real estate environmental benchmark update: 2017 … · 33 gwh elec-eq like-for-like saving 3.8%...
TRANSCRIPT
KEY FACTS COMPARED TO 2015
7M M2 OF FLOOR AREA +7.6%
587 PROPERTIES -5.8%
1,271 GWH ENERGY CONSUMPED -4.4%
£120M ENERGY SPEND -6%
XX PORTFOLIO CHURN X%
33 GWH ELEC-EQ LIKE-FOR-LIKE SAVING
3.8%
REAL ESTATE ENVIRONMENTAL BENCHMARK UPDATE: 2017 ENERGY SNAPSHOT
In 2017, BBP members submitted data on 683 properties, covering over 7.1 million m2 of UK commercial real estate. This report provides a snapshot of some of the key facts and performance trends over time.
FEBRUARY 2018
2 | Real Estate Environmental Benchmark Update: 2017 Snapshot
Introduction
Each year BBP members submit data on their managed UK commercial real estate portfolios into the Real Estate Environmental Benchmark (REEB). With no other initiative operating at such a scale, it provides a valuable insight into the latest energy performance of commercial properties in the UK and its associated benchmarks are now increasingly being used by the wider industry.
Comparing your own properties
A major output of the REEB project is to produce operational energy benchmarks for the wider industry. These enable other organisations to compare their own properties with the benchmarks. Check-out the 2017 REEB Benchmarks and compare your properties here.
KEY FACTS COMPARED TO 2015
7M M2 OF FLOOR AREA +7.6%
587 PROPERTIES -5.8%
1,271 GWH ENERGY CONSUMPED -4.4%
£120M ENERGY SPEND -6%
XX PORTFOLIO CHURN X%
33 GWH ELEC-EQ LIKE-FOR-LIKE SAVING
3.8%
2017 REAL ESTATE ENVIRONMENTAL BENCHMARKS
JANUARY 2018
This report provides a summary of the 2016/17 results and a retrospective assessment of how BBP members’ portfolios have performed over the past 5 years. The key highlights include:
• Data coverage – there has been a 122% increase in the floor area submitted over the past 5 years, showing that the REEB data set is consistently growing.
• Data quality – significant improvements to data quality checks have provided much greater data integrity, demonstrated by the consistent decrease in the number of properties being excluded from analysis.
• Performance improvements – since 2010/11 energy intensity has improved at an average rate of 3.9% each year totalling 18% over that period. However, the data suggests a slowing of the rate of improvement, with energy intensity improving by only 1% in the past year..
KEY FACTS
7.1M M2 OF FLOOR AREA
+25%COMPARED TO 2016
683 PROPERTIES
+30% COMPARED TO 2016
1,238 GWH ENERGY CONSUMPTION
+14% COMPARED TO 2016
£130M ENERGY SPEND
+14% COMPARED TO 2016
235NEW PROPERTIES
+6% COMPARED TO 2016
948 GWH LIKE-FOR-LIKE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
-0.4%COMPARED TO 2016
3 | Real Estate Environmental Benchmark Update: 2017 Snapshot
Chart 1 shows the contribution of individual members to the REEB data set. The upper row indicates the proportion of properties by floor area, submitted by each member, whilst the lower
Chart 1. Data Set Breakdown by BBP Member
The 2017 Data Set
Share of floor area
Land
Sec
uriti
esLa
nd S
ecur
ities
Intu
Intu
Lega
l & G
ener
al
Lega
l & G
ener
al
Aviv
a In
vest
ors
Aviv
a In
vest
ors
LaSa
lle IM
LaSa
lle IM
Gre
at P
ortla
nd E
stat
es
Gre
at P
ortla
nd E
stat
es
Tran
spor
t for
Lon
don
Tran
spor
t for
Lon
don
Aber
deen
Aber
deen
DAW
M
DAW
M
Brun
twoo
dBr
untw
ood
Capi
tal &
Reg
iona
lCa
pita
l & R
egio
nal
13%
14 %
7%
7%
10%
6%
3%
5%
3%
4%
2%
4%
2%
3%
5%
3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Briti
sh L
and
Briti
sh L
and
Cana
ry W
harf
Cana
ry W
harf
M&
G Re
al E
stat
e
M&
G Re
al E
stat
e
Her
mes
Rea
l Est
ate
Her
mes
Rea
l Est
ate
Ham
mer
son
Ham
mer
son
Schr
oder
Rea
l Est
ate
Schr
oder
Rea
l Est
ate
TH R
eal E
stat
eTH
Rea
l Est
ate
The
Crow
n Es
tate
The
Crow
n Es
tate
Wor
kspa
ceW
orks
pace
Blac
ksto
neBl
acks
tone
14%
14%
2%
7%
7%
6%
3%
4%
8%
4%
9%
3%
4%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Share of energy consumption
IN 2017, 26 BBP MEMBERS SUBMITTED THEIR MANAGED PORTFOLIOS INTO THE REAL ESTATE
ENVIRONMENTAL BENCHMARK
Low Carbon Workplace 0.2%
Low Carbon Workplace 0.3%
Grosvenor 0.2%
Grosvenor 0.4%
Cadogan 0.1%
Cadogan 0.1%
Shaftesbury 0.02%
Shaftesbury 0.01%
CLS Holdings 0.6%
CLS Holdings 0.9%
row highlights the proportion of the total energy consumption those properties represent. Energy consumption of the properties will naturally vary due to type, size and use.
4 | Real Estate Environmental Benchmark Update: 2017 Snapshot
A, B, C D E F G No EPC
Chart 2 and 3 show the size of the REEB data in terms of number of properties and floor area over time. The REEB data set has steadily grown every year, both in terms of number of members submitting data as well as the size of the data set.
In 2017, the floor area of properties in the REEB data set increased by 25% and the total number of properties
Chart 2. REEB Property Profile
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
3.2
4.0
4.95.0
5.7
7.1
Offices OfficesRetail / leisure parks
Retail / leisure parks
Unenclosed shopping centres
Unenclosed shopping centres
Enclosed shopping centres
Enclosed shopping centres
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
8m
7m
6m
5m
4m
3m
2m
1m
0Num
ber o
f pro
pert
ies
Floo
r are
a (m
2 in M
illio
ns)
Floor area (m2)
Chart 3. 2016/17 Floor Area
42%
21%
7%
30%
increased by 30%. There was also significant portfolio churn with 32% of the properties for 2016/17 being new entries. The new properties represent a combination of new BBP members submitting data for the first time as well as newly purchased and/or refurbished properties entering the data set. Properties that left the data set are either being refurbished or have been sold.
THE REEB DATA SET IS GROWING; IN THE PAST YEAR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTIES HAS INCREASED BY 30% AND THE FLOOR AREA HAS INCREASED BY 25%
186
48
32
8
217
63
39
11
307
79
44
8
291
77
47
24
361
73
41
52
421
84
43
135
5 | Real Estate Environmental Benchmark Update: 2017 Snapshot
Trends Over Time
Chart 4 shows the combined indexed energy intensity of BBP Members’ office and retail portfolios as it stood each year. Starting at a baseline of 100, it tracks how the energy intensity of annually submitted properties changes over time, in relation to the baseline year. An indexing approach is used as it allows multiple property types to be combined together into one simple performance metric. Results show that the energy efficiency of properties submitted into REEB have steadily improved over time, with 1% improvement in the last year and 18% improvement over the last 6 years.
Chart 4. Indexed Energy Intensity Trend
100
95
90
85
80Inde
xed
ener
gy in
tens
ity
100
8283
85858689
BBP Members’ energy intensity index (2010/11 = 100)
BBP MEMBERS ARE DEMONSTRATING CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS IN ENERGY
EFFECIENCY. OVER THE LAST 6 YEARS ENERGY INTENSITY HAS REDUCED AT AN
AVERAGE RATE OF 3.9% PER YEAR
CHANGES SINCE 2012
+122%
+73%
+149%
98 GWH
£10M
3.4%
M2 OF FLOOR AREA
PARTICIPANTS
PROPERTIES
ENERGY SAVED
ENERGY SAVINGS
ANNUALISED LIKE-FOR-LIKE REDUCTION
2010/11238 properties
2011/12247 properties
2012/13358 properties
2013/14388 properties
2014/15461 properties
2015/16478 properties
2016/17613 properties
6 | Real Estate Environmental Benchmark Update: 2017 Snapshot
Chart 6 shows the performance of like-for-like properties over time. Each line represents a consistent set of properties starting at a different base year. Figures on the right show the annualised rates of reduction per year, while those over the lines show the overall reduction for the corresponding period.
Each consistent set of properties have made like-for-like energy reductions demonstrating the action
Chart 6. Like-for-Like Energy Savings Over Time
Chart 5 reports the change in absolute energy consumption of the 453 properties that remained consistent over the past two reporting years. The change in like-for-like energy consumption is broken down by property type.
For these 453 properties, the overall energy consumption reduced by 0.4% last year. While
like-for-like consumption for offices increased by 0.6%, enclosed shopping centres achieved -1.4% reduction and retail and leisure parks achieved an impressive -21.9% reduction. Such savings are accomplished by a combination of energy conservation measures through refurbishment and upgrades, and engaging with occupiers to reduce energy consumption through better management.
Chart 5. Like-for-Like Energy Savings
2015/16 453 properties 2016/17
% change Annualised change
Ener
gy (G
Wh
elec
-eq)
Inde
xmembers have been undertaking to drive energy reductions across their portfolio. The properties that have been within the REEB data set the longest have also achieved the greatest like-for-like savings. Of the 99 properties that have remained consistent within the data set since 2011/12, there has been a 16% reduction in energy consumption, equating to an annualised reduction rate of 3.4%.
Offices Retail / leisure parks
Unenclosed shopping centres
Enclosed shopping centres
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
741
177
1911
736
180
2411
-1.4%
-21.9%-1.3%
-0.4%
-2.8%
-3.9%
-4.0%-3.4%
+0.6%
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Lfl–2yr Lfl–3yr Lfl–4yr Lfl–5yr Lfl–6yr
-0.4% 453 properties
-6% 270 properties
-11% 211 properties -15%
146 properties
-16% 99 properties
7 | Real Estate Environmental Benchmark Update: 2017 Snapshot
Chart 7 shows the energy cost savings made by members over time for their like-for-like properties submitted into REEB. Each bar represents the savings made between consistent sets of buildings over two consecutive years. In 2016/17, an overall £0.31m savings were made across 453 properties.
Chart 7. Like-for-Like Energy Cost Savings
-£0.04
£2.76
£3.04
£3.92
£0.31 £0.31
Chart 8 shows the total unadjusted energy consumption of the REEB data set in GWh over time, broken down by individual fuel type. The other fuels here represent the consumption linked to the use of district heating, biofuels, LPG, wood pellets etc.
Chart 8. Absolute Energy Consumption
2011/12(274 properties)
2012/13(330 properties)
2013/14(438 properties)
2014/15(439 properties)
2015/16(527 properties)
2016/17(683 properties)
Electricity (GWh) Gas (GWh) Other fuels
These savings represent reduction in total utility costs due to a combination of energy efficiency measures and management practices.
The savings this year are much lower than 2015/16 as like-for-like energy reduced by only 0.4% in 2016/17, compared to a reduction of over 4% in 2015/16.
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
4
3
3
1
0Like
-for-
Like
Sav
ings
(£ in
mill
ions
)
Ener
gy (G
Wh)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
179
1
621
288
4
710
376
5
858
342
3
891
373
4
937
421
7
1066
Absolute energy consumption changes each year as a result of the number of properties within the data set and the floor area that they represent. This can be seen in the way the energy consumption in Chart 8 mirrors the increasing number of properties and floor area seen within Chart 2.
8 | Real Estate Environmental Benchmark Update: 2017 Snapshot
Comparing this report to previous years
Transparency and integrity are vital components of any data analysis. For each ‘snapshot’ report, efforts are made to ensure information is presented in a clear, concise and open manner. When comparing the results of this report to those previously published, readers will note that not all historic figures match. There are a number of reasons why this is the case:
• Some new properties that entered the data set in 2016/17 provided multiple years’ worth of data, impacting historical performance.
• Between each year’s data collection, efforts are made with members to go back and update historic data and correct any erroneous submissions.
• New data quality checks were implemented this year which have been retrospectively applied to historic data, resulting in an increased number of property exclusions (see graph to right).
• Energy intensity is no longer adjusted for the number of property operating hours. This decision was based on a study undertaken by BBP that showed no co-relation between operating hours and energy performance.
Further details on how calculations are made is provided within the Methodology notes on page 9.
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Included Total submitted floor area (m2)
Excluded due to data quality issues
Area of properties included in analysis (m2)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Floo
r are
a (m
2 in M
illio
ns)
265
3.1
274
3.2330
4.0
438
4.9
439
5.0
527
5.7
683
7.1
176
4.6
223
4.9
215
6.0
290
7.5
211
7.4
163
7.9
130
9.9
Chart 9. Property Exclusions from REEB Data set
Num
ber o
f pro
pert
ies
40% excluded(2011/12)
16% excluded(2016/17)Percentage change in number of properties being excluded
9 | Real Estate Environmental Benchmark Update: 2017 Snapshot
The Data Set
In 2016/17, data for 813 properties was submitted by BBP members, however only 683 met the necessary data quality criteria to be included within the analysis. The criteria for excluding properties are:
– Properties with missing data that are vital to the analysis.
– Properties that show abnormal changes between years or data anomalies that cannot be explained or confirmed by the submitting participant.
– Properties with energy intensities below the following thresholds:
– Non-air-conditioned offices: 30 kWhelec-eq/ m2/ yr,
– Air-conditioned offices: 50 kWhelec-eq/ m2/ yr,
– Enclosed shopping centres: 30 kWhelec-eq/ m2/ yr.
Separable Energy Uses
Certain office assets may exhibit abnormally high energy consumption due to the presence of large energy consuming functions/spaces such as data communication rooms and dealing floors.
To accommodate these assets and allow for them to be comparable with standard offices in the data set, the annual metered consumption is reduced where validated metered energy consumption for one or more of the allowed separable energy uses is provided.
Methodology Notes
Electricity Equivalent (ele-eq) KPI
In Charts 1, 4, 5 and 6, energy is represented as electricity equivalent. Electricity ‘equivalence’ is calculated to reflect the approximate thermodynamic differences between electricity, fuels and heat. The ratio for fuels is the same as the ratio of Climate Change Levy rates for gas and electricity from 01 April 2019.
The kWh of electricity equivalent metric can be applied temporally and geographically, thereby facilitating historical and international comparisons of energy efficiency. The conversion factors used for kWhelec-eq are: Electricity = 1, fuels = 0.4 and thermals = 0.5
Energy Costs
Energy savings calculations are based on the following tariff rates:
2015/2016 onwardsGas: 3p/ kWh Electricity: 11p/ kWh
2010/2011 to 2014/2015 Gas: 3p/ kWh Electricity: 10p/ kWh
Calculating Indexed Intensity Trends (Chart 4)
An indexing approach is used to enable property owners to assess performance for continuously changing portfolios over time. By taking the average energy intensity of the portfolio
from a baseline year of 2010/11 and selecting a starting value, in this case 100, the percentage change in energy efficiency can be tracked over time. This can illustrate, regardless of portfolio churn, comparable energy efficiency performance across whole portfolios.
In calculating the energy intensity, the following normalisations and adjustments are applied:
Appropriate floor areas to calculate energy intensity: The following floor areas are used for the energy intensity calculations.
– Offices: Net Lettable Area (NLA)
– Shopping centres: Common Parts Area (CPA)
– Retail/ Leisure Parks: No. of car parks Car Park spaces are then converted into area by
multiplying it to 25m2 (based on BCSC Guidance Note 76 – Construction Costs of Shopping Centre Car Parks)
Whole building data and vacancy rates: Only offices where whole building energy performance data is provided and occupancy rates are at least 75% are included when calculating energy intensity performance.
Weather adjustment: Weather-driven consumption has been taken into account by adjusting natural gas consumption to the UK 20 year degree-day average. It is assumed that 10% of natural gas consumption is for hot water, which is not significantly affected by weather, and is thus not adjusted using degree-days.
REEB 2017 Participants
Better Buildings Partnership1 Fore Street, London, EC2Y 9DT
info@betterbuildingspartnership.co.ukwww.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk
Acknowledgements
This report has been developed through the work of the BBP Sustainability Benchmarking Working Group. Data collection and analysis has been undertaken by EnergyDeck.