Revolving Loan Programs CT-DEEP Energy Savings Performance Contracting Program for State Agencies Revolving Working Capital Loan Fund May 6th, 2015 NASEO 2015 Northeast Regional Meeting
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Revolving Loan Programs CT-DEEP Energy Savings Performance
Contracting Program for State AgenciesRevolving Working Capital Loan Fund
May 6th, 2015
NASEO 2015
Northeast Regional Meeting
Agenda
1.Quick overview RLFs
2.DEEP ESPC Program
3.Current & Pipeline Projects
4.Need for Working Capital
5.CT Green Bank WCLF
2
Quick overview RLFs
3
• Internal to the Entity
• Oriented to a Specific Goal
• Easy to Administer (internal “underwriting”)
• Self-Replenishing / Sustainable
Capitalization• Federal, State or Institutional Funds
• Generally NOT a good idea to use borrowed funds
Key Features
• Application / Submission Process
• Underwriting Guidelines / Approval
• Transaction Administration
• Performance Reporting
Operation
RLF Benefits
▪ Flexible, affordable financing
▪ Excellent option for short term needs / repayment
“known”
▪ Good for situations where private capital is
unavailable or available with unattractive
conditions
▪ Can be “easy” to establish (in relative terms)
▪ Funds are at hand
4
RLF Drawbacks
▪ Could be expensive or time intensive to operate
(especially if you lack staff to administer)
▪ Poor choice for “longer term” needs
▪ Not good when private sources at reasonable
cost are “ready, willing and able” to step in
▪ Funds might not be available
5
Connecticut ESPC Program▪ Standardized ESPC Program for use by State agencies
▪ Required by Connecticut General Statutes 16a-37x.
▪ Intent is to help State agencies implement a portfolio of
comprehensive energy savings measures with no upfront capital.
▪ The costs of the energy retrofits are paid for by future savings from
future utility and maintenance budgets guaranteed by the QESPs.
▪ Program provides the following resources to support State projects:
– Assistance and support with education about the State ESPC program.
– A set of ESPC contract documents that have been pre-approved by the
Connecticut Attorney General's Office.
– A selection of fully vetted Qualified Energy Service Providers (QESPs*).
– Financing for the projects … State GO bonds … Green Bank bonds
▪ *The QESPs currently include 13 major energy service companies (ESCOs): Ameresco, ConEdison Solutions, Eaton Energy
Solutions, Energy Solutions Professionals, Energy Systems Group, Honeywell, Johnson Controls, NORESCO, Pepco Energy
Services, McKinstry, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and Trane.
6
Project
Total
Project
Cost
Annual Debt
Service
(3.5%, 20 yr,
level
payments)
Avg
Cashflow
Savings
(Years 1-5)
20 yr
Cashflow
Savings
NPV 20 yr
Cashflow
Savings
CT Valley Hospital $33M $2.3M $562k $25M $17M
Dept of Motor
Vehicles$5M $365k $0 $1.5M $900k
Dept of Correction
(District 1)$45M $3.1M $0 $11M $6.6M
Total: $83M $5.75M $562k $37.5M $24.5M
5
ESPC Program
Initial projects
Future ESPC ProjectsPreliminary estimate ~$125M project costs financed by ~$8M/yr savings
DOC – District 2 (Cheshire) and District 3
(York)~$3M/yr energy savings
Dept of Veteran’s Affairs (Rocky
Hill)~$700k/yr energy savings
CT Technical High Schools~$3M/yr energy savings
CT Military Department~$1.5M/yr energy savings
7
ESPC Program Funding Challenges
▪ Critical need to fund preparatory costs to enable the
development of ESPC projects.
▪ A small percentage of the overall project costs, State agency
budgets are not structured to support them (particularly in
terms of timing flexibility)
▪ Examples of common preparatory costs:
• Investment Grade Energy Audits to be conducted by the ESPC
contractor
• Technical consulting services including a standardized project
development platform
• Metering and submetering services to establish energy baselines that will
be used to verify savings opportunities
• Consulting services to achieve compliance with State Historic
Preservation Office requirements
• Costs can be recouped when the project is financed
9
CT Green Bank Working Capital Loan Fund▪ $1.8M fund seeded with funds repurposed from “failed” program
▪ Over time, expand to $5M to support $100M of expected projects
• DEEP-provided preparatory costs ($1.3 million) to the WCLF to the extent those
costs are recouped from the first three agency projects at the time of financing
• Directing utility incentives for state agency projects to the fund
• Adding potential future bond proceeds for the WCLF that are requested by DEEP
• Including additional funding through future CT Green Bank annual budget
processes including potential private capital leverage
• Issuance of RGGI proceeds
▪ DEEP determines allowable expenses and expense limits for the
agencies, coordinates vendor selection and pricing terms, submits
requests for funding to Green Bank
▪ Green Bank process the requests, confirms particulars & transfer
funds. Also provides monthly account statements to DEEP and
the recipient agencies to track the status and availability of funds
10
CT Green Bank Working Capital Loan Fund (2)
▪ Loans from WCLF expected to be drawn and repaid
within 2 yrs
▪ Repayment from bond proceeds for project
▪ “Failed” projects repaid via agency appropriations
▪ Green Bank may (to the extent funds are available)
recoup interest expense (limited to 2% p.a.)
▪ Green Bank to report quarterly to DEEP (WCLF status)
▪ Final financial report upon conclusion of the Fund
11
RLF Recap
▪ Flexible, affordable financing
▪ Short term needs
▪ Repayment “known”
▪ Private capital is unavailable (not a good fit)
▪ “Easy” to establish
▪ Funds were at hand
12
Thank you!
Bert Hunter EVP & Chief Investment Officer Connecticut Green Bank T 860-257-2174 | C 203-918-0013 | F 860-563-4877 845 Brook Street, Rocky Hill, CT 06067
300 Main Street, Suite 400, Stamford, CT 06901 [email protected] ctgreenbank.com
Related Documents
