![Summary of most relevant COVID-19 restrictions during 2020 and 2021 in Latvia [24]-[30].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361122649/figure/fig1/AS:1164160851283968@1654568984478/Summary-of-most-relevant-COVID-19-restrictions-during-2020-and-2021-in-Latvia-24-30_Q320.jpg)
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environmental and Climate Technologies
2022, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 306–318
https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2022-0023
https://content.sciendo.com
306
©2022 Author(s). This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
Impact of COVID-19 on Energy Consumption in
Public Buildings
Anda JEKABSONE1*, Marika ROSA2, Agris KAMENDERS3
1–3Institute of Energy Systems and Environment, Riga Technical University, Azenes iela 12/1,
Riga, LV-1048, Latvia
Abstract – The COVID-19 pandemic has had a great impact on energy consumption in the
world and many researchers have found very different energy consumption patterns.
The goal of this study was to analyse the patterns of energy consumption in municipal
buildings. Altogether data from 262 buildings from 4 municipalities were used and analysed.
Results show very different energy consumption patterns for different types of buildings. In
schools and education facilities the link between Covid-19 restrictions and energy
consumption deviations are visible, but in administration and office buildings it is not the
case. This leads to a conclusion that energy consumption in the buildings is not always linked
to the level of occupancy of the building, meaning that there is room for improvements on
energy management practices and procedures in the municipalities.
Keywords – COVID-19; energy consumption; energy management system;
municipalities; pandemic; sustainability
1. INTRODUCTION
Two years ago, in 2020, a global pandemic was announced by the World Health
Organization [1]. In most world countries, different restrictions were introduced to control
the COVID-19 disease [2]. Mainly the restrictions were targeted to significantly limit physical
contact. Many services were temporarily restricted, social gatherings banned, which had a big
impact on the economy, well-being, employment, environment, health, industry, and other
sectors, and changing transport and energy consumption. Many studies show that overall
electricity consumption decreased in many countries, but in many cases, this happened due
to the decrease in commercial and industrial sector, while energy demand in household sector
increased [3]–[8].
A study that included data about 53 countries and regions showed that total electricity
consumption decreased by 7.6 % in April 2020. However, the results vary significantly from
country to country. It also shows that the stringency of government restrictions is tightly
linked to reducing electricity consumption only during the first phase of the pandemic [9].
Studies of electricity consumption in Canada, Ontario, show that after the pandemic started,
overall electricity consumption reduced and the electricity demand shifted during the week,
compared to pre-pandemic data, and hourly data showed that the morning and evening
electricity demand peaks were reducing [10], [11]. Similar results show a study about
4 European countries: Spain, Italy, Belgium and the UK, where weekday energy consumption
reduced, and energy consumption profiles were similar to pre-pandemic weekend profiles
* Corresponding author.
E-mail ad dress : anda.jeekabsone@gmail.com
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
307
[12]. Another study of the Saudi Arabian case shows an increase in electricity demand in the
household sector due to an increased use of air conditioning and lighting during work from
home periods [13], [14]. In New York, 17 % reduction in electricity consumption has been
reported [15], while in Italy, a reduction in electricity consumption reached up to 37 % [16].
However, energy consumption dropped by 12 % in the Portuguese and Spanish peninsula
during April and May 2020 [17]. In China, on average, energy consumption has decreased by
29 %, comparing a pandemic-free scenario with actual data for 2020 [18].
In Latvia, annual gross energy consumption decreased by 6.1 % in 2020, compared to 2019
(Data by Central Statistical Bureau (CSB)). In the transport sector final consumption of
energy resources used for passenger transport and freights reduced by 12.8 %, but in the
industry sector, consumption of energy resources has increased by 3.3 % [19]. In Latvia
multiple plans [20] and policy incentives have been implemented to reduce energy
consumption and switch to renewable energy resources to reach climate goals [21], [22], but
even though it is expected that the reduction in 2020 and 2021 is partially due to COVID-19
restrictions.
Emergency in Latvia was declared on the 13th of March 2020, strictly limiting operations
in most service sectors, culture, education, recreation, and other services during March, April,
and May 2020. Schools were closed, and distance learning continued until the end of the
respective school year. In the autumn of 2020, the second wave of COVID-19 hit the
population, and strict restrictions were implemented again, forcing many services to close the
operation, re-initiate distance learning and remote working for many. However, since March
2020, most local culture and other education and recreational activities have been interrupted
at different levels for multiple periods and are still interrupted by different restrictions at the
beginning of 2022. Such an unprecedented crisis allows to analyse energy consumption
behaviours and municipal building management practices within very different circumstances
than usual. A study on electricity energy patterns in 289 municipal buildings in Brazil found
that even though the occupancy of the municipal buildings was significantly reduced, the base
energy consumption was considered surprisingly high in almost all unoccupied buildings
[23].
In this article heat and electricity consumption trends in municipal buildings in Latvia are
analysed to evaluate how energy consumption has fluctuated during the pandemic period.
2. METHODS AND METHODOLOGY
Monthly heat and electricity consumption data from four different municipalities have been
used for the study. All municipalities have introduced energy management system according
to ISO 50001:2018 standard in recent years. The main characteristics of the municipalities
included in the study are given in Table 1.
Energy data was gathered by the employees of the municipalities, e.g., energy managers or
other appointed person in charge of data input. Due to human error some buildings had data
gaps or unrealistic data values. Buildings with such errors were excluded from the data set.
After the quality assessment data of 262 different type buildings were included in the data set
for heat consumption analysis and data of 240 buildings for electricity consumption analysis,
see Table 2.
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
308
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES
Number of
buildings
No. of buildings included in this
study with heat data (electricity data)
Total heating
area, m2 ISO 50001
Municipality
1 63 60 (60) 92 276 Certified
Municipality
2 128 95 (73) 262 095 Certified
Municipality
3 28 27 (27) 20 308 Implemented, not
certified
Municipality
4 92 79 (80) 134 885 Certified
TOTAL 311 262 (240) 509 564
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF THE DATA SET
No. of buildings for heat
consumption analysis
No. of buildings for electricity
consumption analysis
Administration and office
buildings 47 46
Buildings of the cultural
establishment 25 26
Schools and educational
institutions 46 45
Kindergartens and pre-schools 53 49
Other 91 74
TOTAL 262 240
To analyse the heat energy consumption trends a data normalization was done to adjust data
to the standard heating season using heating degree-days, see Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). Electricity
consumption is not considered to be climate affected and was not adjusted. Overall data for
four years were collected and used in this study: data from 2018 and 2019 were used as a
baseline (not affected yet by COVID-19) and data of 2020 and 2021.
st ind out.reg
act ind out.act
()
()
Ltt
KL tt
⋅⋅
=⋅⋅
, (1)
where
K Climate correction coefficient;
Lst Standard monthly heating duration, days;
Lact Actual monthly heating duration, days;
tind Average indoor temperature during the heating season, °C;
tout.reg Standard monthly average outdoor air temperature, °C;
tout.act Actual monthly average outdoor air temperature, °C.
Ka
H KH= ⋅
, (2)
where
Hk Climate corrected monthly heat energy consumption, MWh;
K Climate correction coefficient;
Ha Actual monthly heat energy consumption of the building, MWh.
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
309
Deviation of energy consumption was analysed by comparing the baseline energy
consumption to energy consumption in 2020 and 2021 when different COVID-19 restrictions
were in place. The baseline was calculated as mean energy consumption in 2018 and 2019.
The deviation was calculated by Eq. (3), the difference between the energy consumption in
the analysed year and baseline was divided by baseline [23]. Deviation indicates if the energy
consumption during the COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 was lower (negative value) or higher
(positive) than average energy consumption in 2018 and 2019.
2018 2019
12018 2019
2
2
y
n
i
EE
E
DEE
=
+
−
=+
∑
, (3)
where
D Deviation of the energy consumption during pandemic, %;
Ey Energy consumption in 2020 or 2021, MWh;
E2019 Energy consumption in 2019, MWh;
E2018 Energy consumption in 2018, MWh;
n Number of buildings.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia in 2020 and 2021, the use and occupancy
of the municipal buildings changed. From March 13 until June 9, 2020 all schools, education
facilities, and cultural establishments were closed [24]. During summer 2020, most of the
restrictions were removed as the number of infected persons dropped (see Fig. 1). The second
wave started in autumn 2020, and from November 9, many of the restrictions were reinstated
[25]. For example, an autumn break for pupils was extended, and distance learning resumed
for pupils in grades 7 to 12 (or smaller grades depending on the individual situation in the
school). Most of the cultural establishments were closed. Extensive testing was introduced in
the schools and workplaces, reducing restrictions for persons with negative COVID-19 tests.
From December 2020, restrictions in each municipality varied depending on the rate of
COVID-19 infected in each municipality. However, most schools, offices, and cultural
establishments were still closed, or their occupancy was significantly reduced. Restrictions
remained in place until the end of the spring semester of 2021. As vaccination started in the
end of 2020 [26], by summer of 2021, the restrictions were significantly reduced for
vaccinated people [27], [28], but even when the third COVID-19 wave hit in the autumn 2021,
a lock-down was introduced for one month from October 21 until November 15 [29]. Since
then, most of the restrictions have been withdrawn for vaccinated or tested people, therefore,
schools, offices, and culture establishments could open [30]. Kindergartens and pre-schools
have been open throughout the COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021, however, parents were
encouraged to keep the children at home.
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
310
Fig. 1. Summary of most relevant COVID-19 restrictions during 2020 and 2021 in Latvia [24]–[30].
3. RESULTS
The energy consumption trends in the municipal buildings show different patterns. The
results presented in Fig. 2 show that electricity and heat energy consumption has decreased
in most buildings. However, there are also many buildings where energy consumption has
remained the same or increased during pandemic years. On average, electricity consumption
decreased by 12.1 %, while heat energy decreased by 3.6 % in 2020. The average deviation
for electricity is much lower than the average deviation for heat consumption, meaning that
electricity consumption was affected more by COVID-19 restrictions (see Table 3). It is also
observed that there is a significant amount of municipal buildings where energy consumption
has increased by more than 20 %; this would require a further analysis on the causes of such
increase.
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR DEVIATIONS IN 2020 AND 2021 COMPARED TO BASELINE
(MEAN CONSUMPTION VALUES FOR 2018+2019), %
Electricity
consumption
deviation in 2020
Electricity
consumption
deviation in 2021
Heat energy
consumption
deviation in 2020
Heat energy
consumption
deviation in 2021
Average −12.1 −13.4 −3.6 1.04
Median −14.2 −13.9 −2.9 −2.6
Minimum −82.4 −88.1 −95.1 −74.5
Maximum 122.4 268.3 112.2 142.8
Lower quartile −24.4 −33.3 −13.8 −13.5
Upper quartile −0.07 1.54 5.5 9.1
Standard deviation 25.0 34.8 24.6 27.7
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
311
a b
Fig. 2. a) Deviations in heat and b) electricity consumption data in municipal buildings in 2020 and 2021, compared to
baseline (mean consumption of 2018 and 2019), %.
3.1. Trends in Heat Energy Consumption
Total heat energy consumption (climate corrected) in 2020 and 2021 decreased in two of
the municipalities: in municipality 1 by 13 % in 2020 and 12 % in 2021, and in municipality
3 by 14 % in 2020 and 4 % in 2021. In the meantime, in municipality 2, total heat energy
consumption in 2020 increased by 1 % compared to baseline (see Fig. 3). The highest increase
of heat energy consumption was observed in municipality 4, i.e., 4 % in 2020 and 6 % in 2021
compared to baseline.
Fig. 3. Heating energy consumption deviations in four municipalities, compared to baseline (2018–2019), %.
Total heat energy consumption in all municipalities increased in January and February in
2020, but in March and April, it decreased by 5 % and 13 % against the baseline. Similarly,
in October 2020, heat consumption reduction is 15 %, but in November and December, less
than 1 %. During 2021 reductions in heat consumption are low. Only in January, heat
consumption has decreased by 6 % compared to baseline, but the reduction was less than 2 %
in other months.
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
-150% -100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150%
Deviation 2021
Electricity consumt ion
deviation 2020
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
-150% -100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150%
Deviation 2021
Heat cons umtion
deviation 2020
100%
87% 88%
100% 101% 100%
100%
86%
96%
100%
104% 106%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
Heat energy consumtion
, %
Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 Municipality 4
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
312
Fig. 4. Total heat energy consumption, compared to baseline (2018–2019).
3.2. Trends in Electricity Consumption
A significant drop in electricity consumption was first observed during the first wave of
COVID-19 – on average a 27 % reduction in 240 buildings in April and a 23 % reduction in
May compared to baseline. During the summer 2020 when all the restrictions were removed,
electricity consumption in all municipalities even increased in June. During the second wave
(since October) electricity consumption continued to reduce however at lower rate – 7 % in
October, 10 % in November and reached on average 17 % in the winter and spring of 2021
(January – May).
Fig. 5. Electricity consumption in all buildings, MWh/month.
A more detailed analysis was performed to analyse energy consumption trends in four types
of buildings – schools and educational institutions, kindergartens and pre-school institutions,
administration and office buildings, and buildings of the cultural establishment.
3.3. Monthly Heat Energy Consumption Patterns in the Public Buildings
1. Schools and educational institutions. Total heat consumption in schools and
educational institutions (46 buildings) decreased by 5.5 % in 2021 and 5.3 % in 2020
compared to the baseline (see Fig. 6). The highest reduction in heat consumption was
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Heat energy consumtion
,MWh/month
Baseline (2018-1019) 2020 2021
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Electricity consumpt ion, MWh/ month
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
313
observed in April and October 2020, 23 % and 28 %, respectively. The reduction in
April is likely due to COVID-19 impact, as in April 2020 all schools were closed. In
2021 highest reduction was detected in January (14 %) and March (8 %).
2. Kindergartens and pre-schools. In kindergartens and other similar institutions
(53 buildings), the reduction of heat energy consumption was higher in 2020, when
33 % reduction was reached in April, 17 % in October, and 11 % and 9 % in November
and December compared to baseline. In 2021, heat energy consumption decreased by
12 % in January, but in other months when heating is used, energy consumption
reduction was below 6 %. In total, heat energy consumption in 2020 was 9 % lower,
while in 2021 – 2 % against the baseline. The reduction in 2020 might be connected to
COVID-19, as many parents chose to keep children at home. Often in the case of one
COVID-19 positive person in the group, the whole group of children were declared as
contact-persons and were in quarantine. Therefore, many kindergartens worked with
reduced occupancy most of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fig. 6. Heating energy consumption corrected for the regulatory heating season, MWh/month.
3. Administration and office buildings. Total heat consumption in administration and
office buildings (47 buildings) increased by 8 % in 2021 and 3 % in 2020, compared
to baseline. Only in March and October 2020, heating energy consumption decreased
by 2 % and 4 %, respectively. Otherwise heat consumption increased on average
between 1 % and 22 %. COVID-19 rarely influenced heat consumption in
administrative buildings as public officers went to the offices in-person.
4. Buildings of the cultural establishment. Total heat consumption in buildings of cultural
establishments (25 buildings) increased by 4 % in 2021 and 3 % in 2020 compared to
baseline. Monthly heat energy consumption also has increased on average by 2 % in
2020 and 6 % in 2021 compared to baseline. Comparing the COVID-19 restrictions, it
would be expected that energy consumption would decrease at least in the same amount
as in schools, as the schools and cultural establishments both were closed.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Heat consumption, MWh/month
Schools and educational institutions
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Heat consumption, MWh/month
Kindergartens and pre-schools
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
314
Fig. 7. Heating energy consumption corrected for the regulatory heating season administration and office buildings and
in buildings of cultural establishment, MWh/month.
3.4. Monthly Electricity Consumption Patterns in the Public Buildings
1. Schools and educational institutions. In total, electricity consumption reduction of
19 % and 29 % was achieved in 2020 and 2021 in schools and other educational
facilities in all four municipalities. The highest reduction was in April and May 2020,
when first COVID-19 wave hit and schools were closed, reaching 59 % and 62 %
compared to baseline (see Fig. 5). Data of 2021 show that significant reduction
occurred in all months when national COVID-19 restrictions were in place. During the
spring semester of 2021 (Jan–May) monthly average reduction was 47 %, but in the
autumn semester (Sep–Dec) 11 %, which also is likely to be linked to COVID-19
restrictions, resulting in significantly reduced occupancy in schools.
2. Kindergartens and pre-schools. Monthly electricity consumption data in kindergartens
and pre-schools show a high reduction during the first Covid-19 wave when electricity
consumption reduced by 19 % in March, 46 % in April, and 28 % in May compared to
baseline (see Fig. 5). The second period of significant reductions was observed in
October and November 2021, when electricity consumption decreased by 21 % in
October and 20 % in November. In 2020 and 2021, the total electricity consumption
reduced in average by 4 % compared to baseline.
Fig. 8. Electricity consumption in schools and educational institutions and in kindergartens and pre-schools, MWh/month.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Heat cons umption, MWh/mont h
Administration and office buildings
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
Heat cons umption, MWh/mont h
Buildings of cultural establishment
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju l Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MWh/month
Schools and educ ational institutions
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 202 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MWh/month
Kindergart ens and pre-schools
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
315
Fig. 9. Electricity consumption in administration and office buildings and in in buildings of cultural establishment,
MWh/month.
3. Administration and office buildings. Much less fluctuating trends can be observed in
administration and office buildings where part of the people continued to go to work
during COVID-19 pandemic (see Fig. 7). During the first COVID-19 wave, the
deviations are much lower compared to schools. However, in April 2020, electricity
consumption reduced by 13 % compared to baseline, and in October and November
2020, the reduction was 14 %, but in December, it was 8 %. In 2021 the highest
decrease can be observed in October and November –22 %, while in December,
electricity consumption increased by 3% compared to the baseline. Total electricity
consumption in administration and office buildings decreased by 8 % in 2020 and 11 %
in 2021 compared to baseline.
4. Buildings of the cultural establishment. In buildings of the cultural establishment (see
Fig. 7), electricity decreased by 21 % in March, 32 % in April, 9 % in May, and 10 %
in June 2020 compared to baseline. During the first half of 2020 (Jan-Jun), the average
monthly reduction was 14 %, and in 2021 it was 18 %. During autumn 2020, energy
reduction was 9 % in November, and 16 % in December, but in 2021 electricity
consumption reduced by 9 % in October, 8 % in November, but increased by 9 % in
December. In total, electricity consumption in 2021 and 2020 decreased by 9.4 %
compared to baseline.
4. DISCUSSION
Within the last ten years, sustainable energy management has been promoted for
municipalities intensively to improve energy management practices in municipal buildings
and reduce unnecessary energy consumption related to user behaviour. After March 2020,
when COVID-19 brought significant disturbances to the operation of many municipal
buildings, it is possible to analyse the energy consumption patterns and see if there is evidence
of sustainable energy management. This study shows that there have been significant
reductions in heat and electricity energy consumption, but still, there is evidence of many
challenges in energy management.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MWh/month
Administration and office buildings
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
MWh/month
Buildings of cultural est ablishme nt
Baseline (2018-2019) 2020 2021
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
316
Data on total heat energy consumption show that heat energy consumption in average
decreased only in two of the four municipalities. In contrast, others have experienced slight
increase. In the meantime, total electricity consumption decreased in all four municipalities,
which leads to the conclusion that electricity consumption is more strongly linked to building
occupancy than heat energy consumption. It is, however, logical that deviations in heat energy
consumption should be smaller than electricity, as it is not recommended to reduce the indoor
temperature in the buildings too significantly even if they are not used as usual. However, an
increase in energy consumption might mean that less attention has been paid to energy
management and temperature control in buildings during the pandemic. In contrast, partially
reducing electricity consumption might happen unintentionally (lights are not turned in, office
equipment is not used).
When specific types of buildings are analysed in more detail, the heat and electricity
consumption patterns vary significantly. In schools, kindergartens, and other similar
buildings, there is a reduction in heat energy, and in the first year of pandemic, even 25 %
reductions and higher are reached. During 2021 reductions are mostly under 10 %.
Meanwhile, in office buildings, heat consumption in both 2020 and 2021 increased even
though during the first COVID-19 wave, remote working was mandatory as well. It can be
assumed that some of the administration work was not possible to organize remotely, and
despite that occupancy of buildings reduced significantly, heat energy consumption was not
affected. Similar patterns can be seen in data from buildings of cultural establishments where
heat energy consumption has also increased during pandemic years. Almost no decrease in
heat energy has occurred in these buildings, indicating that occupancy is not a factor that
impacts the energy patterns. No cultural events, gatherings, or rehearsals were allowed during
the first pandemic months and strictly limited afterward, meaning that these types of buildings
were mainly empty.
Electricity consumption trends reflect the impact of pandemics more visibly than heat
consumption trends. The first COVID-19 wave is well visible in schools, reaching the peak
59 % electricity consumption reduction in April 2020, when all the schools (1st to 12th grade)
were forced to introduce distance learning. During the next school year (2020/2021),
electricity consumption is much lower than usual, but not as low as in the first wave. After
the first wave, restrictions changed often. Depending on the COVID-19 incidence rates in
each municipality, some schools partially opened, but even though the reduced occupancy is
reflected in electricity consumption trends. Other researchers have found similar results as
well, for example, Gaspar et al. analysed an electricity consumption in 83 academic buildings
and found that due to COVID-19 restrictions the electricity consumption did decrease, but
the decrease during different restriction period were not proportional to buildings occupancy
[31]. In kindergartens, the impact of the first COVID-19 wave on energy consumption is well
visible. However, afterward, the reductions were not strongly linked to pandemic restrictions
as the kindergartens were not closed, and only a few restrictions were applied.
Similarly, to heat energy trends in office buildings and buildings of the cultural
establishment, electricity trends do not seem strongly linked to the buildings' occupancy.
Geraldi et al. has come to similar conclusions, that most of the municipal buildings have high
vital loads or stand-by loads, meaning the buildings has significant impact on environment
despite how much it is used [23].
5. CONCLUSION
The impact of COVID-19 restrictions on energy consumption in municipal buildings is
visible, as, in educational facilities the electricity and heat energy consumption mainly did
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
317
decrease. While in buildings of cultural establishments and administrations, energy
consumption did not decrease as it would be expected, and in some cases, it even increased.
The reasons behind the lacking electricity consumption reduction should be researched more
closely to see if the result is linked to poor management and lack of control of electricity use
behaviour or other factors. This study also suggests that there might be a great potential for
energy saving if the standby loads could be reduced in the buildings.
Overall it is clear that occupancy of the buildings does not always determine the energy
consumption patterns due to specifics of the building use case or mismanagement. Therefore,
much more focus should be paid to sustainable energy management practices. As all the
municipalities included in this research have implemented energy management systems, the
system's efficiency during such disturbances as COVID-19 caused should be evaluated.
This research is limited to buildings of 4 average-sized Latvian municipalities. Therefore,
it should not be assumed that the same trend could be generalized to all municipalities.
However, this is an example of how monthly data analysis can indicate problems in building
energy management practices.
REFERENCES
[1] World Health Organization. (2020). WHO Announces COVID-19 Outbreak a Pandemic [Online]. [Accessed
15.01.2022]. Available: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-
19/news/news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic
[2] Werth A., Gravino P., Prevedello G. Impact analysis of COVID-19 responses on energy grid dynamics in Europe.
Applied Energy 2021:281:116045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116045
[3] Siksnelyte-Butkiene I. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to the sustainability of the energy sector. Sustainability
(Switzerland) 2021:13(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312973
[4] Jiang P., et al. Impacts of COVID-19 on energy demand and consumption: Challenges, lessons and emerging
opportunities. Applied Energy 2021:285:116441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116441
[5] Edomah N., Ndu lue G. Energy transition in a lockdown: An analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on changes in
electricity demand in Lagos Nigeria. Global Transitions 2020:2:127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2020.07.002
[6] Santiago I., et al. Electricity demand during pandemic times: The case of the COVID-19 in Spain. Energy Policy
2021:148:111964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111964
[7] Rouleau J., Gosselin L. Impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown on energy consumption in a Canadian social housing
building. Applied Energy 2021:287:116565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116565
[8] Gillingham K. T., et al. The Short-run and Long-run Effects of Covid-19 on Energy and the Environment. Joule
2020:4(7):1337–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.06.010
[9] Buechler E., et al. Global changes in electricity consumption during COVID-19. iScience 2022:25(1):103568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103568
[10] Abu-Rayash A., Dincer I. Analysis of the electricity demand trends amidst the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic.
Energy Research and Social Science 2020:68:101682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101682
[11] Leach A., Rivers N., Shaffer B. Canadian Electricity Markets during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Initial Assessment.
Canadian Public Policy 2020:46(S2):S145–S159. https://doi.org/10.3138/CPP.2020-060
[12] Bahmanyar A., Estebsari A., Ernst D. The impact of different COVID-19 containment measures on electricity
consumption in Europe. Energy Research and Social Science 2020:68:101683.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101683
[13] Aldubyan M., Krarti M. Impact of stay home living on energy demand of residential buildings: Saudi Arabian case
study. Energy 2022:238:121637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121637
[14] Alkhraijah M., et al. The Effects of Social Distancing on Electricity Demand Considering Temperature Dependency.
Energies 2021:1–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020473
[15] Deiss B. M., et al. Analysis of energy consumption in commercial and residential buildings in new york city before
and during the covid-19 pandemic. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2021:13(21):11586.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111586
[16] Ghiani E., et al. Impact on electricity consumption and market pricing of energy and ancillary services during pandemic
of COVID-19 in Italy. Energies 2020:13(13):357. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13133357
[17] Bento P. M. R., et al. Impa cts of th e COVID-19 pandemic on electric energy load and pricing in the Iberian electricity
market. Energy Reports 2021:7:4833–4849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.06.058
Environmental and Climate Technologies
____________________________________________________________________________ 2022 / 26
318
[18] Wang Q., Li S., Jiang F. Uncovering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on energy consumption: New insight from
diffe rence between pandemic-free scenario and actual electricity consumption in China. Journal of Cleaner Production
2021:313:127897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127897.
[19] Central Statistics Bureau of Latvia. (2021). Gross energy consumption has fallen by 6.1 % [Online]. [Accessed
15.01.2022]. Available: https://stat.gov.lv/en/statistics-themes/business-sectors/energy/press-releases/7129-energy-
consumption-2020
[20] Aboltins R., Jaunzems D. Identifying Key Challenges of the National Energy and Climate Plan through Climate Policy
Integration Approach. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2021:25(1):1043–1060.
https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2021-0079
[21] Tukulis A., et al. Ex Post Evaluation of Large Electricity Consumer Policy Measures. Environmental and Climate
Technologies 2022:26(1):12–24. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2022-0002
[22] Locmelis K., et al. Industrial energy efficiency towards green deal transition. Case of Latvia. Environmental and
Climate Technologies 2021:25(1):42–57. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2021-0004
[23] Geraldi M. S., et al. Addressing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on energy use in municipal buildings: A case study
in Florianópolis, Brazil. Sustainable Cities and Society 2021:69:102823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102823
[24] Eng.lsm.lv. Latvian government announces widespread measures to contain coronavirus. Latvian Public Broadcasting
from 2020, March 12 [Online]. [Accessed 27.03.2022]. Available: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/health/latvian-
government-announces-widespread-measures-to-contain-coronavirus.a351529/
[25] Eng.lsm.lv. Second state of emergency declared in Latvia. Latvian Public Broadcasting from 2020, November 6
[Online]. [Accessed 27.03.2022]. Available: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/second-state-of-emergency-
declared-in-latvia.a380742/
[26] Eng.lsm. lv. Latvia starts COVID-19 vaccination. Latvian Public Broadcasting from 2020, December 28 [Online].
[Accessed 27.03.2022]. Available: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/health/latvia-starts-covid-19-
vaccination.a386870/
[27] Eng.lsm. lv. More people allowed to gather as “yellow” risk level switches on. Latvian Public Broadcasting from 2021,
June 22 [Online]. [Accessed 27.03.2022]. Available: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/more-people-allowed-
to-gather-as-yellow-risk-level-switches-on.a410192/
[28] Eng.lsm.lv. Nearly all services will require Covid-19 certificates in Latvia. Latvian Public Broadcasting from 2021,
September 28 [Online]. [Accessed 27.03.2022]. Available: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/health/nearly-all-services-
will-require-covid-19-certificat es-in-latvia.a423198/
[29] Eng.lsm.lv. Official lockdown information published in English. Latvian Public Broadcasting from 2021, October 21
[Online]. [Accessed 27.03.2022]. Available: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/official-lockdown-information-
published-in-english.a426677/
[30] Eng.lsm.lv. Latvia’s lockdown loosening info now available in English. Latvian Public Broadcasting from 2021,
November 11 [Online]. [Accessed 27.03.2022]. Available: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/latvias-lockdown-
loosening-info-now-available-in-english.a429833/
[31] Gaspar K., et al. Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on the energy consumption of university buildings.
Energy and Buildings 2022:257:111783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111783
