Memorandum on PACE etc to Mayor Higgins et al.11.6.10
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Mary Clare Higgins
Chris Mason, Energy and Sustainability Officer
FROM: Stephen Burrington, Serrafix
RE: PACE Finance, Utility Partnerships and Municipal Aggregation
DATE: November 6, 2010
Introduction
As promised at our meeting yesterday, this memorandum explains the current status of property-assessed clean energy (PACE) finance and provides background on some other options that
Northampton should consider as we move forward.
PACE is an important mechanism for financing property owners' share of energy efficiency and clean energy improvements which I understand the Energy and Sustainability Commission has
already been considering. It remains an option, but one that currently has some limitations, and the City will need to decide whether it is worth pursuing while those limitations remain
in effect. The discussion below can help inform that decision. The question of what financing options are needed is a broader one that should take into account other possibilities,
including expanded HEAT Loan offerings, potential utility on-bill financing (discussed briefly below), and options that may be unique to Northampton. The broader investigation of financing
options thus has a scope extending well beyond PACE and should be a major part of our work over the next year.
The local energy efficiency and clean energy initiatives that have proliferated across the nation in recent years utilize various public, public-private and private structures. In
Massachusetts, state law or regulatory decisions address three particular types of local program:
Property-assessed clean energy (PACE) finance
Utility partnerships
Municipal aggregation
Municipalities can craft other arrangements for helping residents, businesses and institutions implement energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. The above three options,
however, are the ones currently available to all Massachusetts cities and towns that provide the best access to funding and financing resources. Regardless of what longer-term strategy
Northampton pursues, in the near term it will be important to develop partnerships through which National Grid and Bay State Gas (soon to be Columbia Gas of Massachusetts) provide enhanced
support for a community-based program tailored to local conditions and capable of achieving higher levels of participation than the utilities would otherwise be able to attain.
Property-Assessed Clean Energy Finance
Property-assessed clean energy or "PACE" laws authorize cities and towns to allow homeowners and businesses to finance energy efficiency and clean energy improvements and make repayments
through betterment assessments (also called "special assessments") on their property tax bills. Like property taxes, a betterment is secured by a priority lien on the property. The
betterment mechanism has historically been used to finance sidewalk construction, utility line burial, and other infrastructure improvements that benefit certain properties. In Massachusetts,
the betterment mechanism is used to enable property owners to finance septic system upgrades.
Massachusetts enacted PACE legislation in July 2010. Twenty-three other states and the District of Columbia have PACE laws, nearly all of them enacted since 2008. As of this date,
the PACE programs with the largest volume of activity are those in Sonoma County, California; Palm Desert, California; Boulder County, Colorado; and Babylon, New York. Hundreds of other
local jurisdictions have begun the process of establishing PACE programs.
Early experience indicates that PACE is an effective way of eliminating barriers to energy efficiency upgrades by homeowners and businesses. Its advantages include the following:
No up-front cost. Most property owners lack cash reserves to pay the up-front cost of efficiency improvements. PACE enables them to finance their entire share of the cost and repay
over time from energy savings.
Repayment obligation attaches to property. Many building owners don't know whether they will own their properties long enough to recoup the cost of efficiency upgrades from energy savings.
Unlike a bank loan, a PACE assessment attaches to the property and the owner makes payments only while enjoying the energy cost savings. Following a sale or other transfer, the next
owner assumes responsibility for remaining payments.
Cashflow-positive amortization. PACE finance can have longer terms than many loan products do, enabling project costs to be amortized so that annual energy cost savings exceed annual
payments. A property owner thus starts saving money immediately.
Local marketing and one-stop service. Local, mission-driven energy efficiency and clean energy programs are proving more effective at reaching and working with building owners than
utility programs have been. PACE finance is part of this community-based energy program infrastructure.
A property owner's use of PACE finance is purely voluntary. Non-participating property owners' taxes are unaffected.
The Massachusetts PACE statute authorizes a municipality to establish an "energy revolving loan fund" for the purpose of providing financing to property owners for energy conservation
and renewable energy projects. An audit of the property must have been completed after July 2, 2008, and any conservation measures required by local program rules must be implemented.
A condominium association may finance energy conservation and renewable energy projects on common areas of the property. The financing is secured by a betterment under chapter 80 of
the general laws, subject to certain terms in the PACE statute. While the statute authorizes revolving loan funds as the means of financing conservation and renewable energy projects,
it also authorizes bonding for the purpose of providing such financing. In the event bond proceeds are relied on as the source of funds, assuming that the bonds are not to be paid from
other municipal sources, the PACE program would use not a pure or "direct" revolving loan fund structure but a "leveraged" revolving loan fund structure such as that used by the Department
of Environmental Protection wastewater state revolving fund.
As you know, just as the Massachusetts PACE legislation was signed into law, developments beyond the state's borders complicated the implementation picture. The Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) -- which regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks -- issued a policy statement taking the position that, by virtue of the priority lien securing
a property owner's obligation to a municipality, PACE finance can create unacceptable risks for mortgage holders and investors and thus presents "significant safety and soundness concerns"
that must be addressed by the regulated entities. Fannie Mae accordingly issued an announcement stating it "will not purchase mortgage loans secured by properties with an outstanding
PACE obligation unless the terms of the PACE program do not permit priority over first mortgage liens." Freddie Mac issued a statement to the same effect. A bulletin issued by the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) advised national banks to consider in both residential and commercial mortgage lending the possible need for steps such as securing additional
collateral or adjusting loan-to-value limits or calculations of borrowing capacity.
The "safety and soundness" concerns raised by FHFA – including the potential for contractor fraud, flawed installation of efficiency measures, and use of PACE finance by property owners
with poor mortgage and tax payment records – can be addressed by sound PACE underwriting standards. National PACE underwriting guidelines that respond to FHFA concerns have been published
by the US Department of Energy. Such underwriting standards can indeed ensure that PACE will improve a property owner's ability to meet mortgage and other obligations by requiring that
energy cost savings exceed repayment amounts and thus be cashflow positive. Unfortunately, efforts to persuade FHFA to cooperate in the adoption of underwriting guidelines have failed.
Legislation such as that now pending in Congress would remove the limitations on PACE created by FHFA. There is sufficient political pressure that the status quo seems unlikely to
go unchanged – the twenty-four states that have enacted PACE laws since 2008 include California, the other largest states, and states in every region and with both Republican and Democratic
legislatures and governors. Municipalities and counties have authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in PACE finance. No other clean energy initiative has ever been pursued by so
many local governments, ranging from small towns in Vermont to the nation's largest cities.
While federal legislation is important to realize the potential of PACE, the negative impact of the recent actions by federal housing entities is in fact not as severe as some press
accounts have suggested. For commercial property owners, there has been relatively little impact. For homeowners, the impact is somewhat remote and may not be of concern: while there
is an outstanding balance on a PACE assessment, if a homeowner wishes to refinance or sell to a purchaser who intends to finance with a mortgage conforming to secondary market guidelines,
the outstanding balance on the PACE assessment would need to be paid off before the new mortgage financing could occur. Thus, until the current FHFA and OCC position has changed or
been overridden, an attractive feature of PACE finance – that it attaches to property and transfers to future owners – is missing. But even without that feature, PACE finance may still
appeal to many property owners.
In light of the actions taken by FHFA, OCC, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the major operational PACE programs have responded in different ways. The Sonoma County Energy Independence
Program, Palm Desert Energy Independence Program, and Long Island Green Homes program all continue to accept and process applications. Palm Desert initially suspended its program and
then re-opened the program after looking at the issues more closely. The Sonoma County program now requires homeowner applicants to sign disclosures acknowledging they are aware of
the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actions and their potential implications. The Boulder County Climate Smart Loan Program has continued operations for commercial properties but has been
put on hold for residential properties. Most jurisdictions that were in the process of establishing PACE programs have slowed or suspended their efforts, but some are moving forward.
Utility Community-Based Partnership Programs
Whatever strategy Northampton pursues for the longer term, in the immediate future it will be important to collaborate with electric and gas utilities in a joint effort to build an
integrated community-based program capable of achieving high levels of participation. By collaborating with the utilities, Northampton can seek to ensure that the community fully benefits
from the dramatically increased levels of utility investment in energy efficiency under the Green Communities Act. Utility investment in efficiency is now roughly three times pre-2010
levels.
The current electric and gas utility efficiency programs operate under plans approved by the Department of Public Utilities in January 2010. Statewide electric and gas efficiency program
plans for all utilities were designed and approved by an Energy Efficiency Advisory Council consisting of voting stakeholder representatives and non-voting utility and other representatives.
The efficiency program plans approved by the DPU for each utility are based on the statewide plans, with details and budgets developed for each utility.
Community-Based Outreach
The statewide program plans recognize that community-based outreach efforts have the potential to yield significantly greater market penetration, but commit the utilities to exploring
that potential in tentative, highly qualified terms. The plans contemplate that the utilities will react to proposals from community-based interests. They treat community-based programs
as "potential program pilots" -- special neighborhood-based and other initiatives to be explored, rather than utility commitments. Proposals by the Green Justice Coalition for community
mobilization initiatives involving non-English speaking, low-income and historically underserved customers are specifically cited as a focus of the utilities' testing of community-based
program possibilities. The statewide plans emphasize that the utilities must scrutinize predicted costs and benefits and assess the cost-effectiveness of any pilot program before committing
ratepayer funding. In approving the statewide program plans for 2010-2012, the DPU declined to find that community-based programs were required components. It approved electric utility
program budgets with small allocations to community-based programs and gas utility program budgets with even smaller funding allocations.
The regulatory status of utility community-based program partnerships is thus that the utilities are authorized to consider proposals for joint marketing efforts, to assess the potential
costs and benefits such efforts would add to the basic utility programs, and to provide financial support to the extent they conclude it is justified. It is fair to say that the burden
is on the City to develop and justify a joint program to be supported by National Grid and Bay State Gas.
On-Bill Financing
The DPU-approved program plans also contemplate an EEAC investigation of on-bill financing (OBF) – a potential limited alternative to PACE as a means for customers to finance their
share of project costs -- and implicitly assume that some form of OBF will be adopted. The DPU order states that OBF is not an essential element of the program plans and defers to the
EEAC working group to address issues raised in the proceedings on the program plans. The working group has produced reports with limited consensus OBF guidelines, focusing on repayment
mechanisms and policies rather than identifying financing sources. The working group has been unable to reach consensus on whether the repayment obligation for residential rental properties
should attach to the meter (which raises complex questions that have not been resolved) or to the customer (including tenants), with the utilities advocating the latter approach. In
the absence of consensus, it is realistic to expect that repayment would be an obligation of the utility customer who has utilized the financing for efficiency measures. In the case
of rental property, the landlord would likely be required to provide a signature on the tenant’s repayment agreement or the landlord could take on the improvements and the repayment
for the whole building.
Many issues have been identified as requiring resolution, through a process that will continue into 2011, but as of this date it is not foreseeable that the utilities will make available
financing attached to the meter, for sufficiently long terms, or for measures affecting fuels other than those provided by the utility whose meter and bill are involved. Further DPU
review and action will be needed before implementation of OBF by the utilities. In particular, the DPU may have to approve the allocation of significant efficiency program funds to
serve as a loan loss reserve fund for the recently developed concepts to be implemented.
Municipal Aggregation
For the longer term, Northampton may wish to consider the more ambitious "municipal aggregation" strategy. Massachusetts law offers municipalities the opportunity, available almost
nowhere else, to step into the shoes of electric utilities for the purpose of administering energy efficiency programs. Under the municipal aggregation provisions of the state's 1997
electric utility restructuring law, a municipality can assume responsibility for procuring electricity on behalf of residential, commercial and industrial customers. If it chooses to
do so, the municipality can also collect the "system benefit charges" that consumers pay to support energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and can assume control over the design
and implementation of such programs. The utility continues to provide transmission and distribution services. State law specifies the procedures a municipality must follow to become
an aggregator. There are two existing municipal aggregation programs: the Cape Light Compact, which procures energy and administers energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for
customers in twenty-one municipalities on Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, and the Marlborough Community Choice Power Supply Program, which procures energy for customers in the City of
Marlborough.
State law authorizes municipalities to aggregate for the purpose of administering energy efficiency programs only if they have opted to aggregate for the purpose of procuring electricity.
In considering aggregation as an energy efficiency program option, a municipality thus needs to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of aggregating for both energy procurement
and energy efficiency purposes. The principal reasons to consider aggregation include:
Price advantages. It is unlikely that a municipality would be able to obtain substantially better prices for energy over time than customers would obtain from the electric utility.
However, there are ways to limit exposure to prices higher than utilities offer, so municipal aggregation could likely provide at least a slight price advantage over time. The market
prospects for a particular municipality, given its customer and load profile, need to be examined in the process of developing an aggregation plan.
Greener electricity products. A municipality could choose to procure supply with a larger renewable energy component than the utility provides. The nature and price of supply options
with different renewable energy components would be examined in the process of developing a plan.
Superior energy efficiency programs. The municipality could gain the ability to design and implement energy efficiency programs through a mission-driven entity devoted exclusively to
saving energy, capable of responding to local conditions, utilizing local outreach and marketing channels, and free of constraints that can affect program effectiveness in a utility
company.
Local control. There may be advantages to having energy procurement and efficiency programs handled through an entity that is more accessible, responsive to local conditions, and accountable
to the citizenry.
Significant complexities need to be mastered in the course of planning and operating a municipal aggregation program.
The required steps in pursuing aggregation are: (1) authorization by the city council and mayor; (2) development of an aggregation plan, in consultation with the state Department of
Energy Resources; (3) review by citizens; and (4) submission to and approval of the plan by the Department of Public Utilities. The plan must describe organizational structure, operations
and funding, ratesetting and other participant costs, rights and responsibilities of participants, methods of initiating and terminating arrangements with suppliers, and program termination
arrangements. Various rules governing pricing and other terms must be satisfied. All customers have a legal right to opt out. Billing, along with transmission and distribution service,
is provided by the utility. The City of Northampton could outsource the administration of an aggregation program to various types of entity, including for-profit firms and non-profit
organizations.
For the City of Northampton to undertake demand-side aggregation, the City Council would need to adopt an energy plan showing how the City would implement energy efficiency and renewable
energy programs consistent with statewide goals. The City would submit the plan to the DPU for certification that it was consistent with state goals, though the plan could go beyond
state goals. Upon approval, the municipal aggregation program would then receive energy efficiency system benefit charges paid by customers in the city and obtain renewable energy funds
from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust. The program would be subject to DPU oversight.
Experience of the Cape Light Compact in administering energy efficiency programs indicates that programs designed and implemented by a mission-driven municipal aggregation program can
deliver unique benefits to a community. While the hurdles to becoming a municipal aggregator are significant, the benefits can be significant as well.
Attachment A
Local Energy Efficiency Programs – Representative Examples
Operational
Climate Smart Loan Program, Boulder County, CO (www.climatesmartloanprogram.org)
Long Island Green Homes, Babylon, NY (http://ligreenhomes.com/page.php?Page=home)
Energy Independence Program, Palm Desert, CA (http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/Index.aspx?page=484)
Energy Independence Program, Sonoma County, CA (http://www.sonomacountyenergy.org/)
Cape Light Compact, Cape Cod, MA (http://www.capelightcompact.org/)
Minnesota Energy Challenge Community Energy Services (http://www.mnenergychallenge.org/Community-Energy-Services.aspx)
Marshfield Energy Challenge, Marshfield, MA (http://www.townofmarshfield.org/public_documents/MarshfieldMA_BBoard/Marshfield%20Energy%20Challenge)
Plymouth Area Renewable Energy Initiative, Plymouth, NH (http://www.plymouthenergy.org/index.htm)
Chicago Energy Efficient Building Retrofit Partnership (http://www.chicagoclimateaction.org/pages/buildings/12.php)
Clean Energy Works Portland, Portland, OR (www.cleanenergyworksportland.org)
In Development
Renew Boston, http://www.renewboston.org/
Greenfield, Quincy, New Bedford
Burlington, VT PACE Program
Milwaukee
US Department of Energy Better Buildings grantees: Lowell, MA; Beacon Communities, NH (Berlin, Nashua and Plymouth); Charlottesville, VA; Cincinnati, OH; others
Property-Assessed Clean Energy Programs – authorized in 24 states and District of Columbia, programs under development in hundreds of cities and counties in CA, CO, MD, TX, VT, WI
Attachment B
Massachusetts General Laws Annotated
Part I. Administration of the Government (Ch. 1-182)
Title VII. Cities, Towns and Districts (Ch. 39-49A)
Chapter 44. Municipal Finance
§ 53E 3/4 . Energy Revolving Loan Fund
(a) Notwithstanding section 53 to the contrary, a city or town may establish an Energy Revolving Loan Fund to provide loans to owners of privately-held real property in the city or town
for energy conservation and renewable energy projects on their properties so as to prioritize energy efficiency as the first step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated
with buildings.
(b) The fund shall be established by ordinance or by-law. Before adoption of the ordinance or by-law, the board of selectmen, town council or the city council, as the case may be, shall
conduct a public hearing on the question of its adoption. The ordinance or by-law shall designate an administrator for the fund and may provide for rules, regulations and procedures
for administration of the fund and eligibility for loans the city or town considers necessary or proper to carry out this section. The administrator may consult with the division of
green communities established in section 10 of chapter 25A in developing such regulations, rules and procedures for administration of the fund. The fund administrator may be a board,
department or officer, or may consist of 1 or more members from 1 or more boards, departments or officers, of the city or town. A city or town which is a member of a regional planning
commission may enter into a cooperative agreement with that commission to perform as administrator for the fund. A regional governmental entity or county, if the county may incur debt
under chapter 35 or any other general or special law extending a county's debt limit, may establish a fund subject to this section and may appoint a person to be the administrator of
the fund.
(c) As authorized by section 4A of chapter 40, 2 or more municipalities may, in a city by vote of the city council, or, in a town by vote of the board of selectmen, enter into an agreement
to jointly establish and administer a common fund.
(d) The fund administrator shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) to make loans to owners of real property to finance or refinance the costs of energy conservation and renewable energy projects on their properties; provided, however, that no loan
shall be made unless an energy audit of the property has been conducted on or after July 2, 2008, and any energy conservation measures established by the fund administrator for participation
in the program have been implemented;
(2) to execute and deliver on behalf of the city or town all loan agreements and other instruments necessary or proper to make the loan and secure its repayment;
(3) to record the notice of the agreement required by subsection (f) and any other loan instruments;
(4) to apply for and accept grants or gifts for purposes of the fund; and
(5) to exercise any other powers or perform any other duties that the city or town may grant by ordinance or by-law to carry out this section.
(e) The city or town treasurer shall be the custodian of the fund, which shall be maintained as a separate account and into which shall be deposited:
(1) all monies appropriated and all proceeds from bonds issued under clause (3C) of the first paragraph of section 7 for purpose of providing loans to private property owners for energy
conservation and renewable energy projects;
(2) all funds received from the commonwealth or any other source for those purposes;
(3) all repayments of the loans made by property owners under this section and any reserve or other required payments made by the owners in connection with the loans; and
(4) any other amounts required to be credited to the fund by any law.
The city or town treasurer may invest the monies in the manner authorized in section 55 and any interest earned thereon shall be credited to and become part of the fund.
The city or town treasurer shall annually certify, not later than June 30, in writing to the fund administrator and auditor or similar officer in cities or the town accountant in towns
having a town accountant, the principal and interest due in the next fiscal year on any bonds issued under clause (3C) of the first paragraph of section 7 and not otherwise provided
for, and the amount certified shall be reserved for payment of that debt service without further appropriation. Loans may be made from the fund by the fund administrator without further
appropriation, subject to this section; provided, however, that no loans shall be made or liabilities incurred in excess of the unreserved fund balance and unless approved in accordance
with sections 52 and 56 of chapter 41.
(f) Whenever a city or town enters into a loan agreement with a property owner under this section, a notice of the agreement shall be recorded as a betterment and shall be subject to
chapter 80 relative to the apportionment, division, reassessment and collection of assessment, abatement and collections of assessments, and to interest; provided, however, that for
purposes of this section, the lien shall take effect by operation of law on the day immediately following the due date of the assessment or apportioned part of the assessment and the
assessment may bear interest at a rate determined by the city or town treasurer by agreement with the owner at the time the agreement is entered into between the city or town and the
property owner. In addition to remedies available under said chapter 80, the property owner shall be personally liable for the repayment of the total costs incurred by the city or town
under this section; provided, however, that upon assumption of the personal obligation by a purchaser or other transferee of all of the original owner's interest in the property at the
time of conveyance and the recording of the assumption, the owner shall be relieved of the personal liability.
A betterment loan agreement between an owner and a city or town under this section shall not be considered a breach of limitation or prohibition contained in a note, mortgage or contract
on the transfer of an interest in property.
Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 183A to the contrary, the organization of unit owners of a condominium may enter into a betterment loan agreement under this section to finance
an energy conservation and renewable energy project, provided that the project comprises part of the common areas and facilities; provided, however, that section 18 of said chapter 183A
shall not apply to any improvements undertaken pursuant to an agreement entered into under this section. Such agreement shall: (i) be approved by a majority of the unit owners benefited
by the project; (ii) include an identification of the units and unit owners subject to the agreement and the percentages, as set forth in the master deed, of the undivided interests
of the respective units in the common area and facilities; and (iii) include a statement by an officer or trustee of the organization of unit owners certifying that the required number
of unit owners have approved the agreement. As between the affected unit owners and the city or town, the certification shall be conclusive evidence of the authority of the organization
of unit owners to enter into the agreement. A notice of the agreement shall be recorded as a betterment in the registry of deeds or registry district of the land court wherein the master
deed is recorded and shall be otherwise subject to chapter 80 as provided in this section. The assessment under the agreement shall be charged or assessed directly to the benefited unit
owners and if unpaid shall be added to the annual tax bill for their units in accordance with section 13 of said chapter 80. The allocable share of the assessment, prorated on the basis
of the percentage interests of the benefited units in the common areas and facilities, shall attach as a lien only to the units identified in the recorded notice and benefited by the
project and the owners of those units shall also be personally liable for their allocable share of the assessment as provided for in this section. For the purposes of this paragraph,
the terms "common areas and facilities", "common expenses", "condominium", "master deed", "organization of unit owners", "units" and "unit owners" shall have the same meanings as ascribed
to them in section 1 of said chapter 183A.
(g) The fund administrator shall file annually, not later than June 30, a report detailing the amount of money in the fund, loans made and repayments received, and shall also include
the types of projects financed. The report shall be filed with the chief executive officer of the city or town, the executive office of administration and finance, the joint committee
on municipalities and regional government, the senate and house committees on ways and means and the clerks of the senate and the house of representatives.
Added by St. 2010, c. 188, § 36, eff. July 27, 2010.
A list of representative local energy efficiency and clean energy programs appears in Attachment A.
Chapter 44, section 53¾ of the Massachusetts General Laws (Attachment B).
"FHFA Statement on Certain Energy Retrofit Loan Programs," http://fhfa.gov/webfiles/15884/PACESTMT7610.pdf.
Announcement SEL-2010-12, "Options for Borrowers with a PACE Loan," https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/guides/ssg/annltrs/pdf/2010/sel1012.pdf.
Bulletin No. 2010-20, "Mortgages Secured by Properties with an Outstanding Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Obligation," http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/guide/bulletins/pdf/bll1020.pdf.
Supervisory Guidance, Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Programs, Bulletin OCC 2010-25, http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2010/bulletin-2010-25.html.
"Guidelines for Pilot PACE Financing Programs," http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/pdfs/arra_guidelines_for_pilot_pace_programs.pdf.
The agency's categorical opposition to PACE appears to be part of a broader overreaction to the housing market excesses of recent years. See "Widespread Fear Freezes Housing Market,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/business/economy/28nocera.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=housing and "Analysis: Energy Lien is Little Threat to Loan Giants," http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/analysis-energy-lien-is-little-threat-to-loan-giants/?scp=1&sq=Energy%20lien%20is%20little%20threat%20to%20loan%20giants&st=cse.
See S. 3642, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s3642is.txt.pdf.
See http://www.dsireusa.org/summarymaps/index.cfm?ee=1&RE=1.
For example, on November 1, 2010, Durham, New Hampshire became the first municipality to create a PACE district and begin the process of establishing a program under the recently enacted
New Hampshire PACE law.
Chapter 164, section 134(a) and (b) of the Massachusetts General Laws.
The municipal aggregation law authorizes groups of municipalities to undertake aggregation. It does not require a group of municipalities to be contiguous, although some geographic
proximity and a common electric utility would likely be practical necessities.
6