The Developer‟s View

Sarah Cary

Sustainable Developments Executive

The British Land Company PLC

1

Agenda

Why do we care – the drivers from a client perspective

A quick review of the Ropemaker studies

What we‟re doing now..

Our expectations as a client

Challenges for the industry

2

Who is British Land

Large UK REIT

– Owned portfolio valued at £8.5 billion

– Publicly listed FTSE 100 company

Prime Portfolio

– London Office

– Out of Town Retail

– Minor other

Corporate Responsibility – partnership approach and customer focused

3

Why embodied carbon is important to British Land….

4

Development Footprint

5

4,505

38,489

2,252

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

2009-2010 Development Carbon Footprint

Site Activities

Materials

Transport

As a „gateway‟ to further understanding

Energy use

Materials procurement – responsible sourcing

Structural efficiency

Flexibility over time

Aligning building component lifetimes

6

Occupation - Landlord and Tenant

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ropemaker (BER)

Tenant

Landlord

58%

42%

Ropemaker Place

BREEAM rating of “Excellent”

30,000 sq foot green roof and gardens

Rainwater harvesting system

Design reduced the energy needed for

cooling by up to 27% compared to a

flat façade.

1,200 kW biomass boiler, solar thermal

and photovoltaic generation.

32.7% Improvement on Building

Regulations Part L2 2006

8

But what about the carbon footprint...

Assumes 60 year life, with refurbishments at 25 and 45.

Ropemaker:

– 2.435 tCO2e/m2 of GIA

– 196,873 tCO2e

Estimated Carbon Footprint of the London 2012 Olympics:

– 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (3.4MtCO2e)

Running the Tube for 1 year:

– 518,8157 tCO2e traction electricity

Ropemaker Compares:

– Approx 98 years of energy consumption at British Land’s HQ York House

– 1/12th of the 2012 Olympic Games.

– Just over 1/3rd of the Tube ‘s annual footprint

9

2 methods, 3 studies

Carbon Footprint

December 2006 - Arup Carbon Footprint Assessment

– Design stage information

March 2010 - dCarbon8 (now Deloitte) Lifecycle Carbon Impact Assessment,

– As built information

Carbon Profiling

January 2010 - Sturgis Carbon Profile

10

Embodied vs Operational… and Part L vs actual predicted?

11

1.418

2.716

1.018

1.018

-

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

Ropemaker Place (BER)

Ropemaker (predicted consumption)

tCO2e/m 2 of GIA

Embodied Carbon

Operational Carbon

2.435

3.733

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ropemaker Place (BER)

Ropemaker (predicted consumption)

Embodied Carbon

Operational Carbon

58%

42%27%

73%

Maintenance…

1282,263 tCO2e or 1.018 tCO2e / m2 of GIA

-

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

Ropemaker Place

tCO2e/m2 of GIA

End of Life

Maintenance

Onsite Activities

Delivery

Raw Materials

1.018

51%

6%

3%

39%

1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ropemaker Place

End of Life

Maintenance

Onsite Activities

Delivery

Raw Materials

Here‟s why….

13

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

20

36

20

37

20

38

20

39

20

40

20

41

20

42

20

43

20

44

20

45

20

46

20

47

20

48

20

49

20

50

20

51

20

52

20

53

20

54

20

55

20

56

20

57

20

58

20

59

20

60

20

61

20

62

20

63

20

64

20

65

20

66

20

67

20

68

20

69

End of Life

Maintenance

Operations

Onsite activities

Delivery

Raw materials

tCO2e

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ropemaker Place (standard electricity mix)

Ropemaker Place (decarbonisation)

Embodied carbon

Operational carbon

58%

42%

32%

68%

If the grid decarbonises…

14

1.418

0.471

1.018

1.018

-

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

Ropemaker Place (baseline)

Ropemaker Place (grid decarbonisation)

tCO2e/m2 of GIA

Embodied Carbon

Operational Carbon

2.435

1.489

-39%

-

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

Ropemaker Place

tCO2e/m2 of GIA

Other

Waste

Timber

Glass

Aluminium

Concrete

Steel

0.516

-

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

Ropemaker Place

tCO2e/m2 of GIA

Waste

Foundations

Fit-out (Cat B)

Fit-out (shell & core)Substructure

Superstructure

0.516

The materials…

15

Carbon Profile

16

Lessons we‟ve learned…

Embodied: It‟s bigger than we thought it was… and makes up 60% of what we

„control‟ at a building level, 50% per year across our company.

Grid decarbonisation …. Will make it even more important.

Materials specification… and estimated lifetimes

– Win/wins for planned refurbishment?

As an industry, go beyond SBEM?

Both landlords and tenants….. it‟s more or less a 50:50 influence on the total

carbon footprint over its life

17

What we‟re doing now..

Prioritising steel and concrete

Requiring our architects and structural engineers to begin to think about

embodied carbon in design

– Back of envelope calculations and detailed models

– Relation to whole life (building in-use)

– Identifying carbon saving opportunities through hot spot studies

– Options evaluation: Compare embodied impact alongside cost and programme implications

Requiring our contractors to measure, record, and report on steel and concrete

– Discussions on the best way to do this

Continue to „estimate‟ our corporate carbon footprint

18

What we‟d like to see

From design teams - understanding and pressure on suppliers

– Core calculations are fairly approachable and easy to do

– Carbon in it’s own right and as proxy for responsible procurement

– Where are your materials coming from? So you want to use anodised aluminium?

– QS firms are well placed to do summaries and comparisons with other firms

Concrete mixes

– Contractors, suppliers and structural engineers working together

– Rules of thumb for weighing programme, cost and carbon implications

Components and individual products

– Be easily labelled with information on carbon, source and production

19

Challenges for the Industry

Understanding the barriers to the big wins

Moving from LCA to a component level approach

99% accuracy or 75% accuracy

Transparency down the supply chain

Industry knowledge

– Cost, carbon and product ‘books’

Is regulation the next step?

20

Appendix just in case

Carbon Footprint

Definition:

Total Set of Greenhouse Gases Caused by an

organisation, event or product.

Calculation approach: Lifecycle Assessment

Standard (BS EN 1SO 14040).

Assumes 60 year life, with refurbs at 25 and 50.

Split into ‘Embodied’ and ‘Operational’

Estimated Carbon Footprint of the London 2012

Olympics:

– 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents

(3.4MtCO2e)

22

Arup Study – December 2006

Based on information available at concept design.

Not just building operation:

– includes an estimate of commuting and business travel by future tenants.

Assumes a 58 - 42 split for landlord–tenant control of electricity, total landlord control of gas.

The main findings:

725,005 tonnes CO2e for the natural gas baseline and 704,573 tonnes CO2e for the local biomass

option

93% of footprint arises from operation of the building.

Landlord controls 40% of overall footprint and may influence a further 7%.

Commuting, business travel and consumables used by the tenant accounts for approximately 20% of

the total footprint.

Electricity use comprises 68% of carbon footprint.

Use of locally sourced biomass results in a 3% reduction in the total footprint, compared to natural

gas.

23

Embodied vs Operational

Dcarbon8 Study – March 2010

As-built information about the building design and construction process

– Provided by MACE

Excluded business commuting, travel and consumables.

Ran 3 scenarios

– Part L energy consumption predictions vs. design team predicted consumption

– Biomass vs Gas for heating source.

– Current grid electricity carbon factors vs proposed decarbonisation of the grid,

Investigated how „embodied‟ aspect of the footprint could be reduced through

materials specification

Assumes a 39- 61 % landlord-tenant split of electricity consumption, full landlord

control of gas or biomass.

– based on the EP&T review of our existing portfolio.

25

58% 61%

42% 39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ropemaker baseline (75% biomass)

Ropemaker (0% biomass)

Embodied Carbon

Operational Carbon

1.418 1.566

1.018 1.018

-

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

Ropemaker baseline (75% biomass)

Ropemaker (0% biomass)

tCO2e/m2 of GIA

Embodied Carbon

Operational Carbon

2.435 2.583

6%

Scenario 2: Biomass vs Gas Heating

Baseline where approximately 85% of the heating load is provided by a biomass boiler, vs.100% of this energy is

provided by gas, shows a 10% increase in operational carbon and 6% increase in total carbon under the BERb

scenario. And a 4% in operational carbon and 3% in total carbon under the AApredb scenario.

26

Tenant & Landlord Control

48%

51%58%

52%

49%

42%

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

Arup Initial Study dcarbon8 study (AApred) dcarbon8 study (BER)

Tenant

Landlord

774,026

311,439

208,844

27

28

66,334 41,754 41,754 -13,291

40,509 40,509

720,983

229,176

126,581

-100,000

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Arup Initial Study dcarbon8 study (AApred)

dcarbon8 study (BER)

Operational

Other Embodied

Construction

774,026

311,439

208,844

29

Arup dcarbon8: BER Dcarbon8: AApred

Total (nat gas): 750,005 tonnes CO2e 208,850 tCO2e under

BER ()

311,439 tCO2e under

AApred

Total annualised: 156.5 kgCO2e/m2/y. 43.05 kgCO2e /m2

/year based on a 60-

year lifetime under

BER

()

64.21 kgCO2e /m2

/year AApred

Operational (w/out

travel):

10914.1 tco2e/year

(nat gas)

126,580 tCO2e or

26.1 kgCO2e /m2

/year under BER

()

229,176 tCO2e or

47.24 kgCO2e /m2

/year under AApred

Construction 1109.2 tco2/year (60

year annualised)

0.516 tCO2e/m2

under BER (8.61

kgCO2e /m2 /year)

Other embodied 126.1 (no fit out?) 501 tCO2e/m2 under

BER (8.35 kgCO2e

/m2 /year)