Recent EPC initiatives across Europe -D 2.3
Review results from previous projects - Cross assessing EPC paradigms
by Elena Taxeri (CRES)
The objective of this document is to help the Consortium to identify, evaluate and use the results of previous and current European projects that have also worked towards the enhancement of the Energy Performance Certification. It outlines the procedure and methods that crossCert partners follow to extract the most relevant outcomes of sister or analogous projects that were funded by European programmes.
In particular, the document retrieves the information from those projects that have tested the current EPCs at a country level and/or have introduced improvements and/or have proposed new approaches, from projects that have worked with new Key Performance Indicators or have tested new software for the energy assessment of buildings.
Download D2.3 Recent EPC initiatives across Europe here!
EPC Cross-testing Procedure - D2.4
EPC Cross-testing Procedure - D2.4
The Design of the crossCert Cross-Assessment Tests
by Norberto Fueyo, María Herrando, Antonio Gómez (UNIZAR)
This report describes a cross testing procedure that circumvents the major practical obstacles in carrying out cross testing of the planned 147 buildings.The deliverable includes a review of the status of EPCs in the crossCert countries, to set out the status quo and provide a basis for the development of the methodology and indeed for the rest of the crossCert project. The cross testing requirements are set out and we describe the rationale for selecting the buildings that will be the subject of cross testing. The report also provides the full list of buildings, comprising 147 buildings to be tested, the cross testing protocol and the detailed methodology we have used for selecting buildings.
Download: D2.4 - EPC Cross-testing Procedure
Review of approaches to EPC assessment across chosen member states - D3.1
Review of approaches to EPC assessment across chosen member states - D3.1
This report summarises EPC methodologies currently in use across chosen European countries, focussing on those of relevance to the crossCert project. The information collated will act as a reference document to highlight differences in approaches to energy assessment and, by extension, different responses to the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive.
By conducting this review, EPC approaches are categorised based on type of calculation methodology used, methods of input data gathering, use of real building and/or energy data, and outputs generated from the EPC process. This categorisation will aid later analysis in the project, where crossCert will investigate the impact that country-specific EPC choices have on EPC outputs, and any consequences of these outputs.
The goal is to address the technical dimensions of EPCs (including inputs, metrics, and control/verification) in order to identify potential improvements and guidelines. The work is also the basis for harmonisation recommendations to be compiled at a later stage. The first step of is studying different EPC methodologies used in crossCert partner countries. This deliverable is focused on reviewing general aspects as well as some technical details of EPC assessment methodologies.
Download: D3.1 Review of approaches to EPC assessment across chosen member states
Performance gap causation - D3.2
Performance gap causation - D3.2
By Mahsa Sayfikar, David Jenkins, HWU, UK
The Performance Gap (Bordass, 2013) is a well-used term in building modelling to describe the difference between the modelled and measured energy consumption of a building, usually based on a year of final energy consumption data (kWh/yr). It is used across many different forms of building modelling as a measure of accuracy or effectiveness of that model, and whether it is describing a building appropriately.
This report takes the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) methodologies of nine different European countries, across 65 tested buildings, to investigate how the modelled energy consumption compares with real, measured energy consumption of those same buildings. Each individual building is modelled with the local EPC methodology and compared with metered energy consumption, converting the EPC output to a parameter that allows for this comparison where required. The study demonstrates the challenges in comparing different methodologies, with different metrics and frameworks, particularly across relatively small samples of buildings. However, the 65 case-study buildings do indicate how previously discussed differences in methodologies can be seen when those methodologies are applied to real buildings. Using real energy consumption values as an effective target for those methodologies – and therefore calculating a Performance Gap for each building – is an approximation of “success” for those different approaches of generating an EPC. However, as discussed in the report, this Performance Gap should not be seen as an absolute measurement for EPC effectiveness, with EPCs not designed to account for meaningful occupancy behaviour in individual buildings. Conclusions must therefore be guided by contextual data and further modelling results, as being explored in the crossCert project.
Download: D3.2 - Performance Gap Causation
Report on existing EPC attitudes, expectations and needs - D5.1
Understanding EPC assessment and certification from the people-centred aspects of EPCs and services
by Domen Bančič and Jure Vetršek (IRI-UL)
This report provides a fresh perspective on understanding energy performance certificates (EPCs) from a people-centred perspective. More specifically, it provides a framework for people-centred research of all EPC related things, with a specific focus on how policies are translated into practice through interaction between people, and on the elements of EPC assessment and certification service and its products (the EPCs).
