Cherrytree Group LLC Blog

...by Warren Kirshenbaum


There are numerous cities across the United States which can be considered "cleantech capitals." With a large array of renewable resources, a dedication by businesses and homeowners to become more energy efficient, and a large hub for research and development, a lot can be accomplished when it comes to creating new, efficient and sustainable clean technologies. There are many factors that make up a "capital for cleantech," and although there are more than ten cities around the nation that are involved in clean technologies, here are six of the top cities.

1) Boston, Massachusetts. Boston is said to enjoy some of the most supportive policies in the United States for energy efficiency and renewable energy. After California, Boston is second in clean technology venture capital investments. With an environment that is ripe for cleantech startups, numerous companies are moving their business to Boston. The MIT Clean Energy Prize is a venture and innovation creation competition that encourages clean energy innovation. Its objective is to provide educational opportunities and supply incentives to ventures demonstrating the clean energy affordability. As well, the development of MIT's cleantech incubator will provide Boston with more access to cleantech flow, increasing the demands for all future building to be constructed in accordance to LEED standards set up by the U.S. Green Building Council.

2) San Jose, California. San Jose, part of California's Silicon Valley, has been very productive in clean technologies. The city has expanded a number of clean technology investments and because of the research and development institutions in the area, many cleantech companies are coming to make their home in San Jose. San Jose's, "Long-time leadership in engineering know-how, combined with semi-conductor, nanotechnology and optics R&D gives it a leg up in renewable energy development, particularly in solar energy applications." San Jose is also home to the Environmental Business Cluster, a non-profit technology commercialization center assisting startup cleantech companies developing goods and services to positively impact the environment.

3) Austin, Texas. Austin has long been Texas' hub for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass power, as well as fuel cell technologies. Its commitment to the environment and sustainability has made it not only a national cleantech player, but a global one as well. Austin is home to some of the largest cleantech companies on a global level. A large research and development hub, the University of Texas at Austin has created several research expenditures to elevate research into energy efficiency and renewable energy. This includes a project by the College of Natural Sciences to create biofuel from blue-green algae and hybrid-electric automobile programs developed by The Center for Electromechanics.

4) San Francisco, California. California is one of the top cleantech states in the United States and it is cities like San Francisco that makes it happen. Currently, San Francisco is well on its way to becoming the first city to be completely run by renewable energy by the year 2020. With projects like Sunset Reservoir Solar Project, which is the largest municipal solar facility in the state, and a new $250,000 grant to increase renewable energy capabilities.
 
5) Seattle, Washington. Seattle has been leaving its mark in cleantech society by increasing the need for green standards. The Green Building Sustainable Communities Program, for example, creates city projects that meet sustainable outcomes. Tax breaks and loans are provided to businesses and residences that utilize green practices. Seattle has been a leader in using their garbage to get electricity. They have invested into electricity from garbage landfills.
 
6) Chicago, Illinois. Over 20 percent of total power in Chicago is coming from renewable sources. Due to the increase in the need for renewable energy and energy efficiency, Chicago has been able to create numerous job opportunities while, at the same time, increasing solar power and saving on CO2 emissions. Chicago is also becoming one of the major investment locations for international businesses. Chicago also has a number of green initiatives, including the Chicago Green Office Challenge.

Kirshenbaum Law and Cherrytree Group LLC can help you structure your tax credit transaction. Let us guide you through the process of applying for and securing renewable energy tax credits. These transactions typically require a lawyer, a consultant, and a syndicator, and Cherrytree Group and Kirshenbaum law can act in all three capacities, saving you time and money on your transaction.

The original article was written by Shawn Lesser, and can be seen at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03 /28/idUS317857292020110328

... By Warren Kirshenbaum

In order to jump-start the economy and defuse some of the economic hardship caused by the recession, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Act”) attempted to infuse financial benefits and incentives into the economy. One of the sections of the Act benefits supporters and investors of renewable energy. The US is determined to be in the fore front of the renewable energy industry, and the government hopes that the industry continues to prosper despite the volatile economic times. Specifically, Section 1603 of the Act (the “grant” or “grants”) provides grants from the federal government to eligible “persons” (a legal construct including entities) who develop renewable energy systems during the recessionary period. The Federal government already provides tax credits that benefit the renewable energy industry that is credit that reduces dollar for dollar an eligible tax payer’s tax liability, if the taxpayer engaged in a qualifying renewable energy program. However, fearing that investors in renewable energy will not be able to successfully monetize tax credits, Section 1603 provides grants in lieu of the tax credits to interested investors. The purpose of Section 1603 is to temporarily fill the gap that was created by a lack of demand for tax credits from investors and simultaneously decrease American’s dependency on non-renewable energy sources while creating or retaining jobs.

The grant is for qualifying persons who install specified energy system on property during 2009 or 2010. The Treasury will provide grants up to 10% or 30% (depending on the energy system) of qualifying expenses. Persons eligible for the grant include government agencies, 501(c) organizations (non-profits), entities as qualified under IRC sec 54(j) paragraph 4, and partnerships or other pass-thru entities, or any direct or indirect partner of such entities.

Specified energy systems include large wind, closed-loop and open-loop biomass facilities, geothermal, landfill gas facility, trash facility, qualified hydropower facility, marine & hydrokinetic, solar, fuel cells, microturbines, combined heat & power, small wind, and geothermal heat pumps. Qualifying persons will continue to be eligible for the grant even when the renewable energy project is completed after 2010, for so long as the qualifying project began in 2009 or 2010. Beginning a qualifying project is defined as conducting physical work of significant nature either on or off site, costing at least 5% of the total cost of the project. Furthermore, the original use of the energy system must begin with an applicant. Accordingly, a person will not be eligible for the grant by simply purchasing an already installed renewable energy system. The applicant, however, may use pre-owned parts in the facility, but their costs may not exceed 20% of the total cost of the facility.

If less than 5% of the total cost is incurred during the 2009 or 2010 period or only preliminary work was completed during that time, the persons seeking the grant will be disqualified. Preliminary work includes planning or designing, securing financing, exploring, researching, clearing a site, test drilling, or excavation to change the contour of the land. On the other hand, excavation for the foundation or the pouring of the concrete pads of the foundation will be considered as the start of construction. The start of construction also includes the start of manufacturing components, even though the manufacturing is completed off-site.

The Act includes a powerful tool for businesses and individuals who support and are involved in the development of the renewable energy industry. The grant, although currently offered for a temporary period of time, offers an incentive to continue to build renewable energy systems in one’s community. For those who began constructing a renewable energy facility in 2009-2010 period, applying for the Section 1603 grant should be a priority. Although the application for the grant is complicated and often confusing, obtaining up to 30% of the eligible expenses offers a significant resource to assist in making your project a success. Cherrytree Group LLC and Kirshenbaum Law Offices can provide to you the expertise needed to decipher whether you qualify for the renewable energy grant and assist you in applying for and obtaining the grant as well as assist you in monetizing your tax credits.

...By Warren Kirshenbaum

Renewable energy is not yet able to be produced in quantities that will satisfy global energy demand, and renewable energy is more expensive than energy produced from fossil fuels, but great strides have been made in recent years in these areas. Furthermore, the costs that the production of fossil fuels are imposing, both on our environment, and financially on the companies producing oil and gas are not factored into the cost per gallon or kilowatt hour of energy production, and perhaps this is a line item that we should start to factor into the cost of the production of energy from fossil fuels if we are going to make a push toward serving the world’s energy needs with renewable resources.

This year, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (which was both the biggest oil spill in U.S. history and the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry) released 185 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico for about three months and has inflicted devastating environmental and psychological damage on the coastal communities in the Gulf, affecting tourism, fishing and drilling, as well as subjecting residents to ongoing restrictions on fishing and shrimping that have affected the livelihoods of thousands of people. BP’s Gulf Oil Spill resulted in the deaths of 11 workers on the rig and injuries to 17 others. BP’s financial expenditures from the oil spill have so far reached $3.12 billion, excluding the $20 billion compensation fund they have set up to reimburse residents and businesses for their losses. Also this year we endured the Copiapo mining accident in Chile, which occurred when the copper/gold mine owned by San Esteban Mining Company collapsed and 33 men were trapped 2,300 ft below ground for 69 days. Fortunately, all of the 33 men were rescued with only one man suffering from pneumonia, and a few others experiencing dental problems. The cost to rescue the men was $20 million. The San Esteban Mining Company has allegedly violated mining regulations previously, and 8 of its employees have died at the mine in 12 years. Adding to the year’s disasters at fossil fuel production sites is the Pike River Mine accident in New Zealand where an explosion at the coal mine has left 29 miners trapped 4,900 feet from the mine’s entrance. The miners are still trapped in the mine and may not be alive. Gas sampling is being tested to ensure that any accidental spark will not ignite the mine when search and rescue operations are undertaken. The Gulf Oil Spill, Copiapo mining accident, and Pike River Mine accident were stark reminders that our pursuit of energy derived from fossil fuels is causing an irreversible deterioration of our planet, its natural resources, our environmental balance, and is subjecting us to unacceptable losses in human life.

There are a multitude of renewable resources, but this post will focus on solar and hydro energy production, as these methods of renewable energy production are, in my opinion, poised to experience significant growth in the next few years.

Solar energy production is significantly more expensive than hydro, due to the cost of the solar panels themselves. Hydro has languished for decades as a method of creating renewable energy, mainly due to the environmental objections that a hydro project creates, and the expensive federal regulatory requirements of such projects. However, both forms of renewable energy are attractive. Solar projects, unlike wind projects do not create a danger to birds, cattle, and other animals, solar fields are not large and aesthetically displeasing, and do not generate loud whirring sounds that intrude on people’s quality of life. Consequently, as solar installations have very little negative environmental effect, they are generally easy to permit. Solar energy is, however, expensive to produce, as the technology that underpins the solar panels have traditionally made the installation of solar fields expensive enough to impede their development as a commercial enterprise. As with all technology, as solar technology develops, its cost has begun to decline, which should make solar projects more viable. Hydro, is very clean and unobtrusive to the environment, and is relatively safe to produce, but it can affect the migratory pathways of fish, and a dam breach could be detrimental to downstream human habitats. Consequently, new dams have not been constructed in many years. In fact, the stock of dams has decreased over the decades. Moreover, the prospect of new dams being built is relatively slim (due to the environmental challenges and the time period involved in getting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval). Inorder for hydro production to increase, the capacity of existing facilities would need to be expanded. Legislative changes that limit environmental objections to the process of FERC approval, renewal, and re-licensing would need to be implemented to help to stimulate hydro production, this will require intensive lobbying, but it can be done.

Nevertheless, the point being made here is that, despite the higher cost of producing renewable energy, the cost of energy production from fossil fuels is enormous,not only the monetary cost, but the environmental cost as well as the cost of human life. This is more of an IOU being tagged to the planet than a current cost, which leads to the conclusion that we have no choice but to pay the higher monetary price for renewable energy now and retire the bigger IOU that future generations will inherit.

By Warren Kirshenbaum

The Federal Reserve's plan to purchase $600BN in US Treasuries has wide ranging consequences, including the devaluing effect that the influx of such a large amount of dollars will have on the dollar itself. A devalued dollar makes US produced goods cheaper, causing exports to rise. As a deficit nation, the US benefits from an increase in exports, but it comes at the expense of other countries. Therefore, this plan has been roundly criticized by many countries who claim that the US is manipulating its currency, and as the issuer of a global reserve currency such as the dollar the US has a responsibility to keep the dollar fairly valued. It is certainly an interesting position for currency manipulating countries like China to take, but nonetheless this is the position they are taking, and as we will discuss below their influence on our domestic interest rate environment is significant.

So, what effect will the Fed plan have on mortgage rates? As the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has been to keep the Federal Funds rate at less than 1% for some time now, long term interest rates have remained low. Mortgages are generally priced off the 30 year Treasury bond, which is currently yielding 4.25%. Average 30 year fixed mortgages are pricing at 4.625%. In that a bond's yield increases as the price of the bond decreases, if the prices of US Treasuries decline, then yields will increase. Bond prices have been trending higher for several days now on concerns of inflation and uncertainty about the Fed's plan to buy treasuries.

So let us analyze this situation. As a deficit nation, we spend more than we receive. The only way to sustain such behavior is to borrow funds to finance the shortfall. Many nations have large stockpiles of US dollars from trading with us, and many more hold their reserves in dollar denominated assets. These dollars need to be put to work, and the value of dollar denominated assets need to remain steady for these countries to continue to run surpluses which are need to finance their economic growth, provide infrastructure and provide basic services for its citizenry. Therefore, there are a large number of countries buying US debt in the form of US treasuries. If other countries, like China decide that the US economy is shaky and they reduce their purchases of treasuries, or even begin to sell off the treasuries they currently own, bond prices would fall and yields will increase. That would mean that other countries would be unwilling to finance our debt at the same levels as they have been. In that case, with the Fed itself buying US treasuries, there will not be an excess supply of treasuries, which will keep their prices steady, or even cause an increase in bond prices. It would appear, however, that if we were in a deficit to begin with, the only way the Fed could buy treasuries would be to print more money to do so, which will improve the cash position of the US but deflate the dollar, and obligate us to greater borrowing costs. An increase in the US cash position, together with an increase in exports could have a formidable effect on our current account surplus and reduce our deficit, but clearly we are devaluing the dollar and annoying our trading partners whose point is well taken. They say that the US should be able to increase its exports by improving its competitiveness not devaluing its currency. Nevertheless, this seems to be a short term plan on the part of the Fed. Basically, increased export production can lead to the creation of jobs, and a lowering of the unemployment rate, which leads to a rise in consumer confidence. Mortgage rates and other borrowing costs could increase, which would lead to manufacturing price increases and, therefore, an increase in the prices of consumer goods, i.e. inflation.

So we are trading deficit reduction and job creation for inflation and higher borrowing costs. What all of this will do for our businesses and economic outlook is anyone's guess, but it is certainly shaping up to be a challenging time period.

By Warren Kirshenbaum

In the recent election, Question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot asked whether voters should “repeal the law allowing developers of projects that include low- or moderate-income housing to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board” The law in question is M.G.L. Chapter 40B, which is an expedited permitting statute. Chapter 40B creates an expedited permitting procedure for those developers that include an affordable component to their development. Specifically, in order to receive a permit under 40B, 25% of the housing units to be built must be considered affordable housing. The towns in the Commonwealth that are subject to 40B are those towns whose affordable housing stock does not exceed 10% of their total housing inventory. 40B subjects the Zoning Board to a streamlined procedure greatly reducing the time and cost of the permitting procedure, and limiting the ability of the town to deny the permit.

On Tuesday, November 2nd, Massachusetts voters, in a decisive victory of 58% to 42% voted not to repeal 40B.

This trend in the voting patterns comports with conversations that I had with people, in which it seemed that there was a lot of non-information, and even misinformation on this issue, and as this movement to repeal 40B could resurface again, I am hoping to shed some light on the issue in this post.

The main underlying issue that I sensed is the NIMBY one. Not in My Back Yard is understandable, and is a concern about falling property values and the denigration of a neighborhood when some of the housing is affordable. Declining property values is indeed a fallout of affordable housing, as the financing options discussed below are very favorable to developers or affordable buyers and, therefore, their properties. These affordability factors lower the market value of a single family home, or a multifamily property, and, therefore, affect the comps of other sellers in the area. This effect is a micro-economic effect, and a relatively minor one at that, as lower comps would affect a financing appraisal in small part, and the market value of a sale with even less consequence. In any event, 40B historically has mostly been used for multi-family construction, and 95% of the projects permitted under 40B are multi-family apartment complexes or condos.

Practically speaking, if a condo development were built near your home, whether it was affordable or market-rate your property value and property enjoyment would decline, so this is not an affordable housing, or 40B issue, as much as it is a land-use or urban planning issue.

Secondly, people I spoke to understood 40B to be a financing statute, and assumed that it gave developers funding to pursue their affordable housing projects. 40B is an expedited permitting statute that allows an override of municipal zoning authority to promote affordable housing. It is not a financing statute. There are forms of financing that are available to developers of affordable housing, such as the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit, HUD insured mortgages, tax-exempt bonds, Community Block Grants, and other state and federal sources of funding, and developers use these sources of funding once they are permitted, whether pursuant to 40B or otherwise. 40B is not a preamble to these sources of financing.

While realizing that concern over retaining a leafy suburban lifestyle, or holding on to a paper appraisal of a home value may be important to some in the micro-economic sense, it is not a positive economic trend in the big picture that justifies the repeal of a statute such as 40B. Consider this: a community is more than just our home values; it is a collection of individuals, families, homes, stores, houses of worship, and so forth. While we are happy when we see a fire truck scooting off to tame a brush fire near our neighbor’s yard, we would be foolish to attempt to exclude the possibility that the first responders on the fire-truck also be given the opportunity to live among us in our community by creating affordable options here, and not force them to be relegated to living in a far-off town for affordability reasons.

It should also be pointed out since its enactment, 40B has been credited with spurring upwards of 80% of the new development in Massachusetts, and there are several new developments, as well as many ongoing ones that would not have been built, or will not now be completed were 40B to be repealed, or if it didn’t exist in the first place. This construction has created jobs, spending, and economic activity that we rely on for our stability, and, particularly in our economic malaise, we can little afford to repeal a statute that has created such substantial growth and employment.

The Citizens Housing and Planning Association (“CHAPA”), a prominent Massachusetts non-profit that plays a decisive role in encouraging the production and preservation of affordable housing claimed that this vote evidenced the largest victory margin of any ballot campaign. CHAPA claimed that, “over 1.2 million voters and 80% of cities and towns affirmed their support for protecting the affordable housing law for seniors and working families in urban, suburban, and rural communities all across the state.” While this is true, an analysis of the voting results shows that the larger urban centers voted strongly in favor of not repealing 40B, constituting the largest slice of the 16% victory margin, while the voting in many towns was closer than this 16% victory margin suggests. Many towns actually voted in favor of repeal. Cities and towns such as Worcester, Somerville, Quincy, Arlington, Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, New Bedford and Cambridge opposed repealing 40B in large numbers, and they were joined by the suburban bastions of Newton, Needham, Lexington, Brookline, and Milton, which all together carried the NO vote on this question. Significantly, however, there were also several towns that voted to repeal 40B, such as Abington, Amesbury, Billerica, Bridgewater, Sudbury, Stoughton, Wilmington, Westford, Chelmsford, Tewksbury, Walpole, and Canton.

... by Warren Kirshenbaum

It is my opinion that banks really do not have much incentive to lend money. Banks can borrow money from the Fed at rates that approximate zero, and they can then purchase US Treasuries and return a 3 point spread with little to no risk. Accordingly, why would they be willing to incur the time consumption of due diligence, the transaction expenses, and the inherent risk of loaning money to consumers and businesses when they can be profitable borrowing from the Fed, lending to each other, and engaging in hedging transactions. Nevertheless, as their apparent mandate is to take in deposits and then loan those funds out to borrowers while maintaining a reserve of funds to maintain net capital requirements, they need to put some money out to work in loan transactions but their documents, loan covenants, underwriting requirements, equity requirements, and debt-service coverage ratios are very restrictive, and in some cases are either unprofitable for borrowers or are putting businesses in the position of having to run business decisions by their bankers prior to accessing necessary working capital or credit line funding. I have been promoting for some time now that businesses need to create their own sources of funding, in order to decrease their reliance on bank financing, which is fast becoming a scarce resource. Private equity or corporate debt issuance is a viable option in these economic times, and I urge businesses of all sizes and levels of growth and development to formulate a plan to tap their non-bank resources for capital funding.

Interestingly, a midterm election that changes the majority party in Congress, such as the 2010 Midterm elections did can have a profound effect on the business plans of many different types of companies. For example, those businesses that supply the defense industry may find that under a Republican controlled Congress there are more dollars appropriated to defense spending, and will benefit from such a political change. Those businesses that are non-unionized may find that a Democratic Congress or state administration would be more favorable to union labor and open-shop employers may find that the cost of labor would dramatically increase, effectively turning a company’s cash flow upside down. Any of these factors would cause a company to need to seek financing to smooth out the edges while it re-formulates its business plan and carves out new market niches for itself.

My message is that if you are hoping to seek bank financing, you should add to your quiver of options the possibility of raising funds using private equity, or by issuing corporate bonds or debt instruments. As you are setting the terms of the offering or issuance you are in more of a position to control and accept provisions, terms, covenants and this will be beneficial to your business interests, and that will spur, and not hamper or restrict growth. We, as small business people are in need of capital and funding to execute many, if not most of the objectives of our business plans, but the sources of capital have become restrictive, unwieldy, and stifling. It is time to change the terms of this game, and look for alternate sources of funding.