Contractors

C-PACE provides regularly scheduled training workshops for contractors free of charge. Visit the Events page for the schedule of upcoming workshops or email Vegas@PACEworx.com. You can also work with a property owner to submit a project application for consideration.

C-PACE involves multiple steps that include:

• Building selection and prequalification
• Project application
• Preliminary project scoping
• Proposal preparation and owner review
• Project scenario development and optimization
• Project technical review
• Financing
• Construction
• Commissioning

Timeframes are project-specific and depend on the number of parties involved. In a C-PACE project, the contractor, mortgage holder, and capital provider establish their own schedules with the property owner. Once a project has been approved for financing, it typically takes an average of 60 days to close.

Yes.

After a project has been reviewed by the program administrator and approved by the property owner and mortgage holder (if any), participating capital providers are offered the opportunity to finance the project. The capital provider (selected by the owner) will review the project documentation (provided by the program administrator and the property owner), prepare a financing agreement, and schedule a closing. Funds to initiate construction will be disbursed as provided in the financing agreement funds disbursement schedule.

The SIR tells all stakeholders whether a project will be cash-flow positive. C-PACE existing building projects are often designed such that the estimated energy cost savings, over the effective useful life of the qualified energy efficiency improvements and/or renewable energy improvements, exceeds the financing amount, i.e. the savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) is greater than one (SIR >1.0). There are significant benefits to this outcome:

• Property owners and capital providers look favorably on projects that show positive cash flow over their lifetime
• Mortgage holders are more likely to consent to the imposition of a voluntary benefit assessment for projects that show positive cash flow
• In general, the higher the SIR, the greater the demonstrated environmental benefits, e.g., emissions reductions, of the project, which helps to support the goals of C-PACE.

As defined in the C-PACE program guidelines, solar photovoltaic (PV) projects must be determined to be feasible through a written feasibility study conducted by a registered contractor. For further information, refer to the Audit Recommendations section of the Program Guide.

Three years of utility data is preferred with a minimum of one year, during which time no major renovations should have taken place. This best practice is consistent with the requirements of ASTM International Standard E2797: Standard Practice for Building Energy Performance Assessment for a Building Involved in a Real Estate Transaction. For more information, contact us.

Yes, if the work is related to the installation of eligible improvements. For example, if roof repair is required in order to install a rooftop solar PV system.

All roof-mounted systems require an assessment and sign-off by a roofing contractor and a structural engineer. Refer to the Program Guide or contact us.

Yes. Since the energy savings are projected and future weather conditions are unknown, energy savings are projected using average conditions. These projections create baselines for the status quo (which assumes energy conservation measures (ECMs) have not been installed) and for the projected case (which assumes the recommended ECMs have been installed).

Yes, but these savings must be directly related to the projected solar energy production.

While the default electricity/fuel-cost escalation factors, which are based on industry best practice, should be used, the program administrator will consider higher factors if the contractor submits the rationale for, and the calculations used, to arrive at a different cost escalation factor.

Yes.

Yes, although the default system performance degradation factor, which is based on industry best practice, should be used. To use a lower factor, the contractor must submit a rationale for, and the calculations used, to arrive at a different performance degradation factor.

The value of the MACRS is provided by the prospective property owner or his/her accountant.

No.

The cost of the inverter (extended) warranty should be included in the cost of the project.

Yes. For more information, refer to the Program Guide or contact us.

Yes, the program administrator can and will assist in the preparation of an application, if needed.

Yes. The program administrator is available to collaborate with the contractor to develop an agenda for a property owner introductory call, identify issues that can be expected to arise, and determine which issues are best handled by the contractor or the program administrator.

Yes.

The system commissioning plan is intended to confirm that the proposed ECMs have been installed according to the manufacturers’ guidelines and that the system will perform as expected. Contractors are encouraged to prepare a commissioning report and submit it to the property owner and the program administrator. It should include as-built drawings, O&M manuals for each ECM, and a narrative appropriate for the size and complexity of the project.

0.5 percent. A proposed de-rate factor that is less than 0.5 percent must be supported by data from the system’s manufacturer. In consultation with the solar contractor, any such proposal will be reviewed and either approved, modified, or rejected by the program administrator.

Yes.

There are many factors that can be adjusted, including cost, anticipated energy production, the potential use of tax credits, MACRS depreciation, and utility incentives. In addition, a property owner can directly invest in a project to reduce the financed amount and thereby increase the SIR. The program administrator may be able to model different scenarios to find one that will appeal to the property owner and the mortgage holder.

The program administrator relies on cut-sheet data, which is combined with other project data included in the solar feasibility study, to confirm a project’s eligibility.

C-PACE provides regularly scheduled training workshops for contractors free of charge. Visit the Events page for the schedule of upcoming workshops or email Vegas@PACEworx.com. You can also work with a property owner to submit a project application for consideration.

C-PACE involves multiple steps that include:

• Building selection and prequalification
• Project application
• Preliminary project scoping
• Proposal preparation and owner review
• Project scenario development and optimization
• Project technical review
• Financing
• Construction
• Commissioning

Timeframes are project-specific and depend on the number of parties involved. In a C-PACE project, the contractor, mortgage holder, and capital provider establish their own schedules with the property owner. Once a project has been approved for financing, it typically takes an average of 60 days to close.

Yes.

After a project has been reviewed by the program administrator and approved by the property owner and mortgage holder (if any), participating capital providers are offered the opportunity to finance the project. The capital provider (selected by the owner) will review the project documentation (provided by the program administrator and the property owner), prepare a financing agreement, and schedule a closing. Funds to initiate construction will be disbursed as provided in the financing agreement funds disbursement schedule.

As defined in the C-PACE program guidelines, energy efficiency projects must include a formal evaluation of the energy consumption baseline and projected savings that is consistent with the (i) requirements of ASTM International Standard E2797: Standard Practice for Building Energy Performance Assessment for a Building Involved in a Real Estate Transaction; (ii) the ASHRAE Level 2 or 3 guidelines for energy audits or any comparable energy assessment guidelines, as applicable.

The methodology for the savings projections is determined based on the complexity of the project. For example, in a single measure, like-for-like equipment replacement project such as a boiler replacement, the required documentation can be less comprehensive than for a multi-measure, comprehensive project that involves interactive effects. For more information, refer to the C-PACE Program Guide.

The SIR tells all stakeholders whether a project will be cash-flow positive. C-PACE existing building projects are often designed such that the estimated energy cost savings, over the effective useful life of the qualified energy efficiency improvements and/or renewable energy improvements, exceeds the financing amount, i.e. the savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) is greater than one (SIR >1.0). There are significant benefits to this outcome:

• Property owners and capital providers look favorably on projects that show positive cash flow over their lifetime
• Mortgage holders are more likely to consent to the imposition of a voluntary benefit assessment for projects that show positive cash flow
• In general, the higher the SIR, the greater the demonstrated environmental benefits, e.g., emissions reductions, of the project, which helps to support the goals of C-PACE.

Improvements that are eligible for C-PACE financing must be permanently affixed to the qualifying commercial or industrial property and have a useful life of 10+ years.

Energy Efficiency Improvement Projects. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Automated building controls (BMS, EMS)
• Boilers, chillers, and furnaces
• Building envelope (insulation, glazing, windows, etc.)
• Combined heat and power (CHP) systems
• Fuel cells
• High-efficiency lighting
• Hot water systems
• HVAC upgrades
• Roof replacement that improves energy efficiency (reflective/cool roof, enhanced insulation, or combined with a solar system installation)
• Variable speed drives on motors, pumps, and fans
• Waste heat recovery technologies.

Renewable Energy Projects. Examples include:

• Geothermal systems
• Hydroelectric systems
• Small wind systems
• Solar photovoltaic (roof upgrade/replacement for rooftop systems is also eligible)
• Solar thermal.

Resiliency Projects. Examples include:

• Indoor air quality systems
• Seismic retrofits
• Stormwater systems that reduce on-site or off-site risk of flash flooding
• Wind and fire resistance.

Water Efficiency Improvement Projects. Examples include:

• Irrigation systems that improve water efficiency.
• Water efficient fixtures (low-flow faucets, toilets, etc.).

In addition, the cost of improvements that are directly related to the installation of eligible improvements may be included in the financing, e.g. roof upgrades to support a roof-mounted solar PV installation.

This list is not all-inclusive and is expected to change over time. If a proposed improvement or expense is not on this list, contact the program administrator with a description of the improvement or expense for consideration.

This scenario requires modeling. For specifics contact us.

Three years of utility data is preferred with a minimum of one year, during which time no major renovations should have taken place. This best practice is consistent with the requirements of ASTM International Standard E2797: Standard Practice for Building Energy Performance Assessment for a Building Involved in a Real Estate Transaction. For more information, contact us.

Yes, provided it is related to the eligible improvement allowed under C-PACE. For instance, a roof or structural repair that is needed to support a solar system is eligible. The costs for such work will be added to the costs of the solar installation. These additional costs will reduce the savings-to-investment ratio (SIR).

The program administrator recommends DOE’s eQuest or EnergyPro, although other models such as Trane’s Trace 700 and Carrier’s HAP model are also acceptable.

Yes. Since the energy savings are projected and future weather conditions are unknown, energy savings are projected using average conditions. These projections create baselines for the status quo (which assumes energy conservation measures (ECMs) have not been installed) and for the projected case (which assumes the recommended ECMs have been installed).

Energy savings are calculated over the expected useful life of a specific energy conservation measure (ECM). In projects that incorporate multiple ECMs, the weighted useful life of the multiple ECMs is calculated and used to determine the maximum allowable finance term.

While the default electricity/fuel-cost escalation factors, which are based on industry best practice, should be used, the program administrator will consider higher factors if the contractor submits the rationale for, and the calculations used, to arrive at a different cost escalation factor.

Yes, although the default system performance degradation factor, which is based on industry best practice, should be used. To use a lower factor, the contractor must submit a rationale for, and the calculations used, to arrive at a different performance degradation factor.

Cut sheets provide a wealth of data from the manufacturer of the ECM. This data, when combined with other project data, is used by the program administrator to confirm project eligibility.

Yes, the program administrator can and will assist in the preparation of an application, if needed.

Yes. The program administrator is available to collaborate with the contractor to develop an agenda for a property owner introductory call, identify issues that can be expected to arise, and determine which issues are best handled by the contractor or the program administrator.

The system commissioning plan is intended to confirm that the proposed ECMs have been installed according to the manufacturers’ guidelines and that the system will perform as expected. Contractors are encouraged to prepare a commissioning report and submit it to the property owner and the program administrator. It should include as-built drawings, O&M manuals for each ECM, and a narrative appropriate for the size and complexity of the project.