How to get the birds in the bush into your hand: Results from a Danish research project on electricity savings

How to get the birds in the bush into your hand

Results from a Danish research project on electricity savings

Lene Nielsen

An effective regulation o f electricity demand in the housing sector is not feasible solely via changed signals on pricing. In an extensive research project the possibilities for achieving savings in electricity consumption and the barriers to realizing an effective electricity savings policy are investigated. The size o f electricity consumption is determined by a wide range o f factors in a complex interrelationship. Electricity consumption as a whole can be divided into two parts: socioeconomic and lifestyle. Via a multiple regression analysis it can be seen that 64% of the variations in consumption can be attributed to the socioeconomic part o f consumption. Besides differences in socioeconomic characteristics there are also differences in lifestyle which are o f importance to both the size o f electricity consumption and savings efforts. In the investigation, experience in the empirical context has been gained as to how different combinations o f applied measures have resulted in savings. Savings o f a magnitude o f about 10% can thus be demonstrated.

Keywords: Electricity savings; Experiment; Electricity consumption model

AKF has completed a research project for the Danish Ministry of Energy on electricity savings in all electricity consuming sectors. 1 In the housing sector, investigations and tests are carried out on how household electricity savings can be achieved using a variety of applied measures. 2 Approximately one-third of the total Danish electricity consumption

Lene Nielsen is with the Danish Energy Agency, 11 Landemaerket, DK 1119 Copenhagen K, Denmark.

is used for household purposes, although only a minor part of this is for space heating.

Electricity consumption in Denmark has risen at a faster rate than the GNP and this can be seen as evidence that a generally rising standard of living leads to a growing demand for electricity. 3 In the housing sector this principal correlation can be illustrated by comparing the development in household electricity consumption with developments in pri- vate consumption as a whole, as shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that electricity consumption has risen at a faster rate than personal consumption in general and that there is a correlation between personal consumption and household electricity consumption, in that growth in personal consumption is accompanied by a stronger growth in electricity consumption. 4

Economic factors such as income and the price of consumer commodities, including electricity and appliance prices, are items which are included in households' consumption priorities. In the period 1976-89, electricity price has risen at a faster rate than consumer prices (Figure 1); this in conjunction with relatively rising electricity consumption illustrates that electricity demand has a high income elasticity which more than outweighs the negative price elasticity. This development picture thus indicates that consumer demand for a high living standard, high productivity and increased comfort have, in practice, been more important considerations than the environment or resource scarcity.

What decides the size of electricity consumption? The influence of electricity price Available research findings dealing with the influence of the electricity price in household consump-

0301-4215/93/11 1133-12 © 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd 1133


350

300

250

200

150

100

50

E l e c t r i c i t y p r i ce

Index ( 1 9 7 6 = 100) ( inc l . , . ,purchose fox + l e v i e s ) /'""

tf"

.f~

. , . , Consumer ~.-' - ,-" - ~ " p r i ce index

/!'/"/'"'J' /

. . . . . . . . . / " ' / ~ ' ~ Electricity consumption ...... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in housing

consumption

0 I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984- 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Figure 1. Developments in personal consumption, household electricity consumption, household electricity price and consumer price index 1976-89. a "In single-family and multifamily dwellings, excluding those with electric heating.

tion are based on evaluations and calculated price elasticities which involve electricity consumption for heating as well as appliances in general.

The transferability of these findings is very limited when conclusions are to be drawn on electricity for household appliances alone. The reasons for this are that the costs as well as options available to households for controlling and monitoring changes in electricity consumption are substantially different for heating than for other appliances. 5 At the same time, heating costs as a single item are easier to control and monitor than electricity consumption for appliances, which is distributed over multiple uses. 6

For applied economic measures such as tariff and tax increases, a precondition of their effectiveness is that electricity consumption is price sensitive. Dif- ferentiation is made between short-run and long-run price elasticities. Short-run price elasticities will normally be lower than the long-run because during short-run reactions there will normally only be behavioural changes, whereas in the longer run energy- efficiency effects can appear, in conjunction with new appliances.

Nordstrand et al have compiled a table of estimated price elasticities for Danish energy uses. 7 It is thus estimated that price elasticity for household electricity is -0.2 in the short run, and -0.9 in the

long run. 8 Other estimated energy demand elasticities (price and income elasticities for Scandinavia and the OECD-countries) are illustrated in Mills. 9

It is questionable whether electricity price, as such, plays any role in electricity consumption or in the demand for electrically efficient appliances in the housing sector. In households appliances are seen as essential to carrying out household activities. Elec- tricity consumption often comprises only a small part of the total cost of the service in question. Other items such as water consumption and soap powder in washing-machines and dishwashers are also relevant, and, in addition, it would be reasonable to include a sum covering the depreciation of appliances. The cost of an electricity service is thus seen to be several times larger than electricity price alone.

AKF commissioned an investigation of the distribution of costs of electricity services in the housing sector. This showed the following distribution of costs (for all appliances in households in 1990, except lighting): 1°

Electricity tariff 35 % Interest and depreciation 47% Water tariff 6% Washing agent 12%

1134 ENERGY POLICY November 1993

The electricity tariff's proportion of the total cost of electricity services is thus reduced to 35%; this has actually grown since 1970 when it was around 30%.

This relationship, plus the fact that electricity services are regarded as a necessity for households, gives grounds for assuming that the most decisive factor for long-run price elasticity is technological improvements in new appliances, rather than changes in habits and behaviour.ll

The reduced importance of the electricity price is illustrated in a report compiled for Vattenfall by Evan Mills.12 Evan Mills compares developments in electricity price and consumption in Sweden and Denmark (electric heating is of major importance in Sweden). Household electricity prices in Denmark are more than double those in Sweden, and Evan Mills concludes as follows in his report:

Over the past decades, dramatic increases in the efficiency of electricity use have occurred in the residential sectors of both countries, despite a level of declining real prices in Sweden and greatly increased real prices in Denmark. The relatively higher prices in Denmark are neither reflected in significantly lower appliance or heating electricity intensi- ties nor in the availability of more effificient equipment. . . . Demand growth in all sectors has been driven by many non-price factors including increased incomes, structural change, promotion of electric heating, demographic trends, and cogeneration/district heating policies. 13

Evan Mill's investigation has, in some parts of the Danish electricity sector, been taken to mean that a price increase in electricity, for example, via tariff increases, would not have any effect on electricity consumption and should therefore not be used as an applied measure. This, however, contradicts Evan Mill's own conclusions: 'Higher electricity prices are necessary, but are not sufficient to reach the goals set forth for the electricity sector. '14

Electricity price level clearly has an influence on consumption; but price is only one of several factors in the complex relationship which determines consumption as a whole.

In this context knowledge of how price indicators are understood by the consumer is of importance, and this, in turn, is dependent on a number of factors:

• There has been a gradual increase, with an absence of any great public interest or awareness, in the electricity price levelJ 5

• Price developments in other consumer commodities and developments in income level.

• Lack of information and knowledge have made it impossible for the consumer to plan and carry through a conscious reduction in electricity con-


sumption; this has been compounded by the absence of means to monitor consumption at source.

• The electricity price level has actually been of importance for household consumption (shown, for example, by more energy-efficient use of appliances or by people getting appliances with higher energy efficiency), but this has had little impact on total electricity consumption as a result of altered household demand leading to more frequent use of, or an increase in, electricity consuming appliances.

• Consumers actually do have the knowledge and an objective will to carry out savings, but their ability to realize savings in practice is weakened, because decisions on electricity consumption are subordinate to decisions on which appliances are desired in the home (some of which imply a consumption of electricity). The barriers thus lie in the lifestyle of individual consumers.

Many of these factors indicate the importance of consumers' perceptions of saving money by saving energy, which are more influential than the actual amount of money that can be saved. This was also corroborated in a Swedish investigation of electricity savings (Uppdrag 2000) in which great emphasis was laid on these same factors. 16

As part of their electricity savings investigation AKF has sent out a questionnaire to participants in which they are asked, among other things, about their attitude to electricity price and the environment. About 80% of the approximately 1500 participants responded to questions including the following: If you go in for electricity savings, what are the important reasons? The response was as shown in Table 1.

The tendency in the investigation was for consumers to emphasize the personal-economy savings arguments as being important, even of slightly more importance than national-economic considerations. The environment is given priority at a slightly higher level than economic arguments.

Do consumers, in practice, act on the basis of the priorities indicated in the questionnaire? The answer to this is illustrated in the report's appraisal of the investigation results. One of the applied measures was in the form of a tariff increase which was tested in combination with other information measures, test participants thus gaining experience of how savings could be affected.

Electricity consumption and lifestyle

An explanation of the size of electricity consumption

ENERGY POLICY November 1993 1135


Table 1. Replies to question about why consumers make electricity savings (%).

Very Not important Important important

Personal economy 43 50 7 National economy 38 57 5 Awareness of resource depletion 54 41 5 To reduce pollution 70 28 2

Source: Lene Nielsen, Elbesparelser i boliger- resultater fra et ~rs forsCgsvirksomhecle, AKF, 1991.

by purely economic rationales is inadequate. Nor does the inclusion of supplementary socioeconomic factors such as household size, size of house or appliance stock produce an adequate explanation of all the variations in households' electricity consumption.

Everyone has his/her own, individual behaviour pattern. As electricity consuming units, households have an activity or behaviour pattern which implies, among other things, the consumption of electricity. If this consumption is to be clearly defined and influenced it is necessary to investigate what is actually decisive in deciding households' activities plus the way in which these activities are pursued in practice and result in electricity consumption.

The fundamental motivations for actions are needs, desires, values and emotions. In addition to these, various personal and socially oriented condi- tions determine the frames for actions: these frames are economic, demographic and social, and also relate to broader aspects of society such as legisla- tion, rules and infrastructure within the social sector the transport sector, the labour market, housing and the environment.

Out of these frames develop manifestations of values and emotions in the form of behaviour, activities or lifestyle, to which the consumption of electricity is also linked. Lifestyle is, then, a product of the fundamental values and norms manifested via the frames (both socioeconomic and society oriented) that are set for these activities. 17 The question of the magnitude of electricity consumption resulting from households' activities must thus be considered in the light of the lifestyle or behaviour which characterizes the household.

An important prerequisite for influencing and changing electricity consumption patterns is to understand that it is the correlation between many different~,factors which is decisive for the size of electricity consumption. These factors interact and are often difficult to distinguish from each other.

In evaluating the results of the first year's experimental work, an empirical analysis has been carried out of the factors influencing electricity

consumption. In the analysis a distinction is made between the proportion of electricity consumption which can be attributed to socioeconomic factors such as the composition of the household and its living area plus appliance stock, and the proportion which can be attributed to other factors such as the household's norms, values, lifestyle etc. This type of differentiation was based on the desire to isolate that part of electricity consumption which would be susceptible to influence via various applied measures in the short term. It is thus also on the basis of this portion of consumption that the effects of the measures actually applied are evaluated.

How can electricity consumption be influenced?

The question remains as to how electricity consumption can be influenced with the aid of the more easily accessible and targeted energy-political means of management, and to what extent there are, if any, applicable measures that can influence electricity consumption generally and gain common acceptance irrespective of differences in lifestyle. The applied measures can be divided into three categories: the normative, the economic and the pedagogic.

The normative measures could, of course, via various forms of limitation in supply of appliances, reduce electricity consumption if the norms were appropriately formulated. The level at which electricity is priced will, especially in combination with other applied measures, also have some influence. The effect depends, among other factors, on how well a price rise is coupled to consumer information and genuine options for action by the consumer, plus the actual price level. Last, the effect of an electricity price increase can be influenced via a change in appliance prices, in that reduction of an appliance's price can, for instance, modify the effect of increased electricity consumption costs if electricity services costs are seen in total. Specific information and guidance on options for electricity savings can lead to actual savings if households' motivation and savings' ability are on a sufficiently high level.



Motivation - Incentive - Knowledge - Monitoring

I Reinforcing or weakening factors

I I ot0ntia, I IAccoptance Figure 2. Factors determining consumer

Resources

I Accessibility

I ~ ---~ Drive I=l l interest in energy saving.

However, if more fundamental changes in electricity consumption patterns are to take place via informative measures alone, the most basic motives for action (needs, desires, values and emotions) must be affected and influenced. For influence of this sort to work, information must be linked to peoples' individual motives and preferences, these being, in turn, important in determining the household's electricity consumption pattern.

Values worth pursuing in an electricity savings perspective (with the aid of, for example, the informative measures), might, in particular, be in the area of the rising awareness of environmental, energy and resource related factors. 18

Shown in Figure 2, are some of the factors of importance for ascertaining whether a consumer interest in energy-relevant behaviour is present. These factors can be influenced in various ways by applied measures, and in the most favourable situation can lead ,o establishing acceptance of energy savings. In addition to the existence of this acceptance of saving, however, actual potential for savings is necessary, and resources have to be available, or else the ability to mobilize the necessary drive for desired savings' behaviour must be present. These prerequisites can be schematized as in Figure 2.

In this model, the existence of a potential is one of the prerequisites for the achievement of savings. Potential should here be understood in a broad context incorporating technical, economic and behavioural potential as well as potential which - if it is realized - would imply a reduction of comfort level. When the aim is to bring about acceptance of energy saving options, it is emphasized that this requires a fundamental interest in electricity savings.

It is crucial to creating such motivation that there is some kind of benefit, ie a form of incentive must be apparent. This incentive creates, in conjunction with knowledge about alternative ways of action and possibilities of monitoring the expected benefit, a basic acceptance of the savings options that exist.

This acceptance can either be reinforced or weakened by other factors which, in part, are dependent on individuals' general preferences and resources, and, in part, on the surrounding society's influence on these preferences and resources.

Acceptance of the electricity-saving options is not, however, sufficient for the achievement of results. It is also necessary for sufficient drive to be in evidence. To achieve the drive that is necessary, consumers must both have sufficient resources - finan- cial, personal or organizational - to carry out the desired measures, and the technology and assistance necessary to do the job must be available at the right time.

Choice of experimental groups

In connection with practical testing of applied measures for achieving household electricity savings, selection of experimental groups has been under- taken according to certain categories of lifestyle. Selection has been carried out on the basis of the lifestyle categorization of the Danish people described in Thomas Hojrup's book Det glemte f o l k - Livsformer og centraldirigering (The forgotten people - life styles and centralized control).19

The characteristics and locality of the chosen experimental sites are as follows:

• A characteristic area with wage earners and pen- sioners, in a provincial town. A housing estate in Odense with flats (social housing) was chosen.

• A typical area with salaried staff and public administration functionaries, in a borough on the outskirts of Copenhagen. The Kokkedal area with detached housing was chosen.

• A characteristic area with smaller businesses, in part of mid Jutland. Localities with detached housing were chosen in various areas of mid Jutland.

None of the households chosen for the experiment had electric space heating.



Table 2. Distribution of electricity consumption in the housing sector, and behavioural and technical saving potentials (1986).

Technical electricity saving Combined

Behavioural potential behavioural Electricity electricity through and technical consumption savings marketed savings in 1986 potential techniques potential GWh % GWh % GWh % GWh %

Dishwasher 265 2.9 40 15 77 29 106 40 Washing-machine 737 8.1 150 20 243 33 339 46 Spin-dryer 171 1.9 40 25 44 26 77 45 Electric cooker 1545 16.9 230 15 108 7 324 21 Back/white TV 23 0.2 0 0 4 19 4 19 Colour TV 223 2.4 0 0 54 24 54 24 Refrigerator 512 5.6 210 41 220 43 Combined fridge 450 4.9 90 5 158 35 171 38 Freezer 854 9.3 436 51 444 52 Natural gas 407 4.4 106 26 118 29

burner Oil burner 33 0.4 25 5 11 33 12 35 Electric water 948 10.4 142 15 76 8 208 22

heater Lighting 1287 14.1 130 10 952 74 991 77 Heating 1296 14.2 65 5 104 8 168 13 Miscellaneous 393 4.3 . . . . . . Total 9144 100 912 10 2583 28 3236 35

Jan M¢ller, Elbesparelser i boligsektoren, DEFU, Lyngby, 1987. The potential inherent in the parallel introduction of behavioural and technological savings cannot be found by simple addition of the two potentials, but must always be analysed in every case. For example, the importance of an effective behaviour is reduced by the introduction of a lighting technique in which artificial lighting is automatically adjusted in relation to daylight.

The tested applied measures

Before the tests AKF made an assessment of savings' potentials in households' electricity consumption. The questions AKF wanted answered here were (based on 1986 consumption):

• How is household electricity consumption distributed in relation to end-use (appliances)?

• How big would the savings be if all the existing appliances were used in conjunction with the most energy-op t imized behaviour (with no change in comfort level)?

• The size of savings that could be achieved, theoretically, if all the appliances were replaced with the most energy-efficient types on the market (1986).

• The theoretical savings' potential if both of the previous two options were realized.

The results of these questions are summarized in Table 2.

It can be seen from this table that there exists a behavioural savings potential of 10% of total household consumption, and a technical savings potential of 28%. While a realization of the behavioural

saving does not require any investment, realization of the technical savings potential would require investment to replace appliances with the most energy efficient on the market.

AKF has made calculations as to when it is economically worthwhile for the consumer to replace an old, still functioning appliance with the most energy-efficient type marketed. 2° This investigation showed that, by and large, replacing a still functioning appliance with a new energy-efficient one, does not pay. Furthermore, it was found that electricity prices would have to be roughly double for replacement to be worthwhile with appliances less than 10 years old. 21

On this basis, it is primarily the behavioural potential which is the target of the practical experiment. At the same time it has not been the object of this investigation to change the test participants' comfort level, even though it can often be difficult to distinguish between a change in comfort level and a shift in behaviour. Thus we have not asked test participants whether they really need the appliances currently in use in the household, but have instead concentrated on instruction in their use.

Regarding realization of the technical potential,



Table 3. Electricity consumption averages.

Mid-Jutland Odense Kokkedal Number of adults in dwelling 2.2 1.6 2.2 Number of children in dwelling 1.0 0.6 0.8 Dwelling type One-family Hats One-family

houses houses Dwelling floorage (m 2) 160 81 141 Appliance consumption (in k W h ) a 4781 2570 4734 Consumption before the experiment (in kWh)

Per household 5153 2190 5422 Per capita 2358 1523 2757

Consumption after the experiment (in kWh) Per household 4549 2102 4706 Per capita 2086 1433 2241

~Values calculated for appliance consumption are based on knowledge of households' range of appliance types, each appliance being allocated a standard consumption. Fre- quency of use and other behavioural aspects are more pertinent to the discretionary aspects of electricity consumption.

the aim is to motivate the participants in the tests to make sure that energy-efficient makes are chosen when worn out appliances are replaced or new ones bought. The catalogue of applied measures tested comprises:

• General information provided via explanatory material. All test participants have been sent a selection of descriptive material comprised of booklets from the power companies, and other material written specifically for the tests.

• Current information on individual households' electricity consumption via regular occupier read- ings of electricity meters, plus reporting back on developments in consumption and any savings achieved, in D K K for each month.

• An offer of individual consultancy and guidance by a visiting consultant from the power company, who primarily assesses lighting, refrigeration and freezing, electric cookers, washing-machines and dish-washers.

• Consultancy on financing: this was, however, of limited extent in the first test year, whereas in the second and third years a financing arrangement was established via the power companies.

• Increased tariffs under which the price per kilo- watt hour was raised by DKK 0.40 (corresponding to an increase of approximately 50% at the start of the experiment). The participants are, however, indemnified if consumption is unaltered in relation to the preceding year, a compensatory sum being paid in such cases. 22

Allocation of test groups and applied m e a s u r e s

In the preparation phase of the experiment it was

decided that two of the measures to be applied, the tariff increase and the consultant 's visit, should not be included in the combination of measures intended for certain sections of the test groups. The test participants in the three areas were thus each allocated to three test groups in which various combinations of measures were being tried out:

• Group 1: testing of all applied measures; • Group 2: testing of all measures except the con-

sultant's visit; • Group 3: testing of all measures except the tariff

increase.

A total of approximately 500 households partici- pated in each area, and these were, in turn, divided up between the three combinations of applied measures.

The test participants' yearly electricity consumption before the start of the experiment averaged 4500 kWh. Distribution of consumption and other characteristic data of importance to electricity use gave the averages in the three test areas shown in Table 3. The experiment was prepared in tandem with the electricity companies and was carried out in close cooperation with them.

Savings resulting from the experiment

In Table 4 savings' percentages from the three test groups are presented, with subdivisions according to the combinations of measures applied in each and to the three test years. These figures show a total, average savings percentage for the test groups of 1% to 10% (in relation to total consumption for each group three years ago before starting the experiment).

The savings results from Mid Jutland and Kokked-



Table 4. Savings results from the experiment. Savings percentages in kWh for each group in relation to consumption the year before the experiment."

Group 2: all Group 3: all Group 1: measures except measures except all measures consultant's visit lm'iff increase

Mid-Jutland: average percentage Year 1 10 7 7 Year 2 10 8 6 Year 3 10 9 8

All years 10 8 7 Odense: average percentage

Year 1 1 6 4 Year 2 2 5 4 Year 3 -1 3 0

All years 1 5 3 Kokkedal: average percentage

Year 1 8 8 5 Year 2 11 9 8 Year 3 12 10 10 All years 10 9 8

aLene Nielsen, Klaus Jlargensen and J~rgen Jordal Jg~rgensen, Elbesparelser i boligsektoren-afsluttende rapport, AKF, 1992, p 155.

al, after corrections, were very uniform. 23 This has made it difficult, on basis of the available data from the two groups, to distinguish one group from the other. 24 In comparison, the Odense group deviates markedly from the other two groups, and the data from Odense are unfortunately also more uncertain because of the high drop-out rate, especially in group 1. For these reasons the results for the former two groups (mid-Jutland and Kokkedal) have been merged in Table 5 and are now collectively titled single-family houses, while the group in Odense is now called flats.

The highest (after correction) savings percentages for the one-family houses are for test group 1 (10%) in which all the applied measures were tested. No applied measures were tested as isolated applica- tions; all the test results therefore describe the effect

of combinations of different measures. Savings for the other two groups which did not include the consultant's visit (group 2) and the tariff increase (group 3), are on the same level (8% and 7%).

Results from the fiats test group should be viewed with caution, owing to the high drop-out rate in the test period. The savings percentages after the initial test year are thus those that are most reliable. It can appear illogical that savings in the group flats are the smallest savings in test group 1 where all the applied measures were tested. The reason for this is that the potential for savings in the fiats group is small, owing to the relatively small number of appliances, a low annual consumption and little influence on appliance type and size in the case of cooking stoves and fridges, these being among the flats' standard fixtures. Moreover, the Odense test group is char-

Table 5. Savings results from the experiment. Savings percentages in kWh for each group of single-family houses and fiats in relation to consumption the year before the experiment. =

Group 2: all Group 3: all Group 1: measures except measures except all measures consultant's visit tariff increase

Single-family houses: average percentage

Year 1 9 7 6 Year 2 10 8 7 Year 3 11 9 9

All years 10 8 7 Flats: average percentage

Year 1 1 6 4 Year 2 2 5 4 Year 3 -1 3 0

All years 1 5 3

aLene Nielsen, Klaus JOrgensen and JOrgen Jordal JOrgensen, Elbesparelser i boligsektoren-afsluttende rapport, AKF, 1992, p 155.



Table 6. Savings results for the whole country.

Group 1: all measures

Single-family houses: 9 Flats 2

Group 2: all Group 3: all measures except measures except consultant's visit tariff increase 7 4 8 6

acterized by small floor areas, small households and small incomes, which can mean that resources for carrying out savings are limited, despite positive attitudes towards environment protection and saving money. Looking separately at the three years for one-family houses, the savings remained at the same level in all three, although with a tendency towards increased savings at the start of the experiment.

The savings resulting from the various test instru- ments applied have tended to be fairly permanent. It is not known whether electricity savings could be maintained at the same level if the experiment were continued.

Two questionnaires were used to investigate whether the participants' attitudes to electricity consumption etc had been changed by the test instru- ments used. The answers indicate that there was noticeable change in the consumers' attitudes. It was not possible to find clear relationships between the participants' attitudes and their electricity consumption or the savings achieved by the experiment.

The experiment has shown that it is possible to achieve behavioural changes (here, to more energy aware behaviour), even without proven changes in attitudes. 25

Finally, the results have been corrected and corre- lated to the national level (comprising all households in single-family houses and flats in Denmark), and are given in Table 6.

The extensive data available from the experiment provide a possible contribution to finding an answer to the question of what household characteristics influence consumption, and how much can be saved through the chosen combinations of applied measures.

With regard to what influences the size of electricity consumption, it is observed that consumption is determined by a wide range of factors in a complex interrelationship, and that lifestyle plays a central role. Consumption can therefore be only partly explained by constant, known, characteristics of the individual households.

Figure 3 illustrates the model which has been constructed to analyse the experimental data. This model subdivides relationships of importance for electricity consumption, and shows these grouped as factors which are not amenable to influence by the

measures applied in the experiment (the socioeconomic factors), and factors which it can be assumed would be influenced. Among the socioeconomic factors are included the number of children and adults in the family, dwelling size and household income. Grouped under 'other factors' are differences which depend on cultural and attitudinal factors, plus factors concerning lifestyle generally. The socioeconomic factors are given in the short run, and cannot immediately be influenced to reduce electricity consumption although income can be influenced eg via taxation policy.

Consumption is also influenced by other factors more attributable to lifestyle as such, like time spent at home, norms and habits. This is the proportion of electricity consumption that can be influenced by applied measures.

Households' stock of electricity consuming appliances is a product of socioeconomic and other factors. This project, however, has limited itself to investigating possibilities for electricity savings without reduction in consumer comfort level. The stock of electricity consuming appliances is therefore clas- sified as an unchanging factor. More far reaching savings would naturally be possible if influence was also exerted on appliance stock itself. On the other hand, frequency of use c a n be influenced via various applied measures aimed at changing the way consumers use the appliances available.

In the model it is not possible to isolate the influence which an individual variable has on electricity consumption, as several of the influences are interdependent. One solution to the problem of the interdependent factors' effect on electricity consumption can be found by carrying out a multiple regression analysis in which the influence of several factors on the variable in question is calculated simultaneously.

The right-hand half of the model shows consumption divided into a standard consumption, determined by the socioeconomic factors and appliance stock (which, as indicated, no attempt is made here to change) and a savings potential determined by attitudes, user habit, lifestyle, etc and on which influence can be exerted via applied measures. Sav- ings potential is here used as a very loose definition for a situation where a household, with a range of



Household

S o c i o e c o n o m i c f a c t o r s

I No.of children

Non- No.of adults influenceable

factors Dwelling size

Influenceable factors Income

Othe r f a c t o r s

Attitudes to elec.consumption

Norms

Consumption habits

Average " - - ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "11

i frequency of use

- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stock of -[/

F elec.consuming appliances

frequency of use

t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 1

Figure 3. Model for household's electricity consumption (short run).

Standard consumption

E l e c t r i c i t y C o n s u m p t i o n

"Savings' potential"

Dev.from stan. consumption

given socioeconomic characteristics, uses more electricity than other households with similar characteristics.

Through the model we can thus explain what proportion of electricity consumption we can try to influence in the short run, and what proportion can be explained by socioeconomic characteristics.

Via the multiple regression analysis it can be seen that 64% of consumption can be attributed to the number of adults in the house, the number of children, appliance consumption and a house's floor area. 26 (See note to Table 3.)

The regression analysis incorporates the following formula to express the 'normal' part of electricity consumption, defined as the constant and non- behaviourally determined proportion of consumption for a random household, as:

ln(Y(kWh/year)) 2.037+0.345"1n (appliance consumption) +0.605"1n (square metres dwelling floorage) +0.192" number of adults in dwelling +0.115" number of children in dwelling + e

where Y is the individual household's expected electricity consumption and variations between Y and actual consumption indicate the calculated savings' potential on basis of a household's given appliance stock; and this potential has to be accounted for through other behavioural or arbitrary factors.

The results of the regression analysis can be interpreted as follows. When appliance consumption rises 1%, electricity consumption rises 0.35 %. When dwelling size rises 1%, electricity consumption rises 0.61%, and, moreover, 12% more is consumed per child and 19% more per adult in the household.

In addition to the parameters included in the regression analysis, the extensive questionnaire material was used to investigate whether any other parameters influence electricity consumption and savings. It has been possible to investigate relationships between the number of employed persons in a household, the number of hours spent at home and electricity consumption. This has shown that there is no unequivocal relationship between time spent in the home, and electricity consumption. This is because households spending very little time at home, have, in that same time, to carry out a great many household activities, so that the effect of income on electricity consumption is evened out.

Last, it has been possible with the help of the


regression model to explain some of the variations in savings percentages. For these the relationship being the savings' percentage, the number of adults, the number of children, appliance consumption, dwelling size, the calculated savings potential and the applied measures used in the experiment have been analysed.

As there is a difference between households' behaviour in flats as compared to single-family houses, a model has been constructed for each of the two dwelling types.

Single family houses:

Savings' percentage -- -91.57+4.39"1n (appliance consumption) +0.192" number of adults in dwelling +0.115" number of children in dwelling + 12.67"1n (dwelling size) +1.87" number of adults + 1.81" number of children +21.77" the household's calculated savings' potential + 1.93" consultant's visit, as an applied measure +4.39* tariff increase, as an applied measure + e

22% of the variation in savings' percentages in single-family houses can be explained in this way.

Flats

Savings' percentage = 6.56 +27.64* household's calculated savings' percentage

20% of the variation in savings' percentages in flats can be explained in this way.

1AKF is the Institute of Local Government Studies, Denmark. 2Electricity consumption for radiant heating is omitted from the investigation; consumption for other heating purposes (ie circula- tion pumps, electric water heaters and portable convectors) is included. 3The correlation between rising GNP and electricity consumption is documented for a number of industrialized countries. See eg Stephen Meyers, Electricity Consumption in 13 Major Developing Countries in 1980-87, Research note, Lawrence Berkeley Labora- tory, September 1989, and M. Friedrichs and E. Unterwurzacher, 'International electricity end-use efficiency: an international over- view', Paper presented at the Seminar on Energy Conservation in Nordic Countries, Oslo, 23-24 October 1989.


4For household electric appliances, a saturation point may have been reached which for some appliance types will lead to stagnat- ing or even falling consumption, taking into account the fact that new appliances are more energy effective than old or worn out ones. The reason for constantly rising electricity consumption (although it has stagnated somewhat in the last few years while total personal consumption fell), may be found in the overall increase in appliance stock (more small appliances and the appearance of new appliance types), plus changing utilization requirements for appliances (new and more functions performed with the aid of electric appliances). It is estimated that about half the increase in consumption between 1980 and 1986 can be attributed to greater frequency in use. Additionally, the fact that the size of households in the period in question has decreased is part of the reason for the rising electricity consumption, in that growth in the overall number of housing units is accompanied by a greater aggregate stock of the basic household appliances. (The number of housing units has risen by 13% between 1977 and 1988, while population in the same period has only risen by 1%, this corresponding to a decrease in the size of the average household from 2.5 persons in 1977 to 2.2 in 1988.) 5Heating costs can normally be double the cost of electricity. 6Heating consumption is closely tied to housing standard, size and external temperature, and is, furthermore, subject to behaviour oriented variations, mainly in connection with the household's comfort standards (room temperature, hot water demand etc). Electricity consumption for appliances is, on the other hand, much less dependent on the house's particular characteristics than it is on the other factors, such as the household's group size, group structure and requirements or lifestyle. Nordstrand et al, Salg af kollektiv energi, AKF, 1984, also have reservations about the estimated price elasticities, and conclude that electricity use in heating can be considered much more elastic than in uses for appliances. 71bid. SHere, own price elasticity should be understood as a price change confined to the energy form in question. The limited portion of electricity consumption used in Denmark for direct electric heating is, however, included. 9Evan Mills, An End-Use Perspective of Electricity Price Respon- siveness, Lund University/Vattenfall, 1989, Table A-l , pp A1 to A3. 1°Jan M¢ller, Udgifter til el@nester i boligsektoren, Teknisk Rapport 291, DEFU, 1991. 11See Anders Larsen, Joergen Jordal-Joergensen, Klaus Joergen- sen, Lene Nielsen, Mogens Pedersen, Mikael Togeby, Virkemid- let og elbes pare set, AKF, 1993. Here, it is questioned whether the demand for appliances with better electrical efficiency arose as the result of another demand, i e a desire to reduce energy consumption. Instead, it is assumed that product development in more electrically efficient appliances has come about spon- taneously as a result of the general technological development. 120p cit, Ref 9. lalbid, p iii. 14Ibid, p 122. 15Experience has shown that when the price of oil is raised by degrees and the rate is slow, there is no effect on consumption; see J.F. Willenbourg and R.E. Pitts, 'Gasoline prices: their effect on consumer behaviour and attitudes', Journal of Marketing, Vol 41, 1977, pp 24-31. 16Vattenfall (Paivi Koljonen and Dennis Waltin), Prisupplevelses- studie, Stockholm, 1989. 17The systematization described is discussed in Sarita Bartlett, Dianne Hawk, Lee Schipper and Edward Vine, 'Linking lifestyles and energy use: a matter of time?', in Annual Review and Energy, No 14, November 1989. 18It is possible that within a household there are individuals with various different motives and value orientations. This can be related to, for example, generation differences in a household. The effect of an applied measure, which is addressed to a household in a general way, can therefore easily be weakened by such interdependent differences within the household, and, at



worst, not work at all. We have chosen to retain the household as a unit of analysis and have thus debarred ourselves from going more specifically into the social and psychological processes taking place outside the household unit. The lifestyle oriented characteristics which are involved here, will therefore take the household as their level of analysis.

This limitation implies an analytical gap which may well be of some importance for the targeting of applied measures. On the other hand, it may be assumed that several common values and attitudes etc exist within a household to justify the chosen limitation. On the basis of an economics and planning point of view, it would obviously be extremely resource-demanding if applied measures had to be shaped in different ways to suit the various different members of the individual households. Con- versely, it could be relevant to investigate how variation within the household's structure weakens or reinforces the effect of applied measures. Additionally, on basis of such an investigation, better targeted initiatives could be considered and addressed in a direct way to specific groups or individuals who have shown a common values orientation. 19Thomas Herjup, 'Det glemte folk', Institut for Folkelivsfors- kning, Statens Byggeforskningsintitut, 1983. 2°Anders Larsen and Jakob Wandal, Privatekonomien i elbes- ~larelser, AKF, 1988.

Besides the limited consumer economic incentives for replacing appliances which are still functioning, environmental resource considerations indicate that replacement should be delayed until old appliances are worn out. 22The compensatory sums were calculated for each test partici- pant on the basis of the most recent annual bill prior to the start of the experiment. As an extra perk to participants, 5% was added to this consumption so that participants with a consumption increase in the first year, in relation to consumption measured prior to the experiment, would have a neutral costs balance. Furthermore, it was possible for the participants who foresaw an increase in electricity consumption in the first test year, for

reasonable or natural reasons (eg increase in family size or house floor area), to have the compensatory sum adjusted accordingly. 23This relates particularly to two factors. First, it was necessary to ask the potential participants in the tariff test (groups 1 and 2) whether they wished to participate; about two-thirds did. Those who declined to take part in the tests had in the first year an increased consumption averaging upwards of 2%. We are not aware of how these consumers would have reacted if they had been participants - but it may be assumed that the greatest willingness to save was to be found in those who endorsed the experiment. In Table 4, savings percentages in group 1 and 2 are mean values between two percentages, where the highest percentage indicates the saving which would have been achieved if the potential participants who declined to take part had shown the same savings results as the groups actually participating. The lowest percentage expresses the most pessimistic evaluation, where it is assumed that the group which declined participation would have remained completely unaffected by the experiment's applied measures, and would therefore have had the same overconsumption as was actually recorded regardless of the influence of applied measures.

The other major factor figures have been corrected for are irregularities in representation which arose within the individual test areas after allocation of the three combinations of applied measures (eg household size, dwelling size and income level). In the case where irregularities within certain areas have proved to be a major influencing factor on the size of savings, corrections have been made. 24It has not been possible with the data available from the experiment to clearly distinguish the two lifestyle groups from each other. 25The savings achieved are seen as behavioural savings, as it was shown that households, by and large, had the same appliance stock at the start and at the end of the experiment. Furthermore, it was observed that test participants had not purchased more energy saving appliances than the reference group.


Documents

How to get the birds in the bush into your hand: Results from a Danish research project on electricity savings