The need for connectivity is now a given. Yet, while some of us are taking more thoughtful action to reduce our carbon footprint, we rarely consider the consequences of using our smartphones. Thankfully, though, corporates are giving this matter much thought, with real progress being made.
Some landlords are finding that the emissions being produced by the masts they are hosting on their buildings are putting a serious dent in their efforts to be greener. It’s not just about ripping up green roofs; the issue is more complex. The question is: are telecoms operators aligned with site providers’ sustainability targets? And, if not, what can be done to increase collaboration in order to reduce the carbon impact of our ever-increasing appetite for data?
So, how much carbon are we talking about? The built environment is responsible for nearly 40% of the UK’s carbon emissions. To add to that, The Guardian has reported that the carbon cost of producing a mobile phone is around 16kg CO2e (equivalent to around five pieces of steak), but that the cost of using the same phone for around an hour a day over the course of a year is around 1,250kg CO2e – the equivalent of flying one-way from London to New York.
Trending down
Owners, operators and developers of commercial buildings have a responsibility to limit their carbon emissions. A number of big commercial property landlords have committed to delivering net-zero-carbon portfolios by 2030 and are leading the way in this regard. Workspace Group has a net-zero-carbon 2030 ambition, along with a commitment to the continuous sourcing of 100% renewable electricity. We understand it is the first office owner in London to enter into a power purchase agreement to provide renewable electricity to its properties.
By 2030, Workspace is aiming to reduce average energy use intensity across its portfolio from 129 kWhe/m2 net lettable area to 90 kWhe/m2 NLA, through ongoing energy efficiency programmes; investing in energy-efficient lighting, heating and cooling equipment; implementing insulation works; and rolling out smart energy building management systems. This strategy has already shown results by achieving an 11% reduction in scope 1 and 2 emissions (greenhouse gas protocol) from the 2019/20 baseline across its like-for-like portfolio.
EUI is calculated by dividing the total energy consumed by a building in one year by NLA, ie energy per square foot (or square metre) per year. Rooftop telecoms masts in urban settings can be large consumers of electricity (around 100,000 kWh per annum at the upper end), with the result that this impacts substantially on a building’s electricity capacity, EUI and sustainability (scope
1-3 emissions) targets.
Operator requirements
A radio base station’s consumption is demand-led by consumers, meaning each site is different, but consumption typically ranges from 1kWh to 15kWh and fluctuates across day and night. Conscious of their impact, operators too are entering into net-zero-carbon commitments and sourcing renewable energy through renewable energy guarantees of origin certificates and power purchase agreements.
Operators are also moving towards on‑site renewable energy (such as solar panels and wind turbines), but, for obvious reasons, this is harder to achieve in urban settings than rural ones. Sometimes, there is a need to install petrol or diesel back-up generators, which will increase scope 3 emissions.
Future issues coming down the line?
In order to establish a functioning base station, the operator needs to secure a stable electricity supply capable of delivering the power needed, either via a direct supply from the district network operator or by connecting into the site provider’s supply. This will factor into an operator’s decision around suitability of a proposed site – the operator might look elsewhere if the building is unable to offer the connection needed, or if the operator’s demand is likely to lead to supply being outstripped.
However, where demand rises from either occupiers or the landlord (for example, where the landlord replaces gas central heating with air conditioning as it seeks to decarbonise a building), there are questions around how to deal with the scenario where a building’s supply is outstripped. If supply needs to be upgraded, who pays? Upgrading the national electrical infrastructure to deliver increased capacity is likely to be something we hear about more and more in the coming years, along with increasing pressure on government to invest more in renewable energy.
Better connected?
If an operator connects into the existing building supply, the advantage is that the source of the energy is known and can usually be monitored by the site provider. The downside is that there is then a drain on the building’s capacity, and an impact on EUI for the site provider. Putting in a direct supply is therefore preferable in some senses, but getting a new supply is challenging and time-consuming. Where it can be arranged (and financed), the site provider still needs visibility of consumption data and proof of renewable energy for scope 3 emissions reporting.
As ever, collaboration with tenants, including operators, is important in order to collectively achieve common energy reduction goals. This raises the question: can operators be forced to comply with site provider sustainability targets under a code agreement?
Rooftop installations can pose a challenge as they increase consumption but usually would not be counted as part of the NLA of the building, thereby skewing the figures by pushing up the consumption per square foot and increasing the EUI. Workspace has analysed the impact on its portfolio and estimates that rooftop masts represent around 10-15% of a whole building’s annual electricity consumption (an average-sized building is around 60,000 square feet NLA) – in some smaller buildings, representing circa 35%. This adds up to an additional 10-20% in EUI. These are significant numbers for a single “occupier” that does not actually occupy any NLA.
So, can a site provider refuse to host a base station on its land or building on the basis that the same will endanger its net-zero target? The answer is probably not, but it would be interesting to see what the tribunal would make of an argument that the increase in EUI constitutes inconvenience not capable of being compensated in monetary form (the test being that the inconvenience caused is capable of being compensated by the operator), but we doubt that this would be successful in the current climate. However, where there is loss (such as funding being reduced or unavailable owing to the site provider missing targets), there is no reason that this loss should not form part of the compensation claimed either under the code agreement or by an application to the tribunal using the statutory mechanism to seek compensation.
Takeaways
There are a number of ways in which a site provider can improve its position by considering these issues at the outset and looking to include in the code agreement some sensible contractual provisions. Key points might include clauses around the provision of information about electricity sources, a mechanism for the regular reporting of data, and obligations on the operator to embrace available technology and approach the needs of the site as regards power flexibly.
A site provider might insist on the electricity supply to the site (where sourced directly) being sourced from largely sustainable sources to limit the effect on scope 3 emissions. In the case of connection either direct or to the site provider’s supply, agreeing a contractual mechanism for regular reporting of data allows a site provider to accurately report, and keep tabs on, consumption. The same is also likely to act as a prompt for discussions between the parties as to consumption and how it can be managed. Contractual clauses might also assist site providers in getting operators to supply power to the installation flexibly, so that power consumption is reduced at off-peak times where possible.
Above all, collaboration will be key. Both the site provider and the operator can seek to understand the other’s sustainability targets and examine ways that they can support what the other is doing within the contractual framework of the code agreement. There is a willingness on all sides to make positive change – as ever, big improvements start with small changes.
Laura West is a barrister (director) at Fieldfisher and Simon Webb is head of leasing at Workspace
