Key Messages:
So, when your time, resources and funding are limited how do you decide which building to prioritise first to reduce energy and carbon?
This is a particular problem when your property portfolio has a number of buildings and you need a logical approach to select which one to target first and identify what changes will give you the greatest benefit.
It’s important to consider several criteria to help you decide. Here are some suggestions:
- Energy Use Intensity (EUI): Simply this is an energy measurement to show the energy used based on building floor area. Typically, in the UK, kilowatt-hours per square metre of space (kWh/ m2). This allows you to compare the energy efficiencies of buildings of different sizes. A building with a high EUI should be a good candidate for significant energy savings. What is a considered high EUI can lead into a debate about benchmarking but for the first stage the EUI analysis can enable you to produce a building league table, ranking buildings from high to low, to let you focus on the properties with the highest energy use intensity. The theory is the Pareto Principal (80/20) rule that roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the cause. This can be applied to EUI by ranking the most energy intensive properties to be considered for the first interventions to give you the greatest benefit. Even changing a little in these properties should give you some of the biggest savings in energy and carbon reduction.
- The age and condition of the building: It isn’t a surprise that older buildings are typically less energy efficient than newer ones given the traditional type of construction verses modern changes in building regulations to increase the standard of insulation/air tightness. Climate change and the cost of energy wouldn’t have been the same concern at the time of construction in the past as it is today. Older buildings may require significant upgrades to improve energy performance and may have outdated building systems and equipment that are less energy efficient than modern systems. Buildings in poor condition, such as drafty windows and leaky roofs, may also have higher energy use. A building that is older and has not undergone recent upgrades may be a good candidate for retrofits and energy efficiency improvements often termed “fabric first”.
- Building use: When looking at a building you should consider the type of space. Typically, given the nature of some uses they consume more energy such as data centres and lab space. Again, by targeting the high energy users it is a good use of time and resources as changes made here are likely to give you higher results. There is a great online resource provided by Harvard University “Sustainability Report” Harvard’s 2021 Sustainability Report | Sustainability at Harvard Impact Report which includes a sustainability data hub. The following diagram is taken from their reports looking at the type of space analysing the size and the energy use. From this their Lab/Studio space uses the most energy at 46% but is 22% of the footprint of the estate. From this it would suggest that the Lab Studio space should be a focus for energy efficiency improvements given the 80/20 rule. A word of caution. Given the complexities of a lab operation it may be easier to prioritise carbon reduction changes to residential and offices. For implementation of carbon reduction some change management/change in behaviour may be needed and this may be easier in some areas of the estate than others. Given the profile of climate change and the necessity to reduce carbon, engagement with occupiers may be easier due to their increased awareness of carbon reduction imperatives but if it requires a change in their operation and or processes the consequences, and in some cases, unintended consequences, have to be carefully managed.
- Building occupancy: This is an interesting number to consider if it’s possible to get accurate data. It’s not always easy given the fluctuations during the day/week/year. Even more challenging now given the change to hybrid working following COVID. I think you need to look at the two ends of the spectrum. Logically the more people using a building the higher the energy use but a low utilisation should also be considered. You could be in the situation that you are having to provide heat, light and power to an entire building for only a few people. This could give you opportunities to look at zoning a building, opening on certain days or at an extreme considering whether you actually need the building. Some of the biggest carbon savings can come from reducing the size of an estate.
- Availability of funding: If there are limited funds available for energy efficiency improvements, it may be more practical to target a building that is eligible for funding, such as a building that meets specific criteria for grants or incentives. But, the health warning is don’t always chase the money. It has to be the right thing aligned to the energy/carbon reduction strategy for the building. If it isn’t then it could be a distraction and cost money in the long run as well as loss of reputation with the funders if the project doesn’t deliver the grant objectives. Think hard before you go for it. In many cases it will be the right thing to do but giving it good consideration at the start could save you a lot of hassle.
- Accessibility of building data: The availability of data on the building’s energy use and carbon emissions is a key factor in selecting a building to target for carbon reduction efforts. Buildings with accurate and comprehensive data are easier to analyse and identify opportunities for improvement. Of all the advice in this blog this is the most important - if you don’t have good building data on the energy use of your properties then you need to work on a strategy to get it. This can be tedious, iterative, laborious, take a long time to deliver and definitely not “sexy” to set up and collect but as the pressure to meet and demonstrate carbon reduction from all kinds of audiences and funders the more scrutiny this will come under. START NOW! Most people are more behind on this then they realise making accurate analysis and reporting extremely difficult. It's highly unlikely that Energy Performance Certificates (EPC’s), Spreadsheets, Building Management Systems (BMS) and utility invoices will deliver what you need. You will need a system that can give you accurate real-time information on kWh, £, CO2 etc. and reporting capability to enable analysis and audit CO2 reduction progress. Agile reporting and pro-active energy management will be key to track and demonstrate carbon reduction initiatives. The ideal is to have a robust meter strategy that enables data to be collected for all services including gas, electricity, heat, water and voltage. The system you use should also enable pro-active management of your energy use with a real-time analysis function that gives you data updated every 30 mins the standard for energy monitoring. We aren’t the only providers of real time energy monitoring software and support but we like to think we are one of the best. Check us out and see what you think. Commercial Energy Management System UK (meterology.co.uk)
With the rising energy costs and legislative requirements more carbon reporting will be required at all levels of an organisation so the ideal is to set this up so that the reports can be automatically generated rather than tying up staff time producing the information.
“That which is measured improves. That which is measured and reported improves exponentially”
Karl Pearson
But use what you have for building data as a baseline and develop a strategy to make it more accurate as this will be an iterative process to get to a system that provides accurate data. You need to start now. I’ve said that accurate data is imperative but you have to make a start with what you have.
- Strategic Plan, priorities and carbon neutral goals of your organisation: You can consider properties on a building-by-building basis but this has to be aligned to the organisation’s strategic plan for example net zero carbon strategy, Strategic Asset Management plans for the size of the estate and ESG. There will be targets and objectives for zero carbon ambitions and this should be reflected in the strategy to reduce energy etc.
These assessment criteria are suggestions. You will want to develop your own and my advice is that you get these signed off by your Sustainability Group/Board before all the work is done. This will help involve them but also so you can make progress. It’s a big task and the process can stall if you have to keep revisiting the assessment criteria. Not to say that it won’t change in time but it can avoid initial “paralysis by analysis” and usually your problem buildings will “float to the top” no matter what criteria you use.
By considering assessment criteria, you can identify the building or buildings that are more suitable for carbon reduction efforts and develop a targeted strategy to achieve your goals. This can be done by using a basic scoring matrix based on red, amber and green (RAG) assessment and refined by adding a numerical scoring system and weighting the criteria. Another word of caution is that before you put major investment in a property check that it is one that you will keep in the future or need to invest in it to achieve a higher capital receipt before you sell it. This is part of the Strategic Asset Management Approach is that you look at a building-by-building approach but then a holistic view on what the overall property strategy is. I’ll be doing a separate blog on this
I hope you found this interesting. This is my view based on 30+ years’ experience in the property sector and still learning. You will find the right approach for your organisation but I hope this has been of some help.
I would welcome any comments you have on this blog in particular what your experience has been selecting the criteria for prioritisation.
Val Hunter MRICS
Business Support Director
METERology