Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 17
03/28/2017 10:15 AM House ENERGY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Connecticut Green Bank | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
March 28, 2017
10:23 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Adam Wool, Chair
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Vice Chair
Representative Dean Westlake
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Jennifer Johnston
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Matt Claman
Representative George Rauscher
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: CONNECTICUT GREEN BANK
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a brief overview of the
Connecticut Green Bank.
BERT HUNTER, Chief Investment Officer
Connecticut Green Bank
Rocky Hill, Connecticut
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint titled "Connecticut
Green Bank.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR ADAM WOOL called the House Special Committee on Energy
meeting to order at 10:23 a.m. Representatives Wool, Spohnholz,
Westlake, Johnston, and Johnson were present at the call to
order.
[Due to technical difficulties, the call to order and the
announcement to the order of business were not recorded.]
CHAIR WOOL announced that the only order of business would be a
presentation by the Connecticut Green Bank.
10:23:00 AM
^Presentation: Connecticut Green Bank
Presentation: Connecticut Green Bank
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director, Renewable Energy Alaska Project
(REAP), reported that the Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP)
was a coalition of 80 statewide organizations focused on the
promotion of clean energy, energy efficiency, and renewable
energy. Since 2008, REAP had supported a number of successful
programs, including the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
programs for weatherization or rebate. He noted that more than
40,000 homes had been weatherized through the program, with an
average savings of 30 percent. He shared that the AHFC estimate
was for a heating oil savings of more than 25 million gallons
every year. He pointed out that this money saved was staying in
the Alaska economy. He reported on an additional 60 projects
which were saving 30 million gallons of diesel annually. He
noted that these projects successfully kept dollars in the
Alaska economy. In order to keep this momentum, even in times
of a tight state budget, he suggested it was necessary to
leverage private money. He estimated that Alaskans paid $5
billion annually for energy, which included transportation,
heating, and electricity. He pointed out that, as the
residential industry had saved 30 percent in costs, a 20 percent
savings for the commercial industry would keep another $1
billion in the Alaska economy. He pointed out that this
investment would also create many jobs. He described the
Connecticut Green Bank program as a catalyst for these programs,
noting that this was the first green bank established in the
United States, in 2011. He declared that this program had
tremendous success, and he reported that the Connecticut Green
Bank was not competing with the private sector, but was,
instead, allowing the private sector easier access into the
markets.
10:26:54 AM
BERT HUNTER, Chief Investment Officer, Connecticut Green Bank,
offered some background about the program, and reported that the
Connecticut Green Bank was formed in 2011 by the Governor of the
State of Connecticut and the state legislature. He stated that
the energy policy spoke to reducing the energy burden on
businesses and residents, as well as benefitting the economy and
the environment. He said that the Connecticut clean energy fund
was established in 1999. He reported that the Connecticut Green
Bank had done more than $1 billion of investment, more than
three times the amount of investment from the clean energy fund,
in less than half the time. He explained that the focus of the
Green Bank was to attract more private investment for clean
energy deployment by partnering with financial institutions. He
declared that the Green Bank offered the financing to encourage
more private investment for clean energy, which included energy
efficiency, solar, oil to gas conversions, electric charging,
fuel cells, small hydro, and wind. He said that public dollars
were used to attract local banks, credit unions, national
lenders, and global financial institutions to provide
businesses, consumers, municipalities and schools with access to
affordable capital to solve the clean energy needs. He stated
that the financial institutions were now contacting the Green
Bank for partnerships, as the Green Bank offered programs and
financial products to help the citizens of the state achieve
their own energy conservation and energy choice goals while
helping the state meet its ambitious environmental goals. He
pointed out that these improvements helped the industrial
manufacturers become more competitive as it lowered energy
costs, and that homeowners could upgrade to cleaner and more
efficient energy. He added that the Green Bank also helped
businesses and communities invest in micro grids. He shared
that there was support for economically challenged communities,
as energy costs often consumed up to 25 percent of income. He
said that the Green Bank worked with the social service agencies
to lower the energy costs of families with fixed income. He
declared that all of these programs had "an enormous impact on
economic development for the state." He reported that the $1
billion of investment by the Green Bank represented 12,500
direct and indirect job years. He reminded that a reduction in
energy costs allowed for more local investment.
10:33:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked how the Connecticut Green Bank
incorporated federal tax credits and federal programs.
MR. HUNTER replied that federal tax credits for solar were used
through a solar fund, established with U.S. Bank and Key Bank.
This enabled the Connecticut Green Bank to provide power
purchase agreements and solar leases to homeowners and small
businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked what percentage of the $1 billion
investment was dependent on the federal programs.
MR. HUNTER opined that it was currently about 50 percent,
although it was decreasing. He said that the Green Bank also
managed an incentive program which provided funding to
homeowners and third-party owners.
CHAIR WOOL asked about the proportion of investment for in-state
energy consumption.
MR. HUNTER offered his belief that about 30 percent was for
commercial and industrial, with about 70 percent for
residential, including multi-family.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned the amount of federal
investments. She asked if the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
focused primarily on nuclear power, and if there was any
contribution toward green programs.
MR. HUNTER said that the DOE incentivized through co-investment
to have innovation and energy efficiencies. He offered an
example of a high efficiency fuel cell in the pilot phase and
stated that DOE would lend funds to the developer to make this a
commercialized process. He stated that DOE had a number of
energy investment programs, related to the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. He opined that most of those
programs were "being wound up right now."
MR. HUNTER addressed slide 2, "Agenda," and shared that he would
speak about the Green Bank, its basics, its benefits and
impacts, and its projects and program examples, as well as the
Green Bank movement. He moved on to slide 3, "About Us," and
stated that the Green Bank had been formed with a $60 million
capital base, currently had $175 million in assets, and focused
on clean energy and energy efficiency. He explained that it was
supported by a slight surcharge, $0.001 per kilowatt hour, on
everyone's electric bill, which was about $27 million annually.
He added that they participated in a regional greenhouse gas
initiative which generated about $5 million annually. He
pointed out that there was also portfolio income of about $2 - 3
million annually. He said that the Green Bank applied to the
federal government for funding through various initiatives,
including ARRA, and also received funding from private
foundations.
MR. HUNTER offered demographics for the State of Connecticut,
slide 4, and compared the high costs of electricity in both
states, slide 5, "Connecticut & Alaska." He listed the
challenges which drove the formation of the Connecticut Green
Bank, slide 6, "Five Macro Energy Challenges," which included
high energy costs, old, energy inefficient buildings, a need for
cleaner, cheaper energy sources, grid reliability, and
constrained government spending.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about Connecticut's dependence on
natural gas.
MR. HUNTER replied that the natural gas came from across the
Hudson River, and, as the pipelines were established and fixed,
there was no new capacity. He relayed that, in winter, there
can be constraint which causes the price for natural gas to
spike, which had a ripple effect on electricity prices.
10:43:41 AM
MR. HUNTER shared slide 7, "Green Bank Basics" and said that it
could be sponsored by any government, which established capital
for the Green Bank, in order to mitigate the risk for private
investors. He said that this allowed for the low carbon
projects to be developed for substantial energy efficiency in
renewables.
MR. HUNTER explained that the Green Bank operated in three ways;
co-investment with other private capital banks or institutions,
credit support with a limited guarantee in the residential
lending program, and warehousing for a pool of financing for
commercial programs, slide 8, "How Green Banks's Leverage Public
Capital with More Private Capital."
CHAIR WOOL asked about the PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy
Programs) activity.
MR. HUNTER said that Connecticut had the most active commercial
PACE program in the US, with more than $100 million in
transactions in two years. He said that the average size was
$600,000, although the range was very wide.
MR. HUNTER moved on to slides 10 and 11, "Accelerate Green
Energy Deployment," which reflected the increase in the last
five years to more than 208 megawatts of clean energy with $1
billion in investment.
CHAIR WOOL determined that this money had been from grants,
which were now exhausted.
MR. HUNTER said that they now encouraged private money, and
combined with the Green Bank financing, this had a multiplier
effect.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if there was any venture capital
investment.
MR. HUNTER replied that it was mainly traditional financing. He
referenced the comprehensive annual financial report. He
focused on the lifetime CO2 emissions table in the report, which
reflected a lifetime savings of more than 2 million tons of CO2
in the first five years.
MR. HUNTER shared slide 12, "Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report" which encapsulated the financial and programmatic
performances. He pointed to slide 13, "Investment
Transactions," which listed many of the transactions with
private capital.
CHAIR WOOL asked if the ratio was the private capital investment
relative to the Green Bank.
MR. HUNTER expressed his agreement and moved on to slide 14,
"Delivering Results for Connecticut," which listed the benefits
and substantial impact from investment, jobs, and energy burden.
10:51:54 AM
MR. HUNTER directed attention to slide 17, "Smart-E Loan," and
spoke about these loans, which were intended for local community
banks and credit unions to provide unsecured loans for
homeowners. He relayed that banks were already offering secured
loans, and that homeowners always had the option of applying for
a home equity line of credit or refinancing a first mortgage.
He explained that these loans allowed work with contractors for
a "smooth and easy process." He suggested this would move
toward the elimination of teaser rates, and would allow the
contractor to work with banks, credit unions, the Green Bank,
and customers to offer lower rate loans for a longer term. He
said that some of the ARRA funds provided a loan loss reserve,
which allowed for a limited undertaking for losses that might be
experienced by the banks, in return for a lowering of interest
rates for unsecured loans.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked how this was coordinated. She
asked if the companies were vetted. She questioned whether the
cost of energy would go down, and how this could be meshed into
the energy grid to allow for an overall benefit.
MR. HUNTER replied that the contractors were vetted and needed
to apply and provide proof they had adequate insurance and were
registered and licensed as home improvement contractors. He
pointed out that the contractors were required to be trained by
Connecticut Green Bank for an understanding of how the programs
worked. He added that there was a quality assurance and quality
control program to ensure the projects were installed properly
and were functioning properly. He reported that the Green Bank
provided a list for the range of activities which qualified for
the loan program. He pointed out that the bank did not get
involved with the qualifications for the range of measures, they
only performed the underwriting of the customer. He noted that
the approval was done through an internet portal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about the effect on the grid.
MR. HUNTER replied that Connecticut did not have the integration
of solar where this would remotely become an issue. He
acknowledged that this was an issue in parts of California and
Hawaii, and that it was a challenge to integrate the
intermittent resources into the grid, which was built for one-
way delivery of power from the central power source out. He
offered a few comments, stating that some upgrades were
necessary, and that those improvements were paid for by the
contractors and the home owners where they happened. He offered
his belief that this was "not a particularly fair way." He
declared that the solar use had brought many benefits in terms
of distributed generation. He reported that the Connecticut
policy had net metering, which meant that a home which generated
more energy than it was using was offered a credit by its
utility, which could be drawn on when necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked how they dealt with the policy
level.
MR. HUNTER replied that the Green Bank worked closely with the
regulatory authority and the utilities, and that it was an
ongoing evolution and dialogue throughout the country. He
stated that the utilities were working positively, as they
viewed the distribution of the resources as beneficial for
taking stress off the grid. He pointed out that the utilities
wanted to do it in a more planned fashion, with the possibility
of enhanced incentives in areas that needed more generation. He
stated that this would result in a stronger grid.
MR. HUNTER stated that their interest rates ranged from 4.49
percent to 6.99 percent, from five years to twelve years, adding
that it was a moderate, clearly affordable amount of interest.
He added that the Green Bank used its ARRA funds to buy down the
interest rates, to make it even more affordable, if the
homeowner decided to do even more of a project, slide 19,
"Bundle Special Offer."
CHAIR WOOL asked if this was a guarantee service for default to
the banks, provided by Green Bank.
MR. HUNTER said that it was credit enhancing the loan. He
explained that a percentage of the loan, a loss reserve benefit
of 7.5 percent of the loan, goes into an account at the Green
Bank for the benefit of the lender to withstand credit losses.
He relayed that this demonstrated to the banks that they would
not have excess losses on their portfolio. He added that the
first 1.5 percent of the loan was retained loss by the lender,
and if the loss was larger, they were then able to look at the
reserve to recoup. In response to Chair Wool, he said it was
the Green Bank money from ARRA in the reserve. He reported
that, in three years, Green Bank had $16 million worth of loans,
of which only two loans had defaulted. He noted that none of
the reserve had been used. He offered his belief that this was
a good way to leverage funds.
11:04:14 AM
MR. HUNTER stated that they serviced the low-income residents,
slide 21, "Low Income Portfolio." He pointed out that it was a
misconception that low-income people had a poor credit history,
as it was possible to have poor credit while making "way above
median income." He stated that by reaching out and partnering
through community development financial institutions, many of
these overlooked residents and families were able to attain
energy efficiency. He said that many companies would bypass
these communities, and instead focus on middle- and higher-
income populations.
MR. HUNTER said that this reinforced the idea that homes being
heated with oil could convert to solar for energy efficiency and
to bring down the energy burden, slide 23, "Solar PV Lease and
EE ESA." He noted that the Green Bank was a repository of
information for energy efficiency resources, slide 24,
"Resources for CT Homeowners." He pointed out that they were
working in partnership with the utility.
CHAIR WOOL asked how AEA would compare to this program for
acquiring funds and knowledge of projects as a "one stop shop."
MR. ROSE said that Alaska had two state corporations concerned
with energy efficiency, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), although Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) was the most
like Green Bank, except it did not have the focus. He said that
both had the knowledge and could take advantage of federal
programs and federal money to integrate into new programs. He
pointed out that AEA was not a finance institution.
MR. HUNTER shared that Green Bank supported multi-family
property owners, even though the actual resident paying the bill
was not the owner, slide 26, "Multifamily Programs- What we do."
CHAIR WOOL asked whether the loans for improvements would be
assumed upon sale of the property and would still be considered
an incentive for investment.
MR. HUNTER expressed agreement and said that this would be
addressed. He moved on to slide 27, "Resources to Get You
Started on the Right Path," and said that Green Bank worked with
pre-development resources and loans that offered the ability to
determine what improvements were needed for more energy
efficiency. He added that Green Bank would provide loans for
this determination, and could be wrapped into the next phase,
slide 28, "Energy Upgrade Financing." He spoke about the LIME
(low income multifamily energy) loan, the commercial property
assessed clean energy (C-PACE) loan, and Gap Financing for
projects with asbestos, old wiring, lead pipes, or old building
stock issues that needed to be addressed for health and safety.
11:13:44 AM
MR. HUNTER directed attention to slide 29, "Affordable
Multifamily Impact to Date" and reported that there had been
1,300 residential units outfitted with solar, with an additional
1,300 units becoming more energy efficient, in the past 18
months. He spoke about slide 30, "Don't Go It Alone," and
listed many of the partners, including the Departments of
Housing and Public Health, who helped direct the Green Bank with
technical assistance and direction. He spoke about partnerships
for low-cost financing, including C-PACE and the MacArthur
Foundation, and he labeled the Green Bank as a hub for bringing
all the resources, the capital side, and the projects together.
MR. HUNTER spoke about slide 33, "C-PACE Addresses Key
Barriers," which allowed 100 percent financing for up to 25
years and that the savings over time had to exceed the
assessment on the property. He addressed slide 35, "DEEP
Retrofits" and spoke about work with commercial office
buildings, public schools, and not for profits which needed
financing for energy efficiency projects. He addressed slide
36, "CT Solar Lease 2" and spoke about the relationship with
ONYX for commercial solar installation.
CHAIR WOOL asked how much of the activity could be ascribed to
the decrease in the price of solar.
MR. HUNTER said that about half of the overall Green Bank
portfolio was for solar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked how much of the portfolio was
thermal, or heat pumps.
MR. HUNTER said that although heat pumps was currently a small
portion of the portfolio, it was an increasing portion. He
added that there was currently a big thermal push and that heat
pumps were now a part of the strategy.
11:22:08 AM
MR. HUNTER presented slide 37, "SBEA Program Funding Structure,"
and explained that the small business energy advantage program
(SBEA) worked with the local utilities for three to four-year
loans to commercial customers. He explained that, although the
local utilities no longer wanted to be lenders, they had agreed
to be the on-bill provider for repayment. He pointed out that
the funding would now come from the private capital market. He
reported that, since inception of the program ten years prior,
the loss rate was 1 percent. He added that the utility would
put up a loss reserve to backstop the loans, and this protection
was sufficient. He said the Green Bank would provide the
vehicle to secure the revenue stream for the lenders, and a
small amount of transactional liquidity. He explained that the
Green Bank could be instrumental in a program with a capital
cost of 4 - 5 percent.
MR. HUNTER moved on to slide 38, "Lead by Example," and spoke
about the need for energy savings for state facilities. He said
there were some transactions with general obligation bonds, as
well as green bonds from the Green Bank. He reported that the
Green Bank was exploring an energy service agreement which would
take these transactions away from the state and convert a
capital investment into a service contract with the Green Bank.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked how the general obligation bonds
would be integrated.
MR. HUNTER explained that the Green Bank would issue bonds to
the capital provider. In return for issuing the bonds, those
funds would come into the Green Bank under a bonding mechanism.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON said that the Green Bank could not
integrate municipal or state bonds.
MR. HUNTER replied that the general obligation bonds would be on
the state balance sheet, and the state could do its own
financing; however, as an alternative, using hundreds of
millions of dollars to open up the potential for activity, the
energy savings agreements could be an alternative for reducing
the burden of the bonds on the state's balance sheet. He added
that the Green Bank was constrained by an annual bond limit, so
that energy savings agreements could solve this.
MR. HUNTER reported that Green Bank would finance grid sized
projects, slide 39, "Bridgeport Fuel Cell Park," a $5 million
financing to incentivize the buyer to complete the $65 million
transaction. This was the largest fuel cell project in North
America, 15 megawatts. He said that Green Bank financed a
number of micro grids. In response to Chair Wool, he said this
was a power plant, with a power purchase agreement with the
local utility. He explained that the fuel cell manufacturer
built the project, which was then sold to an investment company.
MR. HUNTER turned to slide 40, "Micro Grids," which he cited for
resiliency and as back-up power to ensure that critical
facilities still had power if there was a power failure. He
moved to slide 41, "Anaerobic Digester Projects," and announced
that there was a big organic problem in Connecticut. He
reported that there was a state policy which said that large
organic producers had to supply their organics to an anaerobic
digester, if they were within a 20-mile radius. He said that
this facilitated the Green Bank to finance a digester.
11:32:25 AM
MR. HUNTER discussed slide 42, "Wind Projects," mentioning that
Green Bank had some 5-Megawatt projects and had provided some
subordinated debt that encouraged seven times leverage from a
tax equity investor. He mentioned that, as Connecticut also had
some small hydro projects, they had taken some European
commercial technology and brought it to the U.S., slide 43, "New
England Hydropower." He reported that this transaction had been
worked on by the clean energy fund, which provided financing to
the developer to explore and bring it to the commercial phase.
He shared that these could be put anywhere.
CHAIR WOOL opined that wind and hydro projects were expensive
relative to the number of consumers in many small Alaska
communities. He relayed that these projects were only feasible
if paid by a grant.
MR. HUNTER said that the aforementioned hydro project was
financed by federal clean renewable energy bonds, and that there
was still funding available. He shared that these bonds brought
the cost of financing down to about 1.5 percent over 20 years.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked about the cost of the project.
MR. HUNTER replied that it was a $4 million project, because it
was the first. He acknowledged that although it was expensive,
it was a discount for the city, which had signed up for a 20-
year power purchase agreement, which was also extendable. It
was this long contract life which allowed them to recover the
investment.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said that a $4 million project which
would produce energy for 115 homes would be cheap for many rural
Alaska communities, even with an inflated cost due to increased
construction expense.
MR. HUNTER added that this price tag also included a lot of
expense, about $1 million, in developmental cost, which would
not be present in future projects. He said that there were also
economies of scale if a second project was built alongside.
11:40:02 AM
MR. HUNTER said that there was foundation money available,
especially for providing services to disadvantaged communities,
slide 45, "MacArthur Foundation." He said that these
foundations were often amenable to assisting for energy
efficiency and clean energy services. He pointed out the
various green bonds, slide 46, "Green Bonds." He moved on to
slide 47, "Grid of the Future," and spoke about electric vehicle
charging, for which the Green Bank could provide financing over
a longer period of time than a commercial bank.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE expressed his interest in the Tesla
battery and asked if the Green Bank was pursuing this
technology.
MR. HUNTER acknowledged that the technology was rapidly changing
and that the battery capacities were increasing, allowing for
longer range which would necessitate faster chargers, which were
more expensive.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE spoke about the difficulties of cold on
these batteries.
MR. HUNTER, in response to Chair Wool, replied that there could
be that the chargers were placed where there was activity,
including workplaces and shopping areas.
CHAIR WOOL asked about the financing and the power production.
MR. HUNTER explained that these were networks which would
necessitate payment with a card swipe, or similar, to use the
charger.
CHAIR WOOL asked how the Green Bank became involved.
MR. HUNTER replied that they provided the capital to build the
network. He stated that the charger unit was cheap, but that
the cost was in the installation. He suggested that some of
this infrastructure could even be rate based and co-financed
with the utility.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about storage on the grid.
MR. HUNTER said they were at the neighborhood level of storage,
and that there was a pilot program with a utility for the use of
intermittent resources and storage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about the hydrogen fuel cars.
MR. HUNTER replied that the Green Bank was watching the
progress, although the cars and the build out of the
infrastructure were very expensive. He opined that the program
was still challenged by the sheer economics and was not yet
sustainable.
11:51:31 AM
MR. HUNTER returned attention to slide 50, "Green Bank
Movement," and said that Green Banks were part of an entire
global movement, the Green Bank Network. He listed some of the
states and countries, including Rhode Island, New Jersey,
California, Japan and Malaysia, which also had green finance
organizations.
CHAIR WOOL asked how many states currently had green banks.
MR. HUNTER listed California, Connecticut, New York, Maryland,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if funding was being withdrawn from
the Connecticut Green Bank.
MR. HUNTER acknowledged that state budgets were an issue of
concern, and that Green Banks could be viewed as a piggy bank.
He offered his belief that the legislatures would see the
economic development benefits was money well spent in
investment. He said that they met with the legislators and
reported that this was an efficient use of resources. He
pointed out that this worked positively, and that any money
pulled from the Green Bank was "turning the whole process
around, so it means you'll have lower investment, not greater
investment."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about providing dividends.
MR. HUNTER said that dividends back to the state would be
possible as the portfolio grows.
CHAIR WOOL asked about the aforementioned system benefit charge,
pointing out that the utilities had expressed concern that
ratepayers pay for projects that benefited somewhere else. He
asked how much Alaska would make with a similar charge.
MR. ROSE said that this would raise about $6 million annually,
and that, as most of the people lived in the Railbelt, they
would receive the most benefit. He suggested that there could
be multiple sources of stable revenue.
11:57:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referenced the aforementioned Alaska
institutions, AEA, AIDEA, and AHFC, and asked which would be the
best vehicle for a Green Bank in Alaska, or whether it should be
a separate institution to deliver these same outcomes as
Connecticut.
MR. ROSE offered his belief that it was still a little early to
tell. He stated that there was expertise in banking at AIDEA
and AHFC, and expertise in energy efficiency and renewables at
AEA and AHFC. He said that, although there was a small amount
of lending at AEA, the majority of lending took place at the
other two institutions. He opined that the benefit was for a
very specific and discreet focus. He stated that AIDEA had a
broad focus and reiterated that it was still early to make the
determination for one of these institutions. He reported that 6
or 7 people could provide a lot of the expertise to move this
program along, with some accounting support.
11:59:45 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House Energy - 3.28.17 - Bert Hunter BIO.pdf |
HENE 3/28/2017 10:15:00 AM |
|
| House Energy - 3.28.17 - Green Bank White Paper.pdf |
HENE 3/28/2017 10:15:00 AM |
|
| House Energy - 3.28.17 - Pres. by Bert Hunter - Intro to Green Banks.pdf |
HENE 3/28/2017 10:15:00 AM |