## 4 Discussion  
The results obtained from the research carried out allowed us to propose a series of practical implications. First, practical guidelines can be drawn as to the setpoints required to achieve a specific energy savings. The results pointed out that the same set-point temperature extension impacted differently on the demand savings potential due to the dependency on the climate and building envelope. Consequently, adjusting the set-point temperature to a building type and climate will ensure that each building will contribute equally to the implementation of the studied strategy. Although is not a novelty to define or adjust the set-point temperature to optimise the energy demand [19], the studies that explored the topic of extending the set-point temperature did not suggest or point to a recommended value to adopt for each building typology and climate zone (Table 1). Therefore, considering a savings target of 20% and 25% for heating and cooling demand, respectively, for example, it is possible to define a recommended value for residential buildings per climate zone (Table 7). The target corresponds to the average percentage savings potential by extending the set-point temperature to 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C (Section 3.2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Set-Point**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Climate Zone**} \\ \cline{2-13}
**Temperature (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **A3** & **A4** & **B3** & **B4** & **C1** & **C2** & **C3** & **C4** & **D1** & **D2** & **D3** & **E1** \\ \hline Heating & 19.4 & 19.5 & 19.3 & 19.3 & 19.1 & 19.0 & 19.0 & 19.1 & 18.6 & 18.6 & 18.8 & 18.4 \\ \hline Cooling & 26.0 & 26.1 & 26.0 & 26.2 & - & 26.0 & 26.1 & 26.3 & - & 25.9 & 26.1 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Set-point temperature value which reduces heating and cooling demand by at least 20% and 25%, respectively. Figure 7: Percentage of demand savings for the studied set-point temperatures per building typology and construction year. Table 7 was obtained by interpolating the savings curve of each building model for every location. Even so, the values per building typology presented a variation of less than 0.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C; thus, an average of the obtained values is presented per climate zone. From this table, it is possible to conclude that for peninsular Spain during the heating season, a set-point temperature of 19 \({}^{\circ}\)C should be required for all residential buildings in climate zones from A to C and 18 \({}^{\circ}\)C for the remaining climate zones. On the other hand, during the summer, 26 \({}^{\circ}\)C could be defined as the minimum set-point temperature for all climate zones, excluding the climate zones without cooling needs. Furthermore, applying this work methodology to a country, regarding the climate conditions and its building stock, enables the precise determination of the energy impact resulting from a regulatory change in set-point temperature specifications. In this paper, Spain was analyzed as a unique case study due to its energy dependence and the crisis it is currently suffering. The savings potential of extending the set-point temperature was quantified for the Spanish reference buildings and was a value that was not negligable. It raises the question: What would be the expected savings for peninsular Spain? Table 8 provides an idea of the savings potential for Spain on thermal energy by setting 19 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 26 \({}^{\circ}\)C as the heating and cooling set-point temperatures, respectively. The presented values correspond to a weighted average, where it was considered that the building stock age had a uniform distribution across the peninsula, 2% of the existing buildings could be represented by the reference buildings for the 2019 building code [57], and the 1979 reference buildings could represent the remaining 98%.