What do we know about comparative energy usage feedback reports for residential customers?

Panel: 7. Monitoring and evaluation

This is a peer-reviewed paper.

Authors:
Ken Agnew, DNV GL, USA
Kathleen Gaffney, DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability, USA
Mitch Rosenberg, DNV KEMA Energy and Sustainability, USA
Gomathi Sadhasivan, DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability, USA

Abstract

This paper gathers and organizes findings from all publicly available large-scale, independent evaluations of comparative energy use feedback programs in the United States to assess how they have worked and the extent to which those studies validate underlying program theories. Comparative feedback programs such as Opower and Efficiency 2.0 provide monthly or quarterly reports to customers that compare their metered energy use to average consumption among their neighbours. These comparisons are meant to stimulate attention to energy use and adoption of energy efficiency measures and behaviours. The design of the reports relies on theories of behavioural influence that identify validation of recommended actions through reference to the actions of others in a similar situation– “social norming” -- as an effective strategy.

Assessment of evaluations reviewed here yields the following key conclusions:

• Customers assigned at random to receive comparative feedback reports reduce their annual consumption by a measurable amount, usually in the range of 1 – 3 percent, compared to counterparts who do not receive the reports.

• Savings persist and often grow through the second program year, and continue to be positive in the third year.

• Savings increase with frequency of reports.

• Surveys of recipients and counterparts (control group members) do not yield large or consistent patterns of differences between them in energy-related behaviour.

• Recipients find the comparative aspect of the reports useful, but evidence on customer perception of program influence is inconclusive.