August 19, 2023

Profiting in the Energy Efficiency Era

Government plays a massive role in the supply and demand equation for housing. From the Federal down to Municipal governments, there are dozens of policies that affect housing.


As an investor, you don’t need a deep understanding of the policies themselves, though you do want to understand the effects these policies have.


This edition of the Bird’s Eye View will look at BC’s Energy Step Code program, outline how it is affecting development in BC, and conclude with how investors can best position themselves as governments march toward ‘net-zero’ housing.

While this article focuses on BC, the trend of requiring more energy efficient housing appears to have some degree of national traction, and we anticipate that these types of policies will become more common in all Provinces, though the specifics will likely differ.


BC Energy Step Code


In BC, the Provincial Government’s plan to increase the energy efficiency of newly built, and renovated buildings, is called the “BC Energy Step Code”.


Developers need to get into the weeds and work with “energy advisors” to review plans, model energy consumption, and ultimately, ensure that certain energy efficiency thresholds are met.

As investors, what you need to know is that today, all new buildings in BC must be 20% more energy efficient than they were required to be in 2018. By 2027, that number will be 40%, and by 2032, a whopping 80%, where new buildings will be “net-zero energy ready”.


However, municipalities may choose to implement these timelines even sooner. Some municipalities, such as Richmond, Surrey, North Vancouver and West Vancouver, have already implemented municipal bylaws to accelerate these timelines.

What will the BC Energy Step Code do to housing supply and costs?


Energy efficient buildings are an admirable goal, though as with anything else, there are tradeoffs.


A 2019 modeling study by the Homebuilders Association of Vancouver (HAVAN) articulated that implementing step 5 increased building costs by as much as $48,220 for a typical house, and that Custom-built homes could incur even higher expenses.


In reality, most builders have been able to satisfy the requirements of Step Code level 3 by making minor tweaks to building materials, at slightly higher build cost. However, there is concern from many in the development community regarding steps 4 and 5.


Hawkeye has spoken with two developers recently who have shared these insights regarding the BC Energy Step Code:


"Level 4 and 5 are major hurdles and require more than just using different materials. Those levels require changing how buildings are planned and constructed. If we needed to build a Step 5 building today, we quite literally wouldn't know how to do it. We will get there, I'm sure, but it will take time, effort, and money. I suspect that some developers will just phone it in rather than learn a new game."

- BC Multifamily Developer


"The combination of Step 4 and new seismic requirements is going to make developing multifamily rental in BC nearly impossible. Unfortunately, we know this could be our last hurrah in BC building rental due to the massive rising costs."

- BC Multifamily Developer


We don’t want to overstate the impact that this policy may have on supply, though the added inspections and cost, on top of other regulatory challenges and high rates, are deterring at least some builders from taking a more aggressive approach to development in BC. 


If it becomes clear that these measures translate into additional unit values or rental rates, or as costs come down and new building methods become more common, it is possible that this policy will have little effect on supply.


However, in the interim, investors should expect that the BC Energy Step Code will result in higher building costs and a possible slowdown in new supply being brought to market.


Impact on current and future deals


The likely decrease in supply from the resulting policy will likely mean markets that are already facing prohibitive vacancy rates will continue to struggle in their fight against lack of housing. This potentially bodes well for existing assets and their valuations, though will likely have a net-zero effect for new developments as the newer costs are offset by either higher rents or higher asking prices. 


This transition period means underwriting newer deals requires closer attention. Determining whether the developer has the expertise to deliver is key, and so is having a thorough understanding of the new development and construction costs. Finally, developments that will be completed prior to the policy’s milestones are likely to benefit from a potential slowdown in builds and deliveries as they complete at a time that operators are continuing to scramble to understand how to best approach a site’s potential.


At Hawkeye Wealth, we strive to stay ahead of such changes to make sure we bring only experienced operators with solid deals to your inbox. If you want to learn more about the work we are doing in the background as well as hear more about any upcoming deal we have in the pipeline, get in touch at info@hawkeyewealth.com.

Author

Hawkeye Wealth Ltd.

Date

August 19, 2023

Share

By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. November 1, 2025
“To a landowner, there is nothing more important than security of title. Once you have fee-simple title in B.C., it has to mean that land is your land. And that is very fundamental to our province – and in fact, to the country.” - Niki Sharma, BC Attorney Genera l
By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. October 4, 2025
Introduction Canadian farmland hasn’t posted a single annual decline in value since 1992 . Take a second to soak that up. More than thirty years, multiple recessions, inflation spikes, a housing crash and a tech- bubble. Through it all, farmland kept climbing. In a world where many asset classes appear vulnerable to technological disruption or shifting consumer preferences, the core value in farmland is tied to a necessity that will always remain constant. Food. In this edition of the Bird’s Eye View , we discuss the case for investing in Canadian farmland and share the most compelling points and potential risks from our due diligence on this asset class.  The Investment Case for Canadian Farmland In our view, farmland has six main features that make farmland investment attractive: 1. Consistent Performance and Low Volatility - A 30+ year track-record of positive annual returns is astounding, even more so when you consider that the average annual increase over that period has been 8.1%. Past performance doesn’t guarantee future returns, but there is merit to the fact that farmland has been remarkably consistent through periods of high market volatility. When considering that the figures above don’t account for any profit from the land, farmland has done an impressive job of delivering returns comparable to U.S. equities, but with a volatility profile that more closely resembles bonds. 2. Natural Scarcity - Most cities are established near fresh water and fertile soil. Thus as populations grow and cities expand, that development inherently reduces the base of potential farmland. While most provinces have some level of agricultural land protection program in place, the fact remains that there is a finite amount of farmable land, and each year there is less of it. 3. Diversification and Inflation Hedge - Farmland has a long track record of holding its value when inflation eats away at other assets. Rising food prices translate directly into stronger farm revenues, which in turn support rental income and land appreciation. Additionally, over the last 50 years, farms have averaged an increase in productivity of ~1.5% per year by adopting new technology and processes (machinery, irrigation, nutrient management), which serves as a natural inflation hedge. Unlike equities or bonds, farmland’s performance has shown little correlation with public markets , giving it genuine diversification benefits. 4. Investor-Tenant Alignment - For anyone feeling exhausted with the rhetoric about ‘greedy developers’, it may come as welcome news that investors and landlords aren’t automatically the bad guy in the farmland space. Research shows that farmers are able to drive higher levels of profitability per acre when renting compared to when purchasing farmland , and that trend is accelerating. While renting doesn’t necessarily outperform ownership over the long-run when accounting for land appreciation benefits, it does improve cashflow. Since farming is capital intensive, renting land allows farmers to allocate funds that would have otherwise gone to land, toward equipment and operations that improve yield and profitability. Since farmers’ profitability depends on sustaining yields, they are naturally incentivized to care for the soil and manage the land well, which not only supports their own returns but helps preserve and even enhance the underlying land value. As a result, the ‘renter’s mentality’ sometimes seen in other real estate sectors is far less common in farming. 5. Comparative Affordability - In housing, the current challenge is that people can’t afford to pay what developers can feasibly build. In comparison, while farms are comparatively less affordable than they were 5 years ago, the gap is far less dramatic than it has been in housing. Farm values and rents have rapidly increased, but the revenue generated by those farms has also substantially increased , which has slowed the loss of affordability. While current affordability levels are still a concern in the space, farmers can still operate profitably at current price levels and as shown on the chart below from Farm Credit Canada , we are nowhere near the peaks of unaffordability that farmers experienced during the 1980’s:
By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. August 23, 2025
Introduction On paper, the cure for unaffordable housing is simple: build more. In practice, the very act of building undermines the incentive to keep building. The federal government has set a target of 500,000 new homes per year by 2035, but supply follows returns, not political will. As more units come online, margins shrink and investors retreat, a dynamic made worse by slowing population growth. In response, experts across Canada have signed competing open letters and budget submissions, each offering prescriptions for how to restore affordability. In this edition of The Bird’s Eye View , we explore the widening gap between Canada’s housing ambitions and the market realities on the ground. We look at why supply targets are so difficult to reach, how policy prescriptions diverge between advocates and developers, and where governments may need to adjust course to bring targets and incentives into alignment. The Scale of the Challenge By 2035, the federal government wants to see 500,000 new homes started each year ( Source ). CMHC estimates that for that same year, between 430,000 and 480,000 annual starts will be needed to restore affordability to 2019 levels ( Source ). Hitting these targets means roughly doubling today’s pace of 245,367 starts. The critical, often unstated requirement behind these supply targets is profitability. If projects don’t offer an attractive risk-adjusted return, they simply won’t get built. That challenge is already visible in Vancouver and Toronto, where housing starts are down because many projects just aren’t worth the risk of building for the returns projected. In the CMHC’s Housing Market Outlook Summer Update , CMHC cut housing start forecasts for every year from 2025–2027, with the 2027 baseline revised downward by 5.5% only five months after the previous forecast: