Powerful leasing stats for green buildings — on two continents

Strong evidence continues to build showing that green buildings can deliver better investment value, both now and later.

Moreover, the strength of this assertion is underscored when you see confirmation of leasing performance from unrelated international markets with different green building rating standards.

The below leasing stats are from local brokers and property managers in San Francisco and Paris. We hope that they can give you more ammunition for those green building value conversations you may have with clients and other stakeholders.

San Francisco: LEED vacancy = 9.7% vs non-LEED of 15%

Dave Klein, of NAIBT’S San Francisco office, maintains the RealGreen Index. It tracks the availability of office space in green buildings here in San Francisco, where he’s estimating a 9.6 million sf market of LEED buildings as of 9/09. That green space is overwhelmingly LEED-EB certified.

In our experience with underwriting markets, there is a very different point of view about 9.7% vacant submarket vs a 15% one, even in a historically strong market like San Francisco. That 530bp gap in vacancy shows that the non-LEED buildings will eventually be forced to offer either lower rents and/or larger lease concessions, resulting in lower effective rents to attract tenants.

If those non-LEED Landlords decide to tough it out and not offer greater concessions to compete, they’ll still be paying for that higher vacancy by being the last buildings to fill up, as the local market recovers and the LEED-certified buildings fill up first. It’s really just a question of time, as tenants seem to have already voted with their feet and checkbooks.

On the flip side, calling out these non-LEED buildings like this seems to be a nice circling of a fat EE-retrofit market, in my view.

» Download LEED vs Non-LEED vacancy (NAIBT) (204)

» Download NAIBT Green Index (260)

Paris = Green vs non-green pre-leasing –> 57% vs 11%

Recent story out showing that the French HQE (Haute Qualité Environnementale) green building certification is strongly preferred by tenants in the Ile-de-France submarket of Paris (largely corporate Class A office submarket).

Keep in mind that this is a 2 million sqm submarket — about 21,527,821 sf, meaning no small shakes for the fortunes of those investors. Per GlobeSt:

Around three-quarters of total office space above 5,000 square meters planned for delivery in 2012 and beyond will carry the standard, most of them in the periphery in the south of the French capital. It also concluded that HQE certification is accelerating leasing processes, with 57% of certified space deliverable next year already let, against 11% which is not certified.

In the case of this market, if you are the owner of a non-green building in development here (not even in operation, yet), and your investors see a pre-leasing variance of this magnitude, what kind of conversation are you having with them about creating value with their money?

Not a fun one, I think.

» Read the full story on French green building certification and leasing stats here.

While I realize that the real estate industry requires greater empirical support for the value contribution of environmental certification, these stats already point to huge implications for building owners in each of their submarkets as well as all others where green building penetration is growing. All other things being equal, lower vacancy and/or faster absorption  accrues directly to the bottom line and deliver a great pop to returns.

In my opinion, even though the industry hasn’t reached consensus on a final approach to valuing green buildings, asset underwriting methodology in each of these sub-markets must consider a particular asset’s environmental performance vs that of its peer set, since tenants have demonstrated a clear preference.

More on green lease clauses: Out with the bad, in with the good

Today’s post shares details about that “bad” green lease featured last Friday. Also I’m sharing a few green lease tips from BEPN that talk about ways green lease language can help support value creation in environmentally certified buildings.

The “bad” green clause’s web of risk

Several folks pointed out that LEED-EBOM certification can be achieved without any cooperation from the tenants. Unfortunately, our “uniquely negotiated” lease contained other typical provisions, which, when combined with the green clause in question, made the green business case uncertain, in the eyes of the buyer.

The lease in question was that of a major tenant - and major tenants are often able to negotiate special terms many other areas of the lease, with a deep focus on the expenses that can be passed through via common area maintenance and capital expenditures.

The major tenant lease was no different.  Lease language required the Landlord to obtain the major tenant’s permission in advance of passing through any expenditures, which were outside of a stipulated list. On top of that, the pro rata formula for calculating the tenant’s share of base building common area included an alternative common area square footage.  The formula denominator was a negotiated larger number, so the major tenant would pay less than its full share of common area expenses.

All of the above moves are typical, and limit the major tenant’s exposure to unforeseen or undesirable cost increases over the lease term.  In exchange for this, the Landlord gets a great tenant on a long term, which greatly enhances the building’s image and value.

The limiting of expenses (which is typical) plus the questionable “green” clause, created a situation for the investors where, a) much of the CAM and capital expenditure repayments were “locked in” by the prior owner over a very long time, limiting the new landlord’s flexibility, and  b) if any type of CAM or cap-ex charges were related to “green features” over the major tenant’s lease term, they couldn’t recoup those charges from the major or any other tenant either.

These investors’ business plan is to hold assets for a long term and realize an explicit increase to NOI from operating them as certified green buildings. So they were very focused on lease language not limiting their ability to execute that strategy. Losing part of the CAM recovery via the negotiations might be typical, but being further prevented from recovering costs from any tenant for any sustainable features over a long term put the lease contract into their “risky” column.

BEPN: “Green leases essential for achieving landlord’s environmental goals”

Check out this article from BEPN titled “Green Leases are Coming” (subscription might be required). It lays out a few issues that green leases address, all aimed to make sure that tenants and landlords are aligned with the environmental goals set for a project.

Essentially, the article talks about the kinds of lease provisions that can be negotiated with tenants so that it is easier for the landlord to achieve environmental objectives for a building.

The only part of the article that I would question is the assertion that most leases in the United States are triple net. During my tenure on the San Francisco Mayor’s Task Force, we talked about this point at great length. Large owners and property managers on the task force indicated that most office buildings are leased with gross leases. Of course, retail and industrial properties are nearly always triple net leased.

In any event, the main point here is to make sure you do not exhaust yourself trying to develop or retrofit green, then negotiate the “same old same old” in your leases. If you do, you are passing up a great opportunity to maintain and enhance the value of your environmentally certified building.

Task force to Mayor Newsom: “Your 7 keys to existing building efficiency in San Francisco.”

How can green finance help increase existing commercial building efficiency?

As a member of the Mayor’s Task Force on Existing Building Efficiency, I had the pleasure of attending Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Friday announcement of his introducing new legislation, aimed at improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings in San Francisco.

The contemplated legislation is the product of a task force of 19 key stakeholders convened by the Mayor.  I was happy and proud to contribute to the financing aspects of this work and you can download the entire report here:  Report of Mayor's Task Force on Existing Buildings (187)

Goal: Cut energy use by 50% from existing buildings by 2030

The back story on San Francisco’s sustainability challenges reveals high stakes:

The operation, construction, and demolition of buildings accounts for almost half of San Francisco’s greenhouse gas emissions. Commercial, industrial, and municipal buildings account for 63% of building-sector emissions.

The City has established high standards of environmental performance for new construction. However, at the historic rate of 0.8% new buildings per year, it could take more than sixty years to ‘green’ even half of San Francisco.

As a result, the task force recommended that San Francisco move to help cut energy use by 50 percent, or 2.5% p.a. by 2030, from existing commercial buildings.

7 big ways San Francisco can achieve energy reduction goals via existing commercial buildings

The Task Force distilled its research down to seven big ideas that would help the City achieve the above GHG reduction targets by 2030.

1. Identify cost-effective savings in every commercial building: Require buildings to conduct an energy audit every 5 years.
2. Disclose energy performance information: Require building owners and managers to share energy data with the City.
3. Resolve split incentives: Provide a green lease toolkit and make submetering a policy priority.
4. Make incentives easy: Develop a web-based tool that finds all incentives and financing options for building owners in one place.
5. Educate, train, mentor and market existing building efficiency: Promote programs, facilitate mentorship and partner with institutions.
6. Lead by example in public facilities: Benchmark and disclose energy performance in public facilities.
7. Provide financing: Launch the San Francisco Sustainable Financing program and require that funding from that program prioritize efficiency before renewables.

Green finance focus - comprehensive incentives and smarter EE financing terms

Green finance mechanisms, the area I collaborated within, focused on recommendations #4 and #7.

Task force members reported seeing incentives either being ignored or misunderstood by property owners,  depressing the acceptance and prevalence of retrofits. Those problems were exacerbated by the fact that appraisers, contractors, lenders and others were equally unaware of the positive impacts that incentives could have on improving the economics of any commercial building retrofit program.

Based upon our own experience with assisting property owners in comprehensively sourcing incentives, I felt strongly that San Francisco should integrate a sourcing tool that would make it easier for property owners to quickly obtain comprehensive information on retrofit incentive options that were available to them.

We also made underwriting recommendations to the planned San Francisco Sustainable Financing program, to help it avoid problems that we’ve noticed in the loan programs of some of the other energy efficiency financing districts that are up and running.

Essentially, solar installers have a larger marketing force on the ground than energy efficiency retrofitters. As PACE loan programs are being rolled out across the country, we are getting reports of the unfortunate situation where the loans are going primarily for renewable energy, with energy efficiency funding running a distant second.  This results in the problem of solar panels supplying energy to “dirty” buildings. The regions in question are faced with achieving less of an impact from existing buildings to their climate action goals.

The financing recommendation to the City was that their own program include a provision to prioritize the funding of energy efficiency measures first, then renewable energy second. In our opinion, this requirement will would go a long way in making sure that the loans actually achieve the kind of impact expected by this financing mechanism.

I believe that even greater assurance of positive impacts from energy efficiency financing could be achieved by any program by further prioritizing energy efficiency measures according to the ‘loading order’ suggested by McKinsey in their recent studies. That level of detail was beyond the scope of our financing group’s work within this particular task force, but you’ll hear about it in upcoming posts.

At this point, it is gratifying to see that Mayor Newsom is moving forward with legislative action based upon a collaboration with key real estate industry stakeholders.

The task force has given him a lot to work with, assuring that San Francisco stands out as a leader in achieving real transformation through increasing the energy efficiency of existing buildings.

The little clause that killed a green building sale

Here’s a live action green building underwriting story.

Basically, it underscores the need for property owners and lenders to make sure their underwriting processes are tailored to certified green and/or Energy Star qualified buildings.

Tonight I received a note from a rather overworked, but sharp-eyed investment analyst, under the gun to underwrite his firm’s purchase of an office building under a very tough deadline.

He was not only frazzled, but also frustrated — prompting his note. You see, earlier in the deal, he had been excited about helping his firm to buy a LEED-certified building. Working on this acquisition gave him the hands-on chance to participate in directing more environmentally responsible investment choices — what he really wants to do more of in his career.

The excitement turned to frustration, however, as he came across the following phrase in the anchor tenant’s lease:

“Landlord shall not be required to impose on Tenant or any other tenant of the Building, requirements for Tenant or other tenants to comply with any certification requirements under the USGBC’s Green Building Rating System or other green or sustainable design elements.”

Long story short: his firm interprets this clause to mean that the landlord is blocked from employing any O&M practices, which would help the building to perform to the level expected from it’s LEED certification. To them, the language allows the tenant to object to any measures employed by the landlord that can potentially affect their costs in any way, no matter if those measures even benefit them down the road.

The building is LEED-NC certified and now the property buyer is faced with the reality that — if they wanted to get a LEED-EBOM certification or even just an Energy Star qualification — which, in their view, helps preserve value over the holding period, absolutely every tenant in the building is explicitly not obligated to cooperate with any measures the Landlord would introduce to achieve those certifications.

Moreover, they also worry that investing in the asset marketed as LEED-certified, with the full knowledge that achieving environmental performance is effectively impossible, leaves them open to being thought of as greenwashers.

As a result, our colleague and now his superiors have adopted the opinion that the LEED certification on this building is essentially worthless. Moreover, they don’t see any way to proceed with the acquisition because they will have to wait nearly ten years until the anchor tenant’s lease expires in order to change this clause, which prevents them from working with every single tenant in the building on this matter.

The investment is fundamentally flawed, doomed to a lifetime of discounted rents and sales prices any time other tenants and future buyers figure this out — or until that lease clause is changed. It could be completely non-competitive on energy performance within its submarket by then as all the other landlords will have been able to easily write leases which assure the landlord the ability to institute O&M expected of green buildings, making this asset the market laggard and — relatively devalued at disposition.

Ironically, any appraiser would typically ignore this in their valuation of the project since absolutely none of these issues would hit their traditional underwriting radar. They would have to be sensitized to the connections between sustainable design, O&M, building performance and related contractual lease obligations to figure out the true negative impact of this clause.

So the seller, after spending so much time marketing the building as a high quality, LEED-certified asset now must move on and find a buyer, who is not as sensitized to the de facto devaluation of the building, and willing to pay his sales price.

Kudos to this investment analyst and his firm for doing the right thing, both financially and environmentally. Green buildings made brown by bad lease language shouldn’t be rewarded with top dollar purchase prices.

In the meantime, please take this as a cautionary story about actual underwriting issues that can come up with green building investments in today’s market.

Green building investment an ‘affordable truth’

Did you catch Paul Krugman’s op-ed in the NY Times this past Sunday?

Essentially, he says that going green is more affordable than certain folks would like for us to realize. Moreover, he thinks that the investment that would be required by buildings to go green would provide a great “organic” stimulus for economy (excuse the pun).

Consider, for example, the case of investment in office buildings. Right now, with vacancy rates soaring and rents plunging, there’s not much reason to start new buildings. But suppose that a corporation that already owns buildings learns that over the next few years there will be growing incentives to make those buildings more energy-efficient. Then it might well decide to start the retrofitting now, when construction workers are easy to find and material prices are low.

The same logic would apply to many parts of the economy, so that climate change legislation would probably mean more investment over all. And more investment spending is exactly what the economy needs.

Big Landlord’s: “It’s LEED or bleed”

Thanks to Greg Porter, of MP Commercial Partners, for sending along the WSJ “adver-journalism” piece featuring several large landlords and the USGBC. It contains a good lineup of industry pacesetters who build and/or retrofit green and have seen a boost to the bottom line from operating environmentally friendly buildings. Essentially, it was a “get on the bus” writeup, encouraging environmental certification of buildings.

Remember that I asked in yesterday’s post, about whether Bloomberg’s pullback on mandating green retrofit mattered for large landlord crowd? My take: the horse is out of the barn on greening buildings and they were under pressure to keep up with the Jones’.

Read what the landlords in this article have to say — even though they’ll continue to push for more incentives at every government level — since their reports of overwhelming tenant and resident preference for green and energy efficiency buildings basically mean that a LEED or Energy Star certification is just the price of entry into the big ticket game.

Then and now

A few years ago I was on a panel that was moderated by an industry icon. Cap rate compression was still the hot thing and sustainability was pretty much ignored in real estate circles.  The moderator asked me (then a lender) if I thought green buildings would ever be worth more than conventionally-built assets. I told him that conventionally-built assets would probably start trading at a discount once enough green buildings were up and running. I’ll never forget him looking at me as if I had two heads.

Today’s WSJ article contains the following quote by Dave Pogue, of CBRE:

“This is a growing movement,” he concludes. “If you don’t improve your buildings to a good standard, there will be a market penalty. We’re already at a point where sustainability gives you an edge.”

Good to see that I probably won’t have to endure panels like that one any more.

« Previous Page — Next Page »