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

McElroy, D J and Rosenow, J (2019) Policy implications for the performance gap of low-carbon building technologies. Building Research & Information, 47(5), pp. 611-623. ISSN 0961-3218

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.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building performance; buildings; energy efficiency; field trial; low carbon; performance gap; renewables; retrofit; space heating; technology performance
Index terms: experiment, energy-saving, building energy simulation, renewable energy, low carbon, end user, technology performance, household, energy efficiency, estimate, space heating, drawing, qualitative factor, new technology, evidence, policy implication, domestic building, low-carbon building, installer, efficiency, building performance, performance gap, field trial, quantification, programme
Subjects: construction type, practitioner, mechanical systems, technical documentation, stakeholder, measurement and scaling, energy systems, data analysis and analytics, policy studies, demography, project controls, sustainability assessment, sustainability and energy, data collection methods, performance management, quality assurance, innovation and technology management, evaluation and assessment methods, design practice, financial and cost management
Topics: Design Practice, Quality Management, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Governance, Time Control, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here