A Review of the Regulatory Energy Performance Gap and Its Underlying Causes in Non-domestic Buildings

Abstract

This paper reviews the discrepancy between predicted and measured energy use in non-domestic buildings in a UK context with outlook to global studies. It explains differences between energy performance quantification and classifies this energy performance gap as a difference between compliance and performance modeling with measured energy use. Literary sources are reviewed in order to signify the magnitude between predicted and measured energy use, which is found to deviate by +34% with a SD of 55% based on 62 buildings. It proceeds in describing the underlying causes for the performance gap, existent in all stages of the building life cycle, and identifies the dominant factors to be related to specification uncertainty in modeling, occupant behavior, and poor operational practices having an estimated effect of 20-60, 10-80, and 15-80% on energy use, respectively. Other factors that have a high impact are related to establishing the energy performance target, such as early design decisions, heuristic uncertainty in modeling, and occupant behavior. Finally, action measures and feedback processes in order to reduce the performance gap are discussed, indicating the need for energy in-use legislation, insight into design stage models, accessible energy data, and expansion of research efforts toward building performance in-use in relation to predicted performance. Keywords: energy performance gap, energy use in buildings, predictions, measurements, feedback, postoccupancy evaluation HiGHLiGHTS 1. Classifies the performance gap and analyses its magnitude and underlying causes. 2. The regulatory energy gap is found to deviate by +34% with a SD of 55% based on 62 case study buildings. 3. Specification uncertainty, occupant behavior, and poor practice are dominant underlying causes with an estimated effect of 20-60, 10-80, and 15-80% on energy use, respectively. 4. Action measures to reduce the energy performance gap in contrast to the building life cycle are discussed. 5. There is a need to develop techniques to mitigate the magnitude and underlying causes of the performance gap.

Building Schools for the Future: Lessons Learned From Performance Evaluations of Five Secondary Schools and Academies in England

“…Various potential causes of the energy performance gap have been reviewed in a recent article in Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering by van Dronkelaar et al (2016).…”

Improving Prediction Accuracy in Building Performance Models Using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)

“…For instance, designers use lighting BPMs to estimate occupants light switch behaviors. Empirical evidences have shown the existence of significant performance discrepancies between predictions during design and the actual performance of building operations [1], [2]. The performance discrepancies may contribute to undesired buildings performance such as unexpected energy consumption, building degradation, and occupants discomfort.…”

Participatory system dynamics modelling for housing, energy and wellbeing interactions

“…The residential sector is expected to make the largest contribution to total UK energy savings (40%) in 2020, and the second largest contribution in 2030 (30%) after the transport sector, and is expected to increase its contribution significantly in this 10-year period (DECC, 2015). Relevant interventions include the now-scrapped 'Green Deal' that aimed at stimulating the energy-efficiency refurbishment of existing buildings through the provision of loans and the national building regulations that set minimum energy efficiency requirements for new buildings (Nejat, Jomehzadeh, Taheri, Gohari, & Abd.…”

“…Furthermore, the performance gap in the construction industry's practice is another barrier to the success of energy-efficiency policies (Burman, Mumovic, & Kimpian, 2014;Oreszczyn & Lowe, 2010;Wingfield, Bell, MilesShenton, South, & Lowe, 2008). Causes of this gap include lack of knowledge and skills, ambiguity over responsibilities, lack of communication, and lack of feedback from post-occupancy to the design stage within the industry (van Dronkelaar, Dowson, Spataru, & Mumovic, 2016;Killip, Fawcett, & Janda, 2014;Menezes, Cripps, Bouchlaghem, & Buswell, 2012;Pan & Garmston, 2012).…”