The only story worth telling is the net-zero story

In taking my annual look at my home energy and water bills to see where we can improve, I turn my attention to my natural gas bills.  Natural gas bills comprise around 75-85% of our total annual utility expense, so of all, it poses the greatest opportunity for improvement in terms of finances.  Understanding that, last year we took part in the utility program managed by Energy Impact Illinois that allowed homeowners to receive home assessments that identify opportunities for energy improvement, then incentivize the resident to pursue as many of the recommended improvements as possible.  The hope was that we could lower our $2,000 per year natural gas bill by as much as $300-500.

Without going into too much detail about the assessment and the work, we chose to insulate our attic, seal around a whole-house exhaust fan, and fix seals around bathroom and kitchen exhaust fans.  Immediately after completing the projects, we noticed the reduced leakage (accompanied by a new odor from the spray insulation).  The new cap on the whole-house exhaust reduced its effectiveness , but did not eliminate its usefulness.  The hope was that the trade-off for our energy bills the next winter would make up for our discomfort.  Given the winter we had this past year, that should have been easy.

The results:  from April 2012 through March 2013, we spent $1,783 in natural gas bills, but from April 2013 through March 2014 we spent $2,712.

Yes, you read right.  After the work, we increased our bill by 52%.

And that provides an example of why the energy efficiency conversation proves so difficult to have.  After performing efficiency work, I should see an immediate lowering of my bill, but from 2012-2014 the cost per unit of natural gas (a therm, or 100,000 Btu in Northern Illinois) went up by around 30%.  The increase in price means that unless a homeowner sees a reduction in usage larger than the cost increase, they will see an increase in the bill which has to be explained.  Once you get into the conversation that starts, "But you would have spent more if you did not do the work...", we lose the audience.

If you are paying attention, you have noticed that our bill went up 52%, but the cost went up only 30%.  Now we have to explain that away.  From March 2012 through April 2013, Chicago experienced 5675 heating degree days (a measure of heating need calculated daily that assumes we need no heat at 65 degrees...on a day with the average temperature of 30 degrees, we would experience 35 heating degree days...65 - 30 = 35).  In that same time period in 2013 to 2014, we experienced 6916, or an increase of about 22% from year to year.  That means that from one year to the next, I should have expected a need for heating that was about 22% more than the previous year.

Now the real explaining begins.  If I had done nothing, I should have expected that my natural gas used in 2013 through 2014 would have been 22% higher than the year previous.  My usage from 2012-13 was 2,133 therms, which would have meant I should expect around 2,600 therms in 2013-14.  I also should have expected that instead of spending $0.84 per therm for that 2,600 therms, I would spend $1.08 per therm...meaning my total expected cost would be around $2,808.

After all that explanation, I saved around $100 for the year.  Given the $3,500 we spent on the work (even after a $1,750 rebate), that means that after 35 years, I will have recouped the investment.  Since I financed that work over a 30 year mortgage refinance, that means I spent about $216 last year in principal and interest payments for that work.  I have to save at least $216 to break even on the work (and remember that is even after the incentive).

Although a failed attempt, the only failure really comes in not learning from mistakes.  What could have caused this shortfall?  First, the quality of the work could have played a role.  Three years earlier when we replaced single-pane with double-pane windows, we saw a reduction.  This should have delivered one as well, so maybe the contractor who did the work bears some responsibility.  Another explanation comes from the potential that my house has so many issues that fixing only some of them did not fully address the issue.  If we leaked air into one part of the house, fixing that leak may have forced more air through another leak that was less active prior to the work.  In either case, more study and planning is needed.

The ultimate lesson to learn is that this kind of incremental work has significant drawback, especially with so many moving parts.  If the project had focused on eliminating the heating bill instead of lowering it, then regardless of the price fluctuations or the increase in heating degree days, the results would have been realized and we would have a more powerful story to tell - without all the explaining.  We need to refocus our efforts, and think bigger if we are going to succeed.