179D Enhancements and Extension Analysis


Prepared by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) May 2017
Available as PDF


Executive Summary

Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code, the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction, was originally enacted by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to promote energy independence. Section 179D promotes the proper allocation of incentives in the real estate development process. A key challenge to realizing the benefits of energy-efficient improvements is that the associated cost savings flow to building occupants, not developers. By helping offset the cost of energy efficient investments, Section 179D allows building owners to share in the incentive to install energy-efficient improvements that help their occupants save money on electricity, water, and climate control costs. In so doing, Section 179D promotes private-sector solutions to improve conservation practices and modernize national infrastructure. In this analysis, REMI evaluates the economic impact of three potential approaches to the Section 179D deduction, which most recently expired at the end of 2016:

1. Strengthening and Modernizing Section 179D, which would increase the value of the deduction to $3.00 per square foot from $1.80, increase the applicable energy efficiency standards, make it available to support improvements to existing as well as new buildings, and extend the deduction.
2. Extension of Current Law Section 179D plus Expansion to Non-Profits and Tribal Governments, modeled on 2015 legislation developed by the Senate Finance Committee under Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), which would extend the deduction, expand availability of the deduction to nonprofit organizations and tribal governments and increase the applicable energy efficiency standards.
3. Extension of Current Law Section 179D, modeled on the two-year extension of current law enacted as part of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (“PATH”) Act of 2015.

The results of this analysis show that in addition to advancing the goal of energy independence, Section 179D is an engine of economic and employment growth. As captured in the table below, this study quantifies these impacts, finding that:

  • Strengthening and extending the Section 179D Energy-Efficiency Commercial Buildings Deduction will create jobs and expand the nation’s economy. These benefits would be compounded by increasing the dollar value of the deduction in accordance with several Congressional and administration proposals.
  • These enhancements to Section 179D would support up to 76,529 jobs annually and contribute annually almost $7.4 billion to national gross domestic product (“GDP”), as well as over $5.7 billion towards national personal income.
  • Expanding the availability of the deduction to nonprofit organizations and tribal governments, while increasing the applicable energy efficiency standards, also provide clear positive impacts to the economy.


Introduction

Section 179D offers an enhanced tax deduction to offset the cost of investments in certain energy efficient commercial building property. A deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot is available to owners of new or existing buildings who install (1) interior lighting, (2) building envelope, or (3) heating, cooling, ventilation, or hot water system improvements that reduce the building’s total energy and power cost by 50% or more in comparison to a building meeting minimum requirements set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001 (for buildings and systems placed in service before January 1, 2016) or 90.1-2007 (for buildings and systems placed in service before January 1, 2017).
A deduction of up to $0.60 per square foot is available to owners of buildings in which individual lighting, building envelope, or heating and cooling systems partially qualify to meet the applicable target levels, or through an interim rule for lighting fixtures promulgated by the IRS.


Energy savings must be calculated using qualified computer software, and certified by an independent third party in accordance with procedures established by the IRS.

Section 179D also includes an allocation provision that allows tax-exempt public entities to allocate the deduction to the designer of a building or efficiency project (such as an architect or engineer). This provision allows tax-exempt entities to transfer the value of the deduction to taxpayers that are able to realize its value, providing cost-effective support for the development of energy-efficient buildings by school districts, state governments, and other public sector entities. Ultimately, it helps save taxpayer money through lower energy costs.

As noted above, Section 179D was originally passed by Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in order to enhance the participation of the commercial building sector in the national effort to achieve energy independence through increased energy efficiency. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Buildings Energy Data Book (March 2012)5, commercial buildings accounted for 18.6% of all primary energy consumption in the U.S. in 2010. Of this, electricity accounted for 77%, the majority of which (62.9%) went for lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation.

Due to budget constraints, the deduction was initially enacted on a temporary, albeit multi-year, basis. Section 179D has since been included among a package of temporary tax provisions that have expired and been reinstated many times over the years. The provision was most recently extended through December 31, 2016 by the PATH Act of 2015 (Division Q of H.R. 2029).

The proposals considered in this analysis represent three potential approaches to continuing to provide tax incentives for energy efficient commercial buildings. These potential approaches are not exhaustive, but instead are intended to be illustrative in terms of the magnitude of economic and jobs impact that may be garnered from various ways to use the tax code to overcome barriers to investment in energy efficiency technologies. The proposal to strengthen and modernize Section 179D is a reform proposal, aimed at incentivizing the next generation of energy efficiency enhancements to new and existing commercial building stock. The model is based on previous proposals to reform Section 179D and, although it cannot be directly extrapolated, provides a proxy baseline for a proposal along the lines of a technology-neutral energy efficiency incentive in the context of tax reform. The remaining two proposals considered in the analysis demonstrate the significant economic and jobs impact of extending current law with modest expansions to the allocation provision to include nonprofit organizations and tribal governments while increasing the applicable energy efficiency standards, as well as merely extending current law.



Policy Context and Modeling Approach

Energy efficiency policies, from regulations to tax incentives, result in significant implications for industries that design, construct, and maintain commercial buildings, as well as those that innovate, develop, and manufacture energy efficient enhancements. These industries play an important role in state and local economies, creating jobs and revenue. Public policies that support these businesses can have both direct and indirect effects on a region’s employment, economic output, and personal income.

Expanding, modifying, and extending Section 179D would reduce utility bills, lower energy costs, cut pollution, and increase jobs and economic growth. Commercial buildings have high energy needs. In addition to large energy bills for building owners and tenants (an estimated $38 billion a year goes towards lighting alone, according to the U.S. Department of Energy), commercial buildings can also put great strain on the nation’s power grids during peak periods. Developing more efficient buildings helps ensure a steady supply of affordable power and significantly lowers operating costs for businesses and taxpayers alike.

Section 179D promotes the proper allocation of incentives in the real estate development process. As noted above, a key challenge to realizing the benefits of energy efficient improvements is that the associated cost savings flow to building occupants, not developers. In the short-term, Section 179D enables building owners to offset the often costly investments associated with energy efficiency enhancements. In the longer term, occupants of buildings that take advantage of the deduction realize significantly lower energy costs, the benefits of leading-edge design and construction that enhances the building’s long-term market value, and the benefits of a reduced environmental footprint.

Section 179D has been an extremely effective tool in both respects. Since its enactment in 2005, the deduction has leveraged billions of dollars in private capital, resulting in the energy efficient construction and renovation of thousands of buildings, while creating and preserving hundreds of thousands of jobs. It has also encouraged the research and development of new energy efficient innovations, enhancing its contributions to economic and employment growth. As such, it stands as of the best examples of the tremendous impact that tax incentives can have on financing energy efficient property.

While different tax structures are likely to result in different economic outcomes, one can only estimate the likely effect of tax proposals with integrated fiscal and economic analysis. To conduct this analysis, we first estimate the direct tax implications of the proposed changes. Next, we translate these direct tax changes into “policy variables” which are input into the REMI PI+ 70-sector model of the United States. We then run the model, which calculates the macroeconomic effect of the policy change, including detailed employment, output, income and other macroeconomic changes.

The REMI model is an integrated econometric/input-output/general equilibrium model of the US economy. It incorporates income and product accounts, demographics, price and production costs changes, and the labor market. Changes in taxes result in economic changes throughout the economy. While tax policy proposals should be carefully considered, we can best evaluate the economic implications of these policies using fiscal and economic analysis. This includes not only the direct tax changes to firms and individuals, but also how these changes affect the dynamic responses of firms and individuals in the overall economy.

A more detailed overview of the REMI model and its structure is available in Appendix 1.

Economic Impact Analysis: Strengthening and Modernizing Section 179D

Overview

Strengthening and modernizing Section 179D is a reform proposal, aimed at incentivizing the next generation of energy efficiency enhancements to new and existing commercial building stock. The economic model presented below is based on the President’s FY 2017 Budget Proposal, which would have increased the value of the deduction to $3.00 per square foot from $1.80, made it available to support improvements to existing as well as new buildings, and extended the availability of the provision. In addition, it would have updated the applicable energy efficiency standard of a reference building to the minimum requirement of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Many of these modifications and enhancements are also reflected in Title I of the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act (S. 2189 in the 113th Congress).

As noted above, although this model is based on previous Section 179D proposals and it cannot be directly extrapolated, it provides a proxy baseline for a proposal along the lines of a technology neutral energy efficiency incentive in the context of tax reform.

Methodology and Model Inputs

In order to analyze the potential economic impact of modifying and extending the deduction for energy efficient commercial building property, REMI evaluated both the costs and benefits of the program in terms of the value of the tax deduction, the additional leveraged investment spending it directly generates, and the future energy savings that results from it. These factors were estimated for both the private and government sectors.

Value of Tax Deduction

The cost of the President’s FY 2017 Budget Proposal was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to be $6.7 billion over 10 years7. This analysis projects the economic impact of the first ten years of this policy.

Since the JCT reports in fiscal years, and the REMI model is based on calendar years, the revenue costs were converted to represent calendar years. The value of the tax deduction represented by the JCT’s estimate of the budget effect was estimated based on the assumption of an effective corporate tax rate of 18.6%8 (the budget estimate was divided by the tax rate to yield an estimate of the tax deduction). Since the tax deduction is available for both private and government-owned buildings, also taking into account the modifications intended to strengthen and modernize the law, it was split between the two sectors based on Bureau of Economic Analysis nonresidential structures investment data for 2015, resulting in a breakdown of 81% private and 19% government. This contrasts with the assumptions used to evaluate the other two proposals.


The value of these tax deductions is used to estimate associated investment and energy cost savings to private businesses and governments. Since Section 179D accelerates to the year placed in service the depreciation deduction for the cost of the energy efficient asset (up to the allowed amount), therefore just changing the timing of when the deduction may be taken, the impact on the federal budget (deficit) is not accounted for.

The full amount of the tax deduction earned by private commercial businesses each year is entered as a reduction in their cost of doing business.

Although governments do not file federal tax returns, and therefore cannot receive the tax deduction directly, they are allowed to pass the tax deduction on to the contractor responsible for designing their energy efficiency project. This amount is entered as a reduction in the cost of doing business for the professional, scientific, and technical services industry.


Leveraged Investment

Since the tax deduction is based on only a portion of the investment spending, it is assumed that each dollar of tax deduction is leveraged by a certain amount of investment spending. The tax incentive is calculated on a per square foot basis, and varies depending on the measured (and certified) improvement in energy efficiency. This leverage value was calculated from industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier10, which showed an average of $3.12 of private investment for each $1 of federal tax deduction. This translates into an almost 17 to 1 ratio of investment to tax reduction. The incentive is meant to produce a rising share of energy efficient investment activity over a 5-10 year period, at which point the standard for receiving the incentive could be adjusted to account for the development of new technologies. For this reason, the amount of the leveraged investment is phased in over the ten year period of analysis, beginning at 50% in 2017, then incrementing 5% each year, reaching 95% in 2026.

The leveraged investment spending is split between labor (30%) and materials (70%) based on Garrett-Peltier, and the materials distributed to equipment type (75% HVAC, 25% Lighting) based on industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier.


Energy Savings

Industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier was used to calculate the average annual energy savings per dollar of tax deduction. This value was determined to be 8% (8 cents of future energy savings for every dollar of tax deduction). The total value of energy savings to the private sector was entered as a reduction in the cost of production, spread across all commercial industries in the model. A corresponding decrease in demand for electricity was also entered. For energy savings to government, an increase in government spending was entered due to the availability of more resources for other areas of the budget as a result of the lower energy costs. As with the private sector, a corresponding decrease in demand for electricity was entered.


Investment Offset

For this analysis, we assume that for each dollar spent in a given year on investment in order to achieve the energy efficiency requirements, an equal dollar of investment is removed from spending spread over the next ten years. Therefore it is assumed that the tax deduction incentivizes the timing of the investment, leading to more immediate investment instead of longer term investment that is spread over many years.


Economic Impact Results

REMI modeled the scenario related to the President’s FY 2017 Budget Proposal to modify and extend the deduction for energy efficient building property over the ten-year time period 2017-2026 based on the revenue score provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Over the first ten years of the extension, the net leveraged investment, energy savings, and accelerated tax deduction combined yield a net average gain of 76,529 jobs per year nationwide (see Figure 4). The construction industry gains the majority of these jobs (over 17,000), while Manufacturing, Trade, and Professional Services combined account for over 23,000 jobs. This is a result of the direct investment in energy efficiency technology and associated building construction and/or retrofitting. The Utilities industry loses some jobs (-1,750) due to reduced demand for electricity as a result of the increased energy efficiency.




In addition to the employment impact, Gross Domestic Product increased by an average of $7.4 billion nationwide. Similarly, personal income increased an average of $5.7 billion, while increased output averaged $14 billion.

Economic Impact Analysis: Extension and Expansion of Section 179D

Overview

As noted above, the 2015 legislative proposal developed by the Senate Finance Committee under Chairman Hatch would permit non-profit organizations (as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code) and tribal governments to allocate the deduction to the person primarily responsible for designing the property in the same manner as is allowed for public property. This change would create new opportunities for tax-exempt entities to enjoy the benefits of energy efficient improvements. Additionally, the modification would increase the applicable energy efficiency standards to ASHRAE 90.1-2007, and extend the deduction.

Methodology and Model Impacts

In order to analyze the potential economic impact of expanding and extending the deduction for energy efficient commercial building property, REMI evaluated both the costs and benefits of the program in terms of the value of the tax deduction, the additional leveraged investment spending it directly generates, and the future energy savings that results from it. These factors were estimated for both the private and government sectors.

Value of tax Deduction

The cost of the Senate Finance Committee proposal for one year was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to be $315 million over 10 years13. This analysis projects the economic impact of the first ten years of an extension based upon JCT’s evaluation of this one-year extension.

Since the JCT reports in fiscal years, and the REMI model is based on calendar years, the revenue costs were converted to represent calendar years. The value of the tax deduction represented by the JCT’s estimate of the budget effect was estimated based on the assumption of an effective corporate tax rate of 18.6% (the budget estimate was divided by the tax rate to yield an estimate of the tax deduction).

Since the tax deduction is available for both private and government-owned buildings, but the participants of the current program are primarily government entities, it was split between the two sectors based on a breakdown of 20% private and 80% government (this assumption differs from that used in the Extension of Current Law scenario based on Bureau of Economic Analysis nonresidential structures investment data for 201514 along with Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data for 2015 that reports nonresidential fixed assets of non-profits to be 9% of the private sector, and tribal governments to be 2% of the government sector, shifting the weight more towards the private sector).


The value of these tax deductions are used to estimate associated investment and energy cost savings to private commercial businesses, including non-profits, and government entities, including tribal governments. Since Section 179D accelerates to the year placed in service the depreciation deduction for the cost of the energy efficient asset (up to the allowed amount), therefore just changing the timing of when the deduction may be taken, the impact on the federal budget (deficit) is not accounted for.

The full amount of the tax deduction earned by private for-profit commercial businesses each year is entered as a reduction in their cost of doing business.

Although non-profits and governments do not file federal tax returns, and therefore cannot receive the tax deduction directly, they are allowed to pass the tax deduction on to the contractor responsible for designing their energy efficiency project. This amount is entered as a reduction in the cost of doing business for the professional, scientific, and technical services industry.


Leveraged Investment

Since the tax deduction is based on only a portion of the investment spending, it is assumed that each dollar of tax deduction is leveraged by a certain amount of investment spending. The tax incentive is calculated on a per square foot basis, and varies depending on the measured (and certified) improvement in energy efficiency. This leverage value was calculated from industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier, which showed an average of $3.12 of private investment for each $1 of federal tax deduction. This translates into an almost 17 to 1 ratio of investment to tax reduction. The incentive is meant to produce a rising share of energy efficient investment activity over a 5-10 year period, at which point the standard for receiving the incentive could be adjusted to account for the development of new technologies. For this reason, the amount of the leveraged investment is phased in over the ten year period of analysis, beginning at 50% in 2017, then incrementing 5% each year, reaching 95% in 2026.

The leveraged investment spending is split between labor (30%) and materials (70%) based on Garrett-Peltier, and the materials distributed to equipment type (75% HVAC, 25% Lighting) based on industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier.


Energy Savings

Industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier was used to calculate the average annual energy savings per dollar of tax deduction. This value was determined to be 8% (8 cents of future energy savings for every dollar of tax deduction). The total value of energy savings to the private sector was entered as a reduction in the cost of production, spread across all commercial industries in the model. A corresponding decrease in demand for electricity was also entered. For energy savings to government, an increase in government spending was entered due to the availability of more resources for other areas of the budget as a result of the lower energy costs. As with the private sector, a corresponding decrease in demand for electricity was entered.


Investment Offset

For this analysis, we assume that for each dollar spent in a given year on investment in order to achieve the energy efficiency requirements, an equal dollar of investment is removed from spending spread over the next ten years. Therefore it is assumed that the tax deduction incentivizes the timing of the investment, leading to more immediate investment instead of longer term investment that is spread over many years.


Economic Impact Results

REMI modeled the scenario related to the proposal to extend and expand the deduction for energy efficient building property over the ten-year time period 2017-2026 based on the revenue score provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Over the first ten years of the extension, the net leveraged investment, energy savings, and accelerated tax deduction combined yield a net average gain of 39,388 jobs per year nationwide (see Figure 7). The construction industry gains the majority of these jobs (just under 8,200), while Manufacturing, Trade, and Professional Services combined account for almost 11,000 jobs. This is a result of the direct investment in energy efficiency technology and associated building construction and/or retrofitting. The Utilities industry loses some jobs (-880) due to reduced demand for electricity as a result of the increased energy efficiency.




In addition to the employment impact, Gross Domestic Product increased by an average of $3.7 billion nationwide. Similarly, personal income increased an average of $3 billion, while increased output averaged $7 billion.

Economic Impact Analysis: Extensions of Current Law Section 179D

Overview

As a temporary tax provision, Section 179D has experienced numerous expirations and extensions since its enactment. This cycle frustrates the achievement of the policy goals for the incentive, since energy efficiency projects, like other construction projects, require considerable lead-time for planning and development. A long-term extension of Section 179D would provide certainty about the availability of the tax incentives, to support future hiring, manufacturing, and development decisions.

Methodology and Model Inputs

In order to analyze the potential economic impact of extending Section 179D as it exists under current law, REMI evaluated both the costs and benefits of the program in terms of the value of the tax deduction, the additional leveraged investment spending it directly generates, and the future energy savings that results from it. These factors were estimated for both the private and government sectors.

Value of Tax Deduction

The cost of the proposal to extend Section 179D for one year was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to be $324 million over 10 years16. This analysis projects the economic impact of the first ten years of an extension based upon JCT’s evaluation of this one-year extension.

Since the JCT reports in fiscal years, and the REMI model is based on calendar years, the revenue costs were converted to represent calendar years. The value of the tax deduction represented by the JCT’s estimate of the budget effect was estimated based on the assumption of an effective corporate tax rate of 18.6% (the budget estimate was divided by the tax rate to yield an estimate of the tax deduction). Since the tax deduction is available for both private and government- owned buildings, but the participants of the current program are primarily government entities, it was split between the two sectors based on a breakdown of 15% private and 85% government.



The value of these tax deductions is used to estimate associated investment and energy cost savings to private businesses and governments. Since Section 179D accelerates to the year placed in service the depreciation deduction for the cost of the energy efficient asset (up to the allowed amount), therefore just changing the timing of when the deduction may be taken, the impact on the federal budget (deficit) is not accounted for.

The full amount of the tax deduction earned by private commercial businesses each year is entered as a reduction in their cost of doing business.

Although governments do not file federal tax returns, and therefore cannot receive the tax deduction directly, they are allowed to pass the tax deduction on to the contractor responsible for designing their energy efficiency project. This amount is entered as a reduction in the cost of doing business for the professional, scientific, and technical services industry.


Leveraged Investment

Since the tax deduction is based on only a portion of the investment spending, it is assumed that each dollar of tax deduction is leveraged by a certain amount of investment spending. The tax incentive is calculated on a per square foot basis, and varies depending on the measured (and certified) improvement in energy efficiency. This leverage value was calculated from industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier, which showed an average of $3.12 of private investment for each $1 of federal tax deduction. This translates into an almost 17 to 1 ratio of investment to tax reduction. The incentive is meant to produce a rising share of energy efficient investment activity over a 5-10 year period, at which point the standard for receiving the incentive could be adjusted to account for the development of new technologies. For this reason, the amount of the leveraged investment is phased in over the ten year period of analysis, beginning at 50% in 2017, then incrementing 5% each year, reaching 95% in 2026.

The leveraged investment spending is split between labor (30%) and materials (70%) based on Garrett-Peltier, and the materials distributed to equipment type (75% HVAC, 25% Lighting) based on industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier.


Energy Savings

Industry data provided to REMI by a third-party certifier was used to calculate the average annual energy savings per dollar of tax deduction. This value was determined to be 8% (8 cents of future energy savings for every dollar of tax deduction). The total value of energy savings to the private sector was entered as a reduction in the cost of production, spread across all commercial industries in the model. A corresponding decrease in demand for electricity was also entered. For energy savings to government, an increase in government spending was entered due to the availability of more resources for other areas of the budget as a result of the lower energy costs. As with the private sector, a corresponding decrease in demand for electricity was entered.


Investment Offset

For this analysis, we assume that for each dollar spent in a given year on investment in order to achieve the energy efficiency requirements, an equal dollar of investment is removed from spending spread over the next ten years. Therefore it is assumed that the tax deduction incentivizes the timing of the investment, leading to more immediate investment instead of longer term investment that is spread over many years.


Economic Impact Results

REMI modeled the scenario related to a long-term extension of the temporary PATH Act extension of the deduction for energy efficient building property over the ten-year time period 2017-2026 based on the revenue score provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Over the first ten years of the extension, the net leveraged investment, energy savings, and accelerated tax deduction combined yield a net average gain of 40,749 jobs per year nationwide (see Figure 10). The construction industry gains the majority of these jobs (over 8,400), while Manufacturing, Trade, and Professional Services combined account for over 11,000 jobs. This is a result of the direct investment in energy efficiency technology and associated building construction and/or retrofitting. The Utilities industry loses some jobs (-900) due to reduced demand for electricity as a result of the increased energy efficiency.




In addition to the employment impact, Gross Domestic Product increased by an average of $3.9 billion nationwide. Similarly, personal income increased an average of $3.1 billion, while increased output averaged $7.2 billion.

Conclusion

Strengthening the Section 179D Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction will create jobs and expand the nation’s economy. Enhancing this incentive will not only help industries involved in designing, building, and operating commercial buildings, it will also benefit the broader economy.

Strengthening and modernizing Section 179D to optimize the opportunities it presents to commercial developers is estimated to lead to an average annual gain of 76,529 jobs, $7.4 billion in gross domestic product, and $5.7 billion in personal income for the first ten years after enactment.

An extension of current law plus expansion to include non-profits and tribal governments, while increasing the applicable energy efficiency standards, is estimated to lead to an average annual gain of 39,388 jobs, $3.7 billion in gross domestic product, and $3 billion in personal income for the first ten years after enactment.

An extension of current law is estimated to lead to an average annual gain of 40,749 jobs, $3.9 billion in gross domestic product, and $3.1 billion in personal income for the first ten years after enactment. The Section 179D Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction strengthens our nation’s energy independence, reduces emissions, encourages innovation, and creates jobs. These benefits would be compounded by increasing the dollar value of the deduction in accordance with several Congressional and administration proposals.



Contact REMI

Frederick R. Treyz, PhD
CEO and Chief Economist
fred@remi.com

Christopher Brown
Manager, Business Development
chris@remi.com

John Bennett, MS
Senior Economic Associate
john.bennett@remi.com

Sherri Lawrence, MBA
Senior Vice President
sherri@remi.com

Headquarters
433 West Street, Suite 1
Amherst, MA 01002
(413) 549-1169

Capital Office
1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 469-7861