## 4 Discussion
### Normalized Energy Savings (NES)
Regardless of the occupancy rate, office spaces saved on energy consumption by more than 50% at 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C when compared to a setpoint of 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with the steady-state duration also increasing to more than 43%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Room Type**} & **Setpoint** & **Steady-State** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Baseline**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**NES, \(P_{SS}\)**} & **Baseline** & \multirow{2}{*}{**NES, \(T_{SS}\)**} & **Baseline,** & \multirow{2}{*}{**NES, \(T_{SS}\)**} \\  & [\({}^{\circ}\)C] & **Power, PS** & **[kWh]** & **[\%]** & **[\%]** & **[\%]** & **[\%]** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Classroom} & 22 & 10,244.15 & \multirow{4}{*}{10,244.15} & 0 & 71.72 & 0 \\  & 23 & 6838.48 & & 33.25 & 62.87 & 71.72 & 12.34 \\  & 24 & 4793.53 & & 51.45 & 53.38 & & 25.57 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Computer Room} & 22 & 9267.87 & \multirow{4}{*}{30.72} & 0 & 78.16 & 0 \\  & 23 & 6420.32 & & 69.95 & 78.16 & 10.50 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Laboratory Room} & 24 & 2508.05 & & 72.94 & 50.36 & & 35.57 \\  & 23 & 6131.38 & & 0.00 & 54.20 & & 0 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Room} & 24 & 5912.53 & 6131.38 & 3.57 & 62.05 & 54.20 & \(-\)14.48 \\  & 25 & 4591.07 & & 25.12 & 58.22 & & \(-\)7.41 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Office (shared)} & 23 & 13,878.48 & & 0 & 86.75 & & 0 \\  & 24 & 8947.08 & 13,878.48 & 35.53 & 56.30 & 86.75 & 35.10 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Office (solo)} & 25 & 5176.34 & & 62.70 & 49.03 & & 43.48 \\  & 23 & 13,066.60 & & 0 & 82.22 & & 0 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Office (solo)} & 24 & 12,122.15 & 13,066.60 & 7.23 & 73.23 & 82.22 & 10.93 \\  & 25 & 5533.75 & & 57.65 & 40.13 & & 51.19 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: Summary of normalized energy savings using steady-state metrics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Room Type**} & **Setpoint** & **Daily Power, \(P_{T}\)** & **Baseline Power** & **NES** \\  & [\({}^{\circ}\)C] & **[kWh]** & **[kWh]** & **[\%]** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Classroom} & 22 & 14,052.27 & \multirow{4}{*}{14,052.27} & 0 \\  & 23 & 10,695.09 & & 14,052.27 & 23.89 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Computer Room} & 24 & 10,452.71 & & 25,62 \\  & 22 & 11,502.25 & & 0.00 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Laboratory Room} & 23 & 7270.01 & 11,502.25 & 36.79 \\  & 24 & 4593.49 & & 60.06 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Laboratory Room} & 23 & 10,848.83 & & 0 \\  & 24 & 9778.17 & 10,848.83 & 9.87 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Office (Shared)} & 25 & 8173.11 & & 24.66 \\  & 23 & 17,222.04 & & 0 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Office (Shared)} & 24 & 16,219.65 & 17,222.04 & 5.82 \\  & 25 & 10,010.43 & & 41.87 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Office (Solo)} & 23 & 16,154.73 & & 0 \\  & 24 & 15,898.28 & 16,154.73 & 1.59 \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Office (solo)} & 25 & 12,048.97 & & 25.42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: Summary of normalized energy savings using peak metrics. The peak method only provides daily ACU total power consumption data, while the CUSUM reveals the amount of this power attributed to steady-state conditions (the period in which the ACU has transitioned from ramp-up cooling). Their NES values proved that significant savings were achieved at higher ACU setpoints. Combining these two approaches provides additional perspectives regarding how savings can be achieved at the level of both ACU capacity (i.e., daily power consumption) and room cooling load and ramp-down cooling load (i.e., steady-state power and duration).