Final Report - Pathway to 2020 for Increased
Stringency in New Building Energy Efficiency
Standards:
Benefit Cost Analysis: Commercial
Buildings: 2016 Update
transport | community | mining | industrial | food & beverage | carbon & energy
Document Details
Prepared for:
Department of Industry, Innovation and
Science
Client representative:
Stanford Harrison
Date:
10 May 2016
Rev01
Inspired thinking embracing
the challenges of a changing world.
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Summary of Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Results – All Australia ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1
No learning rate .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2
Learning rate 3% p.a for 10 years ....................................................................................................... 4
2.3
Learning rate 100% after 7 years ........................................................................................................ 4
2.4
Breakeven (BCR 1.0) results by climate zone...................................................................................... 5
Discussion of updated results ........................................................................................................................ 8
Comparison with 2012 results ....................................................................................................................... 9
Research Questions ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Prepared by:
Phil McLeod
Date: 10th May 2016
Reviewed by:
Philip Harrington
Date: 10th May 2016
© 2016 pitt&sherry
This document is and shall remain the property of pitt&sherry. The document may only be used for the purposes for
which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use
of this document in any form is prohibited.
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
1.
Summary of Analysis
Purpose
This purpose of this study is to update the findings of the building benefit/cost analysis, for commercial
buildings, undertaken for the report Pathway to 2020 for Increased Stringency in New Building Energy
Efficiency Standards: Benefit Cost Analysis (2012). The 2012 study analysed the range of cost-effective
savings in the energy consumption of new buildings that could be achieved in Australia by 2015 and 2020,
relative to buildings compliant with the current, 2010 version of the Building Code of Australia (BCA2010),
based on a number of defined scenarios. It was commissioned by the former Department of Climate
Change and Energy Efficiency as a contribution to the National Building Energy Framework measure
described in the former National Strategy on Energy Efficiency.
In December 2015 the COAG Energy Council agreed to the National Energy Productivity Plan which includes
a measure to advance the building energy performance requirements in the National Construction Code
(measure 31). In this context the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science commissioned an update
on the benefit cost analysis contained in the 2012 report, for commercial buildings only, to help inform
potential policy settings for future.
This updated analysis largely repeats the 2012 study methodology, albeit with contemporary price and
building stock observations and revised policy scenarios, as described below. The purpose of this study to
help inform potential policy settings for building energy performance requirements in 2019 for Class 3 and
5 – 9 buildings in the National Construction Code. The original study and this updated analysis should be
read in conjunction with each other. Due to the change in policy scenarios, the results of the 2012 study
and 2016 Update are not strictly comparable. That said, some scenarios in the two reports overlap and, as
discussed below, the findings of the two reports are consistent with each other.
The performance levels identified here as being cost effective should be regarded as indicative only, as they
are based on a point-in-time analysis of technical building performance improvement potentials and
associated economic costs and benefits, for a limited number of building types, climate zones and policy
scenarios. The scope of this project did not allow for revised cost estimation or new building simulation
modelling. This would tend make the results conservative, as new materials, technologies, design concepts
and cost reductions that have become available since 2012 would be likely to increase the scope of cost
effective savings.
Approach
In summary this updated benefit cost analysis uses:

Commercial building forms, building specifications and climate zones as per the 2012 Report;

Contemporary energy price projections based on AEMO forecasts without a carbon price with two
different shadow carbon prices i) based on latest ERF auction outcomes ($12.25 tonne) increasing at
CPI and ii) the medium scenario from the Climate Change Authority (CCA) 2014 Targets and Progress
Review; 1;

3 learning rates i) 0% (no learning) ii) 100% after 7 years (i.e the incremental cost falls to zero after 7
years), and iii) 3% per annum for 10 years.

Changes in incremental costs since the original study, and also changes in the ‘opportunity set’ due to
new/improved materials or technologies, have not been accounted for here;
1
The shadow price of carbon in this scenario begins at $5.49/t CO 2-e in 2015 and rises to $30.14 in 2020, $36.67 in
2025, $44.61 in 2030 and $56.45 by 2036.
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
1

A 7% real discount rate.
The benefit cost analysis assumes that new performance requirements are introduced in FY2019-20,
consistent with an assumed start date of May 2019. It applies to a ‘cohort’ of buildings constructed
between 2020 – 20242. All buildings are assumed to have an economic life of 40 years and the benefit cost
analysis is conducted over this period. Cost effective levels of energy savings are calculated on a breakeven
basis (benefit-cost ratio of 1) and benefit-cost ratios of 1.2 and 1.5.
Table 1 below shows the effect the different carbon price scenarios have on commercial electricity price
forecasts in NSW (as an example). The carbon prices are relatively modest, so there is not a great difference
in electricity price forecasts, particularly between the no and low carbon price scenario.
Table 1: Commercial (medium business) electricity price forecasts under different carbon price scenarios
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2032
2031
2030
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
No carbon price
Low carbon price ($12.25
tonne rising with CPI)
Medium carbon price (based
on CCA targets and progress
review)
2020
Electricity price NSW ($/GJ)
42.9
42.8
42.9
44.3
45.8
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
45.9
45.9
46.0
47.4
48.9
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.5
50.4
50.6
51.0
52.8
54.6
56.6
56.9
57.3
57.7
58.1
58.6
59.0
59.5
60.0
60.5
61.0
Table 2 shows how the incremental cost rate varies under the different learning rate scenarios. Learning
rates refer to the rate of reduction in incremental costs through time, consequent upon at least two
factors: first, innovation in designs, methods, tools, techniques and know-how; and second, reductions in
the unit costs of components, particularly those induced by the measure (for example, regulation may lead
to increased economies of scale or induce innovation in the supply chain).
The example below is the additional cost to achieve a 40% energy reduction (compared to BCA 2010) for a
3-storey office building in Sydney. Under the no learning rate scenario incremental costs remain unchanged
for the 5-year cohort of buildings. On the other hand, under the highest learning rate scenario, incremental
costs are assumed to fall from $153/m2 in 2020 to $31/m2 by 2024. We note that there is uncertainty
regarding the ‘correct’ value for the learning rate, hence the sensitivity analysis on a range of possible
values. Ideally further quantitative research would be undertaken in this area.
Table 2: Difference in incremental cost rates under different learning rate scenarios
Learning rate
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
No learning rate
$153/m2
$153/m2
$153/m2
$153/m2
$153/m2
3% p.a for 10 years
Falling to 0% after 7 years (5% learning rate for the first two
years, 15% in years three and four, 10% in year five, then 5%
for years six and seven).
$153/m2
$148/m2
$144/m2
$139/m2
$135/m2
$153/m2
$115/m2
$77/m2
$54/m2
$31/m2
2
As per the original report, the working assumption is that Code revisions may occur every 5 years, and therefore only
a 5-year cohort is modelled.
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
2
Key Findings
This updated analysis confirms the findings of the 2012 study that there are very significant cost effective
opportunities for energy savings in new commercial buildings in 2020 relative to (BCA) 2010, particularly
when a BCR target of 1 or 1.2 is selected.
For example, even if no learning is assumed, average savings of 35% are cost effective with a low shadow
carbon price and a BCR of 1. With a higher shadow carbon price and a target BCR of 1, savings of 47% on
average are cost effective, even with no learning. If learning is set at 100% over 7 years, then savings of
between 50% and up to 80% are shown to be cost-effective, depending upon the scenario selected. At the
other end of the spectrum, if a target BCR of 1.5 is specified and no learning, then savings (of 14%) are cost
effective only with the ‘medium’ carbon price assumption, and none at all with lower carbon price
assumptions.
This summary illustrates the sensitivity of what is deemed to be ‘cost effective’ as a function of key
parameter assumptions, and notably the learning rate. We conclude from this that careful and evidencebased research, and not assumptions, should be used as the basis for determining key values – or better,
ranges of values – when undertaking full benefit-cost analysis and regulatory impact assessment.
That said, while there are variations in the degree of cost effective savings by climate zone and by building
type, and by policy scenario, these variations are around mean values which are high and quite robust in
the face of the sensitivity analyses included in this study. This overall result is attributed primarily to the
relatively low stringency for commercial buildings in BCA20103, which means that many opportunities for
energy savings that were cost effective at that time were not taken up. Secondly, energy prices have risen
more strongly than was anticipated in the 2012 study, offsetting the reduction in actual/shadow carbon
prices.
We stress that these findings are based on a limited-scope update of certain modelling parameters.
Further and more comprehensive analysis would be required to support a regulation impact assessment,
for example. That said, we consider it likely that if an updated ‘savings opportunity set’ were modelled,
along with updated incremental costs, higher savings than those reported here would be deemed cost
effective (for each policy scenario).
2.
Results – All Australia
The results below are presented under the 3 learning rate scenarios. For each scenario results are then
shown for the 3 different energy prices modelled. Percentage energy reductions from BCA 2010 are
weighted averages for all relevant commercial buildings in Australia. Energy intensities as a result of the
energy savings are also shown. The energy intensities are also weighted averages based on the proportions
of the total Australia stock in each climate zone.
2.1
No learning rate
Table 1 below shows that even with no learning rate, energy savings can be achieved under each energy
price scenario at break-even and BCR 1.2 levels. At higher energy costs because of a carbon price, the more
3
The 2012 study found that the BCA2010 stringency level was associated with a BCR of around 2.2, meaning that very
many cost effective savings were not taken up at that time. Generally the level of cost effective savings tends to
increase through time, due to at least three factors: real energy price increases; real cost declines (typically but not
always) in key energy using equipment, designs and materials; and adoption of new techniques and ‘industry
standards’ over time for market/non-regulatory reasons, such as meeting NABERS or Green Star targets.
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
3
cost effective energy savings become. Energy savings of 14% at the benefit cost ratio of 1.5 can be achieved
under the medium carbon price scenario.
Table 3: All Australia results, no learning rate
No carbon price
ERF (low) carbon price
Medium carbon price
BCR
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
1.0
29%
358
35%
328
47%
268
1.2
13%
436
20%
401
34%
330
14%
428
1.5
*
*
* Can’t be achieved for this scenario
2.2
Learning rate 3% p.a for 10 years
Table 2 below shows the results where the learning rate is a modest 3% per annum for 10 years. So after 10
years the incremental cost has reduced by 30% and thereafter there is no further reduction. Break even
energy savings of up to 53% can be achieved under the medium carbon price scenario. Energy savings at a
BCR of 1.5 are realized for the low and medium carbon price scenarios; 7% and 23% respectively.
Table 4: All Australia results, learning rate 30% after 10 years
No carbon price scenario
ERF carbon price
BCR
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
1.0
37%
320
42%
292
53%
238
1.2
22%
390
28%
358
41%
294
7%
462
23%
384
1.5
*
Medium carbon price
* Can’t be achieved for this scenario
2.3
Learning rate 100% after 7 years
Table 3 below shows the results where the learning rate increases to 100% after 7 years. Significant breakeven energy savings, ranging from 70% to 80% depending on energy prices, can be achieved. Under this
learning rate scenario energy savings of at least 50% can be achieved for a BCR of 1.5.
Table 5: All Australia results, learning rate 100% after 7 years
No carbon price scenario
ERF (low) carbon price
Medium carbon price
BCR
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
% energy reduction
from BCA2010
MJ/m2.a
1.0
70%
150
73%
134
80%
102
1.2
62%
189
66%
170
73%
133
1.5
50%
250
54%
228
63%
182
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
4
2.4
Breakeven (BCR 1.0) results by climate zone
The tables below show a breakdown of results by climate zone for the break-even energy savings for each
of the scenarios described above. There is a reasonable spread of results by climate zone, with the hotter
climate zones with greater electricity use for space conditioning, and also those with higher electricity
prices, tending to show more cost effective savings. At the highest learning rate (tables 10-12) the level of
break-even energy savings is the greatest.
2.4.1 No learning rate
No carbon price
Table 6: No learning rate, no carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
Weighted average
35%
68%
46%
30%
26%
7%
40%
32%
29%
326
233
285
350
374
468
297
363
358
ERF carbon price
Table 7: No learning rate, ERF carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
Weighted average
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
41%
70%
51%
34%
17%
16%
42%
38%
35%
294
221
260
328
415
422
286
332
328
5
Medium carbon price
Table 8: No learning rate, medium carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
Weighted average
50%
76%
59%
44%
21%
35%
50%
47%
47%
248
179
215
281
396
323
246
284
268
2.4.2 Learning rate 3% per annum
No carbon price
Table 9: Learning rate 3% per annum, no carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
Weighted average
41%
73%
53%
38%
33%
17%
46%
38%
37%
293
200
251
311
337
417
264
328
320
ERF carbon price
Table 10: Learning rate 3% per annum, ERF carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
Weighted average
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
47%
74%
57%
42%
25%
25%
48%
44%
42%
264
189
229
290
377
376
254
299
292
6
Medium carbon price
Table 11: Learning rate 3% per annum, medium carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
Weighted average
56%
79%
64%
50%
29%
43%
56%
52%
53%
222
151
189
248
359
286
218
256
238
2.4.3 Learning rate 100% after 7 years
No carbon price
Table 12: Learning rate 100% after 7 years, no carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
70%
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
Weighted average
93%
80%
73%
65%
62%
76%
67%
70%
149
55
106
135
176
193
116
173
150
ERF carbon price
Table 13: Learning rate 100% after 7 years, ERF carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
74%
93%
82%
75%
60%
66%
77%
71%
131
49
93
124
203
169
111
154
7
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Weighted average
73%
134
Medium carbon price
Table 14: Learning rate 100% after 7 years, medium carbon price results
Climate zone
%
Energy
reduction from
MJ/m2.a
BCA 2010
Sydney (CZ5)
Darwin (CZ1)
Brisbane (CZ2)
Adelaide (CZ5)
Hobart (CZ7)
Melbourne (CZ6)
Perth (CZ5)
Canberra (CZ7)
Weighted average
3.
79%
96%
87%
80%
62%
77%
82%
76%
80%
106
26
70
101
192
116
90
128
102
Discussion of updated results
While the different energy price scenarios affect the results to some degree, the biggest influence on the
varying level of energy savings is the learning rate. Under the no carbon price scenario, for example, breakeven energy savings range from 29% (all Australia results) where the learning rate is zero, to 70% where the
learning rate is 100% after 7 years.
As reported in 2012, a key driver of the generally high level of cost effective energy savings for commercial
building results is the relatively low starting point implicit in BCA2010. Further, it is generally accepted in
the building industry that industry standards and practices have moved on significantly in recent years, in
part due to the influence of programs such as NABERS and Green Star, but also due to new technologies
and a growing appreciation of the value of energy efficiency. Due to relatively modest performance
requirements being set in 2010, many savings opportunities that were cost effective at that time were not
taken up. As a result, they remain available, and this significantly increases the overall level of savings that
are available now.
In addition, energy prices for electricity and gas, and also the mix of fuels used in different building types
and climate zones, impact on the results. These effects are accentuated in commercial as distinct from
residential buildings due to their significantly higher energy intensity (energy use per square metre).
The relatively lower level of cost effective savings in Canberra, Hobart and Melbourne is largely attributable
to higher gas use in these cooler climates, with gas savings being less valuable than electricity savings, and
also due to relatively lower electricity prices in those states. By contrast, the hotter climate zones with
greater electricity use for space conditioning, and also those with higher electricity prices, tend to show
more cost effective savings.
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
8
4.
Comparison with 2012 results
The 2012 study called for an analysis of energy savings at ‘break-even’ benefit cost ratio (BCR = 1), although
some scenarios also tested a BCR of 1.2. The 2012 study used two different discount rates, and for this
section we report only those with a 7% real discount rate. In terms of policy scenarios, the 2012 study
specification required that scenarios reflected a mix of different carbon prices and differing learning rates
rather than treating these independently.
Specifically, Scenario 1 in the 2012 study assumed no carbon prices and no learning and so is comparable to
the similar scenario from this study. Scenario 2 in the 2012 study assumed 3% p.a. learning rate and a ‘low’
carbon price assumption. The carbon price assumptions for that study were based on the “Government
policy” (Scenario 2) and “High price” (Scenario 3) based respectively on scenarios in the Treasury’s 2011
economic modelling of the Clean Energy Future legislative package. We note that this carbon price
assumption was higher than the ‘medium’ carbon price scenario in this report.. Scenario 3 in the 2012
study assumed a 5% p.a. learning rate over 10 years (that is, 50% of the incremental costs remain after 10
years) and a carbon price trajectory of $27.50 in 2013, $62/t in 2020, and $147.80 by 2035.
With no carbon price and no learning, the break-even (BCR = 1) 2016 results are lower than the 2012 ones.
29% energy savings would be cost effective in 2016, compared to 44% savings in 2012 for a similar scenario.
The lower savings in 2016 are due to the difference in forecast electricity prices used for the original and
updated study (see table 15 below as an example). The electricity price forecasts used in 2012 were for
medium/small consumers. The 2016 prices are for medium consumers and are lower than the 2012 prices.
We believe the owner of a medium size office building or small shopping mall is more likely to pay the
medium consumer price, although the issue of commercial prices, and who pays what, is increasingly less
transparent in the wake of full retail contestability. Another factor leading to lower savings in 2016 is that
assumptions about network costs were higher in 2012 than now, reflecting the expected lower level of
network infrastructure investment in coming years when compared with the past five years or more.
Table 15: Comparison of forecast electricity prices used in 2012 and 2016 (NSW)
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2030
2031
2032
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
Electricity price
2016 update
42.9
42.8
42.9
44.3
45.8
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
47.4
2012 study
56.0
56.2
56.4
56.5
56.7
57.3
58.2
57.1
57.3
55.6
55.9
56.2
56.5
56.4
56.0
56.2
NSW ($/GJ)
In the 2012 study, the learning rate was not able to be varied independently of other variables, and nor
were carbon prices, whereas in 2016 we have treated these variables separately, to better illustrate their
relative contributions to the overall results. Therefore we can see that even in the ‘no carbon price’
scenario, the cost effective level of energy performance is highly contingent on the learning rate
assumption. A very modest learning rate of 3% per year – which we consider unrealistically low – already
lifts the cost effective improvement from 29% to 37%, while an assumption of 100% learning over 7 years
lifts the figure to 70%.
5.
Research Questions
The comparison of the 2012 and 2016 study results reinforces the need to address some key research
questions.
First, amongst these is the choice of an appropriate learning rate. Since this is clearly a significant variable,
an evidence-based, rather than assumption-based, approach is critical. Targeted research using sound
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
9
methodologies needs to be undertaken to establish a value or plausible range of values for modelling
purposes. Industry stakeholders may be able to contribute to this research, but there is a clear risk of
strategic bias that must be understood and designed into the research methodology.
Second, the choice of benefit cost ratio for regulation impact assessment purposes also requires a rigorous
treatment. There is widely held belief that higher benefit cost ratios are ‘better’ than lower ones, or,
secondly, that a BCR > 1 should be used as a ‘confidence margin’, or to manage possible uncertainty in
results. These have no basis in economic or public finance theory. Setting a policy target where the BCR >
1 by definition means that cost-effective savings opportunities are being foregone, creating an opportunity
cost of foregone economic welfare. Where there is uncertainty in values, the first-best solution is conduct
evidence-based research to reduce that uncertainty. Second, for remaining and legitimate uncertainty,
appropriate valuation techniques such as the use of probability-weighted or ‘expected’ values, or ranges of
results, should be used rather than varying benefit cost ratios as a proxy.
Third, we note again that this quick update has not updated underlying cost assumptions, the energy
savings opportunity set or the cost/savings opportunities in mechanical equipment and lighting, etc.
Fourth, both the 2012 and 2016 studies have an implicit assumption that NCC energy performance
requirements are in fact complied with. However, our 2014 National Energy Efficient Buildings Project
Phase 1 report raises material doubt about that. As recommended in that report, we note that significant
quantitative research will be required to establish the extent and materiality of non-compliances with
respect to their impact on the actual energy performance of the building stock.
pitt&sherry ref: HB16076/Final Report 31-P/Rev 01
10
Contact: Philip Harrington
Senior Principal, Carbon & Energy
[email protected]
(03) 6210 1489
0419 106 449
transport | community | mining | industrial | food & beverage | carbon & energy
Contact Details
Brisbane
Devonport
Launceston
Level 2
276 Edward Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
T: (07) 3221 0080
F: (07) 3221 0083
Level 1
35 Oldaker Street
PO Box 836
Devonport TAS 7310
T: (03) 6424 1641
F: (03) 6424 9215
Level 4
113 Cimitiere Street
PO Box 1409
Launceston TAS 7250
T: (03) 6323 1900
F: (03) 6334 4651
Canberra
Hobart
Melbourne
LGF, Ethos House
28-36 Ainslie Place
Canberra City ACT 2601
PO Box 122
Civic Square ACT 2608
T: (02) 6274 0100
199 Macquarie Street
GPO Box 94
Hobart TAS 7001
T: (03) 6210 1400
F: (03) 6223 1299
Level 1, HWT Tower
40 City Road
Southbank VIC 3006
PO Box 259
South Melbourne VIC 3205
T: (03) 9682 5290
F: (03) 9682 5292
E: [email protected]
W: Pitt & Sherry
incorporated as
Pitt & Sherry (Operations) Pty Ltd
ABN 67 140 184 309