Potential Impacts of Net-Zero

Energy Buildings With

Dongsu Kim
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Mississippi State University,
P.O. Box 9552,
Mississippi State, MS 39762
e-mail: dk779@msstate.edu
1 implementations on the electrical grid in a simulation-based analysis. To estimate the
Heejin Cho
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Mississippi State University,
P.O. Box 9552,
Mississippi State, MS 39762
e-mail: cho@me.msstate.edu
Rogelio Luck
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Mississippi State University,
P.O. Box 9552,
Mississippi State, MS 39762
e-mail: luck@me.msstate.edu
Distributed Photovoltaic
Power Generation on the
U.S. Electrical Grid
This study evaluates the potential aggregate effects of net-zero energy building (NZEB)
impact of NZEBs on the electrical grid, a simulation-based study of an office building
with a grid-tied photovoltaic (PV) power generation system is conducted. This study
assumes that net-metering is available for NZEBs such that the excess on-site PV genera-
tion can be fed to the electrical grid. The impact of electrical energy storage (EES) within
NZEBs on the electrical grid is also considered in this study. Different levels of NZEB
adoption are examined: 20%, 50%, and 100% of the U.S. office building stock. Results
indicate that significant penetration of NZEBs could potentially affect the current U.S.
electricity demand profiles by reducing purchased electricity from the electrical grid and
by increasing exported electricity to the electrical grid during peak hours. Annual elec-
tricity consumption of simulated office NZEBs in the U.S. climate locations is in the range
of around 94–132 kWh/m2 yr. Comparison of hourly electricity demand profiles for the
actual U.S. demand versus the calculated net-demand on a national scales indicates that
the peak percentage difference of the U.S. net-electricity demand includes about 10.7%,
15.2%, and 9.3% for 100% of the U.S. NZEB stock on representative summer, transition,
and winter days, respectively. Using EES within NZEBs, the peak percentage differences
are reduced and shifted to the afternoon, including 8.6%, 13.3%, and 6.3% for 100% of
the U.S. NZEB stock on each representative day. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4042407]

Keywords: net-zero energy building, U.S. electrical grid, U.S. climate zones, grid-tied
photovoltaic generation, electrical energy storage

1 Introduction balancing period, the acceptable renewable energy options, and

the connection to the energy infrastructure, such as the electrical
The commercial building sector presents approximately 37% of
grid. Attia et al. [8] considered an overview of technical barriers
the electricity currently used within the United States [1], and elec-
of NZEB implementations and provided recommendations based
tric energy consumption in the commercial building sector will be
on available empirical evidence in the European construction
expected to increase until high performance buildings can be effec-
sector.
tively designed to reduce building energy consumption [2]. With
In addition, numerous studies have shown how effective NZEB
the rapid growth in renewables, the net-zero energy building
designs can be achieved by considering advanced energy effi-
(NZEB) concept has been considered as one of the remedies to
ciency technologies and the appropriate on-site power generation
reduce electric energy usages and achieve increased energy effi-
in a detailed manner. Zhou et al. [9] investigated the operational
ciency in buildings [3]. The Energy Independence and Security
performance of NZEBs and conducted a case study of an actual
Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) authorizes the net-zero energy commer-
office building in China based on the operation management of
cial building initiative to support the goal of net-zero energy for all
the building systems and the on-site power generation. Good et al.
new commercial buildings by 2030. It further specifies a net-zero
[10] presented an analysis of how the photovoltaic (PV) system
target for 50% of the U.S. commercial buildings by 2040 and net-
design influences the greenhouse gas emission balance in a net-
zero for all the U.S. commercial buildings by 2050 [4].
zero emission building using four different PV technologies.
An effective way to design NZEBs is to encourage building
Salom et al. [11] also showed the role of NZEBs on appropriate
energy efficiency and then to employ appropriate on-site renew-
future energy systems by considering load matching and grid
able energy systems [5]. As in Refs. [6–8], many studies provide
interaction among building load values, the on-site power genera-
good overviews of existing NZEBs and their technologies and
tion, and the surrounding electrical grid based on several moni-
calculation methodologies. Li et al. [6] reviewed NZEBs and dis-
tored buildings. However, there are still several concerns for the
cussed the implications of sustainable development in terms of
adoption of large-scale implementations of NZEBs in the U.S.
energy efficient measures and renewable energy and technologies.
electrical grid, typically when the amount of electricity being
Marszal et al. [7] provided an overview of existing NZEB defini-
generated by renewables within NZEBs is outstripping demand
tions and calculation methodologies by considering the NZEB
during certain hours of the day [12,13]. Such issues could bring
about the unexpected reduction of electricity power prices and
1
Corresponding author. upended economics of utilities investment in generation capacity
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received September 4,
in the U.S. energy marketplaces [12]. Kasaei et al. [14] mentioned
2018; final manuscript received November 14, 2018; published online January 18, that the high penetration of renewables such as a PV system could
2019. Assoc. Editor: Reza Baghaei Lakeh. cause uncertainty of controlling electricity power systems when

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright V

C 2019 by ASME JUNE 2019, Vol. 141 / 062005-1

Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the electrical output of power generators changes highly depend-
ing on the amount of sunlight. Miller and Edelson [15] also
pointed out that the grid impacts of widely distributed renewables
in NZEBs should be ameliorated in efficiency-oriented ways of
grid-sensitive design strategies and operational choices between
buildings and the electrical grid.
As it turns out, several recent studies regarding the previously
mentioned issues have been carried out and presented their
potential impacts on the electrical grid. Denholm et al. [16]
examined how electricity demand curves illustrated potential
over-generation risks in California at increased penetration of PV
power generation. In their conclusions, increased penetration of
PV power generation in California would require understanding
and addressing significant changes in the net-electricity demand
curves created by large surplus power generation. Seljom et al.
[17] investigated how an extensive implementation of NZEBs
affects cost-optimal investments in the Scandinavian energy sys-
tem toward 2050. Their results demonstrated that, with integrated
PV power generation systems, NZEBs increased the electricity
generation and the net-electricity export to the electrical grid, for
bringing about the significant impacts of the cost-optimal invest-
ments and operation of the grid-tied energy systems. Dirks [18]
also conducted a study on the impact of wide-scale implementa-
tions of net-zero energy homes (NZEHs) in the western grid in the
United States. This study addressed several issues regarding how
significant penetration of NZEHs will impact the economics of
NZEHs and the optimal design of power generation systems
within the electrical grid. Fig. 1 Flowchart of study methodology
As several studies have mentioned that challenges with signifi-
cant penetration of NZEBs will not only lead to changes in
required electricity demand within the electrical grid-level but
also influence the hourly value of electric power generation in the hospital, hotel, and school buildings, the scope of this study is lim-
utility electricity grid in coming decades. This study evaluates ited to an office building. In addition, the cost analysis of PV
potential aggregate impacts of NZEB implementations on the power generation and EES systems is not conducted because the
U.S. electrical grid in hourly simulation-based analysis. main objective of the study is to assess how NZEB implementa-
tions impact the electric grid.

2 Methodology
To estimate electricity demand profiles and evaluate potential
aggregate effects of large-scale NZEB implementations nation-
ally, a simplified method is proposed and performed as described
in this section. The detailed steps are depicted in Fig. 1. ENERGY-
PLUS prototype office buildings [19], modeled based on ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2013, are selected and simulated using 14 U.S.
climate weather files to determine electricity consumption of each
conventional office building. Then two different strategies are
adopted to enable NZEB balances with a net-metering option to
the electrical grid, including only PV power generation (case 1),
and PV power generation with electrical energy storage (EES)
(case 2).
After reaching NZEB balances, a comparative study is per-
formed to calculate net-purchased electricity from the electrical
grid, and net-sold electricity that can be fed back to the electrical
grid. Finally, the weighted number of national office buildings is
calculated based on detailed construction weights by the U.S.
climate zones and building types [20], developed by Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). This building number is
used in developing a weighted national electricity demand esti-
mate for the potential aggregate impact of wide-scale NZEB
implementations on the U.S. electrical grid. To reflect the
adoption of NZEBs in the future, this study also examines three
scenarios with 20%, 50%, and 100% of the U.S. office building
stock that are composed of NZEBs. The three scenarios are
selected to show the contribution of NZEBs to the national elec-
tricity demand in different NZEB goals by the state and federal
governments.
In order to compare only electricity demand profiles, in this
study, the natural gas consumption used to provide central heating
in an office building is not considered. Although there are many
different types of commercial buildings, such as standalone retail,
2.1 U.S. Electric Power Demand Curve. U.S. Energy Infor-
mation Administration (EIA) provides hourly electrical system
operating data from all balancing authorities, including actual
electricity demand, day-ahead electricity demand forecast, system
electricity net-generation, and system total electricity interchange
(energy flow) [21]. The electrical system operating data (EIA-930
Data) is estimated based on the physical flow of electricity
metered at the grid-tied boundaries between electrical systems in
several different sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial,
and transportation) [22]. Aggregate hourly electricity demand
reflects 13 available regions (i.e., Northwest, California, South-
west, Central, Midwest, Texas, Tennessee, Southeast, Florida,
Carolinas, Mid-Atlantic, New York, and New England ISO) in the
U.S. lower 48 states [21,22].
Figure 2 presents the U.S. hourly electricity demand for each
representative day on the U.S. electrical grid. Three days in 2017
(August 22, January 6, and April 28) are selected to represent typ-
ical seasonal conditions (summer, winter, and transition), which
are chosen based on the highest daily electricity usage during
each seasonal month. These profiles of the actual aggregate U.S.
electricity demand are used as a base to calculate the simulated
U.S. net-electricity demand profiles in terms of NZEB
implementations.
2.2 U.S. Climate Zones and Construction Weights. Office
building models are placed in 14 different climate zones repre-
senting all the U.S. climates. The climate zones are classified
from one to eight climates, based on the range of climate parame-
ters, such as heating degree days and cooling degree days [23,24].
Then the climate zones are separated into moist (A), dry (B), and
marine (C) regions by considering regional weather conditions
(e.g., mean temperature of coldest/warmest month and annual
precipitation) [24].

062005-2 / Vol. 141, JUNE 2019 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 2 National aggregate electricity demand curves for each representative day

Table 1 Construction weights and the number of medium office buildings in the U.S. climate location

Weighted number of buildings by scenarios

Climate zone City (weather file) Construction weights (%) 100% 50% 20%

1A Miami, FL (very hot, humid) 0.13 7169 3584 1434

2A Houston, TX (hot, humid) 0.81 45,178 22,589 9036
2B Phoenix, AZ (hot, dry) 0.29 16,226 8113 3245
3A Memphis, TN (warm, humid) 0.77 42,567 21,283 8513
3B El Paso, TX (warm, dry) 0.72 39,733 19,866 7947
3C San Francisco, CA (warm, marine) 0.14 7558 3779 1512
4A Baltimore, MD (mixed, humid) 1.19 66,128 33,064 13,226
4B Albuquerque, NM (mixed, dry) 0.04 2001 1000 400
4C Salem, OR (mixed, marine) 0.20 10,892 5446 2178
5A Chicago, IL (cool, humid) 1.06 58,904 29,452 11,781
5B Boise, ID (cool, dry) 0.34 19,005 9502 3801
6A Burlington, VT (cold, humid) 0.30 16,560 8280 3312
6B Helena, MT (cold, dry) 0.04 1945 972 389
7 Duluth, MN (very cold) 0.03 1834 917 367
Total 6.04 335,698 167,849 67,140

For this analysis, specific climate locations (cities) are selected
as a representative of each climate zone as shown in Table 1. The
impact of electric energy savings potential on a national scale is
estimated using the concept of “construction weights” developed
by PNNL [25]. The construction weights are defined by the
weighting factors of the total construction floor area assigned by
climate locations for category of building types (e.g., large office
and hospital) in a national scale. National weights for the U.S.
commercial building construction are developed based on the U.S.
EIA’s Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS) and the McGraw-Hill Construction Projects Stars Data-
base (MHC) by mapping MHC data to CBECS building types
[25]. Table 1 lists the construction weights assigned to an office
building in the commercial building stock in all the 14 U.S.
climate zones. Each construction weighting factor varies for office
buildings within the 14 U.S. climate locations. For example,
the highest weighting factor is 1.19% for Baltimore, MD (climate
4A). The lowest weighting factor is 0.03% for Duluth, MN (cli-
mate 7).
Table 1 also shows the weighted number of the U.S. office
buildings by three scenarios (i.e., 100%, 50%, and 20% of the
U.S. NZEB stocks). U.S. EIA’s Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS) estimated that there were about
5.6  106 commercial buildings in the United States surveyed in
2012 [26]. Based on the surveyed number of the U.S. commercial
buildings CBECS provides, the weighted number of office build-
ings is estimated by multiplying construction weights to further
conduct a comparative analysis in each climate zone.
2.3 Net-Zero Energy Building Model. The Department of
Energy (DOE)’s flagship building energy modeling software,
ENERGYPLUS version 8.6, is used to model office buildings. DOE
provides three different types of office building models (e.g.,
small, medium, and large office models) in commercial buildings.
Total U.S. construction weighting factors of 5.61%, 6.04%, and
3.33% are used for small, medium, and large office models,
respectively. The prototype medium office models shown in
Fig. 3 [19], developed by DOE and PNNL, are used to estimate
electrical energy variations of office buildings due to the highest
construction weights within office building types.
The prototype medium office models for each of the 14 climate
zones comply with the minimum energy code requirements pre-
scribed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 [27]. Each office model
has a rectangular floor plan and a total floor area of 4982 m2
(53,626 ft2). Each floor has five thermal zones, including four

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2019, Vol. 141 / 062005-3

Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 3 Three-dimensional view (a) and a floor plan (b) of a simulated office model
Fig. 4 PV row spacing calculation for fixed roof-mounted and ground-mounted panels
perimeter zones and one core zone with a 33% window-to-wall frac-
tion as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b). Its envelope uses steel-framed
constructions for exterior walls and insulation entirely above deck
for a flat roof, as well as the slab-on-grade for floors [28,29]. For a
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, a rooftop
unit system with variable air volume electric reheat coils is used in
the office model. This system is the electrical air conditioning sys-
tem that varies supply air volume flow rates through an air handing
unit with dampers located in a variable air volume terminal box to
meet the required set-point temperature [30].
Input values for this building energy modeling are directly
taken from the original version of the prototype office model with-
out modifications. Although most of the input values, such as
building geometry and internal heat gains, are the same for each
of the 14 climate zones, some changes occur depending on system
capacities and envelope requirements that vary with climate
conditions, including outdoor air ventilation, supply air flow rates,
U-values, and solar heat gain coefficients [19].
2.3.1 Distributed Photovoltaic Power Generation. Since a
solar PV system is one of the most common types of distributed
power systems integrated to buildings [31,32], a PV system is
used to enable NZEB balances in the U.S. climate zones for this
study. In consideration of net-metering available within the elec-
trical grid-level, a PV power generation system in ENERGYPLUS is
modeled to allow feeding the excess on-site electricity produced
by PV power panels [33].
The equivalent one-diode model that ENERGYPLUS offers is used
to predict the on-site electricity generation. This model employs
equations for an empirical equivalent circuit model to determine
the current–voltage characteristics of a single module [30]. This
model also uses empirical relationships to predict PV operating
performance depending on environmental variables, such as PV
cell temperature and shading effects. Since the cell temperature of
PV panels is one of the important factors for performance of elec-
trical outputs [34,35], ENERGYPLUS provides several options of PV
062005-4 / Vol. 141, JUNE 2019
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
back-surface integration modes (e.g., decupled and integrated
surfaces) to determine PV power operating temperature. In this
study, the integrated surface outside face mode is used to calculate
PV cell temperature, reflecting ambient conditions, and PV panel
surfaces [33]. Figure 4 illustrates fixed roof-mounted and ground-
mounted PV panels.
Although PV systems require the greatest possible radiation to
maximize electric power generation through ideal array orienta-
tion, it is not practical in general to achieve the maximum power
generation from PV because of building designs and locations. A
fixed tilt angle of 15 deg is used for all simulation models in each
of the 14 different climate zones. For the flat roof instance, 70%
of the roof area is assumed to be available for PV installation
[36]. PV spacing between rows of PV modules can be calculated
based on a site location, PV panel height and tilt angle, and inter
row spacing while avoiding a shading effect on winter solstice
[37]. Figure 4 depicts detailed calculation of the PV row spacing
between PV panels. The manufactured PV panel, LG230M1C
[38], is used for input parameters of the equivalent one-diode
model in ENERGYPLUS listed in Table 2.
Based on the calculated PV row spacing, the maximum PV area
on the roof of the simulated office model is about 1114 m2
(11,991 ft2), which is about 67% of the entire roof area of 1661 m2
(17,879 ft2). Table 3 shows the number of PV panels on the roof
and parking areas. In order to achieve net-zero performance, the
number of PV panels required on roof areas is obtained by match-
ing the annual electric energy usage to the annual on-site electric-
ity generation. In addition to the PV panels installed on roof areas,
additional PV panels are used on parking areas until each simu-
lated NZEB shows satisfactory annual NZEB balances. Table 3
also presents the total number of PV panels and maximum power
output needed to achieve NZEBs for each climate zone.
2.3.2 Photovoltaic Inverter Systems and the Grid-Connection
Model. The electric power generation of arrayed PV systems to
the grid-connection heavily depends on the performance of
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Photovoltaic performance characteristics
PV performance parameter Value/information
Cell type Monocrystalline silicon
STC power rating 230 W
STC power per unit of area 142.9 W/m2 (13.3 W/ft2)
Peak efficiency 14.29%
Panel height 1.63 m (64.1 in.)
Panel width 0.98 m (38.8 in.)
Panel active area 1.61 m2 (17.3 ft2)
Temperature coefficient of power 0.46 %/K
Nominal operating cell temperature 45  C
Panel heat loss coefficient 30 W/m2 K
Cell type Monocrystalline silicon
STC power rating 230 W
STC power per unit of area 142.9 W/m2 (13.3W/ft2)
inverters [34,39]. The PV array to the inverter sizing ratio is
expressed by regarding the relationship between DC power rating
of the PV array at standard test conditions (STC) and AC power
rating of an inverter under nominal conditions [40]. Inverters are
commonly undersized as the STC conditions at which the PV is
rated are less likely to occur in real-world conditions [41]. ENERGY-
PLUS suggests using inverter input values available from data
obtained from tests by the California Energy Commission (CEC)
and published in Ref. [42]. With this inverter data obtained from
the California Energy Commission, the manufactured inverter
(Solectria SGI 300 kW—480Vac) is selected and used for the
“electric load center: inverter: look up table” object in ENERGYPLUS,
including a continuous output power of 300 kW and a peak effi-
ciency of 98.0% with the 28 W night tare loss power, which varies
depending on the inverter sizing [33,43].
To allow feeding the surplus PV power generation from the
building to the electrical grid, the “power out to grid type” of the
transformer in ENERGYPLUS is used. This type of the transformer is
used to calculate net-purchased and net-sold electricity outputs by
matching voltage from the building to the electrical grid. All
excess electricity produced by “electric load centers” (i.e., PV sys-
tems) can be fed back into the electrical grid through the trans-
former operation. Figure 5(a) illustrates the PV power generation
systems with net-metering available for a simulated NZEB model.
Nominal efficiency of the transformer performance method is set
to 97.7%, directly obtained from an ENERGYPLUS default value.
2.3.3 Electrical Energy Storage Model. Using EES improves
the operating performance of a distributed generation system in an
effective manner because of smoothing out the electrical fluctua-
tions in the electrical grid [44]. Within NZEBs, the EES can be
used to store excess electricity and provide additional electricity
during low or no PV distributed power generation [45]. There are
broadly two types of EES used for commercial buildings: conven-
tional and flow batteries [46]. This study assumes the use of a
flow battery for EES because flow batteries are normally consid-
ered for relatively large (1 kWh—many megawatt hours) station-
ary applications in commercial buildings [46]. The EES model in
ENERGYPLUS handles an electrical battery option as a black box,
counting energy added and removed with losses due to charge or
discharge inefficiencies in a simplified manner [30]. There are
losses and limits to charging and discharging electricity into the
storage, depending on the capacity rates and the efficiency input
values of charging and discharging. There are also several input
values for the initial state of charge and a maximum state of
charge, depending on the physical capacity of the EES device
[30,33]. Table 4 shows input values of the simplified EES in ENER-
GYPLUS. The EES is assumed to have an 93% net efficiency, and
the maximum storage capacities and powers for charging and
discharging vary depending on maximum PV power outputs in
Ref. [47].
For the storage operation scheme, the “track facility demand
storage excess on-site” field in the “electrical load center distribu-
tion” object in ENERGYPLUS is used to control the EES charge and
discharge status. With this operation scheme, the EES tracks all
electricity demand used within the entire office building while
accounting for any on-site generation during simulated period.
Meanwhile, any surplus electricity produced by PV power genera-
tion can be stored through electrical flows into the EES [30].
2.3.4 Calculation of Net-Electricity Demand Differences.
Combining electric energy consumption used in buildings and
on-site electrical generation by PV systems yields purchased and
sold electricity from and to the electrical grid. Figure 6 depicts an
example of hourly electricity profiles (e.g., purchased, produced,
and sold electricity) in NZEB for a typical sunny day in terms of
cases 1 and 2. Based on these hourly profiles, national net-electricity
differences for the office building model are calculated as
NX
Climate
DENet ¼ ðEEndUse;i  EPurchased;i þ ESold;i ÞwBuildings;i (1)
i
where EEndUse is the electricity end-uses of baseline office building
models, EPurchased is the imported electricity in NZEBs from the
electrical grid, ESold is the exported electricity in NZEBs to the
electrical grid, and wBuildings is the number of office buildings in
the U.S. climate zones, which is estimated by considering
construction weighting factors and total commercial buildings in
2012, listed in Table 1.

Table 3 The number of PV panels and total maximum power outputs of PV systems installed
for NZEBs

The number of PV panels

Climate zone Roof Parking Total maximum power output (kWp; STC)

1A 450 1060 347.9

2A 450 1100 357.1
2B 450 720 269.6
3A 450 1020 338.7
3B 450 600 241.9
3C 450 624 247.4
4A 450 1050 345.6
4B 450 608 243.8
4C 450 1100 357.1
5A 450 1176 374.6
5B 450 810 290.3
6A 450 1218 384.3
6B 450 960 324.9

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2019, Vol. 141 / 062005-5

Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 5 NZEB models (a) without EES and (b) with EES

Table 4 EES inputs in ENERGYPLUS [47]

EES performance parameter Value/information

Availability schedule Always on

Installed zone First core zone
Radiative fraction for zone heat gains 0.25
Nominal efficiency for charging 0.93
Nominal efficiency for discharging 0.93
Maximum storage capacity 7.2 kWh * (maximum PV output (kWp)/5.2 (kWp))
Maximum power for discharging 3.0 kW * (maximum PV output (kWp)/5.2 (kWp))
Maximum power for charging 3.84 kW * (maximum PV output (kWp)/5.2 (kWp))
Initial state of charge in EES 0

With hourly calculated net-electricity difference profiles, the
potential aggregate impact of NZEB implementations on the U.S.
electrical grid is calculated as
EU:S:Net ¼ EU:S:TotalDemand  DENet (2)
where EU:S:TotalDemand is the actual U.S. aggregate electricity demand
for available U.S. regions in terms of all sectors (e.g., residential,
commercial, industrial, and transportation), as shown in Fig. 2.
DENet indicates the net-electricity differences for NZEBs on a
national scale.
Figure 6 also shows variations of hourly net-electricity differ-
ence profiles of two NZEB cases: only PV (case 1) and PV þ EES
(case2). In this figure, imported (purchased) electricity from the
electrical grid is reduced once the electrical output of the PV sys-
tems kicks on. It is also seen how, during the daytime, the excess
generated electricity is fed to the electrical grid when the on-site
electricity generation is higher than the electricity needed. When
the EES is considered within NZEBs, the peak of the purchased
and sold electricity profiles can be reduced, resulting in significant
changes in the trends of the hourly net-electricity difference pro-
files between cases 1 and 2. In addition, Fig. 6(b) depicts the status
of hourly charging and discharging electricity through the EES.
Such trends of net-electricity difference profiles are further con-
sidered in order to estimate hourly variations of net-electricity
demand values on a national scale.
3 Results and Discussion
This section presents and discusses the simulated results of
office NZEB models on a national scale and potential aggregate
effects on the U.S. electrical grid. First, the electric energy use
intensities (EUIs) of the prototype office models are compared to
the published office building EUIs. NZEB performance of each
NZEB case in the U.S. climate zones is then explained. Next, net-
electricity differences of NZEBs on a national scale in terms of
100% of the U.S. NZEB stock for three representative seasonal
days (i.e., winter, transition, and summer), calculated by Eq. (1),

062005-6 / Vol. 141, JUNE 2019 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 6 An example of hourly electricity demand profiles satisfied for NZEB on a typical sunny
day: (a) case 1 and (b) case 2

are discussed. Finally, the potential aggregate impact of NZEB

implementations on the national electrical grid-level is evaluated
by comparing with the actual U.S. electricity demand profiles on
each representative day.

3.1 Electric Energy Use Intensity. From the prototype office

models without renewables, the electric EUIs are obtained for
each climate location. The simulated EUIs are then compared to
the published office building EUI data from the U.S. DOE’s build-
ing performance database tool [48] as shown in Fig. 7. The build-
ing performance database tool allows users to perform exploratory
data analysis on an anonymous dataset of commercial and residen-
tial buildings using empirical building data [49]. In this study, all
available office building data from the database are presented in
Fig. 7. It shows that the median value of annual U.S. office build-
ing EUIs is 155 kWh/m2 (49 kBtu/ft2). The range of annual EUIs
from the ASHRAE 90.1-2013 code compliant prototype building
models is from 83 kWh/m2 (26.3 kBtu/ft2) to 114 kWh/m2
(36 kBtu/ft2). This comparison indicates that the prototype office Fig. 7 Actual versus simulated office building electrical EUIs

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2019, Vol. 141 / 062005-7

Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 8 Annual electric energy consumption versus annual on-
site electricity generation for each NZEB placed in 14 climate
zones
Fig. 9 Simulated electricity demand profiles on a national scale for the representative
summer day: (a) only PV and (b) PV 1 EES
062005-8 / Vol. 141, JUNE 2019
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
models are operated at lower EUIs compared to the actual office
buildings in the United States.
3.2 Electricity Consumption of Net-Zero Energy
Buildings. Figure 8 illustrates the scatter plots of each NZEB bal-
ance in each of the 14 climate locations. Annual electricity con-
sumption used within the entire office building is compared
against annual on-site PV power generation to assess NZEB bal-
ances for each climate location. As seen in Fig. 8, most of the
simulated office building models show acceptable NZEB balances
within 65% of the net-zero energy balance line. Simulated office
models include the range of around 94–132 kWh/m2 yr in terms of
annual electricity usage. The highest and lowest electricity uses
are for Miami, FL (climate 1A) and San Francisco, CA (climate
3C), respectively. It is also observed that simulated NZEB models
with the EES show relatively low values from the net-zero energy
balance line when compared to those models only with net-
metering available on the electrical grid. This is mainly due to the
fact that NZEBs with the EES include around 30% (14,500 kWh/
yr) to 40% (17,989 kWh/yr) increases of PV power conversion
losses caused by the operation efficiency of the EES.
Based on these NZEB balances for 14 climate locations, net-
purchased and net-sold electricity values are calculated on each
representative day. Then, a comparative analysis is carried out to
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 10 Simulated electricity demand profiles on a national scale for the representative winter
day: (a) only PV and (b) PV 1 EES
investigate potential aggregate impacts of NZEBs with the electri-
cal grid on a national scale.
3.3 Net-Difference Electricity Variations of Net-Zero
Energy Buildings. Combining electric energy consumption used
in buildings and on-site generation produced by PV systems yields
the net-purchased and net-sold electricity demand profiles in terms
of 100% of the U.S. NZEB stock for three seasonal days, as
shown in Figs. 9–11. These figures demonstrate that simulated
electricity demand profiles vary by time of day and by NZEB
strategies. For example, the range of the simulated peak electricity
demand is around 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. on the selected summer day
and around 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. on the selected winter day.
3.3.1 Simulated Electricity Demand Profiles for the Represen-
tative Summer Day. Figures 9(a) and 9(b) show simulated elec-
tricity demand profiles when PV power systems are added for
NZEBs with and without the EES, respectively. Electricity end-
use profiles for both baseline and NZEB models are estimated
based on all electrical facilities, such as lights, equipment, a
domestic hot water system, and HVAC (i.e., cooling coil, reheat
coil, and fan) in simulated office buildings.
With electricity end-use profiles, the peak electricity demand
includes about 47,751 MW and 51,988 MW at 3:00 p.m. for base-
line and NZEB models on a national scale as illustrated in Fig. 9.
As seen in Figs. 9(a) and 9(b), the electric energy end-use of
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
NZEBs is of difference from that of the baseline model. This is
mainly because the electricity end-use of NZEBs includes elec-
tricity conversion losses through PV inverters and net-metering on
the electrical grid. In addition, when PV systems are added for
NZEBs, there are several effects on the interior heating load
caused by shading on building’s roof and added inverters and the
EES systems that cause thermal losses inside buildings. PV power
systems produce maximum on-site power generation, about
70,490 MW at 11:00 a.m. on the representative summer day. As
expected, maximum PV generation does not coincide with the
peak electricity demand used in buildings mainly due to a peak
time of solar radiation. Daily national electricity end-use is about
630,797 MWh/day, and daily national on-site generation is about
547,008 MWh/day, which covers about 86% of total daily elec-
tricity usage on the summer day under the 100% NZEB stock sce-
nario. Total daily net-difference electricity for 100% NZEB stock
is about 537,010 MWh/day.
Unlike NZEBs, all electric energy end-uses employed within
baseline building models are directly purchased from the electri-
cal grid facility since there is no on-site power generation in base-
line buildings. With annual NZEB balances, the net-purchased
electricity from the electrical grid is estimated based on electricity
end-use and on-site PV generation as mentioned in Fig. 6. As seen
in Fig. 9, the net-purchased electricity for NZEBs starts to reduce
when PV systems produce the on-site electricity after around
6:00 a.m. It indicates that the utility purchased peak demand
JUNE 2019, Vol. 141 / 062005-9
 Fig. 11 Simulated electricity demand profiles on a national scale for the representative transi-
tion day: (a) only PV and (b) PV 1 EES
from the electrical grid is significantly reduced and flattened by
on-site PV power generation installed in NZEBs. In addition, the
excess generated electricity is then fed to the electrical grid
when on-site power generation is higher than the electric energy
consumption used within office buildings during daytime. Simu-
lated daily electricity fed back to the electrical grid includes
about 131,450 MWh/day on the representative summer day. As
expected, net-purchased and net-sold electricity demand profiles
show flattened patterns by decreasing electrical flows from and to
the electrical grid, when the operation of the EES is considered
within NZEBs on the electrical grid as shown in Fig. 9(b).
Figure 9(b) also represents the status of EES electricity charging
and discharging during the daytime and the evening, respectively.
3.3.2 Simulated Electricity Demand Profiles for the Represen-
tative Winter Day. Figures 10(a) and 10(b) show simulated elec-
tricity demand profiles in case of the selected winter day for the
baseline versus NZEB models with and without the EES, respec-
tively. On January 6, the peak electricity end-use includes about
40,950 MW at 8:00 a.m. in baseline models. However, there is a
slight difference between baseline and NZEB models, turning out
that NZEBs represent the peak electricity end-use which is about
41,836 MW at 7:00 a.m. This result is mainly expected that most
of the roof areas are shaded by PV panels from sunrise, bringing
about increases of heating electric energy consumption for several
062005-10 / Vol. 141, JUNE 2019
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
zones on a top-floor in the beginning of HVAC system start up for
a heating day.
PV power systems within NZEBs generate maximum output at
12:00 p.m., about 50,826 MW. Daily electricity end-use of the
baseline is about 587,583 MWh/day, and daily on-site PV genera-
tion is about 298,697 MWh/day, which covers about 50% of total
daily electricity usage for the selected winter day. In addition,
Fig. 10(a) represents the simulated net-purchased and net-sold
electricity demand profiles. Simulated daily electricity fed back
into the electrical grid is about 81,575 MWh/day. Total daily net-
difference electricity is about 294,242 MWh/day during the
selected winter day under 100% NZEB stock. Using the EES, net-
purchased and net-sold electricity demand profiles can be appa-
rently reduced and flattened as shown in Fig. 10(b).
3.3.3 Simulated Electricity Demand Profiles for the Represen-
tative Transition Day. Figures 11(a) and 11(b) show each simu-
lated electricity demand profile on the transition day, April 28. As
seen in this figure, the hourly pattern of electricity end-use is rela-
tively in a slimier fashion of the summer day pattern, but amount
of daily electricity end-use is lower than other two representative
days. Daily electricity end-use of the baseline results in about
489,522 MWh/day, including about 35,564 MW at 3:00 p.m. at a
peak point. However, daily on-site PV generation includes about
538,690 MWh/day, which is a relatively high on-site PV
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 12 Comparison of simulated net-electricity demand with NZEBs for the representative
summer day: (a) only PV and (b) PV 1 EES
generation when compared to other two representative days. Daily
on-site PV generation covers about 100% of daily electricity end-
use for both NZEBs with and without the EES. Total daily net-
difference electricity between baseline and NZEB models under
100% NZEB stock is about 534,461 MWh/day in the transition
day. Figure 11(b) also illustrates similarly how the EES can
reduce and flatten net-purchased and net-sold electricity demand
profiles when compared to only PV power generation. These
simulated electricity demand profiles, provided in Figs. 9–11, are
further employed to estimate the U.S. net-electricity demand val-
ues and compare to the actual U.S electricity demand values.
3.4 Potential Aggregate Impacts on the U.S. Electricity
Demand Profiles. Since a large introduction of NZEBs increases
the on-site electricity generation and influences different electric-
ity trade patterns and prices with a grid-tied electrical system [17],
potential aggregate impacts of extensive NZEBs on a national
electrical gird-level are evaluated and discussed in this section.
Figures 12–14 illustrate the actual U.S. electricity demand pro-
files by comparing with the simulated net-electricity demand pro-
files regarding the adoption of 20%, 50%, and 100% NZEB stock
scenarios. Each scenario indicates the different number of office
building stocks, expected to be NZEBs when closing to the net-
zero target that EISA 2007 specifies. In these figures, each sce-
nario demand line represents the net-electricity demand, equal to
total actual U.S. electricity demand minus weighted differences
between simulated electricity end-uses used in conventional office
buildings and simulated net-purchased electricity used in NZEBs,
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
as well as net-sold electricity from simulated NZEBs to the elec-
trical grid on a national scale.
3.4.1 Potential Aggregate Impacts on the U.S. Electricity
Demand Profiles for the Representative Summer Day. The peak
demand of the actual U.S. electricity at about 2:00 p.m. on Aug.
22, 2017, appears to be about 670,229 MW, which reflects all sec-
tors (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation).
The actual daily U.S. electricity demand includes about
13,308,722 MWh/day during the selected summer day as shown
in Fig. 2. Figure 12 also illustrates simulated net-electricity
demand resulting from three NZEB scenarios. As expected, sig-
nificant penetration of NZEBs could potentially influence U.S.
electricity demand patterns by exporting the on-site electricity
generation during daytime. The peak electricity demand of the
U.S. net-electricity includes about 623,256 MW at 5:00 p.m.,
640,325 MW at 3:00 p.m., and 657,817 MW at 2:00 p.m. for
100%, 50%, and 20% NZEB stock scenarios, respectively.
With a comparison between the actual U.S. electricity and the
simulated net-electricity demand values at a maximum point
(11:00 a.m.) on the selected summer day, the percentage differen-
ces show 10.7% (69,190 MW), 5.4% (34,595 MW), and 2.1%
(13,838 MW) for 100%, 50%, and 20% NZEB stocks, respec-
tively. In contrast, for NZEBs with the EES, peak percentage dif-
ferences are flattened throughout daytime. It turns out that the
peak difference point between the actual U.S. electricity and
simulated net-electricity is reduced, including 8.6% (57,535 MW),
4.3% (28,767 MW), and 1.7% (11,507 MW) for each NZEB stock,
respectively.
JUNE 2019, Vol. 141 / 062005-11
 Fig. 13 Comparison of simulated net-electricity demand with NZEBs for the representative
winter day: (a) only PV and (b) PV 1 EES
3.4.2 Potential Aggregate Impacts on the U.S. Electricity
Demand Profiles for the Representative Winter Day. On the repre-
sentative winter day, Fig. 13 shows increasingly curtailed curves
of simulated U.S. net-electricity demand for each NZEB stock
when compared to the actual U.S. electricity demand during day-
time. As seen in this figure, the actual peak U.S. electricity
demand includes about 575,980 MW at 4:00 p.m., and daily U.S.
electricity demand includes about 12,808,651 MWh/day. Compar-
ing each simulated net-electricity demand curve on the summer
day, we observe that peak demand is significantly reduced and
shifted to the earlier morning and the late afternoon of the day.
Simulated net-electricity demand curves, provided in Fig. 13,
show that the percentage differences of the simulated U.S. net-
electricity demand are 9.3% (50,328 MW), 4.7% (25,164 MW),
and 1.9% (10,066 MW) for three NZEB scenarios, respectively, at
a maximum point (12 p.m.). However, with the EES, the peak dif-
ference point is shifted to 2 p.m., including 6.3% (34,932 MW),
3.1% (17,466 MW), and 1.3% (6,986 MW) for three NZEB stock
scenarios, respectively.
3.4.3 Potential Aggregate Impacts on the U.S. Electricity
Demand Profiles for the Representative Transition Day. Figure 14
shows the simulated U.S. net-electricity demand curves on the
representative transition day, April 28. It indicates that the actual
daily U.S. electricity demand is about 10,400,551 MWh/day,
which is the lowest value when compared to the summer and the
winter days. From the compared results of peak percentage differ-
ences between the actual U.S. electricity and the simulated net-
electricity demand on a national scale, it is observed that
062005-12 / Vol. 141, JUNE 2019
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
percentage differences peak in the middle of the day when solar
radiation is at its highest (11 a.m.), with 15.2% (73,290 MW),
7.6% (36,645 MW), and 3.0% (14,658 MW) for 100%, 50%, and
20% NZEB scenarios, respectively, provided in Fig. 14(a).
Figure 14(b) illustrates how added EES can shift peak demand
to flatten curve shapes and reduce curtailment during the daytime.
When the EES is added within NZEBs, peak percentage differen-
ces of the U.S. net-electricity could potentially be shifted to 12:00
p.m. and reduced to 13.3% (35,461 MW), 6.7% (17,730 MW), and
2.7% (7,092 MW), respectively, in each U.S. NZEB stock sce-
nario. Using a combination of the EES within NZEBs can effec-
tively reduce significant changes in the U.S. electricity demand
curves during the daytime and offer appropriate ways to use on-
site generated electricity during the evening, thereby decreasing
the surplus electricity to the U.S. electrical grid.
4 Conclusion
This paper evaluates potential aggregate impacts of a large-
scale implementation of NZEBs on the national electrical grid in a
simulation-based analysis. Simulated NZEB models are enabled
using on-site PV power generation that equals to annual electricity
consumption used in office buildings. To allow feeding the excess
PV power generation from NZEBs to the electrical grid,
net-metering operation is available with and without the EES.
With the weighted number of national office buildings, aggregate
U.S. net-electricity demand profiles are estimated and compared
to the actual U.S. electricity demand profiles on three seasonal
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 14 Comparison of simulated net-electricity demand with NZEBs for the representative
transition day: (a) only PV and (b) PV 1 EES
representative days in terms of three scenarios. We assume that
20%, 50%, and 100% of the U.S. office building stock is expected
to be NZEBs for three scenarios in coming decades. Results from
this study indicate that an implementation of NZEBs could poten-
tially affect the current U.S. electricity demand patterns in the
middle of the day in two ways: (1) lower purchased electricity
from the electrical grid and (2) increased surplus power generation
by PV systems from office NZEBs to the electrical grid. The key
findings from this study are as follows:
 Simulated NZEB models show around 94–132 kWh/m2 yr of
annual electricity usages, which is lower than the median
value of the actual building EUI data throughout U.S. climate
locations. Simulated results also indicate that the use of
the EES within NZEB models shows the relatively high
power conversion losses, mainly due to the flow net-
efficiency of the EES model during EES operation. Annual
PV power conversion losses without the EES include about
37,227–48,983 kWh/yr, which varies according to the
amount of PV power generation through inverters and net-
metering. When the impact of the EES with NZEBs on the
electrical grid is considered, annual power conversion losses
increase around 30–38% when compared to NZEBs without
the EES.
 On a national scale, simulated daily electricity usages
include about 630,797 MWh/day, 587,583 MWh/day, and
489,522 MWh/day for representative summer, winter, and
transition days, respectively, when 100% of the U.S. office
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
building stock is expected to be NZEBs. Daily on-site PV
power generation could cover around 50–100% of total daily
electricity usages consumed in office buildings depending on
weather conditions. The PV power generation within NZEBs
could significantly increase changes in imported and
exported electricity from and to the electrical grid during
daytime. However, the EES with distributed PV systems
could help reduce the peak net-electricity difference during
the daytime and use stored electricity later in the evening.
 Peak percentage differences of national electricity demand
between the actual U.S. electricity demand and the simulated
net-electricity demand vary depending on the NZEB stock
scenarios and time of the selected day. On the representative
summer day, the peak differences from the actual U.S. elec-
tricity demand profile show 10.7%, 5.4%, and 2.1% at 11:00
a.m. for 100%, 50%, and 20% of the U.S. NZEB stocks,
respectively. In consideration of the EES within NZEBs, the
peak differences are reduced and shifted to 1:00 p.m., includ-
ing 8.6%, 4.3%, and 1.7% for each U.S. NZEB stock,
respectively.
 On the representative winter day, the peak point of the actual
U.S. electricity demand is reduced and shifted to the begin-
ning and late afternoon. NZEBs tend to create the significant
curtailment of the actual U.S. electricity demand profile, typ-
ically during the middle of the winter day. The percentage
differences at a maximum point (12:00 p.m.) are 9.3%, 4.7%,
and 1.9% for three U.S. NZEB stock scenarios, respectively.
As expected, using the EES on the winter day could reduce
JUNE 2019, Vol. 141 / 062005-13
 curtailed electricity demand curves by shifting the peak dif-
ference point to 2:00 p.m. The shifted peak differences
include 6.3%, 3.1%, and 1.3% for 100%, 50%, and 20% of
the U.S. NZEB stocks, respectively.
 On the representative transition day, the percentage differen-
ces peak at 11:00 a.m. with 15.2%, 7.6%, and 3.0% for
100%, 50%, and 20% NZEB stock scenarios, respectively.
Similarly peak percentage differences of simulated U.S. net-
electricity could be reduced to 13.4%, 6.7%, and 2.7% at
12:00 p.m. in three NZEB stocks by considering the impact
of the EES within NZEBs on the electrical grid.
Although enabling NZEBs can be an effective mean to achieve
greater energy efficiency of new or existing buildings and green-
house emission reductions, high implementations of NZEBs
across U.S. regions would potentially have significant changes on
the electric load on the grid and on the use of conventional gener-
ators within interconnected electrical grid. These changes may
have a detrimental effect on grid operations by greatly reducing
building electricity demands during certain hours of the daytime
when electrical energy storage is not considered on the electrical
grid. Therefore careful consideration and planning should be
undertaken before the adoption of large-scale implementations of
NZEBs in the U.S. electrical grid.
Such simulated results can be used to predict how significant
implementations of medium-sized office NZEBs have potential
aggregate effects on the U.S. electricity demand profile in the entire
U.S. grid-level. In future studies, a detailed uncertainty analysis of
hourly electricity demand profiles estimates errors associated with
the proposed method. In addition, the scope of the proposed study
can be broadened by optimizing the operation of PV and battery sys-
tems and analyzing cost effectiveness within NZEBs.
Nomenclature
EES ¼ electrical energy storage
EUI ¼ energy use intensity
NZEB ¼ net-zero energy building
PV ¼ photovoltaic
References
[1] EIA, 2017, “Annual Electric Power Review,” U.S. Energy Information Admin-
istration, Washington, DC, accessed Nov. 6, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/elec-
tricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_01
[2] Torcellini, P., Pless, S., Deru, M., and Crawley, D., 2006, “Zero Energy Build-
ings: A Critical Look at the Definition,” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Effi-
ciency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, Aug. 13–18..
[3] Crawley, D. B., Pless, S., and Torcellini, P., 2009, “Getting to Net Zero,”
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/JA-
550-46382.
[4] Sissine, F., 2007, “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A Summary
of Major Provisions,” CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL34294, Con-
gressional Research Service, Dec. 19, 2007, Washington, DC.
[5] Aksamija, A., 2016, “Regenerative Design and Adaptive Reuse of Existing
Commercial Buildings for Net-Zero Energy Use,” Sustainable Cities Soc., 27,
pp. 185–195.
[6] Li, D. H. W., Yang, L., and Lam, J. C., 2013, “Zero Energy Buildings and Sus-
tainable Development Implications—A Review,” Energy, 54, pp. 1–10.
[7] Marszal, A. J., Heiselberg, P., Bourrelle, J. S., Musall, E., Voss, K., Sartori, I.,
and Napolitano, A., 2011, “Zero Energy Building—A Review of Definitions
and Calculation Methodologies,” Energy Build., 43(4), pp. 971–979.
[8] Attia, S., Eleftheriou, P., Xeni, F., Morlot, R., Menezo, C., Kostopoulos, V.,
Betsi, M., Kalaitzoglou, I., Pagliano, L., Cellura, M., Almeida, M., Ferreira, M.,
Baracu, T., Badescu, V., Crutescu, R., and Hidalgo-Betanzos, J. M., 2017,
“Overview and Future Challenges of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (nZEB)
Design in Southern Europe,” Energy Build., 155, pp. 439–458.
[9] Zhou, Z., Feng, L., Zhang, S., Wang, C., Chen, G., Du, T., Li, Y., and Zuo, J.,
2016, “The Operational Performance of ‘Net Zero Energy Building’: A Study
in China,” Appl. Energy, 177, pp. 716–728.
[10] Good, C., Kristjansdottır, T., Houlihan Wiberg, A., Georges, L., and Hestnes, A.
G., 2016, “Influence of PV Technology and System Design on the Emission Bal-
ance of a Net Zero Emission Building Concept,” Sol. Energy, 130, pp. 89–100.
[11] Salom, J., Marszal, A. J., Widen, J., Candanedo, J., and Lindberg, K. B., 2014,
“Analysis of Load Match and Grid Interaction Indicators in Net Zero Energy
Buildings With Simulated and Monitored Data,” Appl. Energy, 136, pp. 119–131.
[12] Starn, J., 2018, “Power Worth Less Than Zero Spreads as Green Energy Floods
the Grid,“ accessed Aug. 25, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/
2018-08-06/negative-prices-in-power-market-as-wind-solar-cut-electricity
062005-14 / Vol. 141, JUNE 2019
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[13] Benato, A., and Stoppato, A., 2017, “Energy and Cost Analysis of a New
Packed Bed Pumped Thermal Electricity Storage Unit,” ASME J. Energy
Resour. Technol., 140(2), p. 020904.
[14] Javad Kasaei, M., Gandomkar, M., and Nikoukar, J., 2017, “Optimal Opera-
tional Scheduling of Renewable Energy Sources Using Teaching–Learning
Based Optimization Algorithm by Virtual Power Plant,” ASME J. Energy
Resour. Technol., 139(6), p. 062003.
[15] Miller, A., and Edelson, J., 2016, “Zero Net Energy Buildings and the Grid:
The Future of Energy Building-Grid Interactions,” ASHRAE Winter Confer-
ence, Orlando, FL, Jan. 23–27, Paper No. OR-16-C083.
[16] Denholm, P., O’Connell, M., Brinkman, G., and Jorgenson, J., 2015,
“Overgeneration From Solar Energy in California: A Field Guide to the Duck
Chart,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No.
NREL/TP-6A20-65023.
[17] Seljom, P., Lindberg, K. B., Tomasgard, A., Doorman, G., and Sartori, I., 2017,
“The Impact of Zero Energy Buildings on the Scandinavian Energy System,”
Energy, 118, pp. 284–296.
[18] Dirks, J. A., 2010, “The Impact of Wide-Scale Implementation of Net Zero-
Energy Homes on the Western Grid,” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Effi-
ciency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, Aug. 15–20, pp. 60–75.
[19] U.S. DOE and PNNL, 2016, “90.1 Prototype Building Models—Medium Offi-
ce,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, accessed May 15, 2016,
https://www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/prototype_models#90.1
[20] Thornton, B., Wang, W., Xie, Y., Cho, H., Liu, B., and Zhang, J., 2011,
“Achieving the 30% Goal: Energy and Cost Savings Analysis of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA,
Report No. PNNL-20405.
[21] EIA, 2016, “U.S. Electric System Operating Data,” U.S. Energy Information
Administration, Washington, DC, accessed Nov. 6, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.php?id¼27212
[22] EIA, 2016, “EIA-930 Data Users Guide and Known Issues,” U.S. Energy Infor-
mation Administration, Washington, DC, accessed Nov. 6, 2017, https://
www.eia.gov/realtime_grid/docs/UserGuideAndKnownIssues.pdf
[23] Briggs, R. L., Lucas, R. G., and Taylor, Z. T., 2003, “Climate Classification for
Building Energy Codes and Standards: Part 1—Development Process,” ASH-
RAE Trans., 109, pp. 109–121.
[24] ASHRAE, 2011, “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings,” ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 䊏, ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard No. 90.1-
2010.
[25] Jarnagin, R. E., and Bandyopadhyay, G. K., 2010, “Weighting Factors for the
Commercial Building Prototypes Used in the Development of ANSI/ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-2010,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
WA, Report No. PNNL-19116.
[26] EIA, 2012, “2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS),” U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, accessed
Nov. 6, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/
[27] ASHRAE, 2013, “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings (I-P),” ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard No.
90.1-2013.
[28] Hart, R. R., Athalye, R. A., Halverson, M. A., Loper, S. A., Rosenberg, M. I.,
Xie, Y., and Richman, E. E., 2015, “National Cost-effectiveness of ANSI/
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013,” U.S. Energy Information Administration,
Washington, DC, Contract No. DE-AC05-76RL01830.
[29] Goel, S., Rosenberg, M., Athalye, R., and Xie, Y., 2014, “Enhancements to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Prototype Building Models,” Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, WA, Report No. PNNL-23269.
[30] U.S. DOE, 2016, “EnergyPlus Version 8.6 Documentation: EnergyPlus Engi-
neering Reference,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
[31] Sovacool, B. K., 2008, “Distributed Generation (DG) and the American Electric
Utility System: What is Stopping It?,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.,
130(1), p. 012001.
[32] Wong, K. V., 2015, “Sustainable Engineering in the Global Energy Sector,”
ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 138(2), p. 024701.
[33] U.S. DOE, 2016, “EnergyPlus Version 8.6 Documentation: Input Output Refer-
ence,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
[34] Sick, F., 2014, Photovoltaics in Buildings: A Design Handbook for Architects
and Engineers, Routledge, New York.
[35] California Energy Commission, 2001, “A Guide to Photovoltaic (PV) System
Design and Installation, California Energy Technology Development Division,
Sacramento, CA, Report No. June 2001 500-01-020.
[36] Olis, D., Mosey, G., Olis, D., and Mosey, G., 2015, “Integration of Rooftop
Photovoltaic Systems in St. Paul Ford Site’s Redevelopment Plans,” National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/TP-7A40-63418.
[37] Sehar, F., Pipattanasomporn, M., and Rahman, S., 2016, “An
Energy Management Model to Study Energy and Peak Power Savings From
PV and Storage in Demand Responsive Buildings,” Appl. Energy, 173, pp.
406–417.
[38] Solar Design Tool, 2017, “LG LG230M1C (230W) Solar Panel,” Solar Design
Tool, Santa Cruz, CA, accessed Sept. 1, 2017, accessed http://www.solarde
signtool.com/components/module-panel-solar/LG/1067/LG230M1C/specification-
data-sheet.html
[39] Kaufmann, J., Hand, J., and Halverson, M., 2011, “Integrating Renewable
Energy Requirements Into Building Energy Codes,” U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, DC, Contract No. DE-AC05-76RL01830.
[40] Camps, X., Velasco, G., de la Hoz, J., and Martın, H., 2015, “Contribution to
the PV-to-Inverter Sizing Ratio Determination Using a Custom Flexible Experi-
mental Setup,” Appl. Energy, 149, pp. 35–45.
Transactions of the ASME
 [41] Advanced Energy, 2012, “DC Loading of PV Powered Inverters,” AE Solar
Energy, Bend, OR, accessed Sept. 1, 2017, http://solarenergy.advanced-ener
gy.com/upload/file/pvp/dcloadingofpvpinverters_55-600100-75c.pdf
[42] California Public Utilities Commission Rule, 2017, “Go Solar California, Go
Solar California, San Francisco, CA, accessed Sept. 1, 2017, http://www.goso
larcalifornia.org/equipment/inverters.php
[43] Yaskawa Solectria, 2014, “YASAKAWA Solectria Solar Commercial Inver-
ters, Yaskawa Solectria Solar, Lawrence, MA, accessed Sept. 1, 2017, https://
www.solectria.com//site/assets/files/1414/sgi_225-
500_datasheet_december_2016_rev_k.pdf
[44] Upendra Roy, B. P., and Rengarajan, N., 2016, “Feasibility Study of an Energy
Storage System for Distributed Generation System in Islanding Mode,” ASME
J. Energy Resour. Technol., 139(1), p. 011901.
[45] Sreekanth, K. J., Al Foraih, R., Al-Mulla, A., and Abdulrahman, B., 2019,
“Feasibility Analysis of Energy Storage Technologies in Power Systems for
Arid Region,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 141(1), p. 011901.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: https://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/21/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[46] Kintner-Meyer, M. C., Subbarao, K., Kumar, N. P., Bandyopadhyay, G., Finley,
C., Koritarov, V. S., Molburg, J. C., Wang, J., Zhao, F., Brackney, L., and
Florita, A. R., 2010, “The Role of Energy Storage in Commercial Buildings: A
Preliminary Report,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA,
Report No. PNNL-19853.
[47] GMDE, 2017, “5.2 kW/7.2 kWh Most Affordable Solar Battery Storage Sol-
ution,” Global Mainstream Dynamic Energy Technology, Shanghai, China,
accessed Aug. 20, 2018, https://cdn.enfsolar.com/Product/pdf/storage_system/
5a7bf6824e06f.pdf
[48] U.S. DOE, 2010, “Building Performance Database Analysis Tools, U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, DC, accessed Aug. 20, 2018, https://bpd.lbl.gov/#explore
[49] Brown, R. E., Walter, T., Dunn, L. N., Custodio, C. Y., Mathew, P. A., and
Berkeley, L., 2014, “Getting Real With Energy Data: Using the Buildings Per-
formance Database to Support Data-Driven Analyses and Decision-Making,”
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA,
Aug. 17–22, pp. 49–60.
JUNE 2019, Vol. 141 / 062005-15