Not Your Father’s Bond

Cities need you. Support Next City and have your gift matched.Donate

Not Your Father’s Bond

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) bonds sound like a great idea. But are they? Rachel Somerstein, who attended the Sustainable City Finance conference, examines this new way to fund retrofitting buildings.

Chris Phan

Here’s a hypothetical. You live in a nice, airy, fourth-floor walkup. Together with your hip, eco-conscious neighbors, you dream about installing solar panels on the roof and making other green improvements to the building. That way you’ll save money on your energy bills and feel good about yourself to boot, while still enjoying your building’s wainscoting and prewar detail. There’s only one problem: where are you going to get the money to buy those solar panels – which can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $80,000 for a single home?

Enter PACE bonds, which stands for Property Assessed Clean Energy. Jack D. Hidary, of his eponymous foundation, presented PACE earlier this month at the Sustainable City Finance conference, held at the New York Academy of Sciences and hosted by the Urban Age Institute.

At first blush, the idea is a good one: commercial and residential property owners borrow money from banks to retrofit their buildings or buy renewable energy systems. The cost of the loan is then tacked on to the owner’s property taxes, who have 20 years to pay it back. That way, if I borrow $1 million to retrofit my building, but then sell my building five years later, I’m not stuck with the debt – the new owner is.

PACE has other fine features as well. Retrofitting creates local jobs – plumbers, electricians, contractors. Because PACE is attached to property taxes, it’s especially safe for lenders. In fact, Hidary likened it to a Treasury bond – the kind of thing your grandmother bought and stowed under her mattress, and which safely accrued a small, steady amount of interest each year. Most important, though, is what PACE represents: a new product, or investment vehicle, from which to profit.

And it’s for this reason that I believe PACE is worthy of attention.

If you haven’t noticed, green is the new black is the new green. In other words, a lot of people are poised to make a lot of money off of the demand for green development and technology. And though Wall Street isn’t high on anybody’s list right now – except if you’re a beneficiary of this season’s bonuses – one thing financiers consistently do well is create new ways to make money. Although some of these innovative products (collateralized debt obligations) are partly to blame for the global recession, there is no way we can avert an even greater disaster – global climate change – without the private sector. As Hidary pointed out, retrofitting our nation’s cities is estimated to cost between $1 and $2 trillion. The $6 billion’s worth of stimulus (public) funds earmarked for retrofitting doesn’t come close to those figures. And retrofitting doesn’t even begin to account for other costs associated with climate change – like pricier energy and water, hurricane damage, or the effects on ports of rising seas.

Still, I don’t believe that PACE is good enough. It fits too squarely with our nation’s focus on individual change, as opposed to corporate accountability. Consider the rhetoric of our many environmental and public-service programs: “do your part,” we are told, to prevent global warming; use renewable energy; to recycle. Doing our parts makes us feel good, and virtuous, and also works well with our national identity; 200 years after Thoreau, we are still obsessed by the cult of the individual. PACE’s message is the same: you, individual property owner, should take the initiative to retrofit your home.

Yes, personal responsibility is important. But individuals can’t compete with the influence of private industry; consider how much more waste and pollution is produced by a single multinational corporation than by even the densest residential block in Manhattan. So can bankers develop large-scale green investment vehicles – designed to put the onus on corporations, not on individual property owners? I’m betting yes. So long as such vehicles are ensured to make a buck.

Tags: new york cityinfrastructuretourism

×
Next City App Never Miss A StoryDownload our app ×
×

You've reached your monthly limit of three free stories.

This is not a paywall. Become a free or sustaining member to continue reading.

  • Read unlimited stories each month
  • Our email newsletter
  • Webinars and ebooks in one click
  • Our Solutions of the Year magazine
  • Support solutions journalism and preserve access to all readers who work to liberate cities

Join 838 other sustainers such as:

  • Anonymous in Shreveport, LA at $5/Month
  • Karis in Rocky River, OH at $100/Year
  • Jolene in Chicago, IL at $75/Year

Already a member? Log in here. U.S. donations are tax-deductible minus the value of thank-you gifts. Questions? Learn more about our membership options.

or pay by credit card:

All members are automatically signed-up to our email newsletter. You can unsubscribe with one-click at any time.

  • Donate $20 or $5/Month

    The 21 Best Solutions of 2021 special edition magazine

  • Donate $40 or $10/Month

    Brave New Home by Diana Lind