Annex 73 Subtasks

  • Subtask A: Collection and Evaluation of Input Data for Energy Master Plan (EMP)
  • Subtask B: Collection of Existing Case Studies and Implementation of Pilot Studies
  • Subtask C: Description of Existing and Innovative Technologies, Architecture and Selected Calculation Tools for Performance of Energy Conversion and Distribution Systems (Electrical and Thermal)
  • Subtask D: Develop Guidance for Net Zero Energy Master Planning
  • Subtask E: Develop Conceptual Framework for Net Zero Energy Resilient Master Planning Process
  • Subtask F: Business, Legal and Financial Aspects of Net Zero Energy Master Planning

Subtask A: Collection and Evaluation of Input Data for Energy Master Plan (EMP)

The focus of Subtask A will be on critical nation-specific input data required for the development of an EMP. It will:

  • Establish internationally recognized community-oriented definitions for EMP goals, such as: Efficiency, Security, Independence, Resilience, Reliability
  • Research, summarize, and develop representative building energy benchmarks and energy-related targets: definitions, matrix, and monetary values.
  • Collect and, when necessary develop, catalog and establish a database of representative building models (by building use type, including mixed-use buildings) applicable to national public communities/military garrisons building stocks.
  • Collect and develop energy efficiency incremental and total costs for building, heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC), supply, and renewable technologies, etc.The goal of Subtask A is to inform energy master planners with a common set of definitions, metrics, benchmarks, targets, and models to create a common framework for the EMP.

Subtask A1: Common definitions

This subtask will create a set of internationally recognized definitions for common goals of the EMP. It will also summarize or refer to available information on resilience targets for selected mission critical facilities and will address their performance under common stress such as flooding, high wind, earthquake, physical attack, etc.

Subtask A2: Representative benchmarks and Targets

Energy consumption benchmarks for certain building types can be based on existing national databases of EUIs of Public and Private Industry. There is a strong need for similar data collected from buildings specific to armed forces and academia. Subtask A-2 will collect EUIs from available metering data for buildings, from existing Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surveys and from existing standards (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE] Standard 100, German VDI 3807, Switzerland SIA 380.1 etc.). EUIs are a necessary requirement for efficient energy management and for establishing national or agency-specific energy targets.

Currently, most of benchmarks relate to individual building energy targets and not to communities and district-level metrics. As part of Subtask A-2, we will determine a set of metrics that fit the internationally-accepted definitions, and populate these metrics as district-level benchmarks.

Subtask A3: Building energy archetype models

The energy master planning process requires an analysis of different scenarios, which include new construction to different levels of energy efficiency, major renovation of all or some buildings

comprising building stock under consideration with Deep Energy Retrofit of these buildings, minor renovations with energy-related scope of work, or demolition of some old buildings. Such analysis requires building energy modeling. Numerous individual building computer-based energy models are currently available for general use buildings and can be further customized to function as archetypes. Several military specific energy models have been developed by the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) to predict energy use in US Army-specific buildings (e.g., barracks, brigade and battalion HQs, dining facilities, technical equipment maintenance facilities, etc.) and adapted to different climate conditions and energy use requirements. To be used for community planning, all prototype models shall be fully parametrized for common modeling inputs and include "baked-in" energy efficiency measures. Tools supporting the EMP can be easily extended to add new prototype models, to modify existing models, or to address nation-specific building types, energy codes, and other requirements.

Subtask A3 deliverables

To participate in this project, each national team has to collect and/develop building energy models that can adequately represent their national/agency building stock, that include energy systems specific to their representative climate conditions and that have representative operation schedules. The Subtask A team will also develop a common approach to calibration of building models to existing energy use data available from metering and submetering.


Subtask B: Collection of Existing Case Studies and Implementation of Pilot Studies

Subtask B will collect examples of successful master plans that have been adapted for implementation and that have been partially implemented. It will also document pilot EMPs that will be developed to demonstrate tools and Guidelines resulted from the Annex research. Since the EMP is a part of long-term community planning, it is not expected that any case-study or a pilot project will demonstrate a complete or even a major realization of the EMP. Subtask B will build on case studies available from European Union Joint Research Center, the International District Energy Association “Campus” program, US DOE Zero Energy Accelerator Program, the US Army Net Zero Energy Water and Waste pilot program, the ESTCP[1] demonstration program report (see Section 11 for references), on examples of advanced energy systems collected for the District/Central Solar Hot Water Systems Design Guide (ASHRAE 2013), and on best practices from industry partners.

Subtask B outcome. Lessons learned derived from the analysis of Case Studies will be used in the description of technology approaches (Subtask C) to develop Guidance for Net Zero Energy Master Planning (Subtask D) and contribute to development of “Business, Legal and Financial Aspects of Net Zero Energy Master Planning” (Subtask F).

Subtask B1. Collection of best practice existing Energy Master Plans (EMP).

Subtask B1 aims to provide a deep analysis of already implemented EMPs. This subtask will define key performance criteria that characterize effectiveness and efficiency of a chosen set of technologies and approach for each specific community. For these purposes, a special template will be developed and used for all project partners to evaluate their existing EMPs. In addition, all relevant information on implementation of EMPs will be collected and documented to provide a deep understanding how energy master plans were developed and how technical and economic barriers were solved. Subtask B1 will focus on EMPs that include: integration of renewables, energy efficiency of buildings, ICT and storage and energy exchange within communities, and the provision of energy resilience to mission critical facilities.

Each participating country will submit up to three descriptions of already implemented EMPs. However, the maximum number of submitted EMPs is not limited. The final report will include only the most relevant and ambitions lighthouse EMP.

Subtask B2 Description of pilot EMP project developed and executed under Annex 73.

Subtask B2 will bring together lead experts in energy master planning to work on pilot EMP development for the most challenging communities such as mixed public/private districts with various types of buildings. Special attention will be paid to military communities, universities, hospitals communities, etc. This subtask will be based on lessons learned in Subtask B1 and outputs from Subtask A on energy benchmarks and targets including resiliency. The result of this subtask will be presented in a same manner as the results of Subtask B1. This will allow a correct comparison of work done in both subtasks and will provide project stakeholders with relevant information that can be easily implemented in practice.

The main stakeholders for the Subtask B are real estate developers, city planners, local energy authorities, Energy Service Companies (ESCOs), and energy utility companies, all of which will have to be invited to participate and contribute to the project during national and international Annex 73 Workshops.


Subtask C: Description of Existing and Innovative Technologies, Architecture and Selected Calculation Tools for Performance of Energy Conversion and Distribution Systems (Electrical and Thermal)

The choice between decentralized heating and/or cooling energy supply options for individual buildings, and central options for whole communities, neighborhoods, or clusters of buildings depends largely on local drivers such as energy demand densities, existing networks, building systems configurations, etc. In addition, the selection can also be highly dependent on critical operations/mission assurance needs of the subset of the mission-critical facilities. As a result, the feasibility of scenarios will be evaluated holistically, considering both economic and mission assurance factors.

Feasibility analyses will consider various scenarios, including combinations (and types and sizes) of energy generation equipment; and system architectures needed to meet load profiles, based on heating, cooling, and power load demands. Load profiles will be derived for individual buildings, building clusters, or subsets of buildings comprised of mission-critical facilities and associated generation equipment types. When evaluated in combination with energy system architectures, optimum solutions will be identified to maximize resilience to power, energy demand reduction and thermal energy supply disruption scenarios. Approaches and technologies will be selected based on the community-specific needs for resilience and economic factors.

Technologies to be selected from can include traditional solution (high efficient boilers, chillers, power generation turbines), the state-of-the-art technologies (e.g., efficient heat pumps, combined cooling, heat and power (CCHP) with ad-/absorption cooling systems, power-to-heat, electrical and thermal storage systems, microgrids, usage of waste heat, regenerative technologies) or a combination of those. Existing fossil fuel-based technologies for central plants can be combined with technologies using energy from renewable sources integrated with external grids or community level thermal and power storage. Throughout the energy planning horizon, fossil fuel-based technologies can be phased out. Ideally, one can account for all technologies and system elements that are available and that can be parameterized in a database used as input to the core of the energy master planning modeling tool (red in Figure 2). However, to reduce the spectrum of possible solutions and thereby simplify the applicability and operability of the optimization process, a preselection of system elements and corresponding system configurations in specific scenarios is advisable. Scenarios can be presented in a uniform way using a common template to include technical  schemes, pictures of critical elements and a brief concept description, with its application and limitations. Figure 2 details the methodology for the development of these scenarios.

Scenario descriptions (presented in a template form) —and other elements— will be used as input to the core of the modeling tool (Subtask E). As a result, the preliminary scenarios will become concretized and refined. Comparing and assessing these elaborated scenarios by means of strategic instruments (SWOT [Strengths, Weaknesses Opportunities, Threats] analysis, etc.) and based upon compliance with prioritized objectives, recommendation and guidance can be formulated.

Figure 3 shows an example of system configuration for a military garrison. Apart from other (legal, financial etc.) boundary conditions, one central constraint for the military community is the energy supply to mission-critical facilities. Using threat-impact analysis, requirements for ensuring a predefined and facility-specific level of (heat, electricity) supply can be derived. These requirements implicitly determine minimum storage and back-up capacities or restrict the choice of other, quantifiable indicators of energy resilience.


Figure 2. Methodology for development of scenario templates and subtask-overlapping workflow (core of modeling tool in red)


Figure 3. Exemplary energy supply system in a military garrison with mission-critical facilities including redundant heat and/or electricity supply (marked in red).

Subtask C deliverables are described as:

  1. A database of technology options will be assembled that can be used to build integration scenarios. The database will include visual presentation of the integrated technologies’ architecture, their technical and economic characteristics including life cycle cost analysis (net present value), and selected cases of their implementation. The database will provide a wide range of options that can be selected for analysis in the EMP modeling tool for specific conditions.
  2. The Subtask C team will develop inputs and modules that will support the estimation of the overall costs of a district system over time, and that do not require detailed thermal and hydraulic analysis or optimization of the piping system, analysis tools, which will allow for Infrastructure Threat and Hazard Damage Analysis, Energy Surety Conceptual Design, Resiliency Node Identification Methodology, and Energy and Community Resilience and Cost/Benefit Optimization for different Scenarios.


Subtask D: Develop Guidance for Net Zero Energy Master Planning

Subtask D will establish the concept and a methodology of Energy Master Planning process as a part of Community Planning. It will describe the input data required to conduct EMPs and their sources; will outline the EMP process and its algorithm; and will provide a description of its phases, e.g., benchmarking, baselining, scenarios to be considered, their analysis, comparison, and selection principles. The subtask will also include dissemination and training needed for the EMP.

Energy -related goals and other “core values” that will be established in Subtask A will provide a framework for the EMP for the community with agreed boundaries. Figure 4 shows the major steps in the EMP process, which is described in the IEA Annex 51 Report and in “Energy Master Planning Towards Net Zero Energy Communities/Campuses” (Zhivov et al. 2015).

The Subtask D working process will be closely aligned with Subtasks B and C with regards to methodology; with Subtask A with regards to best practice experience, benchmarks, and important Key Performance Indicators (KPIs); and with Subtasks E and F with regards to application and implementation mechanisms.

Subtask D deliverables. Subtask D will result in a formalized Guidance for Net Zero Energy Resilient Community Master Planning that can be adapted to specifics of participating countries and public agencies by makers and master planners.


Subtask E: Develop Conceptual Framework for Net Zero Energy Resilient Master Planning Process

This subtask will collect information on existing modeling tools appropriate for community-wide energy planning and will identify how each tool fits into the overall process. For each tool, the following information will be described: the inputs, analysis steps, outputs, and level of detail required for each step execution. The subtask will result in a standard input, output, and functionality description suitable to enable identified modeling tools to provide analysis as a service (e.g., web service) for the Net Zero Energy/Water Master Planning process. Also, the subtask will identify gaps and needed steps to enhance existing master planning tools and will develop one or more prototypes to demonstrate feasibility of modeling tool(s) to provide analysis for the net zero energy and water master planning. For this project, the focus will be on integration of a district thermal distribution module, LCC cost calculation module, and project planning module with the NZP Tool.


The objectives of this subtask are to collect the questions arising in the EMP process and to find and analyze existing tools that addresses these questions. Moreover, concepts to answer open questions shall be provided. A focus will be on resilience, the aim being to show how resilience can be addressed in an EMP. The result of this subtask is a conceptual framework for the EMP, which proposes a process chain and gives information on which questions should be addressed at each stage, and proposes tools for doing so.

Figure 4.  Process to Identify Energy Efficient Solutions for Building Clusters and Neighborhoods (based on Zhivov et al. 2015).

Questions to be answered

  • Which questions are to be answered in the EMP, and at which stage? (Input from Subtask D.)
  • What tools are available for answering the questions? Which ones are to be developed/Extended?
  • How can resilience be addressed? (input: What is resilience [Subtask A] and at which stage does it come into the EMP [Subtask D]?)
  • Which framework was used in the EMP processes from the case studies? (Analyze results of Subtask B.)
  • What are the experiences made in the implementation of pilot studies regarding the framework? (Analyze/supervision of Subtask B.)
  • How can the existing NZE planning be extended to support the EMP?
  • How can financial details and regulations be included in the Framework?

Breaking the work into Actions

Subtask E1: The results of Subtask D will define the tools required and those missing in existing EMP modeling capabilities. These missing tools will be identified and developed. This subtask will define methods, needed input, and provided output for existing and missing tools.

Subtask E2: Will address the concept of Resilience in the EMP conceptual framework.

Subtask E3: Will develop a standalone modeling tool that integrates goals, boundary conditions, available technologies and infrastructure, and that uses existing tools to assist the EMP process.

Subtask E4: Will provide support to implementation of pilot studies.

Subtask E will result in a standalone modeling tool suite that will integrate the targets, constraints, and monetized values from Subtask A, and modeling inputs from the Subtask C to be used along with existing building level EMP tools (e.g., NZP Tool or of CityGML). This tool suite will effectively model and identify optimum energy-support infrastructures that ensure sustainment of mission-critical functions for communities. This will be an integration subtask, intended to increase interoperability between existing energy tools while enhancing their functionality. It will be implemented as distributed computational modules that can be executed on a desktop or as a cloud-based capability. The tool suite will consist of a set of self-documenting XML input data files, an optimization engine with an optional simple user interface, and an output processor that assembles data for presentation or consumption by other software. Figure 5 shows a logical architecture, which is further described below.

Figure 5.  Logical Architecture for Resilience & Sustainability Module.

Subtask E deliverables

Subtask E will result in a standardized input/output module that can be used in combination with (and that will enhance and adapt) existing community planning tools to meet the specific needs of participating nations. Subtasks A, C, and F will provide inputs to Subtask E.


Subtask F: Business, Legal and Financial Aspects of Net Zero Energy Master Planning

Subtask F will address three major challenges for the practical implementation of the low energy or NZE resilient community:

Legal requirements. Planning of an NZE community usually has to account for the legal aspects being defined by national energy requirements and the spatial or urban planning requirements. Currently, national energy requirements focus primarily on the building level. Spatial planning in urban regions does not usually consider specific energy requirements, nor is it likely to raise barriers for the development of NZE communities. The definition and execution of “resilience” concepts, if they exist at all, are not yet well defined, neither for buildings nor for communities. To address these barriers, Subtask F focuses on the following three topics:

  • Subtask F1: Collection of relevant legal requirements for the refurbishment of buildings and neighborhoods for each participating country. Evaluation of organizational requirements to facilitate and conduct the EMP process on the project level.  
  • Subtask F2: Summary of energy security/resilience requirements to different building types (focusing on mission-critical buildings) and resilience of power and thermal energy supply scenarios, which will be collected based on criteria defined in Subtask A. The data will be collected using industry standards, case studies collected and evaluated in Subtask B, and analysis carried out in Subtask C.
  • Subtask F3: Community planning processes. Currently many national legislations on urban and spatial planning are revised to optimize energy requirements to individual buildings and to building clusters with the goal to achieving low energy/ NZE communities. This information, which will be collected under Subtask B using interviews, will be discussed and finalized at experts’ workshops.

Business Models. Business models can help to increase the cost effectiveness and available funding sources of NZE concepts by monetizing energy and non-energy related benefits and values.  Existing utility level business models do not consider NZE community concepts. Subtask F will assess drivers that are necessary to develop, promote, and implement the NZE concept along with associated revenue streams and incentives required for its implementation. In comparison with business models currently used in the planning of “normal” neighborhoods and military installations, business models to be used for planning of NZE resilient communities will be more sophisticated. The architecture for energy generation, distribution, and storage for an NZE resilient community will require a good understanding of energy needs for the whole community and for mission-critical facilities on the daily and annual bases; and a flexible but reliable energy supply with consideration of variations in energy availability and prices. Energy utility business model shall account for:

The implementation of sustainable used renewables on site requires specific knowledge of how to operate and account for the energy balance in and off the grids, including storage and usage of RE-generated power in mobility and other value-added ways that maximize revenues for the NZE community.

The losses that can be avoided by maintaining operation during extreme events. The connection of these short-term avoided losses to long-term revenues in the other categories (e.g., connection between business continuity and resilience).

NZE requires the creation of high flexible energy purchase schemes to make use of available RE and CHP power production and to fill the remaining energy demand; that part of energy production that cannot be used onsite must be distributed in the market under optimal conditions.

Buildings must be modeled and operated as energy hubs that create demands for operational skills far beyond the skillsets associated with “normal utility businesses.”

The accounting of all financial revenues and expenditures generated by and in the NZE community must be conducted under the premise of revenue optimization. This will also require specific operational skills.

The major working areas are:

  • Subtask F4: Assessment of legal requirements to utilities and grid companies. Development of NZE    communityrequires a good understanding of how these requirements affect energy generation and storage.
  • Subtask F5: Understanding of different services responsible for generation, storage, and distribution of energy from  renewable energy sources and their interaction with companies responsible for large scale HP & CHP.
  • Subtask F6: Assessment of risks and identification of de-risking tools for the establishment of NZE public communities.
  • Subtask F7: Assessment of revenue and cost streams; definition of measurement and verification methods for each of R&C.

Funding sources. In addition to the limited understating of technical aspects of NZE communities, shortage of funding is the major obstacle for the implementation of this concept. In the public and military sectors, scarce appropriate funding and limited access to bank loans has to be considered as the major financial impediment. In the private sector, e.g., in business parks and housing areas, the lack of experience and performance data combined with the difficulty in estimating technical and financial risks prevent private investors from spending money in NZE projects.

  • Subtask F8: Evaluate the existing financing models for the NZE concepts in the public and commercial (housing) sectors with regard to different funding mechanisms (e.g., appropriation funds, grants, 3rd party financing). The analysis of financing models will focus on the single-ownership communities (MOD, Federal estates, universities) and the typical funding sources used in the participating countries such as public, public-private, and private funding sources; bank loans, closed and open funds; or more specific approaches such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), or utility bill payments (which are used in the United States).

Subtask F deliverables. Subtask F will result in at least one structured example for each participating country of a financial and business model for a public community. Developed business schemes will be performance based and will address bankable benefits beyond the BAU approach (energy savings). The Subtask F team will develop the following contributions to the “Guide for NZE planning in public and military building communities”:

  • Major Legal Frameworks relevant to the implementation of NZE
  • Financing strategies, financial and business models to be incorporated into A “Guide for NZE planning in public and military building communities”  The subtask members will organize workshops geared toward community planners, designers/architects, ESCOs, and utility companies


All Subtasks will provide material for the final Annex product, which will include, but will not be limited to:

  • A “Guide for NZE planning in public and military building communities”
  • Enhanced Net Zero Planner Tool (NZP Tool)
  • A Book of Case Studies (Examples of Energy Master Plans)
  • Results of several realized or partially realized Projects.

To ensure that barriers to adoption of the results will be overcome and the results will be of lasting value, the following steps are carried out:

  • Information dissemination concept: The dissemination of the project results will focus on decision makers, community planners and energy managers, energy performance companies (EPC/ESCO), and industry partners, all of whom will be actively involved in the development of the Annex results.
  • Methods of information dissemination will include public presentations, articles, and a project website. Publications may be written in English or in the languages of the participants’ countries. Workshops will be organized in participating countries to showcase the latest project results and to provide an exchange platform for the target audience (notably decision makers, community planners, energy managers, designers, and ESCOs).
  • Materials: Workshop materials will be published on the website. The number of downloads from the project website will be counted to measure the success of the developed toolkit and Guidelines.
  • Training partners for buildings owners: The lasting value of the results will also be provided by local support capacities. Decision makers will be in need for local support in the preparation of the implementation of the new business models. To ensure that authentic information is allocable, training seminars will be provided for existing local networks of energy consultants, designers, and architects.

Annex Info & Contact

Status: Completed (2017 - 2022)

Operating Agents

Rüdiger Lohse
KEA Klimaschutz- und Energieagentur
Baden-Württemberg GmbH
Kaiserstr. 94a
76133 Karlsruhe
Tel: +49 (0)721 984 71 15

Dr Alexander Zhivov
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
2902 Newmark Dr.
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
Tel: +1 217 373 4519