Troubleshooting multifamily energy efficiency finance

Yesterday I spoke on a panel put together by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) at a  workshop investigating the barriers to and simplifiers needed for energy efficiency financing for the market rate multifamily sector.

Get mind map and video notes

Play the video to run through the highlights in ~7 minutes or download this interactive mind map to read the detailed notes at your own pace.

Synopsis - Every energy efficiency financing decision requires knowing the green building business case

Throughout the session, we drilled down into landlords and lenders problems with energy efficiency financing. It wasn’t hard to name quite a few.

The CPUC can address these issues once they understand their relative impacts on which parties. To find that out, they have to delve into the green building business case for the market rate apartment sector. That’s something that they’ve only recently focused on.

First of all, energy savings were discussed in isolation from other retrofit benefits — similar to what I observed at yesterday’s commercial building workshop, too much silo thinking.

Retrofitting apartments can translate into higher net operating income and cash flow in a variety of ways. In addition to energy savings, more durable systems last longer, need less maintenance and decrease the amount of funds going to capital expenditures over the lifetime of ownership. On top of that, effective gross income can be improved through tenant retention.

Product design received long overdue attention.  My co-panelists echoed gripes by yesterday’s commercial building panelists about the need for simplified transaction processes and lower costs.

Understanding the landlord’s needs and requirements as a customer (and not a “ratepayer”) will help the regulators to bring financial products to market that can help property owners become more proactive about initiating deeper retrofits.

The notes and video contain more details on the topics covered. It was clear that any future products would be greatly helped by understanding the total value-creation picture (yes, systems thinking again). The green building business case helps them to quantify that and make the connection between the goals of owners and lenders as well as their own.

Tell me what you think

What green or energy efficiency finance programs are you watching these days? How well are they working in your market?  Please share your comments.

Deep Horizon oil spill soaks $9 billion in CMBS deals

The first factoids, attaching dollar signs to the Deep Horizon oil-related damage to commercial real estate, are washing ashore.

Realpoint, a rating agency, recently reported (in Real Estate Finance & Investment and Institutional Investor) that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is affecting “$9 billion in commercial mortgage-backed-securities (CMBS) deals“.

The article notes:

[Realpoint] found that there are about 306 loans on 319 properties on the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida that are feeling a direct impact from the spill. The agency believes that the biggest threat to cash flow will be reduced tourism, particularly for properties in Florida. About 247 of the properties affected by the spill are in Florida; reports are that it could cost the state about $2.2 billion.

So will those property owners and the CMBS bondholders go marching arm-in-arm to British Petroleum, to file claims for lost income on those properties and/or debt service on those loans? How will they be compensated for the permanent loss of market value on a “marked” property, not to mention loss of access to refinancing for properties that really are or perceived to be oil-damaged?

Those factoids will roll in soon, I’m sure.

So we now have the unhappy visual of real estate investors, pants rolled up to their knees, trudging through the business, legal and insurance swamp surrounding Gulf-region CMBS, added to a somber image of the rest of the industry on its slow march to building-related sustainability.

One thing’s for sure: the proximity of these events takes the option of doing nothing about environmental and social responsibility off the table (finally).

Photo credit: DVIDSHUB / Flickr

Leslie Christian’s Sharp Focus on Risk and Flawed Asset Allocation

Leslie Christian’s Essay Series:

Originally published in Reimagine Money -

» Social Finance from an Investor’s Perspective

» Getting Serious about Long Term Investing

» Allocate your Risk Response

So many of us in sustainable finance talk about the need to “finance differently”. However, not many are underwriting or, more importantly here, understanding the green finance problem any differently than before.

As Scott Muldavin points out in his recent work, your intended decision drives the content of and the manner in which you underwrite green real estate investments.  Underwriting green does not have to be done in any “special” way. Your common, hardworking DCF analysis will do the job just fine.

Many governments and NGO’s understand the green finance “problem” as one of raising awareness and delivery logistics. Make consumers aware that a new behavior (like turning off the lights) will save them money and then pay them a few bucks (as an incentive or rebate) to adopt the desired behavior.

For investors perceive the “problem” as one of risk versus reward. They want to earn an appropriate risk-adjusted return for the sustainable property they are purchasing (or lending on). You get the picture.

We’re all in favor of green real estate, just as long as we don’t have to do (too much of) anything differently.

But does any of this address the real problem, or is it all just surface noise?

“It’s the global economy, stupid…”

I imagine that’s what James Carville might say if he read Leslie Christian’s recent essay series that been published in the Reimagining Money blog, over the past few months.

Instead of providing her take on the next couple of short term moves, Christian introduces the idea that we’re all playing the wrong game entirely.

She asks us to consider whether current day approaches are driven by basically faulty assumptions. Her point: limits on ecological resources mean that there are limits to economic growth. Ignoring the role that ecological limits play within our global economy opens us up to other risks (negative and positive) the financial community has never thought about. Risks that are already playing out every day throughout our markets and the world.

Rather than trying to measure the riskiness of a particular asset within the framework of a growth economy that looks a lot like the past century but with more players, perhaps we need to consider the riskiness of the global growth economy itself.

In her first essay, she lays out why “global growth thinking,” as reflected by Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) and pretty much all of modern finance, is no longer a workable framework (if it ever was). The unquestioned expectation of perpetual growth leads many to analyze a particular asset or risk within a perpetually growing global economy. But they never question if the global growth economy itself is a problem.

Christian does — challenging MPT, then proposing a new risk framework for the 21st century, which positions social investing as a risk mitigant. And all that happens in just the first act.

In the two subsequent essays, she takes it to the next level. By the third essay, she calls you out, naming ostriches and other non-responsive market participants in denial.

The issues she raises are getting attention in financial circles. Pacesetter Vince Siciliano, CEO of New Resource Bank, commented on the second essay:

I welcome the discussion on limits to growth and the very real impact it should have on our lifestyle and investing decisions today. When we define the word “sustainability” we express a concern about future generations without acknowledging the inherent paradox of everyone around the world trying to live an lifestyle. The blunt question is whether we are willing to freeze (or shrink) our current standard of living to make room for others both now and in the future.

On the other hand, Leslie states that we crossed the tipping point on global resource use in the mid-1960s; I wonder how we prove that fact? The use of cradle to cradle thinking and sustainable technologies will enable us collectively to live much better on a global basis and that needs to be figured into the overall calculus.

Are we protecting ourselves with an umbrella in a hurricane?

Vince points out the need for more proof on the connection between ecological and economic limits. Actually, while I think the need for proof is prudent, it is quite plausible that Christian is at least half right. And that spells big trouble because modern finance can’t even address a part of the risks that she point to. So even if she’s partly wrong, there’s still a need for sustainable finance to redefine “financing and underwriting differently”.

So if you thought that any of Christian’s writing could be true, what would you do differently?

If you even partly accept the notion of ecological limits to growth that make the entire global economy riskier than we know:

• how much have you reduced your ‘risk’ by financing and investing in green real estate?
• what is the cost of waiting to implement your strategy?
• how much benefit will you gain by focusing only on “low hanging fruit” during your energy efficiency retrofit?
• are energy efficiency finance programs, such as PACE, really effective or are they too little too late?

Or do you think, as Vince Siciliano comments, that some of today’s new sustainability thinking — like cradle to cradle — can play such a significant role that you’ll be able to to avert the horrible future Christian suggests is waiting not only for the status quo but current day green investing, too?

Take a look at Leslie Christian’s essays, risk framework and recommendations.

Think about some of the markets where you currently seek investments.  Think about your underwriting.  Your network and clients. See any signs of ecological limits taking shape?

We do.

If you work with institutional investors, send the essays along and ask them what they think.

Then, share your experience and their reactions with the rest of us. We’d love to know if and how these ideas cause your conversations and more importantly, your investing, to differ.

Access all three of the essays here:

» Social Finance from an Investor’s Perspective

» Getting Serious about Long Term Investing

» Allocate your Risk Response

Galley Eco Capital Moves to Hub SoMa, Summer Get-Together in the Works

We’ve moved — here are the details:

We’re excited to announce that we’ve moved our offices to the Hub SoMa!

Hub SoMa is the newest Hub Bay Area venture - taking their co-working, collaboration business model into the heart of downtown San Francisco.

What’s great about the new location is that we can do more of our lab work — creatively designing green finance programs and collaborating on great ideas with the other companies focusing on social and environmental change.

Add to that the great event space we’ve gained where we can hold more workshops, talks and related events for the green finance and investment community. We can’t wait to show it to you!

In fact, we’re already psyched that it is the perfect place to to host our new Real Estate Innovation Advisory® forums (see the upcoming May Pacesetter for details on that other exciting offering!).

Summer Get-Together, Anyone?

We’ll be announcing our Summer Get-Together, happening sometime in June. We’ll have a meet-up among friends new and old, for an informal, fun time. Of course, you’re always welcome to call or stop by anytime before then.

If you want to make sure you hear about our Summer Get-Together plus upcoming green finance and investment workshops and events, make sure you’re on our newsletter list — sign up for it here and we’ll make sure you get the word.

Till then, please update our contact details in your records:

Galley Eco Capital, LLC

901 Mission Street, Suite 105

San Francisco, CA 94103

(415) 305-9512

(P.S. I’m off to Germany for the next few weeks — you might see a blog post or two if I run across any interesting green finance happenings while I’m out there (volcanoes permitting).

Auf widersehen!

Heard at ULI Boston: Four Forces Shaping Green CRE

There was fresh energy among folks recently at ULI’s 2010 Spring Council Forum in Boston — market opportunities are slowly coming back, but it would be a mistake for your firm to simply repeat all your old moves from the last cycle.

I heard four comments that represent the mood and actions of investors on green real estate now:

Here’s a synopsis of the forces I see those comments representing:

“The other shoe’s dropped, but no one heard it.”

Your plan → Get going on your green portfolio strategies, you’re already behind.

Professionals finally acknowledged that a) rumors of 30%-40% loss of value in commercial real estate are, for the most part, overstated and b) there is currently too much capital in the market chasing too few deals. The latter point has been creating the paradox of deals trading at aggressive cap rates amid a recession.

In the opening session, Equity Office Chairman Sam Zell explained the paradox. When real estate markets tumbled, investors had expected banks to dump lots of deeply discounted properties into the markets, which investors would snap up at rock bottom prices.

Wrong assumption. Instead, banks have focused on working out troubled loans and strategically offloading REO assets one-at-a-time, and as a last resort. That has given the market time to gradually readjust pricing, preventing fire sales.

Reality: on-going one-off REO sales cushioned the velocity and depth of property value loss. The practice has also frustrated distressed players, forcing them to compete for REO deals against high net worth individuals and other sources with more patient capital, willing to pay more. This way has helped the banks to achieve better than predicted pricing on their sold assets and the market again saw no drastic fall in commercial real estate pricing.

In response to the question of why so many investors still talk about doing distressed deals, in the face of this very different reality, one panelist replied “the other shoe has already dropped, but no one heard it”.

Lots of investors have been delaying their investments in green initiatives, n waiting for the market to return to health. The good news is that the market is now not as bad as everyone thought. That’s also the bad news — all the players with dough have already gotten started, so you need to keep up.

“Every day, 1MM square feet of real estate is being LEED-certified.”

Your plan → The shift to green is happening much faster than you might think. You need to speed up your firm’s own shift to keep up.

Doug Gatlin, of the US Green Building Council spoke at our Responsible Property Investing Council Meeting, about the current stats on LEED. Here’s one: LEED certifications are running at 1,000,000 sf/day, even during an economic downturn. One council colleague, calculating a corresponding value of several hundred million dollars per day, said this fact would definitely influence his market conversations in favor of green building.

There’s still quite a way to go before we can say that market transformation from LEED has really happened. One main premise behind Architecture 2030 goals is that the US either renovates or builds new a net 10 billion square feet of real estate each year. The 365 million square feet annualized velocity currently being LEED-certified represents 3.65% of the estimated 10B in annual square footage built or renovated in the US — so there’s much progress to be made.

Theory: For green building to influence leasing and investment activity in a market, the “tipping point”, “competitive mix” and “OS” factors have to all be balancing and reinforcing each other in healthy levels. A sufficient concentration of LEED-certified square footage in a sector can be enough to influence investment activity in that sector towards green buildings (tipping point). Note that “sufficient” needn’t be that much in absolute numbers.

That, plus LEED maintaining its relevance and dominance as a green building rating standard (competitive mix) and regulatory support on federal, state and local levels (operating system or “OS”) are the keys to further increasing green building volume. The lack of competitive mix and OS in a market or for a real estate asset class will result in no tipping point being achieved in the area being studied.

The tipping point and OS factors are already a particular force on investment real estate in some gateway metros. For example in San Francisco, brokers have been publishing their own reports showing higher occupancies in LEED-certified buildings. There are already whole classes of global investors who publicly refuse to buy inefficient buildings. So this force is already at work, even with a small proportion of US real estate earning LEED certification to date.

“Operators need the track record to execute on both traditional real estate and sustainability strategies.”

This was a fund manager’s answer to my question about what made her choose to invest with a certain real estate operator, who had brought her a deal with an extensive energy retrofit including adding renewable energy in the business plan.

With capital markets slowly thawing and the velocity of green building certifications growing, it’s time to ask yourself if you’re company will attract capital with a mandate for sustainable real estate. Fund managers are now speaking out about needing to work with partners who can execute on a sustainability plan.

Additionally, you’ll need to assist the equity partner with understanding the value-add from green strategies being pursued, that will come from your local expertise.  The good news is that right now the market is wide open. Most of the US investment real estate firms who have achieved any progress on greening buildings have done so with a few buildings and many are still just focusing on low hanging fruit.

With the projected high increases in energy and water costs, nimble regional operators have a great chance at building a great track record on greening buildings that can get them hired over larger competitors. Plus, its a big market, anyway, with lots of room for more players. Remember what I said above, about 10B sf real estate being built and renovated in the US each year plus all the money out there chasing too few deals?

“We’re serious about being green, but we’re skipping commissioning on all our buildings.”

Your plan → Ignore free lunches. Compete via consistently delivering the best building performance possible.

This was said by an owner’s rep of an institution presenting their multi-billion dollar portfolio of institutional assets. He added:

“We are making our space LEED certifiable. We’re doing many things according to LEED for existing buildings, like green cleaning and updating the systems in our buildings, but we’re saving a couple hundred thousand dollars by skipping commissioning.”

“Pennywise and pound foolish” - even tired clichés are still true. If you attended our recent Competitive Edge workshop, Financial Considerations for Energy Efficiency Retrofits, you learned that Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL) research shows that on median costs of just $0.30/sf, commissioning alone achieved energy savings of 16%, with a 1.1 year payback and 91% ROI.

This means that our investor friend’s portfolio could probably deliver many more dollars in performance, which will literally go to waste via a) the properties remaining exposed to more energy price risk (current price plus escalations) than is warranted, b) not achieving the level of upfront energy savings that might have been possible, c) being in for longer-term, higher capital expenditures on their major systems since their performance was never audited to a commissioning standard.

Why is this unfortunate mindset a force on green building investing?  Actually — it’s pervasive to the point of being an archetype. You’ll find a similar mindset in a certain percentage of companies in every industry and at every point in the economic cycle. As the market matures, the economic downside of their inaction will become more apparent

Those of us who know better have to consistently incorporate building performance data into underwriting and valuation, and adjust prices accordingly. When a certain percentage of investors find themselves taking discounts at sale and losing enough tenants, then they’ll change their minds, improve their O&M - and even save themselves a few more bucks the process.

Next Page »