Role of Sustainability in Real Estate Finance and Investments

Description
Buildings in the United States consume 40 percent of our energy and are responsible for 39 percent of CO2 emissions (USGBC 2009). Transportation accounts for another 33 percent of CO2 emissions in the US, most of which is produced by passenger cars—a result of sprawling development patterns (Ewing, Bartholomew et al. 2008).

THE ROLE OF SUSTAINABILITY IN REAL ESTATE FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS



Garth Robert Torvestad
B.S., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2004




THESIS



Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of




MASTER OF SCIENCE


in


URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT



at



CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO



SPRING
2010








ii







































©2010

Garth Robert Torvestad
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



iii






THE ROLE OF SUSTAINABILITY IN REAL ESTATE FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS





A Thesis


by


Garth Robert Torvestad













Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair
Rob Wassmer, Ph.D.

__________________________________, Second Reader
Nuriddin Ikromov, Ph.D.

____________________________
Date



iv









Student:

Garth Robert Torvestad

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.




__________________________, Department Chair ___________________
Rob Wassmer, Ph.D Date



Department of Public Policy and Administration












v


Abstract

of

THE ROLE OF SUSTAINABILITY IN REAL ESTATE FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS

by

Garth Robert Torvestad




Statement of Problem—Conventional real estate development practices and the operation of
existing buildings create significant negative externalities. New practices collectively known as
“green building” or “sustainable development” offer mitigation for these externalities.
However, the proliferation of green buildings has been hindered by, among other things, a lack of
understanding of how property-level sustainability affects building valuation and investment and
analysis.


Sources of Data—I used the LEED New Construction rating system as framework for evaluating
property-level sustainability’s interaction with building value. Various studies and market data
provided the basis for assumptions about the value of various sustainable attributes. Personal
communications with investment analysts provided insight into the trends, attitudes, and
analytical framework employed by large investment funds with respect to sustainable properties.


Conclusions Reached—Conventional financial analysis techniques such as discounted cash flow
analysis can be modified to account for sustainable building features. Each property is unique
and has a unique interaction between sustainability and value. Using the exercises presented in
this thesis can help guide the process of underwriting sustainable property investment.
Investment funds can encourage sustainable development by prioritizing funding for sustainable
projects, but will should develop an institutional understanding of how to analyze sustainable
property investment in order to avoid tradeoffs between sustainability and profitability.




______________________, Committee Chair
Rob Wassmer, Ph.D.

______________________
Date
vi


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to my wife, Kendra for putting up with me during the completion
of this thesis.
Thanks to Dr. Wassmer and Dr. Ikromov for their comments and helping me
refine my ideas for this thesis.
Thanks to Steve Sakurai for taking time out of his busy schedule to meet me for
coffee and discuss the ideas for this thesis.]
Thanks to Scott Muldavin for speaking with me on the phone and in person, for
his tremendous contribution to this field, and for providing his book free of charge.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Problem .................................................................................................. 1
Successes in Implementing Sustainability .............................................................. 2
Challenges with Implementing Sustainability ........................................................ 2
Purpose of This Thesis ................................................................................................ 2
Need for Study ........................................................................................................ 3
Real Estate as Socially Responsible Investment ..................................................... 3
Closing the Knowledge Gap ................................................................................... 4
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 5
Applicability/Audience ............................................................................................... 5
Framework—Public vs. Private Value ....................................................................... 7
Correcting Market Failure—The Coase Theorem .................................................. 7
Regulation and Incentives ....................................................................................... 8
Distinguishing the Value of Different Green Features ........................................... 9
The Concept of the Triple Bottom Line .................................................................. 9
Attracting Investment............................................................................................ 11
Remaining Chapters .................................................................................................. 11
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................................................................... 13
Two Perspectives on Sustainable Property Investment ............................................ 13
Part 1: Review of Literature for Valuing Sustainable Development ....................... 14
viii

Defining Sustainability in the Context of Valuation ............................................ 14
Triple Bottom Line Definition of Sustainability ................................................... 15
Rating Systems as Proxy for Sustainability .......................................................... 16
Challenges with Using LEED Rating Alone to Determine Value ........................ 17
The Triple Bottom Line and LEED ...................................................................... 17
Aligning the TBL with LEED ............................................................................... 18
Green Building as Mandate .................................................................................. 19
CalGreen Code vs. LEED and Other Rating Systems .......................................... 20
Further Challenges with LEED and Valuation ..................................................... 21
Muldavin Definition of Sustainability with Respect to Valuation........................ 21
Working Definition for this Thesis ........................................................................... 22
Public Value as Driver of Private Value ............................................................... 23
Tenants as Drivers of Value .................................................................................. 23
Other Parties that Influence Value ........................................................................ 24
Connecting the Literature with this Thesis ........................................................... 25
Review of Methodologies Within the Literature ...................................................... 25
What Questions Does the Literature Answer? ...................................................... 26
An Overview of Conventional Property Investment Analysis ............................. 27
Valuation of Proposed vs. Existing Buildings ...................................................... 28
For-Sale vs. For-Lease Properties ......................................................................... 29
The Cost Approach ............................................................................................... 29
The Sales Approach .............................................................................................. 30
Income Capitalization Approach—Discounted Cash Flow .................................. 30
Cap Rates .............................................................................................................. 31
Discounting and the Time Value of Money .......................................................... 32
Pricing Risk in Property Investment ..................................................................... 32
Advantages of DCF for Integrating the Value of Sustainability ........................... 33
ix

Sensitivity Analysis Using DCF ........................................................................... 33
Part 2: Review of Literature for Evaluating Investor Attitudes ............................... 35
SRI Funds and Property Investment ..................................................................... 35
The Need for Responsible Property Investment Vehicles .................................... 36
The Emergence of Investment Fund Interest in Sustainable Property .................. 36
Gerding Edlen—Communicating Triple Bottom Line Value to Investors ........... 37
Findings of the Literature Review ............................................................................ 40
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 42
Part 1—Valuation, underwriting and financial analysis ........................................... 42
Using LEED Credits to Index Building Features ................................................. 43
The Value of LEED Certification ......................................................................... 43
Using the LEED Framework for More Detailed Analysis.................................... 44
Analyzing the DCF Model on a Credit-by-Credit Basis ....................................... 45
How the LEED Credit Matrix Interacts with the DCF Models ............................ 46
Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................. 46
Encouraging Investment by Illustrating Risks and Rewards ................................ 47
Building Valuation ................................................................................................ 47
Methodology Part 2: Gauging investor sentiment .................................................... 48
Survey Participants ............................................................................................... 49
Investor Attitudes Toward Green Building ........................................................... 49
4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 53
Part 1—LEED Indexing Matrix ................................................................................ 53
How to Use the Matrix .......................................................................................... 54
Part 2—Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................... 63
Explanation of the Tables ..................................................................................... 65
Discounting Within the Models ............................................................................ 65
Interpreting the Sensitivity Analysis Iterations..................................................... 65
x

What the Results Provide ...................................................................................... 77
Answers to Survey Questions ................................................................................... 77
Survey Participant #1, Private Equity Investment Funds: .................................... 78
Survey Participant #2, Large US Public Pension Fund ....................................... 80
5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................... 83
Investment Funds .................................................................................................. 83
Corporate Social Responsibility vs. Responsible Property Investing ................... 84
The Role of the Consumer .................................................................................... 85
Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................. 86
LEED Indexing ..................................................................................................... 86
Valuing Neighborhood Design ............................................................................. 87
Final Thoughts and Recommendations ................................................................. 87
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 90




xi

LIST OF TABLES
Page

1. Table 1. Sustainable Sites Part 1……………………….…………………………….. 56
2. Table 1.2. Sustainable Sites Part 2……………….………………………..….….........57
3. Table 2. Water Efficiency …………………………….……………………………....58
4. Table 3. Energy and Atmosphere ……………………….……………..….………… 59
5. Table 4. Materials and Resources……………………….………………….……….. ..60
6. Table 5. Indoor Environmental Quality……………….…………………………….....61
7. Table 6. Whole Building LEED Certification……………………………….….….. ..62
8. Table 7. Baseline Building DCF model………………….………………………….. ..64
9. Table 8. 10 percent change in occupancy……………………….………………….. ..67
10. Table 9. 4.8 percent Change in Rent/Sq. Foot………….………………….…...…..…68
11. Table 10. Change in Energy Inflation Rate……………………………….….……..…69
12. Table 11. 33 percent Decrease in Energy Usage…….………………….....……….... 70
13. Table 12. 10 Basis-Point Decrease in Risk Premium………………..……..…...….... 71
14. Table 13. 20 percent Capital Maintenance Reduction……………………..……….... 72
15. Table 14. 50 percent Reduction in Water Use…………………………..………...….. 73
16. Table 15. Increase in Cost of Debt ……………………………………….….…...….. 74
17. Table 16. Increased Loan to Value Ratio…….……………………………….…..….. 75
18. Table 17. Compounding of Various Green Building Premiums …………….……..... 76
xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

1. Figure 1. Income/Risk….……………………………………………………… 34
2. Figure 2. Livable Place Index………….…………………….………………… 39

1

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION


Statement of Problem
Buildings in the United States consume 40 percent of our energy and are responsible for
39 percent of CO2 emissions (USGBC 2009). Transportation accounts for another 33 percent of
CO2 emissions in the US, most of which is produced by passenger cars—a result of sprawling
development patterns (Ewing, Bartholomew et al. 2008). Buildings also consume vast amounts
of resources in the form of building material inputs, and require extensive infrastructure for
energy and water delivery and sewage removal.
Recent years have seen an increasing awareness of the impacts of buildings on the
environment, and change has begun to occur in the way that the public, professionals, and
politicians view the built environment. “Green building,” or “sustainable development,” has been
called “the lowest-hanging fruit you can find”(Majumdar 2009) in the battle against climate
change. It is increasingly being referenced in political rhetoric, from speeches to legislation such
as California’s AB 32, and SB 375, as a way to fight climate change while creating jobs and
economic growth (2006; 2008). However, significant change to building and development
practices will not occur through policy actions alone; the market must understand and accurately
value green building projects for sustainable development practices to achieve widespread
proliferation.
These sustainable development practices must go beyond the building itself and include
contextual and locational factors in order to have the maximum benefit to the environment.
Furthermore, there is increased recognition that environmental concerns are not the only
2

dimension of sustainability and considerations about social amenity and economic equality
should be incorporated into land use design and decision-making.
Successes in Implementing Sustainability
Scientific studies and other investigations published during the last decade or so have
thoroughly documented the diverse impacts of buildings on the environment (Ewing,
Bartholomew et al. 2008). In response, the fields of planning, architecture, engineering, and
construction have produced many new theories, practices, and technologies that collectively
attempt to mitigate many of the unsustainable aspects of building location design, and
technology. The contributions from these fields have been immense, and significant changes in
the way that the built environment is formed, constructed, and composed have begun to occur.
Challenges with Implementing Sustainability
While these theories, practices, and technologies are the underlying foundation of a
movement toward a more sustainable built environment, there remain some obstacles to large-
scale implementation of these measures. Firstly, there is still a significant lack of understanding
of sustainable development practices within the aforementioned fields, although the knowledge
base is rapidly expanding. Second, there are obstacles imbedded in local, regional, national, and
even global public policies that inhibit the proliferation of new sustainable development patterns.
Lastly, there is a lack of understanding about how to value—and incorporate into investment
decisions—the public and private benefits of sustainable development projects (Turner 2009).
Purpose of This Thesis
This thesis seeks to further the policy priority of increasing the sustainability of the built
environment by helping to narrow the gap in understanding between building professionals and
3

finance professionals. It will do so by providing information, analysis, and a set of tools with
which to evaluate and communicate the perceived and quantifiable value that sustainable
development practices can add to can real estate, and investment portfolios.
Need for Study
While there is a robust and growing body of knowledge about sustainable building
practices within the building professions, there is still a lack of knowledge about how
sustainability measures may affect the profitability of a building, since most building
professionals are not directly involved with evaluating the return on investment of real estate
development projects. While the developer or financier of a project will generally have a
dialogue with the designer about controlling costs, they might not typically have a conversation
about how sustainable building features might affect return on investment. Most of the
investment analysis and building valuation on a project takes place in the real estate finance
sector, not within the building professions from which most sustainable building theory and
innovation occurs. Unfortunately, within the finance sector there is a basic lack of understanding
of what makes a building sustainable, much less how to value the public and private benefits of
sustainable building features. This lack of understanding means that investments and loan
decisions presently must be made without the tools to accurately value sustainable buildings. As
such, investment and loan capital is likely currently being under or over allocated with respect to
sustainable development projects.
Real Estate as Socially Responsible Investment
Additionally, despite the significant impact that buildings have on communities and on
the environment, the real estate sector has until recently been largely overlooked as a vehicle for
Socially Responsible Investing, or SRI (Pivo 2005). SRI has proliferated in the corporate world
4

as a model for evaluating the impacts of investments on not only economic returns on
investments, but also the social and environmental impacts of those investments. The “triple
bottom line” of investment has received widespread attention and significant acceptance in the
corporate world, but is just beginning to make inroads into the real estate sector (Odell 2008). As
such, there is presently no standard for evaluating real estate investments for adherence to
Socially Responsible Investment practices, and few real estate funds targeted specifically to SRI.
These two facts present another significant challenge to funding sustainable development.
Thus, in addition to integrating sustainability into financial models aimed at quantifying
the value of sustainable development, it is critical that project proponents be able to communicate
the social and environmental aspects of their project to potential investors (Boyd and Kimmet
2004). This thesis will examine role of sustainability in financial modeling, as well as discussing
trends in sustainable real estate investment and offering advice on how value can be underwritten
and communicated.
Closing the Knowledge Gap
The gap in understanding between the real estate finance sector and building
professionals can only be closed by a deeper examination of the interaction of sustainable
development factors and design features with the risks and returns of real estate investment and
lending. Furthermore, this increased understanding will only be of worth if it can be
communicated to financiers and fiduciaries in a language that will aid them in the investment and
lending decision process.
5

Methodology
In order to do this, this paper will examine the various elements of sustainable
development practice—from water efficiency, to site selection near public transit—and how each
aspect of sustainable development interacts with investment risk and value. In addition, this
thesis will evaluate the public benefit of a real estate development project in terms of the triple
bottom line of social, economic, and environmental value, and how these public benefits might
affect investment decisions in light of Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) and the sub-
discipline of Responsible Property Investment (RPI).
The remainder of this first chapter will describe the target audience for this thesis, the
framework for understanding different types of value, and the metrics that the thesis will use to
evaluate buildings in terms of those different types of value.
Applicability/Audience
Bankers and fiduciaries are ultimately the ones who make decisions about where to
allocate investment and loan funds, and what risk premium to assign when issuing a loan or
analyzing an investment. However, real estate developers who are seeking funds for new
construction projects, or acquisition and retrofit services, can play a key role in informing the
bank or investor about financial and other benefits of RPI and sustainable design. While
developers may intuitively see the value of building green, that intuition will have to be translated
into more tangible and substantiated projections of cash flow before their project can be funded.
As such, it is important that they have the ability to effectively communicate the differences
6

between sustainable and conventional projects, and how those differences impact investment
value and risk.
Furthermore, since it is in the developer’s interest to convey this information when
seeking funding, they may serve as the most effective conduit to communicate this new paradigm
to lenders and investors. As the finance sector grows in its understanding of the value of
sustainable real estate, there will be an increased interest in investing in these products, creating
investor demand, and furthering the sustainable development movement. In addition, since
developers are the link between building professionals and the finance sector, they are
particularly well positioned to bridge the informational gap by communicating the value of
sustainable features to investors and lenders.
Consequently, this paper is directed at helping developers to assess and communicate the
potential for increased value when seeking funding for sustainable development projects. By
focusing on the relationship between developers and financiers, this paper can most directly
address one key obstacle to creating a more sustainable built environment: project funding. It is
in this way that the policy objectives involved with sustainable development may be advanced
through the creation of a more informed capital market. By providing information and tools that
help builders, lenders and investors more accurately value sustainable property, and to understand
dimensions of sustainability which contribute to the triple bottom line, this paper seeks to reduce
information asymmetry between the two parties, creating an environment where financial
resources are more likely to be allocated toward sustainable property investment.

7

Framework—Public vs. Private Value
Sustainable development has public and private value, both of which should be assessed
and considered when attracting financing for a project. Public value will likely be of more
interest to investors than to lenders, as their motivations may go beyond those of lenders, as
discussed later. Public value includes, among other things, slowing the rate of climate change
through reduced energy consumption. Private value includes, among other things, operating cost
savings associated with reduced energy consumption. In the above example the same aspect of
sustainable building design—reduced energy consumption—has both public and private value. In
fact, since sustainability is inherently important to the continuation of life as we know it, all
aspects of sustainable design have public value. However, in many cases the benefit of certain
sustainable building features, such as recycled content, are enjoyed by the public, while the
private owner shoulders the cost. As Kimmet and Boyd (2004) note “Performance codes (e.g.
LEED) address a range of environmental efficiency based criteria, while implicitly raising
broader questions about social responsibility and the distinction between public and private
goods” (p. 1)
Correcting Market Failure—The Coase Theorem
In the case where the cost of a public value such as recycled content is paid by a private
owner there is a positive externality enjoyed by the public. The Coase theorem suggests no
government intervention is necessary to correct this market failure. Under the theorem, in the
presence of property rights and in the absence of excessive transactions costs, those who benefit
from the positive externality will find a way to compensate the party who is providing that
externality. Generally this theorem is viewed in light of a negative externality, and the
compensation would come from some sort of legal action, such as a class action lawsuit. (Munger
8

2000) In the case of sustainable real estate, the compensation for the positive externality comes
in the form of increased rents or sales prices for LEED certified and other sustainable property.
Conversely, property owners who do not achieve LEED certification will pay for the negative
externality their buildings create by losing tenants and having to discount rent in order to
compete. In fact, LEED certification plays a crucial role in correcting this market failure, by
communicating to building tenants the level of public value through certified, silver, gold, and
platinum ratings, and allowing the market to set a price for this public value. In order for building
tenants to be willing to pay for the public value of green building they must understand what the
public benefits of green building are, and then make a determination about how much those
benefits are worth to them. In the case that tenants and homebuyers undervalue the benefits that
society reaps from green building, it will be the government’s job to help correct this market
failure through regulation or incentives.
Regulation and Incentives
To compensate for lack of public understanding of the value of green building, and for
the lack of willingness of businesses and the public to pay for green building, many different
levels of government have already imposed regulatory measures such as green building codes and
incentives such a reduced permit fees or density bonuses for developers. However, these
regulations or incentives are challenging to impose or provide in today’s economic climate. In
my personal experience developing green building policy for my employer, the City of West
Sacramento, regulation has been difficult to impose because it creates an additional burden on
developers who are already facing a very challenging economic environment. Furthermore, most
incentives involve some sort of government subsidy, and most local and state governments are
presently facing budget shortfalls, making subsidies impractical. Thus, while regulatory action
may eventually be necessary, it is my belief that a significant obstacle to the proliferation of green
9

building is informational. This thesis supposes that correcting the informational asymmetry
between the financial and construction industries can correct a failure in the market for capital.
Similarly, correcting the informational asymmetry between space-users and the construction
industry—by educating the public about the benefits of green building—can correct a market
failure by increasing the demand for green real estate.
Distinguishing the Value of Different Green Features
As mentioned above, “in many cases the benefit of certain sustainable building features,
such as recycled content, are enjoyed by the public, while the private owner shoulders the cost.”
Unlike recycled content, energy efficiency has a clear private value as well as a public value.
However, only the private value of reduced energy consumption can be easily quantified and
relayed to the finance sector—in the form of lower power bills. On the other hand, the public
value of energy efficiency, even if quantified in tons of carbon, for example, is not of concern to
loan underwriters because it does not directly impact the operating costs or value of the building.
Investment fund managers, however, are showing increasing interest in public value
considerations in their investment decisions, creating a demand for investment in real estate
projects that address issues of broader public concern (Woon 2009). Public value also has
indirect, but measureable, impact on both building value and building investment decisions
through space user demand, as explained below.

The Concept of the Triple Bottom Line
While private value is the more directly quantifiable aspect of sustainable development,
there is an increasing trend towards accounting for public value through concepts such as the
“triple bottom line” in business. The triple bottom line in business is the idea that managers
should not only evaluate their business performance against the financial bottom line, but also
10

against environmental and social bottom line (Elkington 2007). While the triple bottom line
concept has been slow to infiltrate the real estate business, it has had far more exposure in many
other industries, including some of the world’s largest corporations (Odell 2008). This trend
toward corporate social responsibility and accountability affects building values because
corporate tenants are more and more demanding sustainable property; increased demand that
increases rents and consequently drives up the value of green buildings. Thus, as awareness of
the public value of sustainable building increases, demand for sustainable space will likely
increase, pushing rents higher, vacancy lower, and selling prices upward. In this way the public
value of sustainable design features can be tied to assumptions about future cash flows and
investment risks. In short, the public value of sustainable development—to the extent that it is
recognized and demanded by the space user—can impact rent and occupancy assumptions that
are used to determine the value of a proposed or existing project.
While research shows clear trends towards increased space-user demand for sustainable
building, especially in office properties (Miller, Spivey et al. 2008), the underlying motivation of
individuals and businesses who rent or buy green buildings is less clear. Homebuyers or renters
who rent or buy property for their own use may be altruistically willing to pay a premium for
sustainable housing, while businesses cannot usually afford to be altruistic, or risk losing a
competitive advantage. However, many companies seem to believe they can “do well by doing
good”. Commercial real estate firm J ones Lange LaSalle suggests that “companies that
proactively address sustainability on a strategic, portfolio level will not only reduce their
organizations environmental footprint, but will also gain competitive advantage through reduced
operating costs and an enhanced corporate image” (Shinter and Vrkic 2007) (p. 5).

11

Attracting Investment
Beyond space-user (tenant) demand, another interaction between public value and project
feasibility is in the process of attracting investment. Many real estate investors—from pension
funds, to corporations, to individuals—are increasingly assessing and reporting the social and
environmental dimensions of their investments (Woon 2009). As a result, the developer’s ability
to find financing for a project may in part depend on the investment priorities of the fund
manager or other interested party. Even if the financial model that the investor is using to
evaluate a property has not been modified to account for cost savings or increased rents due to
sustainable features, the investor or fiduciary may show a preference for sustainable properties
simply because that type of investment is aligned with the values of the organization that
fiduciary represents. The investor may have a Responsible Property Investment (RPI) strategy, or
other direction from stakeholders that requires a portion or all investments must meet certain
standards for environmental responsibility. Understanding the motivations and priorities of SRI
investors, and being able to communicate the public value of a real estate investment to the SRI
community can open up new sources of funding to developers. This understanding and ability to
communicate may be of benefit even when independent of any financial modeling of the private
value of sustainability, although the two may complement each other. As such, Chapters 2
through 4 of this thesis will each contain two sections: one on financial underwriting and one on
investment trends and communication strategies.
Remaining Chapters
The literature I review in the next chapter will be divided into two sections, as mentioned
above. However, nearly all of it will address the private (monetary) value of sustainable building.
After reviewing the literature, I will develop a methodology for evaluating many of the concepts
12

from the literature. Due to the difficulty in aggregating a broad set of meaningful data, I will
instead retain a relatively narrow focus by evaluating the affects of various aspects of
sustainability on the financial model for a typical office building. While this may not provide the
type of policy insight that broader data analysis would, it will help to illustrate the interaction
between sustainability and value that is at the core of appraisal and investment decisions.
As a means of gauging investor sentiment toward green building, I will interview two
real estate investment professionals from two of the world’s largest investment funds. While this
sample group is obviously too small to use for data analysis, the perspective of these two
professionals should help reveal any trends or biases that project proponents should be aware of
when seeking financing. Finally, I will compare my research to that of others and explore the
implications of my findings in Chapter 5, the conclusion.


13

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This literature review investigates research and theory on the interaction between
sustainable building practices and building value and investment decisions. First, I will
distinguish between the two main types of writing on the subject, as described below. Second, I
will conduct a thorough examination of the definitions of sustainability as they vary between
authors and studies.
In Pivo’s 2005 paper “Is There a Future for Socially Responsible Property Investments?”
he notes, “Some investors may be willing to accept lower financial returns in exchange for the
knowledge that their investments are helping to address leading social or environmental issues of
the day. Other investors, however, consider it their fiduciary responsibility to avoid such
tradeoffs” (Pivo 2005) (p. 22)
The above statement is useful in understanding a division in the literature on sustainable
property valuation and investment. On one side, there is literature aimed at quantifying the value
of sustainability in a way that allows investors to avoid tradeoffs between lower returns and
environmental responsibility. On the other side is literature that discusses ways to integrate
Socially Responsible Investment practices into real estate investment, and may or may not make
explicit claims about financial returns.
Two Perspectives on Sustainable Property Investment
In order to get an accurate picture of investment decisions with respect to sustainability,
both of these perspectives are examined in this chapter, and tested in the following chapter. Due
to the complexity of the topic, I have chosen to separate the literature and methodology from
14

these two perspectives into two different sections within each chapter. The first part of this
chapter will be dedicated to exploring the definitions and methodologies used by academics and
professionals to determine the value of sustainable property. The second part of this chapter will
be dedicated to exploring the definitions and methodologies used by authors to evaluate
investment trends and ways of communicating unquantifiable (public) value to investors
concerned with issues broader than monetary profit.
Part 1: Review of Literature for Valuing Sustainable Development
Researchers have approached the connection between real property sustainability and
property valuations and investment decisions from several different angles. The differences in
these approaches can be attributed to the motivation of the researcher, or the type of data that they
have available. Academic research tends toward scientific methods such as regression analysis or
toward policy driven analysis involving triple bottom line concepts. Industry research tends more
toward case studies or modification to existing appraisal and valuation techniques. This section
of chapter 2 is primarily focused on industry research, as those reports are most applicable to
property valuation.
Defining Sustainability in the Context of Valuation
Although the central topic of nearly all of the literature review for this thesis is
“sustainability”, the word itself is used in many different ways by different authors. As such, I
will investigate the differences between studies by looking at how each one defines sustainability.
Further, I will develop a working definition of sustainability for this thesis, which will be a first
step toward developing a methodology.
15

While some studies fail to define what they mean by sustainability, most offer a clear
definition, although those definitions vary widely. On one end of the spectrum are explicit
discussions about the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability. At the
other end of the spectrum are implicit assumptions that LEED may serve as proxy for
sustainability, even in defining the relationship between sustainability and value. As such, the
relationship between LEED and sustainability will be a primary focus of the literature review.
Triple Bottom Line Definition of Sustainability
Ellison and Sayce (2006) offer a relatively detailed definition by using triple bottom line
(environmental, social, and economic) metrics to define and measure sustainability with respect
to property value. Their 2006 Sustainable Property Appraisal Project notes that triple bottom line
accounting “enables the economic sustainability that is fundamental to property investment to
remain at the forefront of the appraisal process…” (p. 4). Within this context they have developed
a set of nine indicators to serve as criteria for a project's sustainability. These criteria are: 1.
Energy efficiency 2. Pollution 3. Waste management 4. Water management 5. Climate control 6.
Accessibility 7. Adaptability 8. Occupier and 9. Contextual fit.
The authors point out that some of these criteria, such as energy efficiency and water
management, share common ground between the sustainability agenda and property investment
performance, while others may be divergent. For example, when viewed from the investor’s
perspective, accessibility might mean accessibility by car, since automobile access is critical for
economic short-term property performance (economic sustainability). It would therefore be
divergent with the broader sustainability agenda that promotes public transit and pedestrian
alternatives to automobile accessibility.
What the authors fail to mention is that economic sustainability is a concept that
inherently requires considerations about the future. For a property to have long-term economic
16

sustainability, it will need to accommodate changes in transportation patterns, preferences and
fuel costs. When these factors are considered, a building that is only accessible by car should be
considered less economically sustainable than one served by transit, walking and automobile.
Long range considerations such as the one discussed above may not be considered by an investor
who plans to own the building for a shorter period than the period in which the predicted changes
in transportation patterns would occur. However, since the predicted selling price (at the end of
that holding period) plays into the present value considerations, it can be dangerous to assume the
next building owner will not consider the same concerns in their investment decision. In fact, in
the white paper “Driven to the Brink; How the Gas Price Spike Popped the Housing Bubble and
Devalued the Suburbs”, the author argues that during the 2007 spike in oil prices, those who did
not adequately assess the risk of changes in fuel costs suffered losses in real estate value than
those owning properties in central and transit oriented locations. The lesson learned is that if the
appraiser or investor has significant evidence that transportation patterns will change within the
holding period of a building, then a property with automobile-only access carries additional risk
of obsolescence and should have a lower appraised value.
Rating Systems as Proxy for Sustainability
Some studies, such as the CoStar study “Does Green Pay Off?” (Miller, Spivey et al.
2008) focuses exclusively on building rating systems, including LEED and Energy Star. The
CoStar study, as it is also know, implies that the LEED for New Construction Rating System is a
usable definition of building sustainability by using the language “green” “sustainable” and
“LEED” interchangeably.
As one of the first studies to analyze the impact of LEED on building value, the results of
the CoStar study were widely disseminated. As discussed in this thesis, LEED captures a limited
dimension of sustainability, and should not serve as a definition of sustainability. Additionally,
17

there are some significant methodological issues with the CoStar study further confusing the issue
of determining the value of sustainability in buildings.
Challenges with Using LEED Rating Alone to Determine Value
The issues with this study were significant enough for Muldavin (2008) to issue a critique
of the study called “Quantifying “Green” Value: Assessing the Applicability of the CoStar
Studies.” His critique is helpful in understanding why sustainability and LEED should not be
used interchangeably. As he notes, a sales premium of 64percent for a LEED building over a
comparable non-LEED building is not realistic, accurate, or valuable in appraising buildings of
either type. The published results of the CoStar study used a Peer Building Selection Approach,
which is similar to a comparables approach. This approach is complicated by the lack of
comparable buildings within close proximity to each other, and the variation in date of sale. The
dramatic increase in commercial real estate values between 2002 and 2008 means that two
otherwise comparable buildings that were sold five years apart would not have comparable
values. Since the stock of LEED certified buildings are generally newer than others are, many of
their sales occurred in the latter part of the study period, causing and artificial inflation of price.
As these challenges are difficult to rectify in a peer comparison approach, it is unlikely that any
study will emerge giving LEED a reliable dollar figure. It is for this reason that Muldavin (2008)
argues that Discounted Cash Flow, or DCF is a more appropriate way to value green buildings,
since it allows a more detailed approach that accounts for each sustainable building feature
individually, instead of a broad measure of sustainability such as LEED.
The Triple Bottom Line and LEED
A report from Chappell and Corps (2009) titled “High Performance Green Building:
What’s It Worth?” does a good job of outlining valuation methods including peer comparison, as
18

discussed later. However, a misstatement in their report about the aim of LEED further confuses
the reader’s ability to distinguish between broad measures of sustainability and the narrowly
focused LEED rating system. Their report says, “Based on criteria that consider not only
economics but also the environmental and social impacts of development, the LEED certification
has become the de facto standard of building excellence and sustainability in the US and beyond”
(Corps and Chappell 2009) (p.11).
It is true that it has become the de facto standard, however, a closer examination of the
original LEED for New Construction rating system version 2.2 (the one referenced in the Corps
report) shows that it is focused only on the environmental performance of a building and fails to
consider social dimensions of the built environment. In addition, LEED does not consider the
economics of a project, as the author suggests. LEED assumes that economic considerations are
at the forefront of any development project, and does not incorporate metrics to ensure that
buildings are economically viable.
Aligning the TBL with LEED
Fortunately, the USGBC (2008) has acknowledged these shortcomings, stating in its
2009-2013 Strategic Plan that the USGBC “seeks to elevate social equity as a value and outcome
integral to sustainable built environments.” It further states that “because this dimension of
sustainability and the triple bottom line has received too little attention both by USGBC and the
green building community at large, we have added Foster Social Equity as a Guiding Principle”
(p. 3).
This change in focus is reflected in the 2009 version of LEED for New Construction by
the addition of new categories that represent context and location factors. Furthermore, the
USGBC has developed an entirely new rating system that balances economic, social, and
environmental considerations. It is called LEED ND or LEED for Neighborhood Development.
19

With the development of LEED ND, the LEED rating systems are becoming a better
proxy for triple bottom line sustainability. In fact, due to its broad measures of sustainability,
including social and economic equity, LEED ND has attracted interest from various levels of
government looking for a way to implement sustainability into planning and development. To
help governments understand how to use LEED ND, the USGBC published a Local Government
Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development. This paper affirms the integration of the triple
bottom line definition of sustainability, claiming that projects receiving LEED ND certification
“will be contributing to your community’s triple bottom line—economic development,
environmental protection, and increased equity” (USGBC 2010) (p. 5).
Green Building as Mandate
LEED ND, like the rest of the LEED rating system, was designed as a market-based
mechanism to certify and advertise projects as sustainable. The Local Government Guide to
LEED for Neighborhood Development recommends four ways that local government can
encourage projects to pursue LEED ND:
1. Lead By Example
2. Remove Barriers and Pave the Way
3. The Case for Incentives
4. Technical Assistance and Education
Notably absent is “mandate compliance” with LEED ND, although the document does
include some language about updating green building ordinances to include LEED ND. The
relationship between market-based green building certification systems and government mandates
for green building is a complex one, and for the most part it is beyond the scope of this paper.
That said, a quick look into the recent debate over the viability of the new CalGreen building
code can help illustrate the nature of this relationship.
20

CalGreen Code vs. LEED and Other Rating Systems
CalGreen code is a new building code that was developed by the California Building
Standards Commission in 2008, and is scheduled to go into effect on J an 1, 2011. It will have
some mandatory measures, but be mostly voluntary at first. The code, is largely inspired by
LEED, but is written in the same format as building code in order to integrate with existing code.
The emergence of CalGreen code has been met with resistance by both the USGBC and other
market-based rating systems as well as some policy makers. While opposition from the USGBC
looks suspiciously like fear of competition, the USGBC was joined by the Sierra Club and the
NRDC in writing a letter of opposition to the development of CalGreen code. The letter claims,
“The marketplace does not need a new government quasi rating system, particularly one that
lacks adequate verification. The existing private sector rating systems are working successfully
and have been adopted by many local jurisdictions across the state. Their rigorous benchmarks
and verification mechanism are driving innovation in California by leading industry to develop
new products, services, and green jobs. If the state introduces a new quasi rating system, it will
cause disruption and confusion in the marketplace, hindering the tremendous progress California
is making on green building.” (Dixon 2010)
The question of whether government mandates are necessary to promote green building is
obviously still up for debate. To the extent that the market has already moved toward green
buildings, and that more informed capital markets will further assist that shift, it is my belief that
providing this information is a more practical and effective way to rapidly promote the greening
of our built environment. As such, this thesis is focused on the role of capital markets and
financial analysis in green investment, and does not thoroughly investigate other measures, such
as government mandates, taxes, or incentives.

21

Further Challenges with LEED and Valuation
While the LEED rating system, especially LEED ND, has moved toward a triple bottom
line approach, the LEED rating of a particular building may still not be appropriate as the sole
measure of sustainability with respect to value. This is because the flexibility of the rating system
leads to numerous different outcomes. The LEED point system is designed such that each point
represents roughly the same contribution to environmental sustainability, such that two buildings
with the same number of points, or corresponding level of certification, should be equivalent in
their impact on the planet. However, the building attributes that contributed to the LEED
certification can vary greatly between buildings, and as such may impact the buildings value in
many different ways. That it not to say that the level of LEED certification has no value on its
own, as Muldavin (2009) points out “While certifications like LEED and other leading
certification systems around the world cannot be the sole basis for analysis, they have significant
value independent of the attributes or performance of the certified property. (p. 24)
Muldavin Definition of Sustainability with Respect to Valuation
Muldavin (2009) has written what is arguably the most robust resource for financiers and
appraisers of green buildings in his 144-page book “Underwriting Sustainable Property
Investment.” Muldavin is the president of the Green Building Finance Consortium, a research
group funded by “the real estate industry, select governmental and non-governmental
organizations, and by the efforts of non-paid contributors, independent of green building or
product companies.” His book aims to increase the accuracy with which real estate appraisals
integrate sustainable building features. Instead of presenting any new research on the connection
between values and sustainability, Muldavin creates a framework with which to evaluate
22

individual properties, based on the characteristics of the particular property and the priorities of
the investor.
Muldavin provides two definitions of sustainability, each one different, depending on the
perspective of the interested party. The distinction he makes between the financial definition and
the general definition of sustainability provides insight into the approach he takes to analyzing the
value of sustainable buildings. Muldavin claims that in terms of building valuation, it does not
matter what he or anyone else says sustainability is. From a financial perspective, the only thing
that matters is what regulators, potential space users, and investors in the subject property say.
From a general perspective, Muldavin sites the oft-used 1987 United Nations definition,
“sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” but also offers a
definition from YourBuilding.org, which is more focused on real estate:
A sustainable commercial building can be defined as a building with planning, design,
construction, operation, and management practices that reduce the impact of development on the
environment. A sustainable commercial building is also economically viable and potentially
enhances the social amenity of its occupants and community.

Working Definition for this Thesis
Since the above definition incorporates the triple bottom line concepts of environmental,
economic, and social responsibility, while also identifying the internal and external factors that
contribute to reduce environmental impact, I will use it as the basis for my working definition in
this thesis. I have made some minor modifications to the above definition to account for the
following:
First, a building need not be commercial to fit the criteria in this definition. Residential
and public buildings also meet these criteria, although the homeowner may perform residential
23

operation and maintenance. Second, the location of a building has a significant role in whether or
not it will be truly sustainable, so location will be added to the list. Third, since present-day
economic viability is a prerequisite for any project, the new definition will clarify that long-term
economic viability is the key to sustainability. Fourth, since the term “potentially enhances”
marginalizes the social aspect of sustainability, the word potentially will be removed from this
paper’s definition of sustainability. Lastly, projects that balance the needs of diverse groups
enhance social sustainability, so social equity will be added to the definition. Therefore, the
working I will use in this paper will be:
A sustainable building can be defined as a building with location, planning, design,
construction, operation, and management practices that reduce the impact of development on the
environment. A sustainable building is also has long-term economic viability and enhances the
social amenity and equity of its occupants and community.
Public Value as Driver of Private Value
Muldavin’s (2009) division between financial and general definitions of sustainability
highlights the fact that there are aspects of sustainability that can create private value, while
others provide value that is enjoyed by society, but may not be as easily quantified, or integrated
into financial analysis. However, to the extent that the public values are integrated into the SRI
practices of an investor or CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) practices of a tenant, they will
still influence building value..
Tenants as Drivers of Value
According to an October 2008 presentation by Roger Krage of Gerding Edlen, a
progressive real estate developer, “Gerding Edlen believes the fundamental driver of the
building’s value is the tenant. [However], building value is traditionally expressed in the context
of price, which ignores the drivers behind a tenant’s willingness to pay that price. Understanding
24

these drivers is critical to understanding how sustainability is changing the value proposition in
real estate” (Krage 2008) (p. 6).
This theme--that tenants’ demand drive a building’s value, and that sustainable buildings
are becoming increasingly more attractive to tenants--is one that recurs throughout the literature.
However, it is one that has only recently emerged. Earlier works not reviewed for this thesis have
focused on cost savings attributed to green features, but have put far lest focus on tenant demand,
increased rents, decreased turnover, and decreased time to let. In fact Nelson (2009) of RREEF
research asserts in his 2009 paper “How Green a Recession?—Sustainability Prospects in the US
Real Estate Industry,” that tenant demand for sustainable buildings is growing so fast that
“…many major markets will reach the critical mass when green buildings account for enough of
the building stock that tenants have a choice. At this point, the performance premiums for green
buildings will flip to a discount for older, less efficient, conventional buildings. We are already at
or near this point in the mature economies of Europe and developed Asia, and getting closer in
the major money centers of the US. Ignoring this impending market transformation would be
risky and imprudent, and the current recession will provide little cover to owners failing to adapt”
(Nelson 2009) (p. 8).
Avoiding this scenario is what many authors refer to as future-proofing ones building.
As part of financial due-diligence, Ellison and Sayce (2006) offer a future-proofing questionnaire.
Applying this questionnaire will better able owners and investors to value their building by
looking forward to determine what additional expenses or losses in occupancy they may incur on
a property that has not adequately addressed sustainability (Ellison and Sayce 2006).
Other Parties that Influence Value
Muldavin shares the perspective that tenants are the primary drivers of a building’s value,
although he sees space users, (tenants) as one of three parties who influence the value of
25

sustainable design. He states, “Proper financial analysis of a property requires explicit
consideration of the potential benefits that will accrue through meeting regulator, user, and
investor thresholds for sustainability” (p. 43). Furthermore, he feels that despite the differences
between traditional and sustainable buildings, traditional valuation methods are appropriate for
the valuation of sustainable buildings, although they must be modified.
Connecting the Literature with this Thesis
Chapter 3 will give examples of how financial models might be modified to account for
sustainable building attributes, while chapter 4 will run those models to test the magnitude of
different impacts on building value. It should be noted that while tenant demand has moved to
the forefront of the valuation discussion, cost savings are still a significant component and will be
included in the financial models in chapter 4. A further consideration that is beyond the scope of
this paper is that the way tenant leases are structured determines who receives the cost savings
from energy efficiency or other operational savings. These new “green leases” ensure that those
benefits accrue to the party who has made the investment.
Review of Methodologies Within the Literature
Since the literature I am reviewing for this paper is varied in its purpose and approach,
comparing methodologies is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. In the more traditional,
academic approaches, the researchers apply relatively straightforward data analysis, including
hedonic regression. However, many of the papers I have reviewed do not apply a methodology
that arrives at a particular conclusion. Rather, the methodology is aimed at creating frameworks
and engaging in analysis about how a fiduciaries and appraisers can reach their own conclusions
about sustainable value. This approach is closest to the methodology that I will use to examine
26

the relationship between investment value and sustainability in this thesis. As such, it does not
attempt to draw as specific conclusion, but rather illustrate a process by which readers can better
understand relationships between value and sustainability, and the process that they should work
through in order to integrate that understanding into appraisals and pro-formas.
Additionally this paper will investigate investor attitudes toward sustainable property
investment. Papers concerned with this broader investment market for green building are
discussed in part 2 of this chapter. These papers restate the business case for green building and
analyze investor interest and obstacles to Responsible Property Investing.
What Questions Does the Literature Answer?
The majority of the literature I reviewed for this thesis deals with the private value of
green building, and for the most part excludes discussion of public value—except to the extent
that investors or tenants are willing to pay a premium for public benefit. A separate body of
literature—one that is beyond the scope of this thesis—addresses the public value of green
building in terms of how much environmental benefit is gained from various sustainable building
strategies. Within literature reviewed for this thesis—that which is primarily concerned with the
private value of green building—there are two distinct questions that the papers attempt to
answer:
1. Are green buildings more valuable than conventional buildings?
2. How should valuation methods be modified to account for the differences between green
buildings and conventional buildings?
While most papers acknowledge that these are two separate questions that cannot be
answered by any one method, some papers attempt to answer both questions at once. As
discussed previously, this can be challenging due to the unique nature of each property.
27

The methodology employed by the author is largely determined by which of these
questions he is attempting to answer. If it is the first question, “whether or not green buildings
are more valuable, and by how much”, regression analysis or case studies are the most commonly
employed methodologies. If the question is the latter, “how does sustainability change the way
that buildings are valued”, the methodology is more difficult to identify, although these studies
may actually be of more value and application in the real world. Studies of this nature—those
that attempt to identify the changes to valuation strategies--are really describing methodologies
more than they are employing them. The theme of Ellison and Sayce’s (year) “The Sustainable
Property Appraisal Project” and Muldavin’s “Underwriting Sustainable Property Investment” is
to assist appraisers, loan underwriters, investors and fiduciaries to understand the way that
sustainability on all levels interacts with investment value. These studies generally do not include
assumptions based on data analysis, as conclusive studies about the value of one or more aspect
of sustainability are far and few between, and do not apply uniformly to all situations.
As such, while the methodology used to arrive at general conclusions about the value of
green building is relatively straightforward, the methodology used to arrive at a systematic
framework for evaluating individual properties is less so. The first step toward developing a new
framework for valuation of sustainable property is a good working knowledge of conventional
property valuation and investment analysis methods.
An Overview of Conventional Property Investment Analysis
Brueggeman and Fisher (2008) provide a detailed description of these methods in their
text Real Estate Finance and Investments. They also provide good background on different
vehicles for real estate investment. While the type of loan or investment does not usually
determine what valuation method will be used, the motivations and intents of the investor or
28

lender, and the nature of the property that will be financed do impact the financial model used to
determine a property’s present value.
Valuation of Proposed vs. Existing Buildings
One important distinction clarified by Brueggeman and Fisher is between the
development of new buildings and the acquisition of existing buildings. New construction
finance usually involves more than one lender, since there may be loans needed for land
acquisition, construction, and “permanent” financing if the developer intends to retain ownership
of the property. Also, new construction pro-formas typically include construction cost estimates
as well as cash flow projections designed to determine the value of the project on completion.
Since this thesis is focused on the value of sustainability, rather than the cost of constructing a
LEED certified building, construction cost will not be evaluated. Numerous case studies are
available to those interested in learning more about the added costs (if any) involved with green
building, but they are beyond the scope of this thesis. This thesis will focus on the methods used
for property valuation, which are roughly the same whether valuing a proposed project or an
existing structure.
Lenders and investors must be sure to make accurate assumptions about two interrelated
but distinct things when underwriting an investment. First, they must be sure to accurately value,
or appraise a property, as discussed below. Second, they must do their best to calculate the risk
that the investment will perform as they assume it will. Higher risk properties carry higher
investor demands in terms of the returns that the investor will expect if investing in a property.
Since return on investment is a function of price, this also means lower transaction price than a
similar property with less risk.

29

For-Sale vs. For-Lease Properties
When it comes to valuation and risk assessment methods for newly constructed or
retrofitted property, one essential difference is the difference between for-sale and for-lease
properties. If it is the intent of a developer to sell a project to an end user, such as a homeowner,
then it is known as a for-sale product, and the capital that the developer will seek will likely be
for land and construction, not long-term ownership. As such, the analysis that goes into lending
decisions about for-sale products only has to do with the market for housing of that type, location,
and quality, and not projected cash flows. The lender or investor in the construction of that
housing must determine the likelihood that the units will sell for the amount that the developer
assumes they will. In this case, the projections about the market for this product are relatively
short-term, and projections about operating costs are most likely left out of the equation, since
those costs will be borne by the housing consumer. Although held for a longer period than
construction loans, residential mortgages also fall into this category. The basis for underwriting
residential mortgages for existing homes has more to do with the applicant, and their ability to
make mortgage payments than it does with the property itself. Although many of the factors
driving the value of sustainable for sale property are the same as those driving sustainable for-
lease properties, this thesis will focus on the Discounted Cash Flow method of valuing for-lease
properties, which cannot be applied to for-sale product.
The Cost Approach
Chappell and Corps (2009) offer a discussion of different valuation methods, and later
discuss the questions that investors, analysts, and underwriters should be asking when using one
of those methods to evaluate sustainable property investment. The cost approach is based on the
idea that market participants relate value to cost. In this model, the most significant factor in
30

determining a price for an asset is the cost of construction, so it would be most applicable to
newly constructed properties. Valuing existing properties with this approach would present
challenges with depreciating value of the improvements, while accounting for appreciation in
land values. The authors note that this would be further complicated when incorporating green
features that often have a longer life and lower level of obsolescence than conventional buildings.
Consequently, they conclude that using a cost approach in today’s market would be “viewed with
some skepticism.”
The Sales Approach
The second valuation method reviewed by Chappell and Corps (2009) is the Sales
Comparison Approach. Sales comparisons can be made when there have been recent sales of
buildings with many similar qualities to the one being valued. This approach, however, suffers in
periods where there is low transaction volume of commercial properties, as has occurred in the
last two years. Using sales comparisons to value sustainable properties is further complicated by
the fact that there are fewer such properties in existence, and thus even lower transaction
volumes. Furthermore, properties that an appraiser might compare would have to have many
similar sustainable characteristics, which is unlikely even when properties have the same level of
LEED certification, as discussed earlier. Thus, the authors conclude that using sales comparisons
as the primary means of determining building value is less reliable indication of market value
when compared to the third and final approach to valuation.
Income Capitalization Approach—Discounted Cash Flow
Most real estate brokers and investment professionals today determine the value of
income producing property, such as office, retail, or for-lease housing by using the Income
Capitalization Approach (Brueggeman and Fisher 2008). Chappell and Corps (2009) assert that
31

this approach also provides the “most reliable indication of market value for a high performance
green building.” The Income Capitalization Approach employs a technique called Discounted
Cash Flow (DCF) analysis, which Muldavin (2009) refers to as the standard approach used by
real estate investors to t assess commercial property value and financial potential. This is because
for lease properties have a long series of cash inflows, in the form of rents, and a series of cash
outflows, in the form of initial acquisition or development, operating, maintenance and retrofit
costs. Also included in the DCF analysis that determines the buildings current value is the
buildings future value, or the projected sales price at the end of the holding period for which an
owner believes he or she will keep a property. Circularly, that projected future selling price is
determined by assumptions about how much cash flow and capitalization rates will be at the time
of sale.
Cap Rates
A capitalization rate, or cap rate as it is commonly know in the commercial real estate
industry, is a function of a property’s yearly income and selling price. The capitalization rate for
a property is determined by dividing the NOI, or Net Operating Income, of a property by the
transaction price of a property. The NOI is the annual amount of income that the owner receives
after receiving rent and paying expenses.
Since the cap rate can be determined by the NOI and price, we may instead determine the
price of a property by rearranging the cap rate formula. If we want to solve for price the formula
is: Value =NOI ÷R, where R is the capitalization rate. If a the cap rate used to value a particular
building is .08, for example, and that building has an annual NOI of $100,000, then the estimated
value would be 100,000/.08, or $1,250,000. However, in order to apply the same cap rate to two
comparable buildings, they must be highly comparable in age, condition, location, etc. Cap rates
are variable across the commercial real estate market, and change with market conditions. Lower
32

cap rates lead to higher building valuations, and as such are often associated with greater
availability of capital, or lower investment risk.
This concept is important to understand in relation to financial analysis of sustainable
properties because there is evidence to suggest that there is less risk involved with the acquisition
or development of sustainable properties than there is for conventional properties. As such, it
may be appropriate to use a different cap rate on a sustainable property investment (Hugins
2008).
Discounting and the Time Value of Money
The word “discounted” in DCF analysis refers to the concept of the Time Value of
Money, or TVM. The entire world financial system operates on this premise—that money is
more valuable today than it is tomorrow, or next year. Since income-producing real estate
investments represent a series of cash flows, some in the present, some in the near future, and
some in the distant future, it is appropriate to adjust for the Time Value of Money when analyzing
investments. This adjustment is made by discounting future cash flows to make a determination
about their present value, and the associated return. Essentially, the DCF analysis assumes that
$100 earned today is worth $100, while $100 earned in the future is worth less. The discount rate
represents how much less that future $100 is worth. Depending on how far into the future the
$100 will be received, it may only be worth $80 or $65 of today’s money. The rate at which
future cash flows are discounted depends upon the risk that they will not be received at all
(Brueggeman and Fisher 2008).
Pricing Risk in Property Investment
Risk in property investment affects discount rates, capitalization rates, and ultimately the
underlying value of a property. If it is highly likely that the money will be received in the future,
33

there is very little risk, and the discount rate and cap rate will be low. Since US Treasury Bills
are considered zero risk, they pay very little interest. In real estate investment, a building leased
to a major company with good credit on a long-term lease carries little risk that the owner will not
receive future cash flows, so the owner or investor will likely be willing to apply a lower discount
rate to the future cash flows. If, however, the investment is more speculative, the future cash
flows will have to be discounted more heavily to account for the fact that they might never
materialize. Here, again, assumptions about future tenant demand and regulatory pressure tend to
indicate that sustainable, energy efficient buildings represent a lower risk, and discount rates
should be adjusted downward to reflect this reduced risk (Muldavin 2009).
Advantages of DCF for Integrating the Value of Sustainability
As Muldavin (2009) notes, “While the specific type of financial model will vary based on
the type of decisions being underwritten, the logic and structure of a DCF model provides the
conceptual framework needed for interpreting how sustainable features influence return and/or
value. Even if perfect data is not available, by thinking through the specific assumptions within a
DCF model, users can gain important insights about the magnitude of the financial implications
of sustainable property investments” (p. 94)
Sensitivity Analysis Using DCF
While Muldavin asserts in his book that “insights about the magnitude” can be gained by
“thinking through” the DCF model, he admits in person that more “sensitivity analysis” is needed
to better understand the relationship between building value and the varied impacts that
sustainable building features may have (Muldavin 2009). Brueggeman and Fisher describe
sensitivity analysis as a “what-if analysis” of a property. Sensitivity analysis starts with a base
case, and then involves changing one or more assumptions about income and expense. These
34

factors may include expected market rental rate, vacancy rates, operating expenses, and the
expected resale price. In order to determine how sensitive a property may be to changes in the
level or type sustainability features that it possesses, one must first examine the relationship
between each feature, and the potential impact on value. One may then estimate how that
additional feature might change assumptions about rents, occupancy levels, or costs related to
new regulations, for example. These estimates can then be plugged into the DCF model to see
what the total change in building value might be. While it is impossible to know exactly what
impact a particular feature will have on monthly operating costs or rents, performing sensitivity
analysis can reveal the magnitude of an estimated impact on total building value. In Chapters 3
and 4 I will describe and perform sensitivity analysis to observe the interaction with various
sustainable building attributes on overall building value.


Figure 1. Income/Risk—Two different means of adding value to by incorporating
sustainable features. (Pivo 2009)
35

Part 2: Review of Literatures for Evaluating Investor Attitudes
While the previous section is intended to quantify green value in a way that can be
understood and appreciated by any investor, there is an emerging sector of the investment world
that is concerned with measuring their investments against the triple bottom line of financial
profitability, social equity, and ecological integrity. In “Is There a Future for Socially
Responsible Property Investments?” Pivo (2005) explores the policies and priorities of funds and
firms that are motivated to “do well while doing good.” He cites the Social Investment Forum’s
2003 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States, which claims there
were 2.16 trillion dollars in socially responsible investing of all kinds in that year. Their most
current report, from 2007, says that number had risen to 2.71 trillion by the end 2007, with an
increase of 18percent between 2005 and 2007 alone. The report also notes that between 1995 and
2007, SRI assets rose 324 percent, compared to an overall growth in professionally managed
assets grew “only” 260 percent (Pivo 2005). In Chapter 4 I will investigate whether this change
has been driven by public pension funds like CalSTRS whom have made a choice to sacrifice
higher returns for social value, since they are a government entity, or if they see socially
responsible investments as revenue neutral or revenue positive choice.
SRI Funds and Property Investment
The most popular type of SRI funds are screened funds, in which individual investments
within the fund are evaluated and included or excluded based on environmental and/or social
criteria. At the time of publication of Pivo’s paper, clear criteria for screening real estate
investments for SRI funds has not been established and as such SRI funds did not include any real
estate holdings. Despite this fact, Pivo’s research shows that many fund managers were
interested in diversifying their funds by including real estate, which further underscores the need
36

for developers to more effectively convey project sustainability. Pivo notes that if only 10percent
of SRI funds were to be allocated to real estate, the investment equal nearly 75percent of the
entire REIT equity market capitalization, REITs being the largest vehicle for equity investment in
real estate.
The Need for Responsible Property Investment Vehicles
Despite the desire of SRI funds to diversify by investing in real estate, fund managers
realize that they cannot satisfy that desire by simply acquiring conventional real estate investment
products. As Pivo (2005) states, “depending on how a property is sited, designed or managed, it
can produce either harmful or beneficial consequences for society and the natural environment”
(p. 14). Unfortunately, the demand for SRI real estate investments has not been met. While
green building design and technology has proliferated over the last decade or more, Pivo was at
the time of publication unable to find a single one, of the more than 300 real estate investment
trusts in the US that made sustainability or social responsibility an explicit goal (2005).
The Emergence of Investment Fund Interest in Sustainable Property
However, several large pension funds, including CalSTRS and CalPERS, have developed
policies aimed at increasing the social and environmental benefit in their real estate investments.
According to Pivo, both funds set goals in 2005 to reduce the energy use in their buildings by
20percent over the next 5 years, and the December 2009 report “Energy Efficiency and Real
Estate: Opportunities for Investors” confirms that CalPERS was on track to meet that goal by the
end of 2009 (Carpenter and Meyer 2009).
That same report, which also lists best practices for leveraging energy efficiency in real
estate investments, advises indirect property owners who invest in real estate related funds or
stock ownership to: “Seek funds with s specific mission of creating or acquiring energy efficient
37

properties, or with specific goals for energy efficiency improvements in existing holdings” (p. 8).
Several funds specifically targeted at investing in green building and smart growth have emerged
since Pivo surveyed the REIT market in 2005. Baue (2006) in “The Growth of Green Building
Funds” notes the emergence of the $120 million Hines CalPERS Green Development Fund and
the $100 million Rose Smart Growth Investment Equity Fund, which focuses on urban green
building. The Ceres Mercer paper also notes the 2008 launch of the $180 million Thomas
Properties Group High Performance Green Fund (Baue 2006).
While these funds are only in the millions and relatively small when compared to the
$363 billion TIAA-CREF private retirement fund, changes in the investment strategies of funds
like PERS, STRS and TIAA-CREF mean that property level sustainability may eventually be a
key factor for developers seeking investment in new projects. While much of the focus of TIAA-
CREF and the two California pension fund giants had previously been on one dimension of
sustainability--improving energy efficiency in existing buildings--TIAA-CREF has recently
pledged that all new development it funds must be LEED certified—a broader measure of
sustainability.
Gerding Edlen—Communicating Triple Bottom Line Value to Investors
Progressive developers such as Gerding Edlen have recognized the change in demand
from both investors and space-users, and have developed almost entirely LEED certified
buildings. Gerding Edlen has now developed more LEED buildings than any other developer,
with over 40 buildings to its name. Perhaps more significantly, at least in terms of attracting
financing, is Gerding’s ability to communicate the value that their projects create for communities
they are located in and the world as a whole.
During the recent real estate downturn, Gerding Edlen has temporarily reinvented itself
as a real estate investment manager. In this role they incorporate many of the principles that
38

drove the design of their new projects into the way the evaluate real estate investments for their
clients. They have also developed a consulting arm aimed at helping building owners retrofit and
improve the performance of existing buildings. Despite multiple attempts, I was unable to reach
Gerding Edlen for comment on their investment strategies or their ability to attract capital during
the current recession.
Gerding Edlen has developed an ingenious system of metrics to measuring the
performance of their buildings in terms of the triple bottom line, which they refer to as the
39

Livable Place Index (at left). They use the shorthand of People,
Planet, and Profit to describe the social, environmental, and
economic bottom lines. They state that the “communication of
and transparency around these metrics will push us to achieve
even greater energy savings and more community benefit, and
to ensure that our projects have a broad, deep and lasting
economic impact on the cities where they are located” (Edlen
2009).
In fact, when coupled with financial analysis, the
Livable Place Index should be a great tool for attracting
investment from funds and trusts looking to increase their RPI
investments. Similar to a nutrition label on a box of food, the
Livable Place Index quantifies their projects impact on planet,
people, and profit. By clearly organizing and communicating
the value of their project in terms of the triple bottom line,
Gerding Edlen can assure investors, lenders, potential tenants,
and perhaps most importantly, local government officials, that
their projects meets social, economic, and environmental goals.
The Livable Place Index addresses a few concerns
expressed in Pivo’s 2005 paper. First, he notes that LEED and
Energy Star rating systems are not ideally suited to SRI
investment purposes because they are both designed to be
applied to individual buildings. While the Livable Place Index is also applied to individual
buildings, Gerding Edlen has made the same calculations for their development projects as a
Figure 2. Livable Place
Index
40

whole. Therefore, if an investor wanted to know about the level of responsibility practiced by the
company, not just the project, that information is available to them in the same convenient format.
Secondly, Pivo points out that LEED and Energy Star focus primarily on environmental concerns,
while “the SRI community is concerned with a wide ranging set of issue that extend beyond just
environmental concerns.”
Findings of the Literature Review
One significant finding of this literature review is that most of the literature on this topic
was published in the last two years, and each successive search I perform seems to turn up
exponentially more material. This rapid proliferation of new theory and research in the last two
years indicates that event the most conventional of investors or developers will soon have to take
note of the trend toward incorporating sustainability into financial decisions. As of now, the
emerging field of Responsible Property Investment is still dwarfed by the world of conventional
real estate investment. Within the literature there is some indication that Responsible Property
Investment strategies have begun to infiltrate conventional funds, but this is a point that needs
further research. The short survey that I describe in the next chapter will investigate the extent to
which that change is occurring.
The other side of the literature—that which deals with valuation techniques and the
relationship between sustainability and value—is also rapidly evolving. Between the studies that
focus on regression analysis and those oriented around DCF valuation, there seems to be a
consensus that sustainable properties are generally worth more than their conventional
counterparts. Some of the causes for this increase in value, such as reduced energy consumption
are easy to understand. Other causes, such as increased rents are harder to understand because it
requires analysis of the motivation behind tenants willingness to pay those increases. The
41

literature shows that sustainable properties generally do fetch rent premiums—the question of
why tenants are willing to pay for sustainability is one that is beyond the scope of the literature I
reviewed, and beyond the scope of this thesis.
The ideas presented in Muldavin’s 2009 work, and in personal communication with
Scott, provide much of the basis for the sensitivity analysis discussed in the next chapter and
performed in Chapter 4. While many of the regression studies I reviewed provide some insight
about trends in sustainable building value, the DCF approach promoted by Muldavin provides a
real-world framework that can be applied to individual buildings. It is for this reason that I
believe performing DCF analysis in this thesis will be of more value than attempting to perform
regression studies on value. Furthermore, even those with access to large property sales data sets
(Miller, 2008) have had difficulty with selecting representative peers to draw conclusions about
sustainable property value—since I do not have access to the same amount of data, I believe I
would have an even more difficult time producing accurate data.






42

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
As discussed above, the relationship between sustainability and building investment
value is two-fold. First, the value of a building is impacted by the type and quantity of
sustainable features that have been incorporated into that building or property. Second, the type
and quantity of capital available to a project can be affected by whole project sustainability with
respect to the triple bottom line. As such, part 1 of this chapter focuses on describing the way
that financial analysis can be modified to account for building sustainability, and how that will be
tested in chapter 4. Part 2 of this chapter describes investor attitudes towards investing in
sustainable properties and how those attitudes will be measured in chapter 4. This methodology
is designed to test the strength of the two relationships between sustainability and building
investment value. The first part, financial analysis including sensitivity analysis provides a
methodology for examining the strength or magnitude of sustainable building on a cash flow
model. This information can help investors and appraisers to more accurately assess investment
potential for buildings, and help developers to numerically communicate the value that a
sustainable project brings to investors. The second part of this chapter is a very basic method for
gauging investor sentiment. While the short survey only has two respondents, they represent two
of the largest real estate investment funds in the world, and as such their perspectives can help
those seeking capital to know how the sustainable aspects of their projects will be evaluated.
Part 1—Valuation, underwriting and financial analysis
This section illustrates the way that indexing can be used to disaggregate sustainable
building features. It then predicts the effect of each one of those features on building value.
43

Using LEED Credits to Index Building Features
The LEED rating system is by far the most recognized system in the United States to
assess the environmental value of green buildings (USGBC.org). The US Green Building council
awards LEED certification to buildings that demonstrate sustainability through their design and
function. In recognition of the fact that buildings do not operate in isolation, a new LEED rating
system known as LEED ND certifies various size development projects based on some of the
same factors measured in other LEED systems, but with a larger-scale view of the impacts of
development. This broader view incorporates aspects of walkability, access to transportation, and
socio-economic considerations for mixed income communities. The advent of LEED ND creates
a tool with which to measure broader, more integrated planning and site-design sustainability
measures in addition to the building design features addressed by the other LEED rating systems.
Since the LEED systems have categorized and created metrics for nearly every dimension of
sustainability in the built environment, they create an excellent framework for the analysis of
these various dimensions. This thesis will therefore use many of these categories and metrics to
classify and evaluate the various aspects of sustainable design, both in their environmental or
social impact (public value) and in their predicted economic impact (private value). However,
this thesis will spend little time discussing the market value of LEED certification, since it has
already been studied at length, and is an ineffective tool for the detailed financial analysis
required by lenders and investors, as discussed below.
The Value of LEED Certification
LEED certification was designed as a tool for owners, operators, tenants, and investors to
identify different levels of sustainability in a particular green building. LEED was also designed
to help the market price the monetary value of building’s sustainability when buildings are bought
44

and sold—a short supply of LEED certified buildings drives up their price, causing more builders
to enter the market and produce more LEED buildings. Hence, the LEED label itself impacts a
building’s marketability and market value in and of itself. However, even buildings with the
same level of LEED certification may have very few of the same sustainable features, so more
detailed analysis is necessary for accurate building valuation (Muldavin, year).
Using the LEED Framework for More Detailed Analysis
One way to use the LEED system for more accurate building valuation is as a framework
for that detailed analysis, instead of looking at the level of LEED certification. Below is an
explanation of why the level of LEED certification does not necessarily add up to the sum of its
parts, at least with respect to the financial analysis.
LEED assigns points to different design and technology features, depending on the
impact of that feature on the environment. As such, the LEED system is an effective way of
measuring the impact of a building on the environment. With the recent addition of LEED for
Neighborhood Development, the LEED systems collectively serve as an effective proxy for the
public (social and environmental) value of sustainable buildings.
However, while it is the USGBC’s intent that two buildings with the same LEED
certification have roughly equivalent overall impacts on the environment, in terms of valuation,
the comparison between the buildings is apples and oranges. The points toward certification can
be achieved in many different ways. As such, one building may have many features that can be
quantified and underwritten in terms of private value, while another building with the same level
of certification may have achieved most of its points in areas that are of public or environmental
value, but have little or no impact on private value. In other words, the LEED rating system is an
effective way to know the overall environmental impact of a building or neighborhood, but the
level of LEED certification alone cannot accurately predict the incremental value added to a
45

building through the incorporation of sustainable design and features. In order to assess the
private value of a particular sustainable building or project, the sustainable features need to be
disaggregated and evaluated on an individual basis. This thesis will evaluate sustainable features
on that more detailed, individual basis. The evaluations provided by this thesis can then be used
as the basis for a property-specific evaluation of the unique features and conditions of a proposed
sustainable project.
Analyzing the DCF Model on a Credit-by-Credit Basis
The chart below is a snippet of a larger chart that I provide shown in Chapter 4. The
chart depicts all the categories for LEED credits and prerequisites and the type and magnitude of
impact each building attribute is likely to have on value. At this time no researcher has
succeeded, or to my knowledge, even attempted to distill quantifiable relationships between all of
the different areas of sustainability and value. As such, many of the predictions will be
speculative, and not provable. However, this exercise will be of value because it will illustrate
the magnitude of change in overall building value associated with a predicted changes specific
assumptions in a DCF model—level of building occupancy, for example. While researchers have
had success in quantifying the value of certain aspects of sustainability, such as energy efficiency
or walkability, each property is unique, and the results of these studies may or may not be useful
in determining how to modify a discounted cash flow model. In the case that there is a known
relationship between a sustainable attribute and value, that relationship will be used to determine
how to modify the discounted cash flow model. Where the relationship is unknown, the author
will use deductive reasoning to determine a probable impact on a particular part of the DCF
model. The magnitude of this impact on total building value can then be predicted by running the
DCF model to determine a NPV or Net Present Value.
46

How the LEED Credit Matrix Interacts with the DCF Models
The LEED matrix will serve as the basis for the sensitivity analysis by determining, what,
if any, part of the DCF model will be affected by a particular sustainable attribute. In the first
two columns, I have assigned a number between 0 and 3 to represent level of public and private
value associated with a particular LEED credit, 3 being the highest. While all LEED credits have
public value, not all have private value. Those categories are given a private value score of 0. If
a credit has a private value score of one or more, I note the type and direction of impact achieving
that credit will have on the DCF model, using descriptors such as higher, lower (when referring to
monetary amounts), or shorter, longer (when referring to durations). Where supported by data, I
also give a “percentage change” estimate of how much impact the sustainable feature is likely to
have on building value.
It should be noted that the DCF models have both outflows and inflows that affect
building value, so an increase in rent or a decrease in utilities both will cause an increase in
building value. Since data showing the direct relationship between each aspect of sustainability
and value are not available, the chart will instead show the expected impact each aspect might
have. By evaluating what type of impact the particular attribute is likely to have on value,
underwriters, appraisers, or investors will know specifically how to alter the assumptions in a
discounted cash flow model.
Sensitivity Analysis
Once each sustainable attribute has been evaluated as to the type of impact it will have on
cash flows, certain attributes will be selected for sensitivity analysis. Using a DCF model to
perform sensitivity analysis will provide an example of how sustainability considerations can be
47

incorporated into investment decisions, and what the effect of including these considerations
might be.
Encouraging Investment by Illustrating Risks and Rewards
Proponents of green building have already claimed that developers have learned to “game
the system” in finding the cheapest (in terms of up-front costs) way to achieve LEED certification
(Miller, Spivey et al. 2008). As such, there may be concern that the information in this analysis
could be used in the same way—to find what sustainability measures provide the greatest
financial gain, and to incorporate those features over other features that may provide greater
environmental benefit, but less financial payoff. While this may be the case, giving developers
and investors more information about the interface between sustainability and value will help
them better understand risks and rewards, making green building investment safer and therefore
more attractive (Muldavin 2009). While it is fine to advocate for green building, making broad,
uninformed statements about the value of LEED buildings will not encourage more investment in
the long run, as investors and lenders need property-specific analysis of costs, income potential,
and risks to make informed decisions. Instead, the type of detailed analysis contained within this
thesis will encourage investment from all types of investors seeking increased returns or reduced
risk.
Building Valuation
At the heart of real estate investment decisions is building valuation. As real estate has
gradually become to be recognized as an asset class for investors—in the way that, bonds, and
commodities have long been understood—investors have wanted to find a way to measure returns
that is equivalent to the measurement of yields that are used for other asset classes. This measure,
the Internal Rate of Return, is a percentage that the investor should earn on the life of the
48

investment, and many investors equate a 10percent IRR to a 10percent yield on a stock.
However, for the purposes of this thesis, I will use Net Present Value or NPV as the measure of
building value for the sensitivity analysis. NPV is calculated by evaluating the series of cash
flows expected from a building during a planned holding period. NPV also takes into account the
reversionary value of a building, or the expected price at time of sale, which is equivalent to the
final cash flow in the series. All of these cash flows are discounted to account for the time value
of money. The discount rate that is selected for the model should be roughly equivalent to the
interest rate or yield the investor could be getting from a different investment of equal risk. This
accounts for the opportunity cost of investing in the building—since the investor could be earning
returns in other investments if his money were not tied up in the building. The discount rate is
one of many factors that could be adjusted in a DCF model to account for sustainability. For
example, LEED certified buildings are likely to be a less risky investment, since they may avoid
renovation costs due to future green building legislation, and will be less impacted by spikes in
energy costs. As such, a lower discount rate can be applied to that building, which will increase
the NPV of the building. These changes in assumptions will be examined in the next chapter by
running multiple DCF models on the same project. By changing one assumption at a time, we
can observe the impact on building value. Chapter 4 will show several iterations of a DCF for the
same hypothetical building, with different assumptions changed based on sustainable building
features or attributes being added to the building.
Methodology Part 2: Gauging Investor Sentiment
As mentioned above, sustainability has two distinct but interrelated interactions with
property investment. The first interaction, which the exercised described in Methodology Part 1
49

is meant to investigate, is between sustainability and private value. This interaction involves
changes to property value as a result of sustainable building features or attributes.
The second interaction, which is explored in this section, Methodology Part 2, is between
sustainability and investor sentiment. In this interaction, investors may prioritize sustainable
properties not based only on detailed financial analysis, but on institutional values and
stakeholder accountability. As these investor sentiments can determine what real estate assets or
projects receive funding, gauging investor sentiments toward sustainable building is an important
counterpart to financial analysis of sustainable building. Together, financial analysis and investor
sentiment combine to create a picture of green building finance that can help developers and
finance professionals navigate the challenging task of acquiring funding for sustainable building
projects.
Survey Participants
The world of real estate investing is vast, and investors range from public pension funds
who own millions of square feet of real estate, to individual mom and pop investors who own a
single apartment building. While it would be great to survey the entire range of investors to
determine current trends and attitudes within the real estate investment world, that process would
require resources far beyond the reach of this author. Fortunately, I have made contacts with two
individuals who work at organizations that are generally regarded as leaders in investment, and as
such should be ahead of the curve in their practice, giving a glimpse of where the rest of the
market is headed.
Investor Attitudes Toward Green Building
In order to gauge present investor sentiment, I will conduct interviews with two real
estate investment agents from two of the world’s largest investment funds. In order to protect the
50

interviewees from any repercussions inside or outside of their organizations, I have identified
them as “Participant #1 and Participant #2”. Participant #1 holds a Masters in Real Estate
Finance from NYU. He has worked as an investment agent/analyst at a private equity fund in
New York since 2005. As a “fund of funds,” his firm allocates investment capital to various
funds, which they evaluate based on the fund’s investment strategy. The firm has conducted
surveys on the trends toward investment in sustainable property, but I am presently unaware of
their sustainable investment policy, if any.
Participant #2 is a real estate investment analyst specializing in green building and
sustainable development for a large US public pension fund. This unnamed pension fund directly
invests their member’s retirement savings, while the private equity fund represents a variety of
different pools of money, including insurance companies, foundations, and public pension funds.
The fact that the pension fund is responsible only for public employees retirement funds may
mean an increased level of scrutiny over their investment decisions. As such, I am interested in
knowing how this increased scrutiny may or may not influence their investment decisions.
I have asked the two respondents to reply to the following questions. Their responses
will be included in chapter 4.

1. Q. Has your organization changed its policy toward sustainable real estate investment
since the downturn?
2. Q. Have you witnessed a higher level of performance from LEED certified or other
sustainable investments through the real estate crash?
3. Q. What is your target for investment in green buildings? Have you met that goal?
4. Q. Who drives the development of your investing strategy? Is it a board of directors, or
does staff have input in strategic decisions?
51

5. Q. Is your sole interest in sustainable property investment in finding ways to increase
returns or is social responsibility a significant factor?
6. Q. Are you familiar with the concept of the Triple Bottom Line? Does your organization
evaluate investments on each of the three bottom lines, or is there a focus on one?
7. Q. How are your investment decisions affected by the source of the money you are
investing? Do you believe that you have a fiduciary duty to those whose pensions you
invest to make socially responsible investments, or would you be failing to perform your
fiduciary duty by considering factors other than financial returns?
8. Q. What role does LEED certification have in your investment decisions? Will you
invest any new construction that is not pursuing LEED certification? Existing buildings?
9. Q. Do you apply a value premium to LEED certified buildings?
10. Q. Do you typically modify Discounted Cash Flow models to account for sustainable
building features?
At the heart of these ten questions is the question of how these investment funds see
themselves in the world of corporate social responsibility. Many large corporations—from early
adopters like Interface Carpet, to household names like WalMart have adopted aggressive CSR
and environmentally progressive policies. Within this context, the idea that going green will
compromise a company’s ability to make a profit does not seem to register. In fact, companies
that adopt CSR policies generally seem to see it as a way to gain a competitive advantage in the
marketplace. Although they may not openly admit it, many companies draw this conclusion
because they believe that they will be held accountable by the buying public for failing to address
environmental issues.
However, pension funds and other real estate investors may not have the same level of
public accountability. Furthermore, one that invests only public employee’s pensions may have a
52

different level of accountability than one that invests funds for a varied group of investors. The
answers to these questions, therefore, will be condensed and evaluated on this main point: do
these funds see themselves as accountable to their investors or the public to make sustainable real
estate investments? If not, do they make such investments on the belief that they are
fundamentally sounder or more profitable than conventional investments? Answering these basic
questions will reveal the motivations of institutional investors toward sustainability in a way that
can help project proponents know how to present green proposals—either as more profitable or
just as the right thing to do.



53

Chapter 4
RESULTS
This chapter contains a LEED indexing matrix and several iterations of a discounted cash
flow model for a hypothetical 350,000 square foot office building located in the Sacramento
market. In Part 1, the LEED indexing matrix, I identify the relationship between different
sustainable building attributes and the various inputs of a discounted cash flow model. In Part 2,
the sensitivity analysis, I then examine the impact of each of these relationships on building
valuation by altering one input assumption in the DCF model while holding the other
assumptions constant. The sensitivity analysis is designed to reveal the magnitude of the impact
on building value that each change in assumptions creates. In Chapter 5, I will discuss the
significance of these findings.
Part 1—LEED Indexing Matrix
As discussed previously, looking at the level of LEED certification alone is not an
effective way of evaluating the impact of unique sustainability attributes on building value.
However, as a thoroughly vetted measure of sustainability, the LEED credit system is a good way
to index a building’s various sustainable attributes in order to keep track of how each of those
features might be accounted for in a DCF analysis. The following chart does exactly that by
describing how a particular attribute is likely to affect a DCF model. Of course, each building is
unique, so it is impossible to know exactly what impact a particular feature will have on a
particular cash-flow input. Despite this fact, by looking at the relationship between individual
sustainable features and individual components of the DCF model, the cause and effect
relationship between sustainability and value can be illustrated in a way that is difficult to capture
54

in less detailed studies such as those attempting to correlate LEED certification with selling price.
Furthermore, for buildings that have attained some level of LEED certification, an appraiser or
investor might want to examine what credits that building earned in order to become LEED
certified, and then reference this matrix to explore how those credits might affect the building
value.
How to Use the Matrix
The first two columns of the matrix are score from 0-3 on their relative level of public or
private value. Since all LEED credits have some public value, they all score at least 1. The
ratings are subjective and are subject to interpretation, especially with regard to public value.
Some people may view climate change as a greater threat than watershed contamination, and may
therefore rank energy credits as 3 and storm water management a 1. The private value ratings are
less subjective as they are indirectly supported by data (no studies have attempted to draw direct
correlations between individual credits and value). These ratings are the subjective opinions of
the author, and do not correlate with dollar amounts. Anyone conducting investment analysis on
a particular building should research the latest empirical data on this topic and draw their own
conclusions about the affect of a particular LEED credit on value.
The remaining columns in the matrix correspond with different inputs of a cash flow
model. If there is an interaction between a credit and a cash-flow input, that interaction is noted
by a one-word descriptor of how a typical input might be modified to account for a particular
credit, or equivalent measure of sustainability. If the cause of the change in input is not readily
apparent, it is also noted below the expected change. The table does not tell an appraiser or
investor how much to adjust the input, as that will be different for every property. The matrix is
not intended to act as a formula to be applied to a sustainable property in order to arrive at a value
55

premium. Instead it is intended to point out value-sustainability interactions that might otherwise
be overlooked and excluded from a valuation or investment analysis.

56



Table 1. Sustainable Sites Part 1
Although location is clearly an aspect of sustainability and a major driver of value in real
estate, the relationship between value and sustainable locations is not always clear. A
property that is accessible by foot and public transit is likely to be of more value than one
that is harder to get to—but so is a less sustainable auto-oriented property with great
freeway access.




Sustainable Sites
Part 1
LEED Credit
Public
Value
Private
Value
Utilities Maintenance Rent Occupancy Cost of
Capital
(Investor
Demand)
Regulatory
Risk
Equipment
life-cycle
Prerequisite 1
Construction Activity
Pollution Prevention
Required
3 1 l ower--
expedi ted
permi ti ng
Credit 1 Site Selection 3 2 l ower l ower
Credit 2 Development
Density and Community
Connectivity
3 2 hi gher hi gher
occupancy
i n
downtowns
l ower
i nterest rate-
-central and
connected
properti es
carry l ower
defaul t ri sk
Credit 3 Brownfield
Redevelopment
3 1 l ower
i nterest rate-
-l everagi ng
publ i c
brownfi el d
funds
l ower--
expi di ted
permi ti ng
Credit 4.1 Alternative
Transportation—Public
Transportation Access
2 2 l ower--
l ess
el ectri ci ty
to l i ght
parki ng
hi gher--
tenants
prefer
accesi bl e
l ocati ons
hi gher--l ess
i mpacted by
changes i n
fuel costs
Credit 4.2 A alternative
Transportation—Bicycle
Storage and Changing
Rooms
2 1 l ower--l ess
parki ng
hi gher--
premi um
for
attracti ng
space
users

Credit 4.3 Alternative
Transportation—Low-
Emitting and Fuel-
Efficient Vehicles
2 0
Relative Value Impact on DCF model
scal e 0-3
57


Table 1.2. Sustainable Sites Part 2
Sustainable Sites also deals with the way that development occurs on the land. Many
of the credits listed in this category deal with land use issues that are commonly
regulated by state and local governments. Meeting these thresholds can create
additional cash flows by reducing the permitting period and time to market for a new
development, or by reducing impact fees.



Sustainable Sites
Part 2
LEED Credit
Public
Value
Private
Value
Utilities Maintenance Rent Occupancy Cost of
Capital
(Investor
Demand)
Regulatory
Risk
Equipment life-
cycle
Credit 4.4 Alternative
Transportation—
Parking Capacity
1 0 25% l ower
parki ng
garage
revenue
Credit 5.1 Site
Development—Protect
or Restore Habitat
3 1 hi gher--
atracti ve
surroundi ngs
l ower--
expedi ted
permi tti ng
Credit 5.2 Site
Development—
Maximize Open Space
3 0 hi gher--
atracti ve
surroundi ngs
Credit 6.1 Stormwater
Design—Quantity
Control
3 2 hi gher--
atracti ve
surroundi ngs
l ower--
reduced sewer
i mpact fees
l ower-- reduced
sewer
mai ntenence
costs
Credit 6.2 Stormwater
Design—Quality Control
3 2 l ower--
reduced sewer
i mpact fees
l ower-- reduced
sewer
mai ntenence
costs
Credit 7.1 Heat Island
Effect—Nonroof
2 1 l ower
Credit 7.2 Heat Island
Effect—Roof
2 1 l ower
Credit 8 Light Pollution
Reduction
1 0
Relative Value Impact on DCF model
scal e 0-3
58



Table 2. Water Efficiency
While water may eventually become a limiting resource, it is presently too inexpensive
to have much of an impact on the private value of a building. Since water scarcity is a
less of an immediate threat than climate change, water efficiency also carries lower
public value.


Water Efficiency
LEED Credit
Public
Value
Private
Value
Utilities Maintenance Rent Occupancy Cost of
Capital
(Investor
Demand)
Regulatory
Risk
Equipment
life-cycle
Prerequisite 1 Water
Use Reduction Required
2 1 l ower
Credit 1 Water Efficient
Landscaping
2 1 l ower l ower-
reducti on of
l awn area
Credit 2 Innovative
Wastewater
Technologies
2 1 unknown unknown hi gher--
heal th and
code
concerns
unknown
Credit 3 Water Use
Reduction
2 2 l ower
Relative Value Impact on DCF model
scal e 0-3
59


Table 3. Energy and Atmosphere
Energy and Atmosphere is at the forefront of both private and public value in relation to
buildings. Although energy comes from a variety of sources, only some of which
directly impact the atmosphere, energy saved or generated from clean on-site sources
reduces the amount of energy that must be produced from coal or other polluting sources.



Energy and
Atmosphere
LEED Credit
Public
Value
Private
Value
Utilities Maintenance Rent Occupancy Cost of
Capital
(Investor
Demand)
Regulatory
Risk
Equipment
life-cycle
Prerequisite 1
Fundamental
Commissioning of
Building Energy Systems
Required
1 3 l ower l ower l onger
Prerequisite 2
Minimum Energy
Performance Required
3 3 l ower
Prerequisite 3
Fundamental
Refrigerant
Management Required
3 1 l onger
Credit 1 Optimize
Energy Performance
3 3 l ower
Credit 2 On-site
Renewable Energy
2 2 unknown unknown shorter--
addi ti onal
equi pment to
repl ace
Credit 3 Enhanced
Commissioning
1 3 l ower l ower l onger
Credit 4 Enhanced
Refrigerant
Management
3 1 l onger
Credit 5 Measurement
and Verification
2 1 l ower--
compl i ance
wi th gov't
reporti ng
standards
Credit 6 Green Power 3 0
Relative Value Impact on DCF model
scal e 0-3
60


Table 4. Materials and Resources
Materials and Resources is the one LEED category where there is no clear evidence of
private value. While there may be some changes to the construction cost, such as
increased cost of obtaining certified wood or cost savings associated with reuse of a
structure, none of these costs are ongoing cash flows, and are therefore beyond the
scope of this thesis.

Materials and
Resources
LEED Credit
Public
Value
Private
Value
Utilities Maintenance Rent Occupancy Cost of
Capital
(Investor
Demand)
Regulatory
Risk
Equipment
life-cycle
Prerequisite 1 Storage
and Collection of
Recyclables Required
3 0
Credit 1.1 Building
Reuse—Maintain
Existing Walls, Floors
and Roof
2 0
Credit 1.2 Building
Reuse—Maintain
Existing Interior
Nonstructural Elements
1
2 0
Credit 2 Construction
Waste Management 1-2
2 0
Credit 3 Materials
Reuse 1-2
2 0
Credit 4 Recycled
Content 1-2
2 0
Credit 5 Regional
Materials 1-2
3 0
Credit 6 Rapidly
Renewable Materials 1
3 0
Credit 7 Certified Wood
1
3 0
Relative Value Impact on DCF model
scal e 0-3
61


Table 5. Indoor Environmental Quality
The public value score are low in this category because the only members of the
public that benefit from most IEQ measures are those who happen to occupy or visit
the building, in contrast to categories like Energy and Atmosphere that address the use
of a public good.
Indoor
Environmental
Quality
LEED Credit
Public
Value
Private
Value
Utilities Maintenence Rent Occupancy Cost of
Capital
(Investor
Demand)
Regulatory
Risk
Equipment
life-cycle
Prerequisite 1
Minimum Indoor Air
Quality Performance
Required
1 3 hi gher l onger--
hi gher
worker
producti vi ty
Prerequisite 2
Environmental Tobacco
Smoke (ETS) Control
Required
1 3 l ower hi gher l ower
Credit 1 Outdoor Air
Delivery Monitoring
1 2 hi gher hi gher
Credit 2 I increased
Ventilation
1 3 hi gher hi gher l onger
Credit 3.1 Construction
Indoor Air Quality
Management
Plan—During
Construction
1 0
Credit 3.2 Construction
Indoor Air Quality
Management
Plan—Before Occupancy
1 1 hi gher
Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting
Materials—Adhesives
and Sealants
2 2 hi gher hi gher l ower unknown
Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting
Materials—Paints and
Coatings
2 2 hi gher hi gher l ower
Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting
Materials—Flooring
Systems
2 2 hi gher hi gher l ower
Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting
Materials—Composite
Wood and Agrifiber
Products
2 2 hi gher hi gher l ower
Credit 5 I indoor
Chemical and Pollutant
Source Control
2 2 hi gher hi gher l ower
Credit 6.1
Controllability of
Systems—Lighting
1 3 hi gher hi gher l onger
Credit 6.2
Controllability of
Systems—Thermal
Comfort
1 3 hi gher hi gher
Credit 7.1 Thermal
Comfort—Design
1 3 hi gher hi gher
Credit 7.2 Thermal
Comfort—Verification
2 0
Credit 8.1 Daylight and
Views—Daylight
1 3 hi gher l onger
Credit 8.2 Daylight and
Views—Views
1 3 hi gher
Relative Value Impact on DCF model
scal e 0-3
62



Table 6. Whole Building LEED Certification
While the level of LEED certification should not be the only basis for incorporating
sustainability into investment decisions, it would also be a mistake to omit it entirely.
Two buildings that are identical in every way other than the fact that one has been
certified by the USGBC are clearly not of equal value. In this case the certification itself
should be incorporated into the valuation and investment analysis.



Whole Building
LEED Certification
LEED Credit
Public
Value
Private
Value
Utilities Maintenance Rent Occupancy Cost of
Capital
(Investor
Demand)
Regulatory
Risk
Equipment
life-cycle
Certified 2 2 l ower l ower hi gher hi gher l ower l ower l onger
Silver 2 3 l ower l ower hi gher hi gher l ower l ower l onger
Gold 3 3 l ower l ower hi gher hi gher l ower l ower l onger
Platinum 3 3 l ower l ower hi gher hi gher l ower l ower l onger
scal e 0-3
Relative Value Impact on DCF model
63

Part 2—Sensitivity Analysis
The following sensitivity analysis is based on the interactions illustrated in the LEED
Indexing Matrix above. The first “baseline building” table is a DCF model representing a typical
office building, including assumptions about rents, occupancy, operating expenses, taxes and so
on. In each of the tables following the base case, one input has been modified to test how
sensitive the value of the building is to changes in cash-flows due to different aspects of green
building. The modifications to the DCF models represent changes to inputs that would occur if
the building were built or modified to add one or more sustainable attributes. In certain cases the
model illustrates how the value of the building might change if sustainable strategies were not
implemented. These are included to illustrate the risk of not future-proofing one’s building
though sustainable upgrades.
The assumptions in these models represent approximations of real-world changes in cash-
flow amounts. They are not intended to be exact, and would need to be adjusted if applied to an
actual building. While the LEED matrix is designed to explore the relationships between various
sustainable building attributes and individual components of a DCF model, the following
sensitivity analysis is designed to explore the relationships between the individual components of
a DCF model and total building price. Neither the LEED matrix nor this exercise is intended to
provide a “final answer” to the question “how much more is a green building worth?”.
As such, most of the modifications to the DCF model are not based on hard data, but on
logical assumptions, and estimates based on various studies. In certain cases, a particular study or
article is cited as the basis for the modification to a DCF input.

64


Table 7. Baseline Building DCF model
Since there have been no modifications to this base case model, the change in value at
the bottom of the sheet is 0$. Assumptions about rental prices and vacancy levels are
based on 18.8percent average vacancy and $26.05/sq. ft. for class A office space in
Sacramento for the 1
st
quarter 2010 (CoStar Sacramento, 2010)

Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Occupancyrate (100-percentvacancy) 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,070,000 $7,140,700 $7,212,107 $7,284,228 $7,357,070 $7,577,782
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $176,750 $178,518 $180,303 $182,106 $183,927 $189,445
Total Revenues $7,807,300 $7,885,373 $7,964,227 $8,043,869 $8,124,308 $8,368,037
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,076,250 $1,103,156 $1,130,735 $1,159,004 $1,187,979 $1,223,618
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,134,175 $3,176,661 $3,219,974 $3,264,135 $3,309,162 $3,408,436
Operating income before depreciation $4,673,125 $4,708,713 $4,744,252 $4,779,734 $4,815,146 $4,959,600
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $3,673,125 $3,708,713 $3,744,252 $3,779,734 $3,815,146 $3,929,600
Taxes 38% $1,395,788 $1,409,311 $1,422,816 $1,436,299 $1,449,756 $1,493,248
Operating income after taxes $2,277,338 $2,299,402 $2,321,436 $2,343,435 $2,365,391 $2,436,352
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $2,772,338 $2,789,352 $2,806,286 $2,823,133 $2,839,886 $2,940,847
Terminal value $50,897,322
Present value $48,233,464 $2,596,356 $2,446,469 $2,305,083 $2,171,722 $38,713,834
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
$ Change in Value $0
% Change in Value 0.00
Baseline Building DCF model
65

Explanation of the Tables
The DCF model on the previous page uses a series of inputs determine yearly cash flows
for a period of five years, including the presumed sale of the property at the end of the fifth year.
The cash flows for the first five years are all calculated based on predicted cash inflows from
rents and cash outflows from utilities, taxes, and so on. The “terminal year value” is also known
as “reversionary value” is much greater than the previous 5 cash flows because it represents a
predicted sale price, which is calculated by dividing the operating income in the 6
th
(terminal)
year by the cap rate, as described in chapter 2.
Discounting Within the Models
This reversionary value, as well as the yearly cash flows from operation are all
discounted (reduced by a factor) using the discount rate to account for the time value of money.
In this case it I am using the cost of capital, or 6.78 percent. This discount rate is raised to the
power of the number of years in the future the cash flow will be received. So, the discounted
cash flow for year 3, for example equals (cash flow to firm in year 3) / (1+cost of capital)^3. The
Present Value is the sum of the present (discounted) values of all future cash flows from
ownership of this property, and is the price a buyer would expect to pay for a property in order to
achieve the yields he requires for the investment.
Interpreting the Sensitivity Analysis Iterations
In the preceding “baseline” example, all inputs are “baseline” inputs that represent typical
costs and income for a conventional building. In each of the following iterations of the sensitivity
analysis the input that has been changed to account for a potential effect on a particular cash flow.
That change, as well as the overall change in building value are highlighted in large font. For
most readers, the change in overall value will be the main point of interest. However, the entire
66

spreadsheet has been provided for each iteration for those who may be interested in knowing why
the overall building value changed.

67


Table 8. 10 percent change in occupancy
Various factors affect the level of occupancy in a building. Studies have shown a wide
range of results when attempting to correlate LEED certification and occupancy level
(Miller, et. Al., 2008). For the purpose of this exercise, I have assumed that occupancy
would be 10 percent higher than in a comparable non-LEED building. In this case
would result in a 9.3 million dollar increase in asset value.

Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancy rate = 90% 90%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 90% 90.00% 90.00% 90.00% 90%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,953,750 $8,033,288 $8,113,620 $8,194,757 $8,276,704 $8,525,005
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $198,844 $200,832 $202,841 $204,869 $206,918 $213,125
Total Revenues $8,668,956 $8,755,646 $8,843,202 $8,931,634 $9,020,951 $9,291,579
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,076,250 $1,103,156 $1,130,735 $1,159,004 $1,187,979 $1,223,618
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,134,175 $3,176,661 $3,219,974 $3,264,135 $3,309,162 $3,408,436
Operating income before depreciation $5,534,781 $5,578,985 $5,623,228 $5,667,499 $5,711,789 $5,883,143
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $4,534,781 $4,578,985 $4,623,228 $4,667,499 $4,711,789 $4,853,143
Taxes 38% $1,723,217 $1,740,014 $1,756,827 $1,773,650 $1,790,480 $1,844,194
Operating income after taxes $2,811,564 $2,838,971 $2,866,401 $2,893,849 $2,921,309 $3,008,948
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $3,306,564 $3,328,921 $3,351,251 $3,373,547 $3,395,804 $3,513,443
Terminal value $60,807,259
Present value $57,617,972 $3,096,672 $2,919,711 $2,752,717 $2,595,133 $46,253,738
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value $9,384,508
% Change in Value 16.29
DCF analysis accounting for 10% lower vacancyrate--From80% to 90%
68


Table 9. 4.8 percent Change in Rent/Sq. Foot.
Various factors affect the rents tenants are willing to pay for office space in a
building. Studies have shown a willingness to pay a premium for LEED-certified
and Energy Star labeled office space. This example shows how a 4.8percent rent
premium for an Energy Star property (Pivo 2008) would affect building value. In
this case would result in a 3.6 million dollar increase in asset value.
Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancyrate = 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 26.2
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $26.20 $26.46 $26.73 $26.99 $27.26 $27.54
Rental Income $7,409,360 $7,483,454 $7,558,288 $7,633,871 $7,710,210 $7,941,516
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $185,234 $187,086 $188,957 $190,847 $192,755 $198,538
Total Revenues $8,138,176 $8,219,558 $8,301,753 $8,384,771 $8,468,619 $8,722,677
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,076,250 $1,103,156 $1,130,735 $1,159,004 $1,187,979 $1,223,618
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,134,175 $3,176,661 $3,219,974 $3,264,135 $3,309,162 $3,408,436
Operating income before depreciation $5,004,001 $5,042,897 $5,081,779 $5,120,636 $5,159,457 $5,314,241
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $4,004,001 $4,042,897 $4,081,779 $4,120,636 $4,159,457 $4,284,241
Taxes 38% $1,521,520 $1,536,301 $1,551,076 $1,565,842 $1,580,594 $1,628,011
Operating income after taxes $2,482,481 $2,506,596 $2,530,703 $2,554,794 $2,578,863 $2,656,229
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $2,977,481 $2,996,546 $3,015,552 $3,034,492 $3,053,358 $3,160,724
Terminal value $54,702,738
Present value $51,837,115 $2,788,478 $2,628,194 $2,476,974 $2,334,312 $41,609,157
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value $3,603,651
% Change in Value 6.95
DCF analysis accounting for 4.8% increase in rents--from $25 to $26.20/per square foot/year
69


Table 10. Change in Energy Inflation Rate
Since 2000, the annual rate of inflation for electricity has been 2.5percent (Edison,
2006). However, a different rate of inflation could affect the value of a building.
This model shows that if electricity were to instead increase in cost at 5percent/year,
the building would lose $1.6 million in value. This table reflects the risk of not
“future proofing” ones building by increasing energy efficiency.

Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancyrate = 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 5.00% 5.00%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,070,000 $7,140,700 $7,212,107 $7,284,228 $7,357,070 $7,577,782
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $176,750 $178,518 $180,303 $182,106 $183,927 $189,445
Total Revenues $7,807,300 $7,885,373 $7,964,227 $8,043,869 $8,124,308 $8,368,037
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,102,500 $1,157,625 $1,215,506 $1,276,282 $1,340,096 $1,407,100
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,160,425 $3,231,129 $3,304,746 $3,381,413 $3,461,279 $3,591,919
Operating income before depreciation $4,646,875 $4,654,244 $4,659,481 $4,662,456 $4,663,029 $4,776,118
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $3,646,875 $3,654,244 $3,659,481 $3,662,456 $3,663,029 $3,746,118
Taxes 38% $1,385,813 $1,388,613 $1,390,603 $1,391,733 $1,391,951 $1,423,525
Operating income after taxes $2,261,063 $2,265,631 $2,268,878 $2,270,723 $2,271,078 $2,322,593
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $2,756,063 $2,755,581 $2,753,728 $2,750,421 $2,745,573 $2,827,088
Terminal value $48,928,490
Present value $46,603,148 $2,581,115 $2,416,850 $2,261,912 $2,115,787 $37,227,485
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value -$1,630,316
% Change in Value -3.50
DCF analysis accounting for doubling of the annual energyinflation rate--From2.5%/year to 5%/year
70


Table 11. 33 percent Decrease in Energy Usage
Payback on energy efficiency upgrades to buildings can justify the costs if power
prices are high enough and the savings are significant. This model shows a $4.1
million increase in asset value if energy use were reduced by 33percent from
baseline.

DCF analysis accounting for 33% decrease in energyuse--Gas and Electric from$3.00 to $2.00
Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancyrate = 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,070,000 $7,140,700 $7,212,107 $7,284,228 $7,357,070 $7,577,782
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $176,750 $178,518 $180,303 $182,106 $183,927 $189,445
Total Revenues $7,807,300 $7,885,373 $7,964,227 $8,043,869 $8,124,308 $8,368,037
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $2.00 $717,500 $735,438 $753,823 $772,669 $791,986 $815,745
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $2,775,425 $2,808,942 $2,843,063 $2,877,801 $2,913,169 $3,000,564
Operating income before depreciation $5,031,875 $5,076,431 $5,121,164 $5,166,068 $5,211,139 $5,367,473
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $4,031,875 $4,076,431 $4,121,164 $4,166,068 $4,211,139 $4,337,473
Taxes 38% $1,532,113 $1,549,044 $1,566,042 $1,583,106 $1,600,233 $1,648,240
Operating income after taxes $2,499,763 $2,527,387 $2,555,122 $2,582,962 $2,610,906 $2,689,233
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $2,994,763 $3,017,337 $3,039,971 $3,062,660 $3,085,401 $3,193,728
Terminal value $55,273,941
Present value $52,347,857 $2,804,662 $2,646,429 $2,497,032 $2,355,981 $42,043,753
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value $4,114,393
% Change in Value 7.86
71


Table 12. 10 Basis-Point Decrease in Risk Premium
If an equity investor views a sustainable property as less risky, or have prioritized
sustainable property within their portfolios, they may be willing to invest capital with
a lower required rate or return. This model shows that a 10 basis point (1 percentage
point) decrease in the cost of equity would add $3.6 million in value to the
theoretical building.

Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancyrate = 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 4.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,070,000 $7,140,700 $7,212,107 $7,284,228 $7,357,070 $7,577,782
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $176,750 $178,518 $180,303 $182,106 $183,927 $189,445
Total Revenues $7,807,300 $7,885,373 $7,964,227 $8,043,869 $8,124,308 $8,368,037
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,076,250 $1,103,156 $1,130,735 $1,159,004 $1,187,979 $1,223,618
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,134,175 $3,176,661 $3,219,974 $3,264,135 $3,309,162 $3,408,436
Operating income before depreciation $4,673,125 $4,708,713 $4,744,252 $4,779,734 $4,815,146 $4,959,600
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $3,673,125 $3,708,713 $3,744,252 $3,779,734 $3,815,146 $3,929,600
Taxes 38% $1,395,788 $1,409,311 $1,422,816 $1,436,299 $1,449,756 $1,493,248
Operating income after taxes $2,277,338 $2,299,402 $2,321,436 $2,343,435 $2,365,391 $2,436,352
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $2,772,338 $2,789,352 $2,806,286 $2,823,133 $2,839,886 $2,940,847
Terminal value $54,682,917
Present value $51,832,871 $2,606,119 $2,464,902 $2,331,183 $2,204,571 $42,226,096
Costof equity 9.90% 9.90% 9.90% 9.90% 9.90% 9.90% 9.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.38% 6.38% 6.38% 6.38% 6.38% 6.38% 6.38%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value $3,599,407
% Change in Value 6.94
DCF analysis accounting for 1% decrease in risk premium--Costof equityfrom10.9% to 9.9%
72




Table 13. 20 percent Capital Maintenance Reduction
As noted in the LEED Matrix, certain aspects of sustainable building design reduce
workload on building systems, and can therefore extend equipment life and lower
maintenance costs. In this example, a 20 percent decrease in those costs equates to
a $1.7 million increase in asset value.
Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancyrate = 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,070,000 $7,140,700 $7,212,107 $7,284,228 $7,357,070 $7,577,782
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $176,750 $178,518 $180,303 $182,106 $183,927 $189,445
Total Revenues $7,807,300 $7,885,373 $7,964,227 $8,043,869 $8,124,308 $8,368,037
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,076,250 $1,103,156 $1,130,735 $1,159,004 $1,187,979 $1,223,618
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,134,175 $3,176,661 $3,219,974 $3,264,135 $3,309,162 $3,408,436
Operating income before depreciation $4,673,125 $4,708,713 $4,744,252 $4,779,734 $4,815,146 $4,959,600
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $3,673,125 $3,708,713 $3,744,252 $3,779,734 $3,815,146 $3,929,600
Taxes 38% $1,395,788 $1,409,311 $1,422,816 $1,436,299 $1,449,756 $1,493,248
Operating income after taxes $2,277,338 $2,299,402 $2,321,436 $2,343,435 $2,365,391 $2,436,352
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &
Leasehold Improvement $400,000 $404,000 $408,040 $412,120 $416,242 $420,404 $420,404
Cash flow to firm $2,873,338 $2,891,362 $2,909,316 $2,927,193 $2,944,987 $3,045,948
Terminal value $52,716,308
Present value $49,968,369 $2,690,945 $2,535,939 $2,389,712 $2,251,771 $40,100,002
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value $1,734,905
% Change in Value 3.47
DCF analysis accounting for reduced maintenance costs--$500,000 to $400,000 annual expense
73




Table 14. 50 percent Reduction in Water Use
Water is one of the lowest costs of operation in a commercial building, and in some
areas delivered for a flat rate. In those areas, saving water will not save money. This
model shows that if water use was reduced by 50percent, the building value would be
increase by $.5 million, a relatively small amount compared to other efficiency
measures.

Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancyrate = 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,070,000 $7,140,700 $7,212,107 $7,284,228 $7,357,070 $7,577,782
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $176,750 $178,518 $180,303 $182,106 $183,927 $189,445
Total Revenues $7,807,300 $7,885,373 $7,964,227 $8,043,869 $8,124,308 $8,368,037
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.12 $42,420 $42,844 $43,273 $43,705 $44,142 $45,467
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,076,250 $1,103,156 $1,130,735 $1,159,004 $1,187,979 $1,223,618
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,088,220 $3,130,246 $3,173,096 $3,216,788 $3,261,341 $3,359,181
Operating income before depreciation $4,719,080 $4,755,127 $4,791,131 $4,827,081 $4,862,967 $5,008,856
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $3,719,080 $3,755,127 $3,791,131 $3,827,081 $3,862,967 $3,978,856
Taxes 38% $1,413,250 $1,426,948 $1,440,630 $1,454,291 $1,467,927 $1,511,965
Operating income after taxes $2,305,830 $2,328,179 $2,350,501 $2,372,790 $2,395,040 $2,466,891
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $2,800,830 $2,818,129 $2,835,351 $2,852,488 $2,869,535 $2,971,386
Terminal value $51,425,852
Present value $48,733,971 $2,623,040 $2,471,709 $2,328,957 $2,194,304 $39,115,962
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78% 6.78%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value $500,507
% Change in Value 1.03
DCF analysis accounting for reducing water usage by50%--From25 cents/square foot to 12 cents/square foot
74


Table 15. Increase in Cost of Debt
Certain banks are now offering reduced interest rates for LEED certified or other
sustainable properties. As sustainable properties become more prevalent there is likely to
be a risk premium for non-LEED buildings. The 5 basis-point increase in the cost of debt
in this model represents that premium, and shows that a building that does not meet
sustainable standards may be worth $1.5 million less simply due to the increased cost of
borrowing money.


Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancyrate = 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,070,000 $7,140,700 $7,212,107 $7,284,228 $7,357,070 $7,577,782
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $176,750 $178,518 $180,303 $182,106 $183,927 $189,445
Total Revenues $7,807,300 $7,885,373 $7,964,227 $8,043,869 $8,124,308 $8,368,037
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,076,250 $1,103,156 $1,130,735 $1,159,004 $1,187,979 $1,223,618
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,134,175 $3,176,661 $3,219,974 $3,264,135 $3,309,162 $3,408,436
Operating income before depreciation $4,673,125 $4,708,713 $4,744,252 $4,779,734 $4,815,146 $4,959,600
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $3,673,125 $3,708,713 $3,744,252 $3,779,734 $3,815,146 $3,929,600
Taxes 38% $1,395,788 $1,409,311 $1,422,816 $1,436,299 $1,449,756 $1,493,248
Operating income after taxes $2,277,338 $2,299,402 $2,321,436 $2,343,435 $2,365,391 $2,436,352
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $2,772,338 $2,789,352 $2,806,286 $2,823,133 $2,839,886 $2,940,847
Terminal value $49,309,981
Present value $46,724,291 $2,591,842 $2,437,968 $2,293,079 $2,156,656 $37,244,746
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Cost of debt 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00%
Debtratio 60% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00%
Costof capital 6.96% 6.96% 6.96% 6.96% 6.96% 6.96% 6.96%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value -$1,509,174
% Change in Value -3.23
DCF analysis accounting for 5 basis point increase in cost of debt--from6.5% to 7.0%
75


Table 16. Increased Loan to Value Ratio
Sustainable properties may also be eligible for a loan-to-value ratio of up to 80percent.
If the developer or equity investor were able to borrow just 10percent more, or
70percent of the project cost, that would mean a $6.5 million increase in property value
for this particular building. (The total cost of capital is lower than the cost of debt due to
the tax savings from deducting the interest).

Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Occupancyrate (100-percentvacancy) 80% 80%
Rent/square foot 25
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 2.50% 2.50%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 5.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 80% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80%
Rent/Square foot $25.00 $25.25 $25.50 $25.76 $26.02 $26.28
Rental Income $7,070,000 $7,140,700 $7,212,107 $7,284,228 $7,357,070 $7,577,782
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $176,750 $178,518 $180,303 $182,106 $183,927 $189,445
Total Revenues $7,807,300 $7,885,373 $7,964,227 $8,043,869 $8,124,308 $8,368,037
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.25 $88,375 $89,259 $90,151 $91,053 $91,963 $94,722
Gas and Electric/square foot $3.00 $1,076,250 $1,103,156 $1,130,735 $1,159,004 $1,187,979 $1,223,618
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $3,134,175 $3,176,661 $3,219,974 $3,264,135 $3,309,162 $3,408,436
Operating income before depreciation $4,673,125 $4,708,713 $4,744,252 $4,779,734 $4,815,146 $4,959,600
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $3,673,125 $3,708,713 $3,744,252 $3,779,734 $3,815,146 $3,929,600
Taxes 38% $1,395,788 $1,409,311 $1,422,816 $1,436,299 $1,449,756 $1,493,248
Operating income after taxes $2,277,338 $2,299,402 $2,321,436 $2,343,435 $2,365,391 $2,436,352
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $500,000 $505,000 $510,050 $515,151 $520,302 $525,505 $525,505
Cash flow to firm $2,772,338 $2,789,352 $2,806,286 $2,823,133 $2,839,886 $2,940,847
Terminal value $57,765,611
Present value $54,764,158 $2,613,169 $2,478,256 $2,350,154 $2,228,523 $45,094,056
Costof equity 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90% 10.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debt ratio 70% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00%
Costof capital 6.09% 6.09% 6.09% 6.09% 6.09% 6.09% 6.09%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value $6,530,694
% Change in Value 11.93
DCF analysis accounting for increased loan-to-value ratio
76


Table 17. Compounding of Various Green Building Premiums
This table shows the overall affect on building value that would occur if all of the previous
inputs were changed in one property. While it would be difficult to predict all of these
changes in cash flows occurring at once, this model does show that there is a significant
opportunity to create monetary value through green building.
Inputs are in grey
Begin In terminal year
Building space (in square feet) 350,000
Vacancyrate = 90% 90%
Rent/square foot 26.2
Inflation rate for water 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for gas and electric 5.00% 5.00%
Inflation rate for rents 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for real estate taxes = 1.00% 1.00%
Inflation rate for ground rent= 0.00% 3.00%
Riskfree rate = 5.40%
Risk premium = 4.50%
Income 1 2 3 4 5 Terminal year
Building Space 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000
Occupancy 90% 90.00% 90.00% 90.00% 90%
Rent/Square foot $26.20 $26.46 $26.73 $26.99 $27.26 $27.54
Rental Income $8,335,530 $8,418,885 $8,503,074 $8,588,105 $8,673,986 $8,934,206
Garage Income $800,000 $808,000 $816,080 $824,241 $832,483 $840,808 $866,032
Common Area Maintenance fees 100.00% $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
CreditLoss 2.50% $208,388 $210,472 $212,577 $214,703 $216,850 $223,355
Total Revenues $9,041,192 $9,131,604 $9,222,920 $9,315,149 $9,408,300 $9,690,549
Expenses
Water Per/square foot $0.12 $42,420 $42,844 $43,273 $43,705 $44,142 $45,467
Gas and Electric/square foot $2.00 $735,000 $771,750 $810,338 $850,854 $893,397 $920,199
Real Estate Taxes $3.00 $1,060,500 $1,071,105 $1,081,816 $1,092,634 $1,103,561 $1,136,667
Ground Rent $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $515,000
Common Area Maintenance $0.30 $106,050 $107,111 $108,182 $109,263 $110,356 $113,667
Managementfee $300,000 $303,000 $306,030 $309,090 $312,181 $315,303 $324,762
Total Expenses $2,746,970 $2,798,840 $2,852,698 $2,908,639 $2,966,759 $3,055,762
Operating income before depreciation $6,294,222 $6,332,764 $6,370,222 $6,406,510 $6,441,541 $6,634,787
Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
Operating income $5,294,222 $5,332,764 $5,370,222 $5,406,510 $5,441,541 $5,604,787
Taxes 38% $2,011,804 $2,026,450 $2,040,684 $2,054,474 $2,067,786 $2,129,819
Operating income after taxes $3,282,417 $3,306,314 $3,329,537 $3,352,036 $3,373,756 $3,474,968
+Depreciation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,030,000
- Capital maintenance &Leasehold Improvement $400,000 $404,000 $408,040 $412,120 $416,242 $420,404 $420,404
Cash flow to firm $3,878,417 $3,898,274 $3,917,417 $3,935,795 $3,953,352 $4,084,564
Terminal value $85,254,941
Present value $80,922,897 $3,666,113 $3,483,172 $3,308,671 $3,142,227 $67,322,714
Costof equity 9.90% 9.90% 9.90% 9.90% 9.90% 9.90% 9.90%
Costof debt 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50% 6.50%
Debt ratio 70% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00%
Costof capital 5.79% 5.79% 5.79% 5.79% 5.79% 5.79% 5.79%
PresentValue Under Baseline Assumptions $48,233,464
Change in Value $32,689,433
%Change in Value 40.40
DCF analysis accounting for increased loan-to-value ratio
77


What the Results Provide
The preceding LEED matrix and sensitivity analysis describe many of the interactions
between sustainability and property value. The LEED matrix focuses on questions about “how
and why sustainability interacts with value”, while the sensitivity analysis addresses the question
“how much impact could sustainable attributes have on value?” Together, they provide those
involved with real estate finance and development an organized framework within which to
understand the financial aspects of sustainability.
By working through the LEED matrix it became clear that the relationship between
sustainability and building cash flows is complex, and that additional, subtle relationships will
continue to emerge as the relatively new stock of sustainable buildings begin to age. In
conducting the sensitivity analysis, the magnitudes of changes to building value were often
surprising, and generally substantial enough to warrant investment in many sustainable strategies.
The significance of both of these exercises will be discussed at greater length in chapter 5.
Answers to Survey Questions
These questions were designed to gauge the attitudes and awareness of sustainability of
staff members within two of the world’s largest investment funds. While neither of the
participants set policy for these funds, their answers reflect the extent to which sustainability has
been integrated into the organization. I am providing these results as a compliment to the cash
flow analysis I performed earlier in this chapter. Together, they provide a balanced perspective
on the two main factors that impact green building investment; investor sentiment and financial
analysis.
78

Survey Participant #1, Private Equity Investment Funds:
1. Q. Has your organization changed its policy toward sustainable real estate investment since
the downturn?
Not specifically in reaction to the downturn, but we continue to increase efforts to orient
the firm’s activity towards sustainable investment in a variety of capacities.
2. Q. Have you witnessed a higher level of performance from LEED certified or other
sustainable investments through the real estate crash?
Our group has not, but that is due to a lack of ownership positions in LEED certified
property. In the U.S., we are more heavily invested in “value-add” oriented strategies which to
date have not included a large amount of LEED certification elements.

3. Q. What is your target for investment in green buildings? Have you met that goal?
Depends upon the particular investment mandate, but I would generally say it far more
oriented to core, lower yield, lower risk return targets (8% - 12% IRR over 5-10 year hold period
with minimal leverage and high current yield (cash flow) component

4. Q. Who drives the development of your investing strategy? Is it a board of directors, or
does staff have input in strategic decisions?
Our internal staff. Our global investment committee comprised of Global CIO and three
regional heads (Americas, Europe and Asia) is ultimately responsible for strategy decisions.

5. Q. Is your sole interest in sustainable property investment in finding ways to increase
returns or is social responsibility a significant factor?
Social responsibility is a significant factor – we have our own internal (Aviva) desire for
sustainable but increasingly clients are mandating that we pursue such strategies.

6. Q. Are you familiar with the concept of the Triple Bottom Line? Does your organization
evaluate investments on each of the three bottom lines, or is there a focus on one?
Yes. Reduce, expenses, increase NOI and be more environmentally friendly through
sustainable programs (I think, right?). We are financial investors, so the ultimate focus will
continue to be increasing risk adjusted returns for our clients.
79


7. Q. How are your investment decisions affected by the source of the money you are
investing? Do you believe that you have a fiduciary duty to those whose pensions you invest to
make socially responsible investments, or would you be failing to perform your fiduciary duty by
considering factors other than financial returns?
Our investment decisions are discretionary, but within the realm of criteria that the
clients sets forth from the mandate onset. If a client requires it, we will pursue sustainability but
as fiduciaries, we will seek to achieve the risk / return profile that the client seeks. If that includes
a sustainable component great, but unlikely that (we would) on our own, overlay a sustainable
aspect without being asked to do by the client.

8. Q. What role does LEED certification have in your investment decisions? Will you invest
any new construction that is not pursuing LEED certification? Existing buildings?
N/A

9. Q. Do you apply a value premium to LEED certified buildings?
I think our group does, but my particular group is typically not an individual property
level investor so difficult to answer specifically….

10. Q. Do you typically modify Discounted Cash Flow models to account for sustainable
building features?
Same as number 9

Participant #1’s responses indicate that their organization is primarily concerned with
adhering to an investment mandate defined by their clients, and that they will incorporate
sustainability to the extent that the client demands they do so. The Private Equity Fund’s website
that those clients primarily fall into one of the following categories: Insurance companies, Public
pension funds, Taft-Hartley plans, Financial institutions, Endowments, and Foundations (2010).
He also notes that clients are increasingly requesting that sustainability be included into their
investment criteria.
80

The fact that Participant #1 did not know the true definition of the “Triple Bottom Line”,
indicates that Socially Responsible Investment has not infiltrated into the real estate investment
world to the same extent in has the world of corporate finance. That is, I would expect nearly
anyone involved in corporate finance in 2010 to at least know of the concept of the “Triple
Bottom Line”, whether or not they incorporated it into their investment decisions.
Survey Participant # 2, Large US Public Pension Fund
1. Q. Has your organization changed its policy toward sustainable real estate investment since
the downturn?
No.
2. Q. Have you witnessed a higher level of performance from LEED certified or other
sustainable investments through the real estate crash?
No. There are numerous properties that we are invested in that have obtained LEED
certification in the past few years, however, it would be difficult to measure if improved financial
performance is attributable to LEED certification or other building features.

3. Q. What is your target for investment in green buildings? Have you met that goal?
N/A

4. Q. Who drives the development of your investing strategy? Is it a board of directors, or
does staff have input in strategic decisions?
Overall Investment Policy is set by the Board, with input from the primary real estate
consultant and staff. Individual investment decisions are made approved by two independent
fiduciaries, one of whom is a staff member, the other and outside independent fiduciary.

5. Q. Is your sole interest in sustainable property investment in finding ways to increase
returns or is social responsibility a significant factor?
Both are important.
81


6. Q. Are you familiar with the concept of the Triple Bottom Line? Does your organization
evaluate investments on each of the three bottom lines, or is there a focus on one?
We are familiar with the concept, but it is not an integral part of the investment making
decision process.

7. Q. How are your investment decisions affected by the source of the money you are
investing? Do you believe that you have a fiduciary duty to those whose pensions you invest to
make socially responsible investments, or would you be failing to perform your fiduciary duty by
considering factors other than financial returns?
N/A

8. Q. What role does LEED certification have in your investment decisions? Will you invest
any new construction that is not pursuing LEED certification? Existing buildings?
If we were investing in a property that was not yet LEED certified, the cost to achieve
LEED certification will likely be factored into the underwriting analysis.
We might invest in new construction that is not pursuing LEED certification, although it
is unlikely, as we believe most if not all new construction projects will be pursuing a LEED
certification. This may be a mute point…If by some chance a new project under construction was
not pursuing a LEED certification, then the cost to obtain LEED certification will likely be
factored into the underwriting analysis.
Same for existing buildings.

9. Q. Do you apply a value premium to LEED certified buildings?
Yes and no. Obtaining LEED is becoming a “market” commodity. The premium is
limited and quantifiable.

10. Q. Do you typically modify Discounted Cash Flow models to account for sustainable
building features?
The DCF would be adjusted to account for the cost of obtaining LEED certification, and
possibly to reflect cost savings (if any) resulting from obtaining (or lack of) LEED certification.

82

The responses from this analyst indicate that sustainability is further integrated into the
culture of their organization than it is at the private equity fund. However, the responses did not
indicate an interest in incorporating sustainability into financial analysis at a highly detailed level.
His discussion of LEED indicates that they see it as a given—it seems that nearly every new
construction project they will invest in will be pursuing LEED by default. While there was an
indication that they factor the cost of achieving LEED into financial analysis of existing buildings
that are not already LEED certified, he did not indicate that acquiring and upgrading to LEED
was part of a value-added strategy.






83

Chapter 5
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Introduced in Chapter 1 is the concept that of the proliferation of green building is
hindered by a lack of information about the interaction between sustainability and value. In
Chapter 2, I reviewed a great deal of literature that has helped to shorten that informational gap.
In Chapters 3 and 4, I designed and executed a few exercises that illustrate the real-world
applicability many of the theories found in the literature, and conducted informal interviews with
representatives of two of the largest real estate investors in the US. In this chapter I describe how
the exercises and theories described in this thesis can be used by market participants, and suggest
areas of further study on the topic.
Investment Funds
These interviews included in chapter 4, while brief, were revealing because they showed
that sustainability has not been integrated into the real estate investment funds I interviewed.
Despite the fact that one authors that I cited in this thesis works for the same private equity fund
that Participant #1 does, it does not seem that sustainability has been deeply integrated into that
fund’s investment process.
While the representative of the pension fund seemed to have a deeper institutional
knowledge of sustainability in real estate investments, he was unfamiliar with the sustainable
property-underwriting framework put forth by authors like Muldavin (2009). At this particular
pension fund, it seemed that sustainability was identified as a priority, but there did not seem to
be a target for investment, or any special consideration for how to evaluate the sustainable
attributes of property.
84

What this indicates is that the information gap may exist within institutions, not just
between industries. In order for sustainable property investment to have a significant impact on
the way that the built environment is composed, large institutional investors will need to develop
a culture of sustainability. In the corporate world, companies like Interface carpet have
succeeded in implementing sustainability in all of the companies functions, and in generating an
understanding of sustainability in all of their employees. Driven by the owner’s belief that
manufacturing processes are wasteful and outdated, Interface has redesigned its entire business
model. As a result of this the owner of Interface claims, “Costs are down, not up, dispelling a
myth and exposing the false choice between the economy and the environment, products are the
best they have ever been, because sustainable design has provided an unexpected wellspring of
innovation, people are galvanized around a shared higher purpose, better people are applying, the
best people are staying and working with a purpose, the goodwill in the marketplace generated by
our focus on sustainability far exceeds that which any amount of advertising or marketing
expenditure could have generated – this company believes it has found a better way to a bigger
and more legitimate profit – a better business model.” (Anderson 2010)
Corporate Social Responsibility vs. Responsible Property Investing
In retrospect, I would have liked to do more research on corporate social responsibility,
and explore the differences between businesses investments and real estate investments. One
major difference between corporations and buildings is in the level of accountability.
Corporations, especially those marketing consumer products, are often held accountable for their
actions. Consequently, nearly every major US corporation has developed and disseminated a
sustainability policy, and most regularly report on the measures they are taking to implement
these policies. In contrast, real estate investments are much less visible, and generally held to less
85

account than business investments, although the impacts of real estate investments on the
environment are quite significant.
Companies like Starbucks, which now has one of the strongest corporate social
responsibility policies, often developed their sustainability strategies under pressure from their
customers. As “going green” has become the norm for business, many businesses look for a
variety of ways to demonstrate that they are “going green,” one of which is leasing LEED office
space. As such, the driver of sustainability in office building is a secondary function of the
consumer-driven trend towards sustainability in business.
The Role of the Consumer
Other types of real estate, such as housing, also have significant impacts on the
environment. Housing is one area of real estate where an educated consuming public could affect
considerable change. However, much of the consuming public is either unaware of the impact of
their housing choices on the environment, or unwilling to compromise their lifestyle to make a
more sustainable housing choice. It is one thing to demand fair-trade coffee from Starbucks, and
quite a different thing to relocate one’s family to a smaller house in a more central location. Even
those who care about the impact of their housing choices on the environment may not be willing
or able to make the tradeoffs that come with sustainable housing. That said, educating consumers
about the benefits of green building, and how they can use their dollar vote to encourage more
sustainable development, is an area that needs further work and research. In fact, on preliminary
expert surveys from Sacramento’s Green Building Task Force, those experts identified consumer
education as the most important tool for encouraging green building in the Sacramento region.

86

Sensitivity Analysis
The results of the sensitivity analysis of a typical office building help to illustrate the
property-level value changes that investors can anticipate by integrating sustainable features in a
project. While this might be useful to developers seeking funding for new construction, I now
believe that it could be even more valuable to owners of existing buildings looking for a way to
add value in a depressed marketplace. It could also be of use to a company such as Folsom,
California’s Envision Realty Service—the nation’s largest LEED Existing Building consulting
firm. In order to attract clients, they must provide some idea of the anticipated cost savings and
payback period for the owner’s investment. They traditionally have done this by showing their
clients the dollar value of the energy savings they have accomplished on past projects. However,
since LEED has many other interactions with value, a whole-building cash flow analysis such as
the one I presented in Chapter 4 would be a more relevant tool for the initial conversation with
their clients. Performing that type of analysis would allow clients to decide what approach to
achieving LEED would provide them with the fastest payback. I plan to suggest to the CEO of
Envision that he integrate some of this financial modeling into his proposals. While any
assumptions Envision includes in a financial model they provide to their clients would need to be
backed by empirical evidence, they could also simply encourage their clients to consider the fact
that their building value may be increased by many different aspects of a LEED certification, not
just cost savings.
LEED Indexing
Similarly, the LEED indexing matrix I created for this thesis can help investors and
developers determine the most cost-effective way to achieve LEED certification, although a
version of the matrix based on empirical evidence would more applicable. While a recent study
87

attempts to look at the relative cost of achieving each LEED credit, that study did not address
value. A more developed version of my LEED indexing matrix could show a percentage range
for the change in value of each cash-flow input. Thus, the developer looking for the most cost-
effective approach to achieving LEED would be able to consider not only up-front costs of
different credits, but also long-term financial benefits to each different credit.
Valuing Neighborhood Design
The LEED indexing matrix I included in this thesis only represented the LEED New
Construction rating system. In order to evaluate more accurately the triple bottom line aspects of
a proposed or existing development, a matrix representing the LEED for Neighborhood
Development is also needed. LEED ND is a way of certifying that a neighborhood has been
designed and built with New Urbanist, Smart Growth Principles. While these principles are more
of a belief system than and tangible, quantifiable asset, many others and myself believe that good
neighborhoods are essential to long-term property value. Since LEED ND has just been released,
and only brand-new neighborhoods are going through the certification process, it would be
difficult to conduct a study on the long-term value of LEED ND neighborhoods. However, a
study looking at long-term property values in existing neighborhoods with LEED ND qualities
could demonstrate that LEED ND neighborhoods are likely to hold more value over time.
Final Thoughts and Recommendations
The role of sustainability in real estate finance and investments is an important one, but
we are only beginning to understand its nature. While it is clear that traditional tools for property
valuation and investment analysis need not be discarded to evaluate sustainable property, they do
need to be modified. Furthermore, the increased understanding gained by modifying these tools
88

needs to be disseminated throughout the institutions making these investment decisions. In the
process of writing this thesis, I divided several of the chapters into two parts; one on valuation
methods and one on sustainability as a priority of institutional investors. While it was important
to make this division for the purpose of writing this thesis, it is the integration of those two parts
that will facilitate a greater level of investment in sustainable properties. Large institutional
investors like CalPERS, TIAA-CREF and Aviva have the power to drive sustainability in the
built environment, and it seems that they have the desire to do so, at least at the top levels of
management. However, in order for them to ensure their sustainable investments are profitable
and that their analysts and fund managers understand what types of investments are most
sustainable, they will need to provide training. I recommend that each of all large real estate
investment funds provide sustainability training to educate their employees how their investments
affect the environment, and how to incorporate sustainability into financial analysis.
The knowledge gap I mentioned in Chapter 1 is closing, but not fast enough. While the
most sophisticated and worldly funds, developers, and building tenants have already written
sustainability into their core values, they may still not fully understand how sustainable
development practices affect value. Furthermore, sustainability is very low priority for still many
other smaller developers, lenders, and investors, who do not have the resources, knowledge, or
tenant base to accurately value sustainability.
For this segment of the market, it may take government regulation to ensure a sustainable
built environment. For the more sophisticated segment of the market, informed space users may
be enough to drive the change toward sustainable development.
In either market segment, the investors and appraisers who can most accurately assess the
present and future value of property investments—sustainable or not—will reap the rewards of
this accuracy by outperforming their less informed competitors. Green building has established a
89

firm place in the market, and is rapidly increasing in market share. Those who get ahead of the
curve with respect to sustainable valuation and investment analysis will have the edge in this
emerging market.
This thesis will give investors more confidence in their understanding of how to evaluate
investment in green building. By providing the information I hope to encourage risk-averse
investors who have been hesitant to invest in something they do not understand to take another
look at green building investments. Whether the theories and exercises presented here encourage
more investment in sustainable property, or just aid investors to more accurately evaluate the
properties they already own, it is my belief that a more informed market for sustainable property
investment is a more efficient market. Ultimately, space-user demand, cost-savings, and risk
management will drive the value of sustainable buildings; it is the wise investor that will
accurately price that demand, savings, and risk.




90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(2006). Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32

. GAAS:684:06.
(2008). Redisigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses. SB 375

.
(2010). "Aviva Investors--Who We Serve." from
http://www.avivainvestors.us/aboutus/whoweserve.aspx.

Anderson, R. (2010). "Toward a More Sustainable Way of Business." 4-29-2010, from
http://www.interfaceglobal.com/Sustainability.aspx.

Baue, B. (2006). "The Growth of Green Building Funds." Retrieved 11-29-2009, from
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2172.html.

Boyd, T. and P. Kimmet (2004). The Triple Bottom Line Approach to Property
Performance Evaluation. Brisbane, Australia, Queensland University of Technology.

Brueggeman, W. B. and J . D. Fisher (2008). Real Estate Finance and Investments

. New
York, NY, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Carpenter, G. and O. Meyer (2009). Energy efficiency and real estate: Opportunities for
Investors, Ceres/Mercer.

Corps, C. and T. W. Chappell (2009). High Performance Green Building: What's it
Worth? Seattle, WA, Cascadia Region Green Building Council
Vancouver Valuation Accord
Cushman and Wakefield.

Dixon, C. (2010). "Straight Green: Say Hello to CAL Green California’s New Green
Building Code." Retrieved 4-23-2010, from
http://www.wconline.com/Articles/Column/BNP_GUID_9-5-
2006_A_10000000000000764441.

Edlen, G. (2009). "Principles of Place." Retrieved 10-29-09, 2009, from
http://www.gerdingedlen.com/files/pdf/principles_of_place.pdf.

Elkington, J . (2007). "Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line
of 21st-Century Business." Environmental Quality Management

8(1): 37-51.
91

Ellison, L. and S. Sayce (2006). The Sustainable Property Appriasal Project. London,
Kingston University.

Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, et al. (2008). Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban
Development and Climate Change

, ULI-The Urban Land Institute.
Flora, R. L. and C. Smith (2008). U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL STRATEGIC
PLAN 2009 – 2013. Washington D.C., USGBC: 3/20.

Hugins, M. (2008). "Banks Cultivate Green Loans." Retrieved 2-10-2010, from
http://nreionline.com/brokernews/greenbuildingnews/banks_cultivate_green_loans_0602/
.

Krage, R. (2008). Is Green $ Chasing Green?

Majumdar, A. (2009). "Low-Hanging Fruits of Efficiency." 2009, from
http://www.ecoworld.com/technology/low-hanging-fruits-of-efficiency.html.

Miller, N., J . Spivey, et al. (2008). Does Green Pay Off?, CoStar Real Estate Research.

Muldavin, S. (2009). More sensitivity analysis is needed.... G. Torvestad. San Francisco.

Muldavin, S. (2009). Underwriting Sustainable Property Investment

. San Rafael,
California, Green Building Finanace Consortium.
Munger, M., Ed. (2000). Analyzing Policy

. The New Institutionalism in American
Politics. New York, W.W. Norton and Company.
Nelson, A. J . (2009). How Green a Recession? --Sustainability Prospects in the US Real
Estate Industry, RREEF Research.

Odell, A. M. (2008). "Making a Difference with Real Estate." Retrieved 11-29-2009,
2009, from www.socialfunds.com/news/print.cgi?sfArticleId=2446.

Pivo, G. (2005). "Is There A Future fo Socially Responsible Property Investments?" Real
Estate Issues

.
Pivo, G. (2009). Responsible Property Investing--What the Leaders are Doing, United
Nations Environmental Programme.

Shinter, J . and D. Vrkic (2007). Sustainability: A Guide for the Corporate Real Estate
Executive, J ones Lang LaSalle: 5.

92

Turner (2009). "Turner 2008 Green Building Market Barometer." 2009, from
http://www.turnerconstruction.com/greenbuildings/content.asp?d=6552.

USGBC (2009). "About USGBC." Retrieved 10-16-2009, from
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=124.

USGBC (2010). A Local Government Guide to LEED for Neighborhood Development.

Woon, H. W. (2009). Sustainable Investment In Real Estate...You Fiduciary Duty.
Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiatative





doc_580098160.pdf