How Connecticut Green Bank's Solar Municipal Assistance Program systematically excludes private competition through a four-stage funnel that leverages state authority to secure monopoly contracts for IPC
Not a Service—A Trap
While PosiGen represents a financial loss, Solar MAP represents a structural corruption of the free market. This program functions as a market foreclosure mechanism designed to systematically exclude private competition from municipal solar projects—an illegal tying arrangement that violates Sherman Act § 1.
Solar MAP is not a public service. It is an abuse of the public trust to secure monopoly contracts for a CGB-affiliated entity.
Solar MAP operates as a systematic trap that leverages state authority to eliminate competition and capture municipalities into 20-year monopoly contracts with IPC.
Municipal & State Projects Enter
Schools, town halls, public facilities seeking solar
CGB representatives approach municipal leaders wearing the hat of a "quasi-public agency"—leveraging state authority and reputation to gain trust. They offer "free" technical assistance funded by ratepayers.
The "State Halo" Advantage:
Using ratepayer funds, CGB performs site assessments, engineering designs, and permitting work. These designs are allegedly optimized for IPC's specific financing model—creating proprietary lock-in.
The Sunk Cost Trap:
The municipality is told there will be a "competitive bid"—but the bid is restricted to construction (EPC) only. The financing—where the long-term profit lies—is explicitly reserved for IPC.
The RFP Language (Actual Quote):
"The RFP is to source only EPC proposals. Financing will be provided by Inclusive Prosperity Capital." — Solar MAP Round 2 RFP Q&A, October 2020
This Is an Illegal Tying Arrangement
Under Sherman Act § 1, conditioning access to one product (technical assistance) on the purchase of a second product (financing) is illegal when the seller has market power. CGB has monopoly power in ratepayer-funded TA. This affects $100M+ in projects. All elements of illegal tying are met.
The municipality signs a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with IPC. Because there was no competition for the financing, the rates are 48-73% above what private lenders would charge—but subsidized by ratepayers to appear attractive to municipalities.
The Result:
Municipality Gets:
IPC Gets:
Ratepayers Fund: $24-26M/year in subsidies to block efficient private capital
IPC Monopoly Secured
Private competition blocked at every stage
CGB uses state authority and ratepayer subsidies to gain access that private competitors—operating under normal market rules—can never match. This is not competition. This is market rigging using public trust as a weapon against the private sector.
Date: March 2024 Public Hearing
Project: 4.2 MW Community Solar
"We were told that to access the technical assistance from the Green Bank, we had to use IPC financing. We tried to negotiate competitive bids from private lenders, but CGB staff said it wasn't an option. The financing terms looked attractive, but they were only possible because of ratepayer subsidies—private lenders couldn't match rates that far below market." — Jay Mahoney, Town Manager, Manchester CT (paraphrased)
| IPC PPA Rate: | $0.145/kWh |
| Private Market Rate: | $0.084/kWh |
| Ratepayer Subsidy: | 73% Below Market |
Date: January 2024 Meeting Minutes
Project: 1.8 MW Landfill Solar
"Ryan Curley, First Selectman of Portland, confirmed to investigators that he could find no record of a competitive bidding process for the PPA financing; the financing was simply 'assigned' to IPC as part of the Green Bank's package." — Forensic Investigation, December 2024
| Private Solar Developer A | $0.092/kWh | BLOCKED |
| Private Solar Developer B | $0.088/kWh | BLOCKED |
| IPC (CGB Affiliate) | $0.136/kWh | SELECTED |
Result: Private developers offering 35-43% lower rates were blocked. IPC secured monopoly contract without competition.
"The Solar MAP process starts with site assessments and ends with a PPA financed by the Green Bank through its nonprofit partner, IPC." — Rudy Sturk, CGB Director of Communications (to press)
CGB openly admits that Solar MAP is a pipeline to IPC financing—not a neutral assistance program. This statement confirms the illegal tying arrangement: access to TA leads inevitably to IPC financing.
The Supreme Court has long held that tying arrangements—conditioning access to one product (TA) on the purchase of a second product (financing)—violate § 1 of the Sherman Act when:
CGB has monopoly power in ratepayer-funded technical assistance. No private firm can offer "free" TA backed by state authority.
Solar MAP affects $100M+ in municipal solar projects across multiple rounds. This exceeds the threshold for "substantial" impact on interstate commerce.
Technical assistance and financing are distinct markets. Private firms offer TA separately; banks offer financing separately. They are not naturally bundled.
"Tying aftermarket services to equipment sales violates the Sherman Act when the seller has market power."— Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, 504 U.S. 451 (1992)
Solar MAP's tying of TA to IPC financing meets all the legal elements established in Kodak and Jefferson Parish Hospital v. Hyde. This is a clear Sherman Act violation.