[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6174700,"mediaKeyId","5368064-ad0f879ae3adecff74315effaccacf54","parentId",5368064,"title","City of Boulder, advocates push interest-rate buy-down for on-bill financing; opponents warn of cost shifts","audioSeconds",3157,"startMs",2068000,"endMs",5225000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5368064-ad0f879ae3adecff74315effaccacf54&start=2068&end=5225","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5368064-ad0f879ae3adecff74315effaccacf54/thumbnail_2068000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6174700/Colorado/City-of-Boulder-advocates-push-interest-rate-buy-down-for-on-bill-financing-opponents-warn-of-cost-shifts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174700-4f4492ae338873034a3ba9ec8ad59b71/orig.mp4?Expires=1770483125&Signature=UWd-y27EW9ffGihMOryn4Sg8HYt19VZB0yAdkwj2eUcAakEyKE3~OvNDQwXhQEPFjhphuuuKyJzORZTuIWPZidoOfS9itZ0NiKaVXbuTfhpVjWKmdDds1C8~P3HEiKNpHOX9TNpWZUPBxcpgVupgPjMqNi6By2UmBpE5Jq9-PHVeZo3hD3xcwL5JI3BIrUJV7lQ-5yFvUwGxoX6HnkfGBxQOn2mj1oZcR2dQuGAXY-A7iKywJuSY0mdhSQrKeJbZMgWqo-FTkzkyKIWOpFPY2KsYhcY-MiFWFK~Do-bCFnewDPITv1rjA6NYO3FL9BgfmkmvVqTgewaVCHOQaR0j5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-11T22:52:59.963Z","article","City of Boulder and several energy-policy advocates urged the Colorado Public Utilities Commission on the record to authorize mechanisms to lower interest rates for a proposed on-bill financing program, arguing low-cost financing is essential to drive customer uptake. City of Boulder sustainability senior manager Carolyn Elam testified that \"0% is gonna be far more effective at driving participation and supporting those customers,\" and recommended the commission allow use of existing program funds to reduce borrower costs.

The buy-down idea drew support from the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project and rural advocates. Ramon Alatorre, senior program manager at SWEEP, said his group \"recommended a buy down\" and pointed to unspent clean-heat program funds as one candidate source. Alice Laird, executive director of Clean Energy Economy for the Region (CLEAR), told the panel that \"Lower interest rates are absolutely critical for this program to be workable for ... many of the rural customers\" CLEAR represents.

Why it matters: On-bill financing links a customer’s energy-efficiency or electrification loan to the meter or bill, lowering upfront cost barriers for measures such as heat pumps. Parties said lower financing costs materially increase participation and enable the state’s clean-heat and DSM goals. SWEEP and Boulder argued the program should be structured to deliver close-to-zero interest for income-qualified customers and very low rates for other participants.

Arguments and trade-offs: Proponents proposed several ways to lower rates, including a points-style interest buy-down, a loan-loss reserve and direct payment of program administrative costs. Boulder’s Elam said program design choices should favor mechanisms that reduce systemic cost and improve participation, and that using existing DSM or unspent clean-heat budgets could avoid new charges.

Opponents and cautions: Trial staff and other intervenors flagged the distributional effect: the Demand-Side Management Cost Adjustment (DSMCA) used to fund DSM programs is collected from all ratepayers. Staff attorney Ross Smith and others emphasized that if DSMCA or similar riders fund an interest buy-down, nonparticipating ratepayers — including low-income households who do not participate — would still bear some cost. Several witnesses said the size of that impact was not yet quantified in the record.

Process and next steps: Witnesses asked for clearer commitments and more detail from the capital provider (CCEF/CCF) and the company about how a buy-down would be implemented, how rebates would be applied (before or after financing), and whether funds would be rerouted from approved program budgets. Commissioner questions focused on whether approving a buy-down would be a material change to prior DSM or clean-heat settlements; City of Boulder witnesses said it would not be a material alteration but preferred using existing flexibility where possible.

Ending: Parties remained divided on financing sources and on the distributional consequences for nonparticipants. The commission closed evidentiary testimony and directed the company to file a short post-hearing statement addressing how low or zero interest could be achieved under the existing record; parties will file formal statements of position after that filing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","25A-0036E Public Service Company - Tariff On-Bill Financing Program - 07.11.25 - HRA","oneSentenceSummary","City of Boulder and energy advocates urged the Colorado PUC to lower interest rates for on-bill financing, saying 0% financing drives participation; staff and other intervenors warned nonparticipants could bear costs if funds come from universal riders.","taxTitle","Public Utilities Commission, Governor's Boards and Commissions, Organizations, Executive, Colorado","taxId",28165,"location","Colorado","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6174692,"Renters, income-qualified customers and consumer protections drive debate over on-bill financing terms",383,4314000,4697000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5368064-ad0f879ae3adecff74315effaccacf54&start=4314&end=4697","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5368064-ad0f879ae3adecff74315effaccacf54/thumbnail_4314000.jpg","/articles/6174692/Colorado/Renters-income-qualified-customers-and-consumer-protections-drive-debate-over-on-bill-financing-terms","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174692-525b5a5b012490e4f0d223fbb243ee10/orig.mp4?Expires=1770483125&Signature=LbKV-cHsLND49HR09C1zKOCCYE0v6mbZyt-gamscxGCKC65qr15MYz3CCdKoS5GCfoYO~IkFrcVt2fKpd8KWtFnQatSiJhfEp44zTYr6oOxGQqzNQoZOb5D8mYxa1ZHEMTXZtbfqJ70zTUrgfg2dhLWsNB7VW1sgXMNOdAyzxejWYriVGaqUIqjqq-aZQQl2r4~VoI~4B7qOg5YThr6Y2xrp2NTrOCjrePp8RQRGYP8Vc-sBztkc7AZILXo~C4YD7QFvlMpdNs1HLEpfeZjU1NNDQR3~lHPxnu9jCCYCu0GF5pT2dhyYc-BG0w5vi2fj~vD4FJjGvh6G8w7Mr6hyYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several parties pressed for explicit consumer-protection requirements and clarified program rules for renters and low-income customers during testimony. The Utility Consumer Advocate and other intervenors said program approval should ensure safeguards before widespread implementation.

Renter participation: The company proposed phasing renters into the program and limiting renter participation to projects where the landlord arranges and signs for work. Utility Consumer Advocate rate analyst Carrie Kuykendall testified UCA opposed renter-initiated financing without stronger owner involvement, saying the landlord should be active in approvals. City of Boulder witness Carolyn Elam suggested guardrails such as requiring the landlord to contribute when statute requires landlords to provide certain equipment (for example, base heating or water heating), so costs do not fall entirely on tenants.

Low- and disadvantaged-income protections: Multiple witnesses urged that income-qualified (IQ) and disadvantaged-income (DI) customers should receive the deepest subsidies. SWEEP recommended near-zero financing for IQ/DI customers while allowing market-rate customers access to low but nonzero rates (SWEEP suggested 0.99% for market rate in testimony). UCA recommended the company screen low-income applicants for eligibility for free or grant-funded programs first and avoid steering eligible low-income customers into financed products.

Consumer safeguards and program features: Witnesses urged tools to help customer decision-making, including a virtual calculator showing monthly payment comparisons and the effect of rebates applied before or after financing. Elam and others recommended options for recasting loans, term extension (up to 15 years), multiple deferrals with limits, loan-loss reserves, and clear procedures for applying rebates so that monthly payments reflect principal reductions when appropriate.

Why it matters: Program structure affects who benefits, who pays, and whether the program widens or narrows equity gaps. Parties told the commission that without spelled-out consumer protections the program risks harming vulnerable customers or creating unintended bill impacts.

Ending: The commission requested clarification on several of these operational points in its post-hearing direction to the company; parties will submit positions after the company’s targeted filing.","Intervenors and witnesses debated consumer safeguards for on-bill financing including renter participation, landlord consent, deferrals, loan recasting, calculators, eligible measures and safeguards for income-qualified customers.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6174697,"Capital-provider commitments and program size disputed; parties call for clarity on CCEF funding",625,5329000,5954000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5368064-ad0f879ae3adecff74315effaccacf54&start=5329&end=5954","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5368064-ad0f879ae3adecff74315effaccacf54/thumbnail_5329000.jpg","/articles/6174697/Colorado/Capital-provider-commitments-and-program-size-disputed-parties-call-for-clarity-on-CCEF-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6174697-b9eb3e90aa4bdf2fe9c6a43f0cb020e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770483125&Signature=BML2tVoip6fPKYPN89RvWlPEEzubLPU58EVkSE4tStrJaIPiesRlGfY5eACThgWl82K~5ZJQ1sQ8OT9LJ2I~hQhJKZvPWD5A34mz~MpnvDxsEuNRbkOofEa5bP97~enxNPMw0u082TyZIk0SCU2hA3hqBLnPg7D0kCryi0TiErrNpvkLmnhOHIOX0p3CNDeScR5ucrOcDmMvq~KCJk5AKQPDkoJl3Z0codH1n6ewXXmVZGDq0z4I~~boYHvrvW4j34jIMw7ltaBzcuLbu603uwLWL4u5irhVF5S25LwMxGIAHWRzNS2lU5osT4XlWoKjG5S5WaIpJpfX0qC48cgOLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Witnesses and intervenors pressed for clarity about how much capital the Clean Energy Capital Fund (CCEF/CCF) has committed to the proposed on-bill financing program and whether the fund can be scaled. Company rebuttal stated CCEF had committed $10 million for launch and that CCEF was \"actively raising additional capital to support further scaling,\" language SWEEP and other advocates cited in support of larger program sizes.

The record shows differing proposals: the company asked to proceed with a $25 million pilot-size program; CCEF told the company it could commit $10 million initially and the parties discussed a potential $25 million capital target; SWEEP recommended the commission consider a much larger $100 million program to meet anticipated demand. Ramon Alatorre of SWEEP told the commission his organization's comparison of large, compelling programs in other states informed that recommendation.

Why it matters: Program size determines how many customers can access low-cost financing and how quickly the program can influence electrification and emissions reduction goals. It also changes the scale of any buy-down or subsidy that might be required to reach 0% or very low interest rates.

Transparency and record gaps: Multiple parties and commissioners noted that a signed contract between the company and CCEF was not in the hearing record, and CCEF did not provide a witness for cross-examination. Trial staff, UCA and other intervenors said that absent documentation they could not verify capital-availability claims. Clear Energy Economy for the Region (CLEAR) and SWEEP referenced Tri-State and other programs — including a reported $50 million CCEF commitment for Tri-State — as context for potential scaling but acknowledged different regulatory setups and different initial capitalization.

Other context: Witnesses pointed out that some federal grant or green-bank funds CCEF sought were under litigation and not available as a confirmed source. Commissioners and parties asked for a short company filing to clarify the record; the commission directed the company to file targeted clarifications before parties submit their final statements of position.

Ending: The hearing record contained competing assertions about capital availability and program ambition. The commission asked the company to supply clarifications in a post-hearing filing; parties will use that filing to finalize positions on program size and whether the commission should encourage or require larger capital commitments.","Parties debated how much capital CCEF (the proposed capital provider) can supply to launch and scale the on-bill financing program. The company and CCEF references in testimony differ: company materials reference $10 million committed and interest in scaling to $25 million; SWEEP and others recommended much larger pools.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City of Boulder, advocates push interest-rate buy-down for on-bill financing; opponents warn of cost shifts

Renters, income-qualified customers and consumer protections drive debate over on-bill financing terms

Capital-provider commitments and program size disputed; parties call for clarity on CCEF funding