethan’s career has taken him from baggage checker on the Clinton campaign to the White House to MTV to the early days of clean energy covering Cape Wind. For the last 12 years, as Head of Americas for Bloomberg NEF, he’s been at the helm when it comes to clean energy research, with industry leading data on deals and market reports, trends and forecasting. Today we have a great discussion about the market trends and the progress of the industry over the last 10 years. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did. The full episode transcript is below. The Launch of a Clean Energy Career: From the Clinton Campaign to the White House to MTV Jon Powers (JP): Ethan, thank you so much for joining us. You know, you have a fascinating background and there’s a lot to cover with Bloomberg New Energy Finance, but I want to step back a little bit and talk about your broader personal history. You actually spent some time in the political scene working on a Clinton/Gore campaign and then later in the White House. What, first of all, what led you down that track in what was your role in the White House? Ethan Zindler (EZ): So I was definitely a political sort of junky. I’m all the way from high school through college. I worked on a number of campaigns, the Clinton one you know about, because that’s the one where we won, before that I worked on the Dukakis campaign because I’m from Brookline, Massachusetts, which is where Dukakis is from. And then worked for Feinstein when she ran, but lost for governor, eventually she became senator. So I’d always just been really into politics and really, really into campaigns. And so I did that. Then when Clinton won, JP: What was your role in the campaign? EZ: The first half of the Clinton campaign, I was sort of a glorified baggage checker, in other words, I was in charge of making sure that the press didn’t lose their bags on the plane, which sometimes happened. For the second half of the campaign I had a great job where I was the “Youth Media Coordinator”. And my job was to get Clinton to do MTV and get Clinton to talk to college press and doing radio actualities for college radio stations. And all kinds of stuff that back then seemed really cool, hip and happening, but which now seems ancient as the Internet came away and basically made all that stuff seemed really old. But back then, believe it or not, getting a presidential candidate on something other than NBC, CBS or ABC was considered sort of unconventional. . JP: Well, you were a pioneer then. EZ: Yes, I was. Then at the White House I worked in the Office of National Service, which was the office that wrote the Americorps legislation and got that passed which was a big priority for president. Frankly it was more or less like a two line campaign promise that had almost no policy behind it. Then when we won it was like, wow, OK, we’ve got to actually make this happen. But luckily there was an office called the Office of National Service that had been established under Bush. And what we learned is that mostly what the people who had been in that office had been doing is writing press releases to sort of site different things that people had done in service but not actually been responsible for writing legislation or overseeing really anything. So that was, what was that? Americorps is a great program. It’s survived a lot of attempts eliminate it for sure. JP: The transition from the White House to MTV. How did that happen? EZ: At MTV, the one that’s maybe the most interesting was that I became their “web producer.” So in 2000, was the first year, pretty much that MTV had decided that they wanted to cover a presidential campaign on the Internet. Back then the idea of having like a website, well that was pretty unusual. So we did a lot of fun stuff to try and cover the campaign. We’re very much integrated with the folks who were covering the campaign on air as well. That’s the choose or loose group. It sounds incredibly antiquated now, but it was a lot of fun actually. JP: So was Rock the Vote Around then? EZ: Rock the vote was definitely very much about sort of registering people. Choose or lose, which is the MTV thing was about covering the campaign. I mean it was ultimately all about getting people registered to vote. So that was the end goal, but we really tried to take an even handed way of covering that campaign, the Bush Gore campaign, which of course then when it overtime for about a month, but it was a lot of fun. Right? Making the Career Transition to Clean Energy JP: So what lead from that to clean energy? EZ:I f this sounds like a circuitous, career path, it’s because it was. I then went to businesses school and the thought was, well, you know, maybe I’ll do this and then I’ll come back and work in the media business some more. But I went to business school and then while I was there, I graduated at a time that was just the worst time, or at least at that point, what seemed like the worst time for anybody to get out of a business school program. My wife had just had a daughter and I looked at a lot of my fellow graduates and they really were having trouble finding jobs. I’m from New England originally and I spent a lot of time on Cape Cod as a kid and there was a job at the local newspaper there as the one and only business reporter for the Cape Cod Times. I knew that I figured I was qualified. I also figured I’d frankly be the lowest paid member of the Columbia Business School graduating class. But I would have a job and my wife and I were ready to get in New York Post 9-11, I think with a daughter. We were pretty much done for at least a while. I went to the paper and I loved it. I think it’s just a fantastic place to work and interesting people and real commitment to good journalism. So we picked up, we moved to West Yarmouth, Massachusetts where I lived and I covered stories and eventually I am getting to clean energy. I knew even at business school when I was looking at the Cape Cod Times that they were building or trying to build a major offshore wind project out there called Cape Wind. And I thought, wow, if I’m the business reporter, I guess I’ll get to cover that. Covering the Cape Wind Beat for the Cape Cod Times EZ: Frankly, it took me a good year at the paper before they let me touch the story because there were other people already covering it. It was the hottest story the Cape Cod times was covering. But eventually I got to cover it. So I got really familiar with the Cape Wind project, the controversy surrounding it. I knew the opponents. I know Jim Gordon well as the developer and did a lot of work. I tried to use my MBA as much as I could to try and think about the cash flows around that project and how it could pencil out and how it could work and all the things that are around it. It was a fantastic experience. On a good day you’d write a story that would make the front page and both sides would call and yell at you. It happened pretty frequently, with both the opponents and the supporters of the project. JP: So what led from that into further research in clean energy and of course Bloomberg? EZ: About three years into that, I loved it, but my wife was ready to move back to a larger urban area. So she moved down first. Then found out about this new outlet called New Energy Finance. It was just starting, of course, back then, it was a very small industry. I heard about this guy Michael Liebreich. He was starting a company in London. I was down here in DC and Making the career move to the startup New Energy Finance: “The Saudi Arabia of Data” EZ: I wish I could even remember the exact time but it about then and he said, hey, we’re going to start this thing up. And I’m actually at the time of new energy finance was, two things were, one, it was, it was very, very small. Two, I was going to be the first US employee. They had no employees in the United States at all. So I interviewed with him and I was like, oh, it sounds good, but like, what the hell is this going to be? And it’s a startup and I got a kid and you know, how am I going to make all this work? So he said, look, you know, if you want to check us out, if you fly over to London, if you pay for the ticket and then you take the job will reimburse for you if you don’t, then that ticket is on you. So I said, all right, so I flew over to London, showed up on a Saturday morning, and I went over to the office and I rang the bell and actually nobody answered and I thought this is a huge mistake and, but I spent the day talking with the CEO, Michael Liebreich, whose somebody I admire a great deal to this day. And I talked with about five other people and each one of the people I asked about New Energy Finance. I said, so what’s the business model in each one of them gave me a totally different answer and so, you know, but my belief was basically that these technologies were really exciting, that they would change the world that were, they were somewhat inevitable. And frankly that’s the one thing I give myself credit itself for, not for believing in the right company or anything or being a genius, but just believing that this stuff was actually going to grow. And so I was very fortunate and have been since then. JP:And you’ve been able to see the growth of that industry. I mean, we’re now at a point where, we’re through the evolution of do these technologies even work and now it’s how do we drive down capital to get more implementation? EZ: Exactly. So it was back in those days, it was just sort of like, will there be a good feed in tariff or strong subsidy? OK, that’s where there’ll be a market, Then that market disappears, you know, that still happens to some degree today, but you know, we’ve now definitely moved to the point where this stuff is legitimately economic. JP: For our listeners, explain what Bloomberg New Energy Finance does and talk a little bit about the growth over the last really 12 years since you’ve been there. EZ: It was called New Energy Finance and start up company. And again, there were about 20-25 of us when I joined in about 2005 and at the time basically we didn’t really know what the business was going to be other than we wanted to gather as much reliable data and information as we could about all this stuff that was happening and what the actual revenue model is going to be for us was far from clear. We used to joke was that we had sort of the Saudi Arabia of energy data. Everybody was just constantly logging deals and logging organizations and every scrap of data we could get, we put it into a database. The closest that we had come to an actual publication was that we would publish a newsletter every month, including one on the Americas, which I used to do. The reality of it is that was kind of it. We started to get subscribers and grant people to access the data and that worked OK, but it didn’t generate a lot of money. At some point we said to ourselves, wait, OK, we’ve now been doing this for about three years. Why don’t we write more in depth research about the map, the trends, not just news, but like actually what’s going on. The micro economic stuff, we have all this data, we can analyze it ourselves and besides, nobody else is doing it and this industry is not that old that there are any super well established experts that we can’t potentially be those people. So we started and have sold access to the research that we produce and importantly access to the underlying data. I think that’s always something we’re trying to emphasize as differentiators that we don’t just say, OK, we think there’s this much wind that is going to get built next year. We say, OK, this is how much wind is going to get built. Here’s the excel sheet where you can take a look at the projects and where we think they’re going to be built and If you disagree, you know, go ahead. We shuffle the data and come up with a different forecast. JP: You guys were playing Big Data. Before it was a cool thing, EZ: Thankfully it was little big data because it wasn’t that much going on in the industry. It wasn’t that hard that you couldn’t have like a dozen of us basically just tap tap tapping stuff into a database. The Professionalization of Clean Energy – The “Ponytail Factor” JP: So over time with that growth, what have you seen in the industry and what are your projecting out as the exciting things for the industry moving forward? EZ: My old friend Jody Roussel from the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) used to joke about the ponytail factor. And so in the early days of clean energy, she used to say that the sign of progress was the decreasing number of men with ponytails. Little did she know that that was back 10 years ago. Now it’s man buns or whatever, I don’t know if that’s a good metric anymore. But back then you saw a sort of professionalization of the industry is more as frankly it became less people who are sort of advocates, even with great respect to people who are advocates. But it became less about advocates and more about money people and entrepreneurs and people who are hard headed and professional. And so definitely have seen a lot more of that and a lot more people have come in and certainly opportunists along with them, that’s for sure. But look, you need that to make the industry grow. So that’s been a huge thing. And then I would say that the professionalization, the second thing has been commoditization I would say in terms of particularly around solar equipment as you know, the price of solar equipment has plummeted and it’s being driven by economies of scale more than anything. I think for a long time there, it was really all about technology, technology, technology, all these different types of technologies that were out there. And I think it’s still a fascinating industry in terms of the various technologies that could still change our world. But as you know, the things that have really come along had been more about scale and less, not less about technology, but there hasn’t been that kind of Super Eureka moment I would say for solar. It’s still basically the same technology was looking at 10 years ago. It’s just being done so much bigger and cheaper than it was. JP: There’s less reliance on the concept of like the holy grail. EZ: Yeah, it’s gotta be that one thing that just sort of changes our world. Even batteries people keep talking about in the same context, but batteries again, it’s scale. It’s really, really driven down costs. Discussing Clean Energy Investment Trends: Clean Energy Investing is still “immature” JP: So I’m going to dive into one of the recent reports you guys put out earlier this month at Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported that global investment in clean energy such as wind and solar, reached about $333.5 billion in 2017. It’s about a three percent rise from last year, but about seven percent off the record overall. What do you view as driving this trend and what do you think of those 2017 numbers? EZ: I think the good news about the numbers, is that the price per unit of wind and solar and keep coming down. So if you keep posting dollar figures that are more or less in the same zone and we really have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 billion now for the last five or six years, you’re talking about more and more stuff getting built. I actually don’t have a final number on total clean energy built this year, but it’s probably going to be somewhere around a 150-160 gigawatts. It’s a lot of capacity and it’s a majority of the new power generating capacity that’s getting built typically in a year is now zero carbon and particularly if you include large hydro, definitely if you include nuclear. My first thing, is always evidence that we should not refer to this as alternative energy. This is mainstream energy. There’s no question about that. I would say that’s the main sort of takeaway I would say from last year. The other thing is under underlying that of course is the phenomenon of China, which is just incredible. It continues to blow our minds, we have counted about 50 gigawatts of solar that got built in China last year. I think our high water mark in the US is like, I don’t know, 12 or 15 gigawatts. So that is A LOT of solar. Every time we think it’s just going to cool down a little bit. It just goes, it just goes and goes. So China’s roughly about half the world, about 40 percent of all total investment in the world went into China for clean energy. JP: I want to come back to China, I want to come back to the international space cause it’s exciting that stuff is happening there. It’s equally exciting internationally, which is great for the industry. Going back to the $333 billion over last few years, the World Economic Forum put out a report last year that less than half a percent of institutional capital is invested in the space. It continues to rise, there is targets to reach one percent, which will be great. But looking at that $300 billion figure, do you guys breakdown where some of that’s coming from? EZ: It’s interesting actually. There’s two kind of data sets in terms of dollars. So there’s also green bond financing, which is typically over $100 billion, but it is not an enough going to check what our final number is going to be for 2017, but it’ll be somewhere around that. It’s actually not a subset because while there’s some overlap, but there’s some differences as well and include some things that aren’t clean energy, just to be clear. The trend has been clearly upward on the part of institutional investors in some ways. I always sort of joke and say that that the way in which our industry raises money is still really immature. So you have ~$300 billion dollars and then, you know, the large majority of that is project finance. In the large majority of the project finance is simply money that’s raised through some form of syndication of debt. There is a small handful of number of players, but we’re talking now, tens, hundreds of billions, the industry could and should and is in some cases raising money and larger chunks over the institutional markets through bond offerings and pension fund investment. So I think that’s the way things have to keep going. I think we’ll see more of that because I think amazingly enough there’s still a lot of people for whom they’re still like, wow, wind/solar, that’s kind of weird technology. What’s the risk about?, well wait a second guys. Like now we’ve got a lot of years of performance here to show that this works. Second, take the fuel price risk out of the equation. Like don’t tell me that this is higher risk than projects where you really don’t know what your input costs are going to be over 20 year life span. So I think actually institutional investors are figuring that out. And on top of that, they are facing some pressure of course, to move away from investments in fossil fuels. So those two things combined and you definitely see some of the players, the California pension funds, like definitely been in it for awhile, but you see some interesting moves recently a Quebec pension fund bought a portfolio of Mexican wind projects. The Texas state teachers retirement fund is taking direct investments in renewables projects as well. So there’s more, just definitely more to come in that sense. JP: It’s interesting you brought up the check size too because I think what we see in the market today is you’ve got folks that are beginning to get interested in, the education and the pressure is there from stakeholders. But there has to be the right check size for them to even take a look. And you know, unless you’re talking to utility scale solar or utility-scale wind, you know, putting that check size together is challenging. Right? And you’ve got an aggregate. But I think the projects now are out there in size and scale enough to begin to attract it. EZ: I mean, look, we’re probably the most bullish about distributed solar, like almost anybody and we think it’s going to really revolutionize the world. The reality is it’s always going to be, I mean, if it gets bigger, it’s going to go from tens of hundreds of thousands of systems to millions of systems and it’s gotta get aggregated, right? It’s got to in order to keep driving the costs of finance down. JP: Do you have a lot of those institutional is coming to you all for data? EZ: We do. A bunch of them are clients. I would say this. So it’s interesting for us as a business is that it’s more often to be someone who’s directly involved in direct project finance of individual projects and less likely to be someone who’s at a pension fund for the reason you’re sort of saying that they haven’t done as much historically, but the more that the pension funds get involved, the better. And the other thing is, you know, our business now we’re part of Bloomberg, so our data and information is available over the Bloomberg terminal. Actually that’s where a lot of these large pension fund folks have terminal access, so a big part of what we’re doing is saying hello, you’ve got a terminal and if you’re interested in clean energy and hey, did you know, you could look up the last 10 wind farm financings in Texas if you want. See who did them. In many cases like, oh, I didn’t know that. JP: You see them coming to some of the events too? EZ: Yeah, they definitely come to the events we’ll have at our summit, which I’ll give a plug for an April. We’re definitely going to have a panel. You know, we’ve done it before. We’ll do another one to sort of do a lay of the land, will certainly have California where I presented on that. We’ll probably have someone from New York state represented on there. I think we’re trying to have someone who’s from Quebec, but we would like to also have, whether it’s Texas or somebody else, there’s some funds that are really been the, the most on the front foot on this stuff but more starting to come around now. The Politics of Clean Energy in the U.S. under Trump Administration JP: Before we go international, we’re sitting here in Washington DC, about six blocks away from the White House leading into 2017. There was a definite gasp, clean energy experts for fear of what was going to happen. But I think what we’re seeing federal policy aside, this has become a state level game. You know, the right things that moving the cost of capital is coming down. The cost of the panels are coming down, wind projects are being implemented in a conservative states that are getting champions. that I think none of us expected. We are a year into the Trump administration. Putting aside the solar tariff piece, what do you guys view as the effects of the administration without being political on the market. EZ: I am glad you ask our monthly VIP brief that we do for clients and actually to the public. I’m supposed to write this month about the one year review of Trump because I wrote something right after he got elected in which I tried to be as optimistic as possible, at least in saying, look, that the guy is a businessman. So any rational business man, once they spend a little time, we’ll figure out that clean energy is a good deal for the US. And so we don’t want to actually kill it. A year later, I’m less optimistic that he’s a rational business man, let’s put it that way. I think the good news for the industry is that these guys, him and his administration, they do not understand how to pull the levers of power very well. And so they’ve certainly sought to lay a glove on the clean energy industry. So far I think they’ve been generally unsuccessful. I would argue that it’s largely that they don’t really know how this stuff works all that well. I think the Paris thing symbolically obviously was not great for the industry, but didn’t really make a difference on the day to day stuff. JP: I’d argue just countered with the amount of momentum that came out of people who have been announcing. You had Nike go this week on renewable energy, wait a minute, if you’re not going to do, we will. EZ: Corporate, certainly did, they jumped right into. There’s no question about that. But I think that the bullet that the industry largely dodged was tax reform. The tax credit at the federal level is the most important policy. Basically at the very end in the last year, as you know, they, they managed to more or less, I mean it’s complicated and getting into too much, but they more or less managed to um, get the tax credits exempted from what would have been a floor level type of policy, this BEAT provision without getting any more detailed than that. This is going to be very interested for project financing. There’s going to be a lot of rethinking and there’s going to be some reshuffling and in some ways what they did do at the end of the year will hurt the industry but not nearly as bad as it could’ve been. JP: Yeah, I agree. Going back to what the levers conversation, I mean, you look across the bureaucracy and you can’t just put an executive order that you actually have to manage that executive order. EZ: You can’t just tweet out that you’re not going to subject Florida off offshore drilling. There’s actually a process and the FERC thing and Secretary Perry’s effort to basically tell FERC what to do and say we want you to basically go reward coal fire generation and them saying, well actually that’s, that’s just not how this works. That to me is like kind of case in point of that’s not how the system works. JP: It was refreshing to see them come out and show that the systems work. EZ: Yeah, I mean there’s, you know, things take time as you know, you worked in government, right? It’s not like you don’t just wake up one morning and decide how you want things to go are you actually have to be very clear and strategic about it and they haven’t been so far. The U.S. Role in the Global Clean Energy Market JP: I’m going to talk about international. You talked about China, which is incredibly exciting and over two dozen countries last year invested more than a billion dollars in clean energy. What are we seeing out of the rest of the world and is our lack of leadership today stifling that or are we just falling behind? EZ: That’s a good question. I mean, the one thing I will say about sort of the rest of the world question is, look, the Chinese view this as a strategic opportunity on a lot of different levels and they are moving very quickly to get their clean energy equipment out to more markets. There are actually a variety of reasons for that. One of which is because they’ve built an unprecedented volume of manufacturing capacity back home and they do not want idle plants so that they want and they need markets. The second thing is that the one way them to actually exercise some soft power is to show up in a country and say hello, we will build you a nice big wind or solar project. We will bring you the equipment and by the way we will finance it to, through the China Development Bank. And they are being very, very aggressive about that. JP: It’s likely you will be using Chinese construction too. EZ: We’ll create it and for countries that have lack of access to capital and are interested in clean energy. It’s almost like a turnkey solution. They’re doing other things too, where they’re actually buying local developers. I was just in Brazil last week where National Grid has bought a company called CPFL, which is a local developer and owner of assets. We’re seeing more and more of that take place. So I think the reality of it is, that we focus a lot on Chinese as manufacturers but they are also international financiers and now developers as well. From a global and climate perspective, great. If they have the cheapest capital and they can do it, you know, fantastic. From a US competitiveness perspective it is not so great. Some Background on Bloomberg New Energy Finance JP: Thank you for all of this. For folks that aren’t familiar with the Bloomberg New Energy Finance, how do they get involved? How they engage you guys? EZ: Well firstly you can look us up on the web, but second of all, we have conferences, which are invite only, but we are certainly interested in people who want to attend or speak at those. We love having people read our stuff, which is, which is far from free but if you’re interested in subscribing, drop me a note. Advice for Your Younger Self JP: It’s interesting, we have a variety of listeners, folks that are really in the investment side. We’ve got students just learning about the space. So it’s quite an interesting group. So I always ask the same last question. Especially speaking to those folks just getting into the industry, if you could look back and you get quite an interesting sort of roller coaster of a career and you can give yourself a piece of advice coming out of high school or college. What would you say? EZ: Well, first off is to myself, I would say you should be a better student and take it more seriously, I was actually a pretty bad high school student. Then I would also say, you know, it’s not the end of the world if you’re aren’t a great high school student because you can make it up in college. When I first joined this industry, it was very much a small industry which showed a lot of promise, now that we’ve reached some real scale and some scope and that’s great. There are a lot of great opportunities out there for people to get involved. I do think that, as you know, as a person who’s an entrepreneur, there’s still a lot of areas for startup and there’s the one thing I am struck by and we’re very, as I said, very optimistic about the sort distributed energy aspect of all this is there’s a lot of, there’s a lot of small projects to be done. There’s millions of small projects to be done and it ultimately those add up to a lot of value. And I think so it’s not always about going off and trying to figure out how you find that it’s $100 million dollar wind farm. It’s about figuring out how you finance a $1 million rooftop or even $200,000 rooftop. We model it and the economics look great, but at the end of the day you need like an army of people to actually do all of this. So I think local development is something which is always going to be an opportunity and if you’re really a self-starter, entrepreneur, and enterprising, and you live in a place where either a power prices are really high or b, it’s very sunny or c both of those things. You might want to look around and see like, is there anybody I could talk to you about how I actually help them think about putting solar here. Have they thought ever thought about doing solar and, and you know, can I chat with them about it? Because the answer in many cases is, Huh? I never really thought about that. And so I think those are where the opportunities lie. Listen to other episodes of Experts Only.