Performance‑contracting firm asks Senate Finance to clarify law so school additions can be included

A representative of Energy Efficient Investments told the Senate Finance Committee that current performance‑contracting law is ambiguous about whether building additions may be part of guaranteed energy‑savings contracts and asked for clarifying language.

Eric Lafayette described how performance contracting works: firms audit facilities, propose energy conservation measures, secure grants and rebates, design projects, manage construction and bidding, and provide multi‑year commissioning and guaranteed savings. He gave two case studies: a Rochester project with a total cost of $1.2 million that, after grants and rebates, produced a net district responsibility of roughly $572,000 (and district capital responsibility of $122,000 after ESSER application) with projected annual energy savings near $40,000; and a roof-plus‑solar example with a gross cost near $1.4 million and net projected savings that roughly match annual lease payments when rebates and owner contribution are included.

Lafayette said financing can come through municipal leasing brokers and green banks; he noted typical lease rates around 4.35% and that lease payments on green energy projects are commonly slightly higher than bonds. He asked the committee to add clarifying language allowing additions where necessary for implementing energy systems (for example, adding space to house a wood‑chip boiler or to replace modular buildings required to meet code) because additions can complicate baseline comparisons for guaranteed savings.

Committee members asked about IRA/ITC timing and whether current federal credit availability affects the projects Lafayette described; presenter said some credits remain available through specified deadlines and noted schools must time installations to capture them. The committee did not vote on statutory language during the session and accepted the presenter’s offer to return with draft clarifying text if needed.