All Issue

2026 Vol.20, Issue 1 Preview Page

Research Article

Comparison of Time-Shifting Effects in Building Electricity Use under Separate Environmental and Economic Optimizations

환경성 및 경제성 개별 최적화에 따른 건물 전력사용 시간대 이동 효과 비교

Seong-Yun Kang1
,
Sun-Sook Kim2
,
Hyeunguk Ahn3*
강 성윤1
,
김 선숙2
,
안 형욱3*
1M.S., Department of Smart Convergence Architecture, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea
2Professor, Department of Architecture, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea
3Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea
1아주대학교 스마트융합건축학과 석사과정
2아주대학교 건축학과 정교수
3아주대학교 건축학과 조교수
*Corresponding Author
28 February 2026. pp. 60-71
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study quantifies how MEF-based and TOU-based operating strategies produce different electricity time-shifting outcomes in a Korean factory building. Using Korean public data for 2020, we estimated seasonal hourly marginal emission factors (MEFs) by identifying fuel sources that respond to demand-driven generation changes and regressing hourly changes in CO2 emissions on changes in generation. The resulting MEFs were linked to hourly EMS electricity use of one manufacturing facility and to the 2020 seasonal time-of-use (TOU) tariff. We then performed daily nonlinear time-shifting optimization of hourly electricity use across the full year under conservative constraints—daily energy conservation, adjustment bounds, and ramp-rate similarity—to evaluate time-shifting effects without reducing total electricity use. Estimated MEFs ranged from 0.17 to 0.73 kgCO2/kWh (a 4.3-fold difference), indicating that identical electricity use can yield substantially different emissions depending on timing. Under the MEF objective, annual emissions decreased by 4.91 tCO2 with an additional cost of approximately 0.70 million KRW. Under the TOU objective, the annual bill decreased by about 2.76 million KRW while emissions increased by 1.30 tCO2. Because the constraints intentionally limit operational flexibility, these impacts should be interpreted as conservative estimates of time-shifting benefits and penalties. Overall, the results reveal a clear emissions–cost trade-off and support the need for multi-objective or weighted decision frameworks that jointly consider MEF and TOU in building-level operation.

Keywords
한계배출계수
차등요금제
시간대 이동
배출–비용 상충관계
키워드
Marginal emission factor
Time-of-use tariff
Time shifting
Emissions–cost trade-off
References
1

Aryai, V., Goldsworthy, M. (2022). Controlling electricity storage to balance electricity costs and greenhouse gas emissions in buildings. Energy Informatics, 5(1), 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-022-00216-5.

10.1186/s42162-022-00216-535915732PMC9328010
2

De Coninck, R., Helsen, L. (2016). Practical implementation and evaluation of model predictive control for an office building in Brussels. Energy and Buildings, 111, 290-298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.014.

10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.014
3

Garcesa, A., Johnson, N. (2025). Co-optimizing microgrid asset sizing and dispatch with building automation and load control. Frontiers in Energy Research, 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2025.1712690.

10.3389/fenrg.2025.1712690
4

Haniff, M.F., Selamat, H., Yusof, R., Buyamin, S., Sham Ismail, F. (2013). Review of HVAC scheduling techniques for buildings towards energy-efficient and cost-effective operations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 27, 94-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.041.

10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.041
5

Hawkes, A.D. (2010). Estimating marginal CO2 emissions rates for national electricity systems. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5977-5987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.053.

10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.053
6

Hawkes, A.D. (2014). Long-run marginal CO2 emissions factors in national electricity systems. Applied Energy, 125, 197-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.060.

10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.060
7

Li, J., Wang, G., Wang, X., Du, Y. (2023). Smart charging strategy for electric vehicles based on marginal carbon emission factors and time-of-use price. Sustainable Cities and Society, 96, 104708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104708.

10.1016/j.scs.2023.104708
8

Li, M., Smith, T.M., Yang, Y., Wilson, E.J. (2017). Marginal Emission Factors Considering Renewables: A Case Study of the U.S. Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) System. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(19), 11215-11223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00034.

10.1021/acs.est.7b00034
9

Oldewurtel, F., Parisio, A., Jones, C.N., Gyalistras, D., Gwerder, M., Stauch, V., Lehmann, B., Morari, M. (2012). Use of model predictive control and weather forecasts for energy efficient building climate control. Energy and Buildings, 45, 15-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.022.

10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.022
10

Siler-Evans, K., Azevedo, I.L., Morgan, M.G. (2012). Marginal Emissions Factors for the U.S. Electricity System. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(9), 4742-4748. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es300145v.

10.1021/es300145v
11

Stoll, P., Brandt, N., Nordström, L. (2014). Including dynamic CO2 intensity with demand response. Energy Policy, 65, 490-500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.044.

10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.044
12

Thind, M.P.S., Wilson, E.J., Azevedo, I.L., Marshall, J.D. (2017). Marginal Emissions Factors for Electricity Generation in the Midcontinent ISO. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(24), 14445-14452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03047.

10.1021/acs.est.7b03047
13

Zhang, H., Xiao, F., Zhang, C., Li, R. (2023). A multi-agent system based coordinated multi-objective optimal load scheduling strategy using marginal emission factors for building cluster demand response. Energy and Buildings, 281, 112765. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112765.

10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112765
14

Zohrabian, A., Mayes, S., Sanders, K.T. (2023). A data-driven framework for quantifying consumption-based monthly and hourly marginal emissions factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 396, 136296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136296.

10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136296
15

Kang, S., Kim, S., Ahn, H. (2025). Marginal Emission Factors (MEFs)-based electricity load optimization for various building types. Proceedings of Building Simulation 2025: 19th Conference of the International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2025.1399.

10.26868/25222708.2025.1399
16

Greenhouse Gas Inventory & Research Center of Korea (GIR). (2019). Announcement of the 2018 approved country-specific greenhouse gas emission and removal factors. Available at: https://www.gir.go.kr/home/board/read.do?boardCategoryId=&boardId=44&boardMasterId=2&maxIndexPages=10&maxPageItems=10&menuId=36&pagerOffset=0&searchKey=&searchValue= [Accessed on 10/11/2025].

17

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Volume 2—Energy. Chapter 2: Stationary combustion. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Available at: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf [Accessed on 10/11/2025].

18

Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO). (2019). Electricity tariff table (effective July 1, 2019). Available at: https://online.kepco.co.kr/PRM025D00 [Accessed on 06/12/2025].

19

Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO). (2021). Korea Electric Power Statistics (2021 ed., No. 90). Author. Available at: https://www.kepco.co.kr/home/customer/library/electricity-statistics/kepco-stats/boardList.do [Accessed on 10/11/2025].

20

Korea Power Exchange (KPE). (2021). Fuel-type electricity transaction data (2020). Available at: https://www.data.go.kr/data/15081098/fileData.do [Accessed on 10/11/2025].

21

Ministry of Environment (MOE). (2024). National greenhouse gas inventory document of the Republic of Korea 2024. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Research Center (GIR). Available at: https://www.gir.go.kr/home/board/read.do?pagerOffset=0&maxPageItems=10&maxIndexPages=10&searchKey=&searchValue=&menuId=36&boardId=84&boardMasterId=2&boardCategoryId= [Accessed on 10/11/2025].

22

Ministry of Environment (MOE). (2025, February 7). Guidelines on reporting and certification of emissions under the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme (Notice No. 2025-28) [Annex 11: Default calorific values by fuel type based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines]. Available at: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/admRulLsInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000254380 [Accessed on 10/11/2025].

23

Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE). (2017). Energy calorific value conversion standards (Appendix to the Enforcement Rule of the Energy Act, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy Ordinance No. 281, effective Dec 28, 2017). Korea Law Information Center. Available at: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=208729&ancYd=20190522&ancNo=00335&efYd=20190522&nwJoYnInfo=N&efGubun=Y&chrClsCd=010202&ancYnChk=0#0000 [Accessed on 10/11/2025].

Information
  • Publisher :Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국건축친환경설비학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국건축친환경설비학회논문집
  • Volume : 20
  • No :1
  • Pages :60-71
  • Received Date : 2025-12-24
  • Revised Date : 2026-01-08
  • Accepted Date : 2026-01-14
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.22696/jkiaebs.20260006
Journal Informaiton Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
Manuscript Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close