## 3 Results
### Energy Savings  
Figure 5 answers the question of how much energy is saved by extending the set-point temperature. This figure presents the average value of savings and the variation range, in kWh/m\({}^{2}\)/year, for each building typology and construction year. From the figure, it is highlighted that decreasing the set-point temperature by 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C during the winter season had more impact on the demand than increasing the set-point temperature by 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C during the summer season. At an average level and for single-family buildings, for example, 1.5 and 6.6 kWh/m\({}^{2}\)/year were the additional savings generated on the heating side, in comparison with the cooling savings for the 2019 and 1979 scenarios, respectively. Additionally, a higher savings potential in the oldest building stock was observed. Comparing the buildings of 1979 with the newest ones, we saw energy savings for heating demand of 2.8 to 2.9 times higher, and savings for cooling of 1.5 to 2.0 times higher, on average, indicating that the savings potential was lower on buildings that were adequately insulated. In a scenario where the average construction year for the residential building is 1978 [58] and 60.1% of the building stock corresponds to multifamily buildings [36], Figure 6 shows the expected impact of extending the set-point temperature by 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 2 \({}^{\circ}\)C in multifamily buildings across peninsular Spain. The highlighted set-point temperatures in the figure correspond to the set-point temperature values imposed by the Spanish Government on all public and commercial buildings as a strategy to reduce external energy dependency [63]. Transposing that restriction to the residential sector, we can obtain a saving on the heating demand from 4.6 kWh/m\({}^{2}\)-year in warmer climates and up to 11.4 kWh/m\({}^{2}\)-year in colder zones; on the side of the cooling demand, the savings can go up to 9.5 kWh/m\({}^{2}\)-year in the southern part of the peninsula. The saving potential obtained is not negligible and does not compromise the thermal expectations of the majority of occupants when considering a minimum thermal acceptance of 80%. A variation of 1 to 2 \({}^{\circ}\)C in the neutral comfort band had a low impact on the occupant's thermal acceptance, as demonstrated by [PERSON] et al. [20] for the case of the summer season and by [PERSON] et al. [33]  
Figure 5: Annual demand savings for the studied set-point temperatures per building typology and construction year. for the winter season in residential buildings in a mild climate. Moreover, considering the comfort band limits proposed by the ASHRAE adaptative model [34], it is possible to see that during the winter time, the comfort expectations were below 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C, as evidenced in the study by [PERSON] et al. [31] for Mediterranean climates. Nevertheless, the effect of adopting a new set-point temperature is highly dependent on the climate as well as the building typology, as evidenced by Figures 5 and 6; therefore, to corroborate the public authorities' decisions in Appendix A, data on the average demand saving map for each building typology, construction year, and extension of the set-point temperature are available. It should be noted that with the energy-saving potential of lowering the heating set-point temperature, the risk of reducing the indoor environment quality can occur due to the increase in indoor humidity and the development of fungus [64]. Therefore, adopting new values for the heating set-point should consider the hygrometric behaviour of each building, where values below 18 \({}^{\circ}\)C must be avoided [44,64]. Evaluating the savings potential as a percentage (Figure 7), we have a slightly different overview, especially because the percentages of savings were very similar between the construction years and building typology. This similarity is more evident by analysis of the variation of the average savings percentage across peninsular Spain (Appendix B).