Author Archives: Joe Derhake

Free Seismic Risk Assessment Webinar (aka Probable Maximum Loss)

How do financial institutions manage the seismic risk of their portfolios?

The short answer is, many of them do not.  Many institutions have no formal seismic risk policy to screen out higher-risk properties, and even within those that do have a policy, Seismic Risk Assessments can be a source of confusion.

“Probable Maximum Loss” reports, also called “Seismic Risk Assessments” are an often misunderstood but very important tool in the underwriting toolkit for structured finance.  These risk assessments rate buildings for seismic risk, the goal of which is to protect your portfolio and downstream investors from a double helping of seismic risk.   The PML Report cannot completely eliminate risk from a seismic event, but the PML will screen out buildings that are at greatest risk for damage during an earthquake.   Note: lenders that don’t require PMLs might find that their portfolio suffers from adverse selection; essentially getting a double helping of seismic risk.

To use the Probable Maximum Loss Report well a lender needs consistency.   If you are going to measure anything, you want to do it by the same method every time.   Seems like common sense, but the way the seismic risk assessment standards are written (ASTM E 2026-07 and E 2557-07) allows for numerous different types of assessments, scopes of work, and ways to report the PML value.  So, lenders really need to play an active role in defining what they want in their seismic risk policy

I recently participated in a webinar panel on how lenders can better understand and use PMLs, and structure a seismic risk policy.  It is available to view on demand until January 31, click here to sign up.

FHA and Fannie Mae Announce Green Refinance Plus

On May 31, FHA and Fannie Mae announced the launch of Green Refinance Plus, a joint program to provide funding for energy and water efficiency upgrades as well as other property renovations.  US Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has teamed up with Fannie Mae to share the risk of loans made in the Green Refinance Plus, an improvement of the Fannie Mae/FHA Risk-Share program.

Under the new program, borrowers will be required a “Green Physical Needs Assessment” to identify needed renovations to the property, energy efficiency measures (EEMs) and water-efficiency improvements.  The Green Physical Needs Assessment or “Green PNA” essentially combines a standard Physical Needs Assessment and an Energy Audit.

Green Physical Needs Assessment Scope of Work and Qualified Provider

The Green PNA scope of work includes three main components: 1) a traditional PNA report that will also identify energy and water efficiency measures; 2) an Energy Audit that will analyze the cost and financial payback of recommended energy and water efficiency improvements and alternatives, and benchmark energy and water costs over the long term using ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager;  and 3) an Integrated Pest Management Plan Inspection including an inspection of the current pest condition at the property and an evaluation of the current pest management plan.

The Green PNA for the refinance program must be completed by a “Qualified Provider,” which is someone who is either: certified to complete energy audits by RESNET or BPI (or their training providers); a Certified Energy Manager (CEM) or state equivalent; a registered architect; a registered professional engineer; a RESNET certified Home Energy Rater; or a BPI Certified Building Analyst.  There are additional qualifications for the provider, including the individual provider’s experience, quality of reports and timeliness.

More information on the Green PNA scope and qualified provider requirements can be found here.

Questions?

Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. specializes in Energy Audits, standard PNAs and Green PNAs.  Feel free to give us a call with any questions.  800-419-4923.

Upcoming ASTM E2797-2011 BEPA (Building Energy Performance Assessment) Standard

The draft ASTM E2797-2011 BEPA (Building Energy Performance Assessment) Standard will provide another method to assess and disclose the energy efficiency of commercial buildings.  The standard is expected to be published in 2011, though no date has been specified.

BEPA was created in an effort to standardize the process of assessing the energy efficiency of a building for the purposes of pre-transaction disclosure.  Building purchasers will want to know the building’s energy consumption, and lenders will want to understand the building’s operating costs. 

BEPAs were designed to be conducted in concurrence with a Phase I ESA or PCA; however, BEPA buyers need to be aware that the personnel used for the site inspection during a Phase I or PCA may not be trained appropriately to conduct the BEPA.  The inspector for BEPA should be a mechanical or other engineer, Certified Energy Manager (CEM), LEED AP or other professional with training in building and energy systems.

More states are requiring energy efficiency disclosure of commercial buildings.  As this trend continues, more building owners, purchasers and commercial real estate professionals are recognizing the value of energy assessments not just because of these regulatory requirements, but because energy efficiency initiatives really work.  In addition to greater marketability of a building, capital investments into energy efficient system upgrades will yield substantial return on investment.

According to Tony Liou, President of Partner Energy, the EPA’s Energy Star program is currently the most commonly used energy disclosure and benchmarking tool; however, Partner Energy structures each assessment according to the client’s specifications and the most appropriate method, whether the Energy Star program, ASHRAE audits, or the upcoming BEPA standard.

Partner Energy specializes in an array of energy services including audits, modeling and benchmarking.

Property Condition Assessment and Energy Audit

Adding an Energy Audit or Energy Benchmarking to a Property Condition Assessment (PCA) can put dollars in your pocket.  A PCA gives you an indication of the current and future costs of building maintenance, but you could be missing out on many cost-savings measures. 

Energy Benchmarking is a cost-effective first step to understanding and reducing your energy consumption and carbon footprint.  Benchmarking studies a building’s current energy usage and helps determine achievable and cost-effective energy reduction goals. 

An Energy Audit is a comprehensive look at how a building consumes energy along with recommendations to reduce energy use (via no/low cost measures or capital intensive measures), costs to implement, projected cost savings and payback period.  While an Energy Audit is a more involved process and can vary in the level of detail (ASHRAE Levels 1, 2 and 3), the potential returns on investment are significant.

A building purchaser would be interested to know, for example, if a lighting system upgrade could result in a 34% internal rate of return.  Well, that’s just what one of Partner Energy’s audits uncovered.  A combination of new high-efficiency lighting and motion sensors (at a total cost of approximately $44,000) resulted in an annual energy cost savings of $14,700 and a relatively short payback period (less than 3 years).  At an 8% cap rate, the building value increased by $183,000 (over 4 times the installation cost) – certainly a sound investment!  And that did not account for potential rent increases, increases in absorption and decreases in vacancy for Green Labeled buildings.

By reducing operating expenses and increasing building value, an Energy Audit and its recommended energy efficiency measures can help building owners and purchasers achieve their energy efficiency and capital investment goals.

Managing Environmental Liability

Environmental due diligence consults should not just perform  Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, they should focus on managing their client’s environmental liability. However, in order to do so, it is imperative that clients ask for the help.

Environmental consultants can perform better if they are given the opportunity to meet with the client and understand their business.  It is also a necessity to understand the client’s risk tolerance.

 All clients do not have the same risk tolerance – and they shouldn’t. For example, a child day care chain should obviously be more risk adverse than an owner of a warehouse. Consultants must also keep in mind that some investors and lenders are conservative when it comes to environmental issues. These nuances need to be expressed. 

 To be a good engineer, the client’s business must first be understand by the engineer.

Partner Engineering and Science offers clients free environmental liability management  consultations where the client’s business, their objectives, and their risk tolerance are all discussed in great detail.

Writing a sound environmental risk policy is not too difficult. Partner will give their clients multiple free samples of what lender’s policies should look like, so that they can pick the policy that fits their bank. If there are missing elements within the policy that are important to the client’s bank, they are easy to insert.  

The bottom line is, if clients are spending a lot of money on environmental due diligence, they should take a more holistic look at their environmental policy.

Property Condition Report plus Energy Audit

Real estate investors routinely order a Property Condition Report in order to understand the condition of the asset that they are purchasing.    The Property Condition Report should illuminate any immediate repairs or deferred maintenance issues and should provide a schedule of capital replacement reserves.   But the Property Condition Report only addresses what is broken and what will need to be replaced.   What about the opportunity to save money?

An Energy Audit in conjunction with a Property Condition Report will illuminate how a building should be performing.    Often the Energy Audit will discover multiple aspects of a buildings energy management program that are suboptimal and can easily be corrected.     Energy Audit will also give the user a list of potential energy efficiency investments and will rank these investments in terms of payback period—often several opportunities with sub-3-year payback periods are indentified.

The Energy Audit and Property Condition Report go well together as they are addressing the same systems.   The Property Condition Report may schedule the replacement of a roof mounted HVAC system in year 8 of the replacement reserve as that is the end of its useful life; however, the Energy Audit may make a case for not using an old inefficient system until it fails; rather, the building owner may receive an positive return by replacing it sooner.

My company, Partner Engineering Science, and our sister company Partner Energy routinely provide these services in tandem.

Probable Maximum Loss Reports

If the big one comes, how much damage will your loan portfolio sustain?  A building with significant damage runs a high risk of falling into foreclosure.  If a lender is active in a seismically active state such as California, they may want to get a handle on their seismic risk by ordering Probable Maximum Loss Reports.  

The Probable Maximum Loss Report predicts the amount of damage a building will sustain when the 475-year earthquake comes.  Just like we can estimate how large a 100-year flood will be, we can estimate the magnitude of a 100-year earthquake—and a 475-year earthquake.   We choose this non-round number because the 475-year event has a 10% chance of occurring in the next 50 years.

A PML Report expresses the seismic damage as a percentage intended to represent the expect damage to the building divided by the replacement cost of a building.   For example, if a building that costs $10 million to build and has a 10% PML, then when the 475-year event occurs we are predicting that the building will experience $1 million in damage.  

Most lenders treat the PML as a sort of pass/fail.   Any building with a PML lower than 20% is seen as an acceptable risk and buildings with PMLs over 20% have seismic risks that require mitigation.   Typical mitigation takes the form of either earthquake insurance (expensive) or seismic retrofit (usually expensive).   

The PML has long been a somewhat controversial product for mortgage bankers and borrowers, as too often they have seen two engineers return two significantly different PML numbers for the same property.   Historic use of the inconsistently defined term PML has left much confusion over what has been the measure of risk in the past and what is the comparable measure under ASTM terminology.  This is because the methods employed to calculate the PMLs by engineers have varied widely. Recently, ASTM has updated their original PML Standard with ASTM 2026-07 and published a new standard aimed directly at lenders, ASTM 2557-07 and these new standards have gone a long way toward creating consistently.

The ASTM Standards is more of a toolbox than a strict scope of work.   ASTM 2026-07 is a very flexible standard; this standard is a tool box that literally offers 768 different ways to do a PML.   For a banker, PMLs that are calculated differently, and cannot be compared to each other, create unwanted inconsistency in their underwriting process. 

To fix the 768-types-of-PMLs problem, a banker must specify which method they need.  Here is how to order a PML: ASTM 2557 recommends that the PML is reported as the Scenario Expected Limit, Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), 475-Year-Event and I recommend adding: Level 1 Building Damageability Assessment, Level 1 Building Stability Assessment, Level 1 Site Stability Assessment, and Calculated by the Thiel Zsutty Method.    Wow…that is a mouthful.

Insist that your engineers follow these tips and you will find that your PMLs are more transparent, understandable, and consistent with other finance industry PMLs. 

 

1.       Report one number, define the PML as the SELDBE.   Offering PMLs as both the Scenario Expected Limit (SEL) and the Scenario Upper Limit (SUL) is too confusing.  Accept the recommendation of ASTM E2557 and require your engineer to report the PML as the SEL only. 

 

2.       Require that the engineers use the Thiel Zsutty Method to calculate the PML.  This is the most commonly used method and is more transparent than other calculations (the importance of transparency is discussed below).  While the ASTM Standards do not specify a method of calculating the PML, if you allow one engineer on your panel to use Thiel Zsutty and another to use their own proprietary methods, then you will receive inconsistent results.

 

3.       Show the math.   Simply giving a high PML result without demonstrating how it was derived makes conducting a peer review futile.  How can anyone discuss or refute a computation that is absent?  Peer reviewable work is a fundamental hallmark of the engineering profession, and requiring engineers to show their work should be standard.

 

4.       Explain the “b” value.  The most controversial variable in the Thiel Zsutty Method is clearly the Building Vulnerablity Parameter, or the “b” value.   The engineer should explain how the “b” value was chosen.  The determination of a building’s damageability factor, b, starts with a table look-up and then must be carefully adjusted to specific earthquake damageability characteristics of the building that the engineer encounters in the field.  Absent this discussion, the report suffers from the fatal flaw of being inscrutable.

 

5.       Require the work to be done and signed by a registered engineer.  Structural assessment of buildings is at the heart of engineering work.  Only registered engineers possess the requisite certification, knowledge and skill for performing PMLs. 

Bankers have long been frustrated by the lack of consistency and transparency in PMLs.   If bankers instruct the engineers very precisely, the PML products delivered by the engineering community will feel less like supposition and more like science.

 

By:          Joseph P. Derhake, PE

Partner Engineering and Science

Phone: 800-419-4923

 

 

 

Energy Audits

Energy Audits should be a standard part of building due diligence.  When you buy a car you know its fuel effiency, why not understand the same about the commercial building that you are buying?    Commercial building energy efficency can vary widely.   Two building of similar age and construction often vary as much as $1.00 per square foot per year in energy costs. 

Of course, the cost of energy is in the operating expense, so why pay $1,000 to $3,000 for an energy audit?   What you cannot see in the operating expenses is the opportunity to reduce.   Often a poorly preforming building can be brought in-line with its peer buildings for a minimal investment and these savings contribute directly to the building’s Net Operating Income.

In California there is another reason to do it:  the results of a basic energy audits will be a required disclosure item duirng leese, sale, and financing transacitons in 2010 for non-residentail buildings per AB 1103.    AB 1103 requires that non-commercial buildings are enrolled in EPA’s portfolio manager program and that the 1 to 100 rating given by EPA Portfolio Manager is given to the prespective tenant, buyer, or lender.