Building regulations 2025 - new non-domestic buildings: energy standard improvements - modelling report

Research output to identify and assess potential improvements in energy and emissions performance for non-domestic buildings constructed in Scotland set via Section 6 of the Scottish Building Standards (energy). This was to inform the setting of targets within the next set of energy standards.


Appendix A Step ii1: Review of Building Specifications using different Principal Heat Sources

Designers and developers are free to meet the energy performance standards of Section 6 in any way that they choose. The following analysis was undertaken to evaluate whether the choice of principal heat source effected other aspects of the building’s design; for example, if using a lower efficiency heat source, was this offset by using better performing building fabric.

This analysis was undertaken on the EPC database provided by the Scottish Government and therefore has been constrained by the availability of data. When drawing conclusions, the size of the dataset has been considered.

A.1 Prevalence of different Heat Sources

The EPC database shows the following distribution of heating fuel use for the 1,174 buildings. The distribution has been analysed both in terms of floor area (m²) and number of buildings served by each heating fuel source.

Table 113: Breakdown of Main Heating Fuel as Recorded in the EPC Database.
Main heating fuel Floor Area (m²) Floor Area (%) Number of Buildings Number of Buildings (%) Average building floor area (m²)
Natural Gas 773,806 41.3% 306 26.1% 2,529
District Heating 96,662 5.2% 39 3.3% 2,479
Grid Supplied Electricity - Heat pump 663,294 35.4% 542 46.2% 1,224
Grid Supplied Electricity - Direct electric 158,597 8.5% 170 14.5% 933
Grid Supplied Electricity - Other 99,800 5.3% 30 2.6% 3,327
LPG 36,022 1.9% 38 3.2% 948
Biomass 32,320 1.7% 16 1.4% 2,020
Oil 4,068 0.2% 17 1.4% 239
Waste Heat 1,041 0.1% 2 0.2% 521
Other 6,625 0.4% 14 1.2% 473
Total 1,872,235 100% 1,174 100% 1,595
Figure 59: Floor area breakdown by heat source.
Figure 59. The Pie chart illustrates the breakdown of heat sources in the EPC data by floor area. Natural Gas accounts for the largest proportion, followed by Grid-supplied Electricity used for heat pumps. Other sources occupy smaller segments of the chart.
Figure 60: Heat source breakdown by number of buildings.
Figure 60. The Pie chart illustrates the breakdown of heat sources in the EPC data by number of buildings. Grid-supplied Electricity used for heat pumps accounts for the largest proportion, followed by Natural Gas. Other sources occupy smaller segments of the chart.

The analysis shows that natural gas and grid supplied electricity are the most common heating fuels, both in terms of building floor area and number of buildings served.

This analysis shows that generally for fuels that are less commonly used, LPG, oil, waste heat and other, the average floor area of the buildings served are smaller than the EPC database average. This is not the case for district heating and biomass which are less commonly used but typically serve buildings with a floor area greater than the EPC database average.

Considering the prevalence of direct electric, biofuel and district heating within the EPC database; both direct electric (8.5% of floor area and 3.3% of buildings) and district heating (5.2% of floor area and 14.5% of buildings) serve more than 5% of the total recorded building floor area. Therefore, there is deemed to be sufficient data to enable further detailed analysis of buildings served by direct electric and district heating, as described in the following sections.

Biofuel (biomass) serves less than 2% of the buildings, both in terms of floor area and number of buildings served. Therefore, it is deemed that there is insufficient data to allow for further analysis of the performance of buildings served by biofuels.

A.2 Building types by Heat Source

Further analysis of the types of building served by each heat source under consideration has been made, as illustrated in Figure 61. Building types making up less than 5% of the total floor area contained in the EPC database have been grouped together (“All other building types” on Figure 61-Figure 62), as these are deemed to be very minor contributors to the overall build mix.

The proportion of building types served by different heating fuels are broadly similar, with the following key differences noted:

  • ASHPs are more frequently used in office and workshop businesses than in other building types.
  • Direct electric and district heating are each more frequently used in university and college residential buildings (student accommodation) than in other building types.
Figure 61: Building type by heating fuel (by floor area).
Figure 61. This chart illustrates the percentage of floor area by heating fuel across various building types. It shows Residential Institutions: Universities and colleges have the highest proportion using Direct electric, while Offices and Workshop businesses lead in ASHP usage. The x-axis ranges from 0% to 60% and represents Floor area (%). Heating fuels are colour coded: red for District heating, yellow for Direct electric, Blue for ASHP, and green for All buildings.
Figure 62: Building type by heating fuel (by number of buildings).
Figure 62. This chart illustrates the percentage buildings using different heating fuel across various building types. It shows that District heating is most prevalent in Offices and Workshop businesses, while ASHP dominates in Retail/Financial and Professional services. The x-axis ranges from 0% to 50% and represents Number of buildings (%). Heating fuels are colour coded: red for District heating, yellow for Direct electric, Blue for ASHP, and green for All buildings.

A.3 Building fabric performance: U-values

The EPC database reports the building average U-value (W/m²K) which can allow for some overall insight into performance but does not allow for detailed analysis into elemental performance and cannot account for building form or glazing proportion.

Figure 63 illustrates the distribution of average U-value for all buildings in the EPC database, compared to the sub-sets of buildings served by direct electric and district heating. Table 114 shows the floor area weighted building average U-value across the total EPC database, those served by ASHP, direct electric and district heating.

Table 114: Building average U-value (W/m²K).
Result All buildings (1,174 buildings) ASHP (542 buildings) Direct electric (170 buildings) District heating (39 buildings)
Floor area weighted average 0.401 0.439 0.404 0.427
90th percentile 0.579 0.471 0.875 0.767
75th percentile 0.348 0.345 0.390 0.409
50th percentile 0.282 0.287 0.313 0.271
Figure 63: Average building U-value distribution.
Figure 63. This chart illustrates the distribution of average U-values across different heating system types. It shows that most buildings fall within the >0.50W/m2K range, with District heating and ASHP showing higher concentrations in this band. The x-axis categorises U-value ranges from ≤0.05 to >0.50W/m2K, and the y-axis shows the floor area percentage from 0% to 45%. Bars are colour coded: green for All buildings, blue for ASHP, yellow for Direct electric and red for District heating.

Compared to all buildings in the EPC database, those served by direct electric and district heating generally have a slightly poorer (higher) building average U-value. This relationship is slightly more pronounced for those buildings served by district heating.

Further analysis has been undertaken to understand whether the poorer average building U-value relates to poorer elemental U-values, or other factors.

Review of the building types served by district heating shows that approximately 25% of the building floor area heated by district heating are offices, retail buildings, and restaurants. This would be expected since district heating networks are prevalent in urban areas where heat demand density is high, and these building types are likely to be concentrated. These building types (offices, retail and restaurants) typically have a greater proportion of glazing, and it is this factor that is believed to contribute to the slightly higher average U-value for buildings heated by district heating compared to the EPC database average.

A.3.1 Conclusions regarding U-values

The data available from the EPC database does not support using a different fabric specification in the modelling of buildings using direct electric or district heating.

A.4 Building fabric performance: Infiltration

Figure 64 illustrates the distribution of infiltration rates for all buildings in the EPC database, compared to the sub-sets of buildings served by ASHP, direct electric and district heating. Table 115 shows the floor area weighted building average infiltration rates across the total EPC database and for those buildings served by ASHP, direct electric and district heating, alongside the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles.

Table 115: Building infiltration rates (m³/m².hr at 50Pa) by heating type.
Parameter All buildings (1,174 buildings) ASHP (542 buildings) Direct electric (170 buildings) District heating (39 buildings)
Floor area weighted average 5.72 5.95 6.74 5.01
90th percentile 15.00 10.28 25.00 9.99
75th percentile 9.97 9.16 15.00 9.20
50th percentile 6.06 5.50 7.27 7.00
Figure 64: Infiltration rate distribution.
Figure 64. This chart illustrates the distribution of infiltration across building types, measured in m3/m2hr at 50Pas. It shows that most buildings fall within the 4≤5 infiltration category, with District heating leading in this category.

Compared to all buildings in the EPC database:

  • Buildings served by direct electric and district heating generally have poorer (higher) air tightness results.
  • Buildings served by ASHP generally have slightly better (lower) air tightness results.

The data does not suggest a clear reason for this pattern. As noted in Section A.2, the proportion of building types using the heating types considered are broadly similar, therefore building function is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the achieved air permeability results.

The following graph illustrates that there is not a strong correlation between building floor area and air permeability; however, it is noted that buildings that have poorer (higher) air permeability results, notably those worse than 10 m³/m².hr at 50Pa, tend to be smaller buildings. These buildings tend to have a slightly higher prevalence of direct electric heating.

There is some evidence to show that larger buildings (>20,000m²) generally achieve better (lower) air permeability results. There is not a distinct prevalence of buildings served by the heating types under consideration, therefore there are no clear conclusions that can be drawn here.

Figure 65: Air permeability result versus building floor area.
Figure 65. This graph illustrates the relationship between air permeability and building floor area across different heating fuel types. It shows that most buildings have air permeability values between 0 and 10m3/m2.hr at 50pa.

A.4.1 Conclusions regarding infiltration

Following review of the data available in the EPC database, this shows that buildings served by direct electric or district heating tend to have a poorer air permeability performance compared to buildings overall.

However, permitting buildings using certain servicing types to use a poorer air permeability does not align with intended policy direction, and therefore it is not proposed to use alternative air permeability values for buildings served by direct electric or district heating.

A.5 Building Services: Cooling

The EPC database has limited data available demonstrating building services’ performance; this analysis has predominantly been completed by dividing the actual energy consumption by the notional energy consumption; where the building achieves a ratio of less than 100% this means that the actual building has a lower energy demand than the notional building and vice-versa for ratios greater than 100%.

Unlike other building services, the EPC database does record the cooling SEERs and so these have also been analysed to provide further insight.

This analysis considered the energy performance of cooling in buildings in the EPC database, including buildings where air conditioning is not the predominant HVAC strategy, for example a cooled server room in an otherwise non-cooled building. One data point with a very high cooling energy performance ratio, owing to a very low notional building cooling energy, has been removed from this analysis as it was significantly skewing the results.

Buildings with direct electric and district heating are found to have better cooling energy performance ratios than the average for all buildings in the EPC database, although are generally slightly poorer than the average performance for buildings heated by ASHP.

Table 116. Average cooling energy performance ratios (%).
Result All buildings (646 buildings) ASHP (445 buildings) Direct electric (43 buildings) District heating (32 buildings)
Floor area weighted average 92.45% 62.4% 88.1% 87.4%
Figure 66: Cooling energy performance distribution.
Figure 66. This chart illustrates the distribution of cooling energy performance across different heating systems. It shows that the ≤50 actual/notional ratio band has the highest percentage of floor area, particularly for ASHP. The y-axis displays ratio intervals from ≤50% to >150%, and the x-axis shows floor area percentage. Bars are colour coded: red for district heating, yellow for Direct electric, Blue for ASHP and green for All buildings.

In addition to analysing the ratio of cooling energy in the actual and notional buildings, further detailed analysis of the SEER of the cooling systems used is possible from the data in the EPC database.

Table 117. Cooling SEER percentile distribution.
Result All buildings (646 buildings) ASHP (445 buildings) Direct electric (43 buildings) District heating (32 buildings)
90th percentile 7.40 7.40 Not possible to calculate 12.56
75th percentile 6.60 6.70 7.31 5.58
50th percentile 5.58 5.76 6.70 5.58
Figure 67: Cooling SEER distribution by floor area.
Figure 67. This chart illustrates the distribution of cooling system efficiency across buildings. It shows that Direct electric systems have the highest concentration of floor area (~60%) in the lowest SEER band ( 0 ≤ 2), while District heating systems dominate the highest SEET band (>10) with ~70% of floor area. The x-axis categorises SEER values from ≤ 2 to >10, and the y-axis shows floor area percentage. Bars are colour coded: green for All buildings, Blue for ASHP, yellow for Direct Electric and red for District heating.

The cooling SEER data shows the following key features:

  • The selected cooling SEER percentile values are similar for buildings using ASHP heating to all buildings in the EPC database.
  • There are larger differences between the reported SEER percentile values for all buildings in the EPC database when compared to buildings heated via direct electric and district heating. However, due to the limited number of datapoints available for buildings using direct electric and district heating, confidence in these results is low.
Table 118. Proportion of cooling energy in overall building energy.
Category Regulated energy (%) Regulated and unregulated energy (%)
All buildings (646 buildings) 2.33% 1.65%
ASHP (445 buildings) 4.71% 2.88%
Direct electric (43 buildings) 0.46% 0.37%
District heating (32 buildings) 6.78% 4.40%

Alongside considering the relative performance of the actual versus notional buildings, further analysis to understand the relative importance of cooling energy consumption within the overall energy mix, as shown in

Table 118, has shown that cooling is not a significant proportion.

A.5.1 Conclusions regarding cooling energy

Although the analysis demonstrates that there are differences between cooling SEERs applied in buildings served by direct electric and district heating, when compared to all buildings in the EPC database, it is not proposed to model different specifications for these buildings because:

  • The conclusions are based on a very small number of data points.
  • It would not align with policy direction to permit buildings using direct electric or district heating to use chillers (cooling) with poorer efficiencies.

Therefore, it is not proposed to use alternative cooling specifications for buildings using direct electric or district heating.

A.6 Building Services: Auxiliary energy

Compared to all buildings in the EPC database, buildings served by district heating and direct electric heating generally have better auxiliary energy performance (lower energy ratios).

Table 119. Auxiliary energy performance ratio (%) and percentile distribution.
Results All buildings (1,174 buildings) ASHP (542 buildings) Direct electric (170 buildings) District heating (39 buildings)
Floor area weighted average 167.61% 191.4% 115.1% 145.3%
90th percentile 35.0% 27.6% 0.0% 96.8%
75th percentile 78.0% 75.0% 56.4% 108.3%
50th percentile 119.4% 116.0% 82.5% 129.4%
Figure 68: Auxiliary energy performance distribution.
Figure 68. This chart illustrates the distribution of auxiliary energy performance across buildings, measured by the actual/notional building energy ratio. It shows that the >150% category has the highest percentage of floor area, especially for ASHP systems. The y-axis lists the ratio bands from ≤50% to >150%, and the x-axis shows floor area percentage from 0% to 70%. Bars are colour coded: red for District heating, yellow for Direct electric, blue for ASHP, and green for All buildings.
Table 120. Auxiliary energy as proportion of a) Regulated energy (%) and b) Regulated and unregulated energy (%).
Category Regulated energy (%) Regulated and unregulated energy (%)
All buildings (1,174 buildings) 9.07% 6.43%
ASHP (542 buildings) 12.27% 7.50%
Direct electric (170 buildings) 3.18% 2.61%
District heating (39 buildings) 12.85% 8.35%

Alongside considering the relative performance of the actual versus notional buildings, further analysis to understand the relative importance of auxiliary energy consumption within the overall energy mix, as shown in Table 120, has shown that auxiliary energy is less important in buildings using direct electric heating, but slightly more important in buildings using ASHP and district heating.

A.6.1 Conclusions regarding auxiliary energy

Although the data suggests that buildings using direct electric heating generally have improved auxiliary energy performance compared to those using other heating types, it is also seen that auxiliary energy is much less significant in the overall energy performance for buildings heated via direct electric heating.

Improving the auxiliary energy performance of the building could be achieved by:

  • Reducing pumping energy through the adoption of variable speed controls.
  • Reducing ventilation energy by:
    • Improving ventilation specific fan powers (W/l/s), and/or
    • Implementing demand control ventilation.

In the case of pumping energy, the proposed modelling specification includes “variable speed pumping with multiple pressure sensors in the system” which is the most energy efficient option available within the Section 6 modelling methodology and therefore cannot be improved upon.

The proposed specification already includes demand control ventilation in the form of variable fan speed control based on CO2 sensors. This could be improved by implementing speed control based on occupancy density; however, this is an unusual strategy and experience suggests that this is not often implemented.

The proposed modelling specification includes a specific fan power of 1.8W/l/s for central (AHU) ventilation and 0.3W/l/s for terminal units. Whilst it may be possible to improve upon these in some scenarios, for example smaller buildings where ventilation ductwork runs are shorter or buildings using many zonal units, it is not universally achievable. SFPs achieved by fans are also limited by the available technology, and marked improvements are not anticipated. Therefore, it is concluded that buildings using direct electric and district heating will use the same specification as proposed for all buildings.

A.7 Building Services: Domestic hot water

Compared to all buildings in the EPC database, buildings served by direct electric heating have a slightly better energy performance, whilst those using district heating have slightly poorer energy performance.

It is anticipated, although there is no data available to prove this, that buildings using direct electric heating would likely use direct electric DHW. It is likely that this would be point of use (POU) and therefore would have small storage volumes with little to no secondary circulation. It is hypothesised that it is this that improves the energy performance of these systems. By comparison, buildings using district heating would most likely use a centralised DHW system with storage and circulation. This results in poorer overall DHW energy performance compared to the notional.

Table 121. DHW energy performance ratio (%) and percentile distribution.
Result All buildings (1,174 buildings) ASHP (542 buildings) Direct electric (170 buildings) District heating (39 buildings)
Floor area weighted average 111.9% 105.4% 106.2% 125.7%
90th percentile 72.2% 56.9% 76.9% 92.6%
75th percentile 95.0% 86.4% 95.0% 100.0%
50th percentile 101.0% 98.1% 103.3% 105.3%
Figure 69. Domestic hot water energy performance distribution.
Figure 69. This chart illustrates the distribution of domestic hot water energy performance across buildings. It shows that District heating systems have the highest concentration of floor area in the 100 ≤ 110% band.

A.7.1 Conclusions regarding DHW

As it is hypothesised that the differences between the DHW energy performance of building using direct electric and district heating result from constraints associated with the system, it is not proposed to use different inputs to model DHW in buildings with direct electric or district heating.

A.8 Building Services: Lighting

All buildings in the EPC database, regardless of heat source, are shown to have a similar 90th percentile lighting energy performance ratio, where the lighting energy in the actual building is approximately 55% of that in the notional building. This suggests that lighting energy performance is limited by the availability of higher efficacy luminaires.

Table 122. Lighting energy performance ratio (%) and percentile distribution.
Result All buildings (1,174 buildings) ASHP (542 buildings) Direct electric (170 buildings) District heating (39 buildings)
Floor area weighted average 99.4% 96.2% 133.7% 75.5%
90th percentile 53.4% 52.3% 57.9% 54.4%
75th percentile 66.1% 65.8% 79.6% 59.1%
50th percentile 88.4% 87.5% 142.1% 70.1%
Figure 70: Lighting energy performance distribution.
Figure 70. This chart illustrates the distribution of lighting energy performance across buildings. It shoes that the 70 ≤ 80% band has the highest percentage of floor area, particularly to District heating and Direct electric systems.
Table 123. Lighting energy as proportion of a) Regulated energy (%) and b) Regulated and unregulated energy (%).
Category Regulated energy (%) Regulated and unregulated energy (%)
All buildings (1,174 buildings) 15.92% 11.29%
ASHP (542 buildings) 24.42% 14.93%
Direct electric (170 buildings) 11.89% 9.77%
District heating (39 buildings) 16.41% 10.66%

A.8.1 Conclusions regarding lighting

The data available in the EPC database suggests that buildings using direct electric heating would typically use poorer performing lighting than buildings on average. However, it is not a desirable policy direction to permit buildings using less efficient heat sources (direct electric) to also use less efficient lighting, therefore it is proposed to use the same modelling specification for buildings using direct electric heating.

In the case of district heating, the 90th percentile value is similar to all buildings across the EPC database, suggesting that the maximum lighting performance is limited by external factor(s); however, buildings with district heating typically tend to have slightly better lighting performance as demonstrated by the lower ratios reported for the 75th and 50th percentiles.

Although the data suggests that buildings with district heating may typically use more efficient lighting, the sample size (39 buildings) is very small. Therefore, it is concluded that all buildings will use the same lighting inputs.

A.9 Conclusion

The EPC database has been reviewed to understand whether the choice of heating source affects other aspects of the building’s design.

Owing to the limited number of buildings in the EPC database, it was not possible to undertake analysis of buildings using biomass (biofuel) heating. However, trends for buildings using ASHP, direct electric and district heating were analysed as a larger number of datapoints were available.

Although the database showed some differences in the adopted specifications used for buildings with different heating sources, most notably in lighting performance, the trends identified were not very strong and were based on a limited number of datapoints. Therefore, it was concluded that all buildings within subsequent analyses would use the same modelling specification.

Contact

Email: bsdenergystandardsreview@gov.scot

Back to top