|
�A ) ii :.
<br />�,JLa ��;� ,,,,,.o.;, ,,,,,i � iii '��° o, a� ,i <o,���o, ,,,,,,,fI�.,irr�
<br />Prepared by David Sarkisian, Policy Analyst at NCCETC; for more information, contact David at d,psarljs ii)nesrioedii
<br />This document was originally developed as a policy background for the PACE Financing in NC Policy Development Summit
<br />hosted by the North Carolina Building Performance Association on December Stn, 2016. Those interested in NCBPA's work on
<br />PACE in North Carolina should contact Ryan Miller at 1 c „� ? „;a�%N;c i.n..f C,,!2L9.
<br />NC 1"ACEPolicy Choices
<br />There are many choices to be made in designing a successful plan for a Property - Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
<br />program in North Carolina. This document discusses some of the dimensions on which PACE plans in other states
<br />have varied, provides descriptions of the different choices available and their advantages and disadvantages, and,
<br />where certain options seem clearly preferable, provides recommendations. On many of these issues, though,
<br />decisions will need to reflect assessments of the current political and business climate, and the judgments and
<br />preferences of stakeholders.
<br />Initiation Model
<br />PACE models can take several different forms, the differences between them largely reflecting the varying role of
<br />the state and local governments in initiating and supporting PACE programs (National Association of State
<br />Energy Offices, 2016). PACE models can be classified into four types: single statewide option, state and local
<br />option, local option with strategic state support, and local option with little or no state support (NASEO, 2016 p.
<br />14).
<br />Single Statewide Option: Under this model, a state will have only one PACE program, which is
<br />administered at the state level. Municipalities have the option to join or not join the state program, but
<br />cannot create their own programs. Connecticut's PACE legislation is of this type. The single statewide
<br />option model creates transparency and consistency across the state for stakeholders, and minimizes the
<br />administrative burden and financial risk faced by municipalities. However, it limits the ability of
<br />municipalities to tailor their PACE program to local characteristics, and requires significant state
<br />government support.
<br />State and Local Option: This model involves a statewide PACE program that municipalities may opt into
<br />but also allows municipalities to create their own programs or join other existing programs. New York,
<br />Florida, Missouri, Utah, Colorado, and Maryland have this type of model. This model combines the
<br />advantages of state support present in the single statewide option model with the ability for municipalities
<br />to create a different program if necessary to match local characteristics. In some of these states the state -
<br />created programs appear to be dominant, while in others locality -based programs have carved a niche.
<br />Local Option with Strategic State Support: In this model the state does not create a statewide program, but
<br />provides standards and model rules to localities that wish to create their own programs. This can create
<br />consistency and transparency without involving direct state control. Texas's PACE in a Box initiative is an
<br />example of this model.
<br />Local Option with Little or No State Support: In this model localities take almost all of the responsibility
<br />for PACE program development. California is the most prominent example of this model, while Virginia's
<br />recent PACE legislation appears to be of this type as well. Localities under this model can still join larger
<br />PACE programs that operate in more than one locality, but such larger programs are not supported by the
<br />state government. The boundary between this model and the strategic support model is not sharp, as state
<br />North Carolina State University 1919-515-3480 1 www.nccleantech.ncsu.edu
<br />
|