2 National LCA Definitions

This section provides a more detailed description of the technical aspects that differ between LCA declarations used in the Nordic countries, including their reference unit; the scope of life cycle processes and building parts covered; methods used to calculate energy use, exported energy and biogenic carbon.

2.1 Reference Unit

The choice of area unit has gained increasing interest during the development of legal frameworks for climate declarations in Nordic countries as it plays a significant role in the level of a climate declaration result. A climate impact calculated per gross floor area (GFA) cannot be compared with using the heated floor area (HFA) or net heated area, as this will give different results. Currently, different reference units and definitions for the same reference unit, are used across Nordic countries to calculate the climate impact of buildings (Table 6), which makes it difficult to compare results between countries.

The latest communication of the EPBD revision suggests that the useful floor area (UFA) may become mandatory through the reference to Level(s). The current Level(s) definition of UFA is based on the International Property Measurement Standards (IPMS). This has not been previously defined. Following the development of Level(s), the taxonomy and the EPBD would mean that the regulatory frameworks in Nordic countries, upcoming or in place, would need to be amended if the useable floor area unit or any unit different from what is currently prescribed is introduced to the EU regulations.

Norway and Sweden use GFA as the reference unit, while Finland and Estonia use net heated area to match energy claims. Denmark uses two area units to calculate the total climate impact: the total GFA for the embodied part and the HFA for the operational part (B6 module). The usual GFA definition is extended exclusively for use in climate declarations in order to correct undesired reference/impact relations. For semi-external elements, such as balconies, rooftop terraces, external stairs and access corridors, only 25-50% of the element’s floor area is included in the total floor area of the building. Iceland uses HFA as the official reference unit and will request the additional reporting of results in GFA.

In Sweden, the reference value study behind the proposed limit values for 2025 investigated whether underground storeys in buildings generally give higher carbon emission results than in buildings without. It was found that the use of heated floor area as a reference unit tends to disadvantage buildings with underground (non-heated) storeys, while there was no influence when results were calculated per square metre of GFA, and therefore the results were more robust when using GFA. Using heated floor area as a reference unit may lead to developers avoiding building basements or underground car parks. This would probably require differentiation of levels for limit values depending on whether or not the building has storeys below ground level. The question about a full or partial inclusion of the basement in the reference unit area and calculation in general is now seen in Denmark with a view to the gradual tightening of the limit value in the building regulations as well

Tozan, B., Olsen, C. O., Birgisdottir, H., Kragh, J., Rose, J. (2023). Klimapåvirkning fra nybyggeri: Analytisk grundlag til fastlæggelse af ny LCA baseret grænseværdi for bygningers klimapåvirkning fra 2025. (1 udg.) BUILD, Aalborg Universitet. BUILD Rapport Bind 2023 Nr. 21

. There are more limited choices in the optimisation of the underground spaces and hence building structure on top of the basement is expected to predominantly carry the optimisation burden as limit values become tighter.

The choice of a reference study period (RSP) is necessary when the use stage modules are included in the climate declaration. RSP represents the temporal boundary over which a building is assessed. The choice of RSP is necessary to quantify the impact associated with use stage modules (stage B). The Nordic countries, like most countries internationally, favour a 50-year

Balouktsi, M., Lützkendorf, T. (2023) Survey on the use of national LCA-based assessment methods for buildings in selected countries - A Contribution to IEA EBC Annex 72. In: IEA EBC Annex 72 - Background information - Assessing life cycle related environmental impacts caused by buildings. Available at https://annex72.iea-ebc.org/publications

. Denmark, Finland and Estonia already apply a fixed 50-year RSP in their LCA calculations, while Norway recently changed from 60 years – the common practice in the Norwegian construction industry – to 50 years. The latter decision affects Norwegian environmental product declarations (EPDs) which is the main input for Norway’s building LCA calculations, since they typically generate LCA scenarios based on a 60-year RSP for buildings. Furthermore, 50 years is the RSP currently applied in the Level(s)

The first version of Level(s) used a 60-year RSP, but switched to a 50-year RSP after the test phase

, the methodology to which the Taxonomy regulation refers to. Sweden currently does not need a RSP in their climate declaration, since it only covers upfront impacts, but the proposed extension of the declaration to cover operational stages in 2027 will use a RSP of 50 years.

Table 6 Reference unit definitions (as of January 2024).

Country/ Region

(in place or proposed)

Regulation

RSP

Floor area definition

External wall thickness

Within the building enclosure

Outside the building enclosure

Primary functions

Secondary functions (e.g. circulation areas, storage)

Internal walls and columns

Basement/ cellar

Stairs

Common facilities
(in multi-units, incl. staircase, lift, vertical voids)

Enclosed car park connected to building

Attic

Rooftop terrace

Plantrooms on roof

Balcony

External area including car park

Denmark

Danish Building regulation (BR18) – embodied part

GFA

√

if ceiling height > 1.25 m

√

counted for all floors

included with 50%

only if > 1.5 m high

included with 25%

√

included with 25% (for external areas only when connected to the building)

Danish Building regulation (BR18) – operational part

HFA

√

√²

√

if ceiling height > 1.25 m

counted for all floors

only if > 1.5 m high

Estonia

Proposed method for climate declaration (2021)

HFA

√²

√

√²

√

√²

√

Finland

Proposed method for climate declaration (2021)

HFA

√²

√

√²

√

√²

√

included in the calculation of “site”¹

Iceland

Method under development (2023)

HFA (official) & GFA (additional)

√

Norway

TEK17

GFA

√

included if > 1.9m high for a width of ≥ 0.6m

√

included if > 1.9m high for a width of ≥ 0.6m

included if enclosed by glass

√

Sweden

Climate Declaration 2022

N/A

GFA

√

included if > 1.9m high for a width of ≥ 0.6m

√

only if glazed/climate-protected

Europe

Level(s) –

Office

IPMS 3

UFA

√

if in exclusive use

√
separate item

Level(s) – Residential

IPMS 3B

UFA

√

√
separate item

only on ground floor

√
separate item

√
separate item (unless common facility)

√
separate item

Note: “blue” indicates that an item is included; “light blue” indicates that an item is included and also separately reported for transparency. GFA = Gross Floor Area; HFA = Heated Floor Area.
1 ”Site” is not part of the limit value calculation in Finland, but t it is proposed to be part of the climate declaration. 2 the inclusion depends on whether these particular areas are heated/semi-heated or unheated. The background behind this distinction may vary from country to country.

2.2 Life Cycle Stages Considered

A building goes through different stages during its lifetime. This includes the product stage, the construction process stage, the in-use stage, and the end-of-life stage. Furthermore, some decisions during a life cycle of a building have potential benefits and loads beyond the system boundary. EN 15978 standard provides a modular framework to define each stage and is used as a reference by all current regulations. Therefore, following the modular framework for the life cycle of a building adopted in the revised draft EN 15978 (according to the recently revised standard EN 15643), Table 7 summarises what life cycle stages and modules are required or optional according to the LCA methods in regulations in Nordic countries and in Level(s). Carbon emissions during product stage (A1-A3) and construction stage (A4-A5) are often grouped and commonly referred to as upfront embodied carbon emissions since they are released before the building operation begins.

The coverage of different system boundaries limits the comparability of limit values between Nordic countries. In Denmark and Finland, limit values and climate declaration have the same life cycle scope with only module D reported in addition in the declaration. Sweden currently only considers upfront impacts in the mandatory declaration and plans to keep this limited scope for limit values in 2025. They will introduce an extended scope for the climate declaration in 2027, but not for the limit value. For Estonia, Iceland and Norway, the scope that will be selected for the limit values, and whether it will differ from the climate declarations is not settled yet.

What can be observed is that Nordic countries are likely to reach a consensus regarding reporting upfront emissions in the short run. Although Denmark does not include A4 and A5 in its 2023 limit values, the effects of inclusion of the missing modules (A4, A5, B1, B2-3, B6.2, C1, C2) in the 2025 and 2027 climate declaration and limit values are currently investigated

Balouktsi, M., & Birgisdottir, H. (2023). Analysis of new modules in connection with calculation of the climate impact of buildings. (1st ed.) Institut for Byggeri, By og Miljø (BUILD), Aalborg Universitet.

. As experiences are gradually gained with calculating and documenting A4-A5 through the voluntary sustainability class, the likelihood of their inclusion in 2025 limit values is high compared to the rest of the missing modules (B1, B2, C1, C2). In the case of Norway, A5 is not fully included in its climate declaration, i.e. only the production of the materials that become waste in the construction process is considered (emissions from excavation and blasting, emissions from mobile or stationary machines, etc. are not included, however, there is an ongoing work to propose relevant claims in other regulation). Waste, including the waste management part (which is not included so far in the Norwegian declaration), has been reported in some studies to be the biggest contributor to the A5 module

Kanafani, K., Magnes, J., Lindhard, S. M., & Balouktsi, M. (2023). Carbon Emissions during the Building Construction Phase: A Comprehensive Case Study of Construction Sites in Denmark. Sustainability, 15(14), 10992.

Kanafani, K., Magnes, J., Garnow, A., Lindhard, S. M., & Balouktsi, M. (2023). Ressourceforbrug på byggepladsen: Klimapåvirkning af bygningers udførelsesfase. (1 udg.) Institut for Byggeri, By og Miljø (BUILD), Aalborg Universitet. BUILD Rapport Bind 2023 Nr. 14

. Furthermore, the use of fossil oil for heating and drying on construction sites has been prohibited since 2022.

In the case of Level(s), while the application of the full life cycle scope is recommended, the framework also provides two options for simplified reporting to be used in the short-term until better availability of data and software tools are in place. The framework also requests to state any omission from the full scope in the reporting clearly. As data and tools are continuously improved, it is expected that the full scope reporting will become mandatory as part of EPBD.

Beyond upfront emission, the most significant discrepancy is the inclusion or exclusion of operational emissions associated with energy consumption, i.e. module B6. While the relative share of operational carbon to embodied carbon is decreasing due to energy services decarbonisation, still operational carbon is reported to represent a notable share of whole life cycle emissions

close to 10% of whole life carbon according to the latest limit value study in Denmark, but without considering B6.2 and B6.3 (unregulated part of energy use), see: Tozan, B., Olsen, C. O., Birgisdottir, H., Kragh, J., Rose, J. (2023). Klimapåvirkning fra nybyggeri: Analytisk grundlag til fastlæggelse af ny LCA baseret grænseværdi for bygningers klimapåvirkning fra 2025. (1 udg.) BUILD, Aalborg Universitet. BUILD Rapport Bind 2023 Nr. 21

, depending on energy performance and climate (energy use is climate dependent, hence energy use comparisons among regions can be misleading). Sweden chooses to focus on today’s emissions in the limit values with the following rationale. First, this is the part of the life cycle of the buildings that has the highest climate emissions (Swedish conditions) and which can be confirmed with real values at the building delivery and calculated without making assumptions about the future. Second, it places the emphasis on reducing emissions today, not far in the future. Third, the ongoing transition of energy systems and industry towards low emissions means that future emissions are likely to be comparatively low. Boverket considers that other policy instruments can be used to mitigate operational impacts (such as energy performance regulations). Boverket suggests that more life cycle stages should be included in the climate declaration 2027 (not in the limit value). However, the final rulemaking about the life cycle stages included needs to be adapted to the rules decided by the EU. This mainly applies to the revised Energy Performance Directive (EPBD), which is still under negotiation between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

Norway also follows a more limited scope in its declaration and possibly also its future limit values. However, when it comes to embodied carbon of in-use stage, currently it includes the more complete scope as Norway is the only Nordic country already mandating the calculation of B2 module. A reason behind not including B6 is that Norway has already banned fossil fuel heating of new buildings since 2016, as well as the use of fossil oil for heating in existing buildings since 2020. In addition to regulating energy consumption separately, B6 aspects are considered as already sufficiently optimised. In this case, energy consumption is intended to be regulated through other policy instruments, such as energy performance regulations. Demand management is a key strategy to enable a high share of renewable low-carbon electricity on the grid.

Table 7 Life cycle assessment scope (as of January 2024).

Life cycle stages and modules included according to current and upcoming regulations

A0
Pre-construction stage

Upfront embodied carbon

Use-stage embodied
carbon

Operational
carbon

EoL embodied
carbon

Beyond the building system

A1-3

Product stage

Transport to site

Construction works

Use in building

Maintenance

Repairs

Replacements

Refurbishment

B6.1

Regulated operational energy use

B6.2

Unregulated operational energy use, building -related

B6.3

Unregulated operational energy use, user-related

Operational water use

Users activities not covered in B6 and B7

Demolition works

Transport

Waste management

Final disposal

Reuse, recovery, recycling potential

Exported utilities potential

Denmark

BR18

√

included in the voluntary sustainability class

√

√*

Estonia

Proposed method for climate declaration (2021)

√

√*

Finland

Proposed method for climate declaration (2021)

√

D1 *

D2 *

D3*

Iceland

Method under development (2023)

√

√*

Norway

TEK17

√

only waste

√

Sweden

Climate declaration 2022

√

-**

Limit values 2025

Climate declaration 2027 (proposal)

√

Europe

Level(s): Simplified reporting option 1

√

(√)

Level(s): Simplified reporting option 2

√

(√)

√

√*

limit values scope

√= included, (√) = likely included, * = separate reporting

climate declaration scope

** Although B6 is not mandatory in the climate declarations in Norway, it is not allowed to heat new buildings with fossil fuel (oil and gas) according to the building code in TEK17.

proposed limit value scope

proposed climate declaration scope

Note 1: the modular structure is according to the most recent European standard EN 15643:2021 (to also be adopted in the upcoming EN15978); A0 includes the non-physical pre-construction processes and is not usually used as part of building environmental assessments but is typically part of life cycle costing (LCC).
Note 2: In the Finnish method D1-D5 constitute the carbon handprint. D5 carbonation is taken into account only beyond system boundary. The coverage of any module beyond the indicated scopes is considered optional.

In the short-term, Finland’s declaration covers the most complete life cycle scope: A1–A5, B4, B6 and C1–C4. Finland also adopts the “carbon handprint” concept, which refers to “non-life-cycle net climate benefits or enabling factors that would not have arisen without the project”. Carbon handprint consists of module D elements (recycling, energy recovery, surplus energy generation denoted as D1-3 in carbon handprint, respectively), supplemented with other benefits like biogenic carbon storage (D4) and cement carbonation beyond system boundary

Carbonation during use, an aspect described in B1 module in the upcoming revised EN 15978, is not considered as it is often prevented with repairs which adds complexity to its calculation

(D5). However, no Nordic country includes refrigerant impacts due to losses from technical systems like heat pumps and air-condition systems, either under B1 module or as a separate issue. This is an aspect covered for instance in the French building LCA regulation. A recent Danish study that investigates the impact of the refrigerant losses based on ten building cases shows that this aspect can add up to 1kgCO₂e/m²year and year to the total impact

The selected life cycle scope depends on the availability of data for calculating the included modules. Finland supports the introduction of a wider scope compared to the other Nordic countries with the provision of standard values for entire modules on building level (kgCO₂e/m²year of building) for some of the modules (A4, A5, C1, C2) without prohibiting project-specific calculations when feasible for the construction process stage. The provision of standard values, either at the building level or lower levels (processes, calculation inputs, etc.), is often necessary in the first introduction of new requirements so that an expanded scope does not become costly for the industry to produce the necessary data and perform detailed calculations. There are various approaches to how countries are facilitating the calculations with standard values (Table 8, B6 is analysed in detail in a following section). Standard values are usually set conservatively with an adequate supplemental factor. However, the effect of a regulation risks being reduced when standard values are allowed as an alternative to project-specific calculations. When standard values are used, the potential climate impact is not accurately calculated, and the developer is not required or encouraged to take mitigating measures.

Table 8 Standard values applied by the Nordic countries for the calculation of life cycle modules (as of January 2024)

Standard values

Upfront embodied carbon

Use-stage embodied carbon

EoL embodied carbon

Beyond the building system

Denmark

BR18

under invest.

service lives

under invest.

standard scenarios selected from industry EPDs

standard scenarios in accordance to C3-4

Estonia

Climate Declaration (proposal)

Yes*

default material wastage%

service lives

impact/m²(building)

distance 50km

recycling and disposal share applied to three material classes

benefit/kg (product) *

based on post-life scenarios

Finland

Climate Declaration (proposal)

impact per type of transport service (ton km)

impact/m²(building)

service lives

impact/m²(building)

impact per type of transport service

(ton km)

impact/m²(building)

impact/kg

(product)*

No, product-specific

benefit/kg (product) *

based on post-life scenarios

Iceland

Climate Declaration (proposal)

unclear

Norway

TEK17

No, product-specific

A5 can be given as a % of A1-A3 and A4

No, product-specific

Sweden

Climate Declaration 2022

impact/kg

(product)*

waste factor

(product)*

Climate Declaration 2027 (proposal)

impact/kg

(product)*

waste factor

(product)*

under invest.

under invest.**

under invest.

*per product type and subtype; the use of the standard values in the legislation is not a must. Project specific data on transportation and amount of waste can be used. However, Bereket’s emission factors for different kinds of transportations have to be used.
** some first service lives are provided in the national database

2.3 Building Model Scope

What building parts are important to include in limit values depends on the life cycle scope covered. For example, when a scope is limited to upfront emissions A1-5, the structure tends to be more important. However, when performing a whole life carbon assessment, frequently replaced components such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems increase in significance, and refrigerants of heat pumps have major influence on the LCA of HVAC systems.

System boundaries in regulation and limit values in Nordic countries vary in this aspect (Table 9). The biggest discrepancies lie in the partial or full inclusion or exclusion of site preparation, building services, external works and furnishing. Finland and Denmark already include most installations and services. Looking ahead in 2025, Boverket in Sweden suggests that building services currently not accounted for are included in the limit value except for solar panel installations (all types) which must be included in the actual declaration of the climate impact of the building but must be declared separately. If Norway also decides to include building services in their future limit values, which is a significant part of B4 currently missed, an important harmonisation step can be achieved.

For example, a European study that collected more than 700 cases shows that a major contribution to the life cycle embodied carbon emissions

See: https://fs.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/7520151/RMC/Content/EU-ECB-2-Setting-the-baseline.pdf

, on average, stems from the technical services with a mean value of around 190 kg CO₂e/m², ranging from 170 to 230 kg CO₂e/m². This also is confirmed by other studies on MEP systems for individual building cases which could account for about 20-50% of the embodied GHG emissions of new-build projects depending on the building type, the extent of the use of PVs and the level of detail of MEP description (Hoxha et al., 2020

Hoxha, E., Maierhofer, D., Saade, M. R. M., & Passer, A. (2021). Influence of technical and electrical equipment in life cycle assessments of buildings: case of a laboratory and research building. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(5), 852-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01919-9

; George et al., 2019

See: https://www.elementaconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Whole-Life-Carbon-of-heat-generation-April-23.04.19.pdf

; Birgisdottir et al., 2017

Birgisdottir, H., Moncaster, A., Wiberg, A. H., Chae, C., Yokoyama, K., Balouktsi, M., ... & Malmqvist, T. (2017). IEA EBC annex 57 ‘evaluation of embodied energy and CO2eq for building construction’. Energy and Buildings, 154, 72-80

Given the importance of technical services and considering that the data availability is still not at the level of building products, it has been possible to use standard values for technical equipment up to now in Denmark and Finland (Table 10). Alternatively, both Finland and Denmark provide generic emission factors data for different types of technical equipment in their respective databases per various units (e.g. kg, kWh, piece). IVL and KTH (commissioned by Boverket) recently developed standard values covering technical services, internal finishes and fittings for different types of buildings to support more complete building LCAs from the building elements perspective in the application of the 2025 limit value

Malmqvist, T., Borgström, S., Brismark, J., Erlandsson, M. (2023). Referensvärden för klimatpåverkan vid uppförande av byggnader. Version 3. KTH Skolan för Arkitektur och Samhällsbyggnad. ISBN: 978-91-8040-754-0

Table 9 Whole building assessment scope (as of January 2024).

Included building parts		Denmark	Estonia	Finland	Iceland	Norway	Sweden		Europe
Included building parts		BR18	Climate declaration (proposal)	Climate declaration (proposal)	Climate declaration (proposal)	TEK17	Climate declaration 2022	Limit values 2025 Climate declaration 2027 (proposal)	LEVEL(s)
Site preparation		-	-	soil stabilisation and site reinforcement elements*	-	-	-	soil stabilisation and site reinforcement elements, reported from 2027	?
Substructure	Foundations	√	√	√*	√	√	√	√	√
	Piling	√**	√	√*	√	√	-	reported from 2027	?
	Basement walls	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
	Ground floor structure	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Superstructure (external elements)	Frame (columns, beams)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
	External walls, façade	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
	External doors, windows	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
	Balconies	√	√	√	√	-	√	√	√
	Roof structures	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Superstructure (internal elements)	Internal walls, load- and non- load bearing	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
	Floor slabs	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
	Internal doors	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
	Stairs and ramps	√	√	√	√	-	√	√	√
Internal finishes	Wall and ceiling interior finishes and coverings	√	√	√	√	√	-	√	√
	Flooring materials	√	√	√	√	√	-	√	√
	Suspended ceilings	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Building services	Lifts and escalators	√	√	√	√	-	-	only for building types in Group 1	√
	Electricity system	-	√	-	√	-	-	only for building types in Group 1	√
	HVAC system	√	√	√	√	-	-	only for building types in Group 1	√
	Renewable energy systems	√	√	√	√	-	only building integrated solar panels	All panels for all building groups, in 2025	√
	Water system	√	√	√	√	-	-	only for building types in Group 1	√
	Sewage system	√	√	√	√	-	-	-	√
	Other systems (e.g. firefighting)	-	√	√	√	-	-	only for building types in Group 1	√
External works		only if included in the area definition	-	only external structures on yard*	-	-	-	-	√
Furnishing	Fixed furniture	-	-	√	-	-	-	only for building types in Group 1	√
Furnishing	User furniture	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
limit values scope			√= included, (√) = likely included
climate declaration scope
proposed limit value scope
proposed climate declaration scope

*The new proposal (January 2024) states that LCA calculation should be done only for the buildings that are in the scope of limiting value. This could be interpreted that the building site elements will not be included in the calculation. This is still open to be decided after a commenting period: see, https://www.lausuntopalvelu.fi/FI/Proposal/Participation?proposalId=65211281-8a8f-4eb3-9465-ff3246a312c0
** Allowance for exclusion as a special condition of the building resulting from its location

Table 10 Standard values for building elements (as of January 2024).

Standard values		Site preparation	Building services	Fixed furniture and interior finishes
Denmark	BR18	No	Yes, ranges from 33-62 kgCO₂e/m² (A1-3, C3-4) detailed values are provided per module differentiated per building type¹.	No for interior finishes, N/A for fixed furniture
Estonia	Climate Declaration (proposal)	N/A	Yes, same as Finland	No
Finland	Climate Declaration (proposal)	No	Yes², ranges from 33-62 kgCO₂e/m² (A1-3), and 10-96 kgCO₂e/m² (B4), depending on the building type; Standard values for fire extinguishing system and cooling system are provided separately	No
Iceland	Climate Declaration (proposal)	N/A	No	No
Norway	TEK17	N/A	N/A	No
Sweden	Climate Declaration 2022	N/A	N/A	N/A
Sweden	Climate Declaration 2027	development of standard values for earthworks and foundation reinforcements under investigation	Yes, ranges from 12-60 kgCO₂e/m² (A1-5), depending on the building type; detailed values are provided both per module and A1-5 as a sum differentiated per building type³	Yes, ranges from 22-53 kgCO₂e/m² (A1-5), depending on the building type; detailed values are provided both per module and A1-5 as a sum differentiated per building type³

¹Teknologisk Institut & SWECO. (2022). Oplæg til defaultværdier for installationer - enfamiliehuse, rækkehuse. Teknologisk Institut & SWECO.
²Source: https://co2data.fi/rakentaminen/
³Report: ”Referensvärden för klimatpåverkanvid uppförande av byggnader. Version 3, 2023” Appendix 4

A requirement to reduce the climate impact of certain elements may increase the incentives to implement reduction measures in this part of construction. If only included in the climate declaration separately, it increases knowledge in the field and initiates discussions on potential improvements. The latter is the case for the climate impact of groundworks and ground improvements

In Sweden, the term “groundworks and ground improvement” refers to soil stabilisation measures, capillary breaking layers and drainage on the site where the building is to be erected up to insulation under the foundation, including measures two metres outside the façade of a building. Activities that may be performed during groundworks and ground improvements are: basic excavation, subgrade preparation with crushed rock, piling, soil stabilisation, sheet piling, remediation measures and removal of contaminated soil (not off-site remediation), grading, paved surfaces, blasting and felling of trees (Boverket, 2023).

(as part of site preparation) which is becoming more widely discussed in Finland and Sweden and intended to be included in the future climate declarations as a separate item first. The rationale is that comprehensive overviews of the climate impact associated with different land measures or ground conditions currently is lacking. The Swedish Geotechnical Institute is carrying out work within the framework of the project entitled "Klimatdata för grundläggningsmetoder", which will run until 2023. The project has produced no useful public figures to date, but it is widely acknowledged that ground improvements come at a high cost in terms of carbon emissions. There was a case study as part of a project entitled "Klimatdata för grundläggningsmetoder" that showed that the climate impact of driven concrete piles and tubular steel piles in a 36-storey office building in Gothenburg was approximately 90 kg CO₂e per m² GFA. Boverket proposes their inclusion from 2027 to lay the foundation for a potential future value. This proposal has been judged as reasonable from the industry with the precondition that the use of standard values for groundworks is allowable in an initial phase only, and eventually project-specific values are requested. One of the reasons for this is to provide the necessary time to land contractors, as a new group that will be affected by the legislation, to be trained through specialised programmes.

Denmark includes special allowances for components, which have a high climate impact to justifiable function demands. This includes deep foundation for sites with weak soil and particular purposes such as laboratories, security facilities or industry

Tozan, B., Birgisdottir, H., Hoxha, E., Nielsen, L.H. (2023) Regulation on carbon emissions for buildings with special conditions: analysis, calculation model and stakeholder perspectives. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2600 152011. doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2600/15/152011

2.4 Energy Consumption Calculation

From a methodological perspective, the relative importance of the carbon emissions associated with operational energy consumption in the operation of a building does not only depend on the scope of consumptions covered under B6 module (B6.1 “Regulated operational energy”, B6.2 “Unregulated building-related operational energy” and/or B6.3 “Unregulated user-related operational energy” in the EN 15643 nomenclature). It also depends on the impact intensity of the energy sources used. That is why the choice of the energy supply model to be applied in LCA requirements and limit values is considered very important. One of the most essential modelling choices is the choice between present mixes and future mixes that account for future developments in the energy production for electricity, district heating and gas

Zhang, X. (2023) Basics and recommendations on influence of future electricity supplies on LCA-based building assessments - A Contribution to IEA EBC Annex 72. In: IEA EBC Annex 72 - Background information - Assessing life cycle related environmental impacts caused by buildings. Available at https://annex72.iea-ebc.org/publications

. Another important choice is whether to allow the use of provider-specific (i.e. market-based) emission factors when provided in EPDs or other verified sources or to strictly apply a generic mix for all buildings

Peuportier, B., Frischknecht, R., Szalay, Z., Birgisdottir, H., Bohne, R.A., Lasvaux, S., Padey, P., Francart, N. (2023) Basics and recommendations on electricity mix models and their application in buildings LCA - A Contribution to IEA EBC Annex 72. In: IEA EBC Annex 72 - Background information - Assessing life cycle related environmental impacts caused by buildings. Available at https://annex72.iea-ebc.org/publications

. An overview of these choices for the Nordic countries is given in Table 11.

For the introduction of the limit values in Denmark in 2023, the emission factors used for electricity, district heating and gas were calculated in 2020 and include future decarbonisation scenarios. However, recent developments in energy production with an intensive increase in renewable energy sources have led to the development of updated emission factors in 2023, which is meant to reflect the current and future energy system better

See: https://sbst.dk/udgivelser/2023/emissionsfaktorer-for-el-fjernvarme-og-ledningsgas-2025-2075

. The updated emission factors for electricity, district heating, and gas can be used exclusively in module B6 in building LCA. The factors are reduced by nearly 40%, 80% and 45% for electricity, district heating and gas, respectively, compared to the factors developed in 2020 and used in the 2023 limit values

Sørensen, M. N., Høibye, L., & Enersen Maagaard, S. (2023). Emissionsfaktorer for el, fjernvarme og ledningsgas for 2025-2075. Artelia A/S.

. These reductions are due to consideration of the newer 2022-2050 projections by the Danish Energy Agency (DEA), which also incorporate political objectives and not just approved investments (frozen policy). Since the Danish limit values are planned to be updated every two years, it is recommended that the emission factors also be updated every two years, or any time there are major changes in energy projections. Updated decarbonised emission factors have also been published for Estonia and Finland in 2023, with small adjustments still pending. In Sweden, Boverket also suggests that scenario-based emission factors data be developed for electricity and district heating specifically for the proposed 2027 climate declaration (however, it is made clear that how the energy requirements will look like in 2027 depends on the upcoming changes in EPBD). Therefore, a certain consensus can be observed regarding the inclusion of future scenarios for the energy supply.

At the EU level, the Level(s) framework similarly suggests the use of the PRIMES (Price-Induced Market Equilibrium System) model to establish future emission factors for the electricity grid. PRIMES has been used by the European Commission and Directorate-General for Energy (DG Energy) to draw the EU Reference Scenario 2020. PRIMES handles multiple objectives such as GHG emission reductions, energy efficiency and renewable energy targets, and associated constraints.

Table 11 Details behind B6 calculation in Nordic countries, in addition to the B6 scope shown in Table 7 (as of January 2024).

Operational energy consumption calculation (B6)		Calculation method	Energy decarbonisation scenario	Method for decarbonisation scenario	Expected revision and timeline	Possibility to use market-based GWP-values for energy²	Allocation method for CHP fuels³
Denmark	BR18	As for building permission (BR18)	Yes	Danish national policy scenario (COWI 2020)	Update in 2023, new factors will apply for 2025 limit values	No	Heat efficiency of 125% has been used as the allocation key
Estonia	Climate Declaration (proposal)	Based on energy performance minimum requirement method	Yes	Ministry of Environment 2023, Estonian Environmental Research Centre (Keskkonna Uuringute Keskus, KUK)	The scenario was recently developed by Ministry of Environment; it might be adjusted as various roadmaps are not yet published	Under investigation	Unknown
Finland	Climate Declaration (proposal)	As for building permission (YMa1010/2017)	Yes	Finnish national policy scenario (2019)	Update coming in 2023	Currently No	Benefit-sharing method
Iceland	Climate Declaration (proposal)	As for building permission	Iceland already has 99% renewables and district heating, therefore there will be no future scenarios.	N/A	Due to EU and voluntary scheme requirements, updates to energy framework are underway	No	Unknown
Norway	TEK17	N/A¹	N/A¹	N/A¹	N/A	N/A	N/A
Sweden	Climate Declaration 2022	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Sweden	Climate Declaration 2027 (proposal)	Not yet decided, but suggested as the energy rules in BBR	Boverket suggests that they develop scenario-based climate emission factors for electricity and district heating specifically for 2027 climate declarations	Not specified (likely based on the scenarios for the electricity consumption till year 2050 developed by Swedish Energy Agency)	Unknown	No	Unknown
Europe	Level(s)	National, as for building permission	Yes	EU PRIMES model (EU Reference Scenario 2016)	Latest EU Reference Scenario is from 2020	Not specified	Not specified

¹ there is a separate energy requirement calculated according to NS 3031 or measured consumption; expected decarbonisation is considered as such: NOR and EU scenarios, decarbonise linearly by 2050; Market-based values are not permitted to be used.
²i.e. GWP values from specific energy suppliers
³sharing between heat and electricity-associated emissions

Regarding the issue of allowance to use a specific electricity or district heating provider mix, Denmark provides generic emission factors for electricity, district heating, and gas, and Boverket proposes a similar approach for Sweden and 2027 requirements. Methods can however include specific rules for cases where the building occupant is known or if a long-term contract exists with an energy provider. For example, one of the Swiss methods (2,000-Watt society) considers the specific mix of a known provider but only for 50% of the total consumption in order to account for the risk that this situation may change during the actual building use. The inclusion of such rules is under investigation in Estonia.

2.5 Exported Energy Calculation

With the promotion of on-sites renewables through the “solar mandate” under REPowerEU (Member States must ensure the deployment of suitable solar panel installations on new buildings), the importance of appropriate rules to account for the benefits of exported energy increases. According to the EPBD’s definition, ‘exported energy’ means the proportion of the renewable energy generated on the building site that is exported to the energy grid instead of being used on-site for self-use or for other on-site uses (such as electric vehicle charging points). Rules for how renewable energy generated on-site is calculated and allocated to different uses are expected to be an important part of the revision of the EPBD. Member States should take necessary measures so that the benefits of maximising the use of renewable energy on-site, for the building and for other uses, are acknowledged and accounted for in the calculation methodology, taking into account current and future grid capacity.

Treatment of exported energy does not only involve decisions on how savings are allocated but also the supply chain impacts, which are the embodied impacts of the renewable energy systems. The revision of EN 15978, which is in progress, is expected to influence how the countries will adapt their approaches. EN 15978 contains proposals for how the export of energy generated on your own property can be reported in what is known as module D2. That is to say, the societal benefit generated by any net export from a building can be provided as separate information in module D. One argument in favour of including the reporting of exports of locally produced electricity is that this then provides a complete picture of the climate impact from the entire life cycle A–D. Broadly, there are currently three approaches (EBC Annex 72 report

See: https://annex72.iea-ebc.org/Data/publications/B_Luetzkendorf%20et%20al%202022_Assessment%20Methods%20for%20Buildings_v2.pdf

A share of the life cycle-based climate impact of on-site electricity production corresponding to the proportion of self-consumed electricity is accounted for in the building LCA. The rest of the impacts, corresponding to exported electricity, is accounted for in the electricity mix of the buyer of the electricity. This represents the “Step A” approach according to ISO 52’000-1 (clause 9.6.6) and is identical to approach B of the draft version of the revised EN 15978 standard.
The total life cycle-based climate impact of the on-site renewable energy generating system is allocated to the building. The building LCA also includes the potentially avoided impacts from exporting electricity to the national grid (or e.g. future European mix). In the grid mix of the one purchasing the exported electricity, the exported electricity bears the environmental impacts of the national grid (or future European mix). This corresponds to Step B” approach according to ISO 52000-1 (clause 9.6.6)
It is important to stress that in this approach, the avoided impacts have to be evaluated according to an electricity mix which can either correspond to attributional LCA (average mix) or consequential LCA (marginal mix), using hourly, seasonal or annual time step, recent past or future mix etc.
.
The total life cycle-based climate impact of the on-site renewable energy generating system is allocated to the building, and potentially avoided impacts from electricity export are reported as additional information in module D2, which is outside of the building LCA boundaries and therefore not accounted for in the building LCA result contrarily to Approach 2. This is identical to Approach A of the draft version of the revised EN 15978 standard.

Level(s) in its current version supports the third approach where energy that is exported is reported under Module D. It also stated that the scenario for module B6 shall specify, on a per energy carrier basis, both the imported energy used to satisfy the specified demand and the energy that is exported. The scenario shall specify how the imported and exported energy flows are quantified (e.g. the energy generation estimates for the renewable energy technology, including the amount of energy produced on site and how much of this is exported).

In Denmark, the building regulation makes no distinction between self-consumed renewable energy and exported renewable energy. A limited amount of electricity production from renewable energy installations such as solar cells and wind turbines can be included under module B6, corresponding to a reduction in the need for supplied energy of maximum 25 kWh/m²year. Finland declares exported energy as part of its carbon handprint (module D3).

In Sweden, Boverket’s latest proposal suggests excluding the carbon emissions of the production of solar cells in the 2025 limit value, and only reporting them separately in the climate declarations from 2025 (see Table 9). This exclusion is motivated by the fact that the proposed limit values exclude operational energy, and therefore the benefits of on-site renewable electricity production would not be visible. Earlier, a requirement to report net exports of locally produced electricity had been introduced. However, it is no longer considered important, and Boverket has suggested cancelling it. The reasons mentioned are a desire to keep the climate declaration simple, and the fact that these export values would have to be based on assumptions and standard values rather than verifiable measurements, since the climate declaration must be submitted before the building is in operation.

2.6 Biogenic Carbon

The different perspectives on biogenic carbon consideration in LCA in the various countries can highly influence the climate impact outcome of building cases and the decisions and actions of some stakeholders. These implications are important since the competition between biogenic construction products and mineral products affects powerful industrial and economic actors (e.g. the forestry sector and the concrete industry) and potentially has profound implications for greenhouse gas emissions at the national level. Three distinct approaches are currently applied in European regulations: the 0/0 approach, the -1/+1 approach and the time-dependent approach

Ouellet-Plamondon, C. M., Ramseier, L., Balouktsi, M., Delem, L., Foliente, G., Francart, N., Garcia-Martinez, A., Hoxha, E., Lützkendorf, T., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Peuportier, B., Butler, J., Birgisdottir, H., Dowdell, D., Dixit, M. K., Gomes, V., Gomes da Silva, M., Gómez de Cózar, J. C., Kjendseth Wiik, M., … Frischknecht, R. (2023). Carbon footprint assessment of a wood multi-residential building considering biogenic carbon. Journal of Cleaner Production, 404, 136834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136834

. The 0/0 approach considers a value of 0 for biogenic carbon in both modules A and C. The -1/+1 approach considers an uptake of carbon in module A (negative emissions, corresponding to plant growth) and a corresponding emission in module C (carbon leaving the building life cycle for being released to the atmosphere through waste process or transfer to next life cycle). The time-dependent approach accounts for the benefits of temporary or semi-permanent carbon storage in biogenic products. The first two approaches are applied in the Nordic countries, favouring one over another depending on the scope covered in the declaration and/or limit values (as seen in Table 12).

In Denmark, the already introduced building regulation applies the -1/+1 approach as part of the GWP-total indicator since the Danish industry climate emission factors for biogenic products are still compliant with EN 15804 version A1, where only this GWP indicator is provided. GWP-total covers climate impact from land use (GWP-luluc), fossil fuels (GWP-fossil) and biogenic sources (GWP-bio). Data includes CO₂ removal in modules A1–A3 and emissions releases in modules C3-4 without separating between fossil and biogenic shares. Finland follows a similar approach with the difference that it additionally requires the reporting of the biogenic carbon as part of the carbon handprint (D4 Carbon storage effect). The Finnish legislation recommends using the national emission factors database CO2data.fi, which currently provides conservative and typical values for GWP-fossil and GWP-biogenic values separately. With the shift to EN 15804 version A2, Denmark is planning to provide separate values for biogenic carbon in its generic data to make their reporting possible.

On the other hand, Sweden, Norway and Estonia follow the 0/0 approach and consider neither fixation nor releases of biogenic carbon in any of the modules. Sweden and Norway require using the indicator GWP-GHG which accounts for emissions from land-use and fossil fuels, while Estonia proposes using GWP-GHG or GWP-fossil (which only includes emissions from fossil fuels). For the first two countries, the rationale is that they do not yet include end-of-life modules C3-4 in their scopes. The 0/0 approach is also adopted in the soon to be released science-based target (SBT) guidance for buildings as only upfront embodied carbon is covered

See: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/DRAFT_SBTI_Buildings_Guidance.pdf

. In this approach, the challenge lies in the use of product-specific data sources pursuant to EN 15804 version A1. Although it is no longer possible to create new EPDs pursuant to EN 15804:A1 after late 2022, EPDs are generally valid for five years, therefore EN 15804:A1 EPDs will still be in the market until 2027. For Swedish and Norwegian legislations, it therefore is important for the GWP indicator to be reported in the data sources in a way that the exclusion of biogenic carbon from the construction product is possible.

Table 12 Handling of biogenic carbon in the Nordic countries (as of January 2024).

	Denmark BR18	Estonia Proposed climate declaration	Finland Proposed climate declaration	Iceland Proposal under development (2023)	Norway TEK17	Sweden Climate declaration 2022	Sweden Climate declaration 2027 (proposal)
How is biogenic carbon handled?	-1/+1 method. GWP-total values are required by legislation.	0/0 method. GWP-fossil or GWP-GHG values will be required by legislation	-1/+1 method. GWP-total values are required by legislation. Biogenic carbon is included separately (as GWPbio indicator and in category D4 of carbon handprint)	-1/+1 method. GWP-total values will be required by legislation. Biogenic carbon to be included separately (as GWPbio indicator)	0/0 method. GWP-GHG values are required by legislation	0/0 method. GWP-GHG values are required by legislation	To align with upcoming EPBD provisions
GWP-bio reported separately	Not yet, but soon (shift to EN 15804+A2)	No	Yes (see above)	Yes (see above)	No	No	No
GWP-luluc reported separately	Not yet, but soon (shift to EN 15804+A2)	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No

The accounting method for biogenic carbon used in France is notably quite different. In France, the use of a simplified dynamic approach to climate impact calculation leads to negative whole life GWP values for a lot of biogenic materials. The dynamic approach applies weighting factors depending on when the impact will occur and hence puts a lower weight on impact generated in the future versus those created now, thereby considering the benefits of temporarily storing carbon in buildings. The coefficient varies from 1 (year 0) to 0.58 (year 50) for all types of products except for the coefficient for cooling agents released from technical systems (presents a lower variation from 1-0.88). For products for which the greater share of carbon emissions is taking place during the product stage (A1-3) such as concrete and steel, the choice between a static and a dynamic approach does not lead to great variations. Conversely, the dynamic approach significantly benefits biogenic products such as timber that have a low impact today due to sequestrated biogenic carbon and a (potentially) heavier impact in the future, if these products are incinerated.

The actual benefits of biogenic carbon storage are highly dependent on assumptions about the end of life of biogenic materials, as well as assumptions about the sustainability of forestry practices. The choice of accounting method for biogenic carbon, and in particular whether or not to consider the benefits of temporary or semi-permanent carbon storage in biogenic products, is in part a political decision.

2.7 Other Methodological Features

The expected change of carbon intensity of electricity, district heating and gas supplies will not only affect the carbon emissions associated with the operational energy consumption of a building but also the embodied emissions of future construction products and direct emissions from transport services and construction activities. Currently, climate declarations mostly focus on the influence of future energy supply on the impact of operational energy, but not on the other aspects. In addition to the energy sector, the construction product manufacturing industry is also anticipated to become cleaner, e.g. through change from fossil fuels to biogas or hydrogen, process optimisation and implementation of mitigation measures such as carbon capture and storage for process-related emissions. Furthermore, improvements in recycling rates of future construction products are also anticipated. Considering that replacements (B4) of some building products take place in 20-40 years from the moment a new building is constructed, adapted inventories for different time periods become relevant for some construction products

Alig, M., Frischknecht, R., Krebs, L., Ramseier, L., & Stolz, P. (2020). LCA of climate friendly construction materials. https://treeze.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/Publications/Case_Studies/Building_and_Construction/670_LCA_constructionMaterials_1.5C_v1.4.pdf

These considerations are currently debated in Finland without a definitive decision yet. The FutureBuilt Zero voluntary method in Norway does consider these effects (Resch et al. 2022

Resch, E., Wiik, M. K., Tellnes, L. G., Andresen, I., Selvig, E., & Stoknes, S. (2022, September). FutureBuilt Zero-A simplified dynamic LCA method with requirements for low carbon emissions from buildings. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1078, No. 1, p. 012047). IOP Publishing.

). Particularly, this method follows a simplified approach, where: (a) a technology factor of 0.33 is assumed for the production of PV systems in year 30 (i.e. 2/3 reduction over 30 years); (b) for other material-related processes (production, transport and waste incineration) an 1% annual technology development is used, which is based on historical development in Norwegian industry. Therefore, the same development is assumed for all building materials, except for energy-producing equipment (solar cell systems) where the reduction can be assumed to be greater.

There is an ongoing discussion in society about carbon offsetting and removal measures and what could be part of a net zero building, especially when looking at balancing the whole life cycle emissions. At the moment, it is difficult to determine the type of allowable measures for this owed to the lack of consensus. Thus no Nordic country has established any rules for this aspect yet. With the proposed EU-wide framework to certify carbon removals generated in Europe

https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/sustainable-carbon-cycles/carbon-removal-certification_en

, this discussion is expected to be intensified also in the Nordic countries.