It is not an EPD tool. An EPD is regarded as the gold standard when assessing environmental impacts, our tool only looks at embodied carbon.

The vast majority of the data in the TM65 tool is from the ICE carbon database, you can download it for free here. We do have some other sources, but these are less reliable and are UK focussed, so may not be providing data that would be applicable in Australia. We have also found that the power grid coefficients in Australia are different to Europe and also travel distances for component supplies is also greater in the Southern Hemisphere. As such, we have been working on an adaptation of the tool and TM65 guidance to deal with these variations specifically for the Australia and New Zealand markets, which is available on our website.

Use the ones provided, again, tis is to make a level playing field. We may update the values in the future, but for now this is what we require.

It is tricky to complete for a product range. It would need to be completed for each member of that range.

Please ensure that you are using the ANZ version of the tool. This refines values and assumptions for your part of the world. The values for each material are the same for all manufacturers, so replacing the value for aluminium with a bespoke value will invalidate the calculation. To use specific values for each material would require an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) to verify that the values quoted by your suppliers are accurate.

We suggest to use the value for iron as a reasonable substitute.

CIBSE Certification is working with selected manufacturers on an Embodied Carbon verification scheme based on the TM65 methodology, and the number of participants will be expanded in due course.

In the meantime if you would like to take part in the scheme, or have any questions, then feel free to email us at [email protected]

The input for ANZ is the same as for elsewhere, so the existing form does all you need it to. It is in the calculation tool that there are differences.

[email protected]

That would require the 3rd party verification, or find an external sustainability engineer to verify for you.

Currently not possible, as Salesforce has no ability to have organisations as entities. We are working on this for other reasons, so we could develop this later.

There are non-editable cells in the tool, this is to make sure that it always has the same fields and format, as we are looking to machine read TM65 responses into a larger database to do further carbon analysis on building services products.

This also answers your second point about refrigerants. While we recognise that not all products contain refrigerant, it is the biggest contributor to climate change gases in our industry, so we need to look at it carefully. We have built in options for you to respond to these cells. Responding in this way will keep the format consistent for us to read data into our database (if you agree that we can do this) and removes refrigerant from the calculation. We are also working on updating the tool slightly to include more materials that are commonly used in the manufacture of luminaires. This has been done in consultation with the SLL and several manufacturers, so hopefully this will help you also.

Use the assumptions in the document, this makes sure that equivalent products are treated equally.

TM65 is not a life cycle assessment, it is an embodied carbon assessment. For a full life cycle analysis you need to add in operational carbon

You can add materials to the replacement list and apply a 0% value.

The AIA value is probably for virgin material. We use the University of Bath ICE data, which includes 30% recycled material, hence the lower value. Our values are from the peer reviewed study by the University of Bath, so we know that they are of the correct magnitude, even if they are not the exact values for your supplier.

The recycled content column is not actually doing anything right now. The reason for this is that there is insufficient data on the embodied carbon rates for recycled materials. We are working on gathering this data and a satisfactory method of applying it, but this is not straightforward, as there are many ways in which materials can be recycled, each of which has different carbon intensities.

Yes, that’s absolutely fine – we’d like the method to be used as much as possible. Please do attribute to CIBSE. Please do also send any Manufacturer’s Forms or Reporting Forms back to us – we would like to create an embodied carbon database, in order to be more helpful to the industry.

We would recommend that a manufacturer either completes a manufacturer form and gets it assessed by a third party (hard to find right now) or uses the self-assessment tool (DT65ANZ).

There currently is no process, but we are working on a 3rd party verification scheme with CIBSE Certification which we hope will be available later this year.

We are still collating TM65 data and it is currently rather widely dispersed, so we just don’t know right now, but that will be rectified when we get the database up and running.

The input for ANZ is the same as for elsewhere, so the existing form does all you need it to. It is in the calculation tool that there are differences.

[email protected]

That would require the 3rd party verification, or find an external sustainability engineer to verify for you.

Currently not possible, as Salesforce has no ability to have organisations as entities. We are working on this for other reasons, so we could develop this later.

We would recommend that a manufacturer either completes a manufacturer form and gets it assessed by a third party (hard to find right now) or uses the self-assessment tool (DT65ANZ).

There currently is no process, but we are working on a 3rd party verification scheme with CIBSE Certification which we hope will be available later this year.

We are still collating TM65 data and it is currently rather widely dispersed, so we just don’t know right now, but that will be rectified when we get the database up and running.

An addendum can be developed by a local group, institution or professional body (we will refer to this body as the ‘proposing institution’ below).   

The roles coordinated by the proposing institution may be carried out in a voluntary capacity, may become a part of an existing role, or may be paid. Covering necessary costs will be the responsibility of the proposing institution. To discuss specifics, email [email protected]. 

The proposing institution should discuss this with CIBSE. The local addendum must be read in conjunction with Embodied carbon in building services: A calculation methodology (TM65), which can be purchased at www.cibse.org/knowledge, but may also be made available for sale by the proposing institution. 

CIBSE Training offers sessions on TM65, but training is not mandatory.  

Some roles should be coordinated by the proposing institution: 

• Working Group members (individuals representing a mix of disciplines) to discuss and agree local assumptions  
• Chair (and possibly vice-chair) of the working group, who will liaise with CIBSE and coordinate the working group workshops  
• Author or authors of the addendum, to develop content for the working group sessions, liaise with the CIBSE Embodied Carbon Steering Group and liaise with the CIBSE Knowledge team during the peer review, editing and production phase.  

Some roles will be coordinated by CIBSE: 

• CIBSE Embodied Carbon Steering Group 
• CIBSE Knowledge Project Manager 
• CIBSE Knowledge (editor, typesetter) 

This will vary according to locality, so is for the proposing institution to decide. Previous experience suggests that a minimum of four working group sessions will be required, which would equate to around 10-14 hours of time from each working group member. However, this will increase if a large number of stakeholders are involved or if the situation is complex.  

A possible plan for a straightforward locality might look like this: 

• Prepare for session one: read Embodied carbon in building services: A calculation methodology (TM65) and Embodied carbon in building services: Using the TM65 methodology outside the UK (TM65LA) (roughly one hour)  

• • Session 1 (90 minutes): What is the TM65 methodology? 

• Preparation work to develop the assumptions (one to two hours) 

• • Session 2 (90 minutes): What assumptions need to change for our locality? 

• Preparation work to further develop the assumptions (one to two hours) 

• • Session 3 (90 minutes): Review and agree revised assumptions 

• Review and comment the addendum draft (one to two hours) 

• • Session 4 (90 minutes): Presentation of the final output. 

All manufacturer forms and reporting forms must be emailed to [email protected]. This information will be used by CIBSE to develop a generic database of building services equipment.

If you would like to collaborate on the development of a database, please contact CIBSE. 

CIBSE Certification is working with selected manufacturers on an Embodied Carbon verification scheme based on the TM65 methodology, and the number of participants will be expanded in due course.

In the meantime if you would like to take part in the scheme, or have any questions, then feel free to email us at [email protected]