Paper detail

EnergyStar++: Towards more accurate and explanatory building energy benchmarking

Building energy performance benchmarking has been adopted widely in the USA and Canada through the Energy Star Portfolio Manager platform. Building operations and energy management professionals have long used a simple 1-100 score to understand how their building compares to its peers. This single number is easy to use, but is created by inaccurate linear regression (MLR) models. This paper proposes a methodology that enhances the existing Energy Star calculation method by increasing accuracy and providing additional model output processing to help explain why a building is achieving a certain score. We propose and test two new prediction models: multiple linear regression with feature interactions (MLRi) and gradient boosted trees (GBT). Both models have better average accuracy than the baseline Energy Star models. The third order MLRi and GBT models achieve 4.9% and 24.9% increase in adjusted R2, respectively, and 7.0% and 13.7% decrease in normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE), respectively, on average than MLR models for six building types. Even more importantly, a set of techniques is developed to help determine which factors most influence the score using SHAP values. The SHAP force visualization in particular offers an accessible overview of the aspects of the building that influence the score that non-technical users can readily interpret. This methodology is tested on the 2012 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)(1,812 buildings) and public data sets from the energy disclosure programs of New York City (11,131 buildings) and Seattle (2,073 buildings).

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.