An Introduction to NYC's Accelerator PACE Financing Program
The Accelerator Program will undoubtedly be seen by many building owners as an attractive option to pay for the costs associated with LL97 compliance.
June 17, 2022 at 02:00 PM
9 minute read
Financial Services and BankingLocal Law 97 (2019 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 97, N.Y.C. Admin. Code. §28.320) (LL97) was enacted in May 2019 by the New York City Council as the "centerpiece" of the New York City Climate Mobilization Act (CMA). LL97 is ambitious legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases emitted from many of New York City's largest buildings by 40% by 2030, and by 80% by 2050, requiring the owners to undertake costly upgrades, replacements, and the introduction of new "green" technologies. Another component of the CMA, Local Law 96 (2019 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 96, N.Y.C. Admin. Code. §11-3001) (LL96), establishes the NYC Accelerator PACE Financing Program (the Accelerator Program) to provide financing to fund the costs of LL97 compliance in the form of assessments added to a property's tax bill, known as Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing. The New York City Mayor's Office of Climate & Environmental Justice (the OCEJ), together with the New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation (the EEC), are responsible for implementing and administering the Accelerator Program.
The Accelerator Program will undoubtedly be seen by many building owners as an attractive option to pay for the costs associated with LL97 compliance, since PACE financing provides for: (1) a long-term (potentially 20 years or more), fully-amortizing loan; (2) a fixed, low-interest rate; (3) 100% non-recourse financing; (4) no mortgage recording taxes; (5) no acceleration upon default; and (6) a loan which is not due on sale. These factors make PACE financing more appealing than mezzanine financing, preferred-equity, and bridge loans that generally have much higher interest rates, fund no more than 60%-80% of the cost of the improvements, are likely to require certain types of guarantees from the borrower's "key" principals, and oftentimes have maturity dates only two to three years from the closing. To lay the foundation for the Accelerator Program, below is a brief summary of LL97 and the types of properties to which it applies.
|Overview of LL97
The carbon emission reductions mandated by LL97, with certain exceptions, apply to buildings located in New York City that contain 25,000 or more gross square feet; by current estimates, approximately 55,000-57,000 existing buildings. The building carbon emission limits are based upon building size and occupancy pursuant to the New York City Building Code and there are two initial compliance periods: (1) 2024-29; and (2) 2030-34 (thus far, the carbon emissions limits are established only for 2024-2029, which may be found at Greenhouse Gas Emission Reporting-Buildings webpage on nyc.gov). For these "covered" buildings, the building owners must file a Greenhouse Gas Emission Report prepared by a registered design professional with the Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance, commencing on May 1, 2025, and on May 1st of each year thereafter. LL97, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §28-320.3.7. The penalties for non-compliance with LL97 are: (1) a civil penalty of $268 for each metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions which exceed the established limits (id. at §28-320.6); (2) for the failure to file the report, $0.50 per square foot of the covered building, imposed per month (with a 60-day grace period if the report demonstrates emissions compliance) (id. at §28-320.6.2); and (3) knowingly making a materially false statement in a report or other submission under LL97 is a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $500,000 or imprisonment up to 30 days, or both (id. at §28-320.6.3).
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 All'A World of Credit': Ex-FTX Executive Gary Wang Sentenced to Time Served Following Cooperation
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
US Judge Told Archegos Founder Can't Afford What Defense Says Is 'Unjustified' $10 Billion Restitution
Bank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 2The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
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