Operations: Capturing rainwater, reusing graywater

Way out West, water use issues are much more pertinent than they are in the East. Well, maybe. [National view from Drought Impact Reporter.]

Regardless of location, water usage will be reduced through legislation, co-option, construction, or consumer choice.

To help us along, Multifamily Water Systems appears in the May issue of Builder News to provide definitions, discuss existing technology, and identify current and proposed legislation. It’s a strong article that covers a lot of ground.

Where should you look for this reusable water? On your structure, upon undeveloped land, and within the units:

Grand Unifying Theory of Sustainability (pt. 1)

Over the next few weeks, scattered amongst posts on GAO and HUD, the latest upheaval with LIHTC, and hopefully some more tales from the trenches, I’ll be attempting to outline my thoughts on what it will take for building sustainability and sustainable operations to become part of the vernacular. I’m starting with the aspect I’m actually least familiar with, insurance.

Insurance, by popular understanding, hedges against the risk of contingent loss. By varying pricing based on operations, materials, and design, insurance serves as a nudge to encourage lower risk profiles. In theory at least. We’ll leave unresolved questions about whether this risk reduction is always well reasoned or if you really get better pricing through these changes.

So it was unsurprising to read in Ceres’ new report “Risk to Opportunity” that insurers are moving from superficial PR “towards [thinking] more deeply and strategically institutionalized and embedded in the operations of companies.”

Climate change is becoming recognized as an issue of Enterprise Risk Management, spanning underwriting, asset management, and corporate governance.

One of the most constructive developments is more products and services focused on ensuring the quality of the customer’s energy or carbon savings efforts. These include performance insurance for renewable energy systems, coverage for green buildings that don’t deliver promised performance, and products that apply to carbon offset and trading activities. In all cases, loss-prevention takes the form of due-diligence, scrutiny of engineering assumptions, preventive maintenance, commissioning, measurement and verification, and other constructive interventions to help ensure project integrity and success.

Although released in April 2009, the report covers products existing or introduced in 2008. In many ways, the finding that some insurers were moving much faster than others led to the March 2009 action by state insurance commissioners to require that insurers reveal exposures and responses to climate change. How this will be enforced and what the ‘right’ answers are will be revealed when the responses are provided in March 2010.

[Note: The quote above was taken from an interview with study author Evan Mills with Climate and Insurance.org, an arm of industry advocate NAMIC, which does not like (really doesn't like) the new climate exposure mandate. Ceres retorts that "Insurance trade organizations remain relatively disengaged on climate change." Plus ça change, I suppose.]

Why does this matter? Because outside of government and its multiple layers, insurers and financial firms are best positioned to promote the systemic change in the built environment needed to achieve goals like Net Zero Energy, Architecture 2030, or multi-family specific programs like Greener Communities.

Insurers are perfectly placed to make the case for unifying “green” and “disaster-resilient”
practices across many domains (construction, energy, agriculture, land use), yet scant effort has
been exerted in this regard. It will become increasingly incumbent on insurers to demonstrate
the loss-reducing benefits of the green technologies and services that they reward. Loss-prone
infrastructure cannot be truly “sustainable”.

It’s worth recalling this recommendation from “Resilient Coasts”:

“Wise investing will involve asset managers understanding the impacts of climate change on their investments and managing that risk, especially in real estate, infrastructure and other financial instruments. Responsible banks will need to understand the levels of exposure within their investment and lending portfolios by incorporating climate risks into their due diligence.”

Change is coming in a thousand different ways from code changes, insurance, finance, builders, housing agencies, governments, and most importantly, residents. We’ll start addressing the financial world in short order.

Economy: How do you measure stress?

With that multi-layered question, the AP unveils its March 2009 Economic Stress Index, essentially stagflation with a new methodology. The components are highlighted in the related video from University of Pennsylvania Professor Tony Smith, “How do you measure stress? You can talk about experiencing bankruptcy, home foreclosures, and unemployment.”

Operating like a wayback machine, the AP collates statistics from October 2007 and March 2009 measuring unemployment (via BLS), residential and commercial foreclosures (via RealtyTrac), and bankruptcies (via court filings) and presents them unweighted. Foreclosures are likely undercounted, because RealtyTrac does not compile information from counties with under 25,000 residents; without publicly available foreclosure information for these counties, the AP gives these counties zero-weight. These areas are typically central Texas, and non-urban areas of Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Kentucky.

The usual suspects (Las Vegas, Florida, Phoenix, Inland Empire, Rust Belt) are all here, but remember that the graphics show rate of change, not absolute numbers. Thus it was surprising to be reminded that Las Vegas/Clark County had a March 2009 foreclosure rate of 7.81% and an October 2007 foreclosure rate of 3.53%.

Highlights from the AP:

The current recession spread like an epidemic from isolation to ubiquity, marching from sequestered pockets of foreclosure to a nationwide explosion of misery as unemployment overtook foreclosures as the dominant misfortune of this recession.

Places with technology-based economies were recession-proof for a while but aren’t now.

Places with large numbers of government jobs — state capitals, university towns, communities with concentrations of hospitals — remain fairly recession-proof. These are places like Columbia, Mo.; Madison, Wis.; the Raleigh, N.C., area; and Athens, Ga.

State government is not hurting that much — at least, not yet.

The regions we look to for our traditional sources of energy, for our coal and oil — Wyoming, West Virginia and the like — have generally not been hit as hard.

While bankruptcy declarations are happening everywhere, they tend to be higher in the South because of such things as low wages, state laws that give power to creditors and a culture that’s more familiar with the bankruptcy option.

Among counties with 25,000-plus residents, no place has been hit harder than Elkhart County, Ind., and that 15 of the 20 American counties hit hardest by the recession in the past year are in six states — Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Although the note for editors says “much of the Great Plains region remains relatively unscathed by the nation’s financial meltdown,” I would recommend they overlay this map with one showing population loss to update their definition of ‘unscathed’.

Review and make appropriate plans. I strongly recommend looking closely at the data and using a comparative approach to benchmark your particular area against neighboring jurisdictions.

Insurers give you more to think about

Hurricane season in the US starts June 1, 2009 the forecast predicts slightly above average activity. Multi-family owners and operators from New England, Mid-South, Gulf Coast, and Southeast must be aware of their risks. I know this from professional experience after Ike damaged my Arkansas and Tennessee portfolios.

Keying off the calendar, Multifamily Executive highlighted a recent report from the Resilient Coast Initiative of the H. John Heinz Center. The report, “Resilient Coasts: A Blueprint for Action” makes these recommendations:

Needs More Data

One of the reasons this blog started 99 posts ago was to encourage more data and greater awareness for sustainable methods and materials in multifamily housing.

Eighteen months makes a big difference as both data and awareness have increased as all participants recognize the necessity of accurate and actionable information. States like California require energy labeling, LEED now requires multi-year access to building performance, and the Federal government is getting into it, either through GSA’s Sustainable Design Program or through better use of existing resources such as HUD financial data.

Just as the brewmaster proclaims that Red Tick Beer “needs more dog“, I say that we need ever more data on building performance. We need building scientists, architects, builders, and engineers to better understand things like whole building design and sustainable construction (and waste) methods. In multifamily, we must understand not only the initial efforts of sustainability, but the ongoing need to consistently review the physical plant, operate sensibly, and dispose correctly.

Most importantly, however, we will need the financial world to come around. That means more information on operating expenses, projections for increased costs and an understanding that building sustainably means building differently. If underwriters and credit officers do not make the effort to understand how the regulation, construction, and operation of buildings have changed, then we cannot move forward with needed haste.

I’ll have more on the best bets to move forward in the next posts.

GAO and HUD: What does HUD get for $5B a year? (pt. 1 Summary)

I’m finally beginning a series on GAO’s “Green Affordable Housing” evaluation of HUD’s sustainability efforts.

[Among the many recommendations GAO makes is that HUD collect more and better data about operational costs. The GAO recommendation does not highlight specific data to be collected, but using the LEED v3 "Whole Building Energy and Water Use" requirement: per page 19, it looks like it's just 5 years for LEED-CI. More to come on that.]

GAO wrote the report in part because “[HUD] spends an estimated $5 billion—more than 10 percent of its budget—on energy costs, either directly in the form of public housing operating subsidies or indirectly through utility allowances and contracts for assisted multifamily housing. [HUD] does not have the data necessary to understand the breakdown of these costs or the potential savings opportunities of green building for
many of its programs.”

HUD already provides resources and training and a very, very modest financial incentive to pursue energy efficiency. What I like about the GAO report is its emphasis on using NGO, regional and national sustainability measurements and cribbing the state-level LIHTC incentives for use in HUD projects. This would encompass water use reductions, sustainable material use, and indoor air quality improvement in addition to promoting energy efficiency.

GAO also reminds us that HUD can exercise financial levers: directly through debt financing, Community Development Block Grants, HOPE VI; and indirectly through its support for PHAs and Housing Assistance Vouchers. In addition, HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research promotes building science and the advancement of durability, energy efficiency, and affordability of housing.

Unfortunately, standard who-pays-for-what conflicts arise in HUD’s relationships with local Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). Writes the GAO:

Some HUD programs offer incentives for energy conservation measures. PHAs receive funds from HUD’s capital fund that may be spent on energy conservation measures, but HUD officials told us that these funds are generally insufficient to cover both the up-front cost of many energy improvements and ongoing repair needs.5 HUD’s operating fund standard rules provide a disincentive to implementing high-cost energy improvements. According to HUD officials, a PHA’s annual operating subsidy is based in part on the prior 3 years of utility consumption, which would be expected to fall in the years following such improvements. This “3-year rolling base” policy allows PHAs to retain 75 percent of savings from reducing utility consumption over a 3-year period, but according to HUD officials, PHAs cannot retain enough savings over this short time to recoup the up-front cost of many large energy efficiency improvements such as high-energy-efficiency boilers.6

It should be noted that these large-scale sustainability initiatives can be met through the use of an energy services company (ESCO) such as Honeywell. Recent regulatory revisions by HUD have improved the processing of these contracts, allowing faster review and longer payback periods. Per the GAO, 195 ESCO contracts were in place in 2007, saving an estimated $50mm annually.

Overall, GAO provides sensible, affordable recommendations for further action. HUD should use third party mechanisms for efficiency benchmarking, collect sufficient information from Section 8 projects and residents, and emphasize (and reward) energy efficiency when awarding grants or in its various lending programs.

These recommendations could have a welcome and systemic impact upon all of multifamily construction, portfolio operation, and lending. We’ll talk more about this in subsequent posts.