50 Ways to Kick the Energy Efficiency Habit

Energy Efficiency sounds good, but it makes lousy policy, because of the simple financial fact that as a strategy it produces diminishing returns. So, with the thought of Paul Simon's 50 Ways to Leave your Lover in mind, here are some thoughts on how to free ourselves from this collective insanity which is holding up the transition to increasing deployment of renewable energy and progress towards energy independence, not to mention building property values.

The motto for this list is the famous statement:

Premature optimization is the root of all evil. (Donald Knuth)

This comment from one of the world's most famous computer scientists is exactly to the point, for unless you do the capital budget and a long-term plan first, and you can see a clear timeline on what energy future you want for your property, you are operating without a plan, and capital destruction is sure to follow, as night follows day. All the "energy efficiency retrofits" suck asset values out of properties and transfer them to the financiers, instead of improving property values.

50 WAYS TO KICK THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY HABIT

1. Hop on the bus, Gus, but by all means do proper financial planning, and see for yourself. Failing to plan is planning to fail and you'll fall prey to incentives and be stripped of your asset appreciation.
2. Be honest about how much you've spent on energy efficiency. Shouldn't

   

   To the tune of: 50 ways to leave your lover

   your bills be negative already? If in doubt go back to point #1
3. You can't save yourself rich, not with money, not with energy.
4. Successive Energy Efficiency investments exhibit diminishing returns,
5. Therefore Energy Efficiency literally does not add up - it is NOT additive.
6. The reason you can't save yourself rich is diminishing returns.
7. Not only does Energy Efficiency not add up, it is not additive towards sustainability, instead it is a sure prevention of sustainability - again because of diminishing returns.
8. Energy Efficiency is not interchangeable with renewable energy in achieving sustainability, it is of value only if it is complementary to site-derived renewable energy (SDRE).
9. Energy Efficiency in a fossil fuel system, is like lipstick on a pig and it is mutually exclusive with renewable energy.
10. Premature Energy Efficiency is the best prophylactic the carbon economy has to offer against renewable energy.
11. In a proper capital budget for energy, it will be seen that 30 years of no (or very small) energy bills versus 20-30% energy savings with various energy efficiency programs often easily justifies the far larger CapEx for SDRE, but intelligent use of passive measures and efficiency will reduce the ICap (Installed capacity) for SDRE.
12. The corollary to this is that any would-be analytical models which emphasize energy efficiency and utilize payback analysis automatically move renewables out of range.
13. Every step into renewable energy increases building resilience, yet we offer subsidized programs to quickly convert buildings to natural gas, before anybody gets the idea of going renewable (NYC Clean Heat). OTG Conversions are public enemy number one from the point of resilience and sustainability.
14. If you count in the cost of the consultants on NYC Clean Heat, and various building resiliency studies, we could have converted half those 10,000 buildings to renewables already.
15. Energy Efficiency makes the problem bigger not smaller, and makes it dollar for dollar less likely we'll ever switch to renewables.
16. With gratitude to Steve Hallett & The Efficiency Trap - energy efficiency is much ado about nothing. This book is the behavioral corollary to the financial problem of diminishing returns, providing yet another reason energy efficiency does not add up.
17. Kudos to Steve Hallett & The Efficiency Trap again, energy efficiency expands demand. The mission is to build the alternative.
18. With every dime you spend prematurely on increasing efficiency of your fossil fuel system, you are postponing the transition to a renewable system. This is capital destruction.
19. Successive steps of a well engineered renewable energy transition in a property will show interdependencies, which demonstrate an engineering reason why energy efficiency and renewable energy are mutually exclusive, on top of the financial reasons, unless they are properly planned and leverage each other so as to produce profound synergies.
20. Many if not most NYSERDA programs are for the benefit of your favorite utility company, and/or manufacturers of equipment, at the expense of optimal asset value for property owners. You want to do your own financial model first before you use their programs to see what subsidies you could qualify for. The old adage applies: great financing can make a good project better, but it can never make a bad project good. Happy shiny sales people of energy solutions violate this rule all the time, such as when they ask you if you would like to see if you qualify for "free solar panels." Hold on to your wallet.
21. Most NYSERDA programs as well as direct utility incentives bribe property owners to do what's good for the shareholders of the utility, and necessarily not what's in the best interest of the owners of the property.
22. Most NYSERDA programs, ConEdison's Greenteam, and other similar programs with other utilities, are customer retention programs for the utility and have little or nothing to contribute to property values, nor are they green if they only target energy efficiency.
23. Tax incentives, and financing requirements based on Energy Star ratings of equipment, tempt property owners to specify the wrong equipment for the sake of short term gain, and they make good design harder, not easier. These incentives need to be restated on the basis of GHG emissions, and/or water use reductions.
24. Energy efficiency and Energy Star requirements for buildings are counter productive, GHG reductions should be used instead for law makers, and regulators, while property owners should maximize NPV based on a 30 year energy plan.
25. Green financing is falling into the efficiency trap and makes the capital blunder of financing short term measures with long term money. It will lead to instability, and it is another underwriting crisis in the making.
26. PACE bonds have become nearly irrelevant by embracing energy efficiency instead of renewable energy.
27. Green Finance including PACE bonds could ensure above market rate appreciation of the underlying assets ONLY by mandating renewable infrastructure, never by energy efficiency requirements.
28. All energy efficiency programs are a greenwash, because they achieve the opposite of what they set out to do, both environmentally, as well as financially.
29. Energy efficiency programs are a rationalization for the good feeling of sacrificing something for the common good.
30. Energy efficiency programs are another demonstration that logic and reason are the horse the emotions ride in on. The only satisfaction is emotional, nothing is being accomplished.
31. The use of marginal analysis in the form of payback on equipment justified by energy savings is irrelevant to property owners, and only of interest to the sellers of that equipment. Caveat emptor applies here, for most retrofits have engineering interdependencies that may lock you out of other options, and you need to understand the holistic view of a long-term plan for your property first.
32. Net zero is not necessarily the sole objective, but a direction. Again: energy independence of your property and even partial independence from the grid, ensures you won't be left stranded.
33. Selling back to the grid can be avoided by implementing heat pumps, particularly high efficiency GSHP (ground source heat pumps - 500% efficient!), but also ASHP (air source heat pumps - 250% efficient).
34. In renewable energy design, energy efficiency comes back in play and should be used to optimize installed capacity (ICap) requirements. Notice that if your energy is free, you can pick your capital tradeoff, if it is cheaper to install more capacity or insulate more. The bottom line is that in deep retrofits there is no payback period for efficiency alone, but the right use of passive measures and efficiency will reduce the overall payback of a project and make it easier to finance.
35. Implementing renewables (SDRE), means shifting energy from liability to asset.
36. Implementing renewables also means focusing on production, not reducing consumption as the predominant strategy.
37. The renewable strategy means playing offense, not defense with energy.
38. Net-zero and green construction is growing like mad in new project development, so existing homes are eventually headed for demolition and abandonment if they cannot come up with a renewable strategy. Search for net-zero and energy efficient homes, and you'll see what I mean.
39. Energy efficiency is a bottomless pit that will keep you in the poor house if you fall into it. Stop now, and make a financial plan to switch to renewables wherever possible.
40. Energy Efficiency is the addiction that covers up our energy addiction, so again it makes the problem bigger, not smaller. Energy is like methadone for heroin addicts: it makes the addiction manageable, but it is harder to kick.
41. If you are a renter, Energy Star appliances and other Energy Efficient Products are your best friend. For renters marginal payback of the equipment from energy savings is appropriate.
42. Whenever renewable energy is treated as a building block in energy efficiency, it will be undervalued and implemented incorrectly.
43. Avoid net metering whenever you can, except in emergencies. Plan your design to capture and use as much energy as possible in your property.
44. The 90by50 report from the Green building council is full of good ideas, but once again gets lost in the weeds of energy efficiency.
45. Manhattan is a heat sink, but renewables will mean the outer boroughs can become far more attractive places to live, while Manhattan will become the energy slum, with a small number of exceptions to prove the rule.
46. When buying a coop or a condo find out the energy plans, it will make at least a 10-20% difference in building values within 10 years.
47. It is time for tenants associations to work with landlords, even to the point of mixed ownership of energy plant if nothing else will work. Community solar is such an idea. It is high time to get rid of the split incentive. There is room for innovation here.
48. Write to your politicians to support the principles of the DaBx Renewable Energy Retrofit Portfolio Standard, and focus on subsidies for achieving reductions in GHG emissions, and try to get exemptions from all rules that stand in your way. Many well intended rules hold up the show because they are counter productive on a building level.
49. Evaluate all technology options that are suitable for your property, not just one. Solar thermal DHW and/or HVAC as well as heat pumps should top your list.  They are mature technologies, wind energy is often superior if you have the right location. Solar PV comes last unless you have space to waste. Don't forget green roofs, and other passive energy strategies either.
50. The reason they are giving away solar PV, is because it is your worst option, unless it fits your overall design and you have the space for it - which most residential owners don't. Solar PPAs are usually a really bad deal for almost all consumers. They are only better than doing nothing. Solar thermal yields up to 7 times the amount of energy per square foot.

Conclusion: renewable energy adds value

50 ways to leave energy efficiency behind, because it is a financial dead-end, the corollary to which is the phenomenon of The Efficiency Trap. Only renewable energy will offer rising property values, as well as dampen any loss of value in downturns, as was widely acknowledged by institutional investors during the downturn of 2008. Net-zero or near-zero properties are one of the best asset classes ever to own.

NYC Energy Efficiency Paralysis - Open Letter to Mayor de Blasio

Energy Efficiency (aka EE) is the most confusing issue in the entire green dialog. It is about time that the FTC took action against anyone claiming that energy efficiency is green all by itself. It depends. If you make a fossil-fuel-based system more efficient, arguably you are reducing GHG-emissions somewhat, but that is seriously deceptive: you are simply extending the competitiveness of fossil-fuels, which is the opposite of what we want to achieve, if reducing GHG-emissions is the objective. If reducing GHG-emissions is what we want, that should be the focus, and Site Derived Renewable Energy (SDRE) is the only real answer.

Most programs nationwide are still stuck in the 1970's energy crisis. At that time, it was thought the issue was simply energy economics, which could be addressed by cleverly realizing that a dollar spent on reducing demand had more of an effect than a dollar spent on increasing supply. The environmental dimension, Green House Gas-emissions was not really on the radar yet. Also, there were not as many building-mounted renewable technologies available as there are today. But efficiency of fossil fuel systems has overstayed its welcome, and is not a major concern for a "green" future. Local Laws 84/87/88 need an overhaul for shifting the focus to SDRE, based on proper capital budgeting for energy infrastructure, not incremental spending on marginal efficiency of fossil fuel-based systems, which leads to capital destruction, not building appreciation--as explained in many ways on this blog.

PlaNYC was a Breakthrough of Sorts

PlaNYC was a breakthrough in beginning to take these issues seriously, but it was heavily compromised by the old efficiency paradigm, and ended up putting marginal energy savings front and center. At some point particulates emissions from #6 and #4 oil became another bad proxy for GHG-reductions. This was merely another diversion from the real issue, and the NYC Clean Heat program was the result, causing a rapid shift to natural gas, resulting in an ominous city-wide dependence on a single fuel. Moreover, by the time of this writing it is accepted wisdom that natural gas is about as polluting as coal, when you add in the losses of methane in production and transportation.

Renewable Energy in NYC under Mayor de Blasio?

We can only hope so. The time has come. I come from the school of hard knocks, having learned as a home owner that I unthinkingly spent myself silly on energy efficiency for two decades, without accomplishing anything. At long last, in recent years I finally began to think about the problem more seriously, and since then the issues have become clear to me. NYC has another chance with another administration. Will we move to the new paradigm? I decided that at the very least I should throw in a suggestion or two in the form of an Open Letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Alternatives to PLaNYC: Pushing Renewable Energy

The open letter to Mayor de Blasio focuses primarily on the NYC Clean Heat program, and the very deleterious spate of natural gas conversions it has brought about. It touches upon the mistaken economics that have driven other elements of PlaNYC, such as Local Law 84 (actually, both LL84 and LL87). These regulations simply push efficiency, and thereby assure the opposite of what they would accomplish: they serve to extend the rule of fossil-fuels with marginal energy savings, and have building owners fritter away capital on incremental improvements, instead of investing it in SDRE.

Energy efficiency is mostly about guilt-free shopping, which is why manufacturers love the Energy Star label, but it does nothing to solve the GHG-emissions problem. Instead, it makes it more intractable by making fossil fuels economical longer. Below I am providing a series of explanatory notes to the Open Letter, some additional comments, and some references that may be helpful.

Notes and References for Open Letter

1. NYC Clean Heat is regressive: By now even the Sierra club is coming back from its advocacy for natural gas over coal (remember Bloomberg donated $50mln for that campaign in 2011?). The evidence is overwhelming that switching to natural gas is regressive for climate change. So converting buildings from #6 and #4 oil to natural gas was a subsidy to the gas industry, and capital destruction for the owners of buildings. SDRE retrofits could have given building values a serious boost, instead of just some small time energy savings at best.
2. The DaBX PlaNYC2020 report was an alternative plan to maximize Site Derived Renewable Energy, and make real reductions in GHG-emissions. We focused on NYC's old line C- and D-class apartment buildings, all in all some 15,000 buildings, a large percentage of which might be able to do such retrofits. We pointed out that these conversions should be done over 5-10 years to maximize the value of existing plant. We emphasized proper capital budgeting techniques to make the right long-term economic decisions.
3. The Urban Green Council later made a more general case with their 90 by 50 report describing generalized solutions across all major building types in the city. The report reinforced the important point that the optimal way of implementing retrofits is over time, by leveraging the economic life-cycle of building energy infrastructure components. Forcing everything to be done at once makes projects uneconomical. The report emphasizes generating renewable energy on site as well, but fails to understand the deleterious economics that result from the focus on marginal energy savings.
4. Geothermal energy is strategically important. It is in fact the single most powerful SDRE option for energy retrofits in NYC. New York's bedrock is an ideal substrate, and with 400% efficiency, nothing beats it: 1 joule of energy in (electrical) yields 4 joule output (heat). At a minimum, buildings can do a Domestic Hot Water solution, but the design needs to be optimized for harvesting of energy, either from time of use metering, or from wind turbines or solar PV. Whenever feasible, it should be part of energy retrofits because of the energy storage capability. In exceptional cases (if there are sufficient grounds), it may be able to provide the total BTU load for buildings. Remember insulation helps too!
5. Solar thermal is a hands down winner at 98% efficiency, and no PV should ever be considered (17% efficiency) if you can do solar thermal at all. The point of generating electricity is that it can be easily transported, but when generating renewable energy on site, you don't have a transportation problem, and retrofitting is becoming easier all the time, although on balance a thermal retrofit is harder than PV. There are many ways conversions can be done towards integrated HVAC even in older buildings, given today's hydronic air handlers, etc. With the forecasts of 3x more 90 degree days in summer by 2050, the time is now to start planning that transition, for buildings that don't offer centralized HVAC will be marked for demolition sooner or later. The old model based on window air conditioners is past its prime.
6. Hydronic heat is more energy efficient. Yet with the NYC Clean Heat program, in most cases, buildings have just switched from oil to gas, and continue to heat with steam. What is needed is a thorough understanding of the economics of conversion to hydronic systems, which in turn ties in with the potential for solar thermal and geothermal. Here is a report from NYSERDA, documenting up to 40% energy savings by switching from steam to hydronic systems.
7. Building mounted wind turbines are coming of age and typically offer more bang for the buck than solar PV, if the building has the right location to use wind energy. Then, there are hybrid solar PV/Thermal (PVT) systems which leverage the best of both solar technologies. In other words, SDRE, Site Derived Renewable Energy, is becoming increasingly realistic for retrofits, especially when considering that in a building you can harvest thermal energy in a variety of ways, as pre-heated hot water from geothermal or as high temperature process heat from solar thermal. All such designs solve the biggest problem of renewables, energy storage. Within a building, bridging the daily cycles does not need to be a problem.
8. Along the fourth dimension: timing is everything. One of the ways NYC Clean Heat is very regressive, is because it once more ignores the factor of time, and aims for a one time conversion for a short-term goal, which moreover now proves elusive, once we realized that the environmental benefit of natural gas is nil. The tie-in of this program with the NYSERDA MPP reinforces that short-term orientation. Long-term building economics dictate that you should generally not replace things before their time. What should be done is long-term planning for an SDRE retrofit, so that at every step of the way, you can pre-engineer the next steps. Both our DaBx PlaNYC2020 and the UGC 90 by 50 report advocate this longitudinal approach, but you need to make the plan first, otherwise you will be designing yourself into a corner.
9. Exemptions from NYC Clean Heat. Once it is understood that far greater advances in the reduction of GHG-emissions are possible with onsite renewable energy, the city should encourage exemptions on that basis, and give buildings 10 or 20 years to comply, provided they start out with a project that yields at least 30-50% reductions in GHG-emissions. Anything above 30% GHG-reductions can generally not be done with energy efficiency alone. The beauty is, that if it's planned right, SDRE will yield superior building economics, and thus increase building values, so that building preservation is ensured with SDRE conversions.
10. Building resiliency is a central point. In the new flood zones, building resilience is mandatory, and in a much more profound way than discussed here. Resilience is a value that ensures buildings can stay at least partially functional in an outage. The switch to natural gas has undermined building resilience in a disastrous way, and it should be reversed as soon as possible.
11. The disaster of becoming overly dependent on natural gas was amply demonstrated in the winter of 2014. Not only were heating bills going up, but more and more electricity is generated with natural gas also, and while january in the past was normally the low season for electrical rates, in 2014 rates were at an all-time high. For my own apartment the ConEdison (spot/variable) rates were ca 7 cents/kWh in 2012, 13 cents in 2013, and 22 cents in 2014.
12. NYC did not have any pipeline ruptures in 2014, as happened in the Midwest. But the city has a very constrained gas distribution system, depending on a few major pipelines, and there are no backup storage facilities (off-shore LNG anyone?). New York production of natural gas is also coming to a stand-still because of environmental concerns.
13. PACE financing is the obvious means that is in place already, and NYC will need it. It is politically a worthwhile project to support as long as it is tied to projects that accomplish at least 30-50% GHG-reductions initially. Once owners have the taste, and make proper long-term capital plans for energy, the potential for building appreciation is enormous. For at every level, if you can generate your own energy on site, that investment in SDRE is a permanent energy price hedge. 50% is really the optimal point to strive for in the initial project, since then the building is "over the hump" with dependence on fossil fuels.

Converting PlaNYC from communism to capitalism

PlaNYC as is, as well as other similar plans everywhere, operate in the central-planning style of the infamous 20 year plans of the former Soviet Union, which were designed to fail, as I've argued here. The mistake is to take the macro view of "energy efficiency" and then ram it down to the micro level with laws and incentives, instead of to engage the economic self-interest of property owners. Property owners should be in the business of maximizing property values, and government- the public interest- should incentivize reductions in GHG-emissions. Energy efficiency is not a proxy for GHG-reductions. Energy efficiency of fossil fuel systems makes GHG-emissions more intractable, so if we subsidize it, we indirectly subsidize the fossil fuel industry.

The energy benchmarking and audits of LL84/87 are a positive. The requirements to tinker with marginal efficiency improvements without totally rethinking the system is regressive, and bad policy. The market might take care of it - or at least need a lot less help than we're spending now on making building owners do things they don't want to do. Net zero construction has been healthier than any other area of construction for many decades, net zero or near zero buildings keep their values better than anything. Once we get building owners to perform serious renewable retrofits, the economics will force others to comply, or die. The simple fact is that with today's technology, 80-90% reductions are possible in many existing buildings, if the buildings follow a deliberate renewable retrofit strategy--the 90 by 50 report from Urban Green Council demonstrates the point. The first project should be in the 30-50% (GHG-reductions) range, and that is more than any energy efficiency project can do. Competitively, the pressure will be on.

Conclusion: Renewable Energy over "Energy Efficiency"

Once more, energy efficiency tends to mean making fossil fuel systems more efficient, and that is not a worthwhile goal for public support. PACE finance is an option that will enable the massive capital investments needed, to facilitate moving energy from liabilities to assets by means of SDRE. The focus needs to shift from energy efficiency of fossil fuel systems to site derived renewable energy and the city can exceed the parameters of PlaNYC completely if it does so.

Geothermal Heat Pumps Strategic Renewable for NYC

It is time to revisit geothermal heat pumps, and the battle of renewable energy versus energy efficiency. It has been noted with some regularity on this blog that NYC Clean Heat, and its comrade in arms the NYSERDA MPP are destroying real estate values in NYC, and not contributing much to reducing GHG reductions. I was an early advocate for geothermal heat pumps as the single most strategic renewable technology for energy retrofits in NYC buildings, and in April of 2013, then Mayor Bloomberg finally commissioned a serious study of geothermal energy for New York.  We had been advocates (with my consulting firm DaBX) since 2011 at least in our PlaNYC2020 report, and then hurricane Sandy did its bit to promote geothermal heat pumps. It is time now to demonstrate why not only does geothermal have "certain advantages," but is actually the single most important strategic renewable energy technology in the city.

Multi-family Buildings and Geothermal Heat Pumps

In general, if you are looking at any building, energy that you can generate on-site with renewable energy technology (Site Derived Renewable Energy, or SDRE) has numerous advantages. Most importantly, financially, if you analyze long-term (say 30 years) cash flows, thirty years of no cost energy often beats out the "savings" of 15-25% that are achieved by most energy efficiency overhauls. This pays for the heavy capital commitment up front.

1. The first advantage is that you have no transportation losses.
2. A second efficiency factor is that because there are no transportation losses, you can often save the conversion to electricity and pure thermal technologies win the day, because heating and cooling are the larger part of the energy budget, often 75%.
3. On top of that, if you are operating with pure process heat, you have a pretty economical way of storing that either at high temperature (i.e. process heat from solar thermal), or as pre-heated hot water (from geothermal).

A geothermal heat pump is 400% efficient: for every joule of energy it uses (electricity), it returns 4. To take the simplest application in a building, for Domestic Hot Water (DHW), it was traditionally provided by a coil in the boiler, and the efficiency of such systems is typically in the range of 45-75%, in particular because those boilers were oversized relative to the need for hot water, and the need for hot water is year round.

Why the NYSERDA MPP marginalizes Renewable Energy (RE)

The NYSERDA MPP is built on a set of mistaken assumptions and foolish economics. It bundles a set of energy efficiency programs and incentivizes the building owner to deliver efficiency retrofits that score above (currently) 15% gain. It all but marginalizes renewable energy. It all results in owners trying to find the cheapest way to qualify for the incentives, and technologies are selected based on their marginal energy savings, just to get the incentives, in terms of advantaged financing etc. The program focuses on energy efficiency (EE), which always yields high returns at first,  but suffers diminishing returns later, and it is biased against renewable energy (RE) projects, which are capital-intensive at first, but come with a "long tail" of free energy.

The Math of Geothermal Heat Pumps

Here is the typical math for a geothermal heat pump in the DHW application - based on the assumption that the prices for the BTU inputs (oil, gas, electric) are all the same:

1. Old situation: DHW from a coil in the boiler - oil/steam, usually 60% efficient (between 45-75%)
2. New situation: DHW from geothermal heat pump (electric, 400% efficient), and natural gas secondary heat cum backup at 95% efficient, in about 70/30 proportions, so that the combined efficiency is 0.7*400+.3*.95 =280%+29%= 309% efficient.
3. Let's round it off: 60% efficient vs 300% efficient
4. Therefore, if the Btu pricing was all the same that would be the comparison, meaning in case OLD our marginal energy cost is 1.67x the Btu demand, and in case NEW it is 0.33x the Btu demand. In other words the marginal Btu input of the new system is ca 20% of what it would be under the old system.
5. In real life this picture is then complicated by the pricing differences between oil/gas/electric,  but the point is clear, the innate efficiency of the solution is staggering.
6. We should emphasize again, if we can generate any of our own electricity, with wind energy or solar PV, we can store it as pre-heated hot water, and get a higher return than selling it back to the utility.

Geothermal Heat Pumps: The Math of Effective Btus

Again, this beautiful equation will evidently have different outcomes depending on the actual pricing of the different energy sources.

1. We were buying oil to heat the hot water, and the Btu value of #6 fuel is approximately 153,000 Btu per gallon. In the winter of 2014, in NYC, a gallon of #6 goes for $4.00, therefore, the cost per 1000 Btu is 2.61 cents.
2. We are substituting this with electricity, which in the winter of 2014 in NYC, goes for about $0.25 per KwH, and the thermal value of a kWh is about  3,214 Btu. The cost per 1000 Btu therefore is ca. 7.78 cents; and with natural gas as a secondary fuel, which goes for about $1.25 per therm (100,000 Btu) and therefore costs ca 1.25 cents per 1000 Btu.
3. For argument's sake, we needed 1,000,000 Btus for a given quantity of DHW, and the comparison now becomes: Old style (oil/steam): 1.67 x $0.0261 x 1000 = $43.59, and New style (geothermal plus gas): (0.7 x 7,78 x .25 + 0.3 x 1.25/.95) = 1.36 + 0.39 = 1.75 cents per 1000 Btu, or $17.50 for 1,000,000 Btu.
4. Now, if we can generate some of that electricity ourselves with a wind turbine or with solar PV, we have the benefit of storage, which gives us a higher return than selling it back to the grid, and we are compounding our savings.
5. In short, most building owners got taken to the cleaners when they invested lots of money in converting to natural gas, and made some small savings and efficiency improvements, but long-term they are still at the whim of energy prices. Their buildings have become LESS resilient. With DHW being 30-50% of Btu requirements in the typical apartment building, the geothermal solution would be a hands down winner, and perhaps a first step towards a mostly renewable heating and cooling solution...
6. From the standpoint of clean energy and reducing GHG emissions, we are now servicing 70% of this Btu requirement (DHW) with electrically driven geothermal heat pumps, with 400% efficiency. In short, 75% of the 70% is GHG-free, representing over 50% of this requirement is now free of GHG-emissions.

What really happened...

The conversion to natural gas under the NYC Clean Heat program, combined with the NYSERDA MPP has been neutral event for GHG-emissions because, while gas burns cleaner, the production and transportation losses of methane make it about as bad as coal for overall air quality, although within city limits there would be some reduction of smog.

Only very few buildings made the conversion to geothermal hot water systems, and when they did, these systems were most often wrongly designed, as just water heaters, and not with a view to pre-engineering whole building energy solutions, in which boilers might eventually be replaced with a solar thermal plant, at most with only a simple boiler for backup.

In most cases, conversions were from oil to gas, which reduced building resiliency, for we are now in a city that is wholly dependent on a single fuel, and if you watched the news tonight, one pipeline explosion could cause a tremendous amount of havoc, as they are finding out in the Mid West.

Conclusion

Energy efficiency programs mean that building owners are paying for making energy from the grid more economical, instead of investing in their properties and generating their own energy with (mostly) thermal technologies. Though finally geothermal heat pumps seem to be getting some more recognition, it is clear again that energy efficiency gets prioritized by current programs at the expense of renewable energy, and ultimately to the financial detriment of building owners.

Green Energy Policy Failures and Real Sustainability

The one thing that is missing in the whole sustainability area and renewable energy policy is a sound focus on the economics and the finance of green energy. With new buildings this is not a problem, but the greater market is retrofits in older buildings and in that arena by and large people are wasting their money with tinkering in the margin instead of making the most of the opportunity.

If it takes 10 years for a new efficiency standard to work its way through the car fleet, then the picture is much worse with buildings, because they typically last a bit longer than cars. Living in one of the older parts of NYC, I'm surrounded by 50+ year old structures, which still have plenty of life left in them.

Policy Failure #1:
Conflating Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Conflating energy efficiency and renewable energy is an obfuscation which serves only the fossil fuel industry, which is why they eagerly embrace "energy efficiency." This is how they compete against renewable alternatives. Energy efficiency is a marketing strategy and a greenwash of the fossil fuel industry, and it is financially disruptive. In various posts on this website, I have demonstrated how this manifests itself across many programs, and acts as a way to divert investment from green technology, even if it would be financially more advantageous to property owners.

Since this approach benefits the fossil fuel industry, this is a typical policy failure, which achieves the opposite of what is intended, and change is in order.

Policy Failure #2:
Arguing over Clean Fuels is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

As argued in earlier posts, the whole NYC Clean Heat program is a massive example of policy failure in this area. The whole point is we are in a transition away from fossil fuels, and towards renewable energy, and now that we generally realize how much energy is consumed by buildings, and green energy technologies that are suited for mounting on buildings are proliferating, it is time for policy makers to encourage this development, instead of putting road blocks in the way. Even with all of the best intentions, this is how most programs have worked out so far.

Policy Failure #3:
Not seeing the forest for the trees - misguided incentives

Tremendous amounts of time, effort and money are wasted over what technologies are blessed with the Investment Tax Credit, which is good for sales for the companies that make them. However this puts the focus on individual technologies, and not on the whole project, which can only be judged on the property as a whole. If accountants start specifying the wrong components because of ITC, inferior projects will be developed, never mind how good the individual components are. There is a right place for everything. But having accountants make engineering decisions is counter-productive.

Policy Failure #4:
Disregard for long-term financial planning is encouraged by incentive programs

By various forms of incentives on equipment, such as the ITC, or a requirement to specify Energy Star equipment, regardless if it is the best for the job from an engineering standpoint,  suboptimal projects are being developed. What matters is to reduce the Green House Gas emissions on a building level, so the incentives should address the achievements of the building as a whole. Energy Star is fine for a fridge or a micro wave, which are one-off decisions, but specifying the credits on construction components causes accountants to  mess up the best engineering. More importantly the whole industry has gotten in the bad habit of evaluating financial decisions at the component level, based on payoff of that component in terms of savings, which gets in the way of long-term capital plans, which would reveal very different design strategies.

Policy Failure #5:
Absence of simple objectives, such as reducing Green House Gas emissions

Once the policy focuses on the right issues, namely reducing Green House Gas emissions building by building, better designs will proliferate, and long-term capital budgeting becomes the obvious way to design capital plans. Thirty year cash flow models should be the norm, and ideally should be required by financiers and e.g. PACE bonds. The whole point of PACE bonds was to have a way to raise the upfront capital needed for this transition, which would add to long-term asset values. Instead, a lot of PACE money is being wasted on dubious "energy efficiency" projects, and property owners are frittering away the long-term appreciation of their buildings by investing in renewable infrastructure, and moving energy from the liabilities to assets.

Conclusion:
How to Achieve Sustainability in Spite of Policy Failure

In spite of all policy failures, building owners have a vested interest in sustainability, because it increase asset values, and they should be using 30 year capital budgets for energy retrofits with green energy technology; in other words the various programs and incentives should be ignored and the long-term economics of the building should get priority, before you figure out how to qualify for the incentives.

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.

The Fallacies of Energy Efficiency Loan Securitization

Green finance is struggling, judged by the apparent difficulty in the placements of securitized energy efficiency loans, recently by both NYSERDA (NY) and Pennsylvania.

"The market" is always a funny thing, but generally it does work, and, assuming it is working as it should in this case, clearly the message is that the emperor has no clothes on, or at the very least we are not quite sure of the state of his dress. This is in line with some of the observations I have offered in this blog on the state of green finance in general and the NYSERDA programs in particular.

At the crossroads: Energy Efficiency versus Renewable Energy

Following the logic of my proposed Green Finance principles, in essence "energy efficiency" securities are a wasting asset in the extreme. Number one, there is a false appearance of "market beating performance" based on the theoretical better ability to pay because of cash flow improvements thanks to energy efficiency. This is true in the short-term, but very deceptive in the long-term, and it is in effect an investment trap, that might snap shut during the run times of these loans.

The typical 20-30% efficiency improvements are irrelevant in the market because:

1. The improvement is easily wiped out by one or two energy price hikes. Note that even natural gas is now coming off its lows, and note also that in NYC in particular, transportation and delivery is 60-70% of energy bills, and rising faster than inflation as far as the eye can see. The US EIA reference case to 2040 shows flat to mildly rising cost of electricity, and gently rising costs for natural gas and residual fuel.
2. The energy efficiency improvement is further made irrelevant if far greater improvements are feasible - which is the crux of renewable energy, that we can get 70-90% reduction in fossil fuels in the majority of buildings that are now converting to natural gas under the NYC Clean Heat program. As soon as even a few buildings pursue the alternative, the buildings with some marginal energy savings become irrelevant.
3. Even more so, net-zero construction is gaining ground very rapidly, and while it may seem only "marginal," to lay people, it is not from an economic standpoint, for the sustained growth in net-zero construction for the last 20+ years will become the implied reference for energy performance of building portfolios, and NOT the 15, 20 or 25% 'energy savings' over last year. That's mostly narcissistic, not substantive.
4. A further material weakness in the concept of "energy efficiency" loans, as it is practiced today, is that they risk financing short-term improvements with long-term money.
5. The specific investment trap arises because of the diminishing returns on the path of energy efficiency: there is little or no follow-on opportunity after the first 20-30% improvement, and when a building subsequently needs to switch to renewable energy anyway, the initial "investment" in energy efficiency is largely a write-off.

Where the rubber meets the road: Green Finance Politics

The complete political muddle around renewable energy and energy efficiency has resulted in a situation where the dialog has been spoiled by running the two topics together, when in fact they are mutually exclusive, and totally different investment paths. In general there is too much top down reasoning, and too little recognition of the notion that we are a capitalist society, and that the building owner is in the business of maximizing the value of his property, and the regulator should be providing rules and regulations, carrots and sticks, to direct this process towards the public good.

The current regime of incentives is geared towards the energy industry, or towards the manufacturers of specific equipment, but existing programs don't provide the framework or the incentive for property owners to behave rationally. In practice what happens with programs like the NYSERDA MPP, is that building owners try to figure out how they can qualify for the least amount of expenditure. The issue of diminishing returns in energy efficiency upgrades is in effect covered up by the very model the NYSERDA MPP uses, and it sets up an investment trap for property owners.

Why PACE bonds ran afoul of Fannie and Freddie

Green Finance based on Renewable Energy does add up.

PACE bonds should be the poster child of green finance. When the big showdown happened a few years ago between Fannie and Freddie over PACE bond financing, the issue was entirely about the notion that PACE bonds would get priority in case of bankruptcy, and the fact that there was precious little assurance that the programs would achieve greater asset values. Eventually the PACE camp was somewhat able to make the case, but only weakly, because again the confusion over energy efficiency was never far away. The point of PACE is that renewable energy does increase property values, and comes with a greater upfront capital expenditure than your run of the mill energy efficiency program.

If PACE programs are developed with a laser focus on renewable energy, and drop energy efficiency to the second tier status where it belongs, they will be focusing on permanent improvements to properties, and moving energy from liabilities to assets. PACE will promptly become indispensable, and municipalities will support it more and more because it can help them with GHG reductions and Clean Air Act compliance. If energy efficiency is wrongly prioritized, the impact on GHG will be more muted.

How to make Green Finance viable

The one and only constructive solution in green finance is to require that property owners have long-term energy plans. In a world where net-zero construction is the fastest growing segment of new construction for twenty or more years going, net-zero is becoming the de facto benchmark and 20, 25, or 30% improvement over last year will quickly become irrelevant.

To achieve this I have recently published a proposal, which would streamline the whole process, and would make green finance seriously viable, instead of the current muddle. The DaBx Renewable Energy Retrofit Portfolio Standard is a simple and straightforward guideline which would ensure a solid foundation for green finance with a minimum of fuss.

Conclusion:

Green Finance runs into valuation problems as long as it conflates the energy efficiency of carbon based infrastructure with renewable energy alternatives. Renewable Energy produces compound returns by leveraging synergies with different technologies and efficiency measures. If energy efficiency becomes the priority and is applied to a carbon-based energy system, it produces diminishing returns, and competes with renewable energy: the two are not additive, but mutually exclusive. To harmonize the two, green finance should focus on renewable energy first and treat energy efficiency as a subordinate objective, which it is.

The Fads and Foibles of Green Finance

Green Finance is a growing segment of the finance business, and as usual with anything new, it is full of fads and fallacies, and it sometimes does not live up to its billing. One part of green finance is large-scale projects, but since buildings are a large part of the problem in terms of GHG emissions, the opportunity for major renewable energy projects in buildings is huge. Evidently, the term green always risks being useless, and smacks of greenwashing, which in many cases it is. To begin with, the current practice mostly focuses on energy savings, not on improving property values, which only renewable energy would do. As a result, it is focused on marginal contribution, and equipment finance. More importantly, this methodology is by nature conducive to financial instability for the underlying property:

• Relatively small "savings" from energy efficiency: because most 'energy savings' strategies yield only a small incremental improvement--typically in the 20-30% range, which is easily wiped out by a price hike or two, and the effect on property values is negligible;
• Efficiency improvements are not unique in nature: because the same efficiencies are available to everyone, eventually all buildings will catch up, and be the same again. Boilers are now 95+% efficient and replacing older units that were 50-60% efficient, but going from 95% to 96% some day is not meaningful. Same for LEDs replacing fluorescents and incandescents.
• Financing short-term enhancements with long-term money is a risk factor: these programs frequently finance short-term improvements with long-term money, which does not contribute to long-term financial stability of the properties that avail themselves of such financing.
• No follow-on strategy: because of diminishing returns: all "energy savings," or "energy efficiency" strategies suffer from strongly diminishing returns for subsequent investments, so the energy savings strategy is a financial dead-end. Again, not good news for long-term property values.

Considering that the only objective for the property owner should be to maximize property values, and the only objective of the government should be the reduction of GHG-emissions, the current mishmash of rules and incentives adds to the confusion, and frequently creates constraints that prevent the best projects from happening. The supporting roles in creating this confusion are played by the government, including tax incentives which are typically tied to a technology, such as solar panels or water heaters, and programs by the utility industry, and/or semi public institutions such as New York's NYSERDA which provides incentives for property owners to do what's good for the grid.

Good intentions aside, it must be understood that none of these programs are designed to help a property owner maximize property values, which is the only objective the property owner should have. When you put them altogether, these programs amount the a government sponsored capital destruction, to the extent that they tempt property owners to do things that are not conducive to improving property values, in the name of being green.

Green Finance - the theory

What you can do with it is what makes it green

The green finance theory that supports all of these wonderful developments is that at the macro level the highest marginal return is thought to be on improving the efficiency of the systems we do have, and that's why macro-economists tell policy makers to provide incentives for energy efficiency. This approach puts the world on its head exactly, because the first point is that our energy model is wrong. The new model is based on renewable energy, which will increasingly mean buildings producing their own energy. And so, on the margin the biggest advances in "energy efficiency" in aggregate come not from the absolutely moronic spending on more and more energy efficiency, but from finding the low hanging fruit for converting to renewable energy, which is the only permanent solution, and the only one that enhances property values.

Lastly, the reassuring notion that "energy efficiency improvements" are self financing in nature is fallacious. The theory is that it improves operating cash flows, and thus are lenders assured of the ability to repay. This may seem harmless when it pertains to equipment financing, it is still destructive to property values in the long-term, if it crowds out viable renewable energy projects and prioritizes worthless efficiency improvements that fail to make a radical change. It becomes positively disastrous if the financing stretches for longer terms with a real estate collateral. In that case it makes the mistake of financing short-term measures with long-term money. In general, the mistake here is to prioritize the projects that are easy to finance, at the expense of the projects that would add value.

Green Finance - the practice

The unfortunate corollary to the usual energy efficiency financings is that, again because of diminishing returns, only the first few energy savings projects can be financed this way, after which by definition subsequent efficiency projects become prohibitively expensive, and this kind of abusive finance dries up, leaving a property owner stranded.

What happens in practice is that tax incentives, advantageous financing, and various subsidy and incentive programs that are all equipment driven, or driven by the energy suppliers, e.g. subsidized natural gas conversions(NYC Clean Heat), all serve other interests besides the property owner. As a property owner it behooves you to beware of all these wonderful offers. All of these programs have a potential hidden cost, namely they steal asset appreciation from the property owner.

The popular free energy audits are another ally of this fleecing of property owners. They are fine for a renter, to reduce their utility bills, but for a property owner, they are useful information, but no action should be taken unless a proper long-term plan exists with a view to improving property values. They promote frittering away money on trivialities, and never doing the big steps that are necessary. They trade on people's needs to do something, anything, and cheat them out of their money.

Green Finance, resiliency, and Property Values

Just as much as you cannot save yourself rich, all energy savings programs, taken in isolation, produce capital destruction, unless they stand in the context of making the property energy independent with renewable energy. The thing to do as a property owners, is to have your own 30 year DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) model of energy improvements to your property, based on a good grasp of the engineering, for there may be intense engineering interdependencies, which dictate in what sequence things should be done.

What you will learn if you do this long-term capital program, is that once you take one step in the direction of renewable energy, you have the benefit of potentially compounding returns in subsequent phases of implementation. At the very least you will see that you now start having two options at almost every turn, namely either more efficiency (insulation etc.) or more generating capacity - you are doing a direct trade-off.

It should also be noted that building resiliency is another obvious victim of prioritizing energy savings over renewable energy. For again, with making the fossil-fuel, grid-dependent systems more efficient, we are making ourselves dependent on the grid for longer. We are investing our own in customer retention by our energy vendors. No wonder many energy vendors and utilities are only too happy to provide 'subsidised finance' for such programs. Look at the site of the NYC Clean Heat program, and you'll find all the usual suspects there (CPC, NYSERDA and various energy companies), providing a range of green finance options, or so they think.

Of PACE bonds and property values

PACE bonds should have been the savior in this situation, but instead they got embroiled with Fannie and Freddie a few years ago, and since they had made the general mistake of prioritizing energy efficiency, their arguments did not carry much weight and the program had to accept some limitations and trade-offs, so that it cannot presently fully live up to its potential. One can only hope that PACE programs could adopt standards like the DaBX Renewable Retrofit Portfolio Standard, so as to regain their relevance, and indeed prove very clearly why sound renewable energy investments are much more conducive to rising long-term property values than energy efficiency overhauls ever will be.

Conclusion

We only just came off a property bubble resulting from easy money for second mortgages, ARMs, reckless lending and mortgage fraud, which undermined the market for all property owners. Now we risk robbing property owners of asset appreciation in the name of being green if we prioritize energy efficiency over renewable energy where such an alternative exists.

Green Finance, where it pertains to buildings, and any forms of real estate, is deeply flawed in its current form, because of its pre-occupation with energy efficiency. The only way to select meaningful priorities is with a 30 year capital budget for each property. Green finance should prioritize renewable energy over energy efficiency, because that moves energy from a liability to an asset, and is conducive to raising property values as well as improving air quality.

Compound Returns from Renewable Energy

There are many ways to look at our energy conundrum, and to understand why we're so dysfunctional, and not getting the job done with renewable energy. As argued here repeatedly, one of the primary obstacles is putting the cart before the horse with honorable sounding secondary objectives, which obfuscate sound financial decisions. Energy efficiency, energy savings and clean air standards are examples that cause such distortions, and lead to policy failure. They are secondary objectives, not primary ones. The worst policy failures are resulting from confusing energy efficiency with renewable energy, and treating them as if they were interchangeable, or worse yet, additive, when they are often mutually exclusive in practice.

The effect of majoring in a minor by putting these secondary objectives first, is to postpone the switch to renewable energy indefinitely, and to subsidize the fossil fuel industry at the expense of property appreciation. Therefore it produces the opposite of energy independence and undermines any attempts to ever meet Clean Air standards, such as New York City pretends to want to do. Energy Star, NYSERDA MPP, NYC Clean Heat, PlaNYC, various tax incentives, are all examples where false priorities foul up sound financial decision-making about renewable energy. Collectively they have more to do with why we are not making the progress that we claim to want than anything else. They are examples of policy failures. Their ally is the fallacious financial practice of property owners making energy decisions based on payback of equipment, instead of net present value add to property values.

In short, government incentives have assisted property owners in making more bad decisions about energy faster, by rewarding them to ensure they keep making the wrong decisions, and the beneficiaries are the fossil fuel industry primarily, and to a lesser degree the manufacturers of energy efficiency equipment. It all comes at the expense of property values, so owners of real estate are destroying their capital asset base, to the extent that there are renewable alternatives that make economic sense, and in many, if not most cases, there are. False priorities supported with government incentives amount to government sponsored capital destruction in our economy, and serve to prevent the switch to sustainability. In NY State there is even an Energize New York Finance Handbook, and an exam to make sure you learn how to destroy your property values even quicker, using other people's money (but you're still liable). There is even an entire not for profit industry to help you manage your property into the toilet, such as "Energize New York, comfort and savings for your home."

Sustainability is only sustainable if it is also profitable

Adam Smith's invisible hand arguably does not always work, but sometimes it does. And here we have a capitalist society, embracing soviet style 20-year plans to make sure we prevent the invisible hand from working... But the good news is, there is a way to sort it out on an individual level, though eventually the whole structure of false incentives will have to be revised.

Every property owner can, with a simple spreadsheet make a 30 year energy plan for their property. And if you are lazy, you can make it a thesis project for your kid. It does not matter if you're going to sell it sooner than that or not, for if you invest wisely, it will come back to you when you sell it. After all, real estate simply has a long economic life, but if your analysis shows that your property is a wreck, and incapable of being made somewhat energy independent, sell it quickly while the going is good. The energy companies and the government will keep you in the poor house by confusing your decision-making and keeping you a slave to the energy companies longer than you have to be. Proper financial modeling is the way out, he process is a simple 30-year NPV analysis of all energy decisions about your property. Do not ever give in to the energy efficiency argument, it will keep you in bonds to carbon energy forever. Salesmen of energy efficiency and Solar PPAs are stealing appreciation of your property from you.

If you do that 30-year CAPM model, you will not easily make wrong energy decisions again. Never allow yourself to be seduced by the sellers of energy efficiency, and any government incentives, or subsidized finance from your energy company (talk about the fox watching the chicken coop). Remember always: Good financing or incentives can NEVER make a bad project good, it can ONLY make a good project better.  Hang that on your kitchen wall before you start talking about anything to do with energy in your property. Now for the good news: Renewable energy pays, because of compound returns.

Compound Returns from Renewable Energy Make Sustainability So

Payback of a piece of equipment may be useful as a quick and dirty calculation to see if it could have promise, but you need to have a coherent, holistic energy plan first, or else you will be cheated out of your money, and squandering it. The obvious mistake is if you start using equipment payback for your actual energy plan, such as models from NYSERDA and similar organizations elsewhere tend to do. Incentives are then added to the mix to make other objectives more attractive to property owners, either from a societal standpoint (and most often indirectly benefiting the energy companies and/or the manufacturers), or for the energy companies directly, and then if you add up all these wrong decisions and you score enough points in their system, you are rewarded with subsidized finance to help you destroy the value of your property faster. The shareholders of the energy companies thank you.

But now you know. And armed with your 30-year energy plan for your property, here is what you do: You do your model first. You focus on selecting the technologies that make the most long-term sense for your property. And next you figure it out with the NYSERDA MPP model, or your Energize New York application, or whatever is appropriate in your case, and you now figure out backwards how to maximize your use of incentives, and how to exceed their standards so that you do qualify for the subsidized financing, including PACE bonds. But never follow the methodology of these institutions, for it will destroy your property value. Your own economic energy plan must be king, meeting their objectives is a secondary criterion that gets you the financing you want, but you must take ownership of the plan.

Here's the payoff: on your list of potential things to do you might have a geothermal heat pump and a wind turbine, with paybacks of 8 and 7 years respectively, and they are kind of at the bottom of your list. But then you find out, when you integrate it in your model, that the heat pump allows you to store output from your wind energy in the form of pre-heated hot water. By doing so, you no longer have to sell excess energy back to the grid at wholesale rates, so you are now improving the payback on your wind turbine. Put together, they might have a 6 year payback, but again, the 30-year projection tells all.

Or, you were evaluating a tankless hot water heater with a 3-year payback and a solar thermal system with an 8 year payback, but your thirty year model reveals that the solar thermal system works out better in the long run, in part because with solar thermal you can harvest process heat, and if you take that effect into consideration, it may turn out that it's a better investment than tankless hot water heaters. Thirty years of no energy bills beats 30% energy 'savings' hands down. And of course solar thermal beats out solar PV because it produces 5x more energy per square foot, and on top of that allows storing process heat. All of which you would never see in a payback analysis, but you will see it in your 30-year model.

Or, you were evaluating a geothermal hot water against solar thermal hot water, and it turns out that on a payback basis solar thermal won, but then you started to look at your integrated model, and you could put your geothermal heat pump on a time of use meter, and integrated it with self dimming LEDs (100% dimmable!) for premises/common area lighting, and suddenly the geothermal hot water system won, and now you could look if you could drive your HVAC from geothermal also.

Sustainability through compound returns

Examples abound where the thirty year model shows you synergies of two (or more) technologies that you would not otherwise figure out, but most importantly it is the time value of money that allows you to see that 30 years of no energy bills beats 30% reduction in energy consumption most of the time, and a bigger capital outlay is warranted, and feasible if you can access subsidized financing. Such compound returns through synergy are worth gold.

Conclusion:

Renewable Energy done right produces compound returns through integrating several Clean Energy technologies at once. Energy Efficiency of a fossil fuel system produces strongly diminishing returns after you hit about 30% 'savings,' which is literally fool's gold. Only energy-efficient renewable energy gives you financial sustainability.