Thursday, August 23, 2012

Positive! Positive!

Ok, I'm done (for the moment) with major posts focused on how houses are bought and sold in the US with respect to energy efficiency.

The intent of this blog is to stay in the cup is half full sector. SOOOO

Here's a great link to a story about net zero (and better) houses being built in New England--NOW!

http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/just-two-minisplits-heat-and-cool-whole-house?utm_source=email&utm_medium=eletter&utm_content=20120822-two-minisplits-heat-cool&utm_campaign=green-building-advisor-eletter


There's quite a bit of material in the article and links to the firm's website. Pretty amazing stuff and not in a mild climate by any stretch. Much of the technology is simple and could be adapted anywhere. 

How many people in your community can select from net zero homes when they decide to buy in a new subdivision, or even purchase a resale? If net zero houses were available, would they sell for a reasonable premium over "typical" houses? If not, why not? Should they sell for a premium at all? As long as energy efficiency in the existing housing stock is factored out of the decision process, Buyers and Seller are operating in the dark (perhaps literally in a few decades). Is that healthy environmentally and economically, given climate change? 

BTW European countries are building net zero homes in large numbers with some innovative technology. Some are better than net zero--electric cars can even recharge on the excess. 

Right Buyer, Right House Theory


The “Right House/Right Buyer” Theory
The real estate market operates most efficiently when a match is found between the RIGHT BUYER and the RIGHT HOUSE.  

Buyers are generally seeking the RIGHT HOUSE from among all those that are available for sale. That's the one house that best achieves an overall balance of practical, financial and psychological needs and wants. 

Sellers seek the RIGHT BUYER, the one person who prefers their house to any other house available for sale, and therefore feels they will fall short of best meeting their wants and needs if they are unable to complete the purchase. No one wants to settle for second best. 

When RIGHT HOUSE and RIGHT BUYER are matched, the Seller most likely receives top dollar from a Buyer who is highly motivated to complete the purchase and will likely remain happy with that purchase long after the transaction is completed.

In this era of short sales the RIGHT HOUSE/RIGHT BUYER theory takes on a somewhat different complexion. Buyers often purchase short sales or REOs because of a very attractive price, regardless of whether the house resonates strongly with their psychological needs. At a certain price, anything looks attractive. The theory still applies, but the financial aspects come to outweigh the other factors.

For Buyers concerned about energy efficiency finding the RIGHT HOUSE is a challenge. There is essentially no comparable information about energy efficiency available at this time, either from MLS systems or agents. Estimating energy efficiency from the scattered information that is available is nearly impossible, even for trained professionals. After tests are conducted and computer applications used to run the resulting data a rating, be it HERS II, BPI or some other index is assigned and comparisons are possible. Another complication is that poor energy efficiency ratings can be attributable to factors easily and/or cheaply corrected. A low energy rating isn't necessarily a huge detractor, if the report shows an obvious reason that's simple to correct. There may even be rebates for the correction.

The average Buyer or agent does not have the knowledge or expertise to compare diverse "green features"  (if input into the MLS at all) among similar homes to arrive at an estimate of relative energy efficiency. So what happens? A Buyer ends up purchasing a house that  they think is the RIGHT HOUSE, based on available information. If they had known the energy efficiencies of the houses on their short list, they might have chosen a different house. I guess there's a "if they don't know, it won't hurt 'em" argument to be made, but if the utility cost differential would cover a $20,000 or $30,000 loan amount, most Buyers are not going to make that argument. One the other hand, the real estate industry doesn't pay the utility bills every month or suffer lagging appreciation when energy efficiency becomes a more important consideration in future purchase decisions. 

Now consider a Seller, whose house really is the RIGHT HOUSE for a particular Buyer, but sees it passed over in favor of another house that is not the best choice, because of significantly lower energy efficiency, a fact unknown during the decision process. That Seller lost a RIGHT BUYER, a sale and probably the highest price he or she might receive. Obviously, some other Seller got that Buyer and probably received a higher purchase price than warranted had energy efficiency been known. 

What about the agents? They earned a commission regardless of energy efficiency. Most agents are genuinely concerned with finding that RIGHT BUYER/RIGHT HOUSE match. It really does feel good when it happens. The real estate industry is opposed to making energy efficiency part of the decision process in deference to a "business as usual works fine for us" mentality. Individual agents can make a difference, but not a very big one. Comparison requires similar information for most of the available properties--like we already have for lot size, living area, ocean views, bedroom/bath count, etc etc. Some agents might willingly pay the cost of a HERS II rating for each listing (less than cost of 6 weeks of print ads), but without other HERS II rated houses for comparison, the benefit of the cost would be limited. 

In summary, at present there is a de facto suppression of energy efficiency as a factor for Buyers to consider in choosing the RIGHT HOUSE. The real estate industry has decided that energy efficiency should not receive consideration because of point of sale doctrines, the possible stigmatization of energy hogs and the simple fact that business as usual is more comfortable. This policy also takes energy efficiency off the table when valuation is considered. 

The only stakeholder who benefits from such suppression is the Seller of a not so stigmatized house that is an energy hog, but doesn't appear to be (I term those - stealth hogs). The Sellers of stealth hogs actually benefit from present the prevailing treatment of energy efficiency. That's a curious focus for industry thinking because ALL Buyers and all other Sellers suffer the consequences. What about the planet Earth and the municipalities trying to meed Climate Action Plan required reductions in CO2 emissions? 

How great a cost is the benefit of "business as usual" really worth? As mentioned in the previous post, that discussion isn't happening. It could, if more stakeholders were willing to participate. The consumers should know the energy efficiency of the houses they are considering for purchase. They know the MPG rating of cars and that knowledge has had a huge impact on national fuel consumption. High MPG cars are worth more. Would the Prius even have survived without MPG ratings? 



Wednesday, August 22, 2012

It's More of Your Home

I decided to post again rather than write comments about It's Your Home. A few things got left on the editing floor in an attempt to shorten and simplify.

The matter of valuation and whether energy efficiency and total cost of home ownership is a factor used in determining fair market value is crucial. Before even getting any deeper into details we should understand what FAIR MARKET VALUE is---fortunately the US Supreme Court defined the term in 1973 and that definition is still widely accepted.


The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. United States v. Cartwright, 411 U. S. 546, 93 S. Ct. 1713, 1716-17, 36 L. Ed. 2d 528, 73-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 12,926 (1973) (quoting from U.S. Treasury regulations relating to Federal estate taxes, at 26 C.F.R. sec. 20.2031-1(b)).

Note the "and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts" part. That becomes a key issue with energy efficiency. Is energy efficiency a relevant fact in determining valuation, even if few Buyer and Sellers consider it? That's a "tree falling in a forest" question. Is there a sound? There is to planet Earth, but the real estate industry prefers to hear nothing. Do Buyers and Sellers hear the sound? Should they? 

I recently attended an all day course, primarily intended for appraisers, addressing how energy efficiency could best become a consistent part of the appraisal process. It was a very interesting (and tiring) day, but during the afternoon I realized that if the BUYER didn't fold energy efficiency into the price he or she agreed to pay and the SELLER didn't fold energy efficiency into the list price and make sure the marketing efforts featured that attribute, how the appraiser addresses energy efficiency isn't highly important. Market value is established at contract creation. If a house is highly energy efficient and the appraiser perceives that characteristic at all, but energy efficiency did not play a part in list price or contract price--- the appraiser merely has additional wiggle room in justifying that contract price. What happens at present is that many appraisers treat energy efficient upgrades as an indication of "high quality construction", rather than open the door to a new array of adjustments that haven't been established. Efforts to quantify energy efficiency upgrades in terms of value adjustments remain highly arbitrary, largely because Buyers and Sellers are rarely part of the equation and THEY set Fair Market Value, not appraisers. Appraisers use data from Buyer and Seller contract prices on comparable houses to estimate value of the subject property.

If Buyers and Sellers are not now in possession of reasonable knowledge concerning energy efficiency as a relevant fact in determining fair market value, how might that change? Does it need to change? The real estate industry seems to perceive energy efficiency as a complication that might delay escrow closings, cause Sellers to incur additional costs of sale, stigmatize properties with poor energy efficiency, increase liability for agents by imposing a new knowledge base, etc, etc. That perceived load of responsibility and risk comes without any additional compensation. Predictably, the real estate industry has rolled out their long standing, one size fits all doctrine of "no point of sale mandates, not ever, no how". Business as usual, as long as possible may sound extreme, but much of corporate America is on that same page regarding climate change. That raises another very interesting question. If the real estate industry won't support point of sale energy upgrades or point of sale energy ratings, what level of participation in greening the housing supply will it agree to? If they won't do THAT, what will they do?

If you read my previous post you know that I'm enthusiastic about achieving small changes in behavior among large numbers of people to effect significant reductions in CO2 emissions over a very short time. For that change to occur we need ABILITY, MOTIVATION and a TRIGGER. So far, one or more of those elements is missing where housing is concerned.

The small steps are easily within the ABILITY of almost everyone, but what about MOTIVATION? Change is hard. Change is uncomfortable. It's easier to do business as usual or continue with the present lifestyle, particularly when your trade associations fight hard in the lobbying arena and with PAC money to insure change isn't necessary. However, there is a cost/benefit balance at play here. How much cost in potential inconvenience, increased costs at time of sale and higher liability offsets the benefits to Buyers, Sellers and planet Earth if energy efficiency becomes a part of fair market value? Discussion of that cost/benefit balance is not happening.

Who might introduce the TRIGGER into this setting--not even a trigger to commit to reducing CO2 emissions, but a trigger to address the costs and benefits of doing nothing? Doing nothing is always an option. Problem is (the old ecologist is talking now) the environment changes constantly. As it changes, sustaining a "do nothing" position initiates a random walk through the realm of adaptivity. A strategy of stasis (business as usual) may prove more or less beneficial, depending on the current state of the environment. It's a simple strategy, but it's not responsive to changes in the environment, be they ecological or economic.

I'm not optimistic that the real estate industry will provide the trigger to open discussion. The Climate Action Plans now in place in most communities offered a potential trigger, but most municipalities postponed using that trigger in deference to lobbying by the real estate community and good old fashioned political expediency. Most of the present Climate Action Plans will fail to meet AB 32 requirements unless modified significantly, but short term victories are the driving force in the current political and business world. Not so, for global climate change.

The City of San Luis Obispo CAP includes a crucial passage near the end of the Executive Summary, "The majority of the GHG reduction strategies in the CAP are based on voluntary behavior from the community. The most vital step towards achieving the reduction target is public outreach and education.
A well informed community is empowered to make alternative decisions, or in many cases, to continue environmentally sound practices already taking place in SLO. The City will work with the County, State and other regional organizations to develop a comprehensive education program targeting energy-efficiency, renewables, alternative transportation and other CAP community wide objectives."

Is organized real estate the "go to" authority on housing (and other real property) in all it's diverse environmental and economic aspects or is it a service business driven by sales metrics? The answer is soon to be revealed.

Meanwhile back in the real world, the consumers, those Buyers and Sellers seeking the RIGHT BUYER/RIGHT HOUSE match (see related post), may represent a more sensitive trigger. If they start ASKING for the services associated with making energy efficiency part of the purchase process and start ASKING why those services aren't available if they receive a negative or evasive response, change will happen.

1. How will you assist me in purchasing a house with high energy efficiency that also meets my other wants and needs from among those houses now available for sale?

2. I want list my house for sale. How will you assist me in receiving maximum value for its array of attributes, including its energy efficiency? 

Ability + Motivation + Trigger = CHANGE!


Sunday, August 19, 2012

It's Your Home


This document really started life in 2009 as a brochure prepared on behalf of the Green House Effects Committee of the San Luis Obispo Association of REALTORS® for an Earth Day event (BTW, I was at the first Earth Day while at Arizona State University). I updated the content while serving on the 2012 Green House Effects Committee and did further editing for this post. As the years pass little traction is apparent, but AB 32 compliance signals a change is coming, even if  the real estate industry doesn't like change. It's a long post, but with a little patience, your home search may take a new path. There is a version for tenants too. I'll post that soon.

It’s Your Home!
The Green Reality of 2012
Logically, the real estate market should function to allow Sellers to receive full value for all the favorable attributes of their property, including energy efficiency. Buyers who place a high value on energy efficiency, and are willing to compensate Sellers for that characteristic, want to identify properties best meeting their green goals to better make informed decisions concerning which house is really the RIGHT HOUSE. When it comes to energy efficiency, the green reality of 2012 includes a U.S. real estate market that falls short of serving the best interests of most Sellers, all Buyers and, ultimately, the Earth.

How Does Green Feel?
Could purchase decisions, listing procedures and the overall real estate sales process better represent the interests of most Buyers and Sellers where energy efficiency is concerned? What additional information is needed, how can it be delivered and where might it fit in the decision process?

Despite today’s technology, the search for a new house still focuses on traditional attributes including living area, bedrooms/baths, age, style, yard size, views and other obvious features. Those basics are covered in detail by MLS data and, in recent years, on many public websites. The intuitive “feel” arising from assorted cues beyond the conventional data also plays a major part in the final decision.  What about energy efficiency? Many MLS systems include "green features" in the optional fields, but translating features into the costs of home ownership and future appreciation remains problematical.

Thoughtful Buyers must seek to break free of the existing data and current industry practices to make wise decisions that incorporate energy efficiency into valuation and their final decision on the RIGHT HOUSE. The challenge centers on the fact that energy efficiency is not apparent from looking at the house, reading a home inspection, reviewing an appraisal or even knowing what green features the Seller added. 

Smart Green Start
Jumping in the car (high MPG, we hope) to drive around town looking at addresses pulled from a real estate website may not be the ideal first step in finding your next house. Preliminary research can save time and produce an outcome offering sustained satisfaction on multiple levels.

How Green Is Your Location, Location, Location?
Before even looking at specific houses there are geographic considerations that strongly influence energy use and overall housing expense. Check distance from work, shopping, recreation, family, friends, school and entertainment when comparing neighborhoods. The monthly cost of living in a house also carries a cost in time, money and carbon emissions expended getting to and from it. Cheaper housing in a location that adds transportation mileage may not mean cheaper overall monthly costs. Use web based mapping to measure distances, asses traffic, then check out bike paths and pubic transit routes. Take a drive during commuting time to get a real world view of what that trip is like. Doing this up front helps avoid compromising your green commitment and budget for an appealing house that has significant energy costs built into it’s location. 

Size Does Matter, Lifestyle Too!
All else being equal, the larger the home, the larger the energy costs and the greater the embodied energy contained in the home. So how much space do you really need? Surveys show Buyers of all ages are downsizing (now called RIGHT SIZING). Mini mansions in which a couple occupies a 3500+ sqft house, but uses only 800 sqft of it are falling from favor. Parcel size is also a factor. Larger yards typically use more water, plus they require more maintenance and chemicals. Does your gardener drive a hybrid and how far does she travel to do you yard? Energy efficient landscaping is a solution, but the cost of installation depends on parcel size. Lifestyle matters too. Having a modestly sized, energy efficient house doesn’t always mean low energy use. Electrical appliances, hot tubs, lighting, etc. can cause an energy efficient house to morph into a hungry energy hog. 

Here Comes the Sun (and Wind)!
The orientation of the house to the annual solar path has a great deal of influence on energy use and how the house “feels”. Windows,  landscaping and interior design should compliment that solar path over the course of the day and year. Solar path analysis is often associated with new construction using passive solar design or in the evaluation of solar panel feasibility, but ALL houses posses passive solar characteristics. Buyers often overlook solar path in choosing the best house among top candidates, even though it’s a factor often impractical to correct after the purchase. Beyond energy, there are aesthetics to consider. If your dreams include morning coffee as dawn unfolds or savoring sunny afternoon BBQs, your ideal house should play its role with ample style. There are now nifty web applications that allow you to see the solar path over any house any day of the year (see links below). 

Wind patterns affect ventilation, landscaping, indoor air quality and HVAC use. With new rooftop turbine technology wind can also produce reasonable ROI, if wind velocities are sufficient. Coastal regions have extremely variable wind patterns. Visit specific neighborhoods at different times of the day, ask bicyclists, runners, hang gliders and neighbors for their personal observations. A mile one way or another can make a big difference. 

Water and Electricity Do Mix  
Aside from occasional help from gravity, water is moved where it’s needed by electricity. So is waste water. When you limit water use, you’re saving water, but you’re also saving electricity--twice if the water reaches the community waste water system. Low flow toilets, xeriscape and good sense save you money, shrink carbon emissions and conserve precious water.  

Older Can Be Wiser
Older homes can be prime candidates for an energy efficient purchase. They may lack the technology of more recent construction, but they are often located near downtown employment centers, tend to be smaller in size and are often on smaller town lots. They can also have a better solar path than those sleek newer houses on artfully curving streets. How can Buyers pay for the upgrades and retrofits needed to increase energy efficiency and enhance value in older homes? 
Green Financing
Programs are available that allow the borrower to finance renovation costs, including energy retrofits and upgrades into the purchase mortgage. FHA 203K and Energy Efficient Mortgages can even be combined. It’s possible that looking beyond cosmetic deficiencies can reveal the wisest available choice for your next house. When complete, the green renovation quickly creates equity. These mortgages also require before and after energy audits providing documentation of success that can add value when you sell. Rebate programs and tax incentives are also available. Thanks to government response to AB32, SB375 and the 2020 carbon emission deadline, houses with high energy efficiency should experience appreciation that is far above average. You could be left  chasing that green wave or riding it. 

How Green? 
Energy ratings, such as BPI or HERS II, evaluate the systems of the house that determine energy efficiency and help to assess health and safety performance. In addition to recommendations for correcting problems, these reports identify which upgrades are most cost effective in improving energy efficiency (the oft described “low hanging fruit”). This provides a road map for future owners and, thanks to our mild climate, often includes surprises. Unfortunately, energy rating reports are not widely available for houses now on the market. The cost is relatively modest (typically $300-$500) and partial rebates are available, but only apply after a particular house is under contract. The most efficient approach would be for home inspections and energy ratings to be performed at the same time by the same professionals. Occasionally homes with green certifications from LEEDS or Energy Star simplify choosing an energy efficient home. It’s wise to make sure those houses are still performing as they did when certified.
Conclusion
Energy efficiency is an attribute of all houses. Buyers can easily compare size, style, location, views and many other attributes, but the present real estate marketing environment makes it challenging to compare the energy efficiency of similar houses. The factors determining energy  are complex, making a standardized rating index essential. Energy ratings exist (HERS II, BPI), but are seldom used. Comparison during the decision process is extremely rare. When ratings are preformed, it’s after the purchase decision has already been made. How would you like it if energy labels on automobiles, appliances and other consumer goods were gone with the only ratings performed at the Buyer’s expense, after the purchase? 
Does the present treatment of energy efficiency by organized real estate maximize Buyer and Seller satisfaction, while decreasing carbon emissions and cutting energy costs?  Does it assign value to houses based on the present and future true total costs of home ownership? The answer is obvious. The real estate industry and its trade associations have made their position clear. Change is only likely to come from the consumer side. Begin by asking questions about energy efficiency when you start considering a purchase. It's important that your bests interests are considered from the outset of the process. It is not unreasonable to express concern about the true costs of home ownership for each of the properties you consider.  Similarly, it's not unreasonable for Sellers to expect the RIGHT BUYER to be aware of the full array of benefits available with their home. 

Reducing energy use saves money and helps future generations that are dependent on what we do today for the quality of their lives tomorrow. Rather than depend on big programs instituted by governments, corporations and organizations, each individual should make reasonable changes to their behavior that reduce energy use. Those changes can happen quickly with no additional technology. If billions of people make small changes to lower their personal energy use, CO2 emissions will drop, improving the future of life on Earth. Most small changes involve little or no inconvenience or change in lifestyle. Just try some (links below)!   
The Next Step Toward Green?
Here are a few Green Links to educate, inspire and provide opportunities to wildly exceed your expectations in the challenging quest for a your ideal next home and a more energy efficient life. Most of these sites allow you to “follow” on Twitter, “like” on Facebook to provide a stream of  information to help green your future. There is room for many more links, so if YOU have a favorite, please post it in a comment and I'll add it to the list.













Sunday, August 12, 2012

Brief background


Why am I passionate about the future of planet Earth, even though I have no children and won't live long enough to see the outcome of changes proposed in this blog?

It's a long story that started as I grew up in Los Angeles in the early 50's. My father taught business classes at USC, so I had the opportunity to spend time at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the La Brea Tar Pits, the sea shore, nearby mountains, etc. As a child, my mother lived on a small farm in southern Illinois and deeply enjoyed nature. She was born in 1920 and experienced the dust bowl era first hand. Looking back on my early years, I think what impressed me most about the museums, exhibits and travels was the Earth's wide diversity of environments and the magnitude of change they exhibit over time. The laws of nature loomed large as I gazed a the fossilized remains of extinct creatures.

Later, I spent 20 years at Arizona State University receiving a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Zoology while specializing in the ecology and systematics of marine and freshwater micro-crustaceans. Still later I made an ironic shift into the business world and a real estate career, after moving to the Central Coast of California in the mid 80's.

I still think like a scientist, but discovered that way of thinking can be a big obstacle in addressing Climate Change, particularly within the context of real estate, agents and the public they represent. Fortunately, the Grist piece appeared in a perfectly timed tweet just as a friend and I were sorting out the frustration of extremely thin support for the needed changes in lifestyle among organizations, governments and a major portion of the population. Timing is everything -- in real estate and reducing CO2 emissions!

Next post will focus on the original paper behind David Roberts' Grist piece (Climate and moral judgement, Ezra M. Markowitz and Azim F. Shariff, Nature Climate Change, Vol 2, April 2012). I'll comment on what's there, what isn't, then further suggest how their work might point outreach efforts in more productive directions.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

WHY this?

I spun this from my Real Estate Technology blog for a couple of reasons. First, I started working so much on Climate Change issues that I didn't post much to the other blog. Second, I recently progressed in learning how to involve more people in making behavioral changes that are beneficial to themselves and the planet.

When meeting with various "green" committees, groups and attending presentation, I experience Ground Hog Day movie moments. The same people are preaching the same stuff to the same choir--very effectively, from a position of serene comfort sustained by the appreciative nodding of heads in total agreement. This version of Ground Hog Day has been playing for several years with little change in content or audience. If we follow that same path, the relatively small percentage of people who "get it" aren't going to create the needed reduction in CO2 emissions.

Change is uncomfortable. Even something supremely attractive triggers change because people become uncomfortable with their present condition. If you're comfortable, you're not changing. More importantly, you aren't very receptive to heightened awareness that might open a door to positive change. The odd thing is that although change is always uncomfortable, it does not always involve a negative experience. Over half the time change is positive, yet we still resist.

The planet Earth needs a big change in CO2 emissions over the next very few years. That isn't happening quickly enough because efforts to speed change, at least thus far, lack psychological resonance with most of the population. That makes me uncomfortable--so I'm changing my approach.

Please read the content of this recent and pivotal Grist piece to understand why MORE information on warming, drought, melting glaciers, pine beetles, fires, etc., etc., isn't likely to get us where we need to be as a society or a species. The scientific perspective is important, but not to the mass of people who can achieve the necessary change in CO2 emissions within the window of opportunity.