1. C-PACE for New Construction
February 14, 2017

2. Panelists Brian McCarter: CEO
Paul Scharfenberger: Director, Finance & Operations Chairman, NEID
Beau Engman: CEO
Keirstin Beck: Principal

3. Session Topics Emergence of C-PACE for New Construction (NC)
Value Proposition
Eligibility Requirements
Case Study: CO C-PACE
Panelists Perspectives
Brian: Program administrator
Paul: State government
Beau: Project developer & capital provider
Keirstin: Owner’s rep. & consultant
Audience Q&A

4. Emergence of C-PACE for New Construction
C-PACE legislation in many jurisdictions supports NC
C-PACE projects to date concentrated in Existing Building sector
C-PACE programs now evolving to include NC
NC sector eligibility methodology differs from Existing Building
CO C-PACE NC methodology as case study

5. Emergence of C-PACE for New Construction
Existing City / County Programs with NC Project Closings
Milwaukee, WI:
1st NC project closed in Oct 2016
Pulaski County, AK:
1st NC project closed in Nov 2016

6. Emergence of C-PACE for New Construction
Existing Statewide C-PACE Program with NC Project Closing
1st statewide program to apply C-PACE to New Construction
1st NC project closed in Nov 2016
10 NC projects in rapidly growing pipeline
$296 million estimated total eligible construction cost (TECC)
$44 million estimated C-PACE eligible financing amount (15% of TECC)

7. Emergence of C-PACE for New Construction
“Coming Soon” County & Statewide Programs with NC
Multnomah County, OR:
planned launch in Mar 2017
Arlington County, VA:
planned launch in Apr 2017
State of Rhode Island:
NC launched in Feb
consistent with CO NC ….

8. Owner / Developer Value Proposition
Achieve higher building performance at lower cost vs. traditional financing
Integrate improvements often “value engineered” out of projects
Reduce equity contribution
Lower construction loan amount
No personal guarantee

9. Eligibility Req’s: CO C-PACE Methodology
Determine Total Eligible Construction Cost (TECC)
Eligible TECC: general building construction & C-PACE transaction costs
Non-Eligible TECC: site acquisition, environmental remediation, off-site infrastructure
Model building energy performance at “Code Compliant” & “As Designed”
Determine % “As Designed” performance exceeds “Code Compliant”
Example: “As Designed” performance exceeds IECC 2012 energy code by 15%
Determine C-PACE Eligible Finance Amount
Qualify for 15% to 20% of TECC based on performance % above code

10. Colorado NC Project Case Study

11. State Govt. Perspective
Paul Scharfenberger: Director, Finance & Operations
Chairman, NEID
C-PACE for NC advances public policy goals without govt. mandates
Structured approach, including independent review/approval of modeled building energy performance “above code”, is critical
Priority is to balance simplicity and ease of use with prudent oversight and verification to ensure success and replicability

12. Project Developer & Capital Provider Perspective
Beau Engman: CEO
2016: completed 4 NC projects in 3 PACE programs, Key Considerations:
Performance over code baseline
Program compliance
Very long development timelines
Integration with design teams (GC, Architect)
Impact to construction costs
Sloans Lake MF:
56% Savings
$2.8m Investment
Westin Hotel:
44% Savings
$6.8m Investment
Office:
28% Savings
$2m Investment

13. Owner’s Rep. / Consultant Perspective
Keirstin Beck: Principal
Additional financing options for NC is welcomed, especially when they can ease equity requirements
Long term nature & transferability of PACE is attractive
Economic exercise to evaluate if project can support PACE assessment
Market considerations:
Impact on project CAM charges versus market CAM charges
In programs like CO, when jurisdictional code requires less efficiencies, could support larger PACE financing amounts

14. Audience Q&A Panelists Brian: Program administrator
Paul: State government
Beau: Project developer & capital provider
Keirstin: Owner’s rep. & consultant