Rating the energy performance of buildings Page: 2 of 18
This article is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
consumption, limits of maximum energy use in new and retrofitted buildings, energy rating and regular
inspections of boilers and HVAC-systems.
Different approaches for rating the energy use in buildings have been developed over the last twenty years. At
least in the beginning, these approaches could be categorized according to primary reliance on:
Q Design data
o Actual performance approaches (such as utility bills)
o Extrapolations from short-term, in-situ measurements.
Recent approaches to rating can sometimes be still assigned to one category; for example, labeling schemes
based on in-situ measurements like Home Energy Labeling Procedure (HELP) (Richalet et al. 2001). However,
most new labeling procedures are hybrids including combinations of the above approaches. Model based
benchmarking is one example of a hybrid. It is a method for estimating the minimum amount of energy required
to meet a set of basic functional requirements of the building. The scoring is obtained relative to a set of
buildings of the same type by comparing computed and actual energy use as well as the effectiveness of the
building, (Federspiel et al. 2002). The USEPA has developed a labeling method for the USA based on energy
bill data and easily obtained information of the building. The labeling is voluntary and accessible on the web
(http://poet.lbl.gov/arch/) and the rated buildings earning a sufficiently high rating are eligible for the Energy
Star Label (Hicks and Clough 1998 and Hicks and von Neida 1999). The Australian Building Greenhouse
Rating (www.abgr.com.au) has also provided a star-rating scheme. The scheme is intended to be an Australian
national approach to benchmark the "greenhouse" performance of buildings and tenancies to other buildings
within the same state. The rating is derived from actual amount of annual consumption of energy. An energy-
rating tool (e-Energy ) using statistics of collected energy use, building performance and occupancy data has
been develop by BCA-NUS Building Energy and Research Information Center at the National University of
Singapore (www.bdg.nus.edu.sg). The scoring accounts for five levels and includes different energy audit
results.
In Montreal, Canada, an energy rating system for existing houses was proposed, combining the information from
utility bills with on-site measurements and computer simulations and was tested on a sample of 45 houses
(Zmeureanu et al. 1999). The method is used to assign an index of performance in terms of the annual heating
energy consumption or cost, but also to recommend a goal for a lower, technically feasible, heating bill. The
philosophy was to increase the awareness of the owner by a presentation of the actual energy performance
compared to that of reference houses, but also of potential savings through renovation or changed habits of users.
Another example where awareness of the owners' influence is accounted is a Danish energy labeling system
(Laustsen 2001). The scoring is based on data of water consumption and energy use and CO2-emissions, which is
compared to other similar buildings. For labeling, the house-owner also needs to present an energy-plan,
including proposals for cost-effective saving possibilities.
In this paper, we propose a new framework for rating the energy performance of buildings. We begin with a
description of some problems encountered in rating energy performance, followed by our proposal. This is not a
new rating system with tools, simulation prototypes, and scoring procedures; instead, we describe the attributes
of a performance rating system.
The rating methodology discussed in this paper is based on the assumption that an efficient building shall be
both low energy and energy efficient. Low energy means low energy annual use. Energy efficient accounts how
efficient the system uses supplied energy in terms of the physical properties of the building, installations,
appliances, users, etc. When rating its energy efficiency, both the relative and absolute aspects of the subject
must be included. The methodology also accounts that the conserving of supplied energy should not interfere on
the level of amenities appropriate for the activities in the building.
It is important to recognize that, from a rating perspective, there is no guarantee that a building with low energy
use is necessarily energy efficient. The energy use can be low just because the building is empty most of the
time; the building's amenities are minimal, etc. The same contradictions can be found for efficient buildings, not
being low energy. Equipment with high energy-efficiency potential may not be appropriately installed to reduce
the energy loads. High-energy buildings, i.e. buildings using much energy, can do so with good efficiency. These
buildings may be well provided with appliances that would be very energy consuming without their energy-
efficient features.The International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings, Vol. 3, (2004), Olofsson, Meier and Lamberts
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Olofsson, Thomas; Meier, Alan & Lamberts, Roberto. Rating the energy performance of buildings, article, December 1, 2004; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc778339/m1/2/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.