Office of Climate Action and Resilience pitches revolving fund to finance energy and resilience projects

Staff from the Office of Climate Action and Resilience walked the committee through a proposal to create a climate and efficiency revolving fund that would finance facility energy upgrades, solar projects and other investments that generate verified savings, with those savings recycled into the fund to finance future projects.

Rohan (Office of Climate Action and Resilience) framed the proposal by citing converging factors — constrained dedicated funding for sustainable building upgrades, declining costs for renewables and battery storage, federal tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act, and pressure on the city general fund. He described how other jurisdictions operate revolving funds: San Antonio seeded an energy fund with ARRA dollars and, over time, used savings and further investments to expand work; Harris County established a fund that captures savings from capital projects to pay for complementary work and staff.

Rohan presented two illustrative, hypothetical projects to show how a revolving fund could work: an LED lighting retrofit with an upfront cost of about $300,000 and estimated annual savings of $75,000 (rough 4‑year payback with 10–15 year lifespan), and a small solar array on a library (rough upfront cost $95,000 after a 30% tax credit and annual savings of about $14,000, yielding a payback of about seven years and a 25–30 year lifespan). He said these examples are not site feasibility studies but illustrate a typical payback and lifespan dynamic that allows a fund to replenish itself over time.

Committee members asked about measurement and verification of savings and the fund’s governance. Rohan said best practice includes a certified energy manager to measure and verify savings and, where needed, third‑party verification; different jurisdictions fund that staff position in different ways (seed funding, office budgets or fund proceeds). Committee members also asked whether projects without direct monetary payback (for example refrigerant mitigation with climate benefits but unclear revenue) would be eligible; Rohan cautioned that to remain self‑sustaining the fund should prioritize projects with measurable financial returns but acknowledged scope decisions could allow blended uses.

Questions also addressed proposed seed funding levels. Rohan said the number the office was considering was $5,000,000 to get a fund started; later budget discussions in the meeting referenced larger figures for a broader sustainable buildings program (a $14,000,000 number was discussed separately by staff as an estimate for larger solar investments across general‑fund facilities after federal tax credits).

Rohan and committee members discussed program design elements — eligible project types (LED upgrades, HVAC controls, solar + storage, fleet electrification and charging), measurement and verification, how savings would be directed back into the fund, and the possibility of pairing seed capital with federal tax credits and utility rebates to magnify initial investment.