1. 1 Living Cities’ Green Portfolio October 14, 2010

2. 2 Presentation Outline I.Technical Assistance Grants II.Green Workforce Grants III.Retrofit Grant Portfolio IV.Portfolio Status V.Portfolio Analysis Observations Learnings Overall Analysis Key Questions VI.Catalyst Fund Overview

3. 3 Technical Assistance Grants Green for All Center for America Progress Brookings Institute Institute for Sustainable Communities

4. 4 Green For All Living Cities supported Green For All’s general operating and organizational development through a $500,000 grant from August 1, 2009 and July 31, 2010 In the past year, Green For All has grown into a national organization with a $5.5 million budget and nearly 40 staff members. Accomplishments include : –Restructured the organization’s reporting structure and decision-making protocol to better focus, align, and execute program activities –Trained senior management staff in program and budget planning, performance management, and conflict resolution and rebuild board of directors –Led a multi-stakeholder process to establish hiring standards for Clean Energy Works Portland –Successfully advocated for two key equity provisions in the federal American Clean Energy and Security Act –Helped develop and strengthen an infrastructure across business, government, labor, non-profit organizations and grassroots communities to sustain a green- collar economy.

5. 5 Center for American Progress In August 2009, Living Cities awarded the Center for American Progress (CAP) a grant of $149,500 to support the Sustainable Cities and Clean Energy Jobs Project, which supports innovative clean-energy solutions that work for cities and communities. –CAP released a report at the beginning of the grant period, entitled Rebuilding America, which makes an economic case for national investments in energy efficiency. –CAP has worked closely with the administration to promote HOMESTAR, passed by the House of Representatives in May, which would establish a rebate fund for energy efficient appliances. –In 2009, CAP launched the Energy Council, which includes representatives from major banks and private equity funds. The Energy Council works to identify concrete federal actions that can speed the development of a more robust national market for clean energy.

6. 6 Brookings Institute – Green Economy Index Living Cities helped supported the Brookings Institute’s development of a detailed report of the “green” economy in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas through a $100,000 grant from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. –Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program (MPP) proposes to partner with Battelle. MPP will be using the data and analysis from Battelle to report the most detailed metro-scaled description yet produced of the size, growth-rates, nature, and variation of the green economy over the last decade. –Green jobs will be directly compiled from lists of green companies through a wide variety of private and public resources. Companies’ names will be matched to employment data at the establishment level using information from Dun & Bradstreet.

7. Institute for Sustainable Communities Living Cities supported ISC’s development of an on-going, virtual peer- learning/networking program for Green Boot Camp cities/regions through a $250,000 grant from November 1, 2009 – October 31, 2009 Programming has consisted of: –A web-based information portal that allows practitioners to easily connect with their counterparts in other cities who are working on/making progress on similar challenges. In addition, it contains a growing portfolio of case studies on promising practices. –Approximately monthly “virtual workshops” (phone conferences on GoToMeeting) focused on priority challenges identified by network members –Two learning groups (sub-networks), one on driving demand and one on financing, which meet virtually once a month to share experiences on progress and challenges

8. 8 Green Workforce Grants

9. 9 Partnership for New Communities - Chicago Grant Award: $250,000.00 Grant Period: May 1, 2009 - May 30, 2011 Objective: to support the development of a workforce partnership to prepare low-income people for jobs created by Chicago’s energy efficiency retrofitting program. ComponentHighlights Program Elements Chicago Jobs Council served as coordinator of the Chicago “Green Jobs for All” steering committee, a group that includes the Mayor’s Office, Depts. of Environment, Community Development, and, Family and Support Services Partnerships The Partnership entered into a grant agreement with Heartland Human Care Services (HHCS) to provide industry training and a transitional jobs program for Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) residents Results Twenty-two participants have been recruited, completed orientation and are engaged in literacy training and job- readiness activities. Analysis: Strong partnership but overly focused on transitional jobs approach and a small target population. In many ways, this effort is still walled off from larger green and even green jobs efforts in Chicago.

10. 10 Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board Grant Award: $250,000.00 Grant Period: May 1, 2009 - December 31, 2010 ComponentHighlights Program Elements 10-week program, 20-30 hours per week that is customized to meet the target employers’ needs. The program includes soft skills a literacy curricula. Partnerships Developed relationships with three key training providers that cover the three target industries including the Energy Coordinating Agency, a partner in the retrofit grant. Results Enrolled 19 participants in the classroom basic skills and job readiness component, with 13 successfully completing the 8- week session. All completers are being screened and interviewed for entry into job training programs. Objective: to support the planning process to develop a workforce strategy for soft and hard skills that prepares low-income workers for further green jobs training. Analysis: “Bridge” aspects of curriculum and training design critical. Great example of the use of sector partnerships to produce customized trainings and the ways in which broader system gains around workforce (region’s pathway approach to health careers) translates to green. Labor issues, weakness of local community college, and Philadelphia’s “weatherization” focus are limiting factors.

11. 11 Seattle Foundation Grant Award: $100,000 Grant Period: May 1, 2009 – December 31, 2009 Objective: To support the “Attainment Fund” established by the Seattle-King County Workforce Collaborative to help working adults achieve post-secondary credentials and move from dead-end low paying jobs to careers with advancement opportunities in high-demand occupations that serve the needs of major industry and employment clusters in Seattle.. ComponentHighlights Program Elements There were 18 graduates at the beginning of this year to form a new residential weatherization cohort. Living Cities helped the project leverage $10.2 million in federal “green jobs” grants Partnerships Workforce intermediary formed to tackle energy efficiency workforce needs throughout the Puget Sound. Results 17 individuals were hired by weatherization companies from August – December 2009. Analysis: Link to industry partnership critical to structuring curricula, defining position criteria and placement, a true example of jobs pathways in action. Effort benefited from being firmly nested in broader energy efficiency strategy and from significant Seattle capacity in workforce partnerships.

12. 12 Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board – Pittsburgh Grant Amount: $100,000 Grant Period: May 1, 2009 and end on December 31, 2009 Objective: to support the planning process to develop a workforce strategy to prepare low-income and low-skilled individuals for jobs created by weatherization efforts in the city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. ComponentHighlights Program Elements City and County signed off on a targeted strategy within universal service approach, and electric and three gas utility companies agreed in concept to participate. Partnerships The Coordinator of the Labor Management Clearinghouse (LMCH) convened a group of anchor agencies to discuss job recruitment strategies Results Community mobilized a joint proposal by Community College of Allegheny County and Operating Engineers Local 95 to create a regional weatherization training center Analysis: This is one to watch. Link to unions and community colleges critical, as is the industry overlay. Effort firmly in the “mainstream” of broader workforce development strategies.

13. 13 The San Francisco Foundation Grant Amount: $75,000 Grant Period: May 1, 2009 to October 31, 2009 Objective: to support the planning process to develop an integrative strategy that links and incorporates workforce development to the region’s evolving energy efficiency strategies and policies. ComponentHighlights Program Elements The East Bay Economic Development Agency hired a program coordinator to facilitate regional collaboration incorporating energy energy efficiency, weatherization, and green construction. Partnerships The regional effort was most apparent in the development of the Employer Training Partnership Proposal. Results Elements of the proposal included: Proposed career pathway certificate programs in Sustainable Energy Management, Construction Management, Transportation Engineering and other areas; A regional building performance certification workforce strategy based in a network of community colleges; and Regional outreach, recruitment, and assessment. Analysis: important example of regional approach, which is critical to building scale. However, local effort is still having difficulty integrating into the energy efficiency program; Great use of partnership for federal leverage. Diversification of focus critical: sustainable energy management, is one of a cluster of areas, thus building out a true industry strategy. Community college and certification emphasis critical.

14. 14 Energy Efficiency Retrofit Grant Portfolio

15. 15 In June of 2009, Living Cities convened 16 teams of city and state officials for two days of intensive peer learning at Harvard. The boot camp aimed at giving cities the resources to build an energy efficiency retrofit system at scale by designating a central organizing entity, establishing a sustainable funding mechanism, strengthening workforce development, and implementing policies to drive demand. The assumption was that these areas were critical points where programs could change the behavior of stakeholders and ensure that cities and communities reap the benefits of energy efficiency. Since this time, Living Cities awarded 11 grants to 10 cities to create energy retrofit systems at scale. Scaling Up Energy Efficiency Retrofit Systems

16. 16 CityAmountGrant Period Baltimore$275,000March 1, 2010 - June 1, 2011 Charleston$275,000June 15, 2010 - June 14, 2011 Cleveland$150,000July 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 Flagstaff$170,000July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011 Philadelphia$170,000September 1, 2009 - August 31, 2010 Portland$300,000March 1, 2010- February 28 2011 San Francisco (LIIF)$300,000May 1, 2010 - April 30, 2011 San Francisco$175,000November 1, 2009 - October 31, 2010 Seattle$130,000November 1, 2009 - October 31, 2010 Twin Cities$125,000November 1, 2009 - October 31, 2010 Washington, DC$175,000May 1, 2010- April 30, 2011 Italics: Rockefeller Grant Retrofit Grant Portfolio

17. 17 Portfolio Status

18. 18 Rank Organizing Entity Status 0 No organizing entity is in place 1 Some entity has emerged as coordinating a slice of the effort 2 The city is coordinating significant segments of the effort 3 Multiple entities, including the city, work together to coordinate the entire effort 4 There is a strong organizing entity that coordinates nearly all of the program 5 There is a strong organizing entity in place coordinating all retrofitting efforts. Rubric

19. 19 Rank Financing Mechanism Status 0 No financing mechanism or grant subsidy. All costs born by consumer. 1 Grants based subsidy program; not pursuing a sustainable financing mechanism 2 Early stage research for financial models 3 Early stage development of financing mechanism 4 Financing mechanism in pilot stage 5 Functioning financing mechanism beyond the pilot is in place Rubric

20. 20 Rank Workforce Development Status 0 No workforce development component 1 Minimal training efforts 2 Developing a workforce strategy independent of the retrofitting effort 3 Developing a strong workforce development component for the program 4 Workforce development component with demand driven, sector-based workforce strategy independent of the program. 5 Workforce development component with demand driven, sector-based workforce strategy fully integrated into program. Rubric

21. 21 Rank Demand Driving Policies Status 0 No policy drivers in place 1 Little interest in policy drivers; nongovernmental entities, not directly connected to the effort, working to pursue policies not directly connected to. 2 Some ambition to utilize policy drivers 3 Minimal or non binding policy drivers in place (e.g. resolutions setting goals) 4 Demand driving policies in place (e.g. emissions goals) 5 Market changing policies in place (e.g. utility has to diversify portfolio) Rubric

22. 22 Baltimore - Green and Healthy Homes Initiative Grant Amount: $275,000 Grant Period: March 1, 2010 - June 1, 2011 ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe City of Baltimore has partnered with the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning (CECLP), a local and national leader in the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative (GHHI), to develop a local GHHI pilot program 3.5 Financing MechanismGrants-Based program - GHGI is exploring how to develop a financial opportunity compact with the state to redirect money that would go towards public health costs, that is saved due to these housing measures. The program is trying to design a safe and affordable way to tap into the equity that seniors have in their homes 2 Workforce Development Right now the program is benefitting from existing workers and is still developing a training curriculum for new workers to have a wider range of skills. They hope this will increase wages, but there is no discussion of career pathways. 2 Policy Driving DemandNo real policy demand drivers in place. 1 Objective: Funds will be used to develop an operational structure across relevant city agencies and community organizations to perform necessary upgrades to make low-income residences green and healthy. This includes weatherization work, health upgrades, and safety repairs like fixing stairs. Analysis: The GHHI program has assembled a catalytic organizing entity, but the program elements are not geared towards reaching scale.

23. 23 Charleston – Charleston Energy Efficiency Program Grant Amount: $275,000 Grant Period: June 15, 2010 – June 14, 2011 ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe city is working to create a “one stop shop” for consumers to adopt weatherization and conservation measures through a program known as the Charleston Energy Efficiency Program (CHEEP). 4 Financing MechanismThe city is still developing its on-bill financing model, and wants to pursue private capital to support this system. 3 Workforce Development Once the program is more developed, they will integrate it with existing workforce development. The Sustainability Institute of South Carolina and Trident Technical College are working together to create jobs with career pathways. 3 Policy Driving DemandAll new municipal buildings must be LEED certified. The city is part of the “20/30” challenge to reduce green house gas emissions, but no real concrete requirements from the city or state. 3 Objective: Funds will supplement and enhance the City’s contract with Abundant Power to execute the Charleston Energy Efficiency Partnership (CHEEP), an on-bill financing program for Charleston residents and commercial businesses. The program will initially cover basic weatherization work, and eventually more expensive energy efficiency upgrades. Analysis: Charleston’s program is showing success across the board, is emerging as a dark horse among the retrofit programs, and is displaying a lot of potential for systems building. This program is market driven, but displays no robust community development strategy, or a clear focus on equity.

24. 24 Cleveland - Greater Cleveland Energy Alliance Grant Amount: $150,000 Grant Period: July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe program is primarily coordinated through the city and Shorebank Enterprise Cleveland. 3 Financing MechanismThe city is currently in the pre-pilot phase and is utilizing PRIs and would like to pursue support from banks to develop low interest loans, and is establishing a tariff-based, on-bill financing mechanism. 3.5 Workforce Development Currently the program is utilizing existing jobs, and has seen no need to train people. They believe, however, that more jobs will be created as the program expands. 2 Policy Driving DemandThere was legislation passed enabling property assessments with relation to energy efficiency retrofits, so they are figuring out how this may be useful. Currently, they are not pursuing any policy driving legislation. 1 Objective: Funds will be used to hire a consultant to develop and implement an on-bill payment mechanism, capital structuring, and scale up of the Greater Cleveland Energy Alliance program. The project will cover basic weatherization and hot water system insulation. Analysis: The pilot program is still in the development stages. The green economy has traction regionally, but the weakness of the city’s real estate market has been an inhibiting factor.

25. 25 Flagstaff Grant Amount: $170,000 Grant Period: July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe city is the main coordinating entity, but does not have a strong grasp on the program elements. 2 Financing MechanismThis is a grants-based program, and the city expects the program to end in a few years when they “run out of money.” They do, however, see the city shifting to helping with loan loss reserves or buy downs that assist flagstaff communities. 1 Workforce Development Using the Energy Conservation Corps to help develop on-the-job training programs. Jobs are minimal as there is a project-based pipeline for work. 2 Policy Driving DemandHave been unsuccessful in passing state legislation to establish energy financing districts. There are no other efforts. 1 Objective: Funds will be used to hire a permanent staff member to lead project management, and support the Coconino County and the Coconino Rural Environment Corps (CREC) by expanding and enhancing the capacity of the existing workforce development programs. The services go beyond weatherization work and also includes lighting, as well as HVAC upgrades. Analysis: The city has a wavering interest in the program; the effort has floundered with no real champion pushing the work

26. 26 Philadelphia Grant Amount: $170,000 Grant Period: September 1, 2009 – August 31, 2010 *In addition, LC awarded the city a workforce development grant for $250,000 ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe city and the Energy Coordinating Agency (ECA) partnered to coordinate the program and the work they were doing separately. 3 Financing Mechanism They have three commercial energy efficiency financing programs, with $3 million worth of loans to be completed by the end of September, and $20 million available for the next 2-3 years. According to the program, they expect to leverage private funding “into the nine figures.” For single-family residential, they are utilizing the state’s program. The city’s program for residential retrofits just launched this month. It’s a market rate program with 1% financing and a goal of 2,000 homes. 4 Workforce Development The program works closely with its workforce development entity, the Energy Coordination Agency, which runs the programs training center. ECA has been able to connect workers to contractors directly. 3->4 Policy Driving DemandThe city works to develop policy supporting the program, but the Sustainability Office said they do not believe that policy can drive demand at scale. 2 Objective: Funds were intended to enable the City of Philadelphia to hire a point-person to design and manage the Step-Up Program, a comprehensive residential retrofit system based on existing and effective weatherization programs. The program focuses on weatherization work. Analysis: The city has made aggressive use of stimulus funding, but given the lack of Policy drivers, however, it is unclear how the program will develop beyond the goals of ARRA. In addition, it is unclear how the elements of the program all work together. Still, the program has managed to attract a large amount of funding from the state and the DOE’s Better Buildings program.

27. 27 Portland - Clean Energy Works Portland Grant Amount: $300,000 Grant Period: March 1, 2010 – February 28, 2011 *In addition, the Catalyst Fund closed a $ 2 million loan with Enterprise Cascadia ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityIn 2009, the Portland City Council passed an ordinance creating Clean Energy Works Portland (CEWP) to coordinate the City’s energy efficiency retrofit program. 4 Financing MechanismHomeowners pay nothing up front, and the cost of improvements is financed through a 20-year loan that is repaid in small amounts on the homeowner’s monthly utility bill. 4 Workforce Development It is estimated that the pilot created 100 new jobs. Work Systems, Inc., the region's Workforce Investment Board, is aiding the process by establishing career pathways through an aggressive CWA 4 Policy Driving DemandPortland has conservation incentives and energy reduction goals. 4 Objective: Funds will help build on the existing Clean Energy Works Portland pilot program by increasing core program capabilities, building contractor capacity, and expanding outreach through community-based organizations. Analysis: Clean Energy Works Portland has emerged as the most successful program in the portfolio, and is concluding its pilot stage of work. While this program is serving as a model, it is unclear how translatable these gains are given the unique political environment and resources of the city and state of Oregon.

28. 28 San Francisco Grant to City: $175,000, Grant Period: November 1, 2009 – October 31, 2010 Grant to LIIF: $300,000, Grant Period: May 1, 2010 – April 30, 2011 ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe city serves as the coordinating entity 3 Financing MechanismCurrently they are supporting work through grants only due to the shut down of the PACE system, but they are fully exploring their options. 2/3 Workforce Development The program and the workforce development agency would benefit from better coordination. In addition, contractors in the city are hesitant about attending trainings until they know that there is going to be a program established. 2 Policy Driving DemandThe program will work with the city to develop local policies to incentivize and/or mandate zero energy strategies. In addition, the state has mandated that utility companies incorporate energy efficiency operations in their work, so this program is developing alongside the work of the local utility. 3.5 Objective: Funding for the first grant was intended to enable the City of San Francisco to implement the “San Francisco Zero Energy Homes Workforce Development Program,” which aims to expand the capacity of the local workforce system for residential retrofitting. Funding from the second grant was intended to support the extension of the GreenFinance SF program to nonprofit-owned community facilities, allow LIIF and City staff to conduct further data-driven analysis on the program, and make subgrants to City agencies to support the collaborative work of City staff with LIIF. Analysis: Assuming PACE is dead for 6 months or more, the city will have roughly $6,500 for selected homes from ARRA and the utilities. Although the city benefits from an enabling policy environment, California economic challenges, as well as a lack of coordination in program elements have made the development of this program a challenge.

29. 29 Seattle – Community Power Works Grant Amount: $130,000 Grant Period: November 1, 2009 – October 31, 2010 *In addition to the retrofit grant, Seattle received a grant for $250,000 from Living Cities for Workforce development. ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe city and Enterprise Cascadia the central conveners. 3 Financing MechanismThe pilot in not yet in motion, but the City is going to work with Enterprise Cascadia to attract and manage a pool of public and private capital to finance loans for the work. 3/4 Workforce Development The program is making investments in green workforce development, with a concerted effort to establish a career pathway. The South Seattle Community College developed a curriculum with support from the City of Seattle, and a high roads workforce agreement is in place. 4 Policy Driving DemandThey are going to work on demand policy drivers next year. 2 Objective: Funds will support the costs of consultants who will evaluate, certify, and monitor the Quality of training programs already in development and establish hiring standards and monitoring and enforcement policies for new programs. Analysis: The biggest asset of the program is the alignment of the energy efficiency/business sector as well as the strength of the workforce development infrastructure. The program is following the Portland model and working with Enterprise, which is a promising partnership.

30. 30 Twin Cities Grant Amount: $125,000 Grant Period: November 1, 2009 – October 31, 2010 ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe cities are the organizing entities and are coordinated through one person. 3.5 Financing MechanismThe program is exploring using a low interest, revolving loan fund some time next year. Currently the cities are operating a grants-based program for the service, but customers pay for the materials. 3 Workforce Development Minneapolis and St. Paul are partnering on training, and have benefitted from Minnesota’s success in attracting federal dollars for training. This is in part due to the presence of the Blue-Green Alliance there. The jobs, however, are available through a project-based pipeline. 2/3 Policy Driving DemandThey are working on adapting local policies, but do not have any policy drivers in place. 2 Objective: Funds were primarily used to hire someone to serve as a “loaned executive” to plan, organize, and establish a comprehensive Twin Cities residential, commercial/ industrial, and institutional building energy retrofit program. Analysis: Although the cities are working to address the entire building stock, the program is still in the early stages of development, and new pilots need to be established in order to address a wider range of the building stock. Overall, the programs lack strong coordination.

31. 31 Washington, DC - The DC Project Grant Amount: $175,000 Grant Period: May 1, 2010 – April 30,2 011 ComponentDescriptionRank Organizing EntityThe grant helped fund the creation of The DC Project, a non profit that is coordinating these efforts. However, they are not a very strong entity. 3 Financing MechanismRight now, they are only working with households that can self-finance the basic retrofit work. They will be researching what financing mechanism to use. 1 Workforce Development There is a focus on workforce development, but this piece seems minimal, and there is no connection to the public sector. The program was, however, able to craft a CWA between a local union and contractor. 2 Policy Driving DemandThere is no engagement from the city, and The DC Project is not pursuing any policies. 0 Objective: Funds will help with early stage planning, design, and implementation of the Energy Opportunity Zone, a pilot program for comprehensive energy efficiency retrofit upgrades in low-income neighborhoods in Washington, DC. Analysis: The DC Project is in the R&D stage, has been primarily focused on its community engagement strategy, and is relying on this component as being the key to success for the program.

32. 32 CityAmountGrant Period Flagstaff$170,000July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011 Cleveland$150,000July 1, 2010 – December 31, 2010 Charleston$250,000June 15, 2010 - June 14, 2011 Baltimore$275,000March 1, 2010 - June 1, 2011 San Francisco (LIIF)$300,000May 1, 2010 - April 30, 2011 Washington, DC$175,000May 1, 2010- April 30, 2011 Portland$300,000March 1, 2010- February 28 2011 San Francisco$175,000November 1, 2009 - October 31, 2010 Seattle$130,000November 1, 2009 - October 31, 2010 Twin Cities$125,000November 1, 2009 - October 31, 2010 Philadelphia$170,000September 1, 2009 - August 31, 2010 Grant Portfolio by Closing Date

33. 33 Portfolio Analysis

34. 34 Portfolio Observations Broad variation in effectiveness and productivity Most efforts have moved much more slowly than anticipated Despite slow start, many sites have leveraged additional funds “System focus” is inconsistently applied Numerical targets not always at scale needed to support/drive system approach

35. 35 Portfolio Learnings Creating a retrofit system at scale must be a top priority of the city –“No one pays attention to a $2 million program” –Andy Rachlin, Philadelphia Stakeholders should be convened far in advance –All key stakeholders must be involved in the process –Each stakeholder should have a distinct role A strong coordinating entity matters –This entity must have the internal capacity to handle grant applications, the influx of funds, and unexpected hurdles Mechanism should be in place to evaluate project as it develops Marketing strategy is critical to generating interest and should involve community engagement

36. 36 Broad Analysis Organizing Entity Successful sites have a central organizing entity that the city helped establish. These entities can ensure that all components of the program are moving beyond the project level, otherwise this work will not serve as an economic generator. Financing Mechanism Most programs are aware that grants alone cannot sustain a program, and that capital is necessary. Most do not know how to connect with financial institutions. Those pursuing sustainable funding mechanisms face the challenge of addressing the financial literacy of the public and convincing homeowners to take out loans during an economic downturn. This also underscores the need for credit enhancements to achieve success.

37. 37 Broad Analysis (cont.) Workforce Development Most programs have not created enforceable mechanisms to ensure that marginalized groups have access to good paying jobs with career ladders. In addition, coordination between program work and workforce development is minimal. The state of the economy has inhibited workforce development and many contractors are not hiring. This has led many programs to turn their focus away from workforce development for the time being. Policies Driving Demand The role of policy drivers is increasingly important given the current economic constraints reducing demand for retrofits. Pursuing such policies is critical in expanding the scope of the programs, especially since it is unclear what accomplishments have been inflated due to stimulus funding that will no longer be available.

38. 38 Key Questions How should we help grantees advance the critical program components that they are falling short on? How do we want to harvest the full learning potential of the most advanced sites? Small convening, formal case studies? PMI? What is the ongoing potential of or what is our ongoing relationship with the sites “closing out” in the next 3 months?

39. 39

40. 40 Energy Efficiency Dealflow: June 2009 – July 2010 TransactionStatus Seedco Financial – loan funds to support a Weatherization Contractor Loan Fund (WCLF) which will provide loans to weatherization contractors Greenlighted November 2009 Program has experience significant start-up challenges As of August 2010, only one contractor loan had been made; Seedco is in process of undergoing a demand assessment NY CPC EE - retrofit financing for multifamily buildings provided through including the retrofit loans into first mortgages Greenlighted June 2009 CPC moved ahead with a target on multifamily in mid 2009; has expressed interested in targeting affordable multifamily in the future Philadelphia EE - financing for commercial retrofits; partnership between PIDC and TRF Greenlighted October 2009 Initial discussions suggest that this program has been slow to develop with a limited focus on benefits for low-income populations CRF - energy efficiency retrofit loans to businesses and community facilities Greenlighted October 2009 CRF has been impacted by the current credit environment and this program is on hold Chicago EE - Retrofit financing for affordable housing in Chicago Greenlighted April 2009 Program was officially dis-continued in October 2009 as there was no demand for the loan product under the structure required by the commercial lenders

41. 41 Green Economy Dealflow: June 2009 – July 2010 TransactionStatus Cleveland Laundry – start-up financing for a green laundry as part of the Evergreen Cooperative program Presented to the Credit Committee in April 2009 Credit Committee declined this transaction due to the level of risk Cleveland Greenhouse – equipment and facility financing for an urban greenhouse as part of the Evergreen Cooperative program Addressed through TII Sunwheel – start-up capital for the solar arm of MBS Greenlighted July 2009 Transaction did not move forward due to limited benefits for low-income populations and a mismatch of capital needs

42. 42 Potential Green Economy Dealflow Going Forward Program team has identified a few promising models based on our EE retrofit system grants – Charleston, SF (LIIF); however, these models are still under development and may not be ready for any debt until 4-12 months $2MM Loan to Enterprise Cascadia closed in March 2010, with potential to increase the loan amount to support their expansion to Seattle Preliminary conversations indicate a few potential transactions with CDFIs that are in very early stages and/or may not fit programmatically: Enterprise SF Bay Area Green Retrofit Pilot Program, Self Help, BCC

43. 43 Takeaways from Our Work in the Field Scattered energy efficiency programs are in very early stages – discussions with loan opportunities suggest that these opportunities may not be ready for another 4-12 months Overall demand for energy efficiency has been impacted by the recession; businesses are contracting and building owners are hesitant to invest in additional capital expenditures The EE market is nascent and needs demand drivers (i.e., long-term policy) to grow and develop As the financing market develops, it is an additional lift to “load” a low-income component onto projects that are barely economic without carbon taxes, subsidies and/or mandates (can this segment effectively lead the market?) LC loan dollars ($2-3MM/deal) may not be the most valuable contribution from LC to cities that have EECBG funds and other subsidy funds LC WG should consider the role of “investments” in the Working Group