Next Article in Journal
Decoding Disinformation: A Feature-Driven Explainable AI Approach to Multi-Domain Fake News Detection
Previous Article in Journal
Research Progress on Subdivision Water Injection Development Technology for Full-Scale Water Injection Wells
Previous Article in Special Issue
RETRACTED: Thermoenergetic Performance of Phase Change Materials in Building Envelopes Under Future Climate Scenario
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Key Metrics for Energy Planning in Academic Institutions

1
Department of Mechanical, Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Cagliari, Via Marengo 2, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
2
Department of Technical Services, University of Messina, Pugliatti 1, 98100 Piazza, Italy
3
Energy Management Department, University of Genova, Via Balbi 5, 16126 Genova, Italy
4
Sustainable Development Office, University of Brescia, P.zza del Mercato 17, 25124 Brescia, Italy
5
Department of Human Sciences, Literature, Cultural Heritage, and Educational Sciences, University of Foggia, 71100 Foggia, Italy
6
Energy Sector, Largo Trombetti 3, 40126 Bologna, Italy
7
Energy Efficiency Coordination Office, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 31/A, 43124 Parma, Italy
8
Department of Engineering for Industrial Systems and Technologies, Center for Energy and Environment-CIDEA, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A, 43124 Parma, Italy
9
Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, Piazza Marina 61, 90133 Palermo, Italy
10
Buildings Management and Maintenance Division, University of Trento, Via Calepina 14, 38123 Trento, Italy
11
Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila, P.le Pontieri, 1 loc. Monteluco di Roio, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(17), 9496; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179496
Submission received: 19 July 2025 / Revised: 26 August 2025 / Accepted: 27 August 2025 / Published: 29 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Sustainability and Energy Efficiency of Buildings)

Abstract

Academic institutions represent significant energy consumers, not only due to the magnitude and variability of their energy demand over time but also because of their institutional responsibility to promote sustainable practices. Despite this relevance, the scientific literature still lacks comprehensive benchmark indicators specifically tailored to the energy behavior of universities, thereby hindering the development of effective energy planning strategies in this sector. This study helps to address this gap by analyzing key energy performance indicators, with a focus on electricity consumption, across a representative experimental dataset. The dataset comprises 156 consumption units from ten Italian universities, selected to capture a broad spectrum of climatic zones, urban environments, energy systems, functional uses of spaces, and levels of utility availability. The analysis revealed an average electricity consumption of approximately 60 kWh/m2/year, with significantly higher values in warmer regions, mainly due to the widespread adoption of fully electric thermal systems. A baseline consumption level of around 35 kWh/m2/year was identified. Furthermore, electricity consumption normalized by Heating Degree Days reached values of approximately 500 kWh/HDD/year, particularly in centers with a prevalence of laboratories. The findings offer relevant insights for stakeholders (including designers, facility and energy managers, and policymakers), supporting data-driven decision making in the energy planning processes of academic environments.

1. Introduction

Global electricity consumption has significantly increased over the last 10 years, from approximately 23.2 TWh in 2013 to over 29.5 TWh in 2023. This growth is accompanied by a shift toward electrification across all economic sectors. To achieve decarbonization goals, it is essential that this rising electricity demand is met by renewable energy sources (RES), accurately sized to reflect actual consumption needs.
Currently, one-third of global energy consumption and one-quarter of CO2 emissions can be related to buildings, making them central to climate policies due to their potential for electrification, improved energy efficiency, and integration of RES [1]. This impact increases when considering the energy use associated with the production of their construction materials from a life cycle perspective [2,3]. The energy demand of buildings has been primarily met by electricity and natural gas, which together account for 55% of total energy consumption [4]. Electricity has progressively become the main energy carrier, thanks to greater accessibility in developing countries and increased demand for cooling and heating through heat pumps and electrical devices.
According to González-Torres et al. [5], the typical energy consumption of buildings is mainly divided into residential (72%) and non-residential (28%) buildings, requiring distinct approaches due to their physical and operational differences. Among the non-residential energy consumption of buildings, in the specific context of universities, the growing demand for thermal comfort, driven by the need to expand spaces for student housing [6] and changes in lifestyle, has led to substantial increases in energy demand, making energy efficiency and retrofit interventions essential [7].
On the importance of energy policies and planning [3], the EU has established a legislative framework that includes the revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) [8] and the revised Energy Efficiency Directive [9]. The most important and challenging target of these directives is achieving a fully decarbonized, zero-emission building stock by 2050 and introducing minimum energy performance standards for non-residential buildings to trigger renovations of the least energy-efficient structures.
Apart from improving the efficiency of their building and plant systems and pursuing the decarbonization of their energy consumption, universities, in conducting their activities, can contribute to sustainability through teaching, research, and by promoting awareness, scientific dissemination, and information on environmental issues. From this perspective, universities, like other public entities, should play an exemplary role in promoting the concept of “glocalization” [10]. Indeed, they can foster sustainability actions, energy efficiency, and decarbonization, demonstrating their feasibility while also providing social accountability [11]. The support and influence that universities exert on decision makers (municipalities, provinces, governments, etc.) in energy and environmental planning is well established [12,13].
However, as previously noted, universities are significant energy consumers with direct environmental impacts; consequently, decarbonization and efficiency measures implemented within these institutions receive heightened attention due to their pivotal role as centers of innovation and social responsibility. Energy management within these institutions is far more than a routine administrative task. It plays a critical role in driving economic efficiency, environmental stewardship, and educational advancement [14,15]. As microcosms of society, public universities encounter energy challenges similar to those faced by cities and industries globally [16,17]. From powering classrooms and research labs to meeting the climate control needs of extensive complexes, their energy demands are significant and diverse. Electricity consumption, in particular, shows a multifaceted dependence on several drivers, such as occupancy, the size of the building, HVAC typology, the utilization of spaces, the age of the building, urban contextualization, etc. [18,19]. Effective energy management thus extends beyond simple utility oversight, becoming a statement of sustainability and responsible citizenship [20,21,22].
Despite the significant role of universities as energy-intensive entities with a considerable impact on sustainability policies, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, they have yet to undergo in-depth studies regarding the characterization of the dynamics of their energy consumption or be mapped in relation to their energy systems. Consequently, there are no benchmark Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this sector in the literature, unlike in other sectors that are often less energy intensive. These gaps result in significant challenges in proposing energy transition, decarbonization, or efficiency improvement measures (in other words, energy planning) within these contexts.
For these reasons, this study defines benchmark KPIs for the academic sector that are currently lacking in the literature. This is achieved by collecting and analyzing one year’s worth of real-world data from 156 buildings across 10 Italian universities, mapping their energy systems and consumption, and relating them to the main energy drivers. The resulting benchmark values can be very useful for evaluating at first sight the level of electricity consumption of a public university by knowing the climate conditions, prevalent type of thermal plant, and overall floor area.
The analysis covers the entire Italian territory, different climate conditions and urban contexts, several types of energy systems, diverse functional uses for spaces, and varying availability of utilities. In total, it is based on over 5,465,000 quarter-hourly electricity consumption data points. As a consequence, this study also resulted in the development of one of the most extensive databases of universities’ consumption and related energy drivers.

2. Materials and Methods

The definition of the KPIs is based on an analysis of measured data from 10 universities located in Italy (Figure 1 and Table 1), belonging to different geographical contexts, latitudes, and altitudes, and characterized by diverse energy systems and building typologies. The universities considered are all public ones, which involve many fields of teaching and research (Engineering, Human Sciences, Medicine, Economy, Law, Biosciences, etc.), demonstrating the high variability of data considered and also the wideness of the study proposed, which can be used as a benchmark value for any general public university.
The data used for the definition of the KPIs included, for each university, the location; the Heating Degree Days (HDD—see Equation (1)); the climate zone; the consumption centers; the number of buildings included; their urban context and age; the net area; the conditioned volume; the shares of classrooms, offices, and laboratories; the presence of electric generators and smart systems; the type of heating system; the main terminal type; as well as the hourly electricity consumption for the entire year of 2023. Indeed, all of the elements listed above were collected as potential energy drivers useful for defining KPIs, although not all were used in the present analysis. Moreover, this study focused on electricity consumption, with ongoing research by the authors aimed at extending the analysis to thermal consumption.
The data mentioned above were supplied by each participating university, with electricity consumption data characterized by a quarter-hour resolution and a one-year horizon. In order to have consistent data quality among the consumption centers, the electricity consumption data were retrieved from the distributors’ electricity meter devices, which involved precisely the point of delivery of the energy, which could then be supplied to different buildings with different utilization shares. The quarter-hour resolution enabled evaluating the daily demand for each of the four seasons, as well as the baseline consumption at nighttime or during breaks (e.g., summer breaks and Christmas breaks). Aggregating the data of all buildings, a benchmark value representing the statistical average electricity consumption of a public university was assessed, differentiated for different energy drivers. Definitively, each center of consumption, for which data of electrical consumption were collected, was characterized in terms of building area destined to a specific utilization (classrooms, laboratories, and offices).

2.1. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

As reported by Zhao et al. [23,24], several indexes can be proposed to evaluate a building’s energy performance. They usually refer energy consumption to various energy drivers, such as the floor area, the external temperature and, more in general, environmental conditions, the number and type of occupants, the functional use of spaces (laboratories, classroom, office, etc.), the type of thermal plant (boilers, heat pumps, etc.), the energy system’s management technology, and so on. In the authors’ opinion, among the reported energy drivers, the number of occupants is unsuitable for university settings, primarily due to strong fluctuations in student populations and the discrepancy between attendance and enrollment. Moreover, laboratory occupancy also varies depending on research or teaching activities, contributing to KPI variability. Additionally, accurate occupancy assessment requires specific monitoring devices, which are typically unavailable in university environments [25]. In addition, occupants’ behaviors and habits can be very different, and a survey can be used to represent the sample correctly, also repeated every year. However, the year-by-year change in students is an additional degree of uncertainty that makes this choice unreliable.
Consequently, and based on data availability, this study related electricity consumption —thus defining the KPIs—to the surface area of the considered consumption center (kWh/m2Section 2.1.1), which is an index of the size of the building, according also to Rey-Hernández et al. [26], and to the outdoor temperature and climate conditions (kWh/HDD—Section 2.1.2). To highlight the influence of these aspects as well, the KPIs were calculated for buildings characterized by different types of thermal plants (fully electric, hybrid, and non-electric—Section 2.1.3) and functional space uses (offices, classrooms, and laboratories—Section 2.1.4). These are the main drivers of energy consumption of a public university building.

2.1.1. Consumption per Floor Area

The first energy driver considered was the building floor area, which is the most common for this type of analysis [27,28]. Based on the floor area, the resulting KPI was the consumption per floor area (kWh/m2). Indeed, electricity consumption is mostly related to lighting, electrical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. In the first case, a minimum level of lighting should be also maintained at nighttime, for safety reasons. In many cases, in particular in the absence of smart systems (room thermostat, automatic lighting shut-off, presence detectors, etc.), the activation of such systems is centralized and completely separated from the actual presence of occupants in the rooms. So, the first driver was the size of the buildings involved in the consumption center, represented by its floor area.

2.1.2. Consumption per Heating Degree Days

The second energy driver considered was the Heating Degree Days (HDD), and the resulting KPI was the consumption per HDD (kWh/HDD). HDD is an indirect measure of the thermal need of a building, usually used to preliminarily estimate the energy required for heating and to design HVAC systems, as well as to evaluate building performance. This index normalizes the consumption for different climate conditions, representing a very important parameter. The HDD are calculated according to Equation (1):
H D D = i = 1 N T S P T e x t , i
where TSP is the comfort internal temperature (SP—set point temperature, typically assumed to be 20 °C in Italy [29], Text is the measured external mean daily temperature, and N is the number of heating days during a year (when thermal plant is turned on—i.e., Text < TSP). If the average daily temperature is lower than the base temperature, the difference is counted as the HDD. If the average is higher, HDD for that day are zero.
The HDD can also be summed over a specific period (week, month, thermal season or year) to estimate the total heating requirements for that period. In this study, the HDD were retrieved from weather forecast services and official databases. In relation to the standard HDD (calculated over a typical meteorological year—TMY) of a location, the following climate zones can be defined [30,31]:
  • Zone A—The warmest areas, generally coastal or southern regions with HDD ≤ 600;
  • Zone B—Also warm, but slightly cooler than Zone A. It includes other southern coastal areas where longer heating is needed but still limited (600 < HDD ≤ 900);
  • Zone C—Covers areas with moderate winters, including parts of central Italy (900 < HDD ≤ 1400);
  • Zone D—These areas experience colder winters and require longer heating periods. Much of central Italy falls into this category (1400 < HDD ≤ 2100);
  • Zone E—Found in northern regions or mountain areas, this zone requires significant heating due to prolonged cold weather (2100 < HDD ≤ 3000);
  • Zone F—The coldest areas, mostly in the mountain areas, with severe winter conditions (HDD > 3000).
This classification covers all Italian climate regions, but it can also be used for European or international climates. In fact, HDD is a recognized reference to fully categorize a climate zone, and every geographical site can be classified by its HDD value. So, using HDD as a reference unit for energy consumption allows the results to be compared among different locations (i.e., climate conditions) and years, homogenizing the data regarding the climate. This means that data results can be used as a reference for each geographical site, which is simply characterized by its HDD standard or actual value. A similar reference is the Cooling Degree Days (CDD), which makes reference to the summer condition and cooling request. However, the two values (HDD and CDD) can be seen as complementary values, and the use of HDD is universally preferred for characterizing a climate zone.
Table 2 summarizes the standard HDD values for the universities involved, as well as the climate zone.

2.1.3. Functional Use of Space

Spaces in universities are mainly divided into classrooms (both for theoretical lectures and equipped with computer facilities), laboratories, teacher and secretariat rooms and offices, libraries, shared rooms for students, auditoriums and great halls for seminars and lectures, bathrooms, and circulation spaces [32]. Based on the prevalence of spaces included in the sample considered, three main functional uses of space were categorized and considered herein: offices, classrooms, and laboratories. Each of them is characterized by different daily consumption profiles, so it was very interesting to analyze the differences among these functional uses of space.
Figure 2 characterizes the sample based on the prevalent functional uses of space, both in absolute terms—concerning the number of buildings involved—and in relative terms—considering the weighted average by floor area. Almost 42% of the buildings in number were mainly composed of laboratories, 39% were classroom-based, and the remaining 19% were mainly devoted to offices. A similar share was shown when considering the floor area, with a slight increase for offices. The possibility of further detailing the kind of laboratory involved (chemicals, mechanics, biological, electrical, computer sciences, etc.) would be useful for achieving a deeper understanding and for having a more specific relationship between electricity consumption and usage. However, this would require specific energy meters in rooms, since in the energy centers and buildings considered, the situation was very scattered and laboratories were usually mixed together in a building with offices and classrooms. The figure clearly presents the generality of the study, since more than 800,000 m2 of overall floor area was considered in the 156 buildings. No other specific functional rooms were in the sample, like auditoriums, sport centers, or dormitories, which usually do not directly depend on university administration and have different patterns of usage during the day and weeks. The involvement in the study of every kind of university course (engineering, applied and basic sciences, economy, medicine, human sciences, etc.) greatly widened the study performed, being useful for energy impact estimation and policy making in a very general way. The distribution of rooms/buildings shown in Figure 2 also demonstrates the generality in terms of functional use, specifically referred to as university function (teaching, research, or administration).

2.1.4. Thermal Plant Type

The thermal plant type is particularly important to assess a building’s energy performance. Where heat pumps are used year round, the annual electricity consumption (and consequently the related KPIs) tends to be higher compared to systems relying on a combination of electric and non-electric sources. However, the use of boilers fed by natural gas in winter is common in Europe and by far it is the most used heat generator in HVAC systems. For cooling needs, the use of electric heat pumps in summer is also commonly used, and therefore the electricity consumption profile strictly reflects the seasonal conditions. Recently, the use of reversible heat pumps both for winter and summer ambient conditioning has gained particular attention in the energy transition path, where RES exploitation is leading to the progressive electrification of users.
Given this, the thermal plant type was classified into three categories: fully electric, combined, and non-electric. A consumption center categorized as “fully electric” was equipped exclusively with reversible heat pumps for both winter heating and summer cooling. Within the sample, buildings with fully electric thermal systems represented 13% of the total (Figure 3), even when weighted by floor area. Conversely, a consumption center classified as a “non-electric” thermal plant type relied solely on fossil fuel heating systems, powered by natural gas, diesel, or other fossil fuels. In the sample, this category accounted for 24% of buildings and 35% when weighted by floor area. Finally, the “combined” thermal plant type included consumption centers with fossil fuel boilers for winter heating and electric air conditioning units for summer cooling. It is interesting to note that more than 50% of buildings within this category were located in moderate climate zones (B and C), where the temperatures allowed the use of reversible heat pumps year round. Surely, the investment cost of fully electric conversion of a plant can represent a barrier for this kind of plant, particularly for public entities.

3. Results and Discussion

The results are presented using a boxplot representation, in which the boxes indicate the interquartile range, which spans from the first quartile (Q1) to the third quartile (Q3). The line inside the box indicates the median value, while the X represents the average value. The whiskers, which extend from the box, indicate the minimum and maximum values.
Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the results related to the first considered KPI (yearly consumption per floor area), while Figure 7 relates to the second KPI (yearly electricity consumption per HDD).
The yearly consumption per floor area is shown in Figure 4, with the climate zones (B–E) on the x-axis and the thermal plant type (non-electric, combined, fully electric) indicated by the box color. The average yearly consumption per floor area is around 60 kWh/m2/year. As can be observed, median values are within the range of 25–75 kWh/m2, where lower values are experienced for “non-electric” buildings, as expected. In fact, for these buildings, the electricity consumption generated by heat pumps is null, as no heat pumps are present. The yearly consumption per floor area is on average higher in climate zone B, due to climate conditions leading to wider adoption of fully electric thermal plant types, with a predominance of summer cooling usage. In zones D and E, “fully electric” thermal plants show higher variability in electricity consumption, indicating a stronger sensitivity to climate conditions. In zone D, the distribution of values is wider due to the larger sample size. Buildings with fully electric thermal plants show higher energy consumption compared to others, as they include total consumption for heating purposes. In zone E, fully electric thermal systems are almost not used due to the very cold climate conditions. Values are in line with or slightly lower than European tertiary buildings [33,34] but higher than those of residential ones, as expected [35,36].
In order to highlight the hourly trend of electricity consumption, its variations throughout the year, and its baseline, a detailed analysis of the consumption per floor area of the entire dataset is presented at an hourly level, differentiated by seasons, working days (Figure 5), and holidays (Figure 6).
Focusing on Figure 5 (working days), it is immediately evident that the buildings’ energy consumption increases during the central hours of the day across all seasons, starting at 7 a.m. and extending until 7–8 p.m. At midday, median consumption values reach approximately 8 Wh/m2 during winter (Figure 5a), spring (Figure 5b), and autumn (Figure 5d) and 10 Wh/m2 during summer (Figure 5c). The median nighttime consumption, which provides an indication of the buildings’ hourly baseline energy demand, is around 3–4 Wh/m2 for all seasons. The highest nighttime values occur during the summer months due to the operation of cooling systems for data elaboration centers.
Another interesting aspect is that during the summer (Figure 5c), the dispersion of data around the median value (red line inside each box) is much greater compared to other seasons. This can be attributed to the high variability in energy consumption caused by air conditioning systems, which have a particularly significant impact in the southern regions.
In line with the observations above, the baseline energy consumption of the buildings, as analyzed in Figure 6, has a median value of 3–4 Wh/m2 (approximately 35 kWh/m2/year), while the maximum values rarely exceed 15 Wh/m2. These values were evaluated considering four non-working days (a—1 January; b—9 April, which was Easter day in 2023; c—15 August; and d—25 December, Christmas day). On those days, universities are closed for teaching, research, and administrative work, so the median value observed is the electricity consumption that can be considered as baseline, since no activities are present. This electricity consumption is mainly due to safety lighting and devices, data centers, and other electric and electronic instrumentation always switched on.
The yearly consumption per HDD is shown in Figure 7, with the thermal plant type (non-electric, combined, fully electric) on the x-axis and the functional use of space (classrooms, offices, and labs) indicated by the box color.
The yearly median consumption per HDD is around 500 kWh/HDD, and laboratories consistently show the highest values due to the electrical apparatuses used for research activities. For universities, laboratories act like “hard-to-abate” consumption centers. In fact, the electrical energy consumed is related to research or lab-based teaching activities, which are primary missions for academia, and their duties cannot be reduced. So, their decarbonization passes of course through renewable energy exploitation, as in sustainable energy communities. In these cases, hybrid strategies involving renewable energy exploitation, as in sustainable energy communities, can be used to meet a decarbonization target. Energy efficiency can be proposed only if specific low-consumption instrumentations are preferred, keeping the same application quality. Also, historical buildings deserve particular attention since they cannot always be equipped with renewable energy plants and their age is responsible for high energy consumption [37].
Buildings with fully electric thermal plant types show greater variability in consumption per HDD for laboratories compared to classrooms and offices. In such systems, offices exhibit intermediate electricity consumption per HDD, while classrooms present the lowest values, likely due to more appropriate sizing of heating and cooling systems and scale effects.
Very interesting results are related to classrooms, which have a similar average consumption (around 400 kWh/HDD) regardless of the thermal plant type. Their electricity consumption is mainly due to the lighting of spaces, which has more importance than that of offices. This is true when the thermal plant type is not fully electric, and this observation claims better management of a fully electric system.
In conclusion, targeted management strategies should be implemented for buildings predominantly hosting laboratories, as these spaces often exhibit the highest electrical consumption. To enable this, the installation of specific monitoring systems should be mandatory in order to better understand actual usage patterns; however, such systems are often lacking in this sector [33,38].

4. Conclusions

This research provides an essential contribution to the characterization of energy dynamics in universities and offers valuable tools for energy planning within these entities. By analyzing a sample consisting of 156 buildings from 10 universities, spanning diverse climate zones and building typologies, one of the most comprehensive datasets on electricity consumption dynamics in the academic sector has been developed. This dataset, characterized by a high level of granularity, offers valuable insights into the factors influencing energy demand, including climate conditions, space usage, and technological configurations.
From the process of characterizing the sample, it emerged that only 13% of the buildings were equipped with fully electric thermal systems, predominantly in warmer climate zones. This emphasizes the need for a significant energy transition in universities. This is particularly difficult for those universities located in historical urban areas, where the installation of renewable energy systems is often restricted by heritage protection regulations. Therefore, one potential solution to achieve this transition could be integrating these buildings into sustainable energy communities, allowing them to benefit from shared renewable energy resources without the limitations imposed by building-specific installation constraints.
The results of the study showed that the average electricity consumption per floor area across universities was about 60 kWh/m2/year, with significant variations in energy dynamics driven by three primary drivers: the prevalence of functional use of space, the thermal plant type, and the climate context. Buildings with a prevalence of laboratories consistently showed the highest energy consumption, reflecting their intense operational requirements. The thermal plant type also played a pivotal role: fully electric systems exhibited higher variability in energy consumption, particularly in warmer climate zones, where summer cooling requirements are more significant. Considering the dependency on climate, an average value of 500 kWh per Heat Degrees Days per year was calculated for classrooms, with more than three times higher values for laboratories and lower values for offices.
The median baseline energy consumption value for universities was approximately 35 kWh/m2/year, with the highest values occurring during the winter and summer months, when thermal systems, especially those powered by electricity, play a crucial role in energy demand. The resulting benchmark values can be very useful for evaluating at first sight the level of electricity consumption of a public university by knowing the climate conditions, prevalent type of thermal plant, and overall floor area. Also, the characteristics in terms of usage of the building can be considered to evaluate the specific energy consumption level and further deepen the analysis focusing on the hot spots identified thanks to the benchmark comparison. It can also give indications for an eventual energy audit and diagnosis. These data can also define further actions in terms of the possibility of renewable energy plant installation and exploitation, as well as the possible integration of storage units. However, data on roof availability, tilt and azimuth angles, ground availability for photovoltaics, etc., and solar radiation for each city should also be considered and matched with the data resulting from this study in order to evaluate the real hourly self-consumption potential of a photovoltaic plant. This would also be useful in designing possible renewable energy communities.
The results have broad implications for stakeholders, including policymakers, university managers, energy managers, and building designers. By highlighting the interplay between climate, technology, and usage, this research can be helpful for the energy planning and design of more energy-efficient universities and the implementation of targeted policies for reducing carbon emissions in the academic sector. The benchmarks found can be helpful in understanding, for a specific center of consumption, if there is a need for action regarding the baseline average electricity consumption, in this way triggering energy management policies, and individuating the main needs by comparing the actual values with the ones resulting from this work.
Future work will leverage this extensive dataset to conduct in-depth analyses of specific building typologies and operational scenarios. This will help to uncover additional opportunities for efficiency improvements and guide investments in retrofitting existing infrastructures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: D.D.B., L.M., and L.B.; Literature analysis: A.G., G.A., G.M.C., F.C., D.P., and L.A.; Data curation: all authors; Formal analysis: D.D.B. and L.M.; Investigation: D.D.B. and L.M.; Methodology: D.D.B., L.M., and L.B.; Project administration: D.D.B. and L.M.; Software: L.M.; Supervision: all authors; Validation: all authors; Visualization: D.D.B., L.M., and L.B.; Writing—original draft: all Authors; Writing—review & editing: D.D.B. and L.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The Italian University Network for Sustainable Development (RUS) is acknowledged for giving the authors the opportunity to meet and share common experiences. Valerio Rosania (Parametric Design s.r.l.) is acknowledged for supporting the retrieval of data from the University of Foggia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Buildings-Energy System-IEA. Available online: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings#overview (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  2. De Gregorio, S.; Di Domenico, G.; De Berardinis, P. Sustainable Architecture in Developing Countries: Harvest Map of the Lusaka Territory, Zambia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Röck, M.; Saade, M.R.M.; Balouktsi, M.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Birgisdottir, H.; Frischknecht, R.; Habert, G.; Lützkendorf, T.; Passer, A. Embodied GHG Emissions of Buildings—The Hidden Challenge for Effective Climate Change Mitigation. Appl. Energy 2020, 258, 114107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction|UNEP—UN Environment Programme. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-status-report-buildings-and-construction (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  5. González-Torres, M.; Pérez-Lombard, L.; Coronel, J.F.; Maestre, I.R.; Yan, D. A Review on Buildings Energy Information: Trends, End-Uses, Fuels and Drivers. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 626–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Decreto Ministeriale n. 481 Del 26-02-2024|Ministero Dell’Università e Della Ricerca. Available online: https://www.mur.gov.it/it/atti-e-normativa/decreto-ministeriale-n-481-del-26-02-2024 (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  7. Santamouris, M. (Ed.) Energy and Climate in the Urban Built Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; ISBN 9780367578824. [Google Scholar]
  8. Directive-EU-2024/1275-EN-EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1275/oj/eng (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  9. Directive-2023/1791-EN-EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/1791/oj/eng (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  10. Di Battista, D.; Barchiesi, C.; Di Paolo, L.; Abbate, S.; Sorvillo, S.; Cinocca, A.; Carapellucci, R.; Ciamponi, D.; Cardone, D.; Corroppolo, S.; et al. The Reporting of Sustainable Energy Action Plans of Municipalities: Methodology and Results of Case Studies from the Abruzzo Region. Energies 2021, 14, 5932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kihara, I.; Inoue, T. CO2 Emissions per Individual Based on a Survey of University Students. Appl. Energy 2002, 72, 645–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Di Paolo, L.; Di Martino, A.; Di Battista, D.; Carapellucci, R.; Cipollone, R. The Potential of Energy Planning at Municipality Scale: Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans (SECAP) and Local Energy Communities to Meet the Energy Demand Variability. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2648, 012012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Schenone, C.; Delponte, I.; Pittaluga, I. The Preparation of the Sustainable Energy Action Plan as a City-Level Tool for Sustainability: The Case of Genoa. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gui, X.; Gou, Z.; Lu, Y. Reducing University Energy Use beyond Energy Retrofitting: The Academic Calendar Impacts. Energy Build. 2021, 231, 110647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Allab, Y.; Pellegrino, M.; Guo, X.; Nefzaoui, E.; Kindinis, A. Energy and Comfort Assessment in Educational Building: Case Study in a French University Campus. Energy Build. 2017, 143, 202–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bäcklund, K.; Molinari, M.; Lundqvist, P. In Search for Untapped Energy-Saving Potential in Green and Smart Higher Educational Buildings—An Empirical Case Study Involving the Building Occupants. Buildings 2023, 13, 3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Patil, G.N.; Tanavade, S.S.; Sudhir, C.V.; Saravanan, A.M. Strategic Energy Management and Carbon Footprint Reduction in University Campuses: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2023, 13, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Diaz, M.C.; Mira, M.V.; Quispe, E.C.; Castrillón, R.; Lasso, A.; Vidal, J.R. A Methodology to Analyze Significant Energy Uses and Energy Consumption for Improving Energy Performance in Higher Education Buildings. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2023, 13, 636–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mojica, E. Evaluation of Factors That Influence Electrical Energy Consumption in Higher Educational Institutions—Preparatory for Energy Management System. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 433, 03004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alomari, M.M.; EL-Kanj, H.; Topal, A.; Alshdaifat, N.I. Energy Conservation Behavior of University Occupants in Kuwait: A Multigroup Analysis. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mohammadalizadehkorde, M.; Weaver, R. Quantifying Potential Savings from Sustainable Energy Projects at a Large Public University: An Energy Efficiency Assessment for Texas State University. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 37, 100570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, Y.; Han, M.; Yang, Z.; Li, G. Coordinating Flexible Demand Response and Renewable Uncertainties for Scheduling of Community Integrated Energy Systems with an Electric Vehicle Charging Station: A Bi-Level Approach. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2021, 12, 2321–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhao, L.; Liang, R.; Zhang, J.; Ma, L.; Zhao, T. A New Method for Building Energy Consumption Statistics Evaluation: Ratio of Real Energy Consumption Expense to Energy Consumption. Energy Syst. 2014, 5, 627–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, L.; Zhang, J.; Ma, J. The Application of Building Energy Consumption Index in Campus Energy Efficiency Management Platform. Int. J. Smart Home 2015, 9, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Krawczyk, D.A.; Zielinko, P.; Rodero, A. Measurements of Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Temperature in Dormitory Rooms in Poland and Spain—A Case Study. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 214, 012056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rey-Hernández, J.M.; Rey-Martínez, F.J.; Sala-Lizarraga, J.M.; Picallo-Perez, A. Innovative Exergy Indicators for Analyzing an NZEB Building to Promote New Areas of Improvement. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2024, 69, 103917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bastida-Molina, P.; Torres-Navarro, J.; Honrubia-Escribano, A.; Gómez-Lázaro, E. Electricity Consumption Analysis for University Buildings. Empirical Approach for University of Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Albacete (Spain). Renew. Energy Power Qual. J. 2022, 20, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Amber, K.P.; Ahmad, R.; Aslam, M.W.; Kousar, A.; Usman, M.; Khan, M.S. Intelligent Techniques for Forecasting Electricity Consumption of Buildings. Energy 2018, 157, 886–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. UNI/TS 11300-1:2014—UNI Ente Italiano Di Normazione. Available online: https://store.uni.com/uni-ts-11300-1-2014 (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  30. Decreto del Presidente Della Repubblica—Italian Republic President Decree 26 Agosto 1993, n. 412-Normattiva. Available online: https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:presidente.repubblica:decreto:1993-08-26;412 (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  31. Li, H.; Hong, T.; Lee, S.H.; Sofos, M. System-Level Key Performance Indicators for Building Performance Evaluation. Energy Build. 2020, 209, 109703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ocampo Batlle, E.A.; Escobar Palacio, J.C.; Silva Lora, E.E.; Martínez Reyes, A.M.; Melian Moreno, M.; Morejón, M.B. A Methodology to Estimate Baseline Energy Use and Quantify Savings in Electrical Energy Consumption in Higher Education Institution Buildings: Case Study, Federal University of Itajubá (UNIFEI). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ferrari, S.; Beccali, M.; Caputo, P.; Zizzo, G. Electricity Consumption Analysis of Tertiary Buildings: An Empirical Approach for Two University Campuses. J. Archit. Eng. 2020, 26, 05020005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. European Union|Odysee-MURE Project, Energy Efficiency Trends and Policies, Energy Profile, March 2025. Available online: https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/ (accessed on 24 August 2025).
  35. Coma, J.; Maldonado, J.M.; de Gracia, A.; Gimbernat, T.; Botargues, T.; Cabeza, L.F. Comparative Analysis of Energy Demand and CO2 Emissions on Different Typologies of Residential Buildings in Europe. Energies 2019, 12, 2436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Imani, E.; Dawood, H.; Dawood, N.; Occhipinti, A. Enhancing building sustainability: A comprehensive review and methodological roadmap for retrofit strategies. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2024, 29, 1275–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gleń, P.; Wrana, J.; Struzik, W.; Jaromin-Gleń, K. Dedicated HVAC Technology in the Renovation of Historic Buildings on the Example of the Marshal Pilsudski Manor in Sulejówek. Energies 2024, 17, 5946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Khudayarov, M.; Kurbonov, S. Study on program methods for energy monitoring of buildings. E3S Web Conf. 2024, 497, 01006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location of the ten universities involved.
Figure 1. Location of the ten universities involved.
Applsci 15 09496 g001
Figure 2. Share of buildings (a) and buildings’ area (b) per functional use of space.
Figure 2. Share of buildings (a) and buildings’ area (b) per functional use of space.
Applsci 15 09496 g002
Figure 3. Share of buildings (a) and buildings’ area (b) per thermal plant type.
Figure 3. Share of buildings (a) and buildings’ area (b) per thermal plant type.
Applsci 15 09496 g003
Figure 4. Yearly electricity consumption per floor area per climate zone and thermal plant type.
Figure 4. Yearly electricity consumption per floor area per climate zone and thermal plant type.
Applsci 15 09496 g004
Figure 5. Hourly electricity consumption per floor area during working days across the four seasons.
Figure 5. Hourly electricity consumption per floor area during working days across the four seasons.
Applsci 15 09496 g005
Figure 6. Hourly electricity consumption per floor area during holidays across the four seasons.
Figure 6. Hourly electricity consumption per floor area during holidays across the four seasons.
Applsci 15 09496 g006aApplsci 15 09496 g006b
Figure 7. Yearly electricity consumption per HDD per thermal plant type and functional use of space.
Figure 7. Yearly electricity consumption per HDD per thermal plant type and functional use of space.
Applsci 15 09496 g007
Table 1. Universities involved in the study.
Table 1. Universities involved in the study.
AcronymUniversity NameLocationNumber of Buildings
UNIBOUniversity of Bologna—Alma Mater StudiorumBologna
Forlì
Cesena
Ravenna
3
2
1
1
UNIBSUniversity of BresciaBrescia13
UNICAUniversity of CagliariCagliari26
UNIFGUniversity of FoggiaFoggia21
UNIGEUniversity of GenovaGenoa9
UNIMEUniversity of MessinaMessina2
UNIPAUniversity of PalermoPalermo3
UNIPRUniversity of ParmaParma46
UNITNUniversity of TrentoTrento
Rovereto
14
1
UNIVAQUniversity of L’AquilaL’Aquila14
Table 2. Heating Degree Days of the universities involved in the study.
Table 2. Heating Degree Days of the universities involved in the study.
AcronymLocationStandard HDD [°C]Climate Zone
UNIBOBologna
Forlì
Cesena
Ravenna
2259
2087
2130
2227
E
D
E
E
UNIBSBrescia2410E
UNICACagliari990C
UNIFGFoggia1530D
UNIGEGenova1435D
UNIMEMessina707B
UNIPAPalermo751B
UNIPRParma2505E
UNITNTrento
Rovereto
2567
2713
E
E
UNIVAQL’Aquila2514E
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Migliari, L.; Anania, L.; Agnese, G.; Bettoni, L.; Cappelletti, G.M.; Cioffi, F.; Corsi, O.; Gambarotta, A.; Panno, D.; Signore, G.; et al. Key Metrics for Energy Planning in Academic Institutions. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179496

AMA Style

Migliari L, Anania L, Agnese G, Bettoni L, Cappelletti GM, Cioffi F, Corsi O, Gambarotta A, Panno D, Signore G, et al. Key Metrics for Energy Planning in Academic Institutions. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(17):9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179496

Chicago/Turabian Style

Migliari, Luca, Laura Anania, Giada Agnese, Laura Bettoni, Giulio Mario Cappelletti, Francesca Cioffi, Oscar Corsi, Agostino Gambarotta, Domenico Panno, Gianluca Signore, and et al. 2025. "Key Metrics for Energy Planning in Academic Institutions" Applied Sciences 15, no. 17: 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179496

APA Style

Migliari, L., Anania, L., Agnese, G., Bettoni, L., Cappelletti, G. M., Cioffi, F., Corsi, O., Gambarotta, A., Panno, D., Signore, G., & Di Battista, D. (2025). Key Metrics for Energy Planning in Academic Institutions. Applied Sciences, 15(17), 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179496

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop