California Financing Law: PACE program administrators.
Impact
The amendments made by AB 2063 impose more rigorous standards on program administrators. They will now be required to confirm that property owners engaging in the PACE program have not declared bankruptcy in the past four years and are current on their mortgage payments with no more than one late payment within the preceding six months. This addresses historical issues of financial eligibility and aims to protect both property owners and the financial integrity of the PACE assessments.
Summary
Assembly Bill No. 2063, introduced by Aguiar-Curry, amends various sections of both the California Financing Law (CFL) and the Streets and Highways Code. The bill primarily focuses on the administration of the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which facilitates financing for property owners to implement renewable energy sources and water efficiency improvements. Key changes include stricter requirements for program administrators regarding the assessments and contracts, along with an emphasis on ensuring property owners can meet their financial obligations before entering into agreements.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding AB 2063 has been supportive, particularly among advocates for renewable energy and local government financial specialists focused on economic inclusivity. Supporters argue that enhancing the PACE program’s guidelines helps to prevent financial risks that property owners might face. However, there may also be some resistance from those concerned about potential overregulation and the impact on smaller contractors who participate in the PACE program due to heightened scrutiny and requirements.
Contention
While the bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of PACE solicitors and administrators, it also highlights tensions between ensuring consumer protection and maintaining accessible financing options for property improvements. Some stakeholders might argue that the proposed amendments could unintentionally limit participation in the PACE program due to the more stringent criteria. Moreover, there is ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of PACE financing in achieving broader environmental goals while ensuring equitable access for those with varying financial backgrounds.
Local government: infrastructure financing districts: Reinvestment in Infrastructure for a Sustainable and Equitable California (RISE) districts: housing development: restrictive covenants.