Browse
Engage
Research
WASHINGTON, DC — It's generally accepted that giving businesses and residential consumers information about their energy consumption helps them manage it.
Combining that information with the right programs -- ones that apply social science to energy efficiency and conservation -- can push people to reduce energy use as individuals at work and at home and make decisions that enable their companies to save as well.
Such were the findings of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which profiled 10 successful programs involving buildings and utilities, industry and transportation for its newly published study: "Visible and Concrete Savings: Case Studies of Effective Behavioral Approaches to Improving Customer Energy Efficiency" (pdf).
"The case studies profiled in the report really show that behavioral programs can be incredibly effective, even outside of the buildings sector, where they are most commonly applied through utility programs,” said Jennifer Amann, ACEEE's Buildings Program director and a co-author of the report, in a statement.
The report also provides a first-time look at behavioral programs at two firms -- Dow Chemical Company which has saved $8.6 billion in 15 years and Alcoa, which has prevented more than 1,814 metric tons of emissions -- and two-transportation related efforts.
Here is a summary of ACEEE's case studies:
1. Alcoa's Making an Impact Program. The company initiative is designed to raise employee awareness that energy and water efficiency are part of the solution to climate change. The company reported it had avoided more than 4 million pounds (more than 1,814 metric tons) of emissions.
2. Dow Chemical Company's Corporate Energy Management Program. In 1995, Dow set a goal of reducing its energy intensity per pound of product by 20 percent by 2005. After hitting that target, the firm set a new goal calling for a further 25 percent reduction by 2015. The effort has saved the company $8.6 billion in operating costs and 1,700 trillion Btus of energy. The company also has avoided 86 million metric tons of CO2e.
3. Kansas City Power & Light's Building Operator Certification Program. Program graduates saved about 9.2 million kilowatt hours of electricity and 35,000 therms of gas while reducing demand by 2,300 kW. Similar programs are now offered in 22 states.
4. Cape Light Compact's and GroundedPower's Residential Smart Energy Monitoring Pilot. The program used data from in-home energy monitoring systems and enabled customers to view the feedback and energy-saving tips online. On average, participants reduced energy use by 9.3 percent, compared to a blended control group.
5. California's Flex Your Power Program. The successes of the program included brand recognition, messaging that reached out to the Spanish-speaking community, collaboration with rural community groups, research-based message development and an online presence.
I am surprised that most of
I am surprised that most of the featured programs focus on occupant / resident behavior rather than true infrastructure upgrades. Occupant education is an attractive way to reduce energy consumption since it is low upfront cost and requires little change to existing business processes / lifestyles. However, there is a real danger that energy efficiency gains seen from occupant behavior will go away over time. This means that a company or utility must continually reinvest and reeducate users. These technology focused approaches also eliminate a large chunk of customers who are not Web 2.0 savvy, and still have trouble programming their VCR players.
I hope that these companies and utilities will leverage the cost savings they are seeing from employee and customer behavior change to make investments in physical infrastructure that has longer-lasting effects. This will have dual benefits of building in efficiency that is based on technology rather than end user behavior and also equalizing the perceived “effort” asked of end users versus the utilities and power plants that provide power. After all, if I switch off my lights but my electricity comes from a 1930s era coal plant that is chronically under-invested, is that really a win?