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.

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.

Let’s meet at the Sustainable Industries Economic Forum

I am thrilled to be participating in the upcoming Sustainable Industries Economic Forum here in San Francisco!

Are you coming?

I will be part of a premiere panel including Paul Hawken and Phillip Michael Williams. We will discuss triple-bottom line investing in these challenging economic times.

Special request –> send me your burning questions and perspectives on the state of green finance and sustainability, and I’ll cover them at the Forum.

The current situation is a perfect storm that feeds off economic worry and unprecedented opportunity within green building and energy efficiency. That leaves lots of folks wondering, “what’s it going to take?” to move sustainability forward.

Send me a note or write a comment on this post about your thoughts, and I’ll try to work your perspective into the mix.  I look forward to the dialogue.

Event Details

November 19, 2009

St. Regis Hotel, San Francisco

8am - 11:30am

You can sign up for the event here

Please join us for what is sure to be an enlightening and insightful event as we look to foster creative solutions for our evolving markets.

Related reading:

• SI article featuring Lisa Michelle Galley

Things you might want to know:

• Do you like this post? We’d love to hear your comments and suggestions.
• You can contact us to discuss or initiate a project here.
• You can get Our Green Journey by email or via RSS.
• Sometimes you can see what we’re doing on Twitter.
• Photo credit: Two Unions on istockphoto
  

San Francisco Once Step Closer to Mandatory LEED

Mandatory LEED in San Francisco is a critical step closer to being fully approved, according to yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle. The Building Inspection Commission signed off on it last night. Its now at the Board of Supervisors for approval.

Bare Bones Overview
Under the proposed addition to the building codes, the following  construction must be LEED-certified:

• new residential high-rise buildings taller than 75 feet
• new commercial buildings larger than 5,000 sf
• renovations on commercial buildings larger than 25,000

Additionally, new residential construction will have to comply with Build It Green’s GreenPoint Rated system.

The article also indicates that complying with the legislation will cost developers an additional 5% on their project budgets, but does not provide a source for this particular information.

No Incentives on Tap
Interestingly, a city official is quoted as saying that city officials had hoped to offer incentives to builders whose projects obtained highest levels of environmental performance, but they scrapped the idea because they feared “it could lead to developers unnecessarily tearing down buildings or remodeling structures in order to take advantage of incentives”.

Hmmm…. so exactly how much in incentive fundings did the City think it would have to shell out? I’m sure they could have devised some sort of method to reduce this particular concern, (if this was truly the main concern).

The quote:

“What we now have is legislation that says if you’re going to build, you have to build to this standard. But it doesn’t encourage you to build a green building in lieu of keeping an existing building.”

Read the article for yourself and decide.