1. OFW Funding Mechanisms
Notes:
Either have presentation and feedback separate or toggle. Preface with decision.
Read month’s reading, and split-incentives readings.
We are conveners. ID where we need to do additional work. Please feel free to jump in

2. Funding Matrix
REmember orange boxes: Pull orange color through.

3. Funding Matrix

4. Carbon Reduction Incentive Fund (CRIF)
Description: Municipalities pay into fund, which provides incentives to homeowners based on the amount of carbon emissions avoided.
Pros:
Allows for easy buy-in
Homeowner education
Measures carbon
Cons:
Unless specified, incentives will go to wealthier populations
Barriers:
Finding funding
Think about:” allows for easy buy-in”

5. Tax Funded Program
Description: State tax is levied to fund fuel conversion or energy efficiency in general.
Pros:
Steady and reliable
Could fund variety of tools and programs
Cons:
Tax could hurt low- income customers
Tax on heating oil would sunset as use is phased out.
Barriers:
High political opposition

6. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
Description: Low interest loans are tied to property, paid back as assessment on property tax.
Pros:
Loan tied to property, not owner
Fully covers up- front costs.
Cons:
High legal and administrative upfront costs
Higher interest rates than private loans
Barriers:
WA is not PACE enabled
Political opposition
Research examples

7. Property Tax Incentive
Description: Counties establish property tax exemptions or incentives for energy efficiency work or fuel conversion.
Pros:
Reliable/consistent
Flexible
Cons:
Poor equity outcomes
Does not help with upfront costs
Barriers:
Political opposition

8. Low Interest Loans
Description: Private loans to homeowners for energy efficiency work or fuel conversion.
Pros:
Covers upfront costs.
Allows payback over time as savings accrue.
Cons:
Full cost adopted by homeowner, even if they won’t remain for life of project.
Barriers:
Debt burden
Credit access for low-income homeowners.

9. Grants
Description: Grants could fund incentives or programmatic elements.
Pros:
Flexible legal use of money
Cons:
Questionable renewal of funding
Difficult to obtain
Barriers:
Availability

10. Utility Rebates
Description: Expand existing utility rebates to include fuel conversion projects.
Pros:
Existing structure
Reduce upfront costs/debt burden
Cons:
Annual caps
Barriers:
Legality

11. Utility Ratepayer Assistance Program
Description: Municipalities pay into fund, which provides incentives to homeowners based on the amount of carbon emissions avoided.
Pros:
Lowers operational costs
Helps project ROI
Cons:
Only applies to very low income homeowners and renters.
Barriers:
N/A
28,000 people in SCL area that are participating in assistance program. (NOT PUBLIC)

12. Legal Considerations Washington Constitution and RCWs:
Ban municipal utilities from using funds to encourage or incentivize fuel switching. Unclear on privately held utilities.
PACE not currently enabled.
Impacts Utility based funding options. Ask if there legal consideration we haven’t touched on.

13. Scope of Mechanisms Funding Mechanisms State County Municipal Utility
Private/Other
Tax Funded Program
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing
Carbon Reduction Incentive Fund (CRIF)
Utility Rebates for Conversion
Low Interest Loans
Property Tax Incentive
Utility Ratepayer assistance Programs
Grants

14. Funding Applicability#
Funding Mechanism
Low Income
Market Rate
Landlord 1
Carbon Reduction Incentive Fund (CRIF) 2
Tax Funded Program 3
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing 4
Property Tax Incentive 5
Low Interest Loans 6
Grants 7
Utility Rebates for Conversion 8
Utility Ratepayer assistance Programs
Key
Applicable
Equity Considerations
Not Applicable