operation

If the benefits of a sustainable retrofit are so robust, why isn’t everyone doing one?

Posted on April 15, 2015April 21, 2015 by abrahamwien18

Paul L. Jones, CPA, LEED Green Associate, Principle, Emerald Skyline Corporation

A sustainable retrofit includes replacements and upgrades that result in lower energy, operating and maintenance costs as well as improved occupant satisfaction. A sustainable facility will have a small carbon footprint, limited environmental impact and conserves natural resources. They can range from replacing conventional lights to LED bulbs, adding motion-control switches and installing low-flow water fixtures to installing a green roof, replacing the building skin and adding solar panels to all of the above.

When you fully understand the economic benefits of doing a sustainable retrofit which include lower expenses and rent and occupancy premiums resulting in higher NOI as well as reduced cap rates resulting in higher long-term values, you realize how few property owners, managers and tenants have actually made the decision to pursue an upgrade of their building(s), it initially does not compute a United Nations Environmental Program Finance Initiative Investor Briefing entitled “Unlocking the energy efficiency retrofit investment opportunity” reports:

Buildings with the Energy Star label had significantly stronger performance than similar unlabeled buildings: 13.5% higher market values, 10% lower utility costs, 5.9% higher Net Operating Income (NOI) per square foot, 4.8% higher rents and 1% higher occupancy rates.
A study using Co-star data concluded that LEED-certified buildings and Energy Star rated buildings versus non-rated buildings had 8% higher effective rents (a function of both the rental amount and the occupancy rate) and a 13% sales price premium.

See also my article, “Welcome to Sustainable Benefits – Let’s begin with the benefits of doing a commercial building sustainable retrofit” for additional survey results and case studies that demonstrate the results building owners and managers have realized.

In a 2012 study by The Rockefeller Group and Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, however, reported that approximately $72 billion in capital is needed to be invested in sustainable retrofits to effect profitable energy efficiency in the existing building stock. However, the total spent in 2012 was just $1.5 billion.

Once you understand the relative perspective of the stakeholders in both the investment and the benefits, the resistance to effecting a sustainable retrofit can be understood. Let’s dissect the framework in which the decision to make sustainable improvements are made and the issues and motivations that cause a property owner not to update and improve their property which are:

Short-term investment horizon
Incongruous lease structure
Capital and operating budget limitations
Financing availability, complexity and/or cost
Limited knowledge, time and/or motivation to effect energy upgrades

Understanding these investment, operational and financial constraints is the first step in developing solutions that will result in making the sustainability and resiliency of the existing stock of commercial buildings feasible and practical.

Short term investment horizon:

In the era of REITs, CMBS, hedge funds, crowdfunding and private equity, investment hold periods are frequently in the 3 – 7 year range when investors can typically optimize the IRR and other profitability measures or bail on a bad investment and reallocate their capital. As a result, many investors will only consider sustainability measures that have a two-to-three year payback period. Deep energy retrofits with savings of 30% to 50% that result from retrofitting multiple building systems requiring more time and capital to effect are tabled and not done.

Solution: The current and prospective investment environment will continue to reflect hold periods that are relatively short; however, the solution is for investors, owners and managers to realize that a sustainable retrofit enhances the long-term value of the property and will cause investment returns to increase. Including the costs and benefits of upgrading a building is a common way for sponsors to demonstrate the inherent value of a property – especially one that is not fully leased or suffers from functional obsolescence or poor aesthetics and other physical limitations on its marketability to prospective tenants. Many business plans include upgrading a building from one class to a higher class which results in increased rents and lower cap rates. As evidenced by many studies, including sustainability and resilience in the business plan is an increasingly important component in any market-oriented building upgrade. The solution is for sponsors, investors and owners to realize this and to put it into practice.

Future articles will present sustainable ideas many of which can be implemented with no capital investment required.

Incongruous Lease structure

Commercial buildings, a/k/a income properties, are leased to tenants pursuant to a variety of lease structures with the four most common being as follows:

Gross Lease, or full service gross, is a lease where the landlord/owner collects a stipulated rent amount and is pays all expenses including real estate taxes, insurance and operating expenses that are comprised of utilities, repairs and maintenance and management. The room rate paid for a night in a hotel and a lease for a self-storage unit are examples of gross leases.
- Apartment leases are typically considered to be a gross lease as the landlord is usually responsible for all operating expenses including real estate taxes, building insurance, common area maintenance and utilities, and property management while the tenant is responsible for the unit’s electricity (and sometimes water) and interior maintenance.
Modified Gross Lease is a gross lease where the landlord/owner collects a stipulated rent amount plus a reimbursement of real estate taxes, insurance and operating expenses which exceed an agreed upon amount which is typically an estimate of the building expenses for the initial lease or calendar year. Typically, at the end of the year, the actual expenses are reconciled to the estimate and any increase is passed to the tenant based on its pro-rata share. Most multi-tenanted office buildings are leased pursuant to modified gross leases.
Net Lease is a lease where the landlord/owner collects a stipulated rent amount plus building expenses which include real estate taxes (net), taxes and insurance (double net); or taxes, insurance and operating expense (triple net) depending on the terms of the lease. If the building is multi-tenanted, the tenant pays its pro rata share. Most net leases are currently triple net. Retail properties are typically leased using a triple net lease.

In a standard Full Service lease, there is no split incentive in the lease structure as any and all savings realized from a sustainable retrofit inure to the benefit of the owner; however, the property manager may not be incentivized to promote a retrofit as it would be responsible for supervising and effecting the improvements without any additional management fees. With regard to an apartment complex, the landlord’s incentive to invest in energy efficiency measures is limited to the common areas – or to improve the competitive position and marketability of the units to prospective tenants.

In a standard Modified Gross lease as well as a Net lease, the landlord/building owner is not incentivized to invest the time, money and personnel resources to effect a sustainable retrofit as the landlord receives no direct financial benefit as the tenant pays the operating expenses and receives all of the benefit of lower operating costs.

Solution: Creating a lease structure that equitably aligns the costs and benefits of efficiency, sustainability and/or resiliency between building owners and managers, known as a green lease, aligned lease, high performance lease or energy efficient lease, will create sustainable and substantial benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, for both tenants and owners/landlords.

According to Jones Lang LaSalle, “A green lease need not be complicated. Often it merely requires structuring terms and agreements already in place, such as temperature settings and building operating hours, in a fashion that provides sustainable cost savings with negatively impacting building performance.”

To effect a green leasing program that includes both current and prospective tenants, engaging a consultant that understands both commercial lease structures and efficiency and sustainability retrofits to maximize the sustainable benefits to be derived therefrom.

Green leases will be addressed in detail in a future article.

Capital and operating budget limitations

Many properties suffer from a breakdown in communication and financial planning between building managers and building owners. Building managers typically operate a facility pursuant to a one-year budget which causes them to budget and implement projects with a short term (1- 2 years) payback period. Consequently, capital improvements that have a longer payback period are not often recommended by management, or if recommended, not implemented by ownership due to a combination of knowledge, time or motivation to consider an energy upgrade or a perceived lack of available capital. This short-term horizon again limits the nature and extent of any efficiency or sustainable upgrades and prevents ownership from reaping all of the economic benefits that inure from a building retrofit.

Further, many times neither building ownership nor building management understand the nature and availability of financing options, tax credits, utility and local government rebate programs. Some of the programs, or a combination of programs, can result in building owners not having to come out of pocket to fund the improvements; however, the unique nature of them requires time which is typically focused on achieving the primary business goals of the organization.

Solution: Engage a sustainability consultant with knowledge of property operations and management as well as the nature of the available financing, credits and rebates – and how to source and evaluate alternatives in order to minimize actual investment dollars and the cost of any financing incurred. Conducting a life-cycle analysis in addition to other financial analyses will provide ownership with the information needed to make the business decision.

Future posts will present investment analysis tools and methodologies with examples of the real economics of sustainable retrofits.

Financing availability, complexity and/or cost

Contrary to popular belief, energy efficiency and sustainability retrofits benefit from a variety of financing alternatives. However, for real property professionals who work with mortgage loans, mezzanine loans, preferred equity and similar forms of financing, retrofit financing options ranging from equipment leases to ESCO (Energy Service Company) contracts and PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) liens is a whole new world. When you add in the variety of tax credits, utility rebates and vendor financing, the options become complex.

Further, the sources for financing a retrofit are not usually the same ones that provide mortgage financing so it is a new arena which makes accessing sources and evaluating options time consuming and prohibitive.

Solution: Engaging a professional who is familiar with the types and sources of retrofit financing as well as the typical structures and issues of which owners should be aware is the easiest and most efficient way to determine and evaluate the options based on the financial and non-financial objectives of the owner.

The various retrofit financing options, examples of tax credits and utility and municipal rebates will be described and explained in future posts.

Limited knowledge, time and/or motivation to effect energy upgrades

In today’s competitive commercial real estate environment that is still recovering from the devastatingly harsh Great Recession of 2007, keeping your focus on the primary business of keeping space leased (as hoteliers say – heads in the beds) and watching every penny to the bottom-line is the first priority of owners and managers.

Even though the results of an efficiency, sustainability and/or resiliency retrofit provide a substantial boost to the net operating income (and cash flow) of a property, it does not become a high priority item due to lack of understanding of the process, the capital, management and labor requirements, the extent of the potential disruption to operations and tenants as well as knowledge of the additional value (rent premiums, occupancy premiums, higher quality tenancy, lower cap rate, increased investment value) and business benefits (reputation, image, goodwill) to be derived therefrom.

Also, many times building management staff, who may have the understanding of the sustainability technology will not have the financial literacy to present a compelling case to ownership.

Further, many energy service providers (who are typically considered to be the expert in facilitating a retrofit) do not know or understand the financing options that are available to building owners. Accordingly, these professionals are not able to property advise an owner on energy project financing. Accordingly, many owners are not aware of, nor understand, the variety of financing mechanisms available to them.

Solution: Learn enough to realize that it is worth the time to learn about the options that are available, hire a sustainability consultant, architect or engineer to analyze the property, benchmark its energy and water usage and understand other maintenance practices, have the systems retro-commissioned to determine how well they are performing and develop an efficiency, sustainability and/or resiliency retrofit plan. Implement the plan and start realizing the benefits.

Our Sustainable Benefits blog will be your resource to learn and understand the new world we are transitioning into – one in which we leave the world better off for having lived (Emerson).

Welcome to Sustainable Benefits – Let’s begin with the benefits of doing a commercial building sustainable retrofit….

Posted on February 19, 2015February 19, 2015 by abrahamwien18

2/12/15

By Paul L. Jones, Founder,
Director, Financial Advisory Services for Emerald Skyline Corporation

“Who is more foolish: The child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?” (Maurice Freehill, British WW I flying ace).

Figure 1 Empire State Building – LEED Gold

Throughout my 36-year career in commercial real estate, commercial buildings have generally been classified from A to C based on location, construction quality and tenancy. Class A buildings represent the cream of the crop. They secure credit-quality tenants, command the highest rents, enjoy premium occupancies, are professionally managed and have a risk profile that supports lower cap rates and higher values. Class B buildings are similar to Class A but are dated yet not functionally obsolete. Class C buildings are generally over 20 years old, are architecturally unattractive, in secondary or tertiary locations and have some functional obsolescence with out-dated building systems and technology. NOTE: No formal international standard exists for classifying a building, but one of the most important things to consider about building classifications is that buildings should be viewed in context and relative to other buildings within the sub-market; a Class A building in one market may not be a Class A building in another.

Based on years analyzing investments in income properties, it appears to me that in the recovery from the Great Recession the commercial real estate market has evolved to include energy efficiency and environmental design as a requirement for improving the marketability of a building – not to mention optimizing its operating income and value.

COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS

On December 1, 2014, Buildings.com, in an article entitled “GSA Verifies Impact of Green Facilities,” reported that a study conducted by GSA and the Pacific Northwest Laboratory conducted a post-occupancy study of Federal office buildings, which varied in age and size and had been retrofit to reduce energy and water consumption. The following results were based on a review of one year of operating data and surveys of the occupants which was compared to the national average of commercial buildings: High performance, green buildings:

cost 19% less to maintain
Use 25% less energy and water
Emit 36% fewer carbon dioxide emissions
Have a 27% higher rate of occupant satisfaction.

One of the most famous sustainable retrofit projects undertaken was the updating of the 2.85 msf Empire State Building whose ownership directed that sustainability be at the core of the building operations and upgrades implemented as part of the $550 million Empire State ReBuilding program. According to Craig Bloomfield, of Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), “After the energy efficiency retrofit was underway, JLL led a separate study of the feasibility study of LEED certification” which “showed that LEED Gold certification was within reach at an incremental cost of about $0.25 psf.

Graphics on financial benefits of high-performance buildings

Source: Institute for Market Transformation: Studies consistently show that ENERGY STAR and LEED-certified commercial buildings achieve higher rental rates, sales prices and occupancy rates.

According to the report “Green Building and Property Value” published by the Institute for Market Transformation and the Appraisal Institute, a trend is emerging where green buildings are both capturing higher quality tenants and commanding rent premiums. As indicated by the above graph summarizing four national studies for commercial office buildings back up this trend on rents and occupancy, as “certified green buildings outperform their conventional peers by a wide margin.”

According to the EnergyStar.gov website, “Transwestern Commercial Services, a national full-service real estate firm, has generated impressive returns through sound energy management. In 2006, Transwestern invested over $12 million in efficiency upgrades, for an average 25% energy savings. The Company estimates that dedication to energy management has increased the portfolio’s value by at least $344 million.”
According to John Bonnell and Jackie Hines of JLL – Phoenix, “In Phoenix, owners of LEED-certified buildings can capture a premium of 29 percent over buildings without this distinction.” The premium for Green buildings had disappeared during the Great Recession and reemergence in the first quarter of 2014 as a result of improving Phoenix market dynamics which is being realized in other major markets as well.

RETAIL

For retail buildings, the tenants are driving the shift to sustainability with green building as consumers become increasingly aware of the environment and the need to reduce, reuse and recycle. According to the “LEED in Motion: Retail” report published by the USGBC in October 2014, “LEED-certified retail locations prioritize human health: among their many health benefits, they have better indoor environmental quality, meaning customers and staff breathe easier and are more comfortable. In a business where customer experience is everything, this is particularly valuable.’ Green retail buildings also out-perform conventional buildings and generate financial savings:

On average, Starbucks, which just opened their 500th LEED-certified store, has realized an average savings of 30% in energy usage and 60% less water consumption.
McGraw-Hill Construction, which surveyed retail owners, found that green retail buildings realized an average 8% annual savings in operating expenses and a 7% increase in asset value.

It is noteworthy that, according to the third annual Solar Means Business report published by the Solar Energy Industries Association, the top corporate solar user in the United States is Walmart. In fact, almost half of the top-25 solar users are retailers (the others are Kohl’s, Costco, IKEA (9 out of 10 stores are solar powered), Macy’s, Target, Staples, Bed Bath & Beyond, Walgreens, Safeway, Toys ‘R’ Us, and White Rose Foods). Other Top-25 solar users with a significant retail footprint include Apple, L’Oreal, Verizon and AT&T.

In the competitive retail market, the study also noted that being distinguished for pro-active and responsible corporate social responsibility attracts customers and investors.

MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS

In a study of 236 apartment complexes conducted by Bright Power and The Stewards of Affordable Housing released last July, 236 properties in two programs, HUD’s nationwide Green Retrofit Program and the Energy Savers program available from Illinois’ Elevate Energy and the Community Investment Corp. One year of pre- and post-retrofit utility bills were analyzed. The researchers found the following:

Properties in the Green Retrofit Program had realized a 26% reduction in water consumption – or $95/unit annually.
The energy consumption in the Green Retrofit Program was reduced by 18% representing an annual savings of $213/unit.
Surveyed buildings in the Energy Savers program had reduced gas consumption by 26% and had reduced excess waste by an average of 47%.
The water saving measures in the Green Retrofit program reflected a simple payback period of one year while the energy savings measures had a simple payback period of 15 years.

In an article be Chrissa Pagitsas, Director – Multi-family Green Initiative for Fannie Mae, reports that 17 multifamily properties have achieved Energy Star^® certification with two of them, Jeffrey Parkway Apartments in Chicago and ECO Modern Flats in Fayetteville, Arkansas, receiving financing from Fannie Mae.

The Eco Modern Flats complex is over 40 years old. With the goal of reducing operating expenses, the project was retrofit in 2010 with energy and water efficiency improvements including low-flow showerheads and faucets, dual flush toilets, ENERGY STAR^®certified appliances, efficient lighting, closed-cell insulation, white roofing, solar hot water and low-e windows. As a result of the retrofit, the property achieved a 45% reduction in water consumption, a 23% drop in annual electricity use including a 50% savings in summer electricity consumption while increasing the in-unit amenities, obtaining LEED Platinum certification and increasing occupancy by 30% resulting in a significant increase to Net Operating Income.

Multi-family properties made sustainable gain a competitive advantage in marketing to young professionals and other target audiences who prefer to live in an environment that is healthy and energy-efficient which saves money on utilities.

HOTELS

In a 2014 study conducted by Cornel University, researchers compared the earnings of 93 LEED-certified hotels in the US to 514 non-certified competitors. The study included a mix of franchised, chain and independent facilities in urban and suburban markets with three-quarters of the properties having between 75 and 299 rooms.

The results show that green or sustainable hotels had increased both their Average Daily Rate (ADR) and revenue per available room (RevPAR) with LEED properties reporting an ADR that was $20.00 higher than the non-certified properties (prior to certification, they reported an ADR premium of $169 vs. $160).

The researchers noted that these premiums were realized in price-competitive markets and that the amount of the premium was unexpected. From the results, they concluded that Eco-minded travelers were willing to pay a modest premium to stay at a verified green facility.

Further, the savings realized in electricity and water usage as well as reductions in waste disposal fees and costs as well as reduced maintenance costs go straight to the bottom line resulting in increased Net Operating Income. Here are some examples:

The Hampton Inn & Suites, a 94-room facility in Bakersfield, had REC Solar install carport-mounted solar panels which is offsetting 44% of the electricity costs, or up to $8,800/month – adding over $100,000 to the property’s bottom-line.
The 80-room Chatwall Hotel in New York completed an LED lighting retrofit project mid-year 2014 which will result in a first year savings of almost $125,000. The cost: just about $1.00 per LED light after rebates.

According to Flex Your Power and ENERGY STAR^® statistics, the hospitality industry spends approximately $4 billion on energy annually with electricity, including the HVAC system, accounting for 60% to 70% of utility costs. In fact, excluding labor, energy is typically the largest expense that hoteliers encounter and the fastest growing operating expense in the industry (www.cpr-energy.com). The EPA has concluded that even a 10% improvement in energy efficiency is comparable to realizing a $0.62 and $1.35 increase in ADR for limited service and full service hotels, respectively.

Many studies show that hotels do not realize the full benefit of many energy efficiency measures as guests feel no obligation to employ sustainable practices and wastes the opportunity for savings afforded by the hotel’s energy efficiency measures; however, almost half realize savings in excess of 20% reflecting that many operators have found ways to enlist guest cooperation in saving electricity and water.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2012 Commercial Buildings Survey, the United States had approx. 87.4 billion square feet of floorspace in 5.6 million buildings that were larger than 1,000 sf which also excluded heavy industrial manufacturing facilities. Ninety percent of the buildings that will exist in2035 have already been built – and buildings consume 80% of energy used in cities worldwide and represents almost 20% of all energy consumption in the United States.

Source: US Department of Energy 2013 Renewable Energy Data Book, 1/22/2015

The evidence is clear – building and operating sustainably pays dividends – in improved NOI from cost savings and increased revenues. Attracting higher quality tenants, improving market perception and reducing risk indicates that going Green is becoming a key for maintaining the Class of a building – keys to improving long-term values through lower cap rates.

So, why aren’t more building owners and managers going green? We will seek to discern this matter in our next Sustainable Benefits.