For many years, we’ve asked consumers who they most blame for rising energy costs. And for years, respondents have said they most blame either 1) oil companies, or 2) the U.S. government – with utilities much farther down the list. This year, in light of declining natural gas prices, we edited the question, asking who (or what) respondents thought most affects energy costs. With this change, “blame” shifted dramatically to utilities, followed closely by oil companies and the U.S. government.
Most pertinent, however, is who Americans don’t blame – themselves. Only 12 percent blamed energy costs on their own demand, because 80 percent of consumers think they use the same or less energy in their homes than they did five years ago. And we know this simply isn’t true — American residential energy consumption hit record highs last year.
This incredibly strong “it’s not my fault” mentality creates a huge challenge for energy conservation behavior change. According to social scientist J.B. Rotter, perceived locus of control strongly influences whether behaviors are thought to be “instrumental for goal attainment.” So if the locus of control for home energy bills is perceived to be external, or under the control of “powerful others” (utilities), then individual action is thought to be largely irrelevant. Put simply, many Americans do not believe that energy conservation behaviors will lower their energy bills. And if lowering bills (saving money) is the primary driver for most, then there’s no perceived need or reward for behavior change.
Compounding the problem is the fact that almost 40 percent of Americans who’ve completed energy-efficient home improvements or changed energy consumption behaviors (e.g., changed thermostat settings) said they haven’t seen a decline in their utility bills. An applicable psychological concept for this situation is called learned helplessness, which develops when people take actions to address a problem that ultimately fail, thereby solidifying the conclusion that they have no control.
Learned helplessness often translates into a serious motivation problem. Those who have failed at previous tasks are more apt to conclude that they can’t succeed in the future. According to pioneering researchers Steven Maier and Martin Seligman, “Exposure to uncontrollable events interferes with our ability to perceive contingent relationships between our behavior and outcomes.”
Likewise, the more we succeed, the more we attribute success to our own actions (internality) and the more likely we are to “direct actions toward attainment of desired goals.” In other words, the more we try without seeing a change in our bills, the more likely we are to blame the utility, give up and do nothing more. But if we see bill reductions when we change our behaviors and make improvements, the more we believe we can act to reduce our bills, and the more likely we are to do more.
In order to combat learned helplessness and shift the perceived locus of control for energy, we believe that a systemic disruption is needed. Utilities must accelerate the roll-out of smart meters (and the energy monitoring tools they enable) to increase consumer engagement and education about home energy consumption. Energy efficiency rebates and incentives need to be reworked to reward multiple behaviors and improvements — rather than one-off activities — to help homeowners reach the number of actions required to see a real change in their bills. States and utilities need to more aggressively incentivize residential solar generation, de-couple rates, and make time-of-use billing the norm. We’ve got to shift the perceived locus of control by creating bill reduction “wins” for consumers before we’ll see real, lasting, behavior change.
Surrender photo by Anneka via Shutterstock.















































Good article. Is the issue
Good article. Is the issue demand reduction or greater efficiency? Two seperate paths. Demand reduction is production and focuses on meeting an ever changing environment to ensure there are adequate energy supplies, production capability,reliable transmission and distribution. Energy conservation slows the speed for new capacity and the adoption/integration of new technology. Greater efficiency is consumer focused and economically based good for the bottom line. The concept might not be a simple reduction in percentage used rather an increase in productivity at the given level of energy consumed.
My example might be unique or through consensus data might be a trend. I have completed many home improvements to increase efficiency; a new roof with better insulation, more efficient applieance, new lighting, and I have a ways to go as economics permit. My consumption slightly increased. The efficiencies helped to moderate the growth in my household from both sons moving in after college increasing my household energy use. An increase in productivity (going from supporting two to five).
What’s really killing energy
What’s really killing energy behavior change?
I would agree that we need to change behaviours to get our energy consumption down. I also agree that residential consumers of electricity need to be PART of that trend.
Spending a lot of time at that end by forcing people through prices however, may not make that change very lasting.
Governments and Utilities and Oil companies alike have to lead that change...and those who fly around in private jets don't set good examples. Oil companies and Utilities are made up of people making individual choices..choices like; whether they will flare off gas from a well, spend the research dollars to come up with more efficient vehicles; provide rebate incentives to help people afford energy upgrades; etc. When governments and the corporate world start taking this seriously and put (or don't fight) policies in place that reflect a commitment and need to conserve energy and reduce pollution, then the populace may begin to see it as a little more relevant to their world of behaviour.
Yes millions of people doing a little bit all adds up, but thousands doing worse on a grander scale has a larger negative incentive for the millions to change.
Perhaps the biggest and most effective way to change people is to teach them to stop being so apathetic and to educate them about the issues that affect their lives beyond what they can chat with their friends about which baseball team is best.
Things like smart meters are a technological fix that provides more control and market advantage to corporations (utilities included) than to individuals. The jury has a long way to go on the merits of that one yet.
Skol for change
Gerry
New customers are being added
New customers are being added as the population increases. New electrical devices and loads are being invented all the time. Customers purchase these. At the same time efficiencies are improving, such as higher EER's, more efficient lights, better insulation, etc. Even as the usage per device is going down, the net result is an overall growth in electrical energy. Its naive to think conservation can be used to reduce the total electrical load.