Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 167–174

www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

A holistic utility bill analysis method for baselining whole

commercial building energy consumption in Singapore
Bing Dong*, Siew Eang Lee, Majid Haji Sapar
Department of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, 117566 Singapore
Received 31 March 2004; received in revised form 25 May 2004; accepted 5 June 2004

Abstract

The methodology for baseline building energy consumption is well established for energy saving calculation in the temperate zone both for
performance-based energy retrofitting contracts and measurement and verification (M&V) projects. In most cases, statistical regression
models based on utility bills and outdoor dry-bulb temperature have been applied to baseline monthly and annual whole building energy use.
This paper presents a holistic utility bills analysis method for baseline whole building energy consumption in the tropical region. Six
commercial buildings in Singapore were selected for case studies. Correlationships between the climate data, which are monthly mean
outdoor dry-bulb temperature (T0), relative humidity (RH) and global solar radiation (GSR), and whole building energy consumption are
derived. A deep prediction study based monthly mean outdoor dry-bulb temperature (T0) and whole building energy consumption is stated.
The result shows that variations of the energy consumption in most of these buildings are contributed by T0 and can be well predicted at 90%
confidence level only with it. The analysis of such kind of model is especially useful for building managers, owners and ESCOs to track and
baseline energy use during pre-retrofit and post-retrofit periods in the tropical condition.
# 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Baseline model; Regression analysis; Climate data; Singapore

1. Introduction method to estimate residential retrofitting energy use. Haberl

Energy in the form of electricity is used in building to
operate equipment for the safety, efficiency and comfort of
its occupants and users. Such equipment includes emer-
gency systems, air-conditioning, lighting, transportation,
office systems and other appliances [1]. Previous building
energy research carried by Building and Construction
(BCA) in Singapore shows that the energy consumptions
in building accounts for approximately 57% of the whole
electricity consumption in Singapore. It is a major energy
user in the nation. One of the cheapest and useful ways to
reduce such high consumption is by energy retrofitting. An
important element in any energy retrofitting program is to
verify savings from energy conservation measures (ECMs).
here are many approaches to measure retrofit energy sav-
ings. Fels et al. (1986) utilized variable-base degree-day
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 68743514.
E-mail address: g0203869@nus.edu.sg (B. Dong).
[2] applied this method to the whole campus level. Kissock
et al. [3] developed a regression methodology to measure
retrofitting energy use in commercial buildings. Krarti et al.
[4] utilized neural networks to estimate energy and demand
savings from retrofits of commercial buildings. Dhar et al.
(1999) generalized the Fourier series approach to model
hourly energy use in commercial buildings. In addition, in
most practical cases, utility bill data are used because they
are widely available and inexpensive to obtain and process
[5].
Furthermore, a crucial factor in verifying energy savings
is to develop a baseline model for pre-retrofit energy use.
Fels and Keating [6] pointed out that a simple approach to set
up the baseline model is to use a regression-based model.
Hence, the choice of model variables becomes important.
The study carried out by Fels (1986), Kissock (1993) and
Katipamula et al. [7] have clearly shown that outdoor dry-
bulb temperature was the most important regressor variable,
especially at monthly time level. Reddy et al. [5] presented a

0378-7788/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.06.011
168 B. Dong et al. / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 167–174

In addition, the degree of credibility related with the

Nomenclature
prediction results should be accurately verified. The predic-
tion interval (PI) at the 90% confidence level for multiple
n number of observations
linear regression model of predicting Y for the whole year is
m number of month
defined below [10]:
MSE mean square error
p number of parameters in the model  a 
t t-statistic evaluated at ((1
a)/2, n
p) PI ¼ t 1
; n
p sf1 þ X00 ðX 0 XÞ
1 X0 g1=2 (3)
2
x0 individual independent variable
xi independent variable Here, S is the standard error of the estimate.
x mean (annual) value of xi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P 2
ei
S¼ (4)
Symbol n
p
a significance level (which for 90% confidence
bands is equal to 0.10) and, X00 is a row vector containing the values of the inde-
pendent variables for which we wish to predict Y.
formal baselining methodology at the whole building level For the single variant regression model, there is a simpler
based on monthly utility bills and took outdoor dry-bulb calculation for PI shown below [8]:
temperature as the only model regressor.  a 
All the previous study is carried out in the temperate PI ¼ t 1
; n
p
2
region. In the tropical area, Singapore, there is no research ( " Pm #)1=2
2
clearly stating the important parameters to affect the whole MSE m ðx 0
xÞ
 m þ þ P0¼1 n 2
(5)
building energy consumption. In this paper, an attempt is m n i¼1 ðxi
xÞ
made to decide such important parameters based on statis-
tical regression analysis. In our study, the selected six Eq. (5) is strictly for the two-parameter models. Eq. (5)
commercial buildings are all peer office buildings and there shows that if there is no big difference between x0 and xi, and
are little changes in monthly occupancy density. Hence, we if MSE is constant, the value of PI will change with the t-
took weather parameters, namely, outdoor dry-bulb tem- statistic evaluated at (1
a/2, n
p). It is consistent with
perature (T0), relative humidity (RH) and global solar radia- uncertainty analysis, which shows that when the confidence
tion (GSR) as three model independent variables. level improves the bound of precision becomes wider to try
Subsequently, a primary multiple regression model was to include more data.
derived as a baseline model. This paper mainly evaluates Another important evaluating parameter for model pre-
how this model works in Singapore. diction ability is the variance of forecast error (VAR). VAR is
defined below [9]:
" #
2
2. Mathematical background 2 1 ðx0
xÞ
VARðY^
YÞ ¼ S 1 þ þ Pn 2
(6)
n i¼1 ðxi
xÞ
The criterion used to select the most appropriate model is
to maximize the goodness-of-fit using the simplest model or S is the standard error of the estimate.
combination of models [8]. Previous research shows that R2 Following Reddy et al. [5], the equation for percentage
and CV-RMSE are two major measures to evaluate the between actual energy use and projected energy use is
goodness of fit of the model. The value of R2 is defined below:
as the Pearson correlation coefficient between the observed
and fitted values [9]. The CV-RMSE is defined below: ymeasured
ybaseline
projected
Dy ð%Þ ¼  100 (7)
ybaseline
projected
RMSE
CV
RMSE ¼  100 (1) Here, ymeasured is the annual mean monthly energy use found
Y by simply averaging 12 monthly utility bills for projected
where, year. ybaseline
projected is the annual energy use predicted by
"P the baseline model using corresponding monthly mean
n  2 #1=2
1=2
Y^
i¼1 Yi
temperatures for the projected year. Furthermore, if one
RMSE ¼ ½MSE ¼ (2) wants to compare the utility bills directly, the equation is
n
p
below [5].
Y^ is the value of Y predicted by regression model, n is the
number of observations, p is the number of model para- ymeasured
ybaseline
measured
Dyð%Þ ¼  100 (8)
meters. ybaseline
measured
 B. Dong et al. / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 167–174 169

The prediction interval (PI) for Dy (%) is defined below [11]:

PIannual ð%DyÞ
ymeasured
¼ 100 
ybaseline
projected
(
 a 2 VARModel
 t 1
;n
p  2
2 ^
Y baseline
porjected
)1=2
þ ðmeasurmment error fractionÞ2 (9)

It is known that the measurement error is only around 2%

for electricity measurement at 90% confidence level [5].
Hence, the formula is transferred as below:
ymeasured
PIannual ð%DyÞ ¼ 100  PI (10)
ðybaseline
projected Þ2

3. Methodology

The process of establishing baseline model comprised of

four main stages. Firstly, six commercial buildings for case
studies were selected and the previous two years’ utility bills
together with weather data were collected. Secondly, base-
line year period was selected based on three possible bill
collection methods. Regression analysis was used to verify
different model parameters and the best-fit model was
chosen according to model R2 and CV. Thirdly, 90% con-
fidence level was used to check the degree of credibility of
the prediction results derived from the model. Furthermore,
the percentage change of model predicted bills from actual
bills were calculated. Finally, direct utility bills’ percentage
changes were compared with that of weather-adjusted bills.
In addition, we need to remove the effects of year-to-year
changes in conditioned areas and population, although in
this study they are both insignificant. Fels and Keating [6]
assumed a proportional relationship between annual daily
energy use and changes in conditioned area. Hence, normal-
ize area-changed energy use is merely the annual mean
monthly energy use divided by the conditioned area for that
particular year. However, until now there is no clear meth-
odology for normalize population-changed energy use.
Here, we assumed that normalizing energy use by condi-
tioned area would also implicitly normalize energy use for
population changes (Fig. 1).
3.1. Data collection
Six buildings were selected randomly among all the
buildings around the Central Business District. They are
all office buildings for commercial use. The utility bills of
these six buildings were collected through surveys which
were carried by the previous research on building efficiency
[1]. In order to retain the individual building anonymity,
Fig. 1. Evaluating process flowchart.
these six buildings are referred to as buildings A, B, C, D, E,
F. The surveys began in 2000 and finished in 2001. Hence,
the period of all utility bills is from 2000 to 2001. In matter
of fact, the electricity consumption data were read through
main meters by the building owners. Table 1 shows the
building size and the annual energy use of these six build-
ings. For buildings A, B and C, year 2000 was their baseline
year. Buildings D and E take year 2001 as their baseline year.
The utility bills from building F are available from Septem-
ber 1999 to September 2001 and then the baseline year is set
to October 2000 to September 2001.
Although there are three months overlapping with the
projected year in building F, it still meets the minimum
baseline requirements set by ASHARE Guideline 14-2002
[12], which states that for the whole building performance
process at least 75% of total available data should be used.
Hence, nine months’ utility bills are the minimum require-
ment for this study.
The correspondent weather data is taken from National
Environment Agency, Singapore. There are four weather
stations in Singapore. They are Tengah, ChangGi, Seletar
and Senbawang. The station in Seletar is selected which is
170 B. Dong et al. / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 167–174
Table 1
Size and energy use in six buildings
Building Baseline year
A 2000
B 2000
C 2000
D 2001
E 2001
F October 2000– September 2001
nearest to six buildings among four stations because the
onsite weather data are not available. The monthly data is
found by averaging the hourly data of the whole month.
Actually, there is little difference among these four weather
points in terms of monthly mean temperature. Fig. 2 shows
the monthly mean outdoor dry-bulb temperature from year
2000 to 2001. The highest temperature appeared in May
2000 as 28.6 8C, while the lowest temperature appeared in
January 2000 as 26.4 8C. Hence, the overall range of tem-
perature is only 2.2 8C, which determines the difference of
energy consumption among 24 months should be with little
change.
In addition, there always exists the problem that whether
the utility bill was recorded beginning with the first day of
the month and finishing at the last day. The uncertainty in
reading dates should also be considered.
3.2. Baseline model identification
Following the methodology flowing charts, before any
regression analysis began, we should first verify the bill
reading dates. The building owners did not provide the
detailed information on utility bills’ reading dates. Every
building has its own policy for recording electricity use.
Hence, It is difficult to verify the specific utility reading
period. Reddy et al. [5] pointed out that there were three
possibilities in recording building energy use. These three
methods are also considered in this study:
a. The utility bill period is correspondent with weather
data period. It means that the utility bill reading dates
are the same dates as weather data dates.
Fig. 2. Temperature profile from January 2000 to December 2001.
Total building Air conditioned Total building energy
area (m2) area (m2) consumption (MWh/year)
20,165 12,268 3,470
32,368 24,825 6,034
42,026 25,822 9,998
60,894 36,688 11,551
42,060 25,833 8,031
43,187 34,753 7,880
b. The utility bill period is one month later than the
weather data period. It means that the present utility
bill actually represents the previous month’s electricity
use. This situation always happens
c. The utility bill period is 15 days later than the weather
data period. It means the readings of utility bills begin
around the middle of the month.
For each of the baseline model, a multiple linear regres-
sion (MLR) analysis between climates parameters and
whole building energy consumption in the baseline year
period was conducted by SPSS based on all these three
possibilities. Then, the model which has the best-fit regres-
sion is selected. The regression results are shown in Table 2.
Due to the obvious difference among three R2, we did not
calculate CV-RMSE for each model. If the three R2 are very
close, then an additional CV value is needed. From the Table
2, it shows that building D and F have the highest R2 value
when the utility bill period is the same month as the weather
data, while the R2 value appears highest in building B, C and
E when the utility bill period is one month later than the
temperature data file. Building A has the highest R2 value
when the bill period is 15 days later than weather data
period. The results in Table 2 also indicate that the way that
building owner records the utility bill cannot be arbitrarily
decided because any way exits the possibility to have the
highest R2 value. Hence, all three possibilities should be
considered at the same time to establish the best relationship
between utility bills and weather data variations.
After the bill reading dates are settled down, following
the methodology flowing chart, the MLR regression results
of the best fit model were selected and shown in Table 3.
 B. Dong et al. / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 167–174 171

Table 2 than single variant regression model, except for building A.

Statistical analysis summary for bill reading period verification
Building Multiple R2 value
Same month Previous month Middle month
A 0.67 0.62 0.92
B 0.71 0.79 0.78
C 0.63 0.76 0.72
D 0.78 0.59 0.64
E 0.57 0.81 0.60
F 0.82 0.49 0.75
This MLR regression process also checked the individual
effect of each variable to the whole MLR model and settled
down the final variables in the projected regression baseline
model. As shown in Table 3, for example, the partial R of
0.92 for T0 means that the outdoor dry-bulb temperature
explains 92% of the variation in the whole building energy
consumption. For all these six buildings, T0 explains most of
the variation in the whole building energy use followed by
RH and GSR. In addition, judging from the t-test, at 90%
confidence level, only T0 is statistically significant for most
of the buildings. RH and GSR are both rejected for all
buildings except building A. Hence, at 90% confidence
level, only the model for building A is accepted as a multiple
linear regression model. All other models for the left five
buildings are single variant linear regression models. How-
ever, as it is shown that T0 is the main contribution to the
changes of whole building energy consumption, namely, all
the partial R of T0 is more than 80%, and to be simpler and
more practical, in this paper, we only consider T0 as our
model independent variable.
After identifying the model parameters, as discussed
before, a final baseline model was set up. Now, all the
baseline models have only one independent variable, the
outdoor dry-bulb temperature. Hence, all the models are
presented as ^y ¼ a þ bT0 , which is called two parameter
models. The results of this model were shown in Table 4.
From Table 4, we know that all the R2 values are between 0.8
and 0.7. The best and worst values appear in building E and
B, which are 0.78 and 0.72 respectively. The correspondent
CV-RMSE value of the best R2 is also good, which is 3.76.
All CV-RMSE are below 5% and then all are considered to
be the excellent model. In addition, compared with Tables 2
and 3, the multiple linear regression R2 is not much better
This convinced us again that using outdoor dry-bulb tem-
perature only as model independent variable is sufficient and
easy.
3.3. Utilize baseline model to predict future energy use
Once the baseline models have been established, it is used
both for tracking and predicting future energy use. As
discussed before, the 90% PI bands of the whole year are
calculated for each building to evaluate the prediction ability
of baseline models. Meanwhile, the 90% PI band on monthly
basis is computed for building C only as an example for how
baseline year model can be used for tacking energy use. Fig.
3 shows the correlation between monthly energy consump-
tion and out door dry-bulb temperature in Building C.
The correlation equation of the model of Building C is
^y ¼ 2:3169T0
31:157. The range of T0 is from 26.4 to
28.6 8C. The P value of T0 is only 0.0003, which means T0 is
statistically significant. Following the correlation equation,
the projected temperature was put in and consequently
comes out the predicted energy consumption.
Fig. 4 shows how the energy consumption changes
through month to month in building C. It is assumed that
for all PI calculations there is no measurement error. For
building C, changes of energy use through month to month
are a bit small but still have some. Fig. 4 also demonstrates a
good tracking ability of baseline model of building C.
However, the deviation between predicted and measured
energy consumption appears particularly large in January,
June and December. The reason could be that during January
and December there are Christmas and Chinese New Year
holidays. Many office buildings are shut down. Hence, the
predicted value will be larger than the measured one.
All the measured energy consumption is within the 90%
prediction interval of predicted energy consumption. Hence,
only judging from this point, the estimates of electricity
consumption are highly convinced. However, from Fig. 5,
which shows the residuals plots of predicted energy con-
sumption, it is also aware that although with the excellent
model the distribution of residuals is not constant and
appears a downward trend of the predicted energy consump-
tion. This is against the assumption of OLS method. The
abnormal distribution means that actual energy consumption
is lower than predicted one. Furthermore, the last month has

Table 3
Summary of multiple linear regression results
Variables A B C D E F
Correlation t Correlation t Correlation t Correlation t Correlation t Correlation t
Partial Model Partial Model Partial Model Partial Model Partial Model Partial Model
R R2 R R2 R R2 R R2 R2 R2 R2 R2
T0 0.93 0.92 7.10 0.86 0.79 4.77 0.82 0.76 4.6 0.87 0.78 5.06 0.86 0.81 4.8 0.89 0.82 5.6
RH 0.35 1.01 0.36 1.07 0.15 0.43 0.12 0.31
0.28
0.84 0.44 1.37
GSR
0.66
2.49
0.35
1.06
0.15
0.43
0.13
0.37 0.08 0.23 0.18 0.51
172 B. Dong et al. / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 167–174

Fig. 3. Correlation between temperature (8C) and TBEC (kWh/m2/month).

a suddenly high data, and we can speculate that there should a prediction interval (PI), which shows the error band of
be certain unexpected reasons making building energy forecast value. For building A, the monthly electricity use in
consumption abruptly go down. Therefore, the energy con- year 2001 is predicted to be 24.11 (1.71) (kWh/m2/month),
sumption predicted by the baseline model can be used by
building owner to check whether the energy consumption
follows a normal development.
Table 5 gives a summary of percentage changes of energy
consumption per square meter on monthly basis and statis-
an increase of about 0.92% (12.51), while the measured
energy use is 23.52 (kWh/m2/month), an increase of about
2.45%. Although the difference between modeled and mea-
sured energy use is only 0.59 (kWh/m2/month), the error
band is wide. The worst prediction for is building D, with a
tics analysis from baseline year to final year for all six modeled energy consumption of 24.33 (5.46) (kWh/m2/
buildings. For building A, changes are clearly negative, month) and decreases its energy use by 16.58 (48.15),
which means the energy consumption shows an increasing while the measured energy use is 28.59 (kWh/m2/month)
trend. However, in terms of measured energy consumption,
building D and E have negative percentage change, which
means that the energy use is lower than the previous year.
Such kind of behavior is contrary to the normal electricity
use trends.
In addition, building B has a positive value on the
modeled percentage change, which indicates the opposite
trends of the measured value. Building E is in such condition
as well. The other four correctly predict the energy con-
sumption trends. All of the models’ VARs, which indicate
the variance of the forecast error, are small, except for
building D. It increases according to the building energy
consumption. It appears highest in building D, which is
29.79 (kWh/m2/month) and lowest in building B, 1.35
(kWh/m2/month). This means in terms of accuracy, the
predicted data in building B is the best one.
Fig. 4. Predicted vs. measured monthly energy use with 90% PI band.
Furthermore, direct deviations from modeled and mea-
sured energy use are all below 5%, except for building D.
The deviation is from the difference of predicted and
measured on based on measured one. The lower the devia-
tion, the more accurate the predicted energy consumption is.
At 90% confidence level, following equation (4), one can get

Table 4
Summary of single variant regression analysis
Building A B C D E F
2
R 0.76 0.72 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.77
CV-RMSE 3.48 3.8 2.78 3.49 3.76 3.32
Fig. 5. Residues of estimated whole building energy consumption.
 B. Dong et al. / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 167–174 173

Table 5
Summary of identified baseline models and relevant statistical measures for six buildings
Building Baseline year Final year Annual energy use (kWh/m2/ VAR (Model) (kWh/m2/month)
month)
Measured Modeled
A 2000 2001 23.52 24.11 2.92
B 2000 2001 20.26 20.59 1.35
C 2000 2001 32.87 32.09 2.60
D 2001 2000 28.59 24.22 29.79
E 2001 2000 25.55 25.76 2.05
F October 2000–September 2001 2000 18.81 18.34 2.83
Deviation (%) 90% PI (kWh/month/m2) Percentage change (from 90% PI error (without measurement error)
baseline year to final year)
Measureda Modeled
A 2.51% 3.10
0.92%b
2.45% 12.51%
B 1.64 10.06
1.61 0.04 10.06
C 2.42 2.9
1.09
2.36 8.73
D 15.33 48.15 16.58 18.06 48.15
E 0.8 2.59 0.81
1.14 10.24
F 2.5 3.04
2.55
4.22 15.77
a
‘‘Measured’’ percentage change is the result of direct bill comparing.
b
Negative value means the predicted energy use is higher than the measured one.

and it decreases by 18.06. It shows a large uncertainty in
estimates.
Overall, Table 5 shows that all the error bands of per-
centage changes are wider than percentage changes, what-
ever measured or modeled. Hence, the percentage changes
are not very significant statistically. The reason could be as
follows:
(a) Low R2 value. Although, following Reddy (1997a), it
shows that the models are included among the excellent
model, all R2 are lower than 0.8, which means more
than 20% of the variation in Y of its mean value can not
be explained by the model. This study indicates that, in
tropical region, the building energy consumption has
just a certain relationship with temperature, but not very
strong.
(b) Little changes in monthly mean temperature in tropical
region. This leads to small percentage changes both in
measured and modeled annual energy use. Further-
more, together with reason (a) and the goal of the
prediction interval of baseline-projected energy use
to meet 90% confidence level, the width of PI becomes
large.
Finally, although all the measured and modeled percen-
tages are within 90% uncertainty interval, one shall not only
look at such fraction intervals to judge its prediction ability.
As discussed before, 90% error band for percentage changes
has little statistical meaning and the actual value of PI for
modeled energy use is more comparative and objective. For
example, in building B, the modeled value is 20.59 (kWh/
m2/month) with 10.06 prediction interval at 90% confidence
level, while the modeled percentage is 0.04% with 10.06%
prediction interval. Obviously, the former value has more
statistical meaning.
4. Conclusion
This paper presents a holistic statistical regression pro-
cedure to identify baseline models of energy use in tropical
region when the utility bill reading dates are not clearly
known. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed
in the process of verifying model parameters. A deep study
on the model prediction ability was carried out after setting
up the final baseline model. The results of applying to six
buildings showed that most of the projected baseline models
successfully tracked and detected changes in energy use.
Although judging from Tables 4 and 5 and previous arbitrary
standards [5], the baseline models are all excellent and have
good prediction ability, the PI for Dyð%Þ is high and the
prediction results are therefore not statistically significant.
However, the deviation directly between measured and
molded energy use is small. Hence, comparing measured
and modeled energy use directly is much clearer and mean-
ingful.
In conclusion, baseline building energy consumption on
the whole building level solely using monthly utility bills
and outdoor dry-bulb temperature as model variants is
practical and achievable in the tropical region. Furthermore,
comparative low R2 indicates that there are other weather or
non-weather variables to influence building energy con-
sumption. The relative low confidence prediction indicates
that further study based on daily and hourly whole building
consumption data are needed. The study also indicates that
the weather data obtained from the weather station is
174 B. Dong et al. / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 167–174
sufficient and appropriate for developing tracking models
for changes in building energy use.
Acknowledgment
This study is supported by Center For Total Building
Performance, Department of Building, National University
of Singapore.
References
[1] M. Fels, Special Issue Devoted to Measuring Energy Savings,
The Princeton Scorekeeping Method (PRISM), Energy and Buildings
9(1–2) (1986).
[2] A. Dhar, T.A. Reddy, D.E. Claridge, A. Fourier, Series model to
predict hourly heating and cooling energy use in commercial buildings
with outdoor temperature as the only weather variable, J. Solar Energy
Eng. 121 (1999) 47–53.
[3] J.K. Kissock, A methodology to measure retrofit energy savings in
commercial buildings, Doctoral Dissertation (1993), Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University.
[4] M. Krarti, J. Kreider, D. Cohen, P. Curtiss, Prediction of Energy
Saving for Building Retrofits Using Neural Networks, ASME J. Solar
Energy Eng. 120 (3) 1998.
[5] T.A. Reddy, N.F. Saman, D.E. Claridge, J.S. Haberl, W.D. Turner, A.
Chalifoux, Baselining methodology for facility-level monthly
energy use—part 1: theoretical aspects, ASHRAE Trans. 103
(1997) 2.
[6] M.F. Fels, K.M. Keating, Measurement of energy savings from
demand-side management programs in U.S. electric utilities, Annu.
Rev. Energy Environ. 18 (1993) 57–88.
[7] S. Katipamula, D.E. Claridge, Use of simplified system models
to measure retrofit energy savings, J. Solar Energy Eng. 115
(1993).
[8] N. Draper, H. Smith, Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd edition, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981.
[9] W. Tan, Practical Research Methods, Prentice Hall, Singapore.
[10] B.L. Bowerman, R.T. O’Connell, Linear Statistical Models: An
Applied Approach, 2nd edition, Duxbury Press, Belmont, California,
1990.
[11] ASME, ANSI/ASME Standard PTC 19.1-1985, Measurement uncer-
tainty: Instruments and apparatus. New York American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1990.
[12] ASHRAE, ASHRAE GUIDELINE 14: Measurement of Energy and
Demand Savings, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, 2002.