Policy implications for the performance gap of low-carbon building technologies

ABSTRACT

It is widely recognized that the actual impact of low-carbon technologies is often lower than predicted by models alone, a phenomenon which has been coined the ‘performance gap’. Despite this awareness, in many instances estimates of both energy savings and renewable energy generation in domestic buildings continue to rely on engineering models and building energy simulations rather than approaches that are based on measured parameters. Much of the existing literature on the performance gap focuses on energy efficiency and is concerned with the quantification of the scale of the performance gap. This paper adds to this body of evidence by drawing retrospectively on a range of grey literature evaluations of low-carbon technologies (including energy-efficiency measures, renewable heat and renewable electricity) in the UK household sector. The focus is on not only the quantification of the performance gap but also the qualitative factors often overlooked, such as installation issues or installer/user behaviour. Recommended policy changes include the development of evaluation standards, the experimentation with pay-for-performance programmes, ensuring that installation standards for low-carbon technologies are being enforced, and taking reasonable steps to ensuring that end users can use any new technology effectively.

KEYWORDS:

• building performance
• buildings
• energy efficiency
• field trial
• low carbon
• performance gap
• renewables
• retrofit
• space heating
• technology performance

Acknowledgements

James Russill at the Energy Saving Trust (EST) and Geoffrey Stevens of Future Cities Catapult are thanked for helping the authors find the field trials presented in this paper. The authors also thank the Editor, Richard Lorch, for advice on preparing the manuscript for submission. The effort made by all the delivery partners for each field trial is also acknowledged: EMC and EST (2008): the Department for Environment; Food and Rural Affairs; and the Energy Monitoring Company; Orr et al. (2009): Gastec at CRE Ltd; AECOM; EA Technology; and Carbon Trust; EST (2009): EDF Energy; RWE Npower; NIE Energy; Centrica Plc; Scottish Power Ltd; Scottish and Southern Energy Plc; E.ON Engineering Ltd; the Scottish government; the Department of Energy and Climate Change; B&Q Plc; and the University of Southampton; EST (2011): the Department of Energy and Climate Change; the Scottish government; the Welsh Assembly Government; the North West Regional Development Agency; E.ON UK; EDF Energy; Scottish Power; Centrica; Firmus Energy; Sustainable Energy Ireland; Worcester Bosch; and Good Energy; and Dunbabin and Wickins (2012) and EST (2013): EA Technology Ltd; KIWA Gastec; the Department of Energy and Climate Change; the Scottish government; The North West Regional Development Agency; EDF Energy; Npower; British Gas; Scottish Power; Scottish & Southern Energy; E.ON UK; NIE Energy; Danfoss UK; NIBE; Mitsubishi Electric; Mimer Energy; Worcester Bosch; Baxi Group; The Energy Technologies Institute; Calorex; Dimplex; Heat King; Ice Energy; IVT; Mitsubishi; and NIBE.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. The funding is gratefully acknowledged.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was partially enabled through funding from Research Councils UK through their support for the Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand [Grant no. EP/KO11790/1].