NY C-PACE: Local Law 96, Local Law 97, and How C-PACE May Be Coming Into Its Own
In light of these market and institutional shifts toward environmental consciousness, C-PACE, or Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy finance programs, may finally have an opportunity to hit its stride, especially in New York City.
June 19, 2023 at 09:33 AM
10 minute read
Special SectionsProperty owners, investors, and lenders alike are heeding the call to bring commercial real estate into the 21st century with regards to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) principles. Many jurisdictions are implementing legislation emphasizing clean energy solutions that lower carbon emissions for property owners, both with respect to retrofitting existing structures or requiring stricter environmental compliance standards for new construction. In light of these market and institutional shifts toward environmental consciousness, C-PACE, or Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy finance programs, may finally have an opportunity to hit its stride, especially in New York City.
What Is C-PACE?
First developed in California in 2008, C-PACE programs provide for attractive financing for commercial property owners seeking upgrades or modernization of their real estate assets from an energy efficient perspective. C-PACE loans offer competitive terms to fund the cost of energy related property improvements (or in some cases, energy efficient aspects of new construction), with payment collected via property level assessments, similar to property taxes. This 'up-front' financing can be used to install solar panels, perform HVAC upgrades, replace windows, upgrade elevators, and make other building system improvements with an overall goal of reducing carbon emissions and energy costs. C-PACE financing is typically provided through private third-party sources, such as Petros Finance, Nuveen Green Capital, and others, and administered through local municipalities or local development authorities, as part of such entities' municipal assessment programs. C-PACE financing repayment schedules may extend up to 30 years (which far exceeds more traditional two- to five-year construction loan terms), as the term is based on the projected useful life of the improvements funded by C-PACE loan dollars. Given that the customary collection mechanism for C-PACE financing is municipal assessments, C-PACE is uniquely situated with super priority over mortgage and mezzanine loans. The super priority nature of C-PACE financing arrangements, in many jurisdictions requires, C-PACE lenders to obtain prior consent from existing mortgage holders, ahead of recording the operative C-PACE documentation.
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
© 2025 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1An Eye on ‘De-Risking’: Chewing on Hot Topics in Litigation Funding With Jeffery Lula of GLS Capital
- 2Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 3How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 4Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 5Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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