Archive | January, 2008

Land Development circa 2008

by Dave Garland, Hansen PSC, Inc. , January 4th, 2008

As the housing market evolves, it is inevitable that many developers and homebuilders will be caught in the undertow of the downward cycle. To make matters worse, the maze of community, county, and state regulations is getting longer and more confusing for land owners, engineers, architects and developers. In fact, entitlement and regulatory issues, driven by multiple sources of influence, are one of the largest concerns within the development and home building industry today. Understanding these forces and preparing for their impact can enhance project appeal, add revenue opportunities, and favorably position you and your clients for future prosperity.

Market Forces:

Force #1 – Organized Activism: Citizens who have historically acceded to the decisions of local and regional regulatory officials now seemingly challenge them at every turn. Organized campaigns crafted by neighborhood or special interest groups can force officials to risk their office on every vote, no matter how reasonable a development application may be. From angry neighbors to prepared activists, groups opposed to developments are frequently issuing press releases, retaining attorneys and raising money for lengthy court battles. Even national publications are showcasing articles on how to best organize to fight developers.

Force #2 – Demographics: By 2040, America’s population is projected to increase by an additional 83 million people. Concentration of this growth is expected to center on resource-constrained metropolitan areas; adding to existing traffic and infrastructure woes. According to the Brookings institution, by 2030 nearly half the buildings in the U.S. will have been built after the year 2000, with residential development commanding two-third’s of this expansion.

Force #3 – Zoning & Code Updates: To combat the possible consequences of growth, regulatory agencies have instituted urban growth boundaries, comprehensive planning campaigns, and urged the use of “smart growth” initiatives. While growth management practices are nothing new, the degree by which land use regulation is being implemented is unprecedented in the United States. Take Loudoun, Virginia, the nation’s fastest-growing county in the last five years as an example. Its population tripled in 15 years to a quarter million residents constraining area resources, and decreasing air quality and the affordability of homes. Land use experts have argued that there is one solution to these challenges: heavy regulation. Regulators now call for smart growth zoning coupled with dense, mixed use developments to preserve open space, constrain urban sprawl and meet the area’s surging housing demand. These same responses are being proposed in communities throughout the country.

Force #4 – Affordable Housing: Additional housing demand has and will continue to be met with new stipulations and regulations that call for affordability components. In fact, most “smart growth” planning reforms adopt the principle of housing affordability and diversity. The premise of the affordability problem is that not enough low-cost housing exists, particularly in the shadow of the recent housing boom. The policy response in most states has been to subsidize rental housing development, or mandate percentages of for-sale units be sold below market rates. The net affect is that the costs of affordable housing requirements are borne by the land owner, developer, builder or some combination thereof.

Force #5 – Environmental Awareness: Growing environmental awareness is demanding greater due diligence and analysis of a project’s potential impact on the surrounding infrastructure and ecosystem. Municipalities are expanding their requirements for studies of biological, cultural, anthropological, and specie history specific to your properties. National policies also poised to directly influence design. Indeed, environmental awareness, environmentally sustainable development trends, and “green” practices have dominated the recent trade headlines. From complying with EPA guidelines to applying for and LEED certification standards, there is an underlying, unspoken assumption that we are moving from: ‘Every developable structure could have a green component.’ To, ‘Every structure should incorporate sustainable practices in its design.’

Regulation’s Impact:

As the above forces converge, increased regulations to meet social and environmental demands will increase both costs and time frames for development approvals in the planning and entitlement phases. From a valuation standpoint, any additional regulatory and/or social, economic or environmental constraint can be a multiplier of time and risk. More importantly, requirements for affordable housing, development impact fees, higher permit fees, special impact fees and the like are often based on the assumption that developers have the resources necessary to consistently meet evolving policy.

In reality, policy forces developers to continually reinvent mechanisms by which to cut costs. In the past, these costs could come out of the underlying price of land, or through increased densities, and not be passed on to the end customer in the form of heightened asset prices. Unfortunately, speculation in raw land by hedge funds, foreign investment, institutional investment, and players with little previous development experience has pushed land values into the stratosphere thereby placing serious constraints on future development profitability through added competition.

New Opportunities:

There is a flip-side to that coin: if there is one thing that added regulation gives us besides longer entitlement time frames, it is uncertainty in receiving intended approvals. Where there is uncertainty in an economy, there is a chance for arbitrage and opportunity.

While the challenge for receiving entitlements will increase, so too will the rewards. Where it once took mere months to receive approvals for a project, it might take a year or two. The difficulty for receiving entitlements will be commensurate with the added value of the property upon approvals. The trend will be that value will increase significantly for paper approvals. This means that by obtaining tentative maps, planning commission approval, city approvals, or the equivalent (even without necessary building permits), the value of land will be substantially increased, and not just due to land appreciation over time. Now, more than ever before, the ideas and expertise of development consultants are critical to differentiating one project from the next and adding necessary economic value for a development.

Paper value of land will constitute a significant portion of the estimated $25 trillion land grab over the next 30 years. Strategies for obtaining approvals, and thus the increased land value, will be of utmost importance. Outsourcing of the entitlement process is a growing trend throughout regulation heavy states such as California, Oregon and New York. This niche opportunity will only expand in other states as development constraints mount and provide opportunities for consultants such as civil engineers and land planners.

As the conflicting needs of the political, social, demographic, economic and environmental influences mount, there is bound to be uncertainty and volatility. For those who know how to navigate these waters and address the forces of volatility, a wellspring of opportunity awaits.

References:

Robert Charles Lesser & Co. Housing Predictions, February 2007

Davenport, Coral. “In a fast-growing county, sprawl teaches hard lessons,” The Christian Science Monitor. 1/23/06.

Staley, Sam. And Gilroy, Leonard, C., “Smart Growth and Housing Affordability: Evidence from

Statewide Planning Laws”, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 287, Dec. 2001.

Roney, Maya. “Overseas Investors Still Find US Property Hot,” Business Week.com, Feb. 14, 2007

“Builders on the Block,” The Economist, 3/31/07.

Kaihla, Paul. “The $25 Trillion Land Grab,” Business 2.0 Magazine, Nov. 1, 2005.

Dave Garland is Vice President of Development of Hansen PSC, Inc. a strategic investment and land development firm located in Menlo Park, CA. Hansen PSC, Inc. strives to locate commercial and residential land throughout America on which to create socially respectable and environmentally friendly development projects. Mr. Garland can be reached at dgarland@hansenpsc.com.

Posted in Buildings, Homes & Buildings, Ideas, Humanities, & Education, Infrastructure, Maps, Office, Other, Policies & Solutions, Regional1 Comment

Affordable Desalination

For years the conventional wisdom among environmentalists and policymakers has been the following: Desalination is too expensive, too energy intensive, too environmentally dangerous, and not scaleable. We disagree emphatically with all of these notions.

A small desal system on the California coast.
(Photo: NOAA)

The environmental impact of desalination is negligible if the brine is released into a major ocean current. Certainly on North America’s west coast, where the California current moves some 20-30 sverdrups per year past any outfall point, the impact of brine is a non-issue (ref. Sverdrups & Brine).

As for the impact of pipelines on the seabed to move brine 10-20 kilometers offshore, or the impact of sea wells and other intake technologies – we have been doing this for years for power plants and for pipelines to offshore terminals. The technology is safe. And any environmentalist or policymaker who thinks we should install marine current turbines on the seabed – at a paltry yield of maybe 5.0 megawatts per turbine – has no business concerning themselves with the seabed impact of a desalination complex that can deliver fresh water to millions of people.

Whether or not desalination is scaleable is arguable, of course, but current events seem to suggest it is. Worldwide, over 30 cubic kilometers of fresh water are already desalinated each year. In Ashkelon, Israel, the largest desalination plant to-date delivers .12 cubic kilometers of fresh water per year, and it was built at a cost of only $250 million (ref. Photovoltaic Desalination). So what are the costs to build and power a desalination plant, and what is the cost per household?

The online interactive spreadsheet “Desalination Costs” examines each of these questions in some detail. If you view the spreadsheet, you will note we have used very conservative assumptions. Water use per person per day, for example, is set at 200 gallons, which is about twice what a residential user on average consumes in any major U.S. city, Los Angeles in particular. The cost of the plant construction, assuming 1.0 cubic kilometer of fresh water output per year, is not set at $2.0 billion, which is what one would extrapolate from the cost of the Ashkelon plant, but at $5.0 billion, in order to make certain we stay conservative in our calculations. We then assume the project is financed on a 50 year bond at a rate of 10% – there is probably cheaper financing out there for a public/private project of this magnitude. Financed construction cost: $624 per acre foot.

The next section of the online calculator looks at the cost for energy. The productivity based on 2.0 kilowatt-hours per cubic meter of fresh water is well documented, and when paired with the very conservative price of $.20 per kilowatt-hour, yields a cost per acre-foot of $495. Double that amount for operations – in spite of the fact desal plants generally expend 70% of their variable costs just for energy, and the variable costs per acre foot are $990.

This equates to a total cost per acre foot using desalination of $1,613. For a family of four consuming 200 gallons per day per person, that is a monthly household water bill of $120. This price should represent the upper bound of what anyone should have to pay for water. It is well within the affordable range for any residential consumer in Los Angeles, for example, and could replace water they import from the north.

The potential of desalination, along with other green technologies that can deliver abundance, should be central to policy discussions, instead of controversial diversions.

Posted in Energy, Other, People, Science, Space, & Technology2 Comments

Altarock's Geothermal

Geothermal power doesn’t get the attention that wind and solar power alternatives get, but it should. Right now the installed base of geothermal energy worldwide totals about 9.5 gigawatts of output, somewhat less than wind generating capacity worldwide, and somewhat more than photovoltaic capacity worldwide. But unlike the wind and solar installations, geothermal energy runs at capacity pretty much 24 hours a day, making the actual power yielded from geothermal sources still substantially greater than wind or solar energy.

A remote drilling rig probes the earth’s crust.

Today we caught up with Susan Petty, President of the start-up Altarock, a company formed to develop “enhanced geothermal” generating stations using new technology primarily coming from the oil drilling industry. And our main question was how much more geothermal energy is out there, and how much of it can be economically tapped.

To-date geothermal systems have relied on existing underground reservoirs of geothermally heated water, which they have tapped with wells that bring this heated water up, under pressure, using the steam to drive an electric turbine. This technique is cost-effective, but limited to the relatively rare areas where geology has delivered a source of naturally heated water fairly close to the earth’s surface. Virtually all existing geothermal plants rely on these preconditions, although many of them now inject water from the surface into the heated underground formations.

Enhanced geothermal is another ballgame entirely. Instead of finding ready-made reservoirs of geothermally heated water, the developer looks to “mine the heat” present at various depths throughout the earth’s crust, and bring the water to this heat by creating (or connecting) enough fractures and cavities beneath the earth to allow a sufficient volume of water to be injected to power a turbine. Petty explained that to-date the technology has been limited to around 2,000 feet with drilling equipment, and to about 375 degrees with pumps to bring the hot liquid back up. Today there is drilling equipment that can go to 10,000 feet in depth, and pumps capable of operating at heats in excess of 500 degrees. Because the energy contained in hot fluid increases at a greater rate than the temperature of the fluid, going from 375 to 500 (fahrenheit) will allow significantly better efficiencies.

According to a study done two years ago at MIT, there are over 100,000 exajoules of potentially exploitable geothermal energy in the earth’s crust – by comparison, the entire human race only consumed about 500 exajoules of energy in 2007 (an exajoule is approximately 1.o5 quadrillion BTUs – a convenient coincidence since back-of-the-envelope calculations can pretty much interchange exajoules and quad BTUs).

Petty at Altarock was quick to point out this entire resource cannot be accessed – but she agreed with the MIT study that somewhere between 2,300 and 23,000 gigawatts could be commercially tapped in the USA, depending on the level of research and funding enhanced geothermal technologies receive. When one considers 1,000 gigawatt-years is equivalent to 30 quadrillion BTUs – it is clear that enhanced geothermal technology could be a huge opportunity.

Not only are there remaining technological challenges, however, such as verifying these fractures can be created, that greater depths can be accessed cost-effectively, and that pumps can be used that tolerate higher temperatures, but there are political and financial hurdles. Petty noted one of the biggest obstacles is getting drilling permits. Getting approvals can take years. Another obstacle is financing. A bank financing for one of these plants (they cost roughly $3,500 per kilowatt of output) may be on a ten year note at 12% interest, whereas the “clean renewable energy bonds” which have just been broadened to include geothermal along with solar and wind projects, may only have an interest rate of 5%, on a significantly longer term. Since only 2-3 cents per kilowatt-hour is for operations and maintenance, plant financing is a bigger variable than operations costs in the ultimate price a geothermal power station can profitably sell power.

Earlier this year, Altarock received financing from Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, as well as from Khosla Ventures. Here are additional links to information about geothermal power:

MIT Study “The Future of Geothermal Energy”:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html

U.S. Department of Energy (Geothermal Energy Technical Site):

http://geothermal.id.doe.gov

U.S. Department of Energy (Geothermal Technologies Program)

http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal

U.S. Department of Energy (GeoPowering the West)

http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/deployment_gpw.html

Sandia National Laboratories (Geothermal Research Department)

https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/GPI/

Energy Quest – California Energy Commission

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov

GeoHeat Center (Low Temperature Uses of Geothermal Water and Heat):

http://geoheat.oit.edu

International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (Geothermal Heat Pumps):

http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu

International Geothermal Association

http://iga.igg.cnr.it/index.php

Geothermal Resources Council (Geothermal Industry Association):

http://www.geothermal.org

Geothermal Energy Association (Industry Trade Association):

http://www.geo-energy.org

Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium

http://www.geoexchange.org

California Department of Conservation, Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources:

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DOG/geothermal

California Energy Commission (Geothermal Energy):

http://www.energy.ca.gov/geothermal

Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Energy Technologies (CREST):

http://www.crest.org

U.S. Geological Survey (plate tectonics)

http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/tectonic.html

World Bank Group (general info)

http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/energy/geothermal

Swiss seismological service Deep Heat Mining project in Basel
www.seismo.ethz.ch/basel

Geothermal Explorers Ltd., Switzerland
www.geothermal.ch

European HDR project, Soultz-sous-Forets, France
www.soultz.net/fr

Enhanced Geothermal Innovative Network for Europe, ENGINE, France
engine.brgm.fr/

Geodynamics Ltd., HDR projects in Australia
www.geodynamics.com.au/

Petratherm, Exploring for and Developing Geothermal Energy, Australia
www.petratherm.com.au/

Hot Rock Energy, Australian National University
hotrock.anu.edu.au/

The International Energy agency (IEA) Geothermal Energy Homepage
www.iea-gia.org

Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock program, Los Alamos Nat. Lab., USA (finished)
www.ees4.lanl.gov/hdr/

CREGE, Centre for geothermal research, Neuchatel, Switzerland
www.crege.ch

Posted in Conservation, Energy, Energy & Fuels, Geothermal, Science, Space, & Technology, Solar, Wind1 Comment

Solar Comment Wall

Posted in Energy & Fuels1 Comment

Politics Comment Wall

Posted in Policy, Law, & Government0 Comments

CleanTech Comment Wall

Posted in Uncategorized0 Comments

Nature Comment Wall

Posted in Nature & Ecosystems0 Comments

Energy Comment Wall

Posted in Energy & Fuels0 Comments

Vehicles Comment Wall

Posted in Transportation0 Comments

Buildings Comment Wall

Posted in Homes & Buildings0 Comments

No Posts in Category
Advertisement