Proposals for daily energy performance benchmarks for rapid feedback to building operators.
All building energy performance rating methods rely, to a large extent, on the notion that improved operational outcomes, e.g., energy efficiency or indoor air quality, will be delivered by buildings with higher nominal performance at construction. However, such methods of rating building assets during design and construction, usually based on calculated energy use, have been criticized for being ineffective, not linked to the actual energy performance, and even typically estimate energy performance under idealized conditions to provide a combined score to the building envelope and the installed energy-consuming systems. Conventional methods of evaluating building performance are also based on annualized metrics. This may be too coarse a resolution at which to evaluate whether a building performed as designed and rated. Say the Energy Performance Certificate for a hotel rates it as very efficient, giving a nominal consumption of x kWh/m2/annum calculated using typical weather and occupancy. During a given year, usage is y kWh/m2/a, where y>x. Was it due to unusual weather or occupancy, is the building operating outside its design parameters, or was the rated performance based on incorrect assumptions in the first place? This project explores methods for placing a fair-share of burden of performance on building owners by separating “performance gap” from variability in the performance that is inevitable
