Using Tax Incentives to Support Thermal Retrofits in Germany

The German government has committed to reducing the primary energy demand of buildings by 80% by 2050 and to attaining a thermal retrofit rate of 2%. Achieving both goals will require deep thermal retrofits across the existing building stock. To meet this challenge, the government is exploring what role tax support options could play in encouraging thermal retrofits and ensuring that they deliver the necessary energy performance. The following options are being discussed: - Allow for the accelerated depreciation of investments in the thermal energy efficiency of buildings (further development of § 82a EStDV). For commercial owners and landlords, the net present value and the visibility of tax benefits would increase, thus increasing incentives for improving energy efficiency and compensating for the difficulties involved in passing investment costs to users. For private households, thermal retrofit costs could be made deductible as "special expenditures" and tax benefits would increase with the marginal income tax rate. - Offer tax credits. Currently, 20% of up to 6000 Euro in labor costs can be deducted from tax liability (35a German Income Tax Act, EStG). Expanding the volume and the types of qualifying deductions to cover material costs, and increasing the deductible share of the retrofit costs, could support thermal retrofits of owner-occupied buildings. In this paper, we evaluate international (Italy, Netherlands, and U.S.) experiences with tax benefits supporting thermal retrofits and draw upon the experience of the German KfW loans and grants program

Steueranreize zur Förderung energetischer Sanierungen

Die deutsche Bundesregierung hat das Ziel gesetzt, den Primärenergiebedarf im Gebäudesektor um 80% bis zum Jahr 2050 zu senken und eine energetische Sanierungsrate von 2% zu erreichen. Umfassende, tiefe Sanierungen im Gebäudebestand sind notwendig um beide Ziele zu erreichen. Daher untersucht die Bundesregierung zurzeit, welche Rolle Steueranreize dabei spielen können, diese Sanierungen anzustoßen und die benötigten Energieeinsparungen zu liefern. Die folgenden Optionen werden zurzeit diskutiert: • Eine beschleunigte Abschreibung von Investitionen in Sanierungsmaßnahmen erlauben (Weiterentwicklung von §82a EStDV): Für vermieteten Wohnraum und Nichtwohnraum könnte Absatz 1 den Kapitalwert und die Sichtbarkeit steuerlicher Vorteile vergrößern und so auch dafür kompensieren, dass Vermieter zurzeit Kosten an Mieter nur mit Problemen weitergeben können. Privathaushalte könnten nach Absatz 3 energetische Sanierungen als „Sonderausgaben“ absetzen; Steuerersparnisse würden mit dem Grenzsteuersatz steigen. • Eine Steuergutschrift anbieten: Derzeit können 20% von bis zu 6000€ Arbeitskosten vom zu versteuernden Einkommen abgezogen werden (§35a EStG). Für Eigenheime könnten die Obergrenzen von §35a EStG für energetische Sanierungsmaßnahmen erhöht und auf Planungs- und Materialkosten ausgeweitet werden um Sanierungen zu unterstützen. In einer kurzen Studie hat CPI internationale Erfahrungen mit Steuervergünstigungen zur Förderung energetischer Sanierungen zusammengetragen und auch Erfahrungen der Förderprogramme der KfW Bankengruppe (KfW) zusammengefasst

Leveraging State Clean Water Revolving Funds to Expand Clean Energy Financing

To meet clean energy goals, states will need significant capital. Federal funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will help, including by capitalizing clean energy state revolving loan funds (RLFs). States can leverage state clean water revolving funds to finance even more clean energy improvements. New York and Pennsylvania have used this innovative mechanism to extend the impact of their clean energy loan programs. For states looking to extend the reach of their clean energy financing programs, the brief: -Explains how each state leveraged their state revolving funds, -Identifies critical success factors for doing so, and -Offers key elements for replicating this model In New York, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority structured a sale of bonds secured by the repayments from a portfolio of residential energy efficiency loans from its Green Jobs – Green New York Program, with the additional support of a guarantee from the state’s clean water revolving fund. The Pennsylvania Treasury Department received a direct investment of funds from Pennsylvania’s clean water revolving fund to support the relaunch of the Keystone Home Energy Loan Program (HELP), which had previously been shuttered due to lack of support funding. From our review of these two case studies, when facilitating state clean water revolving fund transactions to support clean energy lending, the following critical success factors emerged: -Reference to preventing atmospheric deposition resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels in the state’s Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan, which sets out that state’s strategy for reducing pollution into state waterways. -Strong relationships and trust between the clean water revolving fund administrator and the state agency administering the clean energy loan program. -Limited funding exposure for the clean water revolving funds—which are generally large and well capitalized—to ensure that any losses experienced by clean water revolving funds would have a negligible impact on the fund’s ability to support core water and wastewater projects. -Willingness, on the part of the clean water revolving fund administrator, to innovate and engage in careful analysis to support transaction structuring, and support from state energy partner organizations. The brief provides case studies of these states’ experiences, critical success factors, and key elements for replicating the model

Deferred Payment Loans for Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Low- and Moderate-Income Home Improvement Financing Model and Potential Application to Energy Efficiency Projects

Energy efficiency can provide important benefits for low- and moderate-income households such as lower utility bills and healthier, more comfortable homes, but the upfront costs of efficiency improvements are often a barrier. Extending financing to these households can help overcome this barrier but presents its own challenges, including the financial burden of monthly payments and the risk of incurring the repercussions of nonpayment. The deferred payment loan model can give low- and moderate-income households access to energy efficiency without the financial burden of monthly payments while mitigating the risk of nonpayment. From a program sponsor perspective, when grant funds are limited or unavailable, the model provides certain advantages of both grants and financing. Like a grant, target recipients have minimal risk, but like a loan, funds can serve multiple participants since the funding can be revolved. Organizations in several parts of the country have employed the model to provide safe, healthy homes by paying for home repair and home improvement. This case study provides a detailed overview of the deferred payment loan program for home improvements known as the Home Repair Program run by the Opportunity Council, a Community Action Agency (CAA) serving three counties in Washington State. This case study also considers two other CAA-administered deferred payment loan programs – one in Wisconsin and another in Michigan

Commercial PACE Project Origination: Leverage Points for Growing the Project Pipeline

Greater use of Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) financing within communities where it is enabled will increase energy savings, drive economic development, and result in additional public benefits. Some states with active C-PACE programs have ramped up activity significantly while others have not achieved and sustained a high volume of transactions. This brief details C-PACE project origination trends, barriers, and market practices for state and local government C-PACE program sponsors looking to grow their C-PACE project pipeline. Based on the results of a questionnaire of C-PACE stakeholders, this brief provides new information on project origination trends and strategies for how state and local governments and third-party partners can increase the volume of projects leveraging C-PACE financing. The questionnaire results support the following observations about the C-PACE financing market: -Marketing and education: Program administrators and capital providers agree that direct outreach to property owners (e.g., one-on-one or in small groups) to explain the benefits of C-PACE financing is the most effective strategy to originate projects. -C-PACE capital providers: Specialty C-PACE capital providers—private lenders with deep knowledge of and a significant focus on C-PACE financing—are the primary source of capital for most C-PACE programs according to program administrator respondents. The share of capital provided by specialty C-PACE providers grew from 2019 to 2020. However, some C-PACE programs (two in this study) are structured so that they use exclusively public capital. -C-PACE project entry point into a program: Most program administrators report that over 75% of financing volume comes from projects with pre-selected capital providers,1 meaning that property owners have connected with capital providers before making contact with the C-PACE program. Transaction sizes for these projects grew from 2019 to 2020 (most are now over $1 million), helping to drive industry growth. -Smaller C-PACE projects: Small and medium projects often do not have a pre-selected capital provider and may need additional support from a program administrator to navigate the transaction process. This is significant given that some programs have goals to serve small- and medium-sized businesses.2 -Messaging to property owners: The features property owners find most attractive about C-PACE financing are the long repayment period and the fact that it does not require a personal guarantee. 1 In open C-PACE programs, multiple capital providers compete to fund C-PACE projects. Most program administrators in our questionnaire administer open programs; however, some administer closed programs and several administer both open and closed programs. It is unclear how to interpret the responses of program administrators who work entirely or in part in closed programs, where there is not a choice among capital providers. 2 For example, Minnesota, Michigan, and Colorado, which are profiled in Improving Access to C-PACE for Smaller Businesses (National Association of State Energy Officials, 2021)

Energy efficiency lifetimes: How reported savings of electric and gas energy efficiency programs change over time

Economic analysis of energy efficiency programs, utility resource planning, and procurement require estimating how long energy savings last. We analyzed program-level gas and electric efficiency data reported by more than 100 utilities and other program administrators in 41 states to produce distributions of program lifetimes and active savings curves. We find that most gas and electricity savings expire within 15 years of initial program investment, with the trajectory varying by fuel and market sector. Program design and the technologies addressed by programs drive these differences. In particular, residential electricity savings decline more quickly than commercial and industrial (C&I) savings due to the expiration of behavioral and lighting measures. We also find that gas savings are longer lived than electricity savings for all sectors but C&I. Finally, we consider the relevance of active savings curves and program lifetime distributions to resource planning and assessing energy efficiency program performance

Practices for Demonstrating Energy Savings from Commercial PACE Projects

Nearly three-fourths of U.S. states have authorized local governments to use voluntary special assessments on commercial properties to finance energy improvements that boost economic development, create jobs, increase property values and advance energy goals. Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) financing allows building owners to repay the borrowed capital — from private or public sources — over time using their property as security. Berkeley Lab is supporting the Department of Energy’s Commercial PACE Working Group by developing a series of C-PACE issue briefs. The second brief in this series, Practices for Demonstrating Energy Savings from Commercial PACE Projects, looks at common practices for demonstrating energy savings to support state and local governments that sponsor C-PACE programs and want to track their energy impacts. This brief reviews: -The value proposition and trade-offs of conducting energy impact assessments for C-PACE programs; -Methods to quantify energy savings impacts from energy efficiency building improvements; and -Available resources and tools to support energy impact assessments. C-PACE programs may benefit from energy impact assessments for many reasons, including: -Validating the public benefits of the programs -Demonstrating that C-PACE can deliver participant benefits -Illustrating program impacts on public policy goals -Generating data to help improve program performance Many C-PACE programs are collecting data on project energy savings impacts, and these data can be leveraged to further support decision making and program implementation. Potential drawbacks to energy impact assessments may include added cost and burdens on property owners (e.g., the need to collect building energy consumption data). Where these burdens are considerable, they might slow program uptake. State and local governments can balance the benefits of energy impact assessments with the range of costs and accuracy inherent to available assessment methodologies. Additionally, depending on the policy context in the state or local government, a C-PACE program may be able to leverage existing efforts (e.g., building energy benchmarking programs) to reduce impact assessment costs, align with building owner practices and expectations, and efficiently assess program impact