The 50 state governments and relevant subnational actors should establish energy financing banks to create long-term purchase contracts for new qualifying facilities that use wind power, solar power, or wind and solar power for energy production to ensure a reasonable rate of return.
States should establish energy finance banks to do the plan – solves all the case and doesn’t require new spending
Muro and Berlin, 9/12/12 – *senior fellow and policy director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings AND ** Senior Vice President for Policy and Planning, and General Counsel at the Coalition for Green Capital (Mark and Ken, “State Clean Energy Finance Banks: New Investment Facilities for Clean Energy Deployment”, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/9/12%20state%20energy%20investment%20muro/12%20state%20energy%20investment%20muro)
Given these challenges, states that want to realize the benefits of clean energy deployment should consider a new approach to funding clean energy programs. Specifically, they should investigate the possibility of developing state clean energy finance banks that use limited public dollars and leverage private capital to provide a combination of low-interest rate funding that makes clean energy projects competitive and low-cost 100-percent up-front loans for energy efficiency projects.
Such an approach would address the deployment and diffusion challenges faced by clean energy
technologies while recognizing that federal and state appropriations, tax credits, and other incentives
and subsidies will be sharply diminished in the years ahead because of the budget crisis at all levels of
government. Likewise, the development of such finance entities would address the need for states to
develop a new paradigm for financing strong clean energy and energy efficiency projects as part of a
push to develop strong regional industries.
So-called “clean energy finance banks” or “green banks” are ideally suited to solve the present
problems because they offer a practical way for states to make available leveraged, low-cost financing
for project developers in their states. First, they can be developed out of existing state programs while
bringing into the enterprise the equivalent of substantial new resources given their ability to leverage
funds. Likewise, because the banks would provide debt financing, they would be repaid on their loans,
putting them in the position to borrow funds and to establish revolving loan funds that would provide
funds that could be reinvested without new sources of financing. Furthermore, clean energy finance
banks, if established as independent institutions, would be able to issue revenue bonds without the full
faith and credit of the state and without the restrictions facing states, which have limited borrowing
capacity. Finally, clean energy finance banks could efficiently seek large investors with patient, longterm capital who are seeking a long-term, conservative rate of return, such as pension fund investors.
Harvard Law Review, 6 – the author isn’t named but the qualifications are: John M. Olin Fellow in Law, Economics, and Business at Harvard Law School (119 Harv. L. Rev. 1855, “STATE COLLECTIVE ACTION*”, April, lexis)
Consider now the reasons why states may act collectively. In the simplest terms, collective action may be more desirable than individual state action because it opens a panoply of otherwise unavailable policy choices and may be more desirable than federal action because it allocates power to a better-positioned actor. n12 These advantages may exist [*1859] because regional organizations have better information, are better positioned to act on that information, or avoid duplicative costs or coordination problems. n13 Also, collective action may be desirable politically because it may make certain programs either more or less politically salient. n14 Similarly, political actors may want to act collectively because doing so spreads or diversifies political risk. n15 Lastly, collective action may provide opportunities for economies of scale or rent-seeking behavior that states cannot achieve independently. n16
Some brief examples of how states may act collectively illustrate the importance of the topic. n17 As in the stylized examples, states may act collectively to reduce pollution. Groups of states also could develop plans to use common reserves of natural resources, including oil fields or aquifers that cross state lines, or plans to allocate the use of rivers, lakes, forests, or other natural resources. They may also regulate wildlife that lives in multiple states, either to protect that wildlife or to use it for commercial purposes. States may take similar action to regulate or allocate energy or to develop interstate transit infrastructure, such as highways, rail lines, or regional airports. States may regulate the production or distribution of goods or create economic development organizations organized either geographically or by some other trait, such as agricultural or oil and gas production. They also may wish to regulate certain industries or set labor standards in common ways or may wish to regulate products commonly by adopting similar production standards or tort rules. As a final example - although one can imagine many other motivations for state collective action - states may collectivize to provide better social welfare or governmental insurance programs.