Infratil releases Climate Related Disclosures

Infratil Limited 5 Market Lane, PO Box 320, Wellington, New Zealand Tel +64-4-473 3663 www.infratil.com
30 July 2024


Infratil releases Climate Related Disclosures

Infratil Limited (Infratil) (NZX/ASX: IFT) is pleased to announce the release of its FY2024 Climate
Related Disclosures (CRD).

This is our second CRD report, and the first under the mandatory NZ Climate Standards regime. We
have sought to be consistent with our FY2023 CRD where appropriate, to support comparability, whilst
also building on the information provided last year to align with the requirements of the NZ Climate
Standards.

This report covers the twelve months to 31 March 2024 and should be read in conjunction with Infratil’s
FY2023 Sustainability Report and CRD and FY2024 Annual Report.

The CRD document is available here.

For additional information on Infratil’s sustainability and responsible investment approach, please see
our website at https://infratil.com/responsible-investment/



Any enquiries should be directed to:

Louise Tong
Executive Director, Sustainability, Risk & Funding
louise.tong@morrisonglobal.com

---

Climate Related Disclosures 2024
Investing wisely in
ideas that matter

Disclaimer
This report sets out our understanding of, and
response to Infratil’s climate-related risks and
opportunities, our approach to scenario analysis,
our current and anticipated impacts of climate
change and our strategy to respond to these risks
and opportunities. This reflects our current
understanding as of 30 July 2024 in respect of our
financial year ending 31 March 2024. Infratil is
required to produce group climate statements
under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013
(FMCA) that comply with the Aotearoa NZ Climate
Standards for FY2024 (1 April 2023 – 31 March
2024).
This report contains disclosures that rely on
early and evolving assessments of current and
forward-looking information, incomplete and
estimated data, and our related judgements,
opinions and assumptions. We have sought to
provide accurate information in respect of
FY2024 but we caution reliance being placed on
representations that are necessarily subject to
significant risks, uncertainties and/or assumptions.
We rely on information and emissions data from
our portfolio companies that may not be complete
or accurate given our portfolio companies are
also evolving their approach to understanding
and reporting on climate-related risks and
opportunities. Climate change is an evolving
challenge, with high levels of uncertainty,
particularly over long-term horizons, given the
climate is dynamic, involves feedback loops,
interdependencies, and tipping points.
Descriptions of the current and anticipated
impacts of climate change on Infratil and the
multiple sectors our business covers, therefore
draw on and/or represent estimates only.
In particular, this document contains forward- looking
statements and opinions about Infratil, Infratil’s
portfolio companies and the environment in which
Infratil operates, including climate-related metrics,
climate scenarios, targets, estimated climate
projections, and statements of Infratil’s future
intentions and performance. It also contains
forward-looking statements regarding Infratil and
our portfolio companies’ business operations,
market conditions, sustainability objectives or
targets and risk management practices. These
statements and opinions necessarily involve
assumptions, forecasts and projections about our
present and future strategies and the environment
in which we will operate in the future, which are
inherently uncertain and subject to contingencies
outside of Infratil’s control and limitations,
particularly as to inputs, available data and
information which is likely to change.
We base those statements and opinions on
reasonable information available to us at the date
of publication. We do not:
• represent those statements and opinions will not
change or will remain correct after publishing
this report, or
• promise to revise or update those statements
and opinions if events or circumstances change
or unanticipated events happen after publishing
this report.
The risks and opportunities described in this report,
and our strategies to achieve our targets, may not
eventuate or may be more or less significant than
anticipated. There are many factors that could
cause Infratil’s actual results, performance or
achievement of climate-related metrics (including
targets) to differ materially from that described,
including economic and technological viability,
climatic, government, consumer, and market
factors outside of Infratil’s control. Infratil is
committed to progressing our response to climate-
related risks and opportunities over time but is
constrained by the novel and developing nature of
this subject matter. We caution reliance on climate-
related forward-looking statements that are
necessarily less reliable than other statements
Infratil may make in its annual reporting. Infratil
gives no representation, warranty or assurance
that actual outcomes or performance will not
materially differ from the forward-looking
statements in this report. We do not accept any
liability whatsoever for any loss arising directly or
indirectly from any use of the information contained
in this report, whether in respect of Infratil and/or
its portfolio companies.
This disclaimer should be read along with the
limitations on page 14.
This report is not an offer document and does not
constitute an offer or invitation or investment
recommendation to distribute or purchase
securities, shares, or other interests. Nothing in this
report should be interpreted as capital growth,
earnings or any other legal, financial, tax or other
advice or guidance. For detailed information on our
financial performance, please refer to our FY2024
disclosures and Annual Report, available here.
1
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024

Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024
Contents
00

Introduction
03 Introduction to this report
04 About Infratil
05 Materiality and boundaries
01

Governance
06 Infratil’s ESG governance
07 The role of Infratil’s Board
08 The role of Infratil’s
management
02
Strategy
09 Strategy and current impacts
12 Climate scenarios
and approach
15 Summary of climate risks,
opportunities and impacts
18 Physical risk assessment
24 Transition risks and
opportunities assessment
26 Digital infrastructure
28 Renewable energy
30 Healthcare
32 Airport
34 Draft Transition Plan
03
Risk Management
35 Infratil’s approach to risk
management
04
Metrics and Targets
36 Approach to measurement and
reporting
37 Emissions
38 Climate metrics
39 Targets
Front cover: Rivers of Wind
The artwork featured on the front cover is from Rivers of Wind, a digital artwork by Delainy Jamahl.
Bringing data to life in this mesmerising digital artwork, Delainy Jamahl’s Rivers of Wind uses 8 years of historic weather data from the Wellington
Airport weather station to produce its flowing visuals. Visualising the invisible force that moves us and is often heard howling through our city, Rivers
of Wind explores the intersection of technology and nature and their effect on the human experience.
We are delighted to showcase this local artistic talent, especially because it can be interpreted to represent many of the characteristics of Infratil's
portfolio through the intersection of climate, renewable energy, digital technology, and of course, Wellington Airport.
2

Introduction
3
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Introduction
‹

Back to contents
Climate change is a serious issue for the global
economy and will have a significant impact across
many sectors and businesses.
It is therefore increasingly important for
organisations to understand and disclose their
climate-related risks and opportunities to allow
stakeholders to make informed decisions.
Recognising this, in 2021, the New Zealand
Government enacted legislation¹ to require
mandatory climate-related disclosures for
certain companies, known as Climate Reporting
Entities (‘CRE’). After a period of consultation,
the External Reporting Board (‘XRB’) issued the
Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards
(‘NZ Climate Standards’ or ‘NZ CS’)². These
mandatory standards provide a framework to
consider climate-related risks and opportunities
broadly in line with the Taskforce on Climate-
related Financial Disclosures (‘TCFD’) framework,
covering Governance, Strategy, Risk Management,
Metrics and Targets.
The aim of these Standards is to support the
allocation of capital towards activities that are
consistent with a transition to a low-emissions,
climate-resilient future. As a large NZX-listed
company, Infratil Limited (‘Infratil’) is deemed
to be a CRE and is required to report in line with
the NZ Climate Standards for FY2024. Infratil
voluntarily prepared Climate-Related Disclosures
('CRD') in FY2023. This is Infratil’s first mandatory
CRD. Infratil’s FY2024 CRD comply with the
NZ Climate Standards.
In preparing this report, we have relied on the following Adoption Provisions from NZ CS 2:
Adoption Provision number and description Comment
1 – Current climate-related financial impacts We have endeavoured to provide quantification of impacts where possible and will look to continue to
refine this aspect in future reports.
2 – Anticipated financial impacts (physical and
transition risks and opportunities)
At the portfolio level, we have quantified anticipated financial impacts from the physical effects of climate
change in the 'worst case' scenario that we have assessed (SSP5-8.5), but we have not yet disclosed
anticipated financial impacts from climate-related transition risks and opportunities.
3 – Transition planWe have included a draft Transition Plan in this report and we will look to refine this aspect of our strategy
once anticipated regulatory guidance has been released.
6 – Comparatives for metricsSome metrics are reported for the first time in FY2024, so comparatives and analysis of trends are not yet
possible for these metrics.
7 – Analysis of trends
Intended audience
The objective of the NZ Climate Standards is to enable Primary Users to assess the merits of how entities are considering climate-related risks and
opportunities and then make decisions based on those assessments. The Standards define Primary Users as ‘existing and potential investors, lenders
and other creditors’. Outside of Morrison, Infratil has no material creditors, and therefore we consider Infratil’s Primary Users to be our existing and
potential shareholders, bondholders and the banks that provide funding and other services to Infratil.
We note that Infratil’s investors and bondholders include a mix of large, institutional investors as well as retail investors. We have endeavoured to
provide a level of detail, graphics, and suitable language to enable the spectrum of our investors and lenders to engage with and understand this
report and glean useful insights.
1. The Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters)
Amendment Act 2021
2. Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards » XRB
Approved on behalf of the Board on 30 July 2024.
Alison Gerry Anne Urlwin
Director Director

Introduction
About Infratil
Infratil is an infrastructure investment company that
invests wisely in ideas that matter; in things that
societies need now and will need more of in the
future such as renewable electricity, data centres,
telecommunications networks, and healthcare.
Infratil’s portfolio has incorporated sustainability
characteristics since its inception in 1994, with
our initial investments including renewable energy
company Trustpower (now Manawa Energy). Infratil
views decarbonisation as a macro-trend tailwind
that forms a key part of the rationale behind our
renewable energy platform. Infratil’s deepening
conviction in this macro-trend is reflected in our
investment in renewable generation development
companies in the US (Longroad Energy, 2016), in
New Zealand and Australia with the establishment
of Tilt Renewables in 2016 (sold in 2021) and now
Mint Renewables (2022), and further afield in
Europe (Galileo, 2020) and in Asia (Gurīn Energy,
2021).
Infratil's portfolio diversity is an important attribute
that we take into consideration when assessing our
climate risks and opportunities. Infratil’s portfolio is
diversified both by sector and geographically, with
a presence across 17 countries. Most of Infratil’s
portfolio companies have assets that are
geographically spread across the jurisdictions in
which they operate. This diversification increases
our resilience to climate-related physical risks and
emerging transition risks, as well as providing
exposure to climate-related opportunities, such as
opportunities created by regulatory changes to
support renewable energy investments.
Infratil has its own Board, but no directly employed
staff – instead it contracts to Morrison for its day-
to-day activities, including investment
management. This provides Infratil with greater
access to expertise, flexible resource, and broader
networks than we could probably achieve as a
conventionally resourced company. A recent
Infratil now has a presence across 17 countries
4
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Introduction
example of this is the appointment of James
Shaw, New Zealand’s former Minister for Climate
Change, as an Operating Partner at Morrison,
announced in May 2024.
With the support of Morrison, Infratil seeks to
integrate material Environmental, Social and
Governance (‘ESG’) issues, including those relating
to climate change, through the investment
process. Further details regarding Infratil’s
Manager, and its approach to ESG integration are
set out on page 6 of Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability
Report, which was published in August 2023.
Around the same time, Infratil also released its
updated Climate Statement and refreshed its
investment Exclusion Policy.
In 2023, the Science Based Targets initiative
(‘SBTi’) approved Infratil’s near-term science-
based operational and portfolio emissions
reduction targets, making Infratil the first company
in New Zealand to achieve this status under the
SBTi’s Financial Institution framework. Details are
set out on page 39 of this report.
About this report
Set out in this report are Infratil’s FY2024 climate-
related disclosures, covering Governance,
Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics & Targets.
This is our second CRD report, and the first under
the mandatory NZ Climate Standards regime. We
have sought to be consistent with our FY2023 CRD
where appropriate, to support comparability, whilst
also building on the information provided last
year in order to align with the requirements of
the NZ Climate Standards.
We have also sought to incorporate feedback from
stakeholders on last year’s report – for example,
the ‘key takeaways’ light purple bubbles on some
pages have been added in response to suggestions
from readers of last year’s report.
This report covers the twelve months to 31 March
2024 and should be read in conjunction with
Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability Report and Climate
Related Disclosures and the FY2024 Annual
Report.
CDC
Qscan
RetireAustralia
Mint Renewables
Gurīn Energy
Kao Data
Galileo
Longroad Energy
Clearvision
One NZ
CDC
Manawa Energy
RHCNZ
Wellington Airport
Fortysouth
‹

Back to contents

Introduction
Materiality and boundaries
As set out on page 14 of NZ CS 3, the XRB defines
information as material if ‘omitting, misstating or
obscuring it could reasonably be expected to
influence decisions that Primary Users (capitals
added) make based on an entity’s climate-related
disclosures.’
To determine materiality, and in alignment with
Infratil’s approach in its ESG materiality assessment
undertaken in 2023, we have sought to adopt a
double materiality approach, considering both
Infratil’s GHG emissions profile and the impact of
climate change risks and opportunities for Infratil.
We have considered both financial impacts and
non-financial impacts such as reputation and
stakeholder impacts. We have also considered
what our Primary Users might reasonably expect to
be included in this report, for example, if there was
wide media coverage of damage to an asset or
facility, but the financial impacts were not material
at the Infratil level, we are likely to include it in our
CRD because a Primary User might consider it
unusual not to reference the event.
Although we have provided detailed disclosures at
the portfolio and sector level for transition risks and
opportunities, and at the sector and asset level for
physical climate risks, we have generally not
included their underlying value chains in our risk
and impacts assessments.
How we have determined materiality and set
boundaries is tailored for different components
of this report, which we summarise here.
5
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Introduction
Strategy
a) Current impacts
We have limited our disclosures on current impacts
to Infratil and all of its portfolio companies (typically
not extending to value chains) from climate or
extreme weather-related events that
we are
currently aware of
and/or actually occurred in
the reporting period or shortly thereafter.
b) Physical impacts
We have endeavoured to assess the impacts to
portfolio companies (typically not extending to
their value chains, unless stated otherwise within
the report) from a range of climate perils. We have
included Material Portfolio Companies³ which
collectively comprise over 95% of the portfolio by
fair value⁴.
We have sought to aggregate the assessed
impacts to assets for each platform and disclose
the findings at that level, regardless of size. We
have been able to provide this level of detail
because there are only a limited number of physical
sites/assets assessed as being both high/highly
exposed and vulnerable to one or more climate
perils.
We have just sought to quantify financial impacts
to the physical sites/assets, and not the financial
impacts to operations and/or earnings.
c) Transitional impacts
We disclose
qualitative transitional climate impacts
on a platform level that are informed by
consideration of the climate-related risks and
opportunities facing each sector, including some
supply chain impacts where they might have a
material impact at sector level.
Risk
Infratil’s risk management system focuses on risks
relevant to Infratil itself, and risks that are relevant at
the portfolio level.
We have therefore not disclosed information in this
section regarding the risk management systems
operated by the portfolio companies.
Metrics and Targets
a) Emissions reporting
We have released a FY2024 Greenhouse Gas
(‘GHG’) Emissions Basis of Preparation document
(‘Basis of Preparation’) for Infratil’s emissions
reporting, alongside this report.
Even though some portfolio companies’ Scope 1
and 2 emissions are below 5% of Infratil’s total
financed emissions, we have included all portfolio
companies in our emissions measurement and
reporting boundary.
As noted in our Basis of Preparation, we exclude
some business travel emissions for Infratil, namely
land transport, because they are deemed
immaterial (< 5% of total business travel).
b) Other climate metrics
Emissions intensity metrics follow the above
materiality approach, and, for the financial
components of the metrics, our approach aligns
with that used for financial data in our Annual
Report.
For other metrics, such as climate investment, we
have surveyed all our portfolio companies to try and
provide as complete a picture as possible.
We note that the portfolio companies are at
different stages of maturity for identifying and
precisely quantifying these financial climate
metrics.
All financial data is in New Zealand dollars unless
specified otherwise.
c) Targets
We follow the SBTi guidance for materiality in
respect of our target.
We report all portfolio companies that set, or
commit to setting, SBTi targets, regardless of size.
‹

Back to contents
3 All portfolio companies in the reporting boundary except: Mint Renewables, Fortysouth, Gurīn Energy and Galileo.
4. As set out on page 27 of Infratil’s FY2024 Annual Report, fair value is the market value of listed investments, or book value in the case of Mint Renewables and Fortysouth, or reflects
independent valuations prepared for Infratil for all other portfolio companies.

Governance
6
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 01 Governance
3. Infratil’s approach to responsible investment
G
u
i
d
e
s

a
n
d

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s

t
h
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
r





E
n
g
a
g
e
s

w
i
t
h

B
o
a
r
d

o
n

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

c
l
i
m
a
t
e
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d

i
s
s
u
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
d

b
y

M
o
r
r
i
s
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
s

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

r
e
p
o
r
t

a
n
d

c
l
i
m
a
t
e

d
i
s
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
d

b
y

M
o
r
r
i
s
o
n
o
n

I
n
f
r
a
t
i
l
’
s

b
e
h
a
l
f
I
n
f
a
t
i
l
’
s

i
n
v
e
s
t
e
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
T
h
e
s
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

t
h
e
i
r

o
w
n

b
o
a
r
d
s
,
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r

e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
External
(including
Morrison
Investment &
Sustainability
teams
investors and
lenders)
Infatil BoadInfatil
Mo
ison
Manager of Infratil, A publicly-listed
infrastructure
investment company
its portfolio and ESG
approach
Responsible for ESG
governance, including
sustainability strategy
initiatives and targets
Airports
Digital
Infrastructure
Healthcare
Renewable
Energy
stakeholders
E
S
G

i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

i
n
t
o

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s


A
l
l
o
c
a
t
e

c
a
p
i
t
a
l

i
n

l
i
n
e

w
i
t
h

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

a
n
d

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
o
n

I
n
f
r
a
t
i
l
’
s

b
e
h
a
l
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
n

E
S
G
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s

&

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
A
p
p
r
o
v
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
d
e

b
y

M
o
r
r
i
s
o
n
Morrison
Asset
Management
Committee
Morrison
Investment
Committee

Infratil’s ESG Governance
This graphic illustrates Infratil’s governance
structure for ESG issues, including in relation
to climate change.
‹

Back to contents

Governance
Strategy:Infratil’s Board has responsibility for approving and monitoring Infratil’s strategic direction and investment strategy.
Infratil’s Board regularly reviews the Company’s strategy in light of the latest view on megatrends, macroeconomic
outlook, and industry tailwinds, including those related to climate. For example, Infratil has significant investments in
renewable energy, identified as a growth sector in the context of broader decarbonisation of the energy system.
Screening and investment:
For potential investments in a new portfolio company that meets the screening criteria in Infratil’s Exclusion Policy,
Infratil seeks to identify and consider material ESG issues, including in relation to climate, as part of its due diligence in
the investment process. Infratil has regard to Morrison’s Sustainability Framework (set out on its website here), and
Infratil’s own recently refreshed sustainability strategy and objectives (see page 10 of our FY2023 Sustainability
Report).
Relevant, material findings from any ESG due diligence process are presented to the Board as part of the overall
investment analysis and inform investment recommendations ultimately approved by the Board. Infratil’s Board
periodically reviews and approves Infratil’s Exclusion Policy.
Asset management and portfolio
company engagement:
Infratil’s Board has contracted Morrison to undertake the day-to-day management of Infratil’s investment portfolio, with
ESG and climate considerations increasingly integrated into the investment management process.
The Infratil Board also engages directly with most portfolio companies, including, as relevant, on climate-related issues
– for example the opportunities presented by the transition to low carbon electricity generation is an area of focus for
companies in Infratil’s renewable energy platform.
Formal risk governance: The Board has responsibility for ensuring that Infratil has appropriate risk management and regulatory compliance
policies in place and for monitoring the integrity of those policies as risk management mitigation strategies and/or
controls. Infratil’s Audit and Risk Committee (‘ARC’), a sub-committee of the Board, holds delegated responsibility for
Infratil’s Enterprise Risk Management (‘ERM’) system. The ARC has approximately four scheduled meetings p.a. and
the Chair of the ARC provides a summary of key issues discussed at each ARC meeting to the Board at the immediately
following Board meeting.
The ERM risk register includes specific climate-related risks, including transition risk, physical risk, greenwashing and
litigation risk, regulatory risk, and carbon prices. The ARC receives approximately semi-annual reporting on Infratil’s
risks from Infratil’s CFO and Treasurer, including climate risks and escalates issues to the Board in certain circumstances
as set out in the Risk section on page 35.
Reporting:
Infratil’s ARC reviews and reports to the Board on the preparation, review, verification, and assurance processes in
relation to sustainability reports and CRD. The Board is responsible for approving these reports and the climate
scenarios that the analysis underpinning the CRD are based on. Infratil’s approach to emissions measurement and
reporting is set out in its Basis of Preparation documents available here.
The Board considers climate-related issues and disclosures regularly across its approximately eight scheduled
meetings each year (and at ad hoc meetings as required).
Sustainability strategy and
initiatives:
Infratil’s Board is responsible for approving Infratil’s sustainability strategy, which incorporates a focus on climate and
nature – details are set out on page 10 of Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability Report.
The Board is also responsible for approving sustainability initiatives, including those relating to climate – for example, in
2023, the Board reviewed and approved Infratil’s emissions reduction targets, which were subsequently validated by
the SBTi. The Board receives updates at least annually from Infratil’s Executive Director, Sustainability, regarding
Infratil’s progress against its operational and portfolio SBTi emissions reduction targets.

7
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 01 Governance
a) Board: Infratil’s Board has overall responsibility for ESG governance, including oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities.
‹

Back to contents
All Infratil’s directors are members of Chapter
Zero (or equivalent in other jurisdictions), the
New Zealand chapter of a global network of
board directors committed to taking action on
climate change. Chapter Zero is hosted by the
New Zealand Institute of Directors and supports
directors with climate awareness, skills, and
tools to steward their companies through the
challenges presented by climate change.
Various other sources of expertise and
assistance are also available to Infratil’s
directors that help to keep them informed on
climate-related matters, including:
• Morrison staff and external parties
provide expertise in climate change,
decarbonisation, and renewable energy and
changes to the regulatory landscape,
including in relation to climate change.
• Infratil’s investment in Clearvision Ventures
(‘Clearvision’) provides insights on the latest
international developments in technology,
including climate tech.
Given we have no directly employed staff,
ESG-linked remuneration is not relevant for
Infratil. Infratil's Management Agreement with
Morrison does not have remuneration
specifically linked to ESG or climate-related
KPIs, but these factors are seen as being
fundamental to long-term investment
performance.
At the portfolio company level, Infratil seeks to
support alignment of objectives by encouraging
incorporation of explicit ESG targets and
commitments, including in relation to climate.
One example is Wellington Airport that applies
an ESG modifier to its executive remuneration
scheme.

Governance
Infratil CEO and CFO:• Review and support Infratil investment recommendations that are made to the Infratil Board, having regard to the Exclusion Policy criteria.
• Are responsible for periodically reviewing updates to the Exclusion Policy and recommending these to the Board.
• Have oversight of the due diligence (‘DD’) process for any new investments, which typically includes ESG DD.
• Have oversight of, review and recommend to the Infratil Board for approval: the annual CRD, the Sustainability Reports and other reports that include ESG elements,
such as the Annual Report.
Investment Committee (‘IC’):The IC is governed by a Charter; membership includes the CEO of Morrison and other senior Morrison executives/partners, which currently includes Infratil’s CEO. The IC
helps to ensure investment opportunities are in line with Infratil’s strategy, including its sustainability strategy. The IC’s role includes:
• Reviewing and interrogating any primary research conclusions and sector plans.
• Reviewing and endorsing Infratil’s Exclusion Policy and ensuring new investment opportunities satisfy Exclusion Policy criteria.
• Reviewing investment opportunities and posing questions to the Morrison Investment Team, including on any material ESG matters.
• Approving further investigation and due diligence for investment opportunities.
• Providing recommendations regarding investment opportunities to the Board, with the support of the Infratil CEO and CFO. Recommendations are made in light of any
material ESG considerations, including any material ESG issues raised in the DD process.
Asset Management Committee
(‘AMC’):
The AMC is governed by a Charter; membership is determined by the IC having regard to the desired skills set out in the Charter. The AMC meets quarterly to review
performance of portfolio companies, including in relation to ESG. Quarterly reviews sometimes deep dive into ESG themes such as decarbonisation. ESG maturity and
performance benchmarking outcomes are reported to the AMC by the Morrison Investment Team on a quarterly basis. The AMC subsequently provides an update to the IC
which highlights any material ESG issues for consideration by the IC.
Morrison Investment Team:The Investment Team’s key responsibilities include:
• Originating and assessing investment opportunities in line with Infratil’s investment strategy and sustainability strategy and objectives and screening investment
opportunities in line with Infratil’s Exclusion Policy. The Investment Team prepares the investment paper and presents recommendations to the IC which typically include
any material ESG DD findings.
• Developing onboarding plans, including for management of material ESG issues.
• Developing senior management KPIs which may include an ESG-linked component.
• Optimising value through good management of the investments, including in relation to ESG issues. The Investment Team may provide input into or review material capex
undertaken by portfolio companies in relation to climate transition or resilience, including through climate transition risk analysis.
• Reviewing portfolio company reporting, which may incorporate ESG elements.
• Supporting coordination of ESG data and information required for Infratil’s ESG reporting, including Infratil’s Sustainability Reports and Climate Related Disclosures.
Various Morrison Investment Team members also have an important governance role as directors of Infratil’s portfolio companies. In this role they are responsible for the
oversight of the company strategy, sustainability strategy, risk management (including in relation to ESG and climate-related risks) and approval of any climate/ESG
reporting, initiatives and investment undertaken by the portfolio companies’ management teams.
Morrison Sustainable Investment
team and Infratil’s Executive
Director, Sustainability
(together the Sustainability
Team):
The Sustainability Team leads the ESG materiality assessment process for Infratil and develops or updates Infratil’s sustainability strategy and objectives, informed by the
materiality assessment. It is also responsible for:
• Keeping abreast of ESG developments and stakeholder expectations.
• Drafting Infratil’s Exclusion Policy and updates.
• Overseeing the ESG component of DD for any new investments or propositions and providing subject matter expert input on any actual or potential material sustainability
issues identified.
• Communicating ESG expectations and supporting new portfolio companies to develop and implement sustainability action plans.
• Ongoing engagement with portfolio companies on their material ESG issues in line with Infratil’s sustainability strategy and objectives e.g. providing support for GRESB
assessments.
• Developing and recommending ESG initiatives to Infratil’s Board for approval, such as Infratil’s SBTi-validated targets.
• Preparing various internal and external ESG reporting for Infratil, including the Sustainability Report and CRD. This includes collecting and collating ESG data with
reference to recognised frameworks and standards, investigating, selecting and recommending climate scenarios and coordinating assurance (e.g. for GHG emissions).

8
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 01 Governance
b) Management: As Infratil has no directly employed staff, Infratil’s Board has contracted Morrison to undertake the day-to-day management of Infratil’s investment portfolio. All sustainability workstreams are
undertaken and/or overseen by Morrison.
‹

Back to contents
In carrying out the above roles and responsibilities, we seek to integrate material ESG and climate-related issues through the investment process. An outline of how we seek to integrate ESG and climate issues is
set out in Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability Report (page 16).

Strategy
Investment strategy
Infratil is a high conviction infrastructure investor
focused on investing wisely in ideas that matter.
This means identifying and delivering the essential
services that society needs today and will continue
to require in the future. Our investment strategy is
to focus on sectors and businesses that:
• have strong defensive characteristics, resilient
to a range of economic and financial conditions;
• operate sustainably and support their
communities;
• offer growth opportunities supported by macro
or industry tailwinds; and
• provide opportunities to reinvest and build
large-scale infrastructure.
Our portfolio currently comprises investments
in renewable energy, digital infrastructure,
healthcare, and an airport.
Infratil has an important role to play to help
businesses, households and communities
decarbonise, while also managing the impacts
of climate change. In particular, our renewable
energy platform presents a material investment
opportunity for Infratil. This segment of our portfolio
includes investment in early stage through to
mature renewable energy development
companies, with current and pipeline renewable
generation projects across four continents and 29
markets. These companies are quite deliberately
exposed to the growth opportunities associated
with the global focus on decarbonisation through
increasing the proportion of clean energy
generation, as well as through electrification of
transport, heat, and industrial processes. As at
31 March 2024, the fair value of Infratil’s
investment in this segment was $3,160 million,
an increase of nearly $700 million or 28% since
FY2023. We cover this in some detail in our
FY2024 Annual Report (pages 27 and 40-49).
Sustainability strategy
Our sustainability strategy, which was refreshed
last year (set out on page 10 of our FY2023
Sustainability Report) has a ‘Climate & Nature’
pillar, recognising that Infratil and its portfolio
companies collectively have a role to play to
catalyse a rapid and efficient transition to a low-
carbon, resilient future, whilst protecting and
restoring nature. The three areas of focus to
achieve that objective are:
• investing to enable the transition, in a way
that builds resilience. Examples include
decarbonisation of energy systems through
renewable generation development, supporting
the transition to a sustainable aviation sector,
enabling remote working through our digital
infrastructure platform, and supporting
connectivity during crises.
• setting SBTi-validated emissions reduction
targets. The SBTi has approved Infratil’s
operational and portfolio emissions reduction
targets, the first financial institution in
New Zealand to achieve that status.
Details are set out on page 39.
• understanding, managing, and reporting on
impacts to nature. Recognising that supply
chains can have environmental and social
impacts, Infratil has established a supplier code
of conduct, and we encourage our portfolio
companies to do the same. Through GRESB⁵,
we encourage our portfolio companies to
measure and disclose their biodiversity impacts
where this is a material issue for them.
Current impacts
Here we set out some observed recent transition
and physical climate-related impacts on Infratil and
its portfolio companies. We have provided
quantification where possible, here and in the
‘Metrics and Targets’ section on page 38, noting
some financial impacts are commercially sensitive,
not known or complex to quantify.
a) Physical impacts:
Climate change is already impacting the frequency
and severity of extreme weather events in the
regions in which Infratil’s portfolio companies
operate. However, Infratil’s assets are
geographically diverse both at the portfolio level
and, with the exception of Wellington Airport, at the
company level. This provides a mitigant against
material physical damage from any single climate-
related event.
In FY2022 and FY2023, some assets owned by
Infratil’s portfolio companies were negatively
impacted by extreme rainfall, floods, and hail,
which we covered in our FY2023 CRD.
In some cases, costs related to those events were
incurred in FY2024 – our portfolio companies have
quantified a proportionate total of $3.3 million of
such costs.
In the current reporting period, we are not aware
of any material, negative climate-related physical
impacts on assets owned by Infratil’s portfolio
companies.
b) Transition impacts:
Market: The most material aspect of the transition
to a low-emissions economy impacting Infratil
today is the abovementioned global shift to
decarbonisation of electricity generation, and the
opportunity that creates for investment in our
global renewable energy platform.
9
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
5. GRESB Infrastructure Asset Assessments provide the basis for systematic reporting, objective scoring and peer benchmarking of ESG management and performance of infrastructure assets.
6. Development pipeline represents the renewable generation and battery storage options that Infratil’s renewable energy portfolio companies have secured, providing them with rights to
progress projects through development and into construction/operation as and when market conditions suit.
‹

Back to contents
The companies in our Renewable Energy platform
collectively have a development pipeline⁶ that has
increased from over 30GW in FY2023 to over
50GW in FY2024. The near term financial impact
of this opportunity is reflected by the proportionate
capital expenditure (‘capex’) in our renewable
energy platform. In FY2024 proportionate capex
across all Infratil’s renewable energy companies
was $963 million, more than twice that in FY2023
($399 million). Looking more broadly across
Infratil’s total renewable energy platform, we can
see that the decarbonisation tailwind has
contributed at least in part to the fair value uplift of
nearly $700 million (28%) between 31 March 2023
and 31 March 2024. These increases are not all
directly attributable to this opportunity alone
because there is a complex, wide-ranging mix of
factors involved.
Climate change considerations are
incorporated into both our investment strategy
and our sustainability strategy.
We are already observing some impacts from
climate change. Last year Infratil’s portfolio
companies experienced some physical impacts
of climate change; this year the impacts are
concentrated in transition risks and
opportunities, notably the costs of climate
disclosure regulations and resilience measures.
There were also opportunities evident in
FY2024, predominantly in relation to Infratil’s
ESG ratings, its climate-related portfolio
investments, and portfolio company
sustainable finance.

Strategy
10
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
Another, related issue is the growing market focus
on energy use by data centres, particularly with
the advent of AI computing, and any potential
impact that might have on wider decarbonisation
ambitions for companies and governments.
As noted on page 33 of Infratil’s FY2024 Annual
Report, CDC’s development pipeline has increased
by over 400MW to 536MW in FY2024.
Given the abovementioned wider concerns, CDC
is committed to growing and operating sustainably.
The company is moving towards net zero carbon by
2030 in Australia, and both CDC’s New Zealand
campuses use 100% renewable power and are
Toitū enviromark diamond certified, recognising
they exceed the requirements of ISO 14001
standards. The total proportionate incremental
cost to all our portfolio companies, including CDC,
for securing renewable energy supply is covered in
the ‘Metrics and Targets’ section on page 38.
ESG Ratings: As a listed entity, a growing
proportion of Infratil’s equity investors use ESG
ratings as an input into their investment decisions
– these ratings invariably include climate
considerations. Infratil is engaging with a range of
ESG rating agencies, with the aim of securing
appropriate industry classifications and ultimately
more accurate and improved ESG ratings for
Infratil. This is important to Infratil as equity markets
and ESG indices continue to evolve and mature
and as we look to secure appropriately priced,
long-term capital for growth.
Infratil’s CDP Rating, which is intended to reflect
corporate progress and action on climate change,
has improved over the last few years, reflecting
Infratil’s increasing transparency and action on
climate issues. This year’s rating will also reflect
that Infratil now has SBTi-validated emissions
reduction targets.
Infratil is classified in the ‘Financial Services’ sector
for this rating and now has a score equivalent to the
Oceania and Global Averages, but is below the
2023 sector average score of B.
Climate disclosure regulations
sweeping the globe
Governments around the world are seeking to
regulate greater disclosure on climate risks and
opportunities, to support more informed capital
allocation decisions.
Whilst mandates and timeframes vary across
jurisdictions, the disclosure standards
generally follow the high level Taskforce on
Climate-related Financial Disclosures (‘TCFD’)
framework. Jurisdictions that are relevant for
Infratil’s portfolio companies either directly,
or because it will impact their capital providers
and/or value chains, include (subject to certain
thresholds):
CountryEntitiesStarting from
AustraliaLarge & listed
companies
and financials
2025
EULarge & listed
companies
2026
SingaporeLarge & listed
companies
2025
UKLarge & listed
companies
and LLPs
2024
‹

Back to contents
It is not possible to discern a quantified financial
impact from improved ESG ratings, as Infratil’s
investors and lenders make decisions based on
a range of factors. However, we know that ESG
ratings are used by many of our institutional
investors, as well as being used to construct some
ESG indices and investment products such as
Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs).
Closer to home, New Zealand investment firm
Forsyth Barr has assigned Infratil a Carbon & ESG
score of B+ in 2023, up from C+ in 2022.
Forsyth Barr has developed a quantified Carbon &
ESG adjustment to its weighted average cost of
capital (WACC) that feeds into its valuation
models. All else being equal, a move from C+ to B+
ESG rating lowers (improves) the WACC used by
Forsyth Barr by 0.15%. Whilst this serves to improve
the target share price recommended by Forsyth
Barr (all else being equal), it is not possible to
discern a direct financial impact from this for Infratil.
Policy & Legal: We continue to observe shifts in the
policy and legal landscape. Particular Government
climate policies in the USA, Europe, Asia and
New Zealand generally support and/or incentivise
greater renewable generation development.
Infratil’s significant renewable energy portfolio is
exposed to this opportunity.
We discussed the impact associated with the
US Inflation Reduction Act, which is the key
climate-related regulation for Infratil, in our
FY2023 Sustainability Report (page 19).
Our FY2024 Annual Report (page 44) provides an
update on emerging risks associated with this key
policy, and, on pages 40-49, the growth
opportunities for each of our renewable energy
portfolio companies in some detail.
Whilst we can’t attribute all of the uplift in
Longroad’s value and capital expenditure directly
to the Inflation Reduction Act, because there is a
complex, wide-ranging mix of factors involved, we
know that the policy is supportive of renewable
energy development in the US. Longroad’s fair
value has increased NZ$369 million (23%) since
31 March 2023 and proportionate capex was
$826 million in FY2024 (+138% on FY2023).
Shifts in the policy and legal landscape also
present risks for Infratil. Regulations requiring
climate-related disclosures affect Infratil and its
portfolio companies. There is an increasing number
of jurisdictions in which Infratil’s portfolio
companies operate that have enacted or are
considering climate disclosure legislation.
Manawa Energy and Wellington Airport are CREs
under New Zealand’s climate disclosure regime.
Australia is proposing mandatory climate reporting
legislation (see insert), which might mean CDC,
Qscan and RetireAustralia are required to produce
climate disclosures in coming years.
Our other portfolio companies are not yet directly
impacted by climate disclosure regulations, but
their lenders, customers and suppliers may be
required to report, so may start to require more
information from them. In addition, they are also
providing greater levels of climate-related
information to Infratil.
Infratil is supportive of the greater transparency that
these regulations provide, though we also
acknowledge that fulfilling these reporting
requirements means exposure to compliance risk,
involves some cost, and requires resourcing.
We disclose total expenditure on disclosures by
Infratil and proportionate expenditure reported by our
portfolio companies in the ‘Metrics and Targets’
section on page 38.

D-Disclosure
F- Failure to provide sufficient information to be evaluated
Pe-202220222023
Awareness
Management
Leadership
D
C-
C
B-
B
A-
A
FDC

Strategy
11
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
Sustainable Finance: Infratil and its portfolio
companies are also experiencing increasing
scrutiny and engagement on ESG issues, including
in relation to climate change, from lenders,
investors, and customers. The direction of travel
is clear – stakeholders are requiring greater
disclosures and expect companies to credibly
demonstrate they are managing their ESG
issues well.
Nearly 10% of Infratil’s portfolio (by fair value) is
funded at least in part by sustainable finance.
Working with its lenders and to reflect its renewable
energy generation portfolio, Manawa Energy
integrated sustainability into its debt funding
through the use of sustainable finance. Manawa
Energy’s Sustainable Finance Framework,
published in October 2023, sets out how the
company intends to issue and manage debt in
alignment with relevant sustainable finance
principles and guidelines. All of Manawa Energy's
current bonds on issue ($375 million face value)
are now green bonds, representing 83% of the
company’s total net debt as at 31 March 2024.
As covered in Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability Report
(page 24), Wellington Airport also has sustainable
finance in place, with $100 million of its bank
facilities converted to sustainability-linked loans in
2023. The conversion to sustainability-linked
lending means Wellington Airport’s will be charged
a lower interest cost and line fee if the company
achieves the sustainability goals and may incur a
higher interest cost if those goals are not achieved.
We are not able to quantify the exact benefit of the
above sustainable finance funding because it is
difficult to discern (for Manawa Energy) and
commercially sensitive (for Wellington Airport).
There was some financial cost incurred in relation
to these sustainable finance structures. We include
proportionate expenditure on sustainable finance
initiatives in the ‘Metrics and Targets’ section on
page 38.
Climate friendly by design
First Solar’s new Series 7 thin-film solar panels
are designed with sustainability in mind,
featuring as much as 16% recycled content,
including semiconductor materials, glass, steel,
busbar, and ribbon. The module is First Solar’s
most eco-efficient product to date.
According to First Solar, Series 7 panels feature
a carbon and water footprint nearly four times
lower than conventional crystalline silicon
modules manufactured in China and an energy
payback time approximately five times faster.
First Solar cites that its Series 7 modules take
just two months to produce more energy than
was required to create them, corresponding to
a 180-fold energy return on investment (EROI)
over a 30-year project lifetime.
‹

Back to contents
Insurance: Several of our portfolio companies have
told us that their insurance costs have recently
increased. The key drivers appear to be increased
construction costs and some degree, albeit difficult
to discern, of climate-related costs.
Our portfolio companies have indicated that about
$15 million of assets (on a proportionate basis) are
not insured due to unavailability or unaffordability
as a consequence of climate change risk.
Reputation: As set out in our sustainability
strategy, we recognise that to have a reputation as
an ESG leader, we need to be transparent,
collaborative, follow credible ESG (and climate)
standards and frameworks and set ambitious
targets. Our SBTi emissions reductions targets are
one example of how we are seeking to achieve that
objective; another example is the reporting
standards and frameworks that we follow, as set
out on page 23 of our FY2023 Sustainability
Report.
It is too complex to quantify the financial impacts
from this, because so many factors contribute to
Infratil’s reputation. However, there are several
benefits from having a good reputation on climate-
related issues, including reduced risk of climate
litigation, and enhanced ability to secure
attractively priced capital. Reputation underpins
our broader social licence to operate.
Carbon and Electricity: Some of our portfolio
companies purchase carbon offsets, and/or
renewable energy contracts. We set out the
financial impacts in the ‘Metrics and Targets’
section on page 38.
Technology: Infratil has a lens into the technology
opportunities presented by climate change
through our US$100 million commitment to
Clearvision, which we refer to on page 25 of our
FY2023 Sustainability Report. Some examples of
how this has manifested has been the introduction
of Jupiter and Persefoni platforms to Infratil, which
might not have otherwise happened. We have
included Infratil’s costs associated with subscribing
to these platforms in the Metrics and Targets
section on page 38. While these platforms have
been useful to support Infratil’s climate
assessments and disclosures, the direct financial
impact is assessed as not being material to Infratil.
Climate change related technology developments
present new investment opportunities for Infratil
and its portfolio companies. For example,
Longroad’s new 220MW solar and 214MW storage
project ‘Serrano’ in Arizona, which reached
financial close in March this year, is its first project
to use First Solar’s domestically manufactured
Series 7 panels. As well as producing clean energy,
these panels are designed and manufactured with
sustainability in mind – see insert. Given the
Serrano project is still in construction, and the
wide-range range of factors to consider, along with
a high degree of commercial sensitivity, it is not
possible to quantify any associated financial
impacts.
Another example is One NZ’s SpaceX collaboration
(see page 32 of the FY2023 Sustainability Report).
This opportunity is too early stage to quantify any
material associated financial impacts.

Strategy: summary of scenarios and approach
Climate change presents transition and physical
risks, as well as a range of opportunities, as
described in the table on the right.
While we are relying on some of the Adoption
Provisions in relation to disclosure of current and
anticipated financial impacts, we have sought to
evolve our approach to incorporate tools that will
increasingly enable us to make more quantitative
disclosures on the resilience of our portfolio
companies and their assets to climate change.
We also expect to integrate insights from our
climate-related risks and opportunities analysis
under our Physical Assessment Scenarios and
Transition Assessment Scenarios into our business
processes (risk reviews, valuation processes,
investment management processes and portfolio
company engagement) as we continue to refine
our approach.
Infratil’s approach to managing climate-
related risks and opportunities
Infratil’s risk management system focuses on risks
that are relevant and material for Infratil itself, and
at the portfolio level. We discuss our risk processes
– how we identify, assess and manage our risks – in
the ‘Risk Management’ section on page 35. The
climate-related risks in Infratil’s risk register are
summarised on pages 15-16.
Infratil seeks to ensure that risks are identified and
managed at the portfolio company level through its
governance and investment management
processes described in the section above. Infratil’s
board monitors, but does not manage, individual
company-level risks - many of which would not
individually be material at the Infratil level.
However, Infratil’s sector and portfolio company
level risks obviously have relevance to the Infratil
portfolio level risks - as detailed in the table on
page 15. We have set out our view of sector-level
climate-related risks and opportunities on
pages 26-33, which has helped to inform our
climate transition modelling and analysis.
Climate change impactDefinition
Physical RiskIn the context of this report, physical risk is the risk of damage to
the buildings, sites and assets because of greater exposure to the
physical impacts of climate change. These might be acute risks, like
the risk to damage from increasingly frequent or severe extreme
weather events, or chronic risks, such as the risk of temperatures
and sea levels continuing to gradually rise over time. Physical risks
may have financial implications arising from direct impacts to assets
or indirect impacts from disruption to supply chains and supporting
infrastructure. Physical risks can also impact a company’s financial
performance via changes in water availability, extreme
temperatures affecting operation of a site, or disruption to transport
for staff, customers, and suppliers.
Transition RiskTransitioning to a lower-carbon economy may entail extensive
policy, legal, technology, and market changes to address mitigation
and adaptation requirements related to climate change. Depending
on the nature, speed, and focus of these changes, transition risks
potentially pose varying levels of financial and reputational impacts.
OpportunitiesThe transition to a low carbon economy can also present
opportunities for organisations, for example the opportunity to
invest in renewable energy generation development, cost savings
from energy efficiency initiatives, and new digital services and
products.
12
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
Summary of time horizons
As part of the analysis of Infratil’s
climate-related risks and opportunities, we
have identified the time horizons over which
to examine the impacts of climate change. In
doing so, we considered our businesses’
regular planning cycles, valuation horizons,
risk criteria and long-term planning and
investment time frames.
Short-term time horizon is defined as zero to
three years (i.e. from 2023 to 2026), this
broadly aligns to the budget cycle of Infratil
and its businesses.
Medium-term time horizon is defined as three
to ten years (i.e. from 2026 to 2033). As part of
the process of undertaking valuations for each
portfolio company, we look to build a detailed
financial forecast, typically for at least 10 years,
covering operational expenditure (‘opex’),
capital investment and potential regulatory
outcomes. Infratil’s target investment return is
set over a 10 year horizon as set out on our
website here. Our SBTi targets have a time
horizon in this band (2028 and 2030).
Long-term time horizon is defined 10 years
out to 2050, which aligns to our strategic
investment horizon – we have owned Manawa
Energy since 1994 (29 years) - as well as
reflecting the long-term nature of our
infrastructure assets, many of which are built to
last for decades. Our businesses often need to
plan and contract for decades ahead, for
example One NZ’s contract with Fortysouth is
for 20 years with the option of two 10 year
extensions, renewable energy generation
consents and offtake agreements are often for
tenors of a decade or longer, and the current
Wellington Airport Masterplan goes out to
2040.

Strategy: summary of scenarios and approach
Climate scenario selection
As part of analysing our risks and opportunities, we
have undertaken a range of scenario analyses to
examine the impact of climate change on our
businesses. To do so, we have conducted separate
analyses of our climate-related physical risks and
our climate-related transition risks and
opportunities.
Whilst the analysis is done through two separate
processes, our transition risk analysis incorporates
insights from our physical risk analysis.
Consistent with our approach in FY2023, we have
chosen to use climate scenarios developed by
Oxford Economics (‘the Transition Assessment
Scenarios’) for our analysis of transition risks and
opportunities, and a broadly aligned suite of
scenarios underpin the Jupiter Intelligence (‘Jupiter’)
platform that we are using for our analysis of
physical climate risks (‘the Physical Assessment
Scenarios’). These are summarised in the table
on the right and set out in more detail in the
appendices. Both sets of scenarios are subject to
limitations and assumptions explained on the next
page under ‘Challenges and uncertainties’
Oxford Economics’ Global Climate Service scenario
assumptions reflect scientific and economic
research from a range of recognised sources⁷
as well as its own bespoke analysis. The climate
scenarios are run on its fully integrated Global
Economic Model that provides a rigorous and
consistent structure for scenario analysis
and forecasting. This provides us with key
macroeconomic inputs for our valuation models
under the Transition Assessment Scenarios.
Jupiter Intelligence’s ClimateScore Global platform
uses climate scenarios and data from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth
Assessment Report (‘IPCC AR6’) and the most
recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
13
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
7. Including: International Energy Agency Net Zero by 2050 Roadmap, IPCC AR6 and 1.5°C Special Report and Network for Greening the Financial System scenarios.
8. We note that the Jupiter SP1-2.6 scenario (shown on the next page) covers pathways which yield a temperature range of 1.4°C to 2.5°C, and a midpoint of 1.8°C which incorporates a 1.5°C aligned outcome.
‹

Back to contents
(‘CMIP6’). Whilst the Jupiter platform is
comparatively sophisticated, it nonetheless faces
known limitations inherent to any global climate
model, the principal one being that weather is
difficult to model – and this is particularly so for
some ‘perils’ such as hail. Jupiter continues to refine
its model - for example it recently enhanced its
resolution for topographical elevation data. The
Jupiter assessment of physical risk can take some
resilience features into account, such as existing or
proposed flood levees, but it cannot yet take into
account other relevant infrastructure factors such
as the quality or scale of stormwater infrastructure.
Both the Transition Assessment Scenarios and
Physical Assessment Scenarios pathways lie
within the distribution of IPCC AR6 Shared
Socioeconomic Pathways (‘SSPs’) and the
associated warming in degrees Celsius by 2100.
Some of these are focused on the tail end of
the distribution and are therefore suitable for
risk assessment.
The SSPs build on the Representative
Concentration Pathways (‘RCPs’) used in the
previous IPCC AR5 report, which focused on the
physical impacts by describing the radiative
forcings (watts per m²) that occur under the
different scenarios by 2100. The SSPs augment
the physical impacts with narratives that outline
societal choices under each scenario, such as
policies, energy use and social cohesion. Further
details on the climate scenarios specific to
transition and physical risk analyses are set out
in each of those sections.
The criteria underlying our choice of climate
scenarios (for both the physical and transition
components of our analysis) was that they need
to be plausible but challenging scenarios from
credible sources that are appropriate for a global
portfolio. We have also considered the need to
choose a range of scenarios that meet the
regulatory reporting requirements (NZ CS 1
Climate scenarios that underpin our analysis
Transition Assessment ScenariosBaselineOrganised & DecisiveDelayed & DisorganisedToo Little, Too Late
Global warming1.9⁰C 2050; 3.1⁰C 21001.5⁰C 2050; 1.5⁰C 21001.7⁰C 2050; 1.7⁰C 21002.2⁰C 2050; 5.0⁰C 2100
Mitigation policiesLimited (current national
commitments)
Decisive and start early;
orderly
Delayed (to 2030+);
severe
No further policies
2050 carbon priceUS$54/tCO₂eUS$726/tCO₂eUS$540/tCO₂eUS$54/tCO₂e
Average GDP growth to 2035
Average GDP growth to 2035 - 2050
2.4%
1.8%
2 .1 %
1.9%
2.2%
1.7%
2.2%
0.4%
Physical Assessment ScenariosBaselineSSP1-2.6SSP2-4.5SSP5-8.5
Global warming
Jupiter 2020 physical
exposure assessments
1.7⁰C 2050; 1.8⁰C 21002.0⁰C 2050; 2.7⁰C 21002.4⁰C 2050; 4.4⁰C 2100
Physical damageMitigatedLargely mitigated
Severe, irreversible damage
We have chosen climate scenarios from
Oxford Economics to assist our transition
modelling, and Jupiter Intelligence for physical
risk modelling. We have chosen climate
scenarios from each which are broadly aligned,
to help us explore the resilience of our strategy
and portfolio of investments to the impacts of
climate change.
requires at least three scenarios, including a
1.5°C-aligned⁸ and ≥3.0°C scenario).
The scenarios are not intended to predict the future or
be perceived as ‘most likely’ outcomes - rather they
were selected to help us explore the resilience of our
strategy and portfolio of investments to the impacts
of climate change and any potential actions that could
alleviate risks, take advantage of opportunities, or
help to further our understanding of the potential
impacts of climate change.

Strategy: summary of scenarios and approach
Scenario analysis: challenges and
uncertainties
Our statements and conclusions reflect our current
understanding as at July 2024 in respect of the
twelve month period to 31 March 2024. We
acknowledge that our approach will continue to
evolve over time, and we believe it is important to
communicate the challenges and uncertainties
with our climate scenario analysis.
The most material uncertainty is the exact nature
and impacts from the physical change to the
climate itself, particularly over long-term horizons,
given the climate is dynamic, involves feedback
loops, interdependencies, and tipping points. The
manifestation of different climate scenarios in
terms of economic impacts, and physical impacts
at specific locations involves complex modelling,
with inherent uncertainties.
On top of this, our financial models involve inputs
and assumptions and have limited time horizons –
most of our valuation models do not extend out as
far as our longest climate scenario timeframe,
other than through the terminal value⁹.
Another challenge is that Infratil’s business covers
multiple sectors – renewable energy, digital
infrastructure, healthcare, an airport – that each
face different climate-related risks and
opportunities. Given this, we focused on each
platform separately for our transition risks and
opportunities analysis. We have tried to distil our
findings into content that is readily digestible, while
retaining a meaningful level of detail.
A key challenge with using the outputs from these
models in our transition analysis is determining how
to incorporate the long- term macro-economic
factors into the terminal value in our valuation
models; another is determining the implications for
each scenario on company-specific factors e.g.
how a certain scenario might influence changes to
14
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
9. This is an input into the model that reflects the value of the company beyond the forecasted period when future cashflows can be estimated.
‹

Back to contents
specific maintenance and capex assumptions.
Also, as we note in our healthcare platform analysis,
the Oxford Economics outputs do not always align
with our valuation model inputs e.g. Oxford
Economics do not provide any population
assumptions associated with each scenario.
For physical impacts, we have chosen to use
software technology to analyse risks at the asset
level, and graphical outputs to convey the insights.
This year, we have sought to progress from
reporting the level of exposure by number of sites,
to providing an indication of anticipated financial
impacts.
Assessing vulnerabilities of a site presents a further
layer of complexity and challenges, for example,
the vulnerability to extreme precipitation depends
on local soil moisture and stormwater infrastructure
capacity at the time of the event; determining the
vulnerability of a hydro site to extreme precipitation
is difficult to determine, given there is the ability to
manage flows to a certain extent (by increasing the
height of water storage, increasing generation and
spilling water).
Another limitation is that Jupiter does not have the
ability to assess vulnerability or performance of any
underground assets or supporting infrastructure,
such as three waters infrastructure, so this aspect
of physical climate risk is excluded from our
analysis.
Whilst we have sought to quantify our physical
climate risk, if the exposure or vulnerability of a
high-value single site asset was to change in
the future, this could materially alter on our
assessed impact.
In spite of these challenges, we have sought to
refine our analysis and disclosures from that
undertaken last year. One such evolution is the
addition of some tables (set out on the next two
pages) which summarise climate-related risks and
opportunities for Infratil and at the portfolio level.
Whilst both Jupiter and Oxford Economics are
reputable, sophisticated platforms suitable for
our global portfolio, there nonetheless exists a
range of challenges and assumptions that
impact certainty of the scenario analysis.
These range from modelling uncertainties, to
grappling with the size and diversity of Infratil’s
portfolio and the complexity of Infratil as a
business, inherent uncertainties with climate
modelling and some limitations of the
platforms.

Strategy: summary of climate-related risks,
opportunities and impacts
15
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
Infratil’s risk
register
categories
Summary of material Infratil and
portfolio level climate-related risks/
opportunities for each category
Anticipated impactInfratil strategic response
PortfolioPhysical Risk: Climate change
negatively impacts the value of Infratil's
portfolio due to damage to physical
assets.
Transition Risk: Climate change
negatively impacts the value of Infratil's
portfolio, or access to attractively priced
funding, due to transition risks.
Transition Opportunity: Climate change
presents investment and value creation
opportunities for Infratil.
Physical risks: Reasonably anticipated physical climate-related
impacts in the worst case scenario assessed (refer SSP5-8.5 on
page 18) by 2050 is that up to 11% of Material Portfolio
Company Assets (by number) and up to 5% (by value) are At
Risk
10
i.e. assessed as being both highly exposed and vulnerable
to one or more climate perils, namely flooding (coastal, pluvial
and/or fluvial), extreme participation and, to a lesser degree,
wildfire and hail: see “Findings” section on
page 17.
Transition risks/opportunities: Our analysis of climate-related
transition risks and opportunities shows that the portfolio has
some opportunities to improve overall portfolio value under an
Organised & Decisive scenario and vulnerability to minor
negative impacts under a Delayed & Disorganised scenario. The
portfolio may have greater vulnerability to negative impacts
under the Too Little, Too Late scenario, but at this stage, we
consider it a less likely scenario than the others. This analysis also
incorporated financial assumptions reflecting the physical
impacts from climate change. See “Findings” section on page 17.
We integrate governance and management expertise in relation to
climate-related issues into the investment process (p6-8) and our risk
management system (p35). Further detail can also be found on p16 of
Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability Report.
Infratil’s governance strategy includes screening, in line with its Exclusion
Policy, and due diligence of potential investments, plus active management of
climate and ESG issues with portfolio companies (p4,7-9,34).
Our ongoing climate assessments provide greater understanding and
improved oversight of physical risks (p18-23) and transition risks and
opportunities (p25-33). Our draft Transition Plan (p34) sets out Infratil’s
foundations, approach and actions to support a transition to a low-emissions,
climate-resilient future.
Our portfolio is diversified by sector and geography (referred to on
p4,23,27,29,35) and we have choices as to which sectors, jurisdictions and
regions we deploy our capital.
Infratil and its portfolio companies use insurance and alternative insurance
mechanisms, including captive insurance schemes (referred to on p27,29).
We follow credible standards and frameworks, such as NZ CS and PCAF, and
set targets validated by SBTi (p3-4,9, 36-37,39).
Our strategy and sustainability strategy both recognise the opportunity for
Infratil to invest to enable the transition.
Infratil also has an ability to attract capital for growth through improving its
ESG ratings, and, in time, through sustainable finance (p10-11).
OperationalPhysical Risk: Climate event is
sufficiently widespread to negatively
impact the operations of multiple assets
simultaneously.
As set out on page 20, under a worst case SSP5-8.5 scenario by
2050, we see an increase in the number of sites exposed to
physical climate risks that could impact operational resilience
(precipitation, flood, wildfire, and extreme heat). Most (83%) of
the sites in Infratil’s portfolio have an overall hazard score in the
low or lowest risk bands, indicating the level of resilience to a
widespread event of the geographically diversified portfolio.
If a widespread climate event occurred, up to 5% of Material
Portfolio Company assets (by value) are assessed as being At
Risk
10
.
Our portfolio is diversified by sector and geography (referred to on
p4,23,27,29,35).
Our awareness of and responses to address physical climate risks through
ESG DD and physical climate risk analysis supports greater resilience at the
portfolio level (p7-8,18-23).
Compliance/
regulatory
Transition Risk: Infratil's climate
disclosures fail to meet regulatory
requirements.
Increasing focus and regulatory requirements in relation to
Sustainability Reports and CRD in short and medium term.
We leverage Morrison and external expertise, including through organisations
such as Chapter Zero, to support appropriate levels of climate capability for
Infratil (p4,7-8).
We have established processes for our Sustainability Reports, and CRD that
seek to manage these risks, including independent assurance of our
emissions data and review of our report against the NZ CS.
We leverage technology (such as Persefoni and Jupiter) to provide insights
and reliable and consistent reporting (p1,13,17-22,34). Further detail can also
be found on p25 of Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability Report.
We follow recognised standards (such as GRI) and frameworks (such as SBTi)
and engage with relevant ESG Ratings/Raters such as CDP and GRESB to
provide insights into market expectations (referred to on p3-4,8-11,34).
Further detail can also be found on p25 of Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability
Report.
ShareholderTransition Risk: Failure to meet
stakeholder expectations, which may
materialise by way of climate-related
litigation.
Over the short to medium term, increasing focus on credibility of
action and disclosures in relation to climate change by a range of
stakeholders (investors, lenders, communities).
10. Material Portfolio Company Assets are defined as being the sites/assets of all Material Portfolio Companies that were assessed in the Jupiter platform, which excludes the Airport sea walls (due to complexities in the modelling of this site in Jupiter).
The 5% metric is calculated by dividing the total proportionate insured, replacement or fair value (as available) of Material Portfolio Company Assets that are assessed as being At Risk by the total portfolio fair value. At Risk means that the assets have
been assessed as being both highly exposed and vulnerable to one or more climate perils (as set out at p 18, including limitations).

Strategy: summary of climate-related risks,
opportunities and impacts
16
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
Qualitative analysis
Infratil and portfolio level climate-related risks and opportunities Relevant
Horizon
Organised &
Decisive
SSP1-2.6
Delayed &
Disorganised
SSP2-4.5
Too Little,
Too Late
SSP5-8.5
Relation to capital deployment and investment decision processes
PortfolioPhysical Risk: Climate change negatively
impacts the value of Infratil's portfolio due to
damage to physical assets.
M-LInsights from Infratil’s portfolio-wide physical climate risk analysis help to avoid an
unacceptable level of physical climate risks in (existing and new) capital deployed
into physical assets.
Transition Risk: Climate change negatively
impacts the value of Infratil's portfolio, or
access to attractively priced funding, due to
transition risks.
S-MAs shown on the graphic on page 6, a core function of Infratil’s Board and of
Morrison as its Manager, is to allocate capital in line with its strategy and
sustainability strategy, both of which incorporate transition risk and opportunity
considerations, as outlined on page 9.
Transition Opportunity: Climate change
presents investment and value creation
opportunities for Infratil.
S-M-LAs evidenced by its focus on improving ESG ratings, Infratil strives to have a good
reputation, including in relation to sustainability and climate change. This
supports Infratil to secure attractively priced capital to continue to grow and
invest in its portfolio.
OperationalPhysical Risk: Climate event is sufficiently
widespread to negatively impact the
operations of multiple assets simultaneously.
M-LInsights from Infratil’s portfolio-wide physical climate risk analysis help to avoid an
unacceptable level of physical climate risks in (existing and new) capital deployed
into physical assets.
Compliance/regulatoryTransition Risk: Infratil's climate disclosures
fail to meet regulatory requirements.
S-M Whilst these risks present relatively minor direct financial impacts, they would
have more material impacts on Infratil’s reputation and social licence to operate,
and therefore its ability to secure attractively priced capital to continue to grow
and invest in its portfolio.
StakeholderTransition Risk:
Failure to meet stakeholder
expectations, which may materialise by way of
a climate-related litigation.
S-M
Risk/opportunity rating key
Horizon: Short (S - 0 to 3 years), Medium (M - 3 to 10 years), Long (L - 10 years to 2050+)
As set out in our draft Transition Plan on page 34,
Infratil’s climate-related risks and opportunities,
described on the previous page and repeated
below, are incorporated into Infratil’s strategy, its
sustainability strategy, and integrated through the
investment lifecycle.
Here we set out the relevant timeframes and
ratings for risks and opportunities under our
chosen climate scenarios for Infratil and its
portfolio, and how they serve as an input into
Infratil’s capital allocation and investment decision
processes.
For a description of the scenarios noted below,
please refer to the description of the Physical
Assessment Scenarios (SSP1-2.6 through to
SSP5-8.5) on page 18 and the Transition
Assessment Scenarios (Organised & Decisive
through to Too Little, Too Late) on page 24.
Severe riskInsignificant riskSome opportunityHigh opportunityMinor riskModerate riskMajor risk

Strategy: summary of climate scenario
analysis and initial findings
17
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
11 AAL is the annual average loss from present day to 2050 based on the probability of the peril occurring each year between now and 2050 where the probability of the peril is the
aggregate probability of flood over a range of return periods from 1/10 to 1/500.
Physical climate risk scenario analysis: process
We have used a digital climate modelling platform developed by Jupiter Intelligence (Jupiter) to
explore the impact of three climate scenarios on about 291 physical assets/sites (‘assets’) in our
portfolio. We focused our analysis on the ‘worst case’ Physical Assessment Scenario (SSP5-8.5, refer
scenario (iii) on the next page), at 2050, on the basis that the anticipated impacts are likely to be
lower than those assessed in this scenario.
The Jupiter platform identifies which assets are most exposed to the various climate perils that it
models under the Physical Assessment Scenarios. We took the list of assets in the high or highest
exposure categories under the worst case scenario at 2050 and explored the vulnerabilities of those
assets to the identified peril(s). Assets that were both highly exposed and vulnerable formed our list of
At Risk assets.
We then took the value for each At Risk asset (insured or replacement value where possible) and using
Jupiter’s modelling, supplemented with modelling developed using Morrison expertise where
necessary, to determine an annual average loss (AAL
11
) value for each At Risk asset. We then
attributed a proportion of each AAL to Infratil based on Infratil’s proportionate shareholding.
Transition risk and opportunity scenario analysis: process
We used our valuation models for Material Portfolio Companies to explore the impact of three climate
scenarios on the value of Infratil’s portfolio in present day terms compared to the value of the
companies under a baseline climate scenario. We have also worked with sector experts at Morrison
to determine Infratil’s view of relevant risks and opportunities for each platform that will help to inform
our transition analysis.
To do this, for each Transition Assessment Scenario, we used macroeconomic data extracted from
Oxford Economics climate models supplemented by adjustments to other model inputs informed by
the risks and opportunities in our qualitative climate transition assessments and the findings of our
physical climate risk modelling.
Our valuation models include detailed inputs generally out to at least 10 years (the terminal date).
The models then have a ‘terminal value’ that reflects all future cashflows (adjusted for climate
impacts) beyond the terminal date, discounted back to a value as at the terminal date. The models
then discount the terminal value and all the detailed net cashflows back to a present value. These
models produce initial outputs only and are subject to the range of limitations set out on page 14.
Physical climate risk scenario analysis: findings
Our analysis shows that the anticipated impacts reasonably expected from physical climate risks
under SSP5-8.5 by 2050 are that up to 11% of our Material Portfolio Company Assets (by number)
and up to 5% by value are assessed as being At Risk, i.e. being both highly exposed and vulnerable to
one or more climate perils (see note 10 on page 15). These impacts occur mostly at healthcare and
renewable energy sites.
Based on the assessment of AAL associated with the At Risk assets under SSP5-8.5, Infratil’s
reasonable expectation is a proportionate AAL of up to $11 million.
In other words, over a short-term 3-year period, Infratil’s reasonable expectation is that the aggregate
proportionate AAL in the 'worst case' scenario (SSP5-8.5) considered is up to $33 million; out to
2030 up to $66 million and out to 2050 up to $286 million (all in present day values and all else being
equal).
Transition climate scenario analysis: findings
We modelled the impact of the climate scenarios on the net present value of each of Material
Portfolio Companies’ cashflows out to 2050. Our initial analysis of climate-related transition risks and
opportunities (combined with modelled financial assumptions to reflect the physical impacts from
climate change) shows that the portfolio has:
• some opportunities to improve overall portfolio value under an Organised & Decisive
scenario; and
• vulnerability to minor negative impacts under a Delayed & Disorganised scenario.
In other words, Infratil’s portfolio benefits most from a decisive transition.
The portfolio may have greater vulnerability to negative impacts under a Too Little, Too Late scenario,
but at this stage we consider it a less likely scenario (though it provides a useful ‘worst case’ boundary
to support our assessment of the expected financial impacts from physical climate risks).
Below we set out a synopsis of the processes we undertook for our climate scenario analysis (assessing physical and transition risks and opportunities) and the findings that support Infratil’s initial view of the
anticipated impacts that it reasonably expects from these risks. In the subsequent sections on Physical Risk and Transition Risks & Opportunities we cover the scenarios, process, and initial outputs in more detail.

Physical risk assessment
Introduction and context
Infratil has subscribed to a platform developed by
Jupiter Intelligence (‘Jupiter’), a Clearvision investee
company, to assist with analysing physical climate
risk for the assets in our portfolio. Jupiter was
selected by Infratil for its global capability, flexibility,
credibility, and high resolution – the software can
provide insights down to a 90mx90m grid cell
resolution, with each of those points in the model
having over 15,000 associated pieces of
climate data.
In June 2023, we collected geolocation data from
each portfolio company to upload into the Jupiter
ClimateScore Global platform, which allows us to
extract insights on the exposure to various climate
events (‘perils’) under various climate scenarios
over a range of time periods for each site. The
platform also enables analysis at a portfolio level, as
well as having the flexibility to classify each
geolocation by portfolio company and by sector to
perform more segmented risk assessments.
We have input 291 geolocations (in FY2023 we
input 303 geolocations) into the Jupiter platform –
this includes physical assets from across our
Material Portfolio Companies (which excludes
Galileo, Gurīn and Mint as they had no material
assets as at 31 March 2024), as well as some sites
in the companies’ value chains.
We have also excluded Fortysouth’s assets in this
assessment as, at over 1,600 sites, they are too
numerous to include practically and economically.
We consider this appropriate given that, by their
nature and geographic dispersion, the cell towers
have a relatively low level of physical climate risk,
particularly at the Infratil portfolio level.
We used the same list of assets as our assessment
in 2023, other than removing a few sites that have
been closed or sold. The number and value of new
sites is not considered material, and we will look to
update the site list when we consider it appropriate
to do so in the future.
The categories of sites included in the assessment
are set out below. All other aspects of the value
chain have been excluded as it is not practicable to
cover given the number of companies and sectors
in the portfolio.
(i) Owned assets. 117 sites that relate to owned
assets such as data centres (one site per
campus), owned generation sites, owned
properties, and retirement villages.
ii) 158 sites that are leased, where there is
material ‘owned’ equipment, predominantly
diagnostic imaging clinics (146) and sites that
house key communication/IT equipment.
(iii) Assets that are leased such as offices and
call centres (11 sites).
(iv) Assets that are not owned or leased, that are
part of a portfolio company’s value chain e.g.
managed generation site, key access road,
fibre access points (5 sites).
The outputs of our assessment in this report cover
both the number of sites with various levels of
exposure to each climate peril as well as analysis of
anticipated impacts. The latter has been derived by
considering which sites are both in the top two
exposure bands (high and highest) and considered
vulnerable to one or more perils. The subset of sites
that meet both criteria (‘at risk’ assets) have then
been analysed using the Jupiter platform to
estimate an ‘annual average expected loss’, which
is calculated in a similar way to an insurance
premium.
We undertook the vulnerability assessments in
conjunction with the relevant portfolio companies,
taking into account any existing mitigants and
controls. Each site was rated on a scale of 1(lowest)
to 5(highest) for asset vulnerability based on the
anticipated damage under the exposure identified
by Jupiter.
These discussions have provided insights to Infratil,
and its portfolio companies that can support asset
management, portfolio companies' insurance
discussions and any implications for business
planning and/or strategy.
Physical Assessment Scenarios: analysis
and timeframes
The scenarios explored using the Jupiter
ClimateScore Global platform have the following
attributes:
(i) SSP1-2.6: this represents midpoint warming
of ~1.8°C by 2100 (broadly aligns with our
Organised & Decisive scenario
12
and a Paris-
aligned trajectory).
(ii) SSP2-4.5: this represents midpoint warming
of ~2.7°C by 2100 (broadly aligns with
current global climate commitments by
governments
13
).
(iii) SSP5-8.5: this represents midpoint warming
of ~4.4°C by 2100 (broadly aligns with our
Too Little, Too Late scenario).
We note that as well as meeting the NZ Climate
Standards’ criteria for at least three scenarios, the
above also aligns with Aotearoa New Zealand’s
first national adaptation plan which recommends
using scenarios (ii) and (iii) for hazard and risk
assessments. An overview of the SSPs shown
above is summarised in Appendix 1. For internal
purposes, we have undertaken modelling of the
Physical Assessment Scenarios using the Jupiter
platform.
In this report, we detail the impacts from climate
change observed between a SSP1-2.6 baseline
(2020) and Jupiter’s ‘worst case’ SSP5-8.5
scenario (in 2050) as this effectively ‘book ends’
the scenarios (and timeframes) from a physical
climate risk perspective. In other words, the SSP5-
8.5 scenario presents the most challenging set of
results from the scenarios available in the Jupiter
platform.
Timeframes
The baseline year is 2020, which we have chosen
to best reflect the present-day position. Jupiter can
support analysis in future years on a 5-year
incremental time scale out to 2100. For internal
purposes, we have undertaken modelling of the
Physical Assessment Scenarios across a range of
timeframes from 2020 through to 2030 and out to
2050 using the Jupiter platform. However, for the
purposes of this report, we have chosen to publish
the impacts of the ‘worst case’ climate scenario
(SSP5-8.5) modelled out to 2050 and compared
the findings to the baseline (SSP1-2.6 in 2020).
Selecting the furthest point of our long-term
horizon (2050) for our analysis allows for a
reasonable period of time for climate-related
impacts to manifest.
Accordingly, the estimated impacts set out below
reflect those we would reasonably anticipate in
the SSP5-8.5 scenario. At this stage, we consider
it less likely than the other scenarios, but have
utilised it for this analysis as it demonstrates the
greatest possible physical impacts to our portfolio
of all the Physical Assessment Scenarios.
Return period
We have tested the resilience of the assets and
sites associated with our portfolio companies on
a 1/100-year basis for the acute perils i.e. looking
at the extent of the exposure to a climate peril
that currently has a 1% per annum chance of
occurrence. For Annual Average Loss calculations,
the modelling takes a broader range of return
periods into account.
18
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
12. Used for the analysis of climate-related transition risks and opportunities covered in the next section starting on page 24
13. Temperatures | Climate Action Tracker
‹

Back to contents
We explore the resilience of 291 physical sites
relevant to our portfolio companies using the
Physical Assessment Scenarios in the Jupiter
Intelligence platform.
This year, we have built on our FY2023 analysis
to understand which sites are both highly
exposed
and vulnerable. We have then used a
feature of the Jupiter platform to help assess
the anticipated impacts from physical risks
associated with climate change.

19
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
14. This includes coastal flooding (from sea level rise, tides, and storm surge) and fluvial flooding (from and along rivers due to rainfall and severe storms)
Climate perils
We have explored the impact of eight climate perils
on our portfolio company assets and operations,
set out in the table below. In selecting these perils,
we considered the options available in the Jupiter
platform and the desire to present a broad suite of
commonly referenced climate perils.
The Jupiter platform allows users to select different
parameters e.g. a maximum temperature above
35⁰C or 38⁰C, but we have elected to continue to
use Jupiter’s default settings as they reflect
commonly used parameters, due to their alignment
with certain characteristics (e.g. 35⁰C is the level
above which there are impacts to human health
and performance).
The Jupiter platform assesses exposure in quintile
bands, with ‘Lowest’ (dark purple) representing the
bottom 20% of exposure and ‘Highest’ (pink)
representing the top 20% of exposure experienced
by all sites in Jupiter’s baseline modelling. For
example, Jupiter’s baseline modelling showed that
20% of all sites in its global model in 2020 had a
100 year return period exposure to a flood > 2m.
Since FY2023, Jupiter has refined and updated
some of its band definitions to reflect refinement
of its modelling, additional data and, in the
case of wind, cold, heat, wildfire and flooding,
re-evaluation to better match typical
vulnerabilities of assets to these perils.
‹

Back to contents
Peril TypeClimate PerilDescriptionHighest ExposureHigh ExposureMedium Exposure
Chronic
- gradual,
long-term
shifts
Extreme HeatMean days per annum where maximum
temperature > 35°C
≥ 75 days30-75 days10-30 days
Extreme ColdMean days per annum where minimum
temperature < 0°C
≥ 100 days 60-100 days15-60 days
Water stressAnnual human water demand/
water supply
≥ 0.80.6-0.80.4-0.6
Acute
- sudden,
event-driven
shifts
Wildfire Probability of a wildfire in a 1km² grid
cell per 100 years
≥ 0.7% 0.4-0.7%0.2-0.4%
Flood141 in 100 year chance of experiencing
a flood with a depth in metres
≥ 2m1-2m0.5-1m
Wind1 in 100 year chance of experiencing
a maximum 1-minute sustained wind
speed (km/h)
≥ 209km/h178-209km/h154-178km/h
Precipitation1 in 100 year chance of maximum
daily rain (mm)
≥ 325mm250-325mm200-250mm
HailThe number of days in a year where
large hail (> 5cm diameter) is possible
≥ 2 days1-2 days0.35-1 days
The above exposure bands apply across all scenarios, but the proportion of sites in the bands will change under different scenarios and timeframes.
For example, there will likely be fewer sites in the highest exposure band for extreme heat in 2020 under a SSP1-2.6 scenario than there is in 2050 under
a SSP5–8.5 scenario.
Physical risk assessment
This year, we have built on our understanding of
the exposure of our portfolio company assets
and sites to the identified climate perils by
exploring the vulnerability of those assets and
sites that have a high degree of exposure to one
or more perils. As shown in the graphic below,
the combination of these two insights (exposure
and vulnerability) provides us with a view on
overall risk and helps us to assess the potential
impact on value.
For example, a data centre might be exposed to
extreme cold, but has low vulnerability to this
peril, so the associated risk to the asset is low.
Conversely, a ground floor clinic might have a
high exposure to rainfall, and if it is also deemed
vulnerable (for example, the stormwater
infrastructure and flood resilience characteristics
of the building are weak), that presents a high
risk for that clinic (but a lower risk to the overall
business, given it is one clinic of many).
Hazard
(‘Peril’)
Exposure
Vulnerability
Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability
Risk
Hazard
(‘Peril’)
Exposure
Vulnerability
Risk

20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
90%
70%
50%
30%
10%
0
Lowest ExposureLow ExposureMedium ExposureHigh ExposureHighest Exposure
PrecipitationFloodFireWater StressHeatColdHailWind
PrecipitationFloodFireWater StressHeatColdHailWind
Lowest Exposure
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
90%
70%
50%
30%
10%
0
Low ExposureMedium ExposureHigh ExposureHighest Exposure
Rolling forward to 2050 under the SSP5-8.5 ‘worst case’ scenario, the same set of sites is exposed to the eight climate
perils as follows:
Lowest Exposure
Medium Exposure
Highest Exposure
Low Exposure
High Exposure
Proportion of assets/sites in each exposure band in 2020 (under SSP1-2.6 scenario)
Proportion of assets/sites in each exposure band in 2050 (under SSP5-8.5 scenario)
20
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
First, we explore exposure to physical climate risk at a portfolio level – note this page and the next focus on the number or proportion of sites in
each exposure band for each peril, rather than implying a value impact. The Jupiter ClimateScore Global platform has generated the graph below
showing the projected proportion of sites that fall within each exposure band for each of the eight climate perils as at the baseline year, 2020:
How does climate change impact the
portfolio assets’ exposure to the perils?
The main changes from our FY2023 analysis
are the decrease in the number of assets in the
high/highest bands for wind, cold and fire and
an increase for flood and precipitation, due to
the recalibration by Jupiter referred to earlier.
Below we summarise the level of exposure to
the most impactful perils for assets/sites in
Infratil’s portfolio and how this changes out to
2050 under a SSP5-8.5 scenario. On page 22,
we explore vulnerability to these perils.
• Precipitation: Exposure to this peril is
forecast to increase, with an additional 28
sites moving into the top two bands (123 by
2050). We note the broad dispersion across
a range of locations which provides a
mitigation against the operational and
financial impact of any one event.
• Flood: The number of assets in the top two
bands (29) is unchanged over time, but the
level of exposure within the band typically
increases. Most of these are hydro stations,
which are designed to be resilient to this risk,
but supporting infrastructure (e.g. access
roads, grid connections) may be impacted.
• Wildfire: Sites in the top two exposure
bands increase from 6 to 14 by 2050.
Approximately half of these sites relate to
generation assets which are typically in arid
regions with little vegetation to create fire
risk. The balance are clinics in Australia.
Increased exposure to extreme heat (37 sites
in 2050, up from 29 in 2020) is unlikely to
damage assets but would affect people and
operations e.g. higher cooling costs, ability to
undertake maintenance outside.
Physical risk assessment

Healthcare
Lowest Risk
Highest
Risk Band
Renewable EnergyDigital InfrastructureAirport(lighter hashed cell represents a site with no material owned assets)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
010203040
Present Day Score
2020 - 2050 Change Score
5060708090100
21
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
Jupiter Overall Hazard Score : Infratil portfolio assets and sites by sector
‹

Back to contents
Another perspective is provided by Jupiter’s
‘Overall Hazard Score’ graph.
The horizonal axis Present Day Score is a score
that, for each site, represents Jupiter’s calculation
for that site’s weighted average exposure to all
eight climate perils as at 2020 (a proxy for the
Present Day). So, the purple dot sitting just above
the x-axis at the right-hand side of the graph, with
a score of around 96 (red circled), is highly
exposed to climate perils today.
The vertical axis 2020-2050 Change Score is a
score that, for each site, shows how much that
site’s exposure to climate perils changes between
now and 2050 under the SSP5-8.5 scenario. So,
the purple dot in the top right-hand corner of the
graph is both highly exposed to climate perils today
(with a Present Day Score of about 99), and the
exposure is expected to change (increase)
materially by 2050, with a Change Score of around
90 (as an aside, this is a leased clinic). The top left
purple dot has a relatively low Present Day Score
(2), but its exposure to climate perils by 2050 is
assessed by Jupiter as being very high (89), and at
42, its Overall Hazard Score is rated medium risk.
For each site, Jupiter calculates an Overall Hazard
Score which reflects the combined risk factor
presented by both its Present Day Score and its
Change Score. The Overall Hazard Scores are not
shown on the graph axes, instead we have divided
the sites into risk bands, delineated by the light grey
dashed lines. The sites with the top 20% of Overall
Hazard Scores are in the highest risk band (in the
top right-hand segment of the graph), and the sites
with the lowest 20% of Overall Hazard Scores are in
the lowest risk band (in the bottom left-hand
segment of the graph).
We make the following observations from a
platform perspective:
• Renewable assets (blue) are deliberately sited
for wind and sun, so we would expect to see
some with a higher Present Day Score. Sites
with a higher Change Score are predominantly
solar assets. Two of the 72 sites (3%) are in the
top two Overall Hazard Score bands, one of
which is a leased office. We note that the First
Solar Series 6 and Series 7 panels both have an
operating temperature range of -40 to +85°C
and at 35°C (the Jupiter threshold for extreme
heat), the panels operate at about 3% below
maximum efficiency.
• Digital assets (yellow) largely have
low-moderate Present Day and Change Scores,
and only one site is in the top two Overall Hazard
Score bands. The assets with a slightly higher
Overall Hazard Score, are data centres in
Australia that have been assessed as not
vulnerable to the perils to which they are
exposed (wildfire and precipitation), given their
design features and lack of surrounding
vegetation.
• Healthcare assets (purple) show the greatest
dispersion. These are largely clinics across
New Zealand and Australia – any physical
impacts from climate change on any individual
clinic would not be expected to be material from
a portfolio perspective. The main exposures
(and perils that drive the Change Score) in this
platform are precipitation (with about a 10%
increase in the number of sites in the top
exposure bands by 2050), followed by heat and
water stress. Of the nine healthcare assets in
the top two Overall Hazard Score bands, one is
an office, one is a retirement village and the
other seven are clinics in Australia.
• Wellington Airport (pink): the most exposed
airport site (pink stripes) is the northern access
road, which is vulnerable to coastal flooding.
Whilst important for passenger access, this
road is not owned by the airport, it is the
responsibility of local and central Government.
Wellington Airport is engaging with the relevant
agencies on resilience upgrades. We have
excluded the Airport’s seawall from our analysis
because, given its proximity to water, it was
difficult to model in the Jupiter platform.
However, we have included information on the
company’s planned investment in resilience of
its marine protection assets on page 38.
Overall Hazard Score
Risk BandScore% Sites
Highest80-1001
High60 -793
Medium40-5913
Low20-3929
Lowest0 -1954
Following recalibration of its exposure bands,
the Jupiter platform shows that the sites in
Infratil’s portfolio are predominantly in the
low-lowest overall hazard bands (83%
compared to 71% in FY2023), reflecting that
the combined risk factor of its current
exposures, and change in exposure by 2050
is predominantly low-lowest.
Physical risk assessment

22
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
What is the distribution of the At Risk assets/
sites that are highly exposed and vulnerable
to one or more climate perils under the
SSP5-8.5 ‘worst case’ scenario?
• Of the assets that are in any of the top two
exposure bands under SSP5-8.5 by 2050,
we assessed 33 as being vulnerable to those
perils (rated > 3 on our scale of 1(lowest) to
5(highest)). Nearly 40% of these are sites not
owned by the portfolio companies, though
some have material owned assets housed in
them e.g. clinics. Notably, there are no data
centre sites that are both highly exposed and
vulnerable (At Risk) – not surprising given the
importance placed on resilience for this
sector, and that all the sites are relatively
newly developed.
• Our analysis shows the most exposed
platform, by number of At Risk sites, is
healthcare, followed by renewable energy;
and the most common perils are extreme
precipitation followed by flood. We note that
the Wellington Airport sites that are exposed
and vulnerable are the northern access
route, and southern sea wall – both of these
are well understood by the company and the
risks are being actively managed, as covered
in the company’s own climate disclosures.
What are the anticipated physical impacts
of climate change on the portfolio under the
SSP5-8.5 ‘worst case’ scenario?
• Jupiter has functionality to assess ‘annual
average loss’ (AAL) for some, but not all,
perils. It can assess Infratil’s portfolio assets/
sites that are exposed and vulnerable to flood
and wildfire but cannot assess hail and
extreme precipitation. AAL can be viewed
akin to an annual insurance premium (with no
profit margin).
• We have therefore used Jupiter to assess
impacts for flood and wildfire. For hail and
precipitation, we applied a simplistic version
of the Jupiter modelling based on the
assessed vulnerability to estimate the
annual average impact. We acknowledge
this assessment was somewhat more basic
than Jupiter’s modelling function.
• Our analysis shows that up to 5% of assets
(by value) are At Risk, i.e. being assessed as
being highly exposed and vulnerable to one or
more climate perils (see note 10 on page 15).
The platform with the most exposed assets by
value is renewable energy followed by
healthcare, and then digital. The perils that
present the most risk from a value
perspective are flood and extreme
precipitation. Proportionate AAL for Material
Portfolio Company At Risk assets (excluding
the Airport seawalls) out to 2050 is up to
$11 million in present value terms.
Under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, by 2050 up to 11% of portfolio company assets assessed (by
number) are highly exposed and vulnerable to one or more climate perils (At Risk). This translates to
an Annual Average Loss for these assets of up to $11 million in today’s dollars. The perils most
impactful are flood, extreme precipitation, and wildfire. The sectors most impacted are (in order of
number of sites) healthcare, renewable energy, and then digital. Healthcare sites are leased clinics,
where climate risk can be factored into lease renewal decisions.
Distribution of the number of At Risk sites that
are high/highly exposed and vulnerable
Proportionate total fair value of At Risk assets by
platform (before insurance)
Proportionate AAL by platform (before insurance)
Distribution of the perils of At Risk sites that are
high/highly exposed and vulnerable
Proportionate total fair value of At Risk assets by
peril (before insurance)
Proportionate AAL by peril (before insurance)
Digital
Renewable Energy
Healthcare
Airport
9%
36%
48%
6%
Flood
Extreme precipitation
Wildfire
Hail
39%
44%
14%
3%
$-
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
DigitalRenewable EnergyHealthcare
NZ$ million
Extreme
precipitation
WildfireHailFlood
$-
$100.0
$200.0
$300.0
$400.0
$500.0
NZ$ million
$-
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
DigitalRenewable EnergyHealthcare
NZ$ million
$-
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
NZ$ million
Extreme
precipitation
WildfireHailFlood
Physical risk assessment

Mitigating physical climate risk
For Infratil, one of the key mitigants to risk, including
risks associated with the physical impacts from
climate change events, is diversification. Not only
are Infratil’s portfolio companies geographically
and sector diverse, but the physical assets within
the portfolio companies are also geographically
diverse across the jurisdictions in which they
operate, except for Wellington Airport.
Whilst a pervasive, systemic risk such as the
exposure to the physical impacts from climate
change cannot be avoided altogether, this
diversification by geography, sector, and asset
type helps to limit the financial impact from climate
events in any one year.
Many of our portfolio companies are increasingly
undertaking work on identifying, mitigating, and
reducing risks to their assets from the physical
impacts of climate change. In doing so, they deploy
a range of mitigation strategies including insurance
and incorporating resilience considerations into site
selection, design and construction.
23
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
In addition to geographic diversity, some other
examples of mitigants deployed within the portfolio
companies include:
• Wellington Airport is investing in adaptive
capacity of its assets by upgrading marine
defences and stormwater infrastructure.
• RetireAustralia has ongoing programmes of
roofing repairs and preventative maintenance,
helping to ensure roofs are tied down and
regular monitoring and maintenance of
stormwater infrastructure is undertaken.
• CDC’s data centres incorporate a range of
design characteristics that support resilience
against a range of risks, including physical
climate risks.
• As noted in our FY2023 CRD (page 7), Longroad
is trialling the next generation of innovative solar
trackers that have special features to help
protect the solar panels from hail.
• RHCNZ and Qscan diagnostic imaging clinics
are on a range of leases, typically with an initial
medium-term tenor (albeit often with a right of
renewal). This provides a mitigant to physical
climate risk in that the business can choose not
to renew a tenancy if the risk of an extreme
weather event is deemed to be unacceptable.
One NZ
‹

Back to contents
Physical risk assessment

To assess the potential transition impacts of
climate change on our four platforms we took a
dual approach utilising both qualitative and early
quantitative analysis.
Whilst Infratil’s enterprise risk management system
focuses on risks at the portfolio level, for the
purposes of assessing transition risks and
opportunities, we considered each platform
separately, as we expect that they will each
experience different impacts due to the varying
nature of each sector.
Consistent with the approach for our FY2023 CRD,
our analysis explored the climate-related transition
risks and opportunities for each platform across
short, medium, and long-term horizons under the
Transition Assessment Scenarios set out below.
Transition risks and opportunities assessment
Transition
Assessment Scenario
BaselineOrganised & DecisiveDelayed & DisorganisedToo Little, Too Late
Temperature above
pre-industrial levels
(1850-1900)
2050 – 1.9°C
2100 – 3.1°C
2050 – 1.5°C
2100 – 1.5°C
2050 – 1.7°C
2100 – 1.7°C
2050 – 2.2°C
2100 – 5.0°C
Summary of Oxford
Economics’ Scenario
Description
Some action by governments, albeit
somewhat delayed, sees carbon emissions
reduce but to a lesser extent and slower
than the Organised & Decisive and Delayed
& Disorganised scenarios. Out to 2050,
global growth is only fractionally higher than
these scenarios but will be negatively
impacted further out as the physical
impacts of climate change cause financial
harm.
Immediate and coordinated global action by
all stakeholders is undertaken to meet
mitigation goals, this allows for a phased
and moderate economic response with
short-term economic pain inflicted as
immediate steps are undertaken to reduce
emissions for a long-term benefit.
Delayed and disorganised global action
which requires a severe response by
stakeholders to meet mitigation goals. This
scenario is characterised by a delayed
implementation of climate policies with
significant action not implemented until
2030 though in the long run the economy
benefits from the severe actions
undertaken.
Limited climate action and failure in meeting
Nationally Determined Contributions.
15

This scenario is characterised by little to no
action towards climate policies and with
increasingly severe economic impacts
resulting from climate inaction as we move
through the timeline with the long run
outcome being significant impacts on
day-to-day life and significant economic
pain.
Oversight of the scenario modelling exercise has been provided by Morrison employees and Infratil representatives who sit on the boards of our portfolio companies and other sector experts.
15. All About the NDCs | United Nations
24
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
Summary of scenarios explored
Below is a summary of the four scenarios
which we have selected for climate change
transition assessment. Apart from the
addition of a Baseline scenario, the climate
scenarios are consistent with those used for
our FY2023 disclosures (which used our
own, unadjusted valuations as the baseline).
Further information on these scenarios and
the assumptions behind them are outlined in
Appendix 2.

Quantitative assessment
Our quantitative modelling exercise is an initial
assessment subject to a number of limitations. As
a starting point, we used our internal portfolio
valuation models to test the impact of the
Transition Assessment Scenarios on our baseline
valuation outputs. We chose to use our internal
valuation models because they are an existing tool
that integrates well with the Oxford Economics
outputs. The main focus of this quantitative
assessment was the period covered by the
detailed component of our valuation models,
typically out 10-20 years (depending on the
company). We then adjusted our terminal value
estimates to capture the impact of the Transition
Assessment Scenarios from this point out to 2050.
To provide an early indication of the financial
impact under each scenario, we used the Transition
Assessment Scenarios outputs to provide the
macroeconomic scenario inputs into our valuation
models. We also made assumptions about
company-specific, non-macroeconomic variables
that are expected to be impacted by the different
climate change scenarios, such as capex being
impacted by policies requiring more stringent
building standards. We have also incorporated
assumptions about how physical impacts from
climate change might impact financial impacts,
such as operating expenditure (‘opex’) being
higher due to greater maintenance required under
a Too Little, Too Late scenario. This aspect was
informed in part by the findings from our physical
climate analysis covered in the previous section.
In FY2023, we compared the valuation outcome
under each scenario to our current valuations. This
year, we have progressed our understanding by
comparing the valuation outcomes under our
Organised & Decisive, Delayed & Disorganised and
Too Little, Too Late scenarios to that observed using
a suite of macroeconomic inputs from the Oxford
Economics Baseline scenario. We did this to
support consistency of approach (comparing
‘apples with apples’). The Baseline scenario is
intended to demonstrate a continuation of the
current trajectory in terms of the global response
to climate change.
In the next sections we set out the initial findings
from our early quantitative and qualitative
assessments for each platform. We have worked
towards providing greater detail than what was
disclosed in FY2023.
Given the significant uncertainties referred to here
and on pages 1 and 14, we provide a narrative
description (rather than quantitative outputs) of
the findings from our quantitative analysis for each
platform and at a portfolio level. Whilst we have
made some progress, we are still refining our
approach to quantifying the impacts to valuations.
We will continue to evolve our modelling and
disclosures over time.
Qualitative assessment
In our qualitative analysis, in FY2023, we undertook
an exercise with input from sector experts within
Morrison to identify the potential climate-related
risks faced by each of our platforms. We
considered how each of our sector platforms are
expected to perform in times of climate change
related economic stress, and we considered how
markets, governments, businesses, and society
might respond under each Transition Assessment
Scenario. This qualitative analysis helped to inform
our quantitative modelling. It was focused on
transition impacts rather than physical impacts,
though some aspects, like insurance, relate to
both.
As part of the qualitative assessment, we identified
a number of transition risks and opportunities that
might be faced by each of our platforms. These
risks are not listed individually in Infratil’s risk
register, which is focused on risks relating to Infratil
itself and its overall portfolio. We explored how
these might impact the value of the platform and
we estimated the severity of each risk (relative to
the total fair value of each platform) under each
scenario and over time.
As we worked through this assessment, we
considered how our platforms may seek to mitigate
the impacts of the identified transition risks or take
advantage of identified opportunities. We also
considered risks that relate to policy changes,
technology, shifting market and consumer
preferences and reputation.
This year, we have reviewed and updated the
outputs from our FY2023 CRD qualitative
assessment.
Summary of portfolio level impacts
At the portfolio level, in our analysis of the Transition
Assessment Scenarios out to 2050, we observed
that Infratil has some opportunities to improve
overall portfolio value under an Organised &
Decisive scenario and vulnerability to minor
negative impacts under a Delayed & Disorganised
scenario. The portfolio may have greater
vulnerability to negative impacts under a Too Little,
Too Late scenario, but at this stage we consider it to
be a less likely scenario (though as mentioned, it
provides a useful scenario to support assessment
of potential financial impacts from physical climate
risks).
Here, we set out a brief description of the impact
under each scenario at the overall portfolio level:
Organised & Decisive: Under this scenario, we
observe an overall uplift in the value of the portfolio,
driven primarily by the Renewable Energy platform,
where values are bolstered by an increase in
generation development combined with high
electricity prices in the short to medium term. The
impact to portfolio value is directionally the same,
but slightly higher in percentage terms, than what
we observed in our FY2023 analysis.
Delayed & Disorganised: This year, we saw a small
negative impact to valuations, slightly lower than
observed in our FY2023 analysis. We observed an
increase in the valuation of our renewables
platform, compared to a negative impact last year.
We note the complexity of modelling this scenario,
given significant changes in behaviour, prices and
polices occur towards the end of/just after our
valuation model timeframes, which need to be
factored into the terminal value assumptions.
Too Little, Too Late: Under this scenario, our
analysis showed negative impacts to valuations
across the portfolio, similar to our analysis in
FY2023, but to a greater degree. This is largely due
to lower global economic growth (under this
scenario, Oxford Economics’ modelled GDP
growth has deteriorated compared to last year),
the financial consequences from the physical
impacts of climate change, and a constrained
ability to pass on cost increases given pervasive
and increasingly severe economic stress under this
scenario. The modelling shows that our Renewable
Energy platform is also negatively impacted by the
absence of supportive policies, despite electricity
demand and prices remaining firm (due to a lack of
drive for energy efficiency gains).
In the following pages, we explore the impacts of
our climate scenarios at a sector level.
25
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
Transition risks and opportunities assessment
‹

Back to contents
Summary of scenario analysis
Our transition modelling shows a correlation
between action to reduce global warming
and the value of our portfolio: more decisive
action under the Organised & Decisive
scenario provides the best outcome for
Infratil’s portfolio. Conversely, the portfolio is
most vulnerable to minor negative impacts
under a Delayed & Disorganised scenario.
Climate-related impacts to long-term
growth, the cost of the physical impacts
from climate change, and renewable
electricity demand and prices are the key
drivers of impacts to value.

Digital infrastructure
Summary of quantitative assessment
We assessed the climate transition impacts to the
digital infrastructure platform from the Transition
Assessment Scenarios against our modelled
baseline, using our internal valuation models. Our
findings this year were directionally consistent for
each climate scenario compared to our findings
in FY2023.
Under the Too Little, Too Late scenario, we see
the largest divergence in value for our digital
infrastructure platform, with long-term global GDP
growth declining towards zero as the impacts of
climate change start to dramatically affect the
macroeconomy. We also anticipate higher
maintenance costs and capex for our digital assets
under this scenario as businesses respond to the
physical impacts of climate change and seek to
further enhance resilience, for example greater
investment in initiatives to support security of
supply for electricity. These factors present a drag
on cashflows into the future, given the ability to
pass through cost increases is likely to be more
challenging in this scenario. Together these
impacts – lower growth and higher costs – are
shown by our modelling to result in a negative
deviation from our baseline valuation.
26
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
KLON-01 and KLON-02 at the Harlow Campus
‹

Back to contents
Key modelling adjustments
GDP
CPI
Maintenance capex
Growth capex
Sales cadence
Interest rates
The modelled impact of the Delayed & Disorganised
scenario shows the greatest negative deviation
from baseline compared to the other platforms. This
is driven by long-term weak GDP growth, higher
maintenance and opex (on a large physical asset
base) and fewer transition opportunities than in the
Organised & Decisive scenario.
Higher long-term growth and lower climate-related
maintenance and capex drag lead to higher terminal
value assumptions under an Organised & Decisive
scenario compared to the baseline scenario.

27
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
Qualitative transition analysis
Transition risks Relevant
Horizon
Organised &
Decisive
Delayed &
Disorganised
Too Little,
Too Late
Comments/Mitigants
Policy changes lift requirements for building standards,
putting upwards pressure on construction costs and/or requiring
retrofits.
MOver time, where relevant, we will engage with our portfolio companies to encourage
them to ’stay ahead of the curve’ on energy efficiency and building standards.
Infratil and its portfolio companies aim to stay abreast of and engage in policy and
regulatory developments. Portfolio diversification is another mitigant, providing Infratil
with options as to when and where to deploy capital into future developments. Risk impact
will depend on the ability to pass through any increased costs.
New technologies required (e.g. next generation data centre
cooling equipment, telco infrastructure equipment) which are
more expensive and/or in scarce supply due to high demand.
M-LOver time, where relevant, we will encourage our portfolio companies to:
- develop/maintain strong relationships with relevant suppliers.
- stay abreast of technology developments and explore the use of latest energy efficient
technology in new builds/upgrades.
Higher market cost
of electricity due to:
Higher carbon prices and/or cost or
availability of renewable energy supply.
S-MOver time, where relevant, we will encourage our portfolio companies to:
- implement energy efficiency measures to mitigate rising costs, particularly in relation to
cooling systems and equipment.
- work with customers and suppliers to encourage them to upgrade to energy efficient
technology in a timely way.
For data centres, long-term contracts and pass-through of some electricity costs are risk
mitigants.
Greater cooling demand and cost of
physical and transitional climate impacts
on electricity. infrastructure.
M-L
Market prices, terms and conditions for insurance becomes less
attractive (and/or insurance availability declines).
M-L Some of our portfolio companies are already starting to:
- address issues with insurance in relation to high pricing or limited coverage by engaging
with insurers.
- investigate and deploy measures to improve resilience to physical risks.
Risk impact will depend on the ability to pass through any increased costs.
Market preferences shift towards lower data usage, or lower
emissions options for digital/data.
M Infratil encourages and supports its portfolio companies to take credible action to reduce
emissions and set SBTi targets.
In New Zealand, CDC has received and maintained Toitū net carbon zero certification
since its first year of operation, making it the first certified net carbon zero hyperscale data
centre provider in the country; and One NZ has committed to setting a SBTi validated
emissions reduction target.
Reputational impacts associated with increasing focus on the
growing energy demand of data centres and affect that might
have on energy markets and wider decarbonisation ambitions.
S-M
Reputational considerations for lenders limit financial appetite/
increase pricing for companies that are high emissions and/or
not reducing emissions sufficiently.
S-M
Transition opportunities
Reduce costs and/or exposure to energy and carbon price
volatility through energy efficiency initiatives and/or reducing
carbon footprint.
S-M Infratil supports and encourages its portfolio companies to understand, measure and
reduce their emissions footprints, using recognised frameworks such as GHG Protocol,
SBTi and GRESB.
Blank cells in the Too Little, Too Late column reflect that the opportunity is not relevant or
that stakeholders are expected to have ambivalent attitudes towards sustainability and
climate initiatives in this scenario.
Reputation: Leverage strong sustainability and climate
credentials to attract customers, capital and community
support.
S-M-L
Develop new products/services to support the transition to a
low emission, climate resilient future.
S-M-L For example, One NZ's SpaceX proposed offering is expected to support continued
connectivity in face of disasters arising from the impacts of climate change.
Greater market demand for digital services e.g. for working from
home/virtual meetings, technology infrastructure to support
innovative climate solutions.
S-M-L This demand may arise from a desire to reduce emissions (e.g. from commuting/travel,
energy efficiency or grid optimisation) or it may be due to greater climate-related
disruption (e.g. increased extreme weather events making commuting/travel difficult).
Digital infrastructure
‹

Back to contents
Horizon: Short (S), Medium (M), Long (L) term
Risk/opportunity rating key
Severe riskInsignificant riskSome opportunityHigh opportunityMinor riskModerate riskMajor risk

Renewable energy
28
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
Summary of quantitative assessment
We assessed the climate transition impacts to the
renewable energy platform from our Transition
Assessment Scenarios. Two of the key factors
underpinning our modelling in each of the three
climate change scenarios are the forecast
renewable energy demand and electricity prices.
Manawa Energy’s valuation is particularly sensitive
to the latter given its largely fixed-price offtake
contracts are shorter (full exposure to market
pricing from FY28 onwards) than Longroad’s
average offtake tenor of 15.9 years.
Under the Organised & Decisive scenario, total
global energy demand declines as consumers and
businesses aggressively seek to reduce
consumption through energy efficiency and other
measures – against this, the proportion of
renewable electricity grows from around 40%
currently to over 97% by 2050. With the strongest
suite of supportive policies and incentives, the
modelled impact under the Organised & Decisive
scenario presents the greatest valuation upside
compared to the baseline both for the Renewable
Energy platform and the overall portfolio.
‹

Back to contents
Longroad Energy 243MW
El Campo wind farm, Texas
Key modelling adjustments
GDP
CPI
Maintenance
Capex
Electricity prices
Renewable energy demand
Development cadence
Development margins
Interest rates
Generation volume
Under the Delayed & Disorganised scenario,
supportive policies and demand for renewables
development comes later in the modelled period,
meaning valuation uplift is positive, but not as
strong as the Organised & Decisive scenario.
Conversely, the Too Little, Too Late scenario sees a
continued rise in global energy demand, but the
proportion of renewable electricity remains
constant at around today’s levels. A lack of
supportive policies and the negative financial and
economic impacts from the physical effects of
climate change see some fall in value relative to the
baseline for this scenario.

Qualitative transition analysis
Transition risks Relevant
Horizon
Organised &
Decisive
Delayed &
Disorganised
Too Little,
Too Late
Comments/Mitigants
Market demand for renewables decreases – either as a result
of overall energy demand decreasing and/or as a result of
apathy towards decarbonisation of the energy system.
M-LInfratil's renewable energy platform has opportunities to continue developing generation
under all scenarios, though energy demand and the rate of energy transition are factors
worth continuously monitoring.
Having a portfolio that is diversified across geographies and jurisdictions that may diverge
in this regard is expected to act as a mitigant to this risk, whilst also providing broad-based
exposure to opportunities.
Policy changes increase consenting and compliance costs
and/or reducing incentives for new and existing
developments.
S-MInfratil and its portfolio companies aim to stay abreast of and engage in proposed changes
to regulatory/consenting rules. Governments and regulators are aware of the need for
new renewable generation, which limits the risk of burdensome changes under Organised
& Decisive and Delayed & Disorganised scenarios.
Risk impact will depend on the ability to pass through any increased costs. Portfolio
diversification is another mitigant, providing Infratil with options as to when and where to
deploy capital into future developments.
Competitors might more rapidly deploy new energy
technologies which might emerge that are more cost
effective, efficient or have other features more attractive than
current renewable energy technology.
M-L Infratil and its portfolio companies aim to stay abreast of emerging technology
developments, including through engaging with experts, in industry forums and (for
portfolio companies) suppliers. Morrison’s global energy expertise is helpful in this regard.
Through Infratil-nominated board positions, we will support exploring, where appropriate,
deployment of the latest generation technology in new builds/upgrades.
Grid capacity becomes further constrained as market
demand for connections grows and 'must run' renewable
generation increases creating peaks in market supply which
increase the risk of curtailment.
S-M Where feasible, and practicable, Infratil’s renewable energy portfolio companies seek:
- geographical diversity of generation to avoid too much supply in any given location.
- to investigate/deploy storage options for grid excess either through battery technology
or other types of grid scale storage.
- to secure sites with the ability to sell into multiple markets and/or manage via offtake
contract terms.
A related opportunity associated with this risk is that existing generation sites and secured
development opportunities with good grid connectivity and capacity characteristics may
become more valuable.
Intense market competition for new project sites and grid
access as capital flows into renewable energy development. In
some regions, we are observing a constraint in new grid
connections due to supply chain and labour shortages.
S-MTo mitigate this risk, where feasible and practicable, Infratil’s renewable portfolio
companies could seek to:
- enter into contracting arrangements to secure revenue for generation projects.
- secure options/sites for future development projects where appropriate.
- lift in-house grid capability to support accelerating and securing grid access.
Portfolio diversification is another mitigant, providing Infratil with options as to when and
where to deploy capital into future developments. A related opportunity associated with
this risk is that existing generation sites and secured development opportunities with
good grid connectivity characteristics may become more valuable.
Supply chain constraints arise from high market demand for
components for renewable energy generation. Additional
pressure on the supply chain may arise from raw material
shortages, political instability, or regulatory changes.
S-MWe encourage our portfolio companies to develop and maintain strong supplier
relationships. For example, Longroad has established a deep relationship with First Solar,
affording favourable procurement status and supply chain benefits. Depending on market
conditions, our portfolio companies are able to deploy a range of strategies to support
supply chain access, such as diversifying their supplier base, utilising portfolio 'buying
power', and leveraging their reputation and networks. Morrison helps to organise a
procurement forum for Infratil’s renewable energy companies to facilitate discussion of
procurement insights and challenges.
A related opportunity associated with this risk is that existing generation sites and secured
development opportunities with good grid connectivity characteristics may become
more valuable.
Market prices, terms and conditions for insurance becomes
less attractive (and/or insurance availability declines).
S-M-LSome of our portfolio companies are already starting to:
- address issues with insurance in relation to high pricing or limited coverage by engaging
with insurers or utilising captive insurance.
- investigate and deploy measures to improve resilience to physical risks.
Risk impact will depend on the ability to pass through any increased costs.
Increasing focus on reducing embodied carbon in generation
equipment (and/or costs increase due to higher market prices
for carbon).
S-MOver time, where relevant, we will encourage our portfolio companies to stay abreast of
technology developments & deploy low carbon technology in new builds/upgrades where
feasible.
One example of this is Longroad's planned use of the new Series 7 solar panels in its
Serrano development, which have a relatively low carbon footprint as detailed in the inset
story on page 11.
Risk impact will depend on the ability to pass through any increased costs.
Transition opportunities
Climate-friendly regulations/policy provide incentives to
develop renewable energy generation and/or increase
demand for clean energy.
S-M-LInfratil and its portfolio companies are focused on staying abreast of, and engaging in,
regulatory developments in relation to clean energy.
Diversity across a range of jurisdictions increases the likelihood of being exposed to
positive policy changes. This is not seen as an opportunity under the Too Little, Too Late
scenario, as there are unlikely to be climate-friendly regulations.
New renewable energy generation, storage and transmission
technologies might emerge that reduce costs, increase
generation, or have other attractive features.
S-M-LInfratil and its portfolio companies aim to stay abreast of emerging technology
developments, including through engaging with experts in industry forums and (for
portfolio companies) suppliers. Morrison’s global energy expertise is helpful in this regard.
Whilst technology developments might emerge under the Too Little, Too Late scenario,
they are somewhat less likely – and the imperative for novel/more challenging innovations
such as green hydrogen is a low probability under this scenario (hence this cell is blank).
The drive to decarbonise increases market demand for
renewable energy from existing and novel/emerging
technologies (e.g. sustainable aviation, green hydrogen) which
presents new investment opportunities.
S-M-L
Reputation: Leverage strong sustainability, climate, and
resilience credentials to attract customers/contracts, capital,
and community support.
S-M-L Infratil supports and encourages its portfolio companies to understand, measure and
reduce their emissions footprints, using credible frameworks such as GHG Protocol, SBTi
and GRESB.
The blank cell in the Too Little, Too Late column reflects that stakeholders are expected to
have ambivalent attitudes towards sustainability and climate initiatives in this scenario.
Renewable energy
29
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
Horizon: Short (S), Medium (M), Long (L) term
‹

Back to contents
Risk/opportunity rating key
Severe riskInsignificant riskSome opportunityHigh opportunityMinor riskModerate riskMajor risk

Healthcare
30
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
As a preamble to the next two sections, it is worth
noting that our quantitative and qualitative
assessments of the healthcare and airport
platforms need to be taken in context of their scale
relative to the wider portfolio.
We have endeavoured to use the rating key to
reflect the financial impact relative to the total value
of each platform. This year, we have also added
greater nuance to our rating key to distinguish the
level of risk and whether a risk is relevant or not.
As at 31 March 2024, the healthcare and airport
platforms made up about 11% and 4% of the fair
value of Infratil’s total investment portfolio
respectively, compared to digital (62%) and
renewables (23%). So, a ‘minor‘ risk for the
healthcare or airport platforms is likely to have a
lower dollar impact than the same grade risk for
digital or renewables.
‹
Back to contents
Summary of quantitative assessment
We assessed the climate transition impacts to the
healthcare platform from the Transition
Assessment Scenarios. Our modelling shows that
neither the Organised & Decisive nor the Delayed &
Disorganised scenarios had a material impact on
valuations for the Diagnostic Imaging businesses.
Oxford Economics’ assumptions did not provide a
forecast for population growth, as an alternative
we estimate GDP growth is a reasonable proxy for
population growth and have used this assumption
to estimate demand for healthcare services. As a
result, scanning volumes continue to grow under
all climate scenarios, albeit at a slower rate in the
Too Little, Too Late scenario which assumes
macro-economic growth slows and unemployment
increases. We recognise that the impacts to health
in this scenario may spur greater demand for
diagnostic imaging, but this is very challenging to
model, and the general economic stress may
limit Government and private ability to pay for
health services.
We found it challenging to sensibly incorporate
the Oxford Economics House Price Index into
our modelling; while this is a key metric for
RetireAustralia’s valuation, it contributed to the
best valuation performance under Too Little, Too
Late scenario (albeit negative). This aspect of our
modelling requires some further refinement and
customisation, which we will look to undertake
next year.
Key modelling adjustments
G
DP
CPI
Maintenance
Capex
House Price Index

Healthcare
Qualitative transition analysis
Transition risks Relevant
Horizon
Organised &
Decisive
Delayed &
Disorganised
Too Little,
Too Late
Comments/Mitigants
Market values for property respond negatively to economic
conditions resulting from policy responses to address climate
change.
M-LThis risk relates to RetireAustralia, currently the only portfolio company whose valuation is
highly correlated to general property prices. As at 31 March 2024, RetireAustralia made
up less than 4% of Infratil’s investment portfolio (by fair value), but just over 30% of the
healthcare platform.
Policy changes lift requirements for building standards, putting
upwards pressure on construction costs and supply chains
and/or requiring retrofits (impacting retirement village sector
more than diagnostic imaging).
S-MOver time, where relevant, we will engage with our portfolio companies to encourage
them to ’stay ahead of the curve’ on energy efficiency and building standards. Infratil and
its portfolio companies aim to stay abreast of and engage in policy and regulatory
developments. Risk impact will depend on the ability to pass through any increased costs
to portfolio company customers. Infratil can choose when and where (which sector and
jurisdiction) to deploy capital into future developments.
New technologies required (e.g. low-carbon diagnostic
equipment, next generation HVAC systems) which are more
expensive and/or in scarce supply due to high demand.
M-LOver time, where relevant, we will encourage our portfolio companies to:
- develop/maintain strong relationships with relevant suppliers .
- stay abreast of technology developments and explore the use of latest energy efficient
technology in new builds/upgrades.
Higher market cost of
electricity due to:
Higher carbon prices and/or
cost or availability of renewable
energy supply.
S-MOur healthcare companies have already started implementing energy efficiency
measures to mitigate rising costs, particularly in relation to heating, ventilation and air
conditioning systems and diagnostic equipment. Page 38 of Infratil’s FY2023
Sustainability Report sets out some information of how RHCNZ is selecting and deploying
energy efficient equipment.
For retirement villages, deploying distributed renewable energy solutions such as rooftop
solar will reduce carbon emissions and may improve security of supply/resilience. Page
20 of Infratil’s FY2023 Sustainability Report sets out an example of how RetireAustralia is
focusing on these issues at The Verge retirement village.
Risk impact will depend on the ability to pass through any increased costs.
Greater cooling demand and
cost of physical and transitional
climate impacts on electricity
infrastructure.
M-L
Market prices, terms and conditions for insurance becomes
less attractive (and/or insurance availability declines).
M-L Some of our portfolio companies are already starting to:
- address issues with insurance in relation to high pricing or limited coverage by engaging
with insurers or investigating captive insurance.
- investigate and deploy measures to improve resilience to physical risks.
Risk impact will depend on the ability to pass through any increased costs.
Reputational considerations for lenders limit financial appetite/
increase pricing for companies that are high emissions and/or
not reducing emissions sufficiently.
S-MInfratil encourages and supports its portfolio companies to take credible action to reduce
emissions and set SBTi targets.
Transition opportunities
Reduce costs and/or exposure to energy and carbon price
volatility through energy efficiency initiatives and/or reducing
carbon footprint.
S-M Infratil supports and encourages its portfolio companies to understand, measure and
reduce their emissions footprints, using recognised frameworks such as GHG Protocol,
SBTi and GRESB.
Blank cells in the Too Little, Too Late column reflect that the opportunity is not relevant or
that stakeholders are expected to have ambivalent attitudes towards sustainability and
climate initiatives in this scenario.
Reputation: Leverage strong sustainability and climate
credentials to attract customers, capital, and community
support.
S-M-L
31
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
Horizon: Short (S), Medium (M), Long (L) term
Rating key for opportunities and risks (taking into account existing mitigants already in place)
Severe riskInsignificant riskSome opportunityHigh opportunityMinor riskModerate riskMajor risk

Airport
Summary of quantitative assessment
Due to our airport platform consisting solely of
Wellington Airport, the risks and opportunities
faced by this platform are those faced by
Wellington Airport. We have leveraged the work
already done by Wellington Airport to inform our
own qualitative analysis of transition risks and the
impact of the Transition Assessment Scenarios on
the platform.
Our quantitative analysis showed a small negative
impact to the airport valuation under the Organised
& Decisive scenario, slightly larger negative impact
under the Delayed & Disorganised, and somewhat
larger negative impact under the Too Little, Too Late
scenario.
The key contributions to the valuation impact are
the GDP trajectories, tempered by the airport’s
regulatory pricing structures which allow for a
reasonable level of returns across a range of market
conditions. However, we acknowledge the ability to
pass on all cost increases will likely be constrained
under a Too Little, Too Late scenario, given the
severity of the economic impacts from climate
change over the long term.
Passenger numbers have historically been strongly
correlated to GDP growth. Large capex decisions
are critical junctures for the airport, with passenger
volumes being a critical input into these decisions.
Our modelling conservatively assumes all planned
capex proceeds under all scenarios, whereas
closer to final investment decision, any business
case and underlying forecasts will be heavily
scrutinised (by the Airport, Infratil and
stakeholders), which would be a mitigant under
the worst case Too Little, Too Late scenario.
32
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
Wellington Airport is undergoing its own exercise
to examine the impacts of climate risks on the
business, and we continue to work with them to
inform our collective view of climate impacts.
Wellington Airport recently released its first
climate-related disclosures, available here.
Wellington Airport
Key modelling adjustments
Passenger forecasts
GDP
CPI
Maintenance
Capex
Interest rates

Airport
Qualitative transition analysis
Transition risks Relevant
Horizon
Organised &
Decisive
Delayed &
Disorganised
Too Little,
Too Late
Comments/Mitigants
Government regulation/
policy results in:
increased costs (e.g. from
higher carbon prices).
S-MWellington Airport is working to reduce its operational emissions footprint.
The company engages with Government on regulatory and legislative changes and is
working to provide infrastructure to support a shift to more sustainable aviation.
Wellington Airport has started to incorporate assessment of infrastructure required for
novel aircraft into its forecasting.
a cap or reduction in passenger
numbers or increase in opex/
capex.
M
New technologies deployed by airlines (Sustainable Aviation
Fuel, electrification of aircraft) which are more expensive and
reduce passenger demand.
M-LAirlines have strong incentives to drive a commercially viable transition to
sustainable aviation.
Wellington Airport is working alongside the aviation sector to achieve this outcome.
Reputational considerations e.g. if the Airport fails to make
credible progress on targets; or lenders limit financial
appetite/increase pricing for companies that are associated
with high emissions and/or not reducing emissions
sufficiently.
S-M Wellington Airport regularly engages with its stakeholders, is working on emissions
reduction initiatives, is seeking to improve its Airport Carbon Accreditation rating and has
committed to set a SBTi validated target.
Sustainable finance can act as a mitigant to this risk - targets relating to the
abovementioned initiatives have been embedded in some of Wellington Airport’s funding
through sustainability linked loans.
Notwithstanding these mitigants, this remains a relevant risk given ongoing scrutiny of the
climate-related impacts of the airline sector.
In addition to the above, we note the following characteristics that act as mitigants to all the above transition risks:
- the Airport has some diversification to its revenue base with 57% from aeronautical activities and 43% from commercial activities in FY24, with 20% of commercial revenue uncorrelated to passenger numbers.
- the Airport’s regulatory pricing regime is a mitigant to transition risks by providing a degree of certainty of returns on committed aeronautical capex. Nonetheless, future large capex decisions will need to be
made in light of any assessed risks to passenger numbers, including climate-related risks.
Transition opportunities
Introduction of low-carbon flights provides a market
opportunity for a low emissions service that competes with
alternative carbon-dependent transport options.
S-M-L For example, electric aircraft on short-haul routes might become an attractive,
sustainable transport option compared to car or ferry. Wellington Airport is currently
engaged in initiatives to support low/zero emissions flights - refer pages 7-15 of its 2024
Kaitiakitanga Report.
The blank cell in the Too Little, Too Late column reflects that stakeholders are expected to
have ambivalent attitudes towards sustainable aviation initiatives in this scenario.
33
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
Horizon: Short (S - 0 to 3 years), Medium (M - 3 to 10 years), Long (L - 10 years to 2050+)
Risk key for opportunities and risks (taking into account existing mitigants already in place)
Severe riskInsignificant riskSome opportunityHigh opportunityMinor riskModerate riskMajor risk

We have developed a draft transition plan for
Infratil that pulls together the elements of Infratil’s
strategy and sustainability strategy that
collectively describe Infratil’s ‘targets, including
any interim targets, and actions for its transition
towards a low-emissions, climate-resilient future’
(as defined in NZ CS1).
In preparing this draft Transition Plan, we have had
regard to the UK’s Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT)
guidance for Asset Owners and international peer
companies.
The three key actions in the draft Transition Plan
are:


1. Making and reporting progress against Infratil’s
SBTi targets.
2. Active investment management with portfolio
companies on climate-related risks and
opportunities through the investment process.
3. Collaboration and advocacy with stakeholders,
third parties and peers, including with lenders
to explore opportunities in sustainable finance.
Infratil’s Board has approved this draft Transition
Plan. We will review it annually, including in FY2025
as we seek to align with the anticipated NZ CS
requirements. We will also monitor relevant
developments from the Australian climate
disclosure regime.
Draft Transition Plan
34
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 02 Strategy
‹

Back to contents
Infratil’s draft Transition Plan for a transition to a low emissions, climate-resilient future
Science based emissions reduction targets
Infratil has committed to:
• maintain zero absolute scope 1 and 2 emissions; and
• reduce scope 3 emissions by achieving its SBTi target,
which aims for 60% of its portfolio (by value) to have SBTi
validated targets by FY2028 and 100% by FY2030; and
• reduce scope 3 emissions from business travel 25% by
FY2030 from FY2023.
Infratil will consider setting a Net Zero target once SBTi has
finalised its Net Zero framework for Financial Institutions.
Climate-related risks and opportunities
Infratil is maturing its processes and engaging with its
portfolio companies to better understand, manage and
disclose physical and transition impacts of climate change
under various scenarios.
This provides insights on managing/mitigating climate risks
and opportunities to integrate into the investment process.
A key role Infratil’s portfolio can play in a just transition is the
opportunity to develop cost-efficient, clean generation
through its renewable energy platform.
Collaborate and advocate
To support our work on climate-related issues, we
collaborate with technology providers (e.g. Persefoni and
Jupiter Intelligence) and third-party experts (e.g. Oxford
Economics).
We seek and share insights with stakeholders, portfolio
companies and peers, and advocate for the right market
and policy settings to support the transition.
Over time we may collaborate with lenders to integrate our
ESG objectives into our capital structure through sustainable
finance.
Investment strategy
• We review our investment strategy in
light of the latest views on megatrends
and industry tailwinds, including in
relation to climate.
• Some of our investments, such as
global renewable energy and digital
platforms, have important roles to
play in the transition.
Screening & due diligence
• Material climate issues are identified
and considered as part of the DD
process for new investments, with
reference to Infratil’s sustainability
strategy and objectives.
• Per our Exclusion Policy, we avoid
investments that, in our view, are
likely to harm the environment or
are harmful to society.
Active investment management
• We identify and actively manage
climate-related risks and opportunities
in our portfolio as we seek to optimise
value through good management of
our investments.
• We support our portfolio companies
to understand, measure and manage
climate impacts and set their own
SBTi targets.
Benchmarking & reporting
• We measure and report emissions and
other key climate metrics and support
our portfolio companies to do the same.
• At least annually, we will report progress
against our SBTi target.
• We benchmark against recognised
standards, such as GRESB and CDP.
Infratil’s strategy & sustainability strategy
We invest in ideas that matter; decarbonisation is a macro-
trend tailwind that supports the rationale behind our
renewable energy platform. Our investments are diversified
by sector and geography, which increases our resilience to
climate risks as well as providing exposure to climate-related
opportunities. ‘Climate & Nature’ is one of the four pillars of
Infratil’s sustainability strategy.
Infratil’s climate governance
Stakeholders want to see Infratil acting as a responsible
steward with robust governance practices appropriate to its
structure so that climate-related issues are managed well.
Infratil’s Board has ultimate responsibility for oversight of
climate-related risks and opportunities; integration of
climate into the investment process (see above) is also key
to management of climate-related risks and opportunities.
Market standards, frameworks and regulatory settings
We seek to understand and comply with evolving climate-
related policies and regulations as they can impact risks,
create new market opportunities and drive innovation.
We recognise that adherence to recognised market
standards and frameworks will give Infratil’s stakeholders
confidence in its approach to managing climate-related
risks and opportunities.
Foundations
Actions
Means
(climate integration)

Managing risks, including climate risks, and
integrating ESG and climate considerations
throughout the investment lifecycle are key factors
that support the long-term success and resilience
of our business, and that of our portfolio
companies. There are three approaches with
Infratil’s portfolio that, in combination, act as key
mitigants to the impact of climate-related physical
and transition risks:
• Diversification: Infratil’s investments are
diverse by sector, geography, and asset type
and Infratil consciously determines the
composition of its portfolio over time. Most of
Infratil’s portfolio companies also have a broad
geographic distribution of their own assets
across the jurisdictions in which they operate,
which provides protection against a range of
climate-related risks.
• Exclusion: Infratil’s Exclusion Policy,
summarised below, limits Infratil’s exposure to
businesses that are likely to be materially
impacted under the Organised & Decisive or
Delayed & Disorganised scenarios.
Risk Management
35
Infratil Climate Related Disclosures 2024Section 03 Risk Management
• Engagement: Infratil engages with its portfolio
companies on ESG matters, including in relation
to climate-related risks and opportunities, and is
seeking to improve and mature our approach to
assessing these risks and opportunities.
Risk Management processes
Infratil includes assessment of climate risk as part
of its broader approach to risk management
through its enterprise risk management system,
which is summarised in the following diagram.
Infratil refreshed its risk framework and risk register
in 2023. Workshops were held with sector teams to
identify material risks, including, where relevant,
climate-related risks that are material to Infratil.
These risks were then assigned to one of Infratil’s
four principal risk categories: portfolio; operational;
stakeholder management; and regulatory and
compliance; with climate-related risks appearing in
each category. In many cases, climate-related risks
are an aspect of a broader risk, for example, the risk
‘attracting and retaining talent’ makes specific
reference to having sufficient climate expertise
within the business.
The risks in Infratil’s risk register that have relevance
to climate-related issues are summarised in the
table at pages 15-16.
Following these workstreams, a formal Risk
Management Policy was developed and approved
by the ARC in early 2024.
Infratil’s sustainability and climate-related risk
assessments have been able to draw on insights
from Infratil’s 2023 ESG materiality assessment,
our Jupiter climate physical risk assessment (see
pages 18-22) and our climate transition risk
modelling (see pages 24-33).
All risks, including climate-related risks, undergo
the same risk assessment process, though the
approach may differ depending on the nature of
the risk. Infratil applies a ‘5 x 5’ risk matrix and
assessment methodology for assessing each risk;
assigning a likelihood rating (from rare over a long-
term (> 10-year) horizon, through to almost certain
in the next six months) and impact rating (from no
impact through to severe impact), producing an
overall risk score which is plotted on a risk ‘heat map’.
When preparing the heat map, the likelihood and
impact for some climate risks, such as ESG
litigation and stakeholder activism, are quantified
using subjective judgement, informed by market
precedents, and adjusted for the nature of Infratil’s
portfolio. We are starting to quantify other climate-
related risks, such as physical and transition risks
using available tools and technology – further
details on Infratil’s approach and the time horizons
considered are set out in the Strategy section of
this report.
Morrison, on behalf of Infratil, provides regular
reporting to the ARC, approximately every six
months. All risks in the register are assessed and
reported via the heatmaps, along with the controls
and treatments and commentary for those risks
with the highest residual risk rating. Particular
attention is given to strategic risks that have the
potential to materially impact the overall
performance of the Infratil portfolio.
Under the recently refreshed risk framework, the
ARC has responsibility for monitoring compliance
and reviewing and recommending any exceptions
to the Risk Management Policy to the Board (if
practicable) or the Board Chair for approval. Any
crystallised risks or residual risks outside risk
tolerance levels are communicated to the Board by
the ARC Chair as part of the summary of each ARC
meeting provided at each subsequent Board
meeting, or earlier if appropriate.
Portfolio companies
As noted on page 12, through our investment
management processes and board
representation, Infratil looks to the board and
management teams of each portfolio company to
have robust governance and risk management
processes in place to effectively identify, assess,
and monitor the operational and strategic risks
relevant to each individual business, including in
relation to climate change.
* Unless we are satisfied the entity has or can feasibly develop a credible 1.5ºC aligned transition plan and will
commit to setting emissions reduction targets that are validated by the Science Based Targets initative (SBTi).
As part of our approach to responsible investment, Infratil will not invest in organisations that derive
material earnings directly from activities that, in our view can harm the environment, such as:
Identification
“What are all the
material risks we’re
exposed to”
Response
“Are we comfortable
with the level of
residual risk relative
to risk appetite”
Contol and
Mitigants
“How do we manage
and mitigate risks”
Appetite
“How much risk are
we willing to take”
Govenance
and Policies
“How do we oversee
risk taking”
Measuement
and Evaluation
“How do we size and
scope the risks and
report them”
Extracting, processing and
transportation of thermal coal
Oil exploration
and production
Generating electricity
using fossil fuels*
‹

Back to contents