PDA

View Full Version : Sonoma County on NPR's Morning Edition! Re: SCEIP



Barry
07-29-2010, 11:34 PM
https://media.npr.org/chrome/news/nprlogo_138x46.gifHere's a story I heard on NPR this morning about our beloved but troubled SCEIP program. I finally understand what the problem is, even though I don't think its a problem.

Listen here:
PACE, Popular Energy Efficiency Loan Program, In Danger : NPR (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128700648)


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/2010-07-29_2309.png
Courtesy of Sonoma County Energy Independence
Solar panels sit atop a two-story home in Santa Rosa, Calif.
Despite their popularity, programs like the one that paid for these
panels are coming under fire from federal mortgage regulators.
July 29, 2010

A White House-backed program that allows property owners to pay for energy improvements like solar panels or efficient furnaces through an additional assessment to their property taxes may soon be shut down.

The federal agency that oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has slammed the door on the program — known as PACE, or Property Assessed Clean Energy — saying it poses a risk to mortgage lenders. That has frustrated PACE supporters, who say the program has helped cut down their energy bills and increased the value of their property.

Making It Easier To Go Solar
On a broad rooftop in Santa Rosa, Calif., workers are installing a large array of solar panels — more than 200 of them. The $300,000 project was financed by Sonoma County, under a PACE program called Sonoma County Energy Independence (https://sonomacountyenergyaction.org/systems/energy/content/incentives).

"We will hopefully make enough energy to take care of all of our needs," says Arnie Carston, the owner of ProSource Flooring, where the panels were being installed.

Carston is a proud Republican — and a strong supporter of the county program.

"The main reason I wanted to do this," Carston says, "is so that somebody doesn't have to pump a couple thousand gallons of oil out of the ground to make electricity to run my building."

But the ruling by the Federal Housing Finance Agency — the regulator that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — has cast doubt on Sonoma County's 18-month-old program. Similar PACE programs in 22 other states are also at risk.

Carston says he just can't understand why the agency has pulled the rug from under the program.
"It's not doing anything except making America stronger, if we all did this," Carston says. "You know, for the government to come in now and say that you can't do this ... it's a surprise to me that someone hasn't thought this out."

Scrutiny For A Growing Program
Sonoma County has loaned out $30 million for energy improvements to more than 1,000 homes and businesses since the program began a year and a half ago.

Now that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been told by their regulator to steer clear of the program, some contractors, like John Sutter, are being forced to cut back.
https://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/07/22/solar2.jpg?t=1279832485&s=2
Raedle/Getty Images
Damon Corkern, who works for ECS Solar Energy Systems,
installs solar panels on a house roof in Gainesville, Fla.


"I'd have to lay off about half my workforce of 15 employees right at this time," Sutter says. "Just at the point we're actually gearing up to increase our workforce, I'm laying off."

So what is it about these programs that the FHFA doesn't like? The primary objection is that in the event of a default, the new tax obligation takes priority over the original mortgage.

Program supporters pooh-pooh that objection, saying that the lender would only have to pay off any back property taxes — a small fraction of the total amount.

But that's not true, says acting FHFA Director Edward DeMarco.

"It is not just what is the unpaid accrued amount on the PACE assessment," he says. "It goes to what can be realized as the value from this property in a foreclosure sale."

In other words, what if prospective buyers don't like that additional property tax and demand a lower price? The mortgage lender eats the loss.

That won't happen, PACE supporters argue, because the house will have increased in value.

Debating Value Of Energy Improvements
Terry Kelley sealed and insulated his house in Sebastopol, Calif., using $20,000 of county money.
"We've found that it has made a huge difference in our winter utility bills," he says. "Our gas usage dropped by half."

And that, Kelley says, makes his house more valuable.

PACE supporters argue that these programs work just like other tax assessments, such as the ones for sidewalks, sewers and streets: They serve a community good by using sustainable energy and reducing greenhouse gases.

But that's comparing apples and oranges, says the FHFA's DeMarco.

"Well, I can leave it to your listeners to decide whether an individual homeowner making a decision on their own to do some sort of energy retrofit just to their property is akin to improving the sewers network in an entire neighborhood or community or not," DeMarco says.

DeMarco says his agency is talking with members of Congress who have introduced legislation to save the program. Meanwhile, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has sued FHFA over the issue, and Sonoma County has elected to continue its program, using other lenders.

Bryan
07-30-2010, 11:19 AM
I generally believe in the program as it stands - I have 18 panels on the house roof for the past 5 years without a hitch. Paid out of pocket for that system though.

However, If we want to be fair to the federal big money people (not sure why we would)- If we want to loan tax dollars to private homeowners, I would think that another, more consistent approach would be for Sonoma County to purchase these panels and systems on its own, and simply lease them to the homeowners. That takes the yearly bill off the tax assessment rolls entirely. At the end of a standard lease term (10-20 years), the equipment would be sold to the homeowner at the depreciated value ($1000?).

It also means the County should ensure that theft insurance and equipment depreciation and repair are also included in the overall cost. The county could setup a non-profit to run this business.
If there are problems with payment, then the county could remove the equipment and move it elsewhere in its leasing program. Or it could attach a lien on the property just like any other construction loan. However, that lien would not get the same priority as a tax lien - however, the equipment would have a residual value.

I would think a monthly lease would be easier to pay than a yearly tax increase. I'd rather pay a solar equipment lease than a PG&E bill. (My home bill currently averages out to $60 a year for electricity. Now my 2 business bills are an entirely different matter.)

The problem then is the government is potentially making decisions on who to pay to install, and
what to buy. But a regulated list of qualified contractors and a industry wide standard for equipment to meet should create a big enough pool of choices. The homeowner is signing the lease, just like an auto lease, and makes the decision on what to buy anyway. The county would act as the leasing firm.

I assume there are other equipment leasing firms that would be in competition with the county - maybe they'll step up enough to make the county program unnecessary over time. But right now they don't seem to do small projects - only very large commercial leases.

This leasing program wouldn't work as easily for some energy retrofits but only standalone systems.
Not sure how to lease insulation and windows that can't be removed.

Bryan
07-30-2010, 02:12 PM
In re-reading my suggestion - I remember that the tax lien approach currently used doesn't affect the credit records of the homeowners.
Theoretically, the homeowner could then refinance the home, take out other credit, etc., since this 'loan' isn't being treated as a loan. What the Feds have done is end-run that approach and in fact, made it much harder to refinance and pulled this tax lien into the financial realm.

A lease could avoid that but it would have to be transferred to new homeowners through escrow - maybe difficult? Run into the same problem that banks want to know that the leased equipment still has residual value. As solar prices drop, that could be a problem, but at least one that may be OK since at least we are all getting cheaper solar producdts.