Financing Energy Retrofits and Capital Destruction

Creative finance solutions for energy retrofits abound, but most underwriters, including alternative financing programs such as PACE bonds, fall for the generally accepted delusion that energy efficiency should get top priority. This is a mistake - majoring in a minor - which increases underwriting risk, instead of decreasing it, for several reasons:

• If you start out with "energy efficiency" of an existing installation, that is not an energy retrofit at all, for you blithely accept that the design that was in place was the best one possible, and you are merely upgrading it, as in with more efficient versions of the same technology. The point of an energy retrofit is to use newer technology, which may necessitate a different design. An efficiency improvement in most cases is not a capital investment, but an operational expenditure.
• Since many of the newer technologies are about generating energy with solar, wind, geothermal, or even hydropower, they all imply a different model, and different designs. Specifically they enhance the capital asset, the building, with independent generating capacity. Financially they are also a permanent price hedge against energy price increases.
• Energy efficiency upgrades are also by nature short-term, they usually only achieve about a 30% improvement, which is easily wiped out by a few price hikes, therefore such upgrades should not be financed with long-term money, let alone be subsidized.

As demonstrated in earlier posts, financing energy efficiency with long-term money in most cases is a mistake, because the typical 30% or so improvement is all too easily wiped out by one or two price hikes, and because of the issue of diminishing returns, there is no follow-on strategy, and therefore it is financially unsound. Financially, energy efficiency is a horrible dead-end and should be avoided like the plague: again, it increases underwriting risk if it is pursued at the expense of an existing renewable option. As a strategy, investing in energy efficiency should be an absolute last resort, if you can't do anything better.

Renewables are an immediate and permanent asset of the building, regardless if you use solar, wind, or geothermal, or hydro-electric, plus any improvements to the building envelope now come back to you directly in terms of reducing the installed capacity you need. Renewables are an immediate energy price hedge. Because of diminishing returns, "investment" in energy efficiency is financially a shaky proposition, while renewables immediately raise building value.

Energy Retrofits Gone Wrong

Energy retrofits that prioritize energy efficiency amount to capital destruction, assuming there was an economically viable renewable option available. Thus underwriters of financing for buildings who focus on energy efficiency first are in most cases likely to be deteriorating their portfolio and needlessly increasing underwriting risk. This is long-term money for a short-term benefit, and that does not make for financial stability of the asset. Even PACE bonds have completely missed this issue, and all programs that I know of focus on energy efficiency first.

With proper financial planning, which is to say a 30 year capital budget for energy upgrades to a building, it will become very visible that renewable options are financially superior, for 30 years of zero energy bills will outweigh 30% energy savings. Or to put that differently, renewables may initially have a longer payback, but, properly evaluated, the renewable solution with a 7 year payback, may be superior over its life to a 4 year payback on an efficiency component, which "saves" 10%. The renewable energy equipment comes with zero energy bills, or in the worst case some 10-15% in back-up from a fossil fuel source.

How to underwrite energy retrofits

renewables improve value

The bottom line is that responsible financiers should demand a 30 year CAPM analysis of energy retrofits to the building, which could include an installation that could be spread over several years, and obviously realistic measures for maintenance and operating costs, noting that O&M are typically lower for renewable energy than for fossil fuel. Further, underwriters should rate projects based on the percentage of energy that is derived from renewables. The higher it is, the greater the financial stability of the building. My consulting firm DaBx Demand Side Solutions, publishes the DaBx Renewable Energy Retrofit Portfolio Standard (DaBx RERPS)

Conclusion: renewables reduce underwriting risk

Financing energy efficiency means financing short-term operational improvements with long-term money; energy retrofits with renewables reduce underwriting risk and improve the asset value of the property.

Throwing out the Batteries with the Bath Water

For the last few decades, there has been a gradual shift in understanding that the end of the fossil fuel era is at hand, and not necessarily because we run out - although there are of course vested interests who would like to sell us every last drop of oil, and every last lump of coal, not to mention whatever gas remains. The paradigm shift however, is about understanding that the fossil fuel era is at an end because of diminishing returns. In short the unintended consequences like CO2 emissions and other problems are the manifestations of that shift. The cost of the commodities themselves is going up because of increasing scarcity, and the cost of the various nefarious side effects are weighing more heavily all the time as well.

The other side of the shift is the increased creativity in the development of alternatives, both in terms of the technologies and in the complete frame of reference in which we operate with energy. However this process is nowhere near complete, and in the transition sometimes ridiculous misalignments come into play. One example of this is the storage of Domestic Hot Water which I have been writing about on this site. We are only just starting to understand that renewable energy means that that buildings can generate some or all of their own energy, and that the most typical renewable sources, wind and solar, are both of the peak load variety, i.e. they produce power when the weather is favorable, not necessarily when we turn on the switch. Therefore energy storage is an absolutely crucial design element in harnessing these sources. This issue has been part of the smart grid conversation for years, and we continuously hear how expensive batteries are.

Meanwhile the buyers of tank-less hot water heaters (unless as a backup heat source), are throwing out the batteries with the bathwater, or, to be more precise, by eliminating storage of Domestic Hot Water (DHW), they are eliminating the cheapest form of energy storage available in residential living, and one that is of crucial importance if we ever want to make our buildings energy independent with renewable energy. The focus in this case is on eliminating the BTU loss from hot water storage, never mind the fact that with modern insulation, these losses are negligible, and yes some space is being reclaimed. This however ignores the fact that hot water is the most natural energy storage solution, which we get practically "for free," if we realize that with various renewable technologies it is cost justifiable as part of the hot water provisioning for the premises.

This particular issue is quite absurd in its consequences. There are super efficient tank-less hot water heaters, with Energy Star labels, and they are marvelous, if heating hot water were the problem, except it is not, and therefore tank-less hot water heaters are not the solution. Rather, they are the problem. The absurdity becomes complete when we realize that there are tax incentives for tank-less hot water heaters, which means that the US government thus provides a subsidy for the postponement of our renewable energy economy by another twenty years or so, and building owners are torpedoing their best options for making their buildings energy independent. In short the very concept of the super efficient tank-less hot water heater, is of value primarily if the only option for a residential building is in consuming energy, and economizing by consuming less of it. This is the utility model, and the utility companies, gas and electric, as well as the oil companies represent this economic model, and the traditional incentives are all geared to energy efficiency more so than to energy independence.

The new model however is that energy is becoming a technology business, and buildings can increasingly generate their own energy locally, at the building level. As a result the economic value of DHW storage is now as an energy store, which enables the use of peak-load generating technologies like wind and solar. This solves the storage problem only in the form of heat, which is the largest energy demand in residential construction. In as far as the demand is for electricity, some form of battery is unavoidable if you want to rely on peak power, and come either partially or wholly off the grid.

As I have seen demonstrated over and over, the plumbers of the world do not understand that Hot Water is now going to be a freebie, and a happy by-product of this shift in energy infrastructure, in which buildings increasingly produce their own energy. This shift is particularly dramatic in existing residential construction, but   that is exactly where the greatest economic opportunity is. Accordingly, if the government wants to achieve energy independence, the incentive programs, from tax incentives to special finance programs (such as the Multi-family Performance Program from NYSERDA was one), need to take the new realities into account.

The mere accumulation of energy efficiency, which seems the only option in the utility model, is also the best guarantee that we stay in the fossil fuel economy forever, and therefore would be disastrous. Yet almost all incentive programs, with the best intentions, make this totally self-defeating assumptions. Energy independence does not happen unless you plan for it. The renewable energy economy and the utility model are two radically different economic constructs, and "energy efficiency" as a goal remains the child of the utility   model, and will prevent us from ever getting to energy independence and a renewable economy. As a dear friend pointed out recently: "You cannot cross the Grand Canyon in two easy steps." We are now at the point that we need to wean the baby from the breast of the utility companies and the oil companies, and the baby will cry at first, but to become independent, it is absolutely necessary. And there is money to be made from this energy conversion, once it is properly understood as a business opportunity.