Sarah Cary, sustainable development executive, British Land

1. The Developer‟s View
Sarah Cary
Sustainable Developments Executive
The British Land Company PLC
1

2. 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

3. 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

4. Why embodied carbon is important to British Land….
4

5. Development Footprint
2009-2010 Development Carbon Footprint
100%
2,252
90%
80%
70%
60%
38,489
Site Activities
50%
Materials
40%
Transport
30%
20%
10%
4,505
0%
1
5

6. As a „gateway‟ to further understanding
 Energy use
 Materials procurement – responsible sourcing
 Structural efficiency
 Flexibility over time
 Aligning building component lifetimes
6

7. Occupation - Landlord and Tenant
100%
90%
80% 42%
70%
60%
50% Tenant
40% Landlord
30%
58%
20%
10%
0%
Ropemaker (BER)
7

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Embodied vs Operational… and Part L vs actual predicted?
tCO2 e/m 2 of
GIA 100%
4.000
3.733 90%
27%
3.500 42%
80%
1.018
3.000 70%
2.435 60%
2.500 Embodied
Carbon
50% Embodied
2.000 1.018 Carbon
40% 73%
1.500 58%
2.716 Operational 30% Operational
Carbon Carbon
1.000
20%
1.418
0.500 10%
- 0%
Ropemaker Place Ropemaker (predicted Ropemaker Place Ropemaker (predicted
(BER) consumption) (BER) consumption)
11

12. Maintenance…
tCO2 e/m 2 of
GIA
1.200
100%
1%
1.018
90%
1.000
80% 39%
0.800 End of Life 70%
End of Life
60%
Maintenance 3%
0.600 6% Maintenance
50%
Onsite Activities
40% Onsite Activities
0.400 Delivery
30%
Delivery
51%
Raw Materials 20%
0.200 Raw Materials
10%
- 0%
Ropemaker Place Ropemaker Place
82,263 tCO2e or 1.018 tCO2e / m2 of GIA 12

13. -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2008
2009
tCO2e
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Here‟s why….
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
Delivery
End of Life
Operations
Maintenance
Raw materials
Onsite activities
13

14. If the grid decarbonises…
100%
tCO2 e/m2 of
GIA
3.000 90%
2.435 80%
2.500 42%
70%
2.000 -39% 68%
1.018 60%
Embodied
1.489 Carbon Embodied
1.500 50%
carbon
40% Operational
1.000 1.018 Operational carbon
Carbon 30%
1.418 58%
0.500
20%
0.471 32%
- 10%
Ropemaker Place Ropemaker Place (grid
(baseline) decarbonisation) 0%
Ropemaker Place Ropemaker Place
(standard electricity mix) (decarbonisation)
14

15. The materials…
tCO2 e/m2 of tCO2 e/m2 of
GIA GIA
0.600 0.600
0.516 0.516
0.500 0.500
Waste Other
0.400 Foundations 0.400 Waste
Timber
0.300
Fit-out (Cat B) 0.300
Glass
Fit-out (shell & Aluminium
0.200 core) 0.200
Substructure Concrete
0.100 0.100 Steel
Superstructure
- -
Ropemaker Place Ropemaker Place
15

16. Carbon Profile
16

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Appendix just in case

22. 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

23. 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

24. Embodied vs Operational

25. 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

26. 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.
tCO2 e/m2 of
100%
GIA
3.000
90%
2.583
2.435 6% 80% 39%
2.500 42%
70%
2.000 1.018
1.018 60%
Embodied Embodied
Carbon 50%
Carbon
1.500
40%
Operational
30% 61% Carbon
1.000 Operational 58%
1.566 Carbon 20%
1.418
0.500 10%
0%
- Ropemaker baseline Ropemaker (0%
Ropemaker baseline Ropemaker (0% biomass) (75% biomass) biomass)
(75% biomass) 26

27. Tenant & Landlord Control
900000
800000 774,026
700000
600000
52%
500000
Tenant
400000 Landlord
311,439
300000
49% 208,844
200000
48%
42%
100000
51%
58%
0
Arup Initial Study dcarbon8 study (AApred) dcarbon8 study (BER)
27

28. 900,000
800,000
774,026
700,000
600,000
500,000
Operational
720,983
400,000 Other Embodied
311,439
300,000 Construction
208,844
200,000 229,176
126,581
100,000
40,509 40,509
66,334 41,754 41,754
-
-13,291
Arup Initial Study dcarbon8 study dcarbon8 study (BER)
-100,000 (AApred)
28

29. Arup dcarbon8: BER Dcarbon8: AApred
Total (nat gas): 750,005 tonnes CO2e 208,850 tCO2e under 311,439 tCO2e under
BER () AApred
Total annualised: 156.5 kgCO2e/m2/y. 43.05 kgCO2e /m2 64.21 kgCO2e /m2
/year based on a 60- /year AApred
year lifetime under
BER
()
Operational (w/out 10914.1 tco2e/year 126,580 tCO2e or 229,176 tCO2e or
travel): (nat gas) 26.1 kgCO2e /m2 47.24 kgCO2e /m2
/year under BER /year under AApred
()
Construction 1109.2 tco2/year (60 0.516 tCO2e/m2
year annualised) under BER (8.61
kgCO2e /m2 /year)
Other embodied 126.1 (no fit out?) 501 tCO2e/m2 under
BER (8.35 kgCO2e
/m2 /year) 29