The Voodoo Economics of Energy Efficiency

Recent reports continue to draw attention to the notion that energy efficiency predicts lower mortgage default rates. Indeed, it seems obvious that energy-efficient homes are worth more, and that mortgage default risk on such properties should be lower. This is the same kind of analysis that was previously used to promote PACE bonds. It may be superficially right, in the sense that the relationship is observable and provable, but it misses the point, simply because a more categorical understanding is possible. Or, while these relationships may exist and seem statistically significant, correlation does not imply causation. There is no consistent approach to underwriting risk for energy efficiency, nor is there an analytically sound approach to explaining why or to what extent the risk of defaulting on home loans is reduced under energy efficiency. The following attempts to fill that gap by means of a simple example.

Energy Efficiency is Secondary

First, energy efficiency is not a primary objective, but a secondary one. The first order of business is a make-or-buy decision about on site generation with renewables (Site Derived Renewable Energy) versus a carbon energy subscription. The easiest way to see this, is to realize that you cannot save yourself rich, something everybody knows and understands. Let's look at four people, property owners all, and their different approaches, Mr. Tinkerer, Ms. Efficiency, and Mr. Analyst, and Ms. Intuition.

Mr. Tinkerer - Energy Efficiency Flying by the Seat of your Pants

• Mr. Tinkerer begins by "saving" energy without thinking, and thereby accepts the status quo. In his single family home he has an $300 electrical bill and an $700 oil bill, for $1,000/month combined.
• He then buys some gadgetry that reduces energy consumption and some insulation, and his bills goes down to $900.
• A year or two later, after some energy price increases, and more wear and tear, he is back to paying $1,000 a month.
• He keeps tinkering and spending money on Energy Star appliances and other energy-efficient products, but never realizes why he's not achieving serious energy efficiency.

This is a case of casually pursuing energy efficiency, and it is probably the most common. Mr. Tinkerer operates from the unexamined belief that he can save himself rich, but all he does is overpay for "energy saving" devices, without ever realizing that energy savings are not additive. Most of us dabble in energy efficiency in similar ways, it's a way to shop without guilt. It probably is a wash in the beginning, we spend as much as we save, but in the long-run we spend way more than we "save." Sometimes it's a lot more, for the savings do not add up, EVER.

Ms. Efficiency - Energy Efficiency by the Book

• Ms. Efficiency really goes hog-wild, and does everything she can to reduce energy consumption, year after year. The first year she spends $3,000 and creates a 20% reduction, i.e. she enjoys a 15 month payback on her investment.
• The second year (she still have 3 months to go to earn back that first investment), she spends $6,000 for a further 10% reduction. Simplistically, 10% of the remaining $800/month energy bill is $80, and therefore she now enjoys a 75 month payback, or 6.25 years.
• The third year she can't find anything else to do, she wants to do something major, and now she talks to SolarCity (or any other similar provider of solar pv on a PPA- or lease-basis), and they can provide her with a solar panel (nothing down!!!) and reduce her electrical bill by 10% (she's already very efficient), for a further 3% of her overall energy bills. It's a 20 year Solar PPA. So now her monthly energy bills are down to $698.40 in constant dollars, but there were a few price increases, so she's at $750/month for the year. However, now her roof is covered with a beautiful shiny solar panel! She sends a Christmas card to her mother, to show off the solar panel, and mom is duly impressed with how green her daughter has become.
• However, once she analyzes the figures correctly, that solar panel is a 20 year investment of $40,000 for a 3% reduction in her energy bills (10% on electricity alone), which means a payback of 154 years.
• She's still paying $750/month in energy bills (including the $200/month solar lease), and the prospects remain that prices will go up for the remaining $550 "energy" portion of her monthly payments. What has she won? To a financier it seemed things have improved, for $750 now is less than $1000 a few years ago, but that PPA commits $40,000 of her borrowing capacity, and the panel locks out most of her roof, for any alternative uses that might prove to offer better results.
• The residual energy portion of her monthly obligations continues to be above 50% of her starting figure.

In short, a categorical make or buy decision has to be made first before anyone starts on efficiency: do we continue to buy energy, or can we economically make our own. On site renewable energy generation is the alternative to buying energy in perpetuity. Energy efficiency only comes into consideration AFTER we make that make or buy decision, or else we falsify that decision, which is now commonly the case.

Energy Efficiency and Diminishing Returns

The example above shows the effects of diminishing returns, the successive investments show less and less savings, because the base is growing smaller. Ms Efficiency started out investing $3,000 with a return of $200/mo then $6,000 with a return of $80/mo, and finally $40,000 with a return of $21.60/mo (clearly she is paying more for every successive improvement, while here additional savings decrease). This is a losing battle, and it is the battle home owners are losing all around the country, as long as they believe in the "savings" paradigm.

Short-term, yes cash flows are improving, but a few energy price hikes can wipe that out, and the result is that eventually the improvements prove minimal or non-existent within a few years.

PACE Bonds and Mortgage Default Risk

The rationale for the creation of PACE bonds was to provide building owners with a means of financing major capital investments up front to do material retrofits in the energy infrastructure of properties. Unfortunately, the PACE bond camp has been hi-jacked by the energy savers also, and thus they have become yet another customer retention program for the energy companies, and the vendors of energy saving widgets, which was not the original idea. PACE bonds were designed to overcome the capital intensity of the switch to renewable energy, not to squander money on energy efficiency enhancements. Investment in renewable energy moves energy from liabilities to assets, and therefore would structurally reduce underwriting risk, if the economics are solid.

Enter Mr. Analyst - Investing in Site Derived Renewable Energy first

Here is how it should work: Mr. Analyst, with the same $1,000/month energy bill, invests significant money (maybe $140,000), and gets 20-year PACE financing that costs him $900/month, but he wipes out 85% of his energy bills. He gets a geothermal heat pump that provides his HVAC, and a solar panel that offsets most of the electrical load. The first year he gets a 30% tax credit on some of that investment, etc., which helps, but he ends up in a similar situation to his neighbor Ms. Efficiency. She went the energy savings route for the first 3-5 years, but then gradually Ms. Efficiency observes her bills nudging above $1,000 again. Mr. Analyst stays steady at $900/mo in payments, and his residual energy bill of $150 grows a little bit, but not a lot. And Mr. Analyst looks better with every passing year. Let's assume that equipment lasts 30 years. By that time the energy profiles of the two homes will be vastly different.

Ms. Intuition - Thinking Long-Term

Ms. Intuition in the meantime may be even smarter, she gets the same geothermal heat pump, and puts it on a time of use meter, running it mostly at night. She reads the papers, and she sees that solar panels today are 15-20% efficient, but there's some new invention every few months that promises a great breakthrough. She waits a few years, until solar panels have gone from 15-20% efficiency to 35% efficiency, and she now installs a solar panel that completely offsets her electrical use, and she ends up with zero energy bills. In short, she "ate" the electricity cost for a few years, but she gained a technology advantage compared to Mr. Analyst. Geothermal heat pumps are already 400% efficient -- returning 4 joules for every 1 joule you supply -- and are not likely to get any better. With solar PV there is another patent announced every week to increase the conversion efficiency, so it was a reasonable guess to expect that the efficiency of that technology would increase in coming years, and that waiting could be prudent. Notice also that the solar panel here enhances the investment in the geothermal heat pump and improves the value of that energy price hedge even further.

These are just examples. The numbers are rough, to show orders of magnitude, but the principles are clear. They show that the passive stance of "energy efficiency" and "energy savings" is often bested by a focus on generating your own energy wherever it is economical.

• We can't save ourselves rich, and energy efficiency might reduce underwriting risk somewhat, but there are better alternatives, such as investing in Site Derived Renewable Energy (SDRE) instead of energy efficiency.
• Energy efficiency is an operational expense, not an investment, it is short term in nature and mostly not part of permanent plant, but subject to wear and tear.
• Energy generation with renewable sources is an investment that adds to property values, by moving energy from liabilities to assets.
• Logically, in the short-term "energy efficiency" might be a self-liquidating proposition, which by definition would reduce the underwriting risk and the chance of mortgage default by the amount cash outflows are reduced, however these effects don't last, for easily provable reasons.
• Site Derived Renewable Energy (SDRE) is a clear and lasting energy price hedge, certainly if more than 50% of the energy requirement can be economically generated on site. In this case the performance of the property improves with every energy price hike, and thus there is a long-term reduction in underwriting risk, and we can expect a commensurate, but lasting reduction in mortgage defaults.
• SDRE also offers protection against a carbon tax, if it ever were to come. Again, energy efficiency cannot do that, even if it may temporarily reduce mortgage default risk. 

Current research into the issues of mortgage default rates fail to distinguish these structurally and financially very different alternative scenarios, while it is analytically clear that the one has a short-term effect, and the other adds lasting value to a property.

Conclusion - Investment in SDRE wins out over Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency can be shown to produce improved cash flows in the short-run, and therefore should reduce underwriting risk and mortgage defaults. However, for good analytical reasons the longer term value of energy efficiency alone is uncertain, and a better option is renewable energy generated on site (SDRE), that is justified not only by the marginal savings of the equipment, but also by the lasting improvement of property values.

NYSERDA MPP and Diminishing Returns

The NYSERDA Multi-Family Performance Program, aka the  NYSERDA MPP, is an ostrich approach to the problem of diminishing returns on energy efficiency spending; it deals with an investment problem by sticking its head in the sand. To put it a different way, when it comes to a traffic light, which is red, and then knocks out the light and proceeds through the intersection. Specifically, the problem is the diminishing returns from investing in energy efficiency measures, and the designers of this program adjusted the program so this problem does not get in the way.

Energy efficiency done serially

Diminishing Returns Example:

1. Your initial consumption was 100, let's assume you had 4 options, and you prioritize.
2. Your first "investment" of $5,000 produced a 10% reduction. Your base is now 90. You paid $555 for every percentage point reduction. Payback was less than a year.
3. The next "investment" of $25,000 produced a further 10% reduction but now off a base of 90, so the combined result is a 19% reduction in consumption, and your base is now 81. You paid $2,500 for every percentage point reduction. Payback was about 3 years.
4. The third "investment" of $35,000 also produced a 10% reduction on the remaining 81, or 8.1% off the original number, and your new base is 72.90, and you achieved a total "savings" of 27.1%. You paid $4,321 per percentage point reduction. Payback was 4 years.
5. The next best option is $55,000 also producing a 10% reduction, but now on a base of 72.90, for a return of 7.3% savings off the original, or $7,534 per percentage point reduction, and it is not worth doing, so we leave well enough alone. Don't even ask the payback.

Note, some smart fools could try to change the order, and do #5 first, and then #2 might not look so bad. Is that a solution? Watch how NYSERDA solves this conundrum:

NYSERDA MPP: Obfuscating diminishing returns

The MPP program and anything designed like it--and the model is fairly common-- "solves" this problem by shuffling it under the rug, namely it stipulates an overall target, of say 30% (the program targets 15% or better with higher incentives with subsequent levels of achievement). In other words the various subsidies are used to overcome the issue of diminishing returns to the building, and incentivize the owner to do what's good for the utility, never mind if it's good for asset appreciation of the building.

To go back to the prior example, the NYSERDA MPP model works with an aggregate savings, and an overall savings target, and incentives to make sure that 5th project gets done to get the property to over 30%. The bundled approach obfuscates the problem of diminishing returns. The incentives serve to disguise that the 5th one is not economical.  The thinking behind it is very evidently to incentivize owners to do what's good for utilities (and equipment manufacturers).

Renewables versus energy efficiency

The Energy Efficiency Merry Go-round

With the NYSERDA MPP, you cannot come back for ten years. In the meantime they pray that some other innovation comes along for even more "efficiency." However the conundrum of diminishing returns will be even greater, for after you once upgraded your boiler from the old clunker that was 50-60% efficient, to one that was 95% efficient, what are you going to do? Go to 96% efficiency? No, unless it blows up you're not going to replace it.

In short the problem never gets any better, and what you should have done was to figure out how to get off the merry go-round. If only in one part you were able to switch to renewables economically, you'd be ahead of the game. In an apartment building or a residence the obvious candidate is geothermal hot water, followed by total geothermal HVAC. Solar thermal is next in line.

Make sure you evaluate the renewable options in the context of a 30 year capital budget, and pre plan every next step, so that you pre-engineer for subsequent expansion. Depending on the nature of your financing, You may do a total renewable retrofit in one go, or incrementally over as many as 10 years. Notice that with a renewable retrofit, you usually enjoy compound returns from different project phases.

Investment implication of diminishing returns

Directly relevant observations from this problem are:

1. The NYSERDA MPP should serve only as a cheat-sheet to see if you can qualify for the incentives and the subsidized financing, but you need to do a proper capital budget first, and if the renewable options work in your building, you will wildly exceed NYSERDA's targets. Most consultants in the area come from the standpoint of energy efficiency, and they do not represent the interest of capital formation in your building, but they work for the benefit of the utilities and the equipment providers.
2. Clearly, either investing or underwriting on the basis of energy efficiency or energy savings is a dicey business proposition, as a 30% improvement is easily wiped out in one or two energy price hikes.
3. In general the framework of the NYSERDA MPP is not about investing at all but about operational savings, and inappropriately uses long-term money for short-term fixes, thus potentially worsening the financial stability of buildings. Banks and PACE bonds both are missing the mark here with financial solutions. The difference between the Titanic sinking in 5 or 10 minutes does not an investment make.
4. Conversely, only investment in renewable solutions effectively can significantly boost the capital value of the building permanently, and could legitimately qualify for long-term financing.

The framework of the NYSERDA MPP and energy efficiency in general combined with using payback as a criteria, means that owners are doing the minimum to get the NYSERDA subsidies, which is even against their own long-term interest, if there is a viable renewable energy retrofit available for their buildings. To put it differently, because the tabular presentation of an aggregate result generally is mistaken for a financial model, buildings are in many cases making sub-optimal decisions with it, and the presentation hides the diminishing returns. Nobody in their right mind would invest in a sinking ship, just to delay the speed with which it's sinking.

Conclusion

The NYSERDA MPP is regressive, and mostly inappropriately used to substitute for a capital budget for energy retrofits. By doing so renewable energy options are sacrificed to energy efficiency, and there are no follow-on investments because of diminishing returns.

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.

Off The Grid In Four Easy Lessons #1

Getting Off the Grid may sound easy, but it's hard to do, and the major reason it is so hard is financial, not technological. One of the major problems is that energy efficiency and green energy are being confused in the priorities. The majority of government programs in fact are unintentional (and in some cases intentional) subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and the vendors of energy equipment make use of the confusion to sell us all more of their energy efficiency equipment, on the pretense that it is 'green,' and the wrong use of energy efficiency causes the indefinite postponement of the green energy economy. We want green energy and not green paint.

Off the grid living may be a marginal phenomenon, but it If you check out the Wikipedia article in the link above, you'll see that already in 2006 there were reports that the number of homes that were off the grid had been growing at 33% a year for 10 years. This off the grid trend is now rooted in seriously green energy, though not in all cases, and we should separate the survivalists from the regular economic approach choosing green living simply because it makes more economic sense. Today as I'm writing this, the Wall Street Journal just had a major article about Stealthy Green Homes. Off-Grid Real Estate is the thing to watch. Off the grid homes are no longer a marginal phenomenon. Anything growing at 33% for 10 years or more bears watching, and by the time WSJ reports it is becoming main stream, you can rest assured it is main stream already. The important point here is that this is mostly about new construction, and that of course gives you a lot of options to design things right from scratch. But, since there are more old homes than new ones, retrofitting is more important, and it is also more difficult.

Green energy confusion: avoid retrofits that invest in fossil fuel slavery

There is a general confusion that somehow energy efficiency and green energy

Green Energy, not Green Paint

are synonymous, and they are not. Energy efficiency will never add up to green energy, and if you are now consuming fossil fuel-based energy, and you start investing in energy efficiency, you are merely ensuring that you are never coming off the grid. You are merely investing your own money in becoming a better customer to your existing energy suppliers. In short, this is an issue of mixing up the priorities. The first decision is how you get your energy, fossil fuel (from the grid in the widest sense), or green energy in whatever form. Then you need to look at how you get there, and this is where efficiency comes in. With subscription fuels (fossil fuels and derivatives), efficiency pays off in reduced bills down the road, in green energy generation, efficiency pays off in reduced capital costs, because you need a lower installed capacity, and improved project returns.

Stop going off the grid with an energy star tankless hot water heater

The tankless hot water heaters is the poster child of the Energy Star program, and it is one of the worst investments you can make. This issue is emblematic for why efficiency should be considered second, not first. Since hot water is such a large portion of your energy bills in residential living, this is an easy target, and the federal government makes it worse by providing tax incentives for this type of Energy Star equipment, but home owners are in many cases stealing from themselves in the long run with lower asset appreciation. Assuming the tankless hot water heater is more efficient, all you are getting is lower energy bills, but you will still have energy bills. Such incremental investment in energy efficiency make you a better customer of your utility, at the cost of reduced appreciation of your major asset, your house. The shareholders of your utility thank you.

To see why, all you have to do is a 30 year CAPM evaluation of the project, which should be your planning framework for ALL energy decisions in your house. A solar hot water heater is a bigger investment, but once you take the 30 year horizon into account, you will see that it results in near ZERO energy bills for hot water (and yes, you could use a tankless hot water heater for backup, but a regular gas or electric water heater will do). Solar also has NO maintenance costs, while your tankless hot water heater probably needs to be replaced in 10 or 15 years. And by the way that backup heater does not need to be energy star rated, that's a waste of money. You'll use that backup heater perhaps for 15-20% of your BTU requirements for hot water.

Your tankless hot water heater may reduce your energy bills somewhat, perhaps even 15 or 20%. In other words, if you do your 30 year CAPM evaluation, you will have one or two replacements of that tankless hot water heater,  and 15 or 20% lower energy consumption, but the price can still go up or down with energy prices, and the cost of the grid (the DELIVERY cost of your gas or electric) keeps rising faster than inflation. Even the best tankless hot water heater can only reduce your energy bills, not eliminate them.

Off the grid with CAPM, not equipment payback

Before you start doing anything about energy upgrades in your house, make yourself a 30 year financial model based on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), taking energy costs into account, and then figure out exactly what your best options are. If people did their sums right and did not allow the IRS to make their investment decisions, they'd be a lot richer, and their homes worth more. Next time a visiting salesman comes to your home, if he's pitching his latest energy-saving thingmajig with a superior payback period, and worse yet, with tax incentives, katy bar the door and do your own analysis first. He is stealing property value, value appreciation of your property, with your signature, even if he is armed with tax incentives and the blessings of the energy star program. A tankless hot water heater does not green energy make, nor will it get you off the grid.

The Upshot of the PACE Bond/FHA Flap

If you carefully read the position of the FHA Statement on Certain Energy Retrofit Loan Programs, it should be clear that the right solution could only be positive, but that does not guarantee we will get there.

Simply put, everyone who has done any work in the renewable energy area understands that as of yet there is very little understanding in the market place that energy is becoming a technology business and therefore a capital asset of buildings. It will completely alter the mortgage business, but it cannot do so unless and until it has a rational foundation. If this issue is solved constructively it could be the single biggest progress in improving real estate values in the nation, because in effect permanent renewable energy plant in any building is a hedge against rising energy prices, and there are very few people who would believe that energy prices will go down, or that America could ever hope to be competitive if it continues to spend more on energy per inhabitant than the rest of the industrialized world.

Buildings are the biggest single frontier in that battle with energy intensity, and handling this transition correctly could do more for real estate values than anything else. Meanwhile the current confusion is entirely due to the parlous state of energy programs and incentives, which generally confuses energy efficiency and energy independence, making in effect the unstated assumption that energy efficiency will add up to energy independence, which is simply not so. In fact, making energy efficiency a priority and treating it as a subsidized capital expenditure guarantees that we will prolong dependence on fossil fuels indefinitely, and completely back ourselves into a corner economically.

Only energy independence should be stimulated, subsidized, promoted, and energy efficiency should only be subsidized under the auspices of proper renewable energy projects, where it does become a capital decision, because it is a direct trade off against installed capacity. Energy efficiency in the context of fossil fuel use is an operational savings, and should not be treated as a capital investment, unless it is the only option, and preferably in the context of a strong renewable component. Giving buildings a measure of energy independence, by focusing on energy production at the building level, will always enhance building value, assuming it is done correctly. This is true for a residence as well as for commercial properties, and lenders will have to learn to make energy independence the true focus of building valuations, not mere energy efficiency.

Having said that, there are of course efficiency measures which are rightly part of the building structure, such as insulation, windows, etc. and they will therefore take on a permanent nature, but by making the distinction suggested here, we would solve the total quagmire we are in with respect to these types of investments. Namely, if we prioritize energy efficiency based on fossil fuel based systems, we are in effect postponing the decision to produce energy at the building level, and financially making it harder to ever make that decision in the first place. This type of a shift should properly be the domain of public policy, to see to it that the shift happens. The corollary to this is that once the focus is on building level energy production, investments in energy efficiency have a much quicker payoff, because they are then a proper capital decision, namely they directly reduce the need for installed capacity. In other words it is the order in which we do these things which is important.

Given that the confusion between energy efficiency and renewable energy is so pervasive, and programs therefore routinely subsidize investments which destroy capital by prolonging fossil fuel dependence, it will take some time before these mechanisms are adjusted to the new realities. Meanwhile it is up to owners to analyze their investment decisions correctly, and the ones who do will definitely win by seeing their returns not only operationally, but in terms of building valuation. Many old buildings can be made 80% energy independent with todays technology, by pursuing renewable energy production first, and efficiency second.

Of PACE Bonds, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Property Values

There are some fascinating developments around PACE bonds, and apparent obstructionism on the part of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as reported in the New York Times on June 30th, 2010, "Loan Giants Threaten Energy-Efficiency Programs."

Based on some of the issues discussed in recent posts on this site, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae arguably are actually right to threaten these energy efficiency programs, for to the extent that PACE bonds can be used to extend the fossil fuel franchise, they are suboptimal, and therefore destructive of real estate values.

The smart thing to do would be to have maybe the energy department provide simple criteria to ensure that the energy enhancements are viable renewable energy investments which would in fact enhance property values and therefore provide increased security for any mortgages, so that the technicality of the priority lien becomes irrelevant. After all an investment with a thirty year useful life, and a five year payback, in fact offers twenty-five years of free cash flows from energy "savings," which means a tremendous increase in value of the underlying asset.

This issue goes to the heart of the matter and is very suggestive of a constructive solution. The nation certainly needs some support for real estate values, and the unfortunate fact is that the current confusion of energy efficiency and energy independence based on renewable energy in the rules and incentives, by Energy Star as much as by the ARRA incentives, which in turn depend on the Energy Star programs, is to blame for this confusion. Energy Efficiency only makes sense within the context of a viable renewable energy program, when it comes in the context of a direct trade off against installed capacity, and an improvement of the economics of the project.

Energy Efficiency as applied to extending the franchise of fossil-fuel based energy solutions does not deserve tax credits, or other incentives, it is an operational savings. To emphasize again an issue that I've raised in other posts on this site: Energy Star rated High Efficiency Tankless Hot Water Heaters are perhaps the poster child of federal subsidies for increasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and preventing a switch to renewable energy at a time when numerous viable renewable DHW solutions exist in the market place. They should be outlawed, not subsidized. There are many other examples along these lines, but this one has perhaps more visibility than anything.

If you think of these issues over the typical thirty year life of a mortgage then you'll quickly see that a 30-40% gain in efficiency in water heating with fossil fuels will be eventually offset by energy prices, and perhaps forms of carbon taxation, while solar or geothermal hot water are available and reduce dependence on subscription energy by 80-99%. Energy Efficiency of fossil fuel based systems only possibly makes sense if there is no economically viable renewable alternative. Thus the issue here is "free energy" versus a temporary reduction in energy bills, and the permanently free energy will win the day in most cases if the value of that free energy over the next 30 years is taken into account, and that is a direct enhancement to property values.

The whole issue goes back to focus on payback periods of the investments as if they were independent of the buildings. They should instead be viewed as intra-marginal investments in the building, to ensure that they enhance property values. For society as a whole this will lead to the optimal result.

Freddie Mac did the right thing for the wrong reasons, and the solution lies in a test along the lines suggested here to ensure that such energy investments are constructive and supportive of property values, not a mere green washing that undermines long term real estate values for the appearance of being green.