NYC Clean Heat Amounts to Capital Destruction

Recently I demonstrated on this blog why NYC Clean Heat is regressive with respect to Clean Air compliance, because it diverted buildings to natural gas, that would have been perfectly suited for renewable energy deployments. The typical buildings that were (and in some cases still are) burning #6 oil, are ideal candidates for renewable energy conversions. In many cases that would have produced financially and economically superior outcomes for building owners, and certainly for the city in terms of Clean Air, and for tenants in terms of quality of life. Green House Gas Emissions could be reduced far more than is now the case, and NYC Clean Heat was an unqualified victory for the carbon energy industry. Next time we should get our fossil fuels facts, before we argue any fossil fuels pros and cons.

There are several other aspects to the matter, which make the picture even far worse. There is no argument that natural gas burns cleaner than #6 or #4 oil (and even than #2 oil), and produces less CO2 and fewer particulates. However, the reality is that the distribution losses of methane are 30+%, and the uncontrolled release of methane into the air from fracking ("unconventional gas"), add even more environmental burden, since methane is a far worse Green House Gas than CO2. Increasingly, our natural gas is "unconventional gas." Fossil fuels are the problem, and "cleaner fuels" are mostly simply an obfuscation.

Greenwashing Fossil Fuel

As has been pointed out in many ways on this blog, the greenwashing by the power industry is the single biggest PR stunt to halt the conversion to renewable energy. The argument is not over types of fossil fuels. it is a matter of renewable alternatives. With the evidence cited here, and more, it is clear that dubious claims were used to promote natural gas as a clean fuel, and a "bridge fuel," it is mostly a diversionary tactic, and it is absolutely imperative that we transition to renewable energy wherever it is economically feasible. Switching to different forms of fossil fuels is window dressing, not progress.

There are many more opportunities in the city's aging building infrastructure than are now being exploited (see my DaBx PlaNYC2020), because government programs are steering owners away from them. In a more general sense, it is also clear that the obfuscation that results from promoting energy efficiency in fossil fuel based systems makes them more competitive, and fuels the demand, crowding out investment in renewable energy. So energy efficiency of fossil fuel systems is not part of any green agenda, except simply if it is the only thing you can do and arguably better than the alternative.

Methane leaks and more from Fracking

How big is the problem of natural gas (methane) leaks from fracking? As usual the answers depend on who you ask. The article cited here is probably conservative and reports an extreme finding of 14% of production (output) in losses from fracking. And that is only the current leaks, during extraction. What no one knows is how much seeps out in the years following production. As the article notes, it will take a long time before we have an accurate fix on this issue, but it definitely takes away some of the charm of natural gas. The more alarmist view of methane losses from fracking can be found in many places, if you want to arrive at a balanced view. The fossil fuel industry talks of 2% or less, and more independent opinions are as high as 10% of all gas produced.

The only encouraging information is that while methane is anywhere from sixty to one hundred times more destructive than CO2, it dissipates in the atmosphere within 20 years, while CO2 builds up forever. Be that as it may, renewable energy would reduce our green house emissions faster than the natural gas bonanza, and the element of leakage takes away some of the charm of natural gas.

The environmental degradation from fracking may well be equivalent or worse than the toxic sludge from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants. The jury is still out on this part of the story.

Green House Gas Emissions from Distribution

The distribution loss of Methane (Natural Gas), as you can see in this article, 5%-10% leakage from distribution may be the range in the UK, and according to the calculations cited there, anything over 2.8% leakage may be enough to offset the "clean" advantages of natural gas over coal, which is the dirtiest fuel. In the US losses may be lower. EPA estimates that the losses of natural gas are distributed as follows: 37% from transmission/storage, 24% from distribution, and 27% from production. Overall EPA estimates that globally the losses of methane from leakage are 3.2%, which would largely wipe out the advantages over coal or oil.

Green House Gas Emissions from Burning Natural Gas

Here is where Natural Gas has it over coal and oil, producing far fewer problems, starting with less CO2, but also fewer particulate emissions, as well as various other toxic exhausts, including mercury. This is what allows New York City to claim that a switch from #6 and #4 oil to natural gas would produce reductions in Green House Gas emissions. Evidently NYC is the point of consumption, and the fact that gas is cleaner burning seems to carry the day. However, it should be obvious from even this brief overview, that this may appear to be true locally, it is not true on a complete system-wide view of the matter. Hence the drive to gas conversions is little more than window dressing, particularly in light of the alternatives that are not being pursued.

Government Sponsored Capital Destruction

In short, the drive to convert from oil to gas is largely futile, and to the extent that it is forcing building owners to prematurely change boilers, it amounts to government sponsored capital destruction.

Most importantly, the opportunities discussed on this site, for green energy generation in buildings, which would permanently improve building values, and make huge contributions to Clean Air, are basically being disregarded as a result of the dubious environmental benefits of natural gas, and passing up that financial opportunity alone is yet another form of capital destruction, because with while fossil fuel is an ongoing operating expense, truly renewable, green energy moves energy from liabilities to assets, and permanently improves building values.

Conclusion

In short, NYC is missing the boat by rushing into a pseudo solution that merely shuffles the deck chairs on the Titanic of the fossil fuel economy, that has precious little real environmental benefit to offer in terms of reducing Green House Gas Emissions, except for some very short-term window dressing and greenwashing of the fossil fuel economy, while it passes up the long-term economic potential of substantially reducing Green House Gas emissions, greater building resiliency, and improved economic competitiveness that would result from a greater emphasis on switching to renewable energy within the city. Given the alternatives, the campaign amounts to government sponsored capital destruction.

Power Options or Why Deregulation Misses the Mark

While the country is still charging ahead with energy de-regulation, it seems at times dubious if it has been really conducive to solving any problems that we know of, particularly in an area like NYC, where the Transportation & Distribution portion of your power bill is 60-70% of the bill, and set to increase faster than inflation as far as the eye can see. Deregulation probably garnered lots of political donations, safe to say. Be that as it may, at least some of the innovations that have resulted from deregulation are helpful, in particular green power, and perhaps in some cases fixed rate pricing options.

The larger accounts have mostly moved to independents, but smaller accounts, and residences in particular have barely switched, largely because there is little real incentive, and to the extent an ESCO can make a difference, it is well within the margin of error. It is easy enough to understand, large accounts consuming perhaps millions of kWh per year can make a real difference in their bottom line with a better price, but an average household does not have that option. A 1 cent price swing on the average household account of 900 kwH/mo is $9/month, but if the total all-in rate is ca 25 cents per kwH, that is still only a 4% price swing on a $225 bill. In short, this is not a life-style changing event, and hence it is not worthy of attention. In NYC a penny on the rate of such an average household is the equivalent of four subway fares.


People are made to believe they can save money by switching, but the difference, if any, is lost in the shuffle, and can never be proven, or worse the market moved up significantly, and then the new company gets the blame, when often it had nothing to do with it. Even if the macro-economic effect is true that competition brings the rates, down, it would mean we're going down in the aggregate, and unless you are a large user, it makes no sense to spend time finding lower prices. And in some cases companies indeed took advantage of people, and misled them. One of the frequent misrepresentations was that their sales people made customers believe that they were from ConEdison. This is no longer permitted. So the reps are finding new ways of misrepresenting themselves, as I experience with some frequency with reps from various energy companies that call door to door in my building.


In many respects however, the independent energy providers (ESCOs) have been their own worst enemies, by often times marketing things they cannot deliver, and/or either allowing, or even encouraging their reps to lie. One prominent example is fixed rate pricing. Fixed rates are about risk management, not about beating the market, but most reps will make customers believe that they are going to beat the market, or 'save' money with a fixed rate. Nope. If you are more afraid of the market going up than of overpaying a little, a fixed rate may be warranted. Having the fixed rate option is arguably an improvement, but it is often sold in the wrong way. And failure to set the right expectations leads to unhappy customers.

Another tricky area is the issue of 'saving' money in general. Here also the ESCOs cannot deliver. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. Here in NY, ConEdison bills on a daily basis, after the fact. It is a pure pass along to them. If the rate is 6 cents, they charge you that, and if it's 15, they charge you that, including whatever the markup is they take. You can never be sure in advance, because you cannot buy a monthly, quarterly or yearly rate from ConEdison. So it's like with the strawberries at the supermarket, that were priced at $3.49/lb this week, but last week there was a special at $1.49/lb. It won't help me when I go to the cash register and try to buy strawberries at last week's price.
So, if last month ConEdison billed 8 cents per kwH for the month as a whole, and I was on an ESCO pricing that is a one month variable rate at 10 cents, I was above ConEdison's daily market rates, but it's a moot point, for there was no place to ever buy that rate. By the same token if my company has locked me in at 10 cents/kwH for the month and there is a plant outage or a heat wave, ConEd customers may end up paying 15 cents per kwH, while I'm still only paying 10 cents, because it was bought in advance. Over time the variability of a one month variable rate should be less than with daily pricing, or I may have an option to procure fixed rates and lock in my pricing for a year or even multiple years. Just like the strawberries, electricity does not keep too well. So it probably does not pay to buy 10 lbs when they are $1.49/lb. You'll merely end up throwing out a lot more strawberries, and as far as electricity is concerned, batteries are very expensive.

To apply that argument to power, particularly in the ConEdison area, we might observe that only in retrospect can we judge if last year ConEd's rates were lower than with our favorite ESCO. But if with the ESCO we are buying monthly, quarterly, or yearly pricing, the natural tendency will be for those prices to be flatter over time, whereas with ConEd's pass-through daily pricing a few events that cause rate spikes could drive our costs with ConEdison up unexpectedly at any time. So, just because last year I did not have an accident with my car, and I arguably could have saved myself the collision insurance, does not mean that this year I can do without. Over time the day rates might show greater variability, and some form of monthly or quarterly, or yearly rates might be preferable to most people. Knowing in advance what you'll be paying has some value here.

In general, if we are saving money with deregulation it is not because we can all go out and negotiate market beating rates. That remains for the big boys with the millions of kWh. Perhaps the overall price levels come down because of deregulation, at least that was the economic theory. But when history gets written, and proper research done, it may well be that deregulation worked only for a few large players and made no difference whatsoever for the average consumer. Reducing consumption and energy efficiency are much more important.

An agonizing fact of life is that because the utilities have a fairly unwieldy infrastructure, and it takes three months to switch, so just like cannot buy flood insurance at the time of the flood, when you think it would be smart to switch to a fixed rate, it is already too late. This is not day-trading where you can get in and out, and take your profit whenever you want. In short, don't bother switching providers to save money, unless your current provider is a bad apple, and they are really taking advantage of you.

The last innovation of the ESCO's is Green Power, and that for the most part is straight forward, except most ESCO's don't have a clue how to market it, but it could be a worthwhile consumer movement, if it ever gets going.

Green Power Explained

There are no green electrons, nor can we change the supply sources at will, but we can purchase green power to varying degrees, by incorporating Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) into our electricity mix, or by generating your own clean electricity. The point of the exercise is that for consumers Green Power is a way of voting with your dollars, and signaling a preference for clean energy technologies. In short: RECs are a financial mechanism to support clean power, and credits are awarded to producers of clean renewable energy, and by buying those certificates, the consumer can stimulate development of such resources. RECs can be built into the rates by your provider or purchased independently. In the links section there are a whole range of information sources on Green Power and RECs.

If you look at the Corporate Top 50 Green Power purchasers, you see that Intel buys 88% Green Power, with a mix of on-site generation and recs from Sterling Planet and others. Starbucks buys 52% Green Power, Whole Foods 100%, and Lockheed Martin 15% , Wal-Mart 8%, etc. So it is pretty much a matter of how much you want to do in this area as a matter of corporate policy.

What it means for your rates. 100% Green Power typically adds some 2 cents per kwH to your rates. The typical household uses an average of 900 kwH/mo, so on average to "go green" should cost you ca $18/mo on your rates if you happen to be such an "average" household.

With my own household, I was with one supplier for a few years, and with the benefit of hindsight, I paid ranging from 0.5 cents to 4.00 cents per kwH extra for my 100% Green Power, so over time it averaged out ca 2%. Green power is a conscious choice to make a difference. Green power is about empowerment, about choice, about making a difference. It is a lifestyle choice, not an energy purchasing decision, and that is why most ESCOs fail in the mission of marketing Green Power.

On the Marketing of Green Power

The power industry by and large has failed to understand the potential of Green Power. Years ago, when I was attempting to design a Green Power marketing program for an ESCO (Accent Energy), I was arguing with the founders of that company that Green Power was different, and ultimately would require a separate company to market it.

Essentially, my analysis of the situation was that the mindset of the power industry was about price competition, and Green Power broke the mold, because to the power people it was power for 2 cents more, and that made no sense to them. Seen in that light the market place for Green Power was limited to some fringe cases, and was not worth worrying about. The power people therefore were incapable of understanding it, and I pointed out to them that selling Green Power rather meant promoting empowerment, and energy independence, not selling power.

Power is a negative, and people feel dis-empowered, because they have to pay that bill anyway, never mind whose name is on the bill. Moreover, they don't understand de-regulation, and it is somewhere between hard and impossible to verify the various claims, and many ESCOs have proven to be somewhat less than ethical in their dealings.

One of the major features of differentiation in the power market place has been often misunderstood and sold the wrong way: fixed rates. People think they are buying fixed rates in the illusion that they're going to beat the market, which is not so. Now, if you are responsible for a budget, and you'd like to fix one element of your cost, and you can rationalize that the cost is historically reasonable, well... perhaps you should consider the fixed price option. If you think you're going to beat the energy market, you probably should buy a lottery ticket instead. And, you are paying extra for the pleasure of having fixed rates.

All in all the ESCOs don't know what to do with themselves to differentiate their product. And in the direct sales model this inevitably leads to reps who will tell any lies necessary to get the deal, and in spite of codes of ethics that try to rein in the abuses, the results are a joke. In the last few months I've had more reps from power companies at my door than I can shake a stick at and almost all of them lie, although they've now been trained to not say they represent ConEdison, for then they could get fired. But they all violate the spirit of the law. From my time in the industry it was always clear that the system is rife with abuse, and that invariably the reps who lie the most make the most money. It is time to break the mold...

Fundamentally the justifications for de-regulated energy markets are not valid. Price competition is no solution to the nations energy problems. Instead it roots us in the illusion that we can beat the system, when in reality we can't. Here in NYC it is particularly evident. The real issue is transportation, for the T&D portion of your bill is 65%, and going up ahead of inflation as far as the eye can see. The real answer therefore is renewable energy generation at the building level, for these are investments that gain in value over time and therefore are conducive to appreciating real estate values. Their value goes up with every energy price hike, and with every rate increase for ConEdison.

Economically also, the utilities will have a long term economic interest in encouraging growing diversification of markets, because it is a proven fact that the overall system often becomes more reliable when the grid serves as a backup, as we have seen in energy intensive buildings like data centers, where reliability counts. Today's renewable technology is enabling this model for large groups of buildings, and it is part of the solution on a lot of levels. By the same token economic competitiveness, public safety and national security all gain from greater energy independence.

Especially in the urban environment the economics of energy are now solidly favoring the local production model in a growing number of cases. From the standpoint of economic modeling with T&D at 65% of the bill, and energy at only 35% of the bill, a 10% better energy rate is a 3.5% difference in the bill, and the arguments of de-regulation soon become laughable. Energy efficiency, demand management, and renewable production are where it's at because they gain on the T&D problem. As long as the incentive systems are done right, it should end up with both better utilization of the grid, and with greater energy diversification.

Thus, if we take the average household consumption of 900 kwH, at typical rates in NYC, of ca. 25 cents/kwH, of $225, a savings of 3.5% is ca $7.88 per month, or about 3 subway fares at current rates. Thus besides generating campaign contributions for the politicians that voted for it, financially it is not very meaningful. However if Green Power is an innovation that rides the back of de-regulation, it may be worth it after all. Watch the ratings of the largest corporate users of Green Power here:

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/top50.htm