The latest on Energetic and renewable energy trends.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are widely recognized as a primary cause of climate change, with carbon emissions being the largest contributor, accounting for 79% of total greenhouse emissions. Other significant greenhouse gases include methane (11.5%), nitrous oxide (6.2%), and fluorinated gases (3.0%).

To address and measure GHG emissions from private and public operations, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) serves as the governing body, establishing standards for classification and measurement. The GHG Protocol has defined three scopes of emissions: Scope 1, 2, and 3. These guidelines help identify which parts of a value chain are responsible for emissions during a project or process's life cycle.

Scope 1 emissions refer to direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by an organization. Examples include emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in boilers or vehicles. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy, such as electricity consumed by an organization. Scope 3 emissions encompass indirect emissions from sources not owned or controlled by the organization, such as emissions from suppliers, customers, or transportation of products.

Measuring and mitigating Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions are crucial for combating climate change and reducing the environmental impact of human activities. As sustainability gains increasing priority among consumers, investors, and regulators, organizations that proactively reduce their emissions gain a competitive advantage in the long run. Reporting emissions to consumers and investors can also enhance a firm's reputation and ensure regulatory compliance. By investing in renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and optimizing supply chains, firms can reduce emissions while accessing capital and driving technological innovation.

The GHG Protocol's standards are widely recognized and used, with over 90% of Fortune 500 firms relying on them for clarity on corporate accounting and reporting. While Scope 1 and 2 reporting are required for security issuers, Scope 3 reporting is currently voluntary but provides a significant opportunity for firms to differentiate themselves from others.

Scope 1 emissions encompass direct emissions produced by an organization. This includes emissions from stationary combustion sources like coal power plants, as well as mobile combustion sources such as transportation owned or leased by the organization. Scope 2 emissions comprise indirect emissions resulting from third-party electricity production and the organization's consumption. This scope also covers emissions from purchased electricity and direct fugitive emissions like refrigeration, air conditioning, fire suppression, and industrial gases. Scope 3 emissions include all other indirect emissions associated with a firm's activities that do not fall within Scope 1 or 2. This includes emissions from the production, transportation, or disposal of raw materials or goods used by the organization.

Understanding the three scopes of emissions is critical for identifying effective strategies to reduce GHG emissions. It allows organizations to track and measure emissions, facilitating the transition to cleaner energy sources. Measuring emissions in all three scopes helps organizations comply with international standards and laws, manage risks associated with climate change impacts, and take advantage of opportunities in the clean energy industry.

Reducing emissions in Scope 1 can be achieved by transitioning to clean energy solutions at the property level, adopting electric vehicles, or using renewable fuels for transportation fleets. Energy-efficient practices like LED lighting and efficient HVAC systems also contribute to emission reduction. Scope 2 emissions can be addressed through onsite improvements like rooftop solar or microgrids, as well as purchasing renewable energy certificates, carbon offsets, or entering into virtual power agreements. Collaborating with suppliers and stakeholders is crucial for tackling Scope 3 emissions, as these emissions are harder to track due to resource limitations, lack of incentives, and coordination challenges within the value chain.

Taking a comprehensive approach that considers emissions across all three scopes is essential for companies aiming to reduce their carbon footprint and build sustainable business practices. In doing so, companies can play a vital role in mitigating climate change and fostering a more sustainable future.

By actively measuring emissions and implementing strategies to reduce them, companies can achieve cost savings, enhance their reputation, and ensure regulatory compliance. Organizations that are willing to collaborate within their value chain and estimate Scope 3 emissions gain a competitive advantage. Access to credit insurance and other financial tools can help facilitate financing for energy-efficient projects. Taking these steps not only accelerates climate solutions but also positions organizations to benefit from cost savings and opportunities in the renewable energy market.

Driving sustainability and gaining a competitive edge requires a comprehensive approach to reducing Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. By measuring and mitigating emissions across all three scopes, firms can address climate change, improve their environmental impact, and position themselves as leaders in the transition to a more sustainable future.

Read Energetic’s full whitepaper, Driving Sustainability and Gaining a Competitive Edge: A Comprehensive Approach to Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions Reduction, researched and written by Elizabeth Barnes and Nathan Maggiotto, to learn more about how firms can benefit from using the Scope 1, 2, 3 framework to track emissions.

Have questions on how Energetic Insurance can help you implement a programmatic partnership to deploy energy efficiency and/or renewables across commercial real estate sites? Contact us here.   

 This article does not constitute and is not intended by Energetic Insurance to constitute financial advice or a solicitation for any insurance business. 

While there is an urgent need to decarbonize our economy for climate change-related reasons, decarbonization also provides health benefits, community resiliency, financial savings, and economic growth. The benefits of clean energy are too often concentrated in already wealthy populations or the largest corporations.  

The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated $27B, which is now managed via the EPAs Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), to ensure that distributed energy resources are fairly and equitably distributed.

Impact Insurance, as described here, is the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars to achieve climate justice and decarbonization objectives.

‍

Energetic Insurance was founded with the recognition that credit is often a barrier in clean energy finance. In fact, a “bankable offtaker” is often the most sought-after element of project finance whether that is solar, energy efficiency, battery power, or a combination within a microgrid. These are mature technologies that have been de-risked through field performance, but not deployed because financing entities perceive that the buyer is too risky. Our insurance programs have enabled $500M of project value across solar, energy efficiency, and microgrid projects across 1400 commercial sites in nearly every state in the country.  

Energetic actually lowers the overall cost of capital to projects by allowing for advantaged terms from banks.  

Our efforts provide a model for how insurance can expand deployment using scalable commercial contracts. Our experience informs our proposal that a portion of the funding from the EPA GGRF is used to capitalize a non-profit insurance company. There are 3 principles, described below, that further explain the advantages of this structure.  

(1) Funding exists by creating the right risk profile

The funding required to reach these communities, in many cases, already exists within CDFIs, Credit Unions, regional banks, etc. but is held back by certain risks. We can help these lenders put funds to work. There is no shortage of capital if we can create the right risk profile. Insurance is used in every industry and is often required by lenders for risks that they choose not to take on. Note that when it comes to clean energy, there are new and esoteric risks that may require new types of insurance.

(2) Using scalable commercial contracts

There have been many pioneering efforts by green banks, catalytic capital, and philanthropic sources. These efforts have been essential to get early projects built. However, there are challenges in the timeline, complexity, and replicability of these structures. Loan loss reserves (LLR), subordinated debt, or concessional lending are great but may add complexity and make it difficult for the secondary market to participate. Insurance contracts are much more standardized and recognized in global capital markets as trusted mechanisms for risk transfer.

(3) Crowding in Private Sector Capital

Our proposal will go well beyond just the insurance funds. We will hold the grant funds in reserve and fund ecosystem development work out of the earned interest. Our programming will include the following:

1. Community engagement for top-of-funnel project development: Many individuals, businesses, and communities never get the proposal in the first place. We have built technology tools to help pre-screen sites that have been left behind.
2. Local Developer Training: Local project developers are best positioned, and we want to help them learn the ins and outs of project finance.
3. Local Underwriter Training: Within the banks and CDFIs to help them underwrite projects and how to utilize insurance (if needed, it's even better if they don't!)
4. Workforce developments: We have even contemplated bonding services for local electricians to help them get the insurance coverage they need to work on solar or energy efficiency projects.

Why Impact Insurance Works: Impact insurance is explicitly designed to address the needs of low-income individuals, vulnerable populations, and emerging markets. It provides financial protection and support to those most at risk and lack access to traditional insurance options. The primary goal of impact insurance is to promote social and economic resilience by reducing the financial vulnerability of disadvantaged communities.  

We have been writing about impact insurance since 2020 as a method to bridge financial technology and lead the clean energy transition. As a nonprofit vehicle, impact credit insurance, as an entity, is an untapped resource for low-income and disadvantaged communities to acquire funding for those who have traditionally not been able to receive it.

Impact insurance considers the unique challenges underserved populations face and tailors insurance products to meet their specific requirements. These insurance solutions typically offer affordable premiums, flexible payment options, simplified processes, and coverage for various risks relevant to the target audience. Among its accessibility, affordability, and capacity to enhance financial literacy impact, insurance mitigates risks specific to communities.  

Impact insurance addresses risks relevant to vulnerable communities, such as health emergencies, crop failure, natural disasters, disability, or death. Providing financial protection against these risks helps individuals and communities recover and rebuild after adverse events.

An impact credit insurance vehicle, armed with funding from the federal government, can unlock private capital otherwise withheld from the market due to perceived risk. Private capital is often withheld due to the perceived riskiness of the project. Impact insurance can bring that private to market, bridging the gap between private capital incentives and federal programming to communities in need.

Energetic is currently backed by some of the largest insurance companies in the world, with funding from leading VCs and grant awards from DOE, MassCEC, and NYSERDA. From an initial balance sheet of $1B under the GGRF grant, we can further amplify by crowding private sector insurers behind us, as we have in our traditional business.

Upon recipe of the federal grant, funds will be used as reserves against risks holding back clean infrastructure deployment as we will continue seeking methods to aid in the clean energy transition. We are looking for partners (developers, lenders, and community leaders) who focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities to join our initiative. Partnerships with community leaders and talent that can help build out programming focusing on DEI are especially encouraged to reach out.

The United States federal government often establishes committees to monitor the flow of capital, protect consumers, and provide avenues to boost private capital to achieve public policy goals. On October 5th, 2018, the United States signed the International Development Finance Corporation Act, which modernized the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). The OPIC started operations in 1971 and focused on mobilizing private investment in developing countries. The Act expanded the capabilities of the OPIC, transforming it into the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), with enhanced authorities and a higher investment cap. The DFC officially began operations on January 2nd, 2020, with a broader mandate to support economic development and address global challenges.

‍

Currently, the DFC provides financing, investment, and advisory services to promote sustainable development, job creation, and poverty reduction in low and middle-income countries. Using public and private resources, the DFC can catalyze economic growth and address global challenges while advancing U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. The DFC offers a range of financial tools, including loans, guarantees, equity investments, and technical assistance, to mobilize private sector investment in infrastructure, energy, agriculture, healthcare, and technology. Since its inception, the DFC has approved billions of dollars in financing and investments in these sectors. For every dollar the DFC invests, the organization attracts at least three dollars from other sources. Doing so helps maximize its impact by providing resources and expanding the reach of its investments.

Recently, alongside infrastructure initiatives, the DFC has prioritized investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and climate resilience projects. These initiatives reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote sustainable development, and support the transition to a low-carbon economy. These programs demonstrate the DFC's commitment to driving positive change through targeted investments that have the potential to generate broad socioeconomic benefits in the countries it operates in.  The DFC offers a breadth of tools through a single entity, which is a customer-centric approach that can address needs across an entire project's life cycle. DFC provides a variety of financial instruments that cover all stages of project development, including:

1. Feasibility Studies
2. Technical Assistance
3. Loans & Loan Guarantees
4. Equity Investments
5. Investment Funds

Partnerships are critical to the DFC's success. The organization collaborates with various private sector partners, including financial institutions, development finance institutions, and impact investors. These partnerships enhance the DFC's ability to identify investment opportunities, share risk, and use expertise to optimize the outcomes of its initiatives.

Private sector partners can provide valuable market insights, networks, and access to local stakeholders. These resources facilitate a better understanding of the investment landscape, regulatory environment, and potential challenges. Accessing the partner's market intelligence can help the DFC navigate market dynamics, competition, and political or economic risks. The DFC collaborates with financial and development finance institutions to structure risk-sharing instruments. These instruments, such as guarantees and insurance, help mitigate risks and protect investors from potential losses. By transferring a portion of the risk to these partners, the DFC reduces its exposure and encourages private-sector participation.  Based on its success, the DFC provides a useful roadmap for the way a public institution can create opportunities for private capital while solving a policy goal.  It is set up address problems at all levels:

1. Loans to pay for feasibility studies or other instruments that de-risk against adverse outcomes when a site is infeasible.
2. Direct equity investment in local or regional organizations, training programs, etc that build capacity and expertise.
3. Credit Insurance or loan guarantees that de-risk debt capital is contributed by the private sector; this could also be in the form of equity investments or mezzanine debt.
4. Investment Funds to crowd in private venture capital to target high-impact technology and innovation

What might a similar entity focused on energy transition look like?  DFC provides the framework for how a single entity with a shared vision can address a large scope. This roadmap allows financial organizations to collaborate with stakeholders, including local clean energy developers and government organizations, to reach public policy goals. As the DFC works in low-income and disadvantaged communities in tandem with local enterprises, while incentivizing global investment outcomes, this formula can inspire government entities to continue collaborating with private companies in risk mitigation efforts.

While having incentives to switch to clean energy solutions, most renters can conflict with landlords who are slow to finance retrofits. Bringing affordable, clean energy investment to low-income and disadvantaged communities is critical to aid in the clean energy transition and improve quality of life.

Credit insurance is critical in supporting global trade. According to the International Credit Insurance and Surety Association, Trade Credit Insurance supported 12.07 billion Euros in total trade volume in 2020. Overall, 15-20% of global trade relies on credit insurance to stimulate economies and create a liberal, stable market for goods, services, labor, and capital. As economies and nation-states invest in clean energy markets, credit insurance can continue providing a stable marketplace by mitigating risks for stakeholders.

How did we get here?

The first records of credit insurance date back to the 1860s, when Johns Hopkins endorsed promissory notes from individuals and firms that he judged to be worthy of credit risks. Hopkins promised to fulfill the obligations under the note in the event of default, and made it easier for the note bearer "to sell it to another firm or to a bank." Hopkins's method of endorsing promissory notes, as cited in Arthur Farquhar and Samuel Crowther's book The First Million the Hardest: an Autobiography, also includes historical anecdotes considered to be the entomology of financial derivatives.

Over 100 years after Johns Hopkins began the tradition of factoring, European nation-state borders began solidifying after WWII, and merchants selling goods throughout the continent needed methods to protect themselves against risks. The risks at the time included nationalizing assets (this promoted economic recovery after the war but restricted the scalability of private enterprise) and sovereign and foreign corporate defaults. Merchants were worried about sending goods across newly constructed state borders to buyers with unknown financial histories.

Legal methods to enforce payment "may be either unavailable or too expensive to pursue." To solve this, the Marshall Plan included the creation of the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Eximbank), where the U.S. government worked with corporations to help foreign buyers receive direct financing and have their own streams of revenue insured. After WWII, private-sector groups, like the American International Group (AIG), Zurich Insurance Group (Zurich), and Ace Limited (now Chubb), emerged to provide assurance to offset risks - sellers could pay a premium to transfer payment and recovery risks to other entities.  

Despite advancements in factoring, there is a considerable gap between what lenders are prepared to provide and what borrowers need. The total gap in funding is estimated to be between $2 trillion and $30 trillion USD. This gap in financial resources represents a loss of untapped opportunity for the global economy as these funds are illiquid.  

Resources to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) exist but are withheld due to traditional lenders' perceived risk. Specifically, compared to large enterprises, only 10% of SMEs have access to financial resources, while 90% of small and medium firms are disproportionately denied access to funding. SMEs face challenges from traditional lenders because there is a perceived high risk in lending to these firms. Traditional lenders rely on conventional risk assessment methods, which consider factors including historical financial records. Just as in previous iterations of global trade, credit insurance provides an avenue toward unlocking and adding funds into the market that otherwise would not have been available.  

The Role of Credit Insurance

Credit insurance has been critical for expanding global trade, particularly for SMEs with low credit scores, simply because they are relatively new to the market.  A similar challenge is emerging for SMEs as the United States transitions to clean energy. SME are viewed as inherently risky.  

Low credit scores and other risk factors are barriers to acquiring clean energy. Specifically, SMEs struggle to secure capital from traditional financial lenders to update or install infrastructure. Riskiness here refers to factors such as location and financial history. Just as in the case of global trade, credit insurance can help with the clean energy transition as it provides factoring services to traditional lenders for borrowers new to the market. Credit insurance assumes the risk and guarantees that the lender will be fully compensated.  

The global economy misses out when capital is withheld from the market based on risk. As the United States and countries worldwide transition to clean energy, providing that financial backstop is critical for unlocking otherwise illiquid capital. When SMEs are denied funding, entire markets lose out on immediate cash flows that can be dedicated to innovative technology and scalable solutions for countries, states, and communities. Where traditional lenders gatekeep resources, credit insurance unlocks the value SMEs can immediately put towards installing or retrofitting renewable technology for everybody. When working alongside government incentives, such as tax breaks and grants, and private capital from traditional financiers, credit insurance is critical to transitioning the world to a more sustainable future.

At Energetic, we mainly see our insurance policy applied to enhance credit and help optimize terms of financing.  There is an implicit benefit to lenders as well – who can treat the insured offtaker cash flows as investment grade. We are inclined to ask whether there is a more explicit impact might be available to banks and corporates alike. Credit insurance is routinely applied as an instrument to substitute credit rating and reduce risk-weighted assets or improve Tier 1 capital ratios.  New Current Expected Credit Losses (“CECL”) rules have been in place for ~2 years, and we are inclined to ask:

‍

‍Why aren’t Insured’s considering Insurance to reduce CECL?

‍

What are Current Expected Credit Losses or CECL?

The Current Expected Credit Losses (“CECL”) accounting standard was designed to change how financial institutions account for expected credit losses. This standard, ASC-326: Financial Instruments – Credit Losses, significantly impacted two previous standards: FAS-5: Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (“ALLL”), and FAS-114: Accounting for Creditors for Impairment of a Loan. CECL applies to any institution that issues credit (such as banks, savings institutions, and credit unions) and files regulatory reports in accordance with US GAAP. Public business entities have already adopted CECL, while calendar year-end private companies were required to adopt CECL on January 1, 2023.

CECL requires financial institutions and other covered entities to recognize lifetime expected credit losses for a range of financial assets based not only on past events and current conditions, but also reasonable and supportable forecasts. Under CECL, provisions for expected losses over the entire life of the loan are reserved when the loan is originated or purchased. The previous accounting standard utilized an incurred loss methodology (“ILM”), whereby a loss allowance was recognized once it was probable that a credit loss had occurred and the amount of such loss could be reasonably estimated.

What is the Impact of CECL?

CECL was issued to replace ILM as policymakers determined that the increase in allowances occurred too late in the business cycle. This was particularly evident in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. As such, CECL generally increases the responsiveness of provisioning for credit losses to changes in economic outlook. However, lifetime loss allowances applied at loan origination or purchase potentially result in higher provisions in each reporting period and possible reduction and/or volatility in capital ratios and profitability metrics (particularly during periods of outsized loan growth). This may also directly impact:  

• How loans are priced.
• How much capital is allocated to a portfolio lending strategy.
• Which products are offered to customers.

The degree of reserve movement and related impacts are naturally influenced by economic conditions, as well as the nature of an institution’s portfolio and process for recoveries, among other factors.

The Value of Credit Insurance for CECL

The use of credit insurance, when properly structured and attached to a loan, is an appropriate means to offset expected credit losses and achieve capital relief under CECL.

As it relates to credit insurance, guidance under ASC 326 states that a freestanding insurance contract may not offset an institution’s estimate of expected credit losses. In other words, an entity would estimate its allowance for credit losses under ASC 326 without contemplating recoveries from credit insurance.

Freestanding Insurance Contract is defined as being entered into:

• Separate and apart from an institution’s other financial instruments or equity transactions.
• In conjunction with some other transaction and is legally detachable and separately exercisable.

Examples of freestanding contracts:

• Insurance acquired separate and apart from the original transaction, such as credit enhancement after the origination or acquisition of the underlying financial asset.
• Purchase of credit default swaps.  

Determination of how credit insurance can be used to offset CECL reserves is based on the nature of the credit insurance contracts and its attachment to individual, or set of, credit transactions. Requirements for an insurance contract to be deemed Non-Freestanding include the following:

• Named insured or the named loss payee is the institution extending the credit transaction.
• Exercise of the contract is explicitly tied to the status of the credit transaction.
• Term of the insurance is equal to or less than the term of the credit transaction.

By meeting these requirements, a correctly drafted insurance policy can be seen and non-freestanding in nature and should therefore qualify to directly offset the expected credit loss calculation.

Read Energetic’s full whitepaper, Using Credit Insurance to Manage CECL Exposure, researched and written by Cassandra John, to learn more about how credit insurance can reduce the impact of CECL.

Find more of Cassandra's work on her website.Have questions on how Energetic Insurance can help you implement a programmatic partnership to deploy energy efficiency and/or renewables across commercial real estate sites? Contact us here.   

  This article does not constitute and is not intended by Energetic Insurance to constitute financial advice or a solicitation for any insurance business.  

The U.S. Department of Energy Loans Program Office (LPO), along with Sunnova Energy International, recently announced a conditional commitment to provide up to $3 billion in partial loan guarantees for distributed energy resources, such as rooftop solar, battery storage, and virtual power plant (VPP)-ready software for residential homeowners. This initiative is a combined effort to provide more renewable energy to any eligible project, focusing on projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. Government-sponsored funds working alongside private enterprise, particularly to mitigate risks and increase resource access, is nothing new. However, initiatives like this partnership often struggle to scale, lack accessibility, and are slow to respond quickly to market instability. Private enterprise, when armed with federal funding, protects tax-payers from risk and provides stability during market fluctuations.

‍

The project, coined “Project Hestia,” provides disadvantaged communities with increased access to Sunnova’s residential services. Consumers, especially those with low credit scores, will be able to secure loans from Sunnova to purchase Sunnova’s services and equipment. The LPO loaned Sunnova that funding specifically to provide renewable energy resources to communities that would otherwise be unable to procure those services. This type of transaction is called a loan guarantee, and it is a way for a lending agency (Sunnova) to offset the risk of borrowers (consumers) who have low credit scores to an entity (LPO) that guarantees loans or bills will be paid. Loan guarantees can foster economic development and advance public policy.

Eligible projects must be equipped with Sunnova’s technology and accessible by a personal electronic device. Through this methodology, Sunnova aims to expand access to its additional offerings, including future virtual power plant activities, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and increase the demand response impact of residential power systems. Sunnova is mainly focused on historically underserved groups to increase their access to services and tools to participate in innovative solutions for climate change, dedicating 20% of resources to homeowners in Puerto Rico.

Beyond the program’s goals, LPO’s partnership with the program highlights their strong belief in the strength of cashflows from residential solar financial traction, even if some percentage of participants in the program are below traditional FICO metrics or have no FICO score. LPO, along with the EPA’s new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, is responding to market circumstances and capitalizing on the incentives introduced by the Biden administration to encourage residential real estate owners to implement clean energy solutions, including adding heat pumps, solar, and net metering to lower their utility bills.  

The challenge now is how to make this kind of program more pervasive. The LPO has extensive capital resources to deploy. While the administration has made great strides to make the program faster and more accessible - there are still significant barriers to entry. Applying for such a partnership requires a lengthy application process that can extend over months and high application fees that fee organizations are prepared to pay. These barriers, while reasonable for a $3 billion transaction, leave organizations with fewer resources wanting. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund’s goal of uniting government-sponsored funds private sector with grant funding (rather than requiring projects to take on additional loans) serves a much larger pool of applicants is one avenue for exploration.

Federal funding for clean energy solutions capitalizes on path incentives through tax breaks and programs. Unified, those forms of assistance provide one avenue for residential real estate owners while protecting them from incurring risks. However, these programs often leave communities lacking fast, scalable solutions that can be applied to neighborhoods, towns, and cities.  

In the most mature markets in the world, Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) transfer risk in senior tranches to private sector insurers. Credit Risk Transfer (CRT) relations have been a major program over the past 15 years to shift risk from implied taxpayer support to private sector reinsurers in the U.S. Mortgage market. By transferring risk from tax-payers over to private financial institutions, tax-payers can limit their risk exposure, while private enterprise helps provide stability, liquidity, and affordability to the market. Energetic Insurance was founded to increase access to renewable energy for underserved businesses and communities. Often these entities are left behind because they are deemed risky by traditional metrics, and we provide risk mitigation to unlock the community’s access to renewable energy quickly.  

The new partnerships between Sunnova and the DOE provide further evidence of how enterprise and government initiatives can lead to positive outcomes for individuals and disadvantaged communities. But given experience with large programs, underserved communities can remain as such without the resources or knowledge to apply for programming. As financial markets continue to develop better risk management tools, federal funding, and private enterprise can continue to work together to provide scalable financial solutions that work for everyone.