How New York City Is Picking Up the 'PACE'
On May 19, the New York City Council passed the Climate Mobilization Act or the "CMA," the goal of which is to reduce NYC greenhouse gas emissions 80% by year 2050. One of the most significant CMA bills was Int. 1252-A, enabling Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing in New York City for the first time. This article focuses on commercial side of PACE financing in New York.
November 04, 2019 at 10:30 AM
7 minute read
On May 19, 2019, the New York City Council passed a series of groundbreaking bills collectively referred to as the Climate Mobilization Act or the "CMA." The goal of the CMA is to reduce New York City greenhouse gas emissions 80% by year 2050. The bills passed were designed to achieve this lofty goal in part by placing a statutory cap on greenhouse gas emissions, requiring green roofs, and making it easier to build large wind turbines. One of the most significant CMA bills was Int. 1252-A, now known as Local Law 96 of 2019, enabling Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing in New York City for the first time. Although PACE programs are available for both residential and commercial properties, this article will focus on commercial PACE financing.
PACE financing is an innovative method of financing that enables property owners to obtain funding for certain eligible energy efficient building improvements often referred to as "qualified improvements." Common examples of eligible qualified improvements are new HVAC systems, new doors and windows, lighting, insulation, and solar panels. Borrowers (owners) are able to obtain 100% financing of the cost of Qualified Improvements, which is amortized over the course of the useful life of the Qualified Improvement, at a fixed competitive interest rate.
The hallmark of a PACE loan is how it is secured and repaid: a PACE loan is secured by a special real estate tax assessment on the property upon which the qualified improvements are being made and is thus repaid through the normal course of real estate tax payments. This security and repayment structure makes PACE unique to other types of loans. The priority of the PACE assessment is analogous to the priority of a sidewalk or sewer assessment and like these and other special assessments, a PACE assessment is senior to any mortgages also encumbering the property.
Mechanics of a PACE loan
PACE financing is not available everywhere. PACE enabling legislation is required in the taxing jurisdiction in which the owner seeks PACE financing and it establishes the framework for how the PACE program will work in that particular jurisdiction. As of this writing, more than 35 states and Washington D.C. have passed PACE enabling legislation. PACE enabling legislation had previously been enacted in the state of New York but was not enacted in the City of New York until earlier this year as part of the CMA.
Although PACE financing is paid back through a special real estate tax assessment, private lenders are the ultimate providers of funding for the project and these private lenders become the PACE provider. The PACE provider guides the property owner through the PACE process (including the evaluation of Qualified Improvements) and acts as a liaison between the property owner and the local PACE authority. The PACE provider also provides the technical assistance needed to underwrite the energy savings that the proposed qualified improvements will generate. This helps to determine the amount of PACE financing that will be available to the borrower.
Borrower Advantages
In order to achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 as envisioned by the CMA, the PACE legislation seeks to provide owners an affordable way to achieve that goal and thereby comply with Local Law 97 of 2019—which requires owners of large buildings to reduce their carbon footprint starting in 2024. PACE financing may be attractive for many reasons. First, no personal guaranties are required because PACE financing that is based solely on the value of the asset and not the credit of the sponsor. Second, interest rates are competitive long term fixed interest rates (typical rates are currently between 5.5%-6.5%).
Also, unlike traditional construction financing for new improvements, PACE enables a property owner to borrow 100% of the cost of the qualified improvements. This immediately provides the borrower a substantial loan savings and drives down the over-all blended cost of construction capital for a project. For example, the traditional capital stack for a construction project might be sixty percent funded by a mortgage construction loan, 20% funded by a mezzanine construction loan and the remaining 20% funded by equity. In this example, it can be expected that the interest rate on the mezzanine financing would be approximately 12%. If all or part of the mezzanine financing is replaced with a PACE loan at a fixed rate of approximately 6%, it is obvious that the overall cost of capital for the construction of the project is significantly reduced.
One other significant advantage of PACE financing is the term of the loan. Traditional construction financing is short term and must be refinanced shortly after completion of the project. PACE financing fully amortizes over the useful life of the qualified improvements which are typically from 20 to 30 years. This eliminates the need to refinance that portion of the construction financing and saves the requisite refinancing costs of doing so (such as origination fees, legal fees, etc.). Moreover, in addition to saving on financing costs, the owner of the property will also realize savings in energy costs attributed to the installation of the qualified improvements. Finally, because the PACE financing attaches to the property and not the owner, it is fully assumable by successor owners and the loan does not accelerate as a result of the sale.
Lender Hesitation
Despite the cost effective attributes that may make PACE financing an attractive option to borrowers, PACE loans have historically been unwelcome and resisted by mortgage lenders due to the PACE loan's security priority. Because PACE financing is a special real estate tax assessment on the borrower's tax bill, it is superior to any other debt on the property. Of course, mortgage lenders are accustomed to holding a first lien position subject to only property taxes. The special real estate tax assessment of the PACE financing is treated akin to a real estate tax and thus primes the mortgage loan. For this reason, mortgage lenders have pushed back against PACE, with some expressly prohibiting PACE financing in their loan documents.
This resistance in the mortgage lender industry has prompted most PACE legislation to require that the property owner obtain the prior written consent of the mortgage lender to any PACE loan. Additionally, some PACE financing documents require the borrower to expressly acknowledge that even if their mortgage lender consents to the PACE loan, future mortgage lenders may not consent, which may cause liquidity issues for owner in the future when it seeks to refinance their mortgage loan. That said, the receptiveness to PACE loans in the capital markets is changing.
In spite of the mortgage industry's resistance to PACE financing, an increasing number of institutional mortgage lenders have started accepting PACE financing and permitted PACE liens to prime their lien. As PACE increases its jurisdictional reach and gains popularity, lenders are becoming increasingly familiar and comfortable with PACE financing. Lenders also recognize that the real estate industry is heading more and more towards green infrastructure in both the retrofitting of existing buildings and new construction. Legislation like the CMA will make this more of a reality and continue to create more and more demand for the financing of green construction. Accordingly, lenders that continue to be wary of PACE may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage to the growing roster of lenders that do permit PACE financing. This may especially become truer now that PACE has been enacted in the City of New York.
Thomas O'Connor is chair of the real estate finance group and a member of the real estate practice group at Duval & Stachenfeld. YuhTyng Patka is chair of the firm's NYC real estate tax and incentives practice group. Associate David Miller assisted in the preparation of this article.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGE Agrees to $362.5M Deal to End Shareholder Claims Over Power, Insurance Risks
2 minute readLukoil Pan Americas Sues Investment Firm Over Alleged $18 Million Breach
Trending Stories
- 1How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
- 2People in the News—Dec. 30, 2024—Pond Lehocky, Buchanan Ingersoll
- 3Orange Belongs to All: U-Haul Suit Argues Rival Public Storage Cannot Claim the Color
- 4Continuing Consolidation: The Biggest Legal Tech M&As of 2024
- 5FTC Announces HSR Final Rulemaking Impacting Premerger Filings
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250