Energy Efficiency is the Answer

In this week’s column, I expand upon a short blog post I made in late October, “Conservation Capitalism,” which highlighted the Energy Efficiency Partnership of Greater Washington. That partnership, spearheaded by Virginia Tech, has set the goal of reducing energy consumption by 20 percent to 50 percent in some 100 major office buildings in the Washington region over the next five years.

Virginia Tech will drum up awareness through conferences and other outreach programs, Pepco Energy Services will conduct the retrofits and investment banker Hannon Armstrong will arrange an estimated $100 million worth of project financing per year.

While the politicians are talking about climate change and energy conservation, the level of activity on the ground — people actually doing something to increase energy efficiency — is remarkably low compared to other countries, observes Laurel Colless, the cosmopolitan New Zealander, wife of the Finnish ambassador to the United States, and mother of three children, who got the ball rolling. But the Washington region appears to have reached a tipping point. The response to the initiative has been enthusiastic she says. At last count, 38 major property owners had contacted the Partnership about participating.

Pepco will conduct detailed energy audits for serious prospects, ranking a list of energy-saving improvements: from double-paning windows and installing automated lighting, heating and cooling controls to installing solar panels on the roof or building a cogeneration facility to supply electricity, steam and hot water.

Energy service companies like Pepco have been around a long time. The crucial difference now is the appearance of companies like Hannon Armstrong that can bundle the savings into a single project, bridging the gap between the property owner’s expectation of a short-term payback and the 8- to 10-year time horizon required to recoup some of the more expensive energy-saving investments. Hannon Armstrong employs mixtures of equity and debt, and devises arcane structures such as synthetic and leveraged leases.

The energy savings are shared between the property owner, Pepco, Hannon Armstrong and its investors. For the property owners, the value proposition is effortless, risk-free savings. The Partners are confident the idea will take off.

Colless guesstimates that the potential exists to reduce electricity consumption by $3.6 billion a year in the Washington region. That’s just from the commercial sector, not including federal government facilities, hospitals or universities. By deploying energy-efficiency strategies across Virginia, we can delay the need to build expensive and intrusive new power plants and transmission lines for years — potentially until renewable fuels such as solar, wind and biomass are practicable to build economically on a large scale. The result will be lower electric bills and less pollution.

Read the full article here.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

19 responses to “Energy Efficiency is the Answer”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    “The energy savings are shared between the property owner, Pepco, Hannon Armstrong and its investors. For the property owners, the value proposition is effortless, risk-free savings. The Partners are confident the idea will take off.”

    The energy savings have an eight to ten year payback (unless/until fuel prices go up even more). and those paybacks will be shared four ways, effectively making the payback even longer.

    Now, I can invest in company A and get a two or three year return, or invest in their building and get a ten year return.

    Why would I do that, unless there is a significant drop in risk? And since this is a new product, where is the risk reduction?

    Certainly there are patient investors out there who are willing to wait longer in exchange for low risk, but that factor is hard to see here.

    And don’t forget that the population of investors is aging: fewer and fewer of them have the time left to be patient.

    RH

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Ray, you have honed in on a key point. I asked that question too, and Jeff Eckel was a bit vague. I sensed that he didn’t want to give away his competitive advantage.

    Here’s what I speculate. First of all, property owners often have alternate uses for their capital. Investing the money in energy savings may generate a lower rate of return than alternate investments, or they may be less important strategically. Another reason may be that property owners don’t want to invest in upgrading their properties because they’re planning to sell, and they’re worried they won’t recoup their full investment.

    Hannon Armstrong’s value add is an ability to package investments for investors — pension funds, maybe — with longer-term investment horizons. Some investors prefer investments with stable returns over an 8- to 10-year lifetime. Also, H-A can increase equity returns by using leverage, or structuring investments as leases to shift tax credits and liabilities to the most advantageous owner.

    In sum, there are a lot of tricks, and if you’re not an investment banker, you don’t know them.

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    Oh, you mean like what Larry calls “scamming the system for personal gain.”

    Yep, I agree Armstrong can bring packaging and marketing to the table, but there is still only so much patient money sitting around.

    RH

  4. Nice post, property investors make $5,000 to $10,000 or more by flipping houses. These investors buy a home from a distressed seller and resell it quickly for a profit. Many distressed sellers offer excellent houses in perfect condition discounted for a quick sale. Know more about buy to let investment for free.

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    “What can I do, as an individual, to help make the transition to a more sustainable economy?”

    That is a terrible question to ask an economist because my answer will seem so strange. I don’t think people should go out of their way to live greener, etc., unless this is what they enjoy doing. I expect people to respond to economic incentives and right now we don’t have the right incentives in place to transition to a more sustainable economy. Higher prices for products that generate pollution during the production and consumption process are necessary to get consumers to change behavior in a big way. Instead of spending a bunch of time recycling and buying green-labeled paper towels, consumer-voters should do as much as possible to get a $1 per gallon increase in the gas tax.

    http://www.env-econ.net/

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    Seeing as Dominion Power dropped power to my city block just last week and I live less than a quarter of mile away from its corporate headquarters, I am inclined to put solar on my roof (of my new house). I need it for disaster recovery and I need it to lock in my energy costs now.

    I would also love to see solar on the neighborhood high school. It has a huge roof with lots of solar potential. It just sits there in the summer time. In the event of a neighborhood emergency, my neighbors could use its solar power. We did not have power for two weeks following Hurricane Isabel and we are in the middle of downtown Richmond, right next to Dominion’s corporate headquarters.

    Its time to embrace a new energy future and stop letting big corporations dictate policy in the name of short term profits.

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    The stuff is available to go solar, there are contractors that will install it.

    All you gotta have is the bucks, and the incentive. Go for it, if it is what you want. No one is dictating YOUR policy with respect to power, except maybe the HOA.

    Just don’t expect any short term profits.

    RH

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Oh, you mean like what Larry calls “scamming the system for personal gain.”

    yeah.. I was probably out of line for that comment. my apologies.. though I’m a slow learner and liable to repeat it..

    🙂

    some would say that the bane of capitalism is that it encourages folks to do what is best in their own interests – even if it cost others on the short end of the stick.

    but to be clear.. “scamming” in my mind is something that some clever individual has figure out how to exploit that was not intended in the original legislation/policy – and usually results in closing the “loopholes”.

    Thus a fellow who has no need or motivation for 100 additional cows will expressly go out a buy 100 cows never intending to do anything with them other than getting a government subsidy.. for them..

    so that’s what I call a scam.

    and most of the time.. they are associated with a subsidy or an “incentive”.

    Sometimes these folks end up “splaining” their logic to the IRS…

    🙂

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I am inclined to put solar on my roof … disaster recovery ….solar on the neighborhood high school. .. huge roof with lots of solar potential. It just sits there in the summer time. In the event of a neighborhood emergency, my neighbors could use its solar power.”

    I would think (agree) that while solar might be a bit pricey for individuals in terms of up-front costs, that having it on government buildings makes a lot of sense and a lot of different reasons.

    Further, I would think that public buildings have the capability to make ice for distribution when/if circumstances would warrant it.

    These are things that if done right could be cost-effective and a benefit to folks who pay their taxes.

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    “having it on government buildings makes a lot of sense and a lot of different reasons.”

    Government can and should have a longer term view of things, and it has no real need of short term profits, therefore solar does make more sense for government than for individuals. Even so, ten to fifteen year payback is a long time.

    —————————–

    With respect to cows, I think you misunderstand. I have enough land to support some cows, and it probably makes better long term sense than what I am doing now, and that is and has been the plan.

    What I am doing now is preamble and necessary to restore this place to its former condition, and able to support livestock, sustainably. The schedule is set to the time when I can semi-retire and be around to keep an eye on the animals and properly care for them.

    But, if, we suddenly have emission or runoff limits set based on current usage, then all my efforts to date are wasted. If that is actually happening, then it would behoove me to shortcut the full process, slap up temporary fence and water, and get the cattle quick, before I get cut out by being assigned zero runoff allotments, based on my present use.

    Then, if it doesn’t work out, I could still sell off the cattle and the runoff rights to someone else. There is no subsidy involved, only the trading rights the rules (might) allow.

    You tell me, is that scamming the system, or looking out for my own best interests, within the rules of the game? Especially since I have been working with and planning on the current rules for the last 18 or more years.

    RH

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    my definition of scamming is if someone is taking advantage of an incentive or subsidy in such a manner that was not intended and is considered a “loophole” by the folks who wrote the law.

    If a subsidy or incentive is available or becomes available and the obvious intent of the legislation is to invite responses deemed a benefit by BOTH the incented and those paying the incentive then everyone is happy.

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    “the obvious intent of the legislation is to invite responses deemed a benefit by BOTH the incented and those paying the incentive then everyone is happy.”

    Now that sounds pretty much like what I have been saying: When the winners can pay the losers and still come out ahead, everyone is happy.

    That SHOULD BE the intent of the law.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    What started my comment was an ovbservation about what happens when and if cap and trade comes into effect.

    Those that got there first get a cap, and everyone else gets left out. They then have to trade to get a cap. Even if their “process” is better, more advantageous for all, and cleaner.

    Pretty much like passing a new zoning rule. Those that developed first, get their cap, and those that conserved get squat.

    Same thing with Offsets. You have to create a “new” offset in order to get paid. So even though I’m sitting here growing 50 tons of trees every year for the past 50 years (worth around $41,000 a year at current offset prices) I would get no credit for that, either.

    Because of the timing of when the rules change, I (this is the hypothetical I, not the real I) could be cut out of both the offsets market and the cap and trade market.

    ????

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    It could be even worse. I could be restricted by zoning into only farming, and restricted by runnoff rules that prevent me from farming.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    “The Efficiency Conundrum

    It’s a bit like the dieter who buys a box of low-fat cookies and ends up eating the entire box in one sitting. So much for the diet.

    A report released on Tuesday by CIBC World Markets Chief Economist Jeff Rubin states that despite the overall gains in energy efficiency since the 1970’s – 50% per unit of GDP from 1975 to 2005 – those gains have been spent, and then some, in more gadgets, bigger cars, larger houses, and more energy consumed. Total energy use in that time has actually risen by 40% Rubin says.

    The conclusion is that energy efficiency alone is not a solution to climate change or dwindling sources of oil and must be combined with actual conservation. But will efficiency ever lead to conservation? Are we going against the grain of human nature to expect it to?

    In their book The Bottomless Well, Peter Huber and Mark Mills think the idea of efficiency as a means to conservation is misguided. Not that efficiency is bad or shouldn’t be pursued, but that it is never a means to conservation; “energy efficiency leads to more consumption, not less”. The report by Rubin seems to bear out Huber and Mills’ assertion. “

    http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/the-efficiency-conundrum-002752.php

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. here’s something that will warm the cockles of many hearts (though probably not RHs):

    Pricing Power by the Hour

    By Lisa Rein
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, December 12, 2007; Page A01

    Pepco is about to start sending personal e-mail messages to Jonathan and Lauren Schwabish every few hours that could determine when they do the dishes, wash the baby’s clothes or turn on the air conditioner.

    The couple will learn when the price of electricity for their old Capitol Hill home will spike the next day because Washington’s winter chill or its steamy summer is nudging up the demand for power.

    If they wait to turn on the washing machine or they turn off the air conditioner when the sun beats down, they’ll be rewarded with a credit on their utility bill that could reach hundreds of dollars a year. Other D.C. residents have agreed to pay rates eight times the average if they use their appliances at peak times but rates well below it at off-peak hours, as part of a pilot program starting next month.

    “Lexus lanes” are coming to the electricity grid. Energy conservation programs that died when the power market switched from regulation to competition are back, but with new technology and aggressive demands from government regulators facing anger over rising prices.

    Just as long-awaited high-occupancy toll lanes will charge drivers a fee to travel at rush hours, electricity customers will pay more when the grid is congested and less when it’s not. If the strategies succeed, customers will not only slash their bills but also reduce pollution from coal-fired generating plants.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102502.html?hpid=topnews

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    So.. here’s the way to implement Congestion Pricing for Electricity.

    The next time a rate increase is contemplated, the state will approve it but offer the option of a smart meter for anyone who wants one.

  18. “Colless guesstimates that the potential exists to reduce electricity consumption by $3.6 billion a year in the Washington region. That’s just from the commercial sector, not including federal government facilities, hospitals or universities.”.

    That’s a lot of money for a region with about 2 million non-government working stiffs.

    http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/yVhZVg20070913095439.pdf

    It works out to about $1,800 less in electricity cost per employee per year for non-government employees.

    I hope that’s possible although it seems like a very high number.

    $1,800 per employee per year works out to a net present value of just over $12,000 for 10 years at 8%. That’s $6M for a single office building with 500 employees.

    Wow.

  19. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Good fact checking, Groveton. The estimate does seem high. I should have thought to ask Colless what she based her guesstimate on.

Leave a Reply