Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cpace Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee reviews CPACE models and hears Springfield redevelopment case tied to S138
Summary
The House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee heard a comparative review of CPACE programs (Maine, Connecticut, New York) and a Springfield redevelopment testimony explaining how S138 could finance energy upgrades at the historic Park Street School, while members debated who should serve as program administrator and how to define "resilience."
The House Energy & Digital Infrastructure Committee on April 8 heard expert testimony on commercial property assessed clean energy financing (CPACE) and a local redevelopment case that supporters say illustrates the bill S138's potential.
Fella Schol, a senior at the University of Vermont and former student researcher with the Vermont Legislative Research Service, summarized features of CPACE programs in Maine, Connecticut and New York. She said state models vary but commonly separate program oversight from capital providers: "Under Maine's CPACE program, financing may cover the full cost of a project, including audits, application fees, and development costs," Schol said, describing a model in which a quasi-public entity approves "registered capital providers" that then underwrite and service loans.
Schol told the committee that Connecticut uses a state green bank that acts as the program administrator while approved capital providers provide funds under administrative agreements, and said New York combines municipal administration with a publicly supported green bank to fill financing gaps when private lenders are scarce.
The committee then heard from Bob Flint, executive director of the Springfield Regional Development Corporation, who described Park Street School, a largely vacant 100-year-old building his group is redeveloping. "Currently we're burning over 30,000 gallons of oil a year just keeping heat on for the building," Flint said, noting the structure needs both a new heating system and major envelope work. He said S138's CPACE mechanism could allow the town to designate the property as a district and attach long-term, property-based assessments that make high-cost upgrades feasible.
Legislators focused on two recurring implementation questions: who should serve as a program administrator and how to define "resilience" for eligible projects. Christile, representing the Vermont Bankers Association, noted the importance of vetting lenders: "For the record, Christile, Vermont Bankers Association. So, Efficiency Maine Trust is our equivalent to Efficiency Vermont," illustrating concern that an approving authority is needed for capital providers.
Committee members repeatedly asked whether a state-level green bank or local program administrators ought to oversee applications and collections, and whether Efficiency Vermont, VITA or a municipality should be charged with administrative duties. The existing draft of S138 directs the Department of Financial Regulation (DFR) to consult stakeholders to identify appropriate administrators; members asked for further testimony from Efficiency Vermont and VITA before finalizing their recommendation.
The committee did not take formal action on S138 during this session. Members agreed to seek additional input, discuss resilience definitions (some cited New Hampshire's broader approach), and consider a straw poll before sending language to the Commerce Committee.
Next steps: the committee plans follow-up testimony from Efficiency Vermont, VITA and other stakeholders, then expects to finalize language for Commerce.
