TECHNICAL FEATURE Expected Percent Change from Current Climate Monthly Energy - Modeled (MMBtu [In Thousands]) 6 5 4 Line of Perfect Agreement 3 2 Uncalibrated Calibrated 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Monthly Energy - Measured (MMBtu [In Thousands]) 6 50 40 Low Impact High Impact 30 20 10 0 -10 Electricity Consumption Natural Peak Gas Electricity Consumption Demand Peak Cooling Demand Peak Heating Demand Annual Utility Cost FIGURE 4 Expected change in building performance for each climate scenario. FIGURE 3 Monthly modeled versus measured energy use for all energy models before and after calibration. used to condition the hotter or colder outside air. We also identified four secondary strategies. The first three strategies-increasing wall insulation, installing high performance windows, and sealing air leaks-indirectly reduce energy use by isolating the conditioned indoor environment from the outdoor climate. The fourth strategy-upgrading to condensing boilers-directly reduces the amount of heating energy needed to offset the increased need for heating during the colder winters. Conclusions www.info.hotims.com/49808-56 42 ASHRAE JOURNAL ashrae.org SEPTEM BER 2014 Most of the projected energy impacts under the low impact scenario are moderate and do not present a great risk to facilities operations over a timespan of decades. These impacts are moderate due to small projected changes in climate at SSC and by the large percentage of climate-independent energy consumption. Both high and low impact scenarios project increases in natural gas consumption and peak heating demand. From an SSC facilities standpoint, care should be taken in applying traditional methods in the design of heating systems, as results indicate increased capacity may be needed in the future. Or, alternately, care should be taken to decrease heating loads through energy efficient design and retrofit.