It's all documented as part of the registration in WEATS. The only thing is that the local government wouldn't necessarily have a right to that information unless it was also party to the transaction in some way (i.e., offering an incentive) or it was voluntarily disclosed by the parties.
Understood! And yet magnitude is important. Is there a way stakeholders can know if EACs made a compelling difference in the financials of this project, and whether EACs are likely to move the needle in similar projects? Would you be open to publishing a hypothetical example?
Yes, we actually required proof of "additionality" as part of the RFP. The winners had to show that the money would contribute substantially to the project moving forward. I'm sure this is something that Harvest would be happy to share quite openly, but it would be for them to disclose, as our role sits in the M&V side of the equation.
Wow. How could a local government better understand what fraction of the project's capital stack was met by EACs?
It's all documented as part of the registration in WEATS. The only thing is that the local government wouldn't necessarily have a right to that information unless it was also party to the transaction in some way (i.e., offering an incentive) or it was voluntarily disclosed by the parties.
Understood! And yet magnitude is important. Is there a way stakeholders can know if EACs made a compelling difference in the financials of this project, and whether EACs are likely to move the needle in similar projects? Would you be open to publishing a hypothetical example?
Yes, we actually required proof of "additionality" as part of the RFP. The winners had to show that the money would contribute substantially to the project moving forward. I'm sure this is something that Harvest would be happy to share quite openly, but it would be for them to disclose, as our role sits in the M&V side of the equation.