Off the grid in four easy lessons #4

Off the grid is a direction not a destination, and the principal instruments to get there are financial analysis and economic modeling, not technology. So never mind the government has no energy policy, just a rag-tag group of programs and incentives that tend to confuse people more than help towards a solution. Never mind that utilities and oil companies do everything they can to seduce real estate owners to remain happy carbon customers till the cows come home with all kinds of energy efficiency solutions. It is up to the property owner to make sense of them, and the principal tool you have is the Capital Asset Pricing Model, aka CAPM and once you start studying it, and looking into the various technology options you may have regardless of what your starting point is, you will be amazed. Research CAPM, study Internet resources, including CAPM Free Questions.

Energy Efficiency and equipment payback - the trap to be avoided

To recap from earlier posts: energy companies (utilities, oil companies, etc.), and vendors of equipment will inevitably try to get the attention of real estate owners with investments in  energy efficiency, which are to the benefits of their shareholders, and NOT of the real estate owners. The nature of energy efficiency is that the first investment always looks very good, and typically offers outsize returns (on the basis of payback), and 99.99999% of owners do not stop to think that they are committing to an investment path that perpetuates their indentured servitude to carbon energy. The vendors capitalize on these insights by selling their "solutions" based on marginal analysis of energy savings, always showing a wonderful payback for their equipment, and waiving around Energy Star labels, tax incentives, or other subsidies. If they are successful, you've invested your money in remaining the customer of your energy company forever. This is voluntary vendor lock-in. Various tax incentives, but also NYSERDA, Energy Star, CPC, PACE, and most mortgage providers will steer you wrong because their programs are useful only if your own CAPM analysis says so. Don't run your financial future based on someone else's say so.

The morning after effect comes in when you want to do the next "investment," which is worse but you'll probably still do it. Some day you'll have to realize that diminishing returns mandate that you'll never ever find another investment as good as the first one. The cynic might say these are not investments at all, but operational savings. Even various form of PPAs offered by energy companies tend to suffer the same analytical defects and will benefit the shareholders of the energy companies more than the home owner. Caveat Emptor!

Off the Grid with CAPM

Getting Off the Grid starts with the one and only thing that every property owner should do first, last and in between: make a 30 year financial model of your property, and use it to model your own strategic energy plan, always comparing the base case as the investment in energy efficiency based on the existing infrastructure, with the alternative case using green energy. Again, energy efficiency will never get you off the grid, green energy will, if you figure out the right way of implementation. The first decision is a make or buy decision about energy: should you buy it on a subscription basis, or generate your own. Watch values of net zero properties for reference.

It is never ever what the salesmen will tell you, nor should you let yourself be confused by tax incentives, NYSERDA programs, PACE and/or other energy efficiency finance. They will all steer you wrong, to the detriment of the long-term value of your asset, your property. Study the energy economics of your property first, before you figure out what incentive programs are to your long-term advantage. You will repeatedly find that financing mandates, e.g. of Energy Star equipment, may benefit the energy industry more than it benefits you. Don't buy it unless it actually helps improve the long-term value of your property. Financial sanity starts with CAPM!

Your CAPM Badge

.

To build up capital reserves for your energy investments join the green power referral marketing revolution: GoGreenGetGreen

OFF the Grid: The basic assumptions about the relevant cash flows

Here is a list of the major cash flows and assumptions you need to document:

1. For starting asset value use Zillow, or a similar service.
2. Identify ALL forms of energy you use - it may be two or three.
3. Make a 12 month model so you start to see seasonality, you will therefore have 360 cash flow periods.
4. Track both consumption and pricing.
5. Notice that in deregulated states it probably makes sense to split the cost of delivery and supply. In many cases, certainly in NYC, delivery is 65% of your utility cost per kWh or per Therm, and rising inexorably ABOVE the rate of inflation. For my gas it is 95%, because I use so little of it.
6. Identify specific inflation rates for all your energy component costs and rates.
7. Track reasonable assumptions for maintenance (i.e. annual costs, but also periodic replacements, such as a boiler or water heater that may last 10 or 15 years).
8. Make a base case (A) based on your existing energy mix, with incremental investments in energy efficiency. You will start to see how these investments will get wiped out by ongoing price hikes, let alone spikes such as have happened from time to time.
9. Make a case B based on renewable energy. Try to identify the rationale for a strategy to eliminate one fuel completely (oil or gas), or as near as you can get to it.

Experiment with such a model until you are comfortable. Until you are, you are not ready to begin shopping for energy solutions.

Off the Grid: Sane assumptions for getting there

As much as possible try to think of projects to coincide with maintenance things you'd have to do anyway. In other words, if in five years you would have to replace your boiler, that may be the timing for switching to geothermal, or solar thermal, or some other combination, and you may only need a very small boiler for backup. Or, if your roof needs to be replaced that may be a time to improve on insulation, and/or solar or wind installations. You do not want to install a set of solar collectors with a 20-30 year life expectancy on a roof that only has 5 years of life left in it.

Avoid tankless water heaters like the plague. Domestic Hot Water storage is a very efficient energy store, you may need it in your design later on.

CAPM: valuation issues

Study the energy independence profile of homes in your area. With net zero homes and buildings growing, energy costs will increasingly become important in valuation. If a few homes in an area are energy independent or close to net zero, that will start to diminish the values of all other properties.

Be prepared to learn a lot. Both good and bad. The renewable energy path is more capital-intensive, but it will increase your property value more. You will find opportunities with compound returns because of synergies. Keep studying what is going on in your market, and never ever listen to a sales rep coming with payback periods, and various incentives. He or she is stealing the value of your home.

Off the grid in four easy lessons #3

Getting off the grid is a direction, and it does not have to be an absolute destination, not everybody can have a net zero house, particularly on a retrofit basis, but the goal is to spring free of the trap of burning fossil fuel, and paying for energy ad infinitum on a subscription basis. That slavery is symbolized financially by the fact that if you start making your fossil fuel-based (subscription) energy household more efficient, you are in effect ensuring that the value of your property remains dependent on fossil fuel - you never get out of the hole. With every dollar you invest, you are making it harder to switch to renewable energy. Effectively, you are cementing your dependence on the fossil fuel system, and its predictably unpredictable price hikes, with every dollar you "invest," and the long-term value of your property remains hostage to external fuel supplies and pricing. Therefore, as long as there is a renewable energy alternative, that should have top priority. Off-Grid Real Estate is easier if you build it from scratch, but on a retrofit basis, the design objective becomes simply making a long-term green energy plan, based on a proper financial model of your property, and planning your investments in such a way that you gradually slip out of the noose of carbon energy and build up the long-term value of what is for most people their major asset in life, their house. Your journey to net zero has begun. The design goal here should be anything over 50% energy reduction, which cannot usually be done with energy efficiency.

The energy efficiency trap and the green energy answer

Prioritizing energy efficiency projects is a trap, because of diminishing returns. Salesmen for various energy efficiency technologies, or even for renewables, will try to sell you their equipment on the basis of a payback period, never mind if it makes sense for the value of your home. They come waving Energy Star labels and tax incentives or other programs in your face, but their interest is selling their wares, not increasing the value of your property. That part is your responsibility. The first "efficiency" investment may be $3,000 with a 3 year payback, and you think great, this reduces my energy bills by 15%, fantastic. Then the next best opportunity is $10K with a 6 year payback, based on another 15% reduction. By this time your bills are 85% of what they were, so now your overall reduction is another 13% off the original at best. And the next investment you can find is another $15K, which would reduce the remaining 72% of your bills by another 10% (or 7% off the original), and the payback now is 15 years, and you judge it not to be worthwhile. So if you're lucky you've reduced your energy bills by 28% until the next price hike, and then you can start all over again. You keep paying your oil bills or your utility bills stay in hock to carbon fuel. This is called diminishing returns, ever bigger investments for ever lower returns. Your goal is walking away from you, and your investment path amounts to capital destruction in terms of the value of your property. There is another dimension to the efficiency trap: The Efficiency Trap: Finding a Better Way to Achieve a Sustainable Energy Future. The perverse side effect is that if a resource becomes more efficient, people use more of it. So again, don't start making a fossil fuel system more efficient, but first pursue green energy alternatives to make your property energy independent. OFF THE GRID: HEAT PUMPS AND OTHER MULTIPLIERS In green energy,

Green Energy is Power

the basic technologies most people are familiar with are wind turbines, solar PV, and solar thermal, but another important technology is heat pumps, starting with geothermal. A good geothermal heat pump may have a Coefficient of Performance of 4.0 (COP), and it could handle HVAC and Domestic hot water pre-heat, and possibly a snow-melt system, or heating your pool water. If you can power it with wind energy or solar PV, you win big, for again it produces four times the heat output of what it uses. If you must use power from the grid, perhaps you can put it on time of use. More and more wind turbines are coming to market which are suitable for mounting on buildings. Other great adjuncts to help you towards net zero, are heat exchange ventilators. The more you can eliminate combustion from your house, the tighter you can make it, and heat exchange ventilation can retain the heat or cooling, and still provide fresh air. Try to eliminate gas or oil from the house entirely, that will allow you to tighten up your building envelope. Cook with electricity, not gas. The old standbys are insulation, windows, roofs, etc. Notice that in the renewable energy model, improvements to the building envelope reduce the installed generating capacity, and tend to reduce your up front capital requirement, while in the carbon energy model they pay for themselves over time from energy savings.

Towards net zero: Breaking dependence on fossil fuel

What matters in a retrofit is that you have a long-term plan, based on a 30 year model of your property, in which you can compare the various options. Net zero does not have to be an absolute goal, but avoid the investment trap of energy efficiency if you can help it at all. If you are methodical about the steps you follow, the payoff will be breaking the 50% barrier of energy reduction and eventually coming closer and closer to net zero, and you are adding to the value of your property as you go along. Most importantly, with a green energy investment plan, you will end up finding synergies and compounding returns, so that two components which might individually seem unattractive, might provide superior returns when put together, such as the heat pump with the wind turbine, etc.

Off the grid by plan, not by accident

When you set up your model, use the original condition as a starting point, and systematically compare an alternative A and B, in which A is the efficiency model, and B is the green energy/net zero model. Use 30 year cash flows, and include maintenance, replacements, fuel costs and so on. Alternative B is the renewable energy model. Try to see if you can eliminate one fuel from your house entirely (oil or gas). In a green energy model this will have a multiplier effect, because you are eliminating a major source of indoor air pollution. Notice that the renewable energy project will be more expensive up front, but the reduction in your energy bills will be far greater, and, you may have serious synergies between different aspects, a heat pump run on the grid may be expensive to run, but run on 70% wind or solar it may be a winner. Synergies like this will move you off the grid gradually and propel you towards net zero. There is a reason utilities and oil companies like you to invest in energy efficiency, and even offer cheap financing and other incentives: they retain you as a customer. Every step towards energy independence increases the value of your home. 

Off the grid in four easy lessons #2

Getting off the grid even partially is an obstacle course, but surprisingly, the biggest obstacle is not technology, it is financial decision-making at all levels. From the top down, with various federal programs, down to the level of the individual homeowner, there are some severe misunderstandings and pervasive analytical blunders that generally lead to inferior projects getting priority and the best projects often never being discovered. The combined result is often an unintended subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, and unintended decreases in long-term real estate values because owners fail to uncover the financially optimal decisions for their properties. Renewable energy is generally better financially because it comes with lower operating and maintenance costs, mostly negligibly low fuel costs, for backup mostly, and usually nearly little or no maintenance.

By comparison, investments in energy efficiency, as long as you're on the grid primarily, are really not investments at all, they are about operational savings. There are many other traps, and often times they are made worse by various government programs however well intended. Not only do many programs that purport to support renewable energy barely do so, their results are often antithetical to what they claim, and the postponement of the low-carbon future is the effect. To get largely off the grid these choices need to be made very carefully.

Solar PV: green energy for the postcards to send to mom

Look ma, we've gone solar!

The Solar PV Model

It makes a nice postcard, but does it make financial sense?  Getting Off the Grid is slowed down by solar PV compared to the alternatives, but solar PV is generally easier (read: cheaper) to install. However, Solar PV efficiency, remarkable as it is, is in the range of 15-16%, while solar thermal is up to 98% efficient, in other words, you are gaining more energy per square foot by a factor of 5 from solar thermal, and the overwhelming energy demand in residential living is thermal: Domestic Hot Water (DHW), Heating/Cooling.

The main reason solar PV gets so much press is because it is easy to deploy and because there have been a lot of tax-incentives. It may not necessarily be the most sensible investment. But everything differs from property to property based on implementation details. The principal driver for PV is that because it produces electricity, transportation is easier, but that argument may not hold water if it is installed locally for local production. Also PV has been the beneficiary of a lot of tax incentives, but for residential use, it is at best a second choice, rarely the first. In short, if you own a piece of desert in Arizona, and you need to transport the energy long distance, solar PV is a great choice. For your house, maybe not so much.

Off the grid: the secrets of Solar Thermal versus Solar PV

With solar thermal, you will find conversion efficiency as high as 98%, or easily 5 times higher than with PV, but integration costs may be higher, however in most cases thermal should win out if it is properly evaluated.

The most important thing is that with solar thermal the sun's energy is captured as heat, which is directly usable for DHW (Domestic Hot Water), as well as for heating and cooling. Perhaps even more importantly, that thermal heat can be captured and stored in the cheapest battery of them all, a hot water tank. Storing energy is the single biggest (read: most expensive) problem, and with solar thermal that problem is solved. We're talking seriously green energy here, and a major step towards getting off the grid. You are now building an energy system. If you think about the cost of real estate, and the frequent limits on available space, that higher energy efficiency per square foot should not be underestimated.

Tankless water heaters: throwing out the batteries with the bath water

As a home owner, your mission is not to burn gas most efficiently, it is to increase your living comfort, as well as the value of your home. As I've pointed out in the previous post in this series, tankless water heaters, with or without Energy Star labels, seldom make any sense if you evaluate the energy infrastructure of your home properly. The example of solar thermal here makes it clear how important Domestic Hot Water can be as an energy store. Too often there are incentives, such as low-cost financing, and or tax benefits, which seduce home owners to make the wrong decisions. Domestic Hot Water as a free energy store is very valuable in the energy household of your property. Other forms of batteries tend to be expensive.

Conclusion

As noted elsewhere, when visiting salesmen come to your door, and try to sell you equipment based on tax incentives, and other programs, and showing you a fantastic payback period based on reducing your energy bills, it's katy, bar the door, and go do your financial homework first. They are interested in their commission, not the value of your property, unfortunately many counter productive government and state programs seem to reward the wrong decisions, and unwittingly favor the incumbent energy providers, to the detriment of long-term real estate values.

Only by doing a proper long-term energy plan, and evaluating the alternatives, do you have a chance of making the best decision. A 30 year model is usually adequate, given the lie spans of a lot of energy equipment, not to mention the length of a typical mortgage. Start thinking of your property as (potentially) your own private energy plant. Don't be seduced by all the incentives in the world. Remember this: advantageous financing can never make a bad project good, but it can only make a good project better.

Hopefully we will also see modifications of various program, including financing packages, which often turn on specifying Energy Star rated equipment, and very often force property owners to over-invest in the wrong parts of the plan, or make the wrong choices altogether.

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.

Report 90by50 from the Urban Green Council

The recent 90by50 report from the Urban Green Council was an exceptionally well targeted feasibility study of the potential for drastic energy infrastructure change in New York City building stock. I already wrote about it on my green energy promotion blog. There is a lot to like about it, but it will also most likely be abused and bastardized in the process and the potential never realized. We seem to be a long way away from the kind of concerted action that is really needed, although the feasibility can no longer be in doubt.

While the report identifies clearly that things like New York's PlaNYC2030 were too conservative, and doomed to produce failure because it merely tinkers at the margins, this plan is too high level to be actionable as such, and therefore it may end up being its own worst enemy if we're not careful. Such a high level view has merits, but becomes tricky when it is combined with other high level views such as macro-economists are wont to produce and administrative institutions are wont to consume, so together they can make the high level nonsense that goes for energy policy, and worse, incentives.

However, the helpful implications are the fact that since reducing carbon emissions is definitely of primary importance, the sorts of marginal improvements that PlaNYC2030 envisaged were insignificant, if not counter-productive. There is great need to be more drastic than that. This was one of the reasons why, with my consulting company DaBx Demand Side Solutions, we issued a report 2 years ago, DaBx PlaNYC2020, to make the point that there was at least one class of buildings in New York that was capable of much faster and more drastic change in energy infrastructure, and achieve an 80-90% reduction in CO2 emissions in short order, with today's technology.

PlaNYC2020 alternatives, in relation to 90by50

In one way, I would consider our DaBx PlaNYC2020, of which Mayor Bloomberg was given a complimentary copy on July 4th, 2011 (which we dubbed 'energy independence day' for the occasion) to be a special case under the 90by50 approach, and in a way perhaps the low hanging fruit, although the technology path implied there is quite a bit different from the 90by50 model.

What the 90by50 report identified correctly, and one of the reasons why it chose a 37 year implementation period, is that the economically optimal way of achieving this transition would be to tie in as much as possible with the normal infrastructural overhauls that buildings need periodically. In our report we had argued that same point. For example, the program to phase out #6 oil and use natural gas or either #2 or #4 oil instead forces the issue and even provides subsidies to encourage such conversions, and thereby it preserves the carbon economy without any attempt to asses if renewable energy alternatives might be within reach. Clearly, if we could achieve substantial reductions in CO2 emissions, and at the same time improve long term building values by decoupling buildings from energy price hikes, not to mention any potential future CO2 assessments that would be desirable.

In short, there are certain building types that could make the transition to a low carbon lifestyle quicker than others, but that's being stopped by Soviet-style top-down twenty year plans and incentives to switch to Natural Gas. What we really need is grandfather provisions for buildings that commit to a renewable energy transition, but would be forced not to do so by the present deadlines for the conversion. Here is yet another example of how 'one size fits all' does not work for this problem, since there is such a wide range of structural potential and problems in different groups of buildings.

Methodology for Achieving the Green Energy future sooner

Bottom-up, not top-down

The risk of both the City's PlaNYC2030 and the 90by50 report is that they tend to steer towards a top-down approach. Much of this is predicated on how planners get their data. Planners are fed macro-economic pablum, which in the area of energy typically means an argument that by far energy efficiency gives us the best bang for the buck, and renewable energy is still mostly uncompetitive on the margin. And based on all that wonderful stuff, the administration then establishes policies accordingly.

Nobody seems to notice that in the process, the existing energy infrastructure is being taken for granted and treated as an unstated assumption, for the existing programs are typically geared towards energy efficiency, with the occasional cameo role for renewable technology. In other words, we start right away by optimizing for a secondary objective, efficiency, while skipping the initial make/or buy decision which should come first. It tends to be done correctly for new developments, but for existing buildings, this step is being overlooked. The further mistake that is implicitly made, is that renewables are evaluated in roles that are traditionally defined by the carbon energy model, and rarely do we see a systematic attempt to figure out what you can do differently with renewable technology, because of its unique properties, so that possibly you can pick up design advantages as compared to plugging renewable technology into a carbon based energy distribution model.

The first part of the insight into the potential of renewable technology is the extent to which it can be installed locally, so that a building in whole or in part supplies its own energy. A good example is sometimes provided by solar thermal. It is an often overlooked technology, yet it is 95-98% efficient compared to Solar PV at 15-20% efficiency. The question is, is there a practical way to integrate it into an existing building infrastructure. The cost of integration may kill the idea. However, it should evidently be tried, and be part of an evaluation.

CAPM, CAPM and more CAPM - the Capital Asset Pricing Model

In short, buildings should really begin to be looked at as potential energy producers, that can become partially independent from the grid. Net-zero is not a feasible objective in most cases for an existing structure, but enormous advances are feasible with today's technology. And such transitions can be incorporated in long term capital plans that take into account a 20-30 year equipment life cycle. Besides good engineering, the most critical piece is really  financial: a rigorous application of the Capital Asset Pricing Model should be the standard. If this is done, a far greater use of renewable energy technology is possible compared to what is being done today, and many existing incentives are counter productive at least some of the time, because the favor vendors of equipment and or the energy companies themselves, at the expense of the long term economic interests of the building owners.

There are also some regulatory hurdles that will need to be addressed. The famous split-incentive problem between landlords and tenants will have to be addressed. In low income housing there are rules that are promulgated by HPD and CPC, which prevent the highly necessary redesigning of energy infrastructure in building rehabilitations. And again, many incentive programs and tax abatements tend to steer property owners in the wrong direction. All of this is misguided policy, driven by the same macro-economic assessment that is erroneously applied to micro-economic planning at the building level, and it produces government sponsored capital destruction.

So again, we need to start working as if we were a capitalist society, from the viewpoint of the buildings as an asset, not with top-down soviet-style 20 year plans, that shove the macro-economic square peg, in the micro-economic round hole. Too many decisions are made driven by the latest incentive, instead of on a sound long-term economic basis, which would accrue to improved building values. An accelerated conversion to renewable energy would be more constructive to building preservation than the current regime of moving the deckchairs on the Titanic, and switching to natural gas as the "less dirty" carbon fuel. The vaunted role of natural gas as a "bridge fuel" is really a very destructive postponement, if it forestalls renewable energy in applications where it is economical today. Present HPD/CPC policies are merely creating the slums of the future, with real estate values held for ransom by energy prices, and landlords that are beholden to these rules are like lemmings waiting for the next energy crisis.

The little ones that add up

So, I used to run my kitchen lighting as follows:

1. Ceiling light 2x 14W  Cfl bulbs, probably 8 hours a day - 224W/day 
2. and 2x 50W PAR20 flood lights, probably 3 hours a day - 300W/day
3. as well as another 27 watt Cfl in a desk lamp say 3 hours a day - 81W/day
4. 224 + 300+ 81 W = 605W/day, at 30.5 days/ mo = 18.5 kWh at ca 33 cents/kWh = $6.11/mo

But now I changed my 2 50W PAR20 floods to 2 8W R20 LEDs, and the pattern changes

1. Ceiling Light 2x 14W Cfl - 3 hours a day = 84W/day
2. Floodlights 2x 8W 8 hrs/day = 128W/day
3. Desk lamp 27W 3 hrs = 81W/day
4. 84 + 128+81 = 293W/day times 30.5 days =  8.94 kWh/mo at 33 cents = $2.95/mo.

The savings therefore are $3.16/mo and the bulbs cost me $16.08 including tax or $32.16 total, and my payback at this rate is 10 months. And that calculation does not even take into account they have an expected 30,000 hour life span, versus an average expectancy of 10,000 hours or so for CFl bulbs.

In short, this is a winner. And actually, now that I'm switching to the fixture with the two PAR20 lamps for my main 'background' lighting, I'll probably have them running at 30% most of the time and at full strength perhaps no more than two hours a day. So if that's the case, the floodlights will use 64W/day instead of 128W/day, for 229W total per day and the monthly number becomes  6.98 kWh at $0.33 for $2.30 total monthly cost.

If you can see little opportunities like that, saving energy is actually fun. I better start buying some energy guzzling equipment soon, for I'm already at the top of my class of residence, averaging 218 kWh/mo even before this change. I also just signed up for the CoolNYC program (www.coolnycprogram.com), which should reduce my A/C bills this summer, Plus, you get $25 for participating. You get a bonus for saving money. Cool! Literally.

Of course the above is also the way energy companies and equipment manufacturers would like you to make all your energy decisions, and while this is fine for a renter, and fun to do, it is not the way you should look at things as a building owner. If you own the building, your business purpose is definitely not to figure out how you become a more efficient customer of your local utility or oil company. And if they try to convince you to invest in energy efficiency, let them do it, as long as you realize that they are investing in you as a customer, so their objective is maximizing their profits, not maximizing the value of your property. If they can get you fool enough to actually invest your money in becoming a more efficient customer of theirs, they have the best of all things: a customer retention program, financed by the customer!

As a building owner you should look at maximizing building value in the long term. That requires a vastly different approach, for if you follow the methodology used here, you'll be frittering away your money over time and doing exactly what I described: investing your own money in a (volunteer) customer retention program for your utility.

Power Options or Why Deregulation Misses the Mark

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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