Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Energy master planning for net-zero emission communities: State of the art
and research challenges
Saeid Charani Shandiz , Behzad Rismanchi *, Greg Foliente
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Group, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Aiming to achieve net-zero operational greenhouse gas emissions at the community level is a valuable endeavour
Energy master planning because of synergies and efficiency gains through mixed energy uses, the economy of scale, and a broader range
Energy planning of technological options. Nevertheless, there are several challenges in the planning and design process of the
Net-zero emission communities
energy infrastructure towards this goal for whole communities. The preponderance of the zero emission concepts
Performance-based decision-making
Conceptual framework
at community scale, including unclear definitions of key terms, the availability of supporting tools, and the
Sustainability energy planning approaches could affect the design and decision-making process of stakeholders. In this paper,
the state of the art and the state of practice of energy master planning of net-zero emission communities are
critically reviewed in order to identify the key research challenges and opportunities to enhance decision-making
and hasten their wider adoption. Energy master planning approaches, tools, technologies and decision-making
indicators used towards net-zero emission targets are evaluated in selected case studies worldwide. The anal­
ysis and research findings show an inconsistency in the scope, definition and approaches in energy master
planning of net-zero emission communities. In addition, energy resilience and social metrics and criteria are
rarely included in the energy master planning of net-zero emission communities. A conceptual energy master
planning framework is proposed that can support performance-based decision-making in the design and planning
of net-zero emission communities. A more integrated energy master planning approach and tools, as well as more
comprehensive and multi-dimensional assessment metrics, are required for improved and effective decision-
making.

population growth, urbanisation, and an increase in worldwide levels of

affluence [8]. Globally, the building sector is one of the top three
1. Introduction
energy-consuming sectors [9], responsible for about 40% of total energy
consumption and 36% of total CO2 emissions in Europe [10], and about
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been
a quarter of annual carbon emissions in Australia [11]. In order to
increasing in the atmosphere and inducing a rapid change in the earth’s
achieve net-zero emission targets, necessary actions are required in all
mean temperature pattern [1–3]. Climate change exposes humans to
spatial and temporal levels in the built environment. Goals seven and
severe risks that some even consider as “existential risk” to humanity
eleven of the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals
[4]. These have led the international community in the 21st Conference
(SDGs) explicitly call for these urgent actions towards affordable and
of Parties to agree on ambitious goals for reducing emissions and
clean energy, and sustainable cities and communities [12].
implementing action plans towards net-zero GHG emission and resil­
In the literature, planning for zero operational CO2 emission1
ience enhancement targets [5]. Benchmarks are proposed to reduce the
objective at building level has been the primary focus for reducing built
emissions in all sectors gradually to the target of net-zero emission by
environment emissions [13]. Recently, the development of net-zero
2050 [6]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that
emission targets for a cluster of buildings or “communities” is gaining
by undertaking mitigation and adaptation strategies climate change can
more attention due to additional economic, environmental and social
be kept below 1.5 ◦ C and therefore the risks can be reduced [7]. How­
benefits, as well as increased engineering performance [14–19]. How­
ever, the demand for energy in the built environment and its associated
ever, various performance aspects of modern and composite community
emissions has been increasing due to changes in weather conditions,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: saeid.charani@unimelb.edu.au (S. Charani Shandiz), brismanchi@unimelb.edu.au (B. Rismanchi), greg.foliente@unimelb.edu.au (G. Foliente).
1
“zero energy” terminology is also widely considered for the objective of emissions reduction.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110600
Received 4 May 2020; Received in revised form 23 September 2020; Accepted 22 November 2020
Available online 13 December 2020
1364-0321/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
Abbreviations
BAU Business as usual
BMS Building management system
BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method
CapEx Capital cost
CCHP Combined cooling, heat and power
CHP Combined heat and power
DER-CAM Distributed Energy Resources-Costumer Adoption Model
DHW Domestic hot water
DHCS District heating and cooling system
DR Demand response
DSM Demand side management
EBC Energy in Buildings and Communities
EMP Energy master planning
GHG Greenhouse gas emissions
HOMER Hybrid Optimisation of Multiple Energy Resources
level energy systems should be studied thoroughly, especially in terms of
emissions reduction and resilience enhancement targets. However, the
definition of resilience varies in different disciplines; for example,
ecological resilience [20,21], infrastructure and economic resilience
[22,23], and so on. Herein, energy resilience refers to “the ability of a
system or its components to adapt to changing conditions and withstand
and rapidly recover from disruptions” [24] to an acceptable level of
performance. The characteristics of energy resilience are thoroughly
discussed in Ref. [25].
In the present work, a “community” level energy system is defined as
a small-scale district energy system with mixed energy uses and co-
located buildings (i.e. a cluster of buildings adjacent to each other)
that own generation (electricity and thermal) units that are connected to
both internal energy networks and national energy grids. A single entity
owns and/or oversees the operation of the community energy system.
The emphasis here is on the net-zero operational CO2 emissions at
community level and hereafter is referred to as net-zero emission com­
munity (NZEC).
In the literature, there are several definitions, drivers, challenges,
opportunities and constraints in the process of energy master planning
(EMP) towards zero emissions targets at community level. Also, EMP at
community level requires not only a better understanding of technical
solutions, but also their economic, environmental and social impacts to
support decisions. Herein, a systematic research framework is proposed
that addresses the aforementioned gaps through a comprehensive re­
view of the state of the art and state of practice.
This paper critically reviews and evaluates the research literature
and common practice in order to identify the key research challenges
and opportunities to enhance decision-making and facilitate and hasten
the planning and delivery of NZECs in practice. To achieve the overall
aim, two objectives have been defined: (a) identify the challenges, op­
portunities and drivers of EMP of NZEC by critically reviewing various
aspects including definitions, metrics, decision-making criteria, ap­
proaches and software/tools in the EMP process for achieving net-zero
emission targets at communities (Sections 3 and 4); and (b) evaluate
EMP approaches, tools, technologies and decision-making indicators
used towards net-zero emission target in selected case studies worldwide
(Section 5). A conceptual EMP framework for NZEC is proposed (Section
6). Finally, a comprehensive discussion of the findings and future
research directions is presented (Section 7). This can support the plan­
ning, design, operation and assessment of NZEC and provide guidance to
various stakeholders involved in decision-making, identifying invest­
ment opportunities and developing more effective sustainable policies.
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
IEA International Energy Agency
IEQ Indoor environmental quality
LCA Lifecycle assessment
LCC Lifecycle cost
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LMGI Load matching and grid interaction
MILP Mixed integer linear programming
nBL n-bottom lines
NZEC Net-zero emission community
OpEx Operation cost
PPA Power purchase agreement
PV Photovoltaic
REC Renewable energy certificate
RES Renewable energy source
SDGs Sustainable development goals
TRNSYS Transient System Simulation
UN United Nations
ZEB Zero energy building
2. Methodology
Regarding the structure and methods of the review, the guidelines
suggested in Ref. [26] have been taken into account. The sources from
such information included academic journal articles, official websites,
technical reports, and consultation with experts and stakeholders.
Various keywords and Boolean (“AND” and “OR”) combinations in
Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched. Per the main se­
lection criteria, primarily peer-reviewed high-quality and recent journal
articles relevant to the aims and scope of this study were included. To
answer the first research objective, the body of literature around the
following three main areas were critically reviewed: (a) energy master
planning of communities; (b) zero/net-zero emission/energy commu­
nities/buildings; and (c) performance-based decision-making. Case
studies worldwide were reviewed for the second research objective.
Accordingly, a conceptual framework for EMP of NZEC is developed.
Although the purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive
overview of the relevant issues, the authors acknowledge that it is not
possible to cover all problems and perspectives in this sole article. The
research methodology and tasks are illustrated as a flowchart in Fig. 1.
3. Energy master planning (EMP) of communities
In this Section, the definitions and the energy planning paradigm
shift to EMP at community level, and the approaches and performance-
based decision-making in EMP are reviewed.
3.1. Definitions and evolution of EMP at community level
There are various approaches to energy planning, including strategic
energy planning, integrated energy planning, community energy plan­
ning, and more [27]. These approaches vary based on the purpose,
temporal (e.g. short-term, medium-term and long-term) and physical
boundaries (e.g. national, regional and community level). Energy
planning is typically focused on meeting various energy services (energy
demand) by considering a range of energy supply technologies (i.e.
energy generation, conversion, distribution and storage) in an optimal
manner [28].
Based on physical boundaries, energy planning can be categorised
into primary and secondary energy planning [29]. The primary (also
known as conventional) energy planning looks at the centralised energy
supply sources (e.g. coal, electricity and gas), storage transmission and
distribution in the regional or national energy plans [29–31]. In primary
energy supply and value chains planning, energy/fuel (typically
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
Fig. 1. Overview of research methodology and tasks.
conventionally fossil-based) is supplied to the consumers by using long
transmission and distribution networks based on the energy demand of a
specific site. Federal and/or local government and/or markets (through
private sector) provide infrastructures and mechanisms to answer the
national or regional energy demands. In some countries, the energy
supply infrastructures are mainly owned by governments (e.g. Iran),
whereas in some advanced economies they are mainly privatised (e.g.
Eastern and Southern Australian states) where energy markets and
regulations are designed in a way that energy consumers (households,
communities and industries) can participate and purchase their energy
demand from the generators or energy retailers (see Ref. [32]). Hir­
emath, Shikha [28] claim that inequities, external debt and environ­
mental degradation are the result of an emphasis on centralised
electricity generation and fossil fuels in commercial energy-oriented
development, which especially impacts low-income populations. There
are several influential factors in primary energy planning, such as na­
tional policies, economic drivers, cost of energy, environmental con­
cerns, socio-political issues, and international commitments and
regulations. Conventional energy planning is very much dependent on
political issues and global markets [31] such as the oil crisis in the
1970s. Although the cost of large-scale energy production is lower (due
to stringent control and economy of scale), these systems tend to be less
transparent and capital intensive. There are significant energy losses due
to energy conversions and long energy transmission, as well as high risks
of disruption due to complex interdependencies and distant energy
transport (see Ref. [33] for network costs and reliability issues in
Australian power network).
On the other hand, secondary (also known as decentralised) energy
planning is proposed as a solution for improving the economic (e.g.
electricity price), environmental (e.g. CO2 emissions) and social (e.g.
quality of life and inequity) issues related to energy and resources [28].
The secondary energy systems and especially the new generations of
district and smart energy systems/networks are expected to play an
important role in transition to cleaner energy systems [34–36]. A sum­
mary of other examples of decentralised systems, such as virtual power
plants, micro-grids, integrated energy systems, and energy hubs is pre­
sented in Ref. [19]. The focus of secondary energy planning is on the
demand side services (e.g. electricity, heating, cooling and domestic hot
water), typically achieved by using local energy sources (mainly
renewable-based energy), storage and distribution [29–31]. An example
of secondary energy planning is that undertaken at community level
energy systems, which is the main focus of the present paper. However,
there is limited literature on the feasibility of local energy planning, and
applications of resource models, energy demand projection with mixed
supply source models, and application of energy-environment technol­
ogy packages [28], as well as integrated EMP approaches, especially at
community level.
Communities as a part of their environmental, social and economic
charter plan sustainable ways of satisfying their energy-related services
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
by using an efficient and renewable energy supply. However, in business
as usual (BAU) practice, energy supply planning of communities usually
enters at the very last stages of the community architectural master
planning2 process for new developments and existing upgrades (see
Fig. 2, BAU case). Some studies consider buildings’ shape and form
optimisation as an energy plan [38], which is not the main focus of
energy supply planning and design. These limit the application of some
technological energy system solutions. EMP of energy supply in com­
munities (e.g. isolated communities, hospitals, university campuses,
school campuses, social housing clusters, groups of office buildings,
commercial centres, military camps, airport buildings and so on) should
be a part of the master planning process. Design solutions should
consider the community as a whole and plan the energy supply system
from the early stages of EMP (Fig. 2, energy master plan case). This will
enable more opportunities for innovative solutions because of the
extended physical boundary, mixed energy uses, economy of scale, and
additional technological and energy management options [39,40]. Some
examples of community level opportunities include the application of
district heating and cooling systems (DHCS) and the exploitation of
renewable thermal energy and waste heat sources.
Thus, EMP at the community level is a process of planning, design
and performance evaluation of the energy system(s) and its operation, to
meet the economic, environmental and social aspects of the community.
Therefore, the energy master plan sits in the context of the physical site
boundary and its surroundings, considers the relevant range and mix of
demand and supply scenarios, and is herein proposed to be a key
component to the more common (community) project master plan. The
energy master plan is a supplement to the widely used master plan that
ensures all key energy planning elements are fully considered [41].
EMP approaches are project-specific depending on decision-maker’s
objectives. According to literature and common practice, three stages of
EMP are conceptual design, preliminary design, and detailed design; in
each stage the uncertainty levels vary [42,43] (see Fig. 2). Evaluating
the uncertainty involved in the process of design and planning is
essential. In Ref. [44], the authors have reviewed the approaches for
characterisation of this uncertainty. The energy master plan should have
sufficient detail on the key elements of energy system design, sustain­
ability impacts, and investment scenarios, as well as ensure a robust and
flexible framework for the owner, investor, energy planner, consultant,
designer, developer and user. The optimal energy mix and plant
2
It is macro-scale and long-term planning of an urban environment where
the conceptual layout and connection between various components and their
surrounding environments are obtained using the modelling, analysis and
assessment of different options focusing on buildings [37] The World Bank.
Master Planning https://urban-regeneration.worldbank.org/node/51..
3
GHG emissions include CO2, Methane, Nitrous oxide and Fluorinated gases
emissions.
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
Fig. 2. Community level EMP process and features of each planning stage compared to BAU - Conceptual design is the first stage of EMP followed by preliminary
design which allows for more details, and finally detailed design is the last stage of the planning process before construction and system operation. The estimated
performance uncertainty (y-axis) reduces as the project phase (x-axis) gets closer to construction and operation.
capacities should be included in EMP as they directly influence the
viability of the project development [45]. Fig. 2 illustrates the com­
munity level EMP process and the main features of each planning stage
compared to BAU. Unlike BAU where energy system design is considered
only during the last stages of the design and for each building individ­
ually, in the energy master plan the whole community level energy
system is planned in the early stages of the design considering all types
of energy needs, e.g. cooling, heating and electricity demand (see Fig. 2
under conceptual design and preliminary design phases).
The focus of the secondary EMP at community level is on the sec­
ondary and delivered or even useful energy (e.g. hot and chilled water,
electricity and other energy services; see Fig. 3) and local energy pro­
duction for communities (e.g. isolated communities, industries, orga­
nisations and agriculture). These communities own their energy supply,
storage and distribution systems which can fully or partially satisfy their
energy demands, and communities’ excess energy can be exported, as a
source of revenue, to other users through the energy market. In most
secondary EMP examples, the community system is considered to be still
connected and interacting with the national/regional energy grids. This
is to balance their energy supply/demand by selling/purchasing energy,
as well as for reliability purposes. Although local energy sources are
becoming more affordable and accessible, there are some concerns
about their reliability related to intermittency of local RES. Opportu­
nities from community-owned energy production are namely local in­
come and regeneration, local approval and planning permission, local
control, lower energy costs, ethical and environmental commitments,
and load management [46]. Secondary EMP also plays an important role
in satisfying the objectives of the primary EMP [31,47], although it is
more dependent on local policies and therefore seems to be less
complicated and with less risk involved compared to primary EMP. In
addition, secondary EMP can engage local community members and
provide more transparency to the community energy operation. Despite
the advantages, EMP at community level has its own limitations and it is
not a common practice, partially due to an unclear definition of EMP
approaches and lack of tools and models, which are discussed in the next
Fig. 3. Levels of energy supply chain.
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
Section.
3.2. EMP approaches
Bottom-up and top-down EMP approaches are widely used for
planning, design and assessment of community level energy systems.
Some researchers claim that bottom-up approaches are suitable for local
EMP and top-down approaches for larger-scale EMP [14,29]; but in
some cases, a combination of both approaches in accordance with the
EMP stages can potentially lead to more effective system design. For
instance, top-down approaches such as frameworks, guidelines and
certification systems (e.g. Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design called LEED [48], Green Star [49], and Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method called BREEAM [50])
can support the decision-making in the early stages of EMP and project
conceptualisation. While in more detailed phases of design, bottom-up
approaches which use a more rigorous model or tool are needed.
3.2.1. Top-down approach for EMP
Top-down approaches include frameworks, certification schemes,
standards and guidebooks. They provide guidelines which are flexible, i.
e. they can work under different design conditions, and are usually
based on high-level statistical data and lessons learnt from successful
case studies.
Rating schemes, such as BREEAM-Communities, LEED-Neighbour­
hood Development, and Green Star-Communities with a special focus on
sustainability, are widely used for master planning at the community/
neighbourhood level. In addition, some schemes are focused on a spe­
cific system or building function such as the Sustainability Tracking,
Assessment and Rating System [51], which provides a framework
exclusively for universities to assess their environmental impacts that
can support their operation. However, each scheme focuses on a
different aspect of sustainability with different priority levels [52,53].
Not only is this true worldwide, but built environment sustainability
rating schemes are country-specific and have qualitative and
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
quantitative inconsistency [54,55]. In addition, only a limited number
of these schemes consider the community level developments and most
of them focus on single building developments. The energy supply
planning in sustainability rating approaches seems to be limited to
point-based recommendations of a few technologies without consid­
ering their potential contextual impacts. Although rating schemes are
effective in providing a generic design guideline, they do not provide a
quantitative performance assessment, thus they can only be used as a
checklist, which does not satisfy EMP requirements. In Table 1, three
widely used community rating schemes are compared in terms of the
primary factors required in EMP, including zero emission and energy
resilience indicators, energy system planning, and operation and energy
storage. These factors are representing the necessary global mitigation
and adaptation goals in Ref. [5], and technical aspects. Most of the
schemes have a limited (L) scope in terms of the community energy
system evaluation and metrics, especially in terms of specific zero
emission and energy resilience metrics. Except for Green Star, other
schemes do not (N) consider energy storage. In addition, these schemes
provide a limited (L) guide for energy system planning, design and
operation at community level.
On the other hand, there seem to be no national or local standards for
community level energy planning [29]. However, in recent years,
various authors have provided helpful design guidelines for EMP at the
community level. Carlisle, Van Geet [56] proposed the following hier­
archical solution classifications that can be used as a guideline in EMP
with the goal of emissions reduction including:
a) demand reduction by energy efficiency and behavioural change
measures,
b) on-site RES in brownfield (i.e. existing development) area within the
community,
c) on-site RES in greenfield (i.e. new development) area within the
community,
d) off-site RES, and
e) purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs).
EMP for energy positive neighbourhoods is recommended to follow
four steps [57]:
a) reduce the energy consumption of individual buildings,
b) increase local RES and use of efficiency multicarrier energy systems,
c) increase the system flexibility by using energy storage and energy
conversion possibilities at aggregated level, and
d) optimise energy supply flows and demand of the whole
neighbourhood.
Polly, Kutscher [58] highlight zero emission districts design princi­
ples which include maximising building efficiency, solar potential,
renewable thermal energy, and load control. They also summarise EMP
principles for zero energy districts as:
a) define zero energy goals,
b) represent and design the energy systems accurately,
c) identify the complementary generation, demand and recovery sce­
narios, and
d) produce energy design guidelines for infrastructures and buildings.
Table 1
Community level rating schemes metrics and design components in top-down approaches for EMP.
Rating Scheme (country) Zero emissions Energy resilience
LEED Neighbourhood (United States) N N
BREEAM communities (United Kingdom) L L
Green Star communities (Australia) L L
(N) not considered, (L) limited.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
Each guideline follows a particular set of steps with distinct purpose
and definition. Of course, a combination of these solutions can also be
applied for supplying a community’s energy, e.g. a fraction by on-site
and off-site RES, and a fraction by RECs.
Frameworks are usually focused on specific contexts and provide a
preliminary planning method. For example, a comprehensive energy
resilience planning framework is proposed in Ref. [25] which allows for
structured planning and assessment of energy resilience at the commu­
nity scale. Zhivov, Case [59] provide recommendations for EMP of
net-zero energy communities that include establishing framing goals,
establishing base case, energy efficiency measure optimisation, energy
supply and distribution optimisation, and comparing the sensitivity of
alternative scenarios in an integrated plan. Case, Liesen [60] suggest a
framework for an integrated EMP process that consists of five steps,
namely:
a) goal setting,
b) baseline and base case data collection,
c) building-level optimisation,
d) supply and distribution system optimisation, and
e) plan and project formulation.
In the zero energy district master plan structure proposed by
Ref. [61], primary components are: district description and goals;
stakeholders and community engagement; utility engagement; financial
strategy and business cases; energy strategy both for building scale en­
ergy efficiency strategies and district scale energy strategies such as
DHCS and community level RES; and operations and governance
models. Marique and Reiter [62] first define the net-zero energy
neighbourhood in a simplified assessment framework, then suggest an
annual balance-based calculation method integrating building energy
consumption, on-site RES, and transportation energy consumptions in
brownfield communities. Karunathilake, Hewage [45] developed a
multi-criteria framework to support the decision-making process of RES
selection for net-zero energy communities which includes technical,
environmental, economic and social aspects of local renewables.
Although energy demand variations are not considered as a factor in the
technology selection, this approach seems to be effective in early EMP
stages and in filtering the appropriate design alternatives based on cli­
ent’s objectives and regulations. EMP frameworks seem to provide more
useful information and structure compared to ratings schemes and
guidelines; however, there seems to be no consensus on a comprehensive
approach. Top-down approaches should be incorporated in EMP to give
direction to the planning and design, narrow down the potential tech­
nical solutions, and provide a high-level assessment of the community
energy system performance.
3.2.2. Bottom-up approach for EMP
Bottom-up EMP approaches are mainly used for modelling, simula­
tion, performance assessment, and optimisation of the energy supply
and demand of the community. These approaches include methodolo­
gies, models, tools and software for a more prescriptive EMP, i.e. with
specific system conditions and objectives. For example, Bucking [63]
recommends a simulation-based methodology for EMP at the commu­
nity scale by comparing the building energy model to a district model
with thermal energy storage for evaluating the trade-offs between in­
dividual energy efficiency measures and district system design. In
Energy supply system planning, design and operation Energy storage Reference
L N [48]
L N [50]
L L [49]
5
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
Ref. [64], through a bottom-up approach, it is demonstrated that
renewable technology solutions are distinct even for similar typologies
of communities depending on the selected evaluation indicators. In
other studies, such as in Ref. [65], the focus is on technology sizing
methodology and optimisation of hybrid systems. Energy models can be
categorised in various ways and one model might belong to more than
one category [28,66]. Researchers have extensively discussed different
categories of these models [31,66–68]. Table 2 compares the main
characteristics of the commonly used methodologies/models in EMP.
Tool or software selection depends on the objective of the EMP as
each available modelling tool has distinct capabilities [72] and limita­
tions, as well as the physical domain of the project. Hiremath, Shikha
[28] reviewed various EMP models, highlighting some of their features
based on model purpose, model structure and assumptions, mathemat­
ical approach, geographical coverage, the time horizon, and the data
requirement. EnergyPRO [73], RETScreen [74], Hybrid Optimisation of
Multiple Energy Resources (HOMER) [75], Distributed Energy
Resources-Costumer Adoption Model (DER-CAM) [76], and Transient
System Simulation (TRNSYS) [77] are among the most popular com­
mercial software used for simulation of community level energy systems
[72,78–81]. Except for RETScreen, which has a monthly time step, the
other three software can offer minute time step resolution. Mixed integer
linear programming (MILP) is widely used in EMP to optimise the design
and operation of energy supply at the community level [82–85], espe­
cially for power systems. However, the technology models considered
Table 2
Comparison of widely used methodologies/models in bottom-up approaches for
EMP.
Methodology/ Characteristics
model
Accounting • Mainly spreadsheet-based models matching
the energy demand and supply
• High-level mathematical formulations
• High-level input data required
• Mainly focused on levelised cost of energy
• Appropriate for long term planning and low
temporal resolution
• Appropriate for comparing multiple
technologies/systems
• Appropriate for extended physical boundaries
• High level of uncertainty
• Often can be used as a top-down approach
Simulation • Detailed modelling of a specific system
• Detailed linear and/or dynamic formulations
• Detailed input data required
• Mainly focused on technical aspects and multi-
dimensional impact assessment often missing
• Appropriate for high temporal resolution and
detailed design
• Appropriate for modelling of a few
technologies/systems
• Appropriate for specific physical boundary
component/zone/building
• Low level of uncertainty if model components
validated
Optimisation • Solving a predefined problem with a set of
constraints and assumptions
• Linear or non-linear mathematical
formulations
• Medium level of input data required
• Narrow in scope as the focus is on optimising
one or limited objectives
• Appropriate for short/medium time horizon
and/or temporal resolution
• A reasonable number of technologies/systems
depending on computation capacities
• Applicable to different physical boundaries
• Medium level of uncertainty
Other • Chosen when focusing on specific objectives
• A combination of modelling categories
• Case-specific
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
are often limited and the optimisation is performed for a sole objective
which limits the implication of a wider range of technology solutions. In
addition, a multi-dimensional performance assessment of alternative
solutions is often missing.
Reviewing the capabilities of approaches and tools for energy system
simulation at the district level, Allegrini, Orehounig [78] claim that
although there are many detailed models available for simulation of
components of district/community energy systems, a single tool that can
optimally integrate all influencing factors of EMP on an urban scale
seem to be lacking. In the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Energy
in Buildings and Communities (EBC) under Annex 51, the results of 25
case studies highlight the lack of a common tool for EMP of integrated
energy systems towards a zero emission objective at the community
level [14].
The main features that should be considered in bottom-up EMP tools
selections are technologies database (e.g. distribution, energy storage,
RES and energy conversion technologies), the planning and design
capability (sizing, configuration and placement) of various components
and their operation, as well as energy network availability (e.g. thermal
and electrical) and eventually performance and decision assessment
capability in terms of energy, economic, social and environmental per­
formance. Bottom-up EMP approaches for community systems often
require an extensive amount of data and a prolonged computation time.
Software tools have specific configurations which are sometimes
country-specific. For example, some embedded features of HOMER are
developed for the United States and are challenging to apply to another
country’s context. In practice, spreadsheets seem to be the most popular
tools for EMP. A summary of the five widely used software is illustrated
in Table 3 based on their primary capabilities, including heating and
cooling energy supply systems, electrical energy supply systems, com­
Example munity level centralised systems, thermal energy storage, simulation,
optimisation, planning and design, operation, and technology cost and
[69] specifications database. Each software can be used for a specific purpose
and a combination of them might be required to support the EMP
process.
3.3. Performance-based decision-making in EMP
The EMP process depends on the client’s (or primary decision-
maker’s) short-term or long-term performance goals (e.g. emissions
reduction, energy resilience, quality of life and so on). Decision-making
is based on a single objective or a combination of objectives (multi-
[63]
criteria) respecting the financial, legislation and technical constraints.
Multi-criteria decision-making usually follows [87]:
a) problem definitions,
b) identification of alternatives,
c) criteria selection,
d) decision matrix elaboration,
e) weights assessment,
f) prioritisation, and
g) decision-making.
[65]
Different definitions, criteria and assessment methods result in a
different conclusion. For example, Torcellini, Pless [88] indicate that
“zero energy” can be defined in several ways based on the goals and
values of the project decision-makers. This will directly influence the
EMP and decision-making processes. Therefore, performance goals
should be clearly defined as the first step of EMP.
Performance goals are often categorised into performance attributes
related to n-bottom lines (nBL), for example engineering performance,
environmental, economic and social bottom lines [89,90]. The most
common performance objectives in practice are economic profitability
[42,64,70, and compliance with legal requirements. Thus, criteria selection is based
71] on selected performance attributes, regulatory requirements, and tech­
nical constraints. The performance criteria consist of the metrics or
6
S. Charani Shandiz et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600

Table 3
Primary features of widely used software for community level in bottom-up approaches for EMP.
Heating Electrical Community Individual Thermal Simulation Optimisation Planning Operation Technology cost
and cooling energy level energy energy and strategy and
energy supply centralised supply storage design optimisation specifications
supply systems systems systems database
systems

TRNSYS ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
[77]
DER-CAM ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓
[76]
EnergyPRO ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ⨯ ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ✓✓ ⨯
[86]
HOMER ⨯ ✓✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓
[75]
RETScreen ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓✓
[74]

(✓✓) highly capable, (✓) capable, (⨯) not included directly or highly limited.

indicators (that can be measured or calculated in some standardised

manner), the operator (balance calculation logic), and the (design)
target value for each performance attribute [89]. Several design sce­
narios are generated in the process of EMP by employing engineering
formulations, models and tools. The final design should satisfy the
pre-defined performance criteria metrics, otherwise additional scenarios
and design alternatives should be proposed. An overview summary of
performance criteria selection in the decision-making process in EMP is
illustrated in Fig. 4.
Performance attributes can be extended in spatial and temporal do­
mains (see Fig. 5), for example, in EMP of NZECs a typical year is usually
considered as the temporal domain of emission attribute. These domains
define the scope for planning, design, investment and delivery of project
objectives. Intermediate milestones can be introduced as a requirement
and a way to encourage the stakeholders by facilitating the financial
aspects [56].
Various indicators and criteria are suggested in the literature for
energy sustainability and local energy planning [91,92]. A set of four
bottom-line (economic, environmental, social and engineering perfor­
mance) indicators commonly employed in decision-making and EMP is
summarised in Table 4. These indicators are especially prevalent in the
energy performance evaluation at district level [13]. Each indicator Fig. 5. Performance attributes in relation to spatial and temporal domains,
might have relevant secondary and/or tertiary indicators and layers. For Source [90].
example, in Ref. [25], the authors propose a set of metrics for energy
resilience at community level in three layers, namely,
Table 4
engineering-designed, operational and community-societal resilience
Examples of four bottom-line indicators in decision-making and EMP.
layers. The choice of bottom-lines and indicators depends on the type of
project and the decision-maker’s priorities. The indicator selection Economic Environmental Social Engineering
performance
needs to follow a holistic framework such as [93]. In the UN SDGs,
member countries are encouraged to pursue 17 interrelated goals and to Levelised cost CO2 emissions Job creation Energy resilience
Capital cost GHG emissions3 Social Energy use
(CapEx) acceptance
Operational cost Refrigerant Productivity Reliability
(OpEx) emissions
Lifecycle cost Water use Safety Energy efficiency
(LCC)
Return on Waste generation Well-being Indoor environmental
Investment quality (IEQ)
Payback time Embodied carbon Participation Thermal comfort
Net present Air quality Aesthetic Grid interaction
value
Annual energy Natural resources Human health Load matching
cost depletion
Maintenance Land use Social equity Service life
cost
Incentives Biodiversity Education Energy loss
Tax Materials Trust
ecotoxicity
Internal rate of Accessibility
return

Fig. 4. Performance criteria selection in decision-making process in EMP.

7
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
monitor or track progress against; in one of these goals, the main focus is
on sustainable cities and communities with some recommended in­
dicators [12].
Based on the selected criteria, various evaluation methods can be
employed to investigate the community system performance. For
instance, Walker, Labeodan [94] describe a decision support method­
ology for EMP of existing buildings upgrade towards energy neutral
neighbourhoods which is based on scenario analysis and lifecycle
assessment (LCA) considering emissions, performance and costs. LCA
models can be used in early stages of EMP to evaluate various aspects of
the community (e.g. building, mobility, open spaces, networks, and
on-site energy generation) towards required objectives (e.g. zero emis­
sion) [95].
Sometimes the various coexisting and multidisciplinary definitions,
indicators and approaches make the energy evaluation process (and
consequently the process of decision-making and EMP) challenging
[13]. In addition, measuring these indicators in each criterion requires
specific evaluation approaches which are sometimes challenging. For
example, “willingness to pay” is considered as a metric for evaluating
the social criteria, which are not easy to measure. Furthermore, energy
resilience metrics for EMP, as one of the crucial indicators, require more
research [96,97]. Another common example is the
water-energy-ecosystem nexus; various researchers have demonstrated
that appropriate metrics and/or assessment methods in this area are
lacking coherence and require a more integrated/interdisciplinary
approach to evaluate the multiple facets and objectives, or the
trade-offs, in the planning and design of energy projects [98–100].
In practice, the evaluation of various design alternatives is embedded
in a decision support matrix. Based on several available decision
assessment methods/tools (e.g. cost-benefit analysis or multi-criteria
decision analysis), a range of decision options are usually assessed
and, in some cases, ranked depending on the stakeholders’ priorities.
Various decision-making criteria methods are reviewed in Ref. [101],
where authors describe Analytical Hierarchy Process, Preference
Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluations (known as
PROMETHEE), and Elimination And Choice Translating Reality method
(known as ELECTRE) as the most popular methods. However, often the
clashing interests of multiple stakeholders can become a challenge [57].
A community can have different stakeholders/ownership or organisa­
tional structure that manage different parts of the community. To solve
this issue, co-ownerships/stakeholders can be arranged in a way that the
decision is made by one owner/stakeholder [17], for example by
running a charrette workshop [102,103]. Huang, Yu [30] have proposed
a framework for interest coordination and information exchange of
community stakeholders.
One of the primary objectives of EMP at the community level is to
achieve net-zero emission targets. In the next Section, definitions, met­
rics and primary aspects of NZECs are critically reviewed.
4. Net-zero emission communities: definition, metrics and
primary aspects
In recent years, several studies have focused on finding a compre­
hensive definition for zero and net-zero GHG emission objectives at
various scales in the built environment [13]. The first idea was to reduce
the emissions of individual buildings, called net Zero Energy Buildings
(ZEB), which can be defined in four ways depending on the objective of
the project, namely: net zero site energy, net zero source energy, net zero
costs, and net zero energy emissions [88].
The European Building Performance Directive defines nearly-ZEB as
a building that “has a very high energy performance with a low amount
of energy required covered to a very significant extent by energy from
renewable sources, including energy from renewable sources produced
on-site or nearby” [104]. However, the cost, load matching and grid
interaction (LMGI), and renewable energy supply options are some
challenges for achieving net-zero emission objectives at building scale,
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
especially for existing buildings (often due to particularity of geography,
limited space, and high energy intensity) [105–108]. In order to solve
ZEB issues, the concept of net zero-energy communities has been
introduced [56]. By scaling from individual buildings to building clus­
ters, additional benefits can be obtained in terms of load diversity, the
economy of scale, technology integration (especially energy storage),
exploiting local RES, higher efficiency, lower peaks, better LMGI, opti­
mised operation, lower energy losses, and higher energy resilience [17,
39,40,58,109–111]. In addition, it brings an opportunity for integrating
people and place [40]. Wells, Rismanchi [112] show that the future
generations of ZEBs will be extended to “net zero energy districts”. This
illustrates the strong desire of the international community to reduce
emissions at a larger scale.
The research trend about sustainability objectives at the community
level has been increasing in recent years [113]. European Commission
has introduced “local energy communities” to promote local energy
generation, distribution, aggregation, storage, supply or energy effi­
ciency services [114]. Net zero energy communities [45,56], net zero
energy districts [115], net-zero building clusters [116], cooperative net
zero energy communities [109], energy neutral neighbourhoods [94],
energy positive neighbourhoods [57,117,118], low or zero carbon
neighbourhoods [40], and zero energy neighbourhoods [62,119] are
introduced by extending the domain of ZEBs. Local governments in
various cities are promoting zero emission/energy targets at community
level [120].
However, several descriptions coexist around the world, which
means there is no common and standardised definition of a zero energy/
emission community [88,112,121–124]. In addition, they do not fully
cover the primary aspects and metrics involved which could affect the
EMP. Several issues and characteristics of NZECs need to be addressed,
such as appropriate scale, existing upgrades or new developments,
ownership, financial criteria, and time frame, as well as regulatory and
policy requirements [39]. In this section, the primary aspects and defi­
nitions of NZEC are grouped into eight categories and discussed criti­
cally in order to establish a preliminary framework that can support the
EMP process.
4.1. System physical boundary
The physical boundary of NZEC shows what is actually considered as
the system to be assessed and it can be defined in several ways including
a single apartment unit, an entire building, a cluster of buildings or an
entire district. The physical boundary can be based on total energy de­
mand (MWh) or peak demand (MW) or area (m2) of the site or even
administrative boundaries. These boundaries often overlap and depend
on interpretations of boundary definitions such as spatial, social space,
energy balance and common morphology [40]. In practice,
decision-makers might decide to start with a smaller physical boundary
and extend it in the future. Each physical domain of the system can result
in different definitions and evaluations, as well as challenges and op­
portunities. Table 5 summarises four levels of physical boundary and
Table 5
System physical boundary and characteristic.
Definition Physical scale Decision-maker Energy
use scale
Zero emission building One building Owner kWh
(ZEB) unit/apartment
NZEC Several building Owner (single or a kWh to
units/apartments responsible decision- MWh
maker)
Zero emission district/ Hundreds of Municipality or MWh to
neighbourhood/ building units/ multiple owners GWh
municipality apartments
Zero emission city Thousands of Local government GWh to
building units/ TWh
apartments
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
common characteristics of each level. As can be seen, each physical level
can have different characteristics which play an important role in EMP.
4.2. Metric of balance
The evaluation metrics of NZEC for the balance calculation have
been a focal point amongst the research community. The metric of
balance can be defined in several ways, such as primary energy, CO2
emissions, lifecycle emissions, carbon footprint, and more. Torcellini,
Pless [88] have considered four types of metrics, namely: site energy,
source energy, energy cost, and carbon emissions related to energy use.
Primary energy is the most common evaluation metric in zero
emission calculation. One can argue zero energy is not a correct way of
presenting the concept since the aim is not zeroing in energy but zeroing
in emissions. On the other hand, energy used for heating and electricity
cannot be summed or compared (they need to be in terms of primary
energy), while their CO2 emissions (or equivalent) can be compared
where primary energy and emission factors are location and time
specific.
Kilkis [125] argued that the quality of energy should be also taken
into account and proposed the Zero Exergy Building. Although operating
energy is responsible for most of total energy consumption over the
lifecycle of typical buildings considering their embodied energy [126],
the necessity towards a zero carbon world requires bigger thinking and
more forward thinking. Hernandez and Kenny [127] point out that the
annual balance is not sufficient, and the entire lifecycle energy uses— i.
e. both embodied energy in the components and operational energy —
should be considered. For example, sometimes renewable energy tech­
nologies can create environmental issues if we look at their whole life­
cycle and they are not zero emission [45]. In order to fully consider the
environmental impacts of buildings, embodied emissions through the
lifecycle of the buildings should be considered [95,123].
The energy career by energy career balance (e.g. electricity or gas),
generated on-site or off-site, is another way of achieving balance. An
agreement on a unique common metric for balance calculation and
evaluation seems to be lacking. In addition, as discussed in Section 2.3, a
more comprehensive set of criteria is required to assess the multi-
dimensional performance of various aspects of the community system
that can support the decision-making in the EMP process.
4.3. Period of balance
Various definitions of period of balance (e.g. monthly, annual or the
entire lifecycle) for zero balance calculation of the system can lead to
different evaluations of NZECs. The short balance periods can better
represent the LMGI, while the extended balance period can evaluate the
seasonal performance or embodied energy [124,128]. A short balance
period might be challenging due to a larger mismatch between energy
production and consumption [129]. A year is the most common tem­
poral domain of emissions balance calculation. Regardless of the period
of balance, a reliable energy supply should answer energy demands at all
times.
4.4. Type of balance
The energy consumption and RES offset levels, which the balance
should be calculated for, can vary in the definition. Each type of balance
calculation methodology results in a different evaluation [130]. Existing
approaches vary in concepts such as fuel switching, embodied energy,
and compensation in other months. In Europe, although a more popular
type of balance is between energy use and generation, most of the
member states yet do not have a specified type of balance [122]. Within
eleven balance calculation methodologies in Ref. [130], only in one
methodology, the balance is not based on the building energy use and
generation. Sartori, Napolitano [124] have proposed three types of
balance, namely import/export balance (import means delivered
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
energy), load/generation balance (load means energy use), and monthly
net balance using monthly net values of load and generation (see Fig. 6).
The authors claim the import/export balance gives complete informa­
tion, but this is challenging to achieve during the design phase, while
load/generation balance is the most suited to being seamlessly inte­
grated into existing building codes [124]. The load4/generation balance
seems to be favourable at the community level compared to others due
to the following considerations:
• It takes into account both RES and non-RES, on-site and off-site. It is
more challenging in import/export balance to take into account the
emissions due to self-consumption of on-site non-RES (e.g. biomass
Combined Heat and Power or Diesel generator).
• Energy use and generation are easier to be estimated in early phases
of EMP compared to exported and delivered energies mainly due to
the variability of RES, energy markets and the occupant’s behaviour.
• Some isolated communities (e.g. islands or remote Indigenous com­
munities) might not have the connection to the energy grids so their
export/import balance cannot be compared with other communities.
• The export/import balance focuses on the interaction with the en­
ergy grid and self-consumption, while the main focus should be on
the emissions/energy targets. Grid interaction requirements are
usually designed by regulators and they are location-specific. In
addition, self-consumption is mainly related to operation strategies
which can be increased by employing demand side management
(DSM) or energy storage measures.
In both individual building level and aggregated number of build­
ings, the performance targets “net zero”, “nearly zero” or “net positive”
emissions/energy are used alternatively. Carlisle, Van Geet [56] argue
that “net” is more “narrow focus” and it is measurable which can indi­
cate whether the targets are fully achieved or not. Net zero energy is
sometimes a confusing term and it is often mistakenly interpreted as
“energy autonomous”. On the other hand, “nearly” zero is widely used
for making the concept more flexible and achievable. It somehow takes
into account the uncertainties involved in the process of EMP and op­
erations especially on a year by year basis. Carlisle, Van Geet [56]
suggest that a newly built or existing community that can satisfy at least
75% of its energy balance can be considered a near-zero community,
allowing for fuel switching and purchase of RECs. One can argue that
this threshold may be too low. In the “net positive” type of balance, the
threshold for emissions offsets (or positive energy) should also be clar­
ified. For example, how much more than zero would be appropriate (e.g.
consistently above 10% in the period of accounting) to be considered
“positive”? However, some existing challenges (e.g. network regulations
and technology constraints) might affect achieving net positive targets
extensively. NZEC terminology seems to describe a more feasible
objective which is also in line with national and international jurisdic­
tional targets.
4.5. Energy uses and building typologies
Typical energy uses at the community level are thermal energy uses
(heating, cooling and domestic hot water or DHW), electrical energy
uses (lighting, ventilation, appliances, lifts, cooking, plugs and so on),
and transportation (people and goods), as well as waste and water
related energy uses. Different typologies of communities’ buildings such
as residential, commercial, office, supermarket, hospital, school and
laboratory have different energy demands, indoor environmental qual­
ity, voltage and energy resilience requirements. In the first step of EMP,
energy uses that should be considered in zero balance calculation must
be clearly identified as it is one of the most influential factors in EMP and
technology selection. Carlisle, Van Geet [56] suggest including all
4
Load or demand terms refer to energy uses.
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
Fig. 6. Graphical representation of three types of balance, Source [124].
energy related to buildings, community infrastructure, industry and
transportation (both within and related to the community). In most
European states, only building related energy uses are considered in the
emission balance calculation [122], especially limited obligations
related to energy uses that strongly depend on occupant behaviour. On
the other hand, others might argue all energy uses (e.g. electric vehicles
and plugs) should be included in the balance since they are drawing
from the same grid and are not negligible in amount [128,131,132]. The
results of total lifecycle emissions of the building, mobility, open spaces,
network and on-site energy generation by Photovoltaic (PV) in a zero
emission neighbourhood in Norway show that buildings, especially their
operational energy, are responsible for the majority of GHG emissions
when connected to non-clean energy grids [95]. Considering all energy
uses in the boundary of a community might be challenging because of
difficulties in estimating each of the corresponding uses, and also in
satisfying the net zero balance with on-site RES. Nevertheless, some­
times mixed energy uses can uncover innovative, synergy-based and
integrated system designs.
4.6. Renewable energy sources and energy supply technologies
Renewable energy can be produced both on-site (i.e. in the com­
munity footprint or vicinity of the physical boundary) or off-site (i.e. far
from the physical boundary of the community). Off-site renewable en­
ergy generation plants can be owned by the organisation or can be
engaged through a contract with a generator, e.g. a power purchase
agreement (PPA). Another option is to acquire renewable energy offsets
by buying RECs and carbon credits. These certificates and credits can, to
some extent, be traded in the market and forwarded into the future as an
investment. In Europe on-site RES generation is accepted, whereas in
some states nearby generation, off-site generation, and offset credits do
not count in zero emission balance calculation [122]. Off-site RES might
have a lower priority compared to on-site alternatives considering en­
ergy losses, land use, energy security, energy reliability, embodied en­
ergy, and energy resilience.
The cost of RES and energy supply reliability (i.e. uninterruptible
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
energy supply during standard design and operation conditions) are
among the important factors in technology screening for owners, in­
vestors and decision-makers. Technology options can be prioritised
based on different criteria such as the cost, lifecycle emissions, capacity,
level of maturity, location, efficiency, sustainability, dispatchability,
reliability, embodied energy, land use, local skills, stakeholder accep­
tance, and distance from the site [45,130]. On a community scale, a
variety of RES can be integrated with other technologies that in indi­
vidual building or city scales might be challenging (e.g. new generation
of DHCS [35,36], and microgrid). Innovative and sustainable technol­
ogies are being examined around the world, such as
environmentally-friendly and more efficient storage devices [133,134],
and the schemes in Flexynets [135] and the Stanford Energy System
Innovations [136] that enable using synergies and efficiencies at the
community level.
4.7. Connection to the energy networks and energy interaction
Community can be grid-connected (connected to national/regional
energy grids) and/or stand-alone (“island”) with its own internal net­
works such as electricity grid, gas pipeline, DHCS pipeline, and
communication channels. A challenge in using distributed RES in com­
munity level systems is the interaction with the national energy grid and
load matching. The well-known “duck curve” represents the potential
tension in the power grid due to excess electricity which points out the
importance of temporal match between generation and consumption.
Salom, Widén [137] highlight the importance of LMGI in the evaluation
of ZEB. However, the mismatch between loads and on-site renewable
energy production is challenging if dealt at individual building level
while at a bigger scale more advantages can be achieved [138]. At the
community level, issues regarding the grid interaction and
self-consumption are handled more easily due to energy storage options
and mixed energy uses within the community. Lopes, Martins [109]
report that by extending the physical boundary to building clusters and
cooperative net zero energy communities the load matching, which is
often a problem in individual net ZEBs, can be improved. Peak
S. Charani Shandiz et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600

export/import must be considered in EMP of NZECs as it leads to
increased pollution, higher costs, and decreased utility grid stability
[111]. Thus, LMGI, network connection fees —that could sometimes be
higher than energy consumption costs— and potential services to the
grid, e.g. demand response (DR) should be evaluated in EMP of NZECs.
4.8. Minimum performance requirements and uncertainties
Minimum performance requirements and uncertainties involved in
the definition, planning, design and operation of NZECs can significantly
alter the zero balance assessment. Energy efficiency, energy resilience,
indoor environment quality, and LMGI are some of the influencing pa­
rameters [25,124,128,130,137,139]. Energy consumption and thermal
comfort are strongly bonded, thus the selection of proper indicators and
threshold is necessary [140,141]. Uncertainties in several parameters
such as prices, occupant behaviour, climate, and technological ad­
vancements should be addressed and qualitatively evaluated using the
existing methods [142]; has proposed a systematic framework for
addressing these uncertainties. Comprehensive community level stan­
dards and legislations seem to be missing for EMP and energy perfor­
mance evaluation of NZECs.
5. EMP of selected NZECs case studies
Case studies around the world with various EMP approaches/tools,
decision-making criteria, scales and metrics of NZECs are reviewed and
assessed. Table 6 provides a summary of case studies including their
metric of balance, location, scale and typology of buildings, year of
study and the analysis approach. The physical boundary of all case
studies is larger than one building (in some cases a large building over
several blocks). Although all cases similarly are evaluated over a typical
year as the period of balance, the metric of balance varies among them.
Although none of these cases is located in areas with extreme climates,
they are spread across a range of climates, showing the feasibility of
NZECs in various weather conditions. Typical energy uses of common
typologies of buildings (e.g. residential, office and commercial) are the
primary focus of most of these examples, and this is most likely due to
challenges in satisfying energy intensive uses and specific energy de­
mands (e.g. industrial or transportation energy demands). Only two
cases are monitored zero communities, and the majority of modelled
studies have been conducted only in recent years.
In Table 7, the technological options in EMP of NZECs are cat­
egorised into electrical energy, combined electrical and thermal energy,
thermal energy, and energy operation. All studies have primarily
focused on PV. Although integration of thermal energy and electrical
energy sources can lead to better results in terms of net zero energy
[149], innovative technologies, energy storage, renewable thermal en­
ergy sources, and energy operation seem to be very limited in the EMP of
these studies, which might be due to modelling challenges. In most
studies, only a limited number of technologies are analysed or consid­
ered. Although the role of energy storage (both electric and thermal) is
essential in the transition to renewable source energy systems, its po­
tentials are not fully considered in the analysed case studies.
In Table 8, an overview of EMP approaches (bottom-up or top-
down), integrity level (i.e. considering whole building clusters or plan­
ning them individually), and tools are provided for selected case studies.
Bottom-up approaches are the most common approach in EMP of these
cases, with few case studies combining EMP approaches. In most cases,
buildings are considered individually without considering the adjacent
buildings. A consensus on an integrated EMP approach seems to be
missing.
In Table 9, typical decision-making criteria and indicators in EMP of
NZECs are divided into four main groups, namely: environmental, eco­
nomic, engineering performance, and social criteria. In most of the
reviewed cases, only one-dimensional indicators are used as a metric to
evaluate and compare different design alternatives, which lack a
comprehensive assessment of solutions during the EMP. CO2 emissions,
energy use and economic indicators are the most common indicators
among these case studies. Social indicators and energy resilience are
rarely considered in decision-making and EMP of these case studies.
Energy resilience (as defined in Section 1) has received more attention in
recent years but still lacks appropriate assessment methodologies,
especially at the community level. On the other hand, social indicators
are sometimes neglected in engineering projects, whereas the objective
should be on the people as the main users and potential beneficiaries. In
addition, the challenges in quantifying the social indicators is another
limitation.
In this Section, it can be seen that the scope, definition and EMP
approaches for achieving net-zero emission targets at the community
level are not consistent.
6. Conceptual EMP framework for NZEC
Based on the review, herein, a preliminary conceptual EMP frame­
work is presented. The proposed EMP framework can support and
enhance evidence-based decision-making towards NZECs realisation.
The flow chart in Fig. 7 summarises the main steps of the framework for
EMP of NZECs.

Table 6
Summary of selected EMP case studies.
Case Study ID Metric Location Scale and typology of buildings Year Approach Reference

#1 Zero-carbon Shandong, China University campus 2018 Monitored [143]

#2 ZERO-PLUS Peyia, Cyprus Residential 2017 Modelled [144]
#3 ZERO-PLUS Voreppe, France Social housing 2017 Modelled [144]
#4 ZERO-PLUS Novafeltria, Italy Residential-commercial 2017 Modelled [144]
#5 ZERO-PLUS York, UK Residential 2017 Modelled [144]
#6 Net zero energy Los Angeles, US Community College 2017 Modelled (high-level) [145]
#7 Net zero energy Risch Rotkreuz, Switzerland Residential and office 2018 Modelled [83]
#8 Near zero energy Steenwijkerland, Netherlands Residential 2012 Modelled [146]
#9 Nearly zero energy Coimbra, Portugal University department 2018 Monitored and Modelled [147]
#10 Net zero energy Belgium Residential 2014 Modelled (high-level) [62]
#11 Net zero energy Florida, US Retail, residential and offices 2017 Monitored and Modelled [16]
#12 Net zero operations Los Angeles, US City college 2011 Partially Modelled [69]
#13 Net zero energy California, US Housing complex 2014 Modelled [148]
#14 Net zero energy Calgary, Canada Neighbourhood (mixed-uses) 2018 Modelled [149]
#15 Net zero exergy Hangzhou, China Residential district 2014 Modelled [150]
#16 Zero emission Bergen, Norway Neighbourhood (mixed-uses village) 2019 Modelled [95]
#17 Cooperative Net Zero Energy Lisbon, Portugal Community (five detached houses) 2016 Modelled [109]
#18 Zero energy Piera, Greece Setelement (mixed-uses village) 2017 Modelled [151]
#19 Net zero building Philadelphia, US Clusters (two medium-sized office buildings) 2017 Modelled [116]
#20 Net zero energy Vancouver, Canada Municipality 2019 Modelled (high-level) [45]

11
S. Charani Shandiz et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600

Table 7
Technological options considered in EMP of NZECs – *CHP/CCHP: combined heat and power/combined cooling, heat and power (biomass or gas); **Boiler (biomass,
gas or electric); ***Heat reservoirs e.g. lake, river, sewage and so on; ****BMS: building management system DSM: demand side management.
Case Reference Electrical Thermal Thermal Operation
study and
ID electrical

PV Wind Fuel Battery CHP/ Heat Solar DHCS Geothermal Thermal Boiler** Waste BMS/
Turbine cell CCHP* pump thermal Energy heat*** DSM****
Storage

#1 [143] ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ✓ ⨯
#2 - [144] ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓
#5
#6 [145] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#7 [83] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯
#8 [146] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#9 [147] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#10 [62] ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#11 [16] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#12 [69] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#13 [148] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ✓
#14 [149] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#15 [150] ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯
#16 [95] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#17 [109] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓
#18 [151] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯
#19 [116] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓
#20 [45] ✓ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ✓ ✓ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯

Table 8
EMP approaches, levels and tools.
Case study ID Reference Bottom-up Top-down Cluster Individual Tool

#1 [143] / / ✓ ⨯ /
#2 - #5 [144] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ IES virtual Environment + EnergyPlus + MATLAB
#6 [145] ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ HOMER + PV Watts
#7 [83] ✓ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ General Algebraic Modelling System
#8 [146] ✓ ✓ ✓ ⨯ CASAnova and Gaia
#9 [147] ✓ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ Sunny Design 3
#10 [62] ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ Townscope + spreadsheets
#11 [16] ✓ ⨯ ✓ ✓ Modelica
#12 [69] ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ RETScreen + PV Watts
#13 [148] ✓ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ PolySun + SAM
#14 [149] ✓ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ EnergyPlus + OpenStudio + TRNSYS
#15 [150] ⨯ ⨯ ✓ ⨯ MATLAB
#16 [95] ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ /
#17 [109] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ /
#18 [151] ✓ ⨯ ⨯ ✓ EnergyPlus
#19 [116] ✓ ⨯ ✓ ✓ TRNSYS + EnergyPlus + MATLAB
#20 [45] ⨯ ✓ ✓ ⨯ SimaPro

In the first step (A1 and A2 in Fig. 7) client objectives, regulatory
requirements, project context data (e.g. climate, constraints and so on),
technologies database (e.g. costs and technical details), and the defini­
tion of NZEC (or alternative definitions, e.g. nearly-zero or net-positive
communities) should be determined. Limited reliable data/information
is one of the most challenging and crucial parts of the process since
getting a complete set of data is often a long process and not always
feasible in the early stages of EMP. For example, energy demand data is
the starting point of all projects and also one of the most sensitive factors
in the EMP and energy project feasibility. Although energy demand can
be measured for brownfield upgrades or estimated for greenfield de­
velopments (using demand estimation methods [152–156]), there are
some challenges such as accuracy and uncertainty of simplified methods
that might affect decision-making.
The definition of NZEC should be clarified in the first step of EMP
(marked as A2 in Fig. 7). A community level energy system consists of
physical, administrative and energy balance boundaries, see Section 4.1.
There are various interpretations of boundary definitions such as spatial,
social space, energy balance and common morphology of a community
[40] that directly influence EMP and decision-making, see Table 6. The
physical boundary in EMP of NZECs should comprise the entire com­
munity (or a part of it), including the roof and beneath the buildings,
available public areas (green spaces, streets and parking), and future
development areas.
Site energy, source energy, energy cost, and energy emissions are the
most common metrics in zero balance calculation which depend on
client goals and project objectives [88]. An agreement on a unique
common metric for balance calculation and evaluation seems to be
lacking. Different metrics lead to different definitions of zero concepts
that influence EMP. Operational CO2 emissions seem to be a compre­
hensive metric which is aligned with international objectives and easier
to assess. In the future, this concept can be extended to LCA of all
environmental impacts. Moreover, the net-zero emission at community
level does not mean that all individual buildings are zero emission.
Instead, the entire community should have a net-zero emission balance
as a whole.
The period of balance is the temporal domain in which zero emission
balance should take place. Short balance periods (minutes to days) can
better represent the LMGI while the longer balance period (month and
years) can evaluate the seasonal performance or embodied energy [124,

12
S. Charani Shandiz et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600

128]. The period of balance should be equal to the approximate entire

Aesthetics Accessibility
operational life span of the community with compensation from RES
exports accounting within a year.
Among three types of balance, namely import/export balance,
annual load/generation balance and monthly load/generation balance

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
[139], load/generation balance is more appropriate for EMP of net-zero
emission target at the community level. Emission balance can be
calculated according to balance between the weighted energy supplied

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
and the weighted energy used by using the local emission factors. Supply
acceptance

includes energy generated on-site (both RES and non-RES) and delivered
energy from the grid (both RES and non-RES) to satisfy energy uses (or
Social

loads). The unconsumed energy should be exported to the grid according

✓
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
to regulations.
creation

All energy uses related to the buildings, including heating, cooling,

Social

DHW, electricity and appliance energy consumption, should be consid­

Job

✓
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

ered except for specific energy uses such as industrial process and oc­
cupants’ transportation-related energy uses. With the spread of electric
resilience

cars, these energy uses should be included in the balance when using the
IEQ Energy

– community system as a charging station. Energy demand profiles and

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

peaks are essential and can affect design and definition [111], and thus
should be considered in EMP community systems, for example by cat­
✓
✓

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

egorising into weekday and weekend or heating, cooling and interme­

efficiency

diate seasons. The total energy demand should be supplied by on-site

LMGI Energy
Engineering Performance

RES and only if not feasible by off-site RES, PPA or RECs. NZECs should
be ideally connected to national networks which benefit both sides for
✓

✓
✓

✓
✓

⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯

enabling the export of excess energy and providing ancillary services (e.
g. DR) and flexibility to the energy grid, especially in urban areas.
✓
✓
✓
✓

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

Minimum requirements depend on legislation or technical con­

Energy

straints, or client objectives and should be considered during the EMP.

use

✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

Although national and international standards for EMP of NZECs are still
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

missing, in the future, a net-zero emission objective might be extended

CapEx OpEx LCC Payback

from the building level to the community level as a legal requirement.

time

However, these “externalities” are challenging to be incorporated in the

✓
✓

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

EMP process and should be considered as a factor during scenario

development and risk assessment. In the next step (marked as B in Fig. 7)
✓
✓

⨯
⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

the planning approach, as well as engineering formulation/tools for

planning, operation and design, should be selected according to steps A1
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯
⨯

and A2.
The EMP process can be guided through top-down (e.g. frameworks,
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

guidelines, certification schemes and standards) and bottom-up (e.g.

Economic

levelised

modelling, simulation, performance assessment and optimisation) ap­

proaches. Depending on the chosen approach, engineering formulations
cost

✓
✓
✓

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

can vary from high-level statistical formulations to detailed modelling

using a combination of simulation software. Most top-down guidelines
Embodied

propose the cost-effective demand reduction (energy efficiency) as an

carbon

unavoidable measure in all EMP solutions followed by on-site RES.

✓
✓

Although energy efficiency and passive design strategies are crucial in

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

building design, the active energy systems are required for considering
future climate scenarios [7,157]. In the absence of consistent rating tools
Decision-making criteria and indicators in EMP for NZECs.

Transportation

and standards for community level EMP, frameworks can be beneficial

emissions

for giving direction in early stages of EMP. Although frameworks and

guidelines are less costly [158], more robust methods/tools are required
✓
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

that tackle EMP complexity. Bottom-up approaches are typically used

for specific design purposes and require more details. Although tech­
Water

nology sizing methodologies/algorithms are an important step of plan­

use

✓
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

ning and design, sizing must not be seen as the final objective of EMP as
Reference Environmental

other steps are equally important, if not more so. Energy master planners
CO2/GHG
emissions

can find the most appropriate tool based on their objectives and tool
capabilities reviewed in the literature [72,78], such as DER-CAM,
✓
✓

✓
✓
✓

⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯
⨯

EnergyPRO, HOMER, RETScreen, and TRNSYS as the most capable

tools for bottom-up EMP at the community level. However, these soft­
[109]
[151]
[116]
[148]
[149]
[150]
[147]
[143]
[144]
[145]

[146]

ware have specific capabilities that can be used for particular problems
[45]
[95]
[83]

[62]
[16]
[69]

and phases of EMP and decision-making that should be taken into ac­
count, such as thermal system modelling, energy distribution and stor­
study ID

#2 - #5
Table 9

age, performance assessment methods, flexibility in planning different

Case

#19
#20
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#1

#6
#7
#8
#9

typologies of communities, and so on. A common tool for EMP of

13
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
Fig. 7. The main steps of the conceptual framework for EMP of NZECs (labels A to G show the steps in order).
integrated energy systems towards a zero emission objective at the
community level seems to be lacking [14]; see Table 8.
In step C of Fig. 7, the system design solutions should be assessed
against the NZEC definition (A2 in Fig. 7) to make sure that they comply,
otherwise the process should be repeated (steps A to C) considering
other alternatives. These alternatives include all technical, operational
and emission offsetting solutions.
In the next steps (D and E in Fig. 7), the required metrics and criteria
should be estimated. A precinct development’s goals and values are
usually established by the decision-makers (step A1 in Fig. 7) through
the advice of expert consultants during the EMP process. These are
stated as performance goals in the early stages of EMP. Operational CO2
emissions and economic indicators are the most common metrics, and
energy resilience metrics and social criteria are among the least common
in EMP and decision-making at community level, see Table 9. A more
comprehensive set of performance attributes (see Table 4) are required
in relation to spatial and temporal domains (see Fig. 5), with interme­
diate milestones (benchmarking) for assessment of various aspects of the
community energy master plan.
A variety of scenarios should be considered for evaluating the effect
of externalities—e.g. changes in future climate, policy setting (state and
federal), prices, energy demand and so on— on the required objectives.
Walker, Labeodan [57] highlight the importance of considering the
infrastructure and energy carrier changes as well as the building’s effi­
ciency improvements as important scenarios that need to be considered
in the EMP. Different approaches to uncertainty evaluation are reviewed
in Ref. [44]. Scenarios can account for externalities and the un­
certainties that are involved in EMP [31]. These scenarios can be based
on a knowledge-based deterministic approach, for example as in
Ref. [94]. Cross-validation of the results by multiple methods and use of
fuzzy methods can be considered to tackle the uncertainties in
decision-making [101].
Multiple stakeholder’s interests involved in EMP and decision-
making can become a difficult challenge [57], and agreements should
be arranged upfront. All NZEC alternatives that satisfy the selected nBL
performance criteria and metrics will be considered in the
decision-making process (step F in Fig. 7), otherwise other alternatives
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
should be considered and the process (steps A to E) should be repeated.
Finally, in the last step (G in Fig. 7) the output solution(s) will be in the
form that, after the decision-maker’s approval, it is ready as an input to
the detailed design phase and construction plan.
7. Discussions and future research directions
NZECs have gained more attention in recent years because of their
improved energy performance and environmental, economic and social
advantages [17,39,40,58,109–111]. However, diverse definitions for
net-zero emission concepts and inconsistent approaches in EMP influ­
ence the decision-making process and can lead to ineffective or inac­
curate planning, design and operation of NZECs. The findings presented
in Section 5 are the clue to this.
The “shared economy” concept is also transforming the energy
market, with consumers becoming prosumers in increasing numbers,
and becoming more active players in the energy ecosystem. The main
drivers for shifting towards community level EMP are concerns on
climate change and availability of economically attractive local
renewable energy options. The cost of the RES has decreased dramati­
cally in the past decade [159–161] and their performance to cost ratio
continues to increase. In addition, there are economic benefits in terms
of RECs, government incentives, lower operational costs, and higher
control. An effective energy master plan can reduce the energy related
costs of communities, which is usually a substantial part of their oper­
ational expenditure. Also, it can have economic and technical implica­
tions for the urban energy grids and wider community, especially in
terms of primary energy saving, CO2 emission reduction, flexibility,
energy demand management and decreased (power) system vulnera­
bility [19,162–164]. Municipalities have started to establish their sus­
tainability targets and invest in their own municipal utilities and local
energy supply [47,120] due to the additional environmental and eco­
nomic advantages. A good example is DER implication, which in recent
years has increased sharply, especially in Australia and Germany [165].
In addition to national and municipal energy plans, several communities
have their own energy master plans and sustainability targets; for
example, three major universities in the city of Melbourne have zero
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
emission targets by 2030 [166–168]. The role of EMP is inevitable in
achieving these targets [58,61]. Another driver for EMP at community
level is the leadership position, and the social and ethical values of the
communities. Customers critically question and compare various com­
munities (e.g. university, bank, supermarket or office headquarters) in
terms of their sustainability performance, especially related to their
emissions. Comprehensive EMP will let these communities have control
over their energy and benefit from not being simply a traditional
customer. Of course, legislation and government policy are also
important drivers for community level EMP. However, in academic
literature, case studies fully demonstrating the integrated approaches in
EMP and achievement of NZECS seem to be limited. Given the recency of
the topic and the international commitments, such as SDGs, more
studies of this nature are expected in the coming years.
In both top-down and bottom-up EMP approaches, some challenges
such as “trade-off between accuracy and complexity” in simplified
decision-making support tools for early phases of the project should be
overcome [78]. As shown in Table 8, in practice the non-integrated
planning approach is another common issue. For instance, the elec­
tricity network planners often “do not know what happens after the
transformer” and the demand-side engineers often do not consider the
power network’s operation and energy markets. Although various
decision-making support methods exist (e.g. rating schemes and tools),
EMP is usually limited to more experience-based approaches, that of
doing what is already known rather than adopting innovative and
performance-based approaches. This hinders an all-inclusive realisation
of potential technologies as shown in Table 7.
Bottlenecks in the process of EMP for NZECs are discussed in IEA EBC
Annex 51, which includes the inconsistency and lack of a common tool
in the process of EMP [14,59] in line with the findings of present work.
Most bottom-up approaches (Fig. 8B) start from the details, which are
time-consuming and therefore limit the technology selections. Gener­
ally, bottom-up EMP approaches require detailed data that might
sometimes be burdensome. On the other hand, top-down approaches
(Fig. 8C) often lead to high-level scenarios which would not provide
enough details for the decision-maker, investor and owner. In practice,
often these approaches are performed separately, while combining
top-down and bottom-up approaches (Fig. 8) would result in a more
comprehensive EMP process. Thus, future research should focus on
integrating these two approaches. For example, new sustainability rat­
ing schemes should be designed with a focus on EMP providing
context-specific recommendations for planning, design, assessment and
operation of community level energy systems, especially enhancing the
Fig. 8. Schematic concept of top-down and bottom-up approach’s interaction in design phases, namely conceptual design, preliminary design and detailed design –
A: combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches for EMP; B: bottom-up approach; C: top-down approach.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
limitations mentioned in Section 3.2.1. This should account for com­
plexities and uncertainties in the process. In addition, the direction of
research should revolve around models and tools that follow an inte­
grated EMP approach to facilitate the decision-making of NZECs. This
requires multi-disciplinary research and cooperation among engineer­
ing, planning and design disciplines. A community level standard for
EMP of NZEC will be an effective step towards integrated approaches.
Regulation, multiple stakeholder’s interests, and technical and data
availability are some other barriers in the practical realisation of energy
positive and net-zero emission neighbourhoods and communities [19,
57]. EMP on a large scale brings multiplicity, heterogeneity, complexity,
uncertainty and instability [169] due to the extended data input
required, different typologies of buildings, each with their unique en­
ergy use profile, as well as various distribution, generation and storage
options. These induce some challenges for decision-making. Conversely,
despite the concept’s increasing popularity, NZECs are defined and
interpreted in several ways (see Table 6), even in two neighbouring
communities, which might affect planning, design and assessment of the
community system.
There are several factors in NZEC viability, such as availability of
energy resources, equipment engineering and environmental perfor­
mance, capital and operational costs, financing, environmental credits
and taxes, and decision-maker goals [43], which should all be consid­
ered in EMP and decision-making. Moreover, varying parameters that
are rarely considered during the design such as future climate, extreme
events, changes in demand, and insecure energy tariffs and technology
prices cause uncertainty and risk in decision-making. Variations in en­
ergy demand patterns and energy carrier tariffs are the most influential
parameters in the planning and design of cost optimal distributed energy
systems [142], while also being most challenging to estimate. In addi­
tion, limited performance attributes considered in EMP might hinder a
complete evaluation of the design consequences and lead to non-holistic
decision-making.
The research findings herein suggest that a wider set of social,
environmental and engineering indicators and metrics should be
incorporated in EMP. The research should focus on metrics and assess­
ment methods for multi-dimensional indicators required for EMP of
NZECs, especially around energy resilience and social metrics as an
extension to the commonly used reliability and cost indicators. These
necessary metrics and assessment methods could be added to the
existing regulatory and/or design requirements.
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
8. Conclusion
This paper critically evaluated the research literature, common
practice and worldwide case studies of energy master planning (EMP) of
net-zero emission communities (NZECs), and identified the key research
challenges and opportunities to hasten their wider and systematic
adoption. Accordingly, a conceptual EMP framework to support
performance-based decision-making by various stakeholders in the
design and planning of NZECs has been proposed. Areas for further
research have been discussed.
The research findings suggest that the key challenges in EMP of
NZECs are: lack of data, multiple stakeholders’ interests, and frag­
mented EMP approaches. The actual NZEC case studies are few and the
tools and approaches for planning them at community scale are fewer
and case-specific. A comprehensive set of decision-making indicators
and technology options in the EMP practice seem to be lacking. In most
of the system planning studies, the focus is on optimisation of a pre-
defined problem in terms of cost and environment, while framing an
integrated problem itself is challenging. The economic and environ­
mental goals are the main drivers for the EMP towards NZECs. There is
an inconsistency in the definition of NZECs that directly influences the
ways they are assessed and designed, which then influences the EMP and
decision-making processes and leads to potentially very different
solutions.
The proposed framework lays the ground for a more comprehensive
EMP for NZECs in practice and identifies the key research gaps. Research
is needed on multi-dimensional models that follow an integrated EMP
approach to facilitate the decision-making in the planning, design,
operation and evaluation of NZECs. In addition, research should focus
on methods for incorporating the social metrics and a set of energy
resilience criteria in the early stages of EMP. In the future, guidelines,
standards and regulatory requirements should be designed in a
comprehensive way that includes an integrated and multi-dimensional
EMP approach and better supports overall system sustainability.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Saeid Charani Shandiz: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Methodology. Behzad
Rismanchi: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Greg Foliente: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Saeid Charani Shandiz would like to thank The University of Mel­
bourne for providing a Melbourne Research Scholarship Award.
References
[1] Cook J, Oreskes N, Doran PT, Anderegg WRL, Verheggen B, Maibach EW, et al.
Consensus on consensus : a synthesis of consensus estimates on human caused
global warming. Environ Res Lett 2016;11:1–24.
[2] Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK. University of Massachusetts - amherst
northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium : inferences ,
uncertainties , and limitations. Geophys Res Lett 1999;26:759–62.
[3] Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK. Global-scale temperature patterns and
climate forcing over the past six centuries (vol 392, pg 779, 1998). Nature 2004;
392:105.
[4] Bostrom Nick. Existential risks: analyzing human extinction scenarios and related
hazards. Journal of Evolution and Technology 2002;9.
[5] UNFCCC. Paris agreement on climate. 2015. p. 1–16.
[6] IPCC. Headline statements IPCC. 2018. p. 5–7.
[7] IPCC. Technical summary IPCC SR1.5. 2018. p. 399–404.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
[8] Ritchie H, Roser M. CO₂ and greenhouse gas Emissions. 2019. https://ourworld
indata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
[9] Word IEA. Energy Balances: Overview. 2018.
[10] European Commission. The energy performance of buildings directive. 2018.
Context.
[11] van der Heijden J. From leaders to majority: a frontrunner paradox in built-
environment climate governance experimentation. J Environ Plann Manag 2017;
61:1383–401.
[12] United Nations Development Programme. Sustainable Development goals. 2015.
[13] Aghamolaei R, Shamsi MH, Tahsildoost M, O’Donnell J. Review of district-scale
energy performance analysis: outlooks towards holistic urban frameworks.
Sustainable Cities and Society 2018;41:252–64.
[14] Jank R. Annex 51: case studies and guidelines for energy efficient communities.
Energy Build 2017;154:529–37.
[15] IEA. Energy. Efficient communities: case studies and strategic guidance for Urban
Decision Makers. 2014 (Annex 51).
[16] He D, Xiong Q, Shi X. Modeling of the renewable energy system of an net zero
energy community. In: Proceedings of the 29th Chinese control and decision
conference, CCDC; 2017. p. 3590–5. 2017.
[17] Fleischhacker A, Lettner G, Schwabeneder D, Auer H. Portfolio optimization of
energy communities to meet reductions in costs and emissions. Energy 2019;173:
1092–105.
[18] Sharifi A, Yamagata Y. Principles and criteria for assessing urban energy
resilience: a literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60:1654–77.
[19] Chicco G, Mancarella P. Distributed multi-generation: a comprehensive view.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:535–51.
[20] Holling CS. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. annual review of
ecology and systematics. 1973.
[21] Holling CS. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Engineering
Within Ecological Constraints 1996:31–43.
[22] Vugrin ED, Warren DE, Ehlen MA, Camphouse RC. A Framework for assessing the
Resilience of Infrastructure and Economic systems. Sustainable and Resilient
critical Infrastructure systems: simulation. Modeling, and Intelligent Engineering
2010:77–116.
[23] Rose A. Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: multidisciplinary
origins and contextual dimensions. Environ Hazards 2007;7:383–98.
[24] Transforming DoE. the Nation’s Electricity sector: The second Installment of the
QER | IV Ensuring Electricity system Reliability, security, and Resilience. 2017.
[25] Charani Shandiz S, Foliente G, Rismanchi B, Wachtel A, Jeffers RF. Resilience
framework and metrics for energy master planning of communities. Energy 2020;
203:117856.
[26] Wee BV, Banister D. How to write a literature review paper? Transport Rev 2015;
36:278–88.
[27] Krog L, Sperling K. A comprehensive framework for strategic energy planning
based on Danish and international insights. Energy Strategy Reviews 2019;24:
83–93.
[28] Hiremath RB, Shikha S, Ravindranath NH. Decentralized energy planning;
modeling and application - a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:729–52.
[29] Huang Z, Yu H, Peng Z, Zhao M. Methods and tools for community energy
planning: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:1335–48.
[30] Huang Z, Yu H, Peng Z, Feng Y. Planning community energy system in the
industry 4.0 era: Achievements, challenges and a potential solution. 2017.
[31] Prasad RD, Bansal RC, Raturi A. Multi-faceted energy planning: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:686–99.
[32] Rojas A, J. de Haan F. Socio-technical representation of electricity provision
across scales. Modelling Transitions: Virtues, Vices, Visions of the Future2019.
[33] Wood T, Dundas G, Percival L. Keep calm and carry on: Managing electricity
reliability. 2019.
[34] Lund H, Werner S, Wiltshire R, Svendsen S, Thorsen JE, Hvelplund F, et al. 4th
Generation District Heating (4GDH). Integrating smart thermal grids into future
sustainable energy systems. Energy 2014;68:1–11.
[35] Lund H, Duic N, Østergaard PA, Mathiesen BV. Future district heating systems
and technologies: on the role of smart energy systems and 4th generation district
heating. Energy 2018;165:614–9.
[36] Rismanchi B. District energy network (DEN), current global status and future
development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;75:571–9.
[37] The World Bank. Master Planning. https://urban-regeneration.worldbank.org/no
de/51.
[38] Guarino F, Tumminia G, Longo S, Mistretta M, Bilotta R, Cellura M. Energy
planning methodology of net-zero energy solar neighborhoods in the
Mediterranean basin. Science and Technology for the Built Environment 2016;22:
928–38.
[39] Kallushi A, Harris J, Miller J, Energy S, Johnston M. Think Bigger : Net-Zero
communities. 2012. p. 115–27.
[40] Koch A, Girard S, McKoen K. Towards a neighbourhood scale for low- or zero-
carbon building projects. Build Res Inf 2012;40:527–37.
[41] Doubleday K, Hafiz F, Parker A, Elgindy T, Florita A, Henze G, et al. Integrated
distribution system and urban district planning with high renewable penetrations.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment; 2019. p. e339.
[42] Letellier-Duchesne S, Nagpal S, Kummert M, Reinhart C. Balancing demand and
supply: linking neighborhood-level building load calculations with detailed
district energy network analysis models. Energy 2018;150:913–25.
[43] RETScreen International Clean Energy Decision Support Centre. Clean Energy
Project analysis: RETScreen Engineering & casese Textbook. third ed. Minister of
Natural Resources Canada; 2005.
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
[44] Mavromatidis G, Orehounig K, Carmeliet J. A review of uncertainty
characterisation approaches for the optimal design of distributed energy systems.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;88:258–77.
[45] Karunathilake H, Hewage K, Mérida W, Sadiq R. Renewable energy selection for
net-zero energy communities: life cycle based decision making under uncertainty.
Renew Energy 2019;130:558–73.
[46] Walker G. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of
energy production and use ? 2008;36:4401–5.
[47] Sperling K, Hvelplund F, Mathiesen BV. Centralisation and decentralisation in
strategic municipal energy planning in Denmark. Energy Pol 2011;39:1338–51.
[48] U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for neighborhood development. https://www.
usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/neighborhood-development.
[49] Green Building Council Austalia. Green star – communities. https://new.gbca.
org.au/green-star/rating-system/communities/.
[50] Building Research Establishment. BREEAM communities. https://www.breeam.
com/discover/technical-standards/communities/.
[51] Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. The
sustainability tracking, assessment & rating system. https://stars.aashe.org/.
[52] Xia B, Chen Q, Skitmore M, Zuo J, Li M. Comparison of sustainable community
rating tools in Australia. J Clean Prod 2015;109:84–91.
[53] Tam VWY, Karimipour H, Le KN, Wang J. Green neighbourhood: review on the
international assessment systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:689–99.
[54] Mattoni B, Guattari C, Evangelisti L, Bisegna F, Gori P, Asdrubali F. Critical
review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among
international green building rating tools. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:
950–60.
[55] Awadh O. Sustainability and green building rating systems : LEED , BREEAM ,
GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. Journal of Building Engineering 2017;11:
25–9.
[56] Carlisle N, Van Geet O, Pless S. Definition of a "Zero Net Energy" community.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2009.
[57] Walker S, Labeodan T, Maassen W, Zeiler W. A review study of the current
research on energy hub for energy positive neighborhoods. Energy Procedia
2017;122:727–32.
[58] Polly B, Kutscher C, Macumber D, Schott M. From Zero Energy Buildings to Zero
Energy Districts. In: 2016 ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings;
2016. p. 1–16.
[59] Zhivov AM, Case M, Liesen R, Kimman J, Broers W. Energy master planning
towards net-zero energy communities/campuses. Build Eng 2014;120:114–29.
[60] Case M, Liesen RJ, Zhivov A, Swanson M, Barnes B, Stinson J. A computational
framework for low-energy community analysis and optimization. Build Eng 2014;
120:130–44.
[61] Zaleski S, Pless S, Polly B. Communities of the Future: Accelerating Zero Energy
District Master Planning: preprint. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory2018.
[62] Marique AF, Reiter S. A simplified framework to assess the feasibility of zero-
energy at the neighbourhood/community scale. Energy Build 2014;82:114–22.
[63] Bucking S. Energy Modeling Methodology for community Master Planningvol.
124; 2018.
[64] Hong T, Koo C, Kwak T, Park HS. An economic and environmental assessment for
selecting the optimum new renewable energy system for educational facility.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:286–300.
[65] Belmili H, Haddadi M, Bacha S, Almi MF, Bendib B. Sizing stand-alone
photovoltaic–wind hybrid system: techno-economic analysis and optimization.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:821–32.
[66] van Beeck NMJP. Classification of energy models777. FEW Research
Memorandum; 1999.
[67] Reinhart CF, Cerezo Davila C. Urban building energy modeling - a review of a
nascent field. Build Environ 2016;97:196–202.
[68] Jebaraj S, Iniyan S. A review of energy models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2006;
10:281–311.
[69] Kwan CL, Kwan TJ. The financials of constructing a solar PV for net-zero energy
operations on college campuses. Util Pol 2011;19:226–34.
[70] Fonseca JA, Nguyen TA, Schlueter A, Marechal F. City Energy Analyst (CEA):
integrated framework for analysis and optimization of building energy systems in
neighborhoods and city districts. Energy Build 2016;113:202–26.
[71] Lee K-H, Lee D-W, Baek N-C, Kwon H-M, Lee C-J. Preliminary determination of
optimal size for renewable energy resources in buildings using RETScreen. Energy
2012;47:83–96.
[72] Lyden A, Pepper R, Tuohy PG. A modelling tool selection process for planning of
community scale energy systems including storage and demand side
management. Sustainable Cities and Society 2018;39:674–88.
[73] EnergyPro. Setting up operation strategies in energyPRO.
[74] Natural Resources Canada. RETScreen. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/maps-tool
s-publications/tools/data-analysis-software-modelling/retscreen/7465.
[75] HOMER Energy. Hybrid Optimization of Multiple Energy Resources (HOMER).
[76] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Distributed Energy Resources - Costumer
adoption Model (DER-CAM). https://building-microgrid.lbl.gov/project
s/der-cam.
[77] Thermal Energy System Specialists. Transient system simulation tool (TRNSYS).
http://www.trnsys.com/.
[78] Allegrini J, Orehounig K, Mavromatidis G, Ruesch F, Dorer V, Evins R. A review of
modelling approaches and tools for the simulation of district-scale energy
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:1391–404.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
[79] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen VB, Leahy M. A review of computer tools for
analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems. Appl
Energy 2010;87:1059–82.
[80] Mendes G, Ioakimidis C, Ferrão P. On the planning and analysis of Integrated
Community Energy Systems: a review and survey of available tools. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4836–54.
[81] Mancarella P. MES (multi-energy systems): an overview of concepts and
evaluation models. Energy 2014;65:1–17.
[82] Mehleri ED, Sarimveis H, Markatos NC, Papageorgiou LG. Optimal design and
operation of distributed energy systems: application to Greek residential sector.
Renew Energy 2013;51:331–42.
[83] Sameti M, Haghighat F. Integration of distributed energy storage into net-zero
energy district systems: optimum design and operation. Energy 2018;153:
575–91.
[84] Wouters C, Fraga ES, James AM. An energy integrated, multi-microgrid, MILP
(mixed-integer linear programming) approach for residential distributed energy
system planning - a South Australian case-study. Energy 2015;85:30–44.
[85] Ma T, Wu J, Hao L, Lee W-J, Yan H, Li D. The optimal structure planning and
energy management strategies of smart multi energy systems. Energy 2018;160:
122–41.
[86] EMD International. EnergyPRO. https://www.emd.dk/energypro/.
[87] Terrados J, Almonacid G, Aguilera J. Energy planning: a sustainable approach.
InTech; 2010.
[88] Torcellini P, Pless S, Deru M, Crawley D. Zero Energy Buildings : a critical Look at
the Definition Preprint. ACEEE Summer study2006. p. 15.
[89] Foliente GC. Developments in performance-based building codes and standards.
For Prod J 2000;50:12–21.
[90] Foliente G, Kearns A, Maheepala S, Bai X, Barnett G. Beyond triple bottom line –
sustainable cities RD&D at CSIRO. In: Procs state of Australian cities national
conference (SOAC2007), 28-30 november 2007; 2007. p. 28–30.
[91] Neves AR, Leal V. Energy sustainability indicators for local energy planning:
review of current practices and derivation of a new framework. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2010;14:2723–35.
[92] Neves AR, Leal V, Lourenço JC. A methodology for sustainable and inclusive local
energy planning. Sustainable Cities and Society 2015;17:110–21.
[93] Meadows D. Indicators and Information systems for sustainable Development.
The Sustainability Institute; 1998.
[94] Walker S, Labeodan T, Boxem G, Maassen W, Zeiler W. An assessment
methodology of sustainable energy transition scenarios for realizing energy
neutral neighborhoods. Appl Energy 2018;228:2346–60.
[95] Lausselet C, Borgnes V, Brattebø H. LCA modelling for Zero Emission
Neighbourhoods in early stage planning. Build Environ 2019;149:379–89.
[96] Lin Y, Bie Z. Study on the resilience of the integrated energy system. Energy
Procedia 2016;103:171–6.
[97] Hosseini S, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE. A review of definitions and measures
of system resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;145:47–61.
[98] Kuriqi A, Pinheiro AN, Sordo-Ward A, Garrote L. Water-energy-ecosystem nexus:
balancing competing interests at a run-of-river hydropower plant coupling a
hydrologic–ecohydraulic approach. Energy Convers Manag 2020:223.
[99] Madani K, Khatami S. Water for energy: inconsistent assessment standards and
inability to judge properly. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports 2015;
2:10–6.
[100] Ardizzon G, Cavazzini G, Pavesi G. A new generation of small hydro and pumped-
hydro power plants: advances and future challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;31:746–61.
[101] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to
sustainable energy planning—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2004;8:
365–81.
[102] Lindsey G, Todd JA, Hayter SJ. Handbook for Planning and conducting charrettes
for High-Performance Projects. Golden, CO (United States): National Renewable
Energy Lab. (NREL); 2003.
[103] Girling C, Kellett R, Johnstone S. Informing design charrettes: tools for
participation in neighbourhood-scale planning. The Integrated Assessment
Journal 2006;6.
[104] Eu. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the
European Union 2010.
[105] Zangheri P, Armani R, Pietrobon M, Pagliano L. Identification of cost-optimal and
NZEB refurbishment levels for representative climates and building typologies
across Europe. Energy Efficiency 2018;11:337–69.
[106] Butera FM. Zero-energy buildings: Challenges 2013;7:51–65.
[107] Liu Z, Liu Y, He B-J, Xu W, Jin G, Zhang X. Application and suitability analysis of
the key technologies in nearly zero energy buildings in China. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2019;101:329–45.
[108] Attia S, Eleftheriou P, Xeni F, Morlot R, Ménézo C, Kostopoulos V, et al. Overview
and future challenges of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) design in Southern
Europe. Energy Build 2017;155:439–58.
[109] Lopes RA, Martins J, Aelenei D, Lima CP. A cooperative net zero energy
community to improve load matching. Renew Energy 2016;93:1–13.
[110] Rosales-Asensio E, de Simón-Martín M, Borge-Diez D, Blanes-Peiró JJ, Colmenar-
Santos A. Microgrids with energy storage systems as a means to increase power
resilience: an application to office buildings. Energy 2019;172:1005–15.
[111] Hammon RW. Applications for large residential communities: What is net-zero
energy?. 2010.
[112] Wells L, Rismanchi B, Aye L. A review of net zero energy buildings with
reflections on the Australian context. Energy Build 2018;158:616–28.
S. Charani Shandiz et al.
[113] Koirala BP, Koliou E, Friege J, Hakvoort RA, Herder PM. Energetic communities
for community energy: a review of key issues and trends shaping integrated
community energy systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:722–44.
[114] European Commission. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on common rules for the internal market in
electricity (recast). 2016.
[115] Kilkiş Ş. Exergy transition planning for net-zero districts. Energy 2015;92:515–31.
[116] Li X, Wen J. Net-zero energy building clusters emulator for energy planning and
operation evaluation. Comput Environ Urban Syst 2017;62:168–81.
[117] Ala-Juusela M, Crosbie T, Hukkalainen M. Defining and operationalising the
concept of an energy positive neighbourhood. Energy Convers Manag 2016;125:
133–40.
[118] Monti A, Pesch D, Ellis KA, Mancarella P. Energy Positive Neighborhoods and
smart Energy Districts2016.
[119] Research Centre on Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities (FME ZEN).
Annual Report 2018. Annual Report 2018 2019. https://fmezen.no/wp-content/
uploads/2019/04/ZEN_annual_report_2018_Screen.pdf.
[120] Seto B, Leahy J, Herrschaft B, Butterworth B, Punjabi S. Zero Net Energy
communities: Three cities Leading the Way. 2016. p. 1–13.
[121] Charani Shandiz S. Energy consumption, thermal comfort and grid interaction in
nearly Zero Energy Buildings. 2017.
[122] D’Agostino D. Assessment of the progress towards the establishment of definitions
of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEBs) in European member states. Journal of
Building Engineering 2015;1:20–32.
[123] Lützkendorf T, Foliente G, Balouktsi M, Wiberg AH. Net-zero buildings:
incorporating embodied impacts. Build Res Inf 2015;43:62–81.
[124] Sartori I, Napolitano A, Voss K. Net zero energy buildings: a consistent definition
framework. Energy Build 2012;48:220–32.
[125] Kilkis S. A New Metric for Net-Zero carbon Buildings. 2007.
[126] Sartori I, Hestnes AG. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy
buildings: a review article. Energy Build 2007;39:249–57.
[127] Hernandez P, Kenny P. From net energy to zero energy buildings : defining life
cycle zero energy buildings. Energy Build 2010;42:815–21.
[128] Voss K, Sartori I, Napolitano A, Geier S, Gonzalves H, Hall M, et al. Load matching
and grid interaction of net zero energy buildings. Proc Build Simul 2011;6:14–6.
2010.
[129] Erba S, Pagliano L, Charani Shandiz S, Pietrobon M. Energy consumption, thermal
comfort and load match: study of a monitored nearly Zero Energy Building in
Mediterranean climate. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2019;609:062026.
[130] Marszal AJ, Heiselberg P, Bourrelle JS, Musall E, Voss K, Sartori I, et al. Zero
Energy Building - a review of definitions and calculation methodologies. Energy
Build 2011;43:971–9.
[131] Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE). Principles for nearly zero-energy
buildings. BPIE; 2011.
[132] Voss K, Musall E, Lichtmeß M. From low-energy to net zero-energy buildings:
status and perspectives. Journal of Green Building 2011;6:46–57.
[133] Poizot P, Dolhem F. Clean energy new deal for a sustainable world: from non-CO2
generating energy sources to greener electrochemical storage devices. Energy
Environ Sci 2011;4:2003.
[134] Deng S, Wang RZ, Dai YJ. How to evaluate performance of net zero energy
building - a literature research. Energy 2014;71:1–16.
[135] EURAC research institute. http://www.flexynets.eu/en/. Flexynets. 2019.
[136] Stanford University. Stanford Energy system Innovations (SESI). 2015.
[137] Salom J, Widén J, Candanedo Ja, Sartori I, Voss K, Marszal AJ. Understanding net
zero energy buildings: evaluation of load matching and grid interaction
indicators. Proceedings of Building Simulation 2011;6:14–6.
[138] Lund H, Marszal A, Heiselberg P. Zero energy buildings and mismatch
compensation factors. Energy Build 2011;43:1646–54.
[139] Sartori I, Geier S, Lollini R, Athienitis A, Pagliano L. Comfort and energy
efficiency recommendations for net zero energy buildings. EuroSun 2010:3–4.
[140] Taleghani M, Tenpierik M, Kurvers S, Van Den Dobbelsteen A. A review into
thermal comfort in buildings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26:201–15.
[141] Djongyang N, Tchinda R, Njomo D. Thermal comfort: a review paper. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2626–40.
[142] Mavromatidis G, Orehounig K, Carmeliet J. Uncertainty and global sensitivity
analysis for the optimal design of distributed energy systems. Appl Energy 2018;
88:258–77.
18
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137 (2021) 110600
[143] Fitri Sari R, Xu P, Jin Z, Zhao Y, Wang X, Sun H, et al. Design and operation
experience of zero-carbon campus. E3S Web of Conferences. 2018;48. 0-3.
[144] Synnefa A, Laskari M, Gupta R, Pisello AL, Santamouris M. Development of net
zero energy settlements using advanced energy technologies. Procedia
Engineering 2017;180:1388–401.
[145] Kwan CL, Hoffmann A. The los angeles community college district: establishing a
net zero energy campus. Establishing a Net Zero Energy Campus. Elsevier Inc.;
2017.
[146] Gonzalez RM, Asare-Bediako B, Cobben JFG, Kling WL, Scharrenberg G,
Dijkstra D. Distributed energy resources for a zero-energy neighborhood.
Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT)
Europe Conference, 14-17 October 2012, Berlin, Germany 2012:1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465820.
[147] Fonseca P, Moura P, Jorge H, de Almeida A. Sustainability in university campus:
options for achieving nearly zero energy goals. Int J Sustain High Educ 2018;19:
790–816.
[148] Gaiser K, Stroeve P. The impact of scheduling appliances and rate structure on bill
savings for net-zero energy communities: application to West Village. Appl
Energy 2014;113:1586–95.
[149] Hachem-Vermette C, Guarino F, La Rocca V, Cellura M. Towards achieving net-
zero energy communities: Investigation of design strategies and seasonal solar
collection and storage net-zero. Sol Energy 2018. 0-1.
[150] Lu H, Yu Z, Alanne K, Zhang L, Fan L, Xu X, et al. Transition path towards hybrid
systems in China: obtaining net-zero exergy district using a multi-objective
optimization method. Energy Build 2014;85:524–35.
[151] Ascione F, Bianco N, De Masi RF, Dousi M, Hionidis S, Kaliakos S, et al. Design
and performance analysis of a zero-energy settlement in Greece. Int J Low Carbon
Technol 2017;12:141–61.
[152] Charani Shandiz S, Denarie A, Cassetti G, Calderoni M, Frein A, Motta M.
A simplified methodology for existing tertiary buildings’ cooling energy need
estimation at district level: a feasibility study of a district cooling system in
marrakech. Energies 2019;12.
[153] Frayssinet L, Merlier L, Kuznik F, Hubert JL, Milliez M, Roux JJ. Modeling the
heating and cooling energy demand of urban buildings at city scale. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:2318–27.
[154] Zhao HX, Magoulès F. A review on the prediction of building energy
consumption. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:3586–92.
[155] Menezes AC, Cripps A, Buswell RA, Wright J, Bouchlaghem D. Estimating the
energy consumption and power demand of small power equipment in office
buildings. Energy Build 2014;75:199–209.
[156] Al-Homoud MS. Computer-aided building energy analysis techniques. Build
Environ 2001;36:421–33.
[157] Pagliano L, Carlucci S, Causone F, Moazami A, Cattarin G. Energy retrofit for a
climate resilient child care centre. Energy Build 2016;127:1117–32.
[158] Vogt Y. Top–down energy modeling. Strat Plann Energy Environ 2003;22:64–79.
[159] IEA. World. Energy Outlook. 2018.
[160] Blakers A, Lu B, Stocks M. 100% renewable electricity in Australia. Energy 2017;
133:471–82.
[161] Garnaut R. Superpower: Australia’s Low-carbon Opportunity. Black Inc.; 2019.
[162] Wang H, Good N, Mancarella P. Modelling and Valuing Multi-Energy Flexibility
from community Energy systems. In: IEEE innovative smart grid technologies-asia
(ISGT-Asia). IEEE; 2017. 2017.
[163] Wang H, Good N, Martίnez Ceseña E, Mancarella P. Co-optimization of a multi-
energy microgrid considering multiple services. In: 2018 Power systems
computation conference (PSCC). IEEE; 2018.
[164] Wang H, Riaz S, Mancarella P. Integrated techno-economic modeling, flexibility
analysis, and business case assessment of an urban virtual power plant with multi-
market co-optimization. Appl Energy 2020:259.
[165] AEMO, Energy Networks Australia. Open Energy Networks consultation Paper.
2018.
[166] the University of Melbourne. Sustainability. https://about.unimelb.edu.au/strate
gy/advancing-melbourne/sustainability.
[167] RMIT University. Sustainability - tergets and commitments. https://www.rmit.
edu.au/about/our-values/sustainability/targets-and-commitments.
[168] University Monash. Net zero initiative. https://www.monash.edu/net-zero-initi
ative.
[169] Cajot S, Peter M, Bahu JM, Guignet F, Koch A, Maréchal F. Obstacles in energy
planning at the urban scale. Sustainable Cities and Society 2017;30:223–36.