Energy Behaviour and Smart Meters

  • View
    196

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Simon Moser gave some insights into the Austrian experience with changing behaviour using smart meter rollouts. At the IEA DSM Task 24 workshop in Graz, Austria October 13, 2014.

Text of Energy Behaviour and Smart Meters

  • Energy Efficiency & User BehaviourIEA DSM Task 24

    Energy Efficiency and Behavioral Change

    Energy Behaviour and Smart Meter

    Simon MoserEnergy Institute at the Johannes Kepler University of Linz

    moser@energieinstitut-linz.at

    Graz/Austria, 2014-10-13

  • Content

    The smart meter

    Microeconomic theory

    Providing the smart meters information

    Field test results & biases

    Persistence of savings

    2

    m

    o

    s

    e

    r

    @

    e

    n

    e

    r

    g

    i

    e

    i

    n

    s

    t

    i

    t

    u

    t

    -

    l

    i

    n

    z

    .

    a

    t

  • The smart meter

    The smart meter

    Meter readings: frequently or near real time

    Able to communicate

    Advantages when installed: uncomplicated provision of data automated use of and functions

    3

    m

    o

    s

    e

    r

    @

    e

    n

    e

    r

    g

    i

    e

    i

    n

    s

    t

    i

    t

    u

    t

    -

    l

    i

    n

    z

    .

    a

    t

  • Microeconomic theory Asymmetric information inefficient quantities

    Bill: Price and quantity (kWh) per year Price for the quantity (kWh) Quantity (kWh) for the sum of actions

    Missing information: price for one action

    Consumption information based on frequent meter readings: Interval (daily / hourly) or real time consumption = hint for kWh/action

    No evidence on actual consumption

    No price connected (fix price components remain)

    Feedback theoretically leads to more efficient consumption Adoptions in behaviour of energy/electricity consumption Adoptions in appliance stock (which in turn is consumption behaviour) 4

    m

    o

    s

    e

    r

    @

    e

    n

    e

    r

    g

    i

    e

    i

    n

    s

    t

    i

    t

    u

    t

    -

    l

    i

    n

    z

    .

    a

    t

  • Providing the smart meters information

    5

    m

    o

    s

    e

    r

    @

    e

    n

    e

    r

    g

    i

    e

    i

    n

    s

    t

    i

    t

    u

    t

    -

    l

    i

    n

    z

    .

    a

    t

    Medium xy xz Seriousness of informationReal Time

    InformationPersistency of

    impact

    Postal Mail

    E-Mail

    Website

    App (Tablet)

    App (Smartphone)

    SMS

    Callcenter

    In-House-Display

    Meters display

    Ambient Equipment

  • Field test results International results

    meta study from Sarah Darby (ECI Oxford) 2,5 % savings due to IHD in UK households (real life) Rather incomparable to other countries (Consumption volumes, appliances, )

    Region Germany Austria Switzerland (number of studies reviewed = 10)

    6

    m

    o

    s

    e

    r

    @

    e

    n

    e

    r

    g

    i

    e

    i

    n

    s

    t

    i

    t

    u

    t

    -

    l

    i

    n

    z

    .

    a

    t

    Medium < 2 % 2 5 % > 5 %

    Monthly Mail 1 2 1*

    Website 1 4 1*

    In-House-Display 1 4 1*

    Ambient Equipment 1 - -

    Many problems with biases like selection of participants, number of participants, methodsof calculation

    * 11% by combining website, app and mail. However: no provision of n and CI

    Kollmann, Moser, de Bruyn, Schwarz, Fehringer (2013): Smart Metering in the Contextof Smart Grids. Final project report, in German.

  • Biases of field test results

    Participants = persons interested When feedback is provided, they are more engaged than average people Thus the observed impact is higher than what the impact would be in the

    whole/real population

    Participants = persons interested As they are interested, participants had known about loads, appliance

    consumption etc. and had already adopted their consumption patterns and appliances even before the feedback was provided

    When feedback is provided, they are also more engaged than average people but find less opportunities.

    Thus the observed impact is lower than what the impact would be in the whole/real population

    Same starting point, different results only little empirical evidence on biases 7

    m

    o

    s

    e

    r

    @

    e

    n

    e

    r

    g

    i

    e

    i

    n

    s

    t

    i

    t

    u

    t

    -

    l

    i

    n

    z

    .

    a

    t

  • Persistency of savings People look at the In-House-Display for 3 months and then they are not

    interested any more.

    Results on persistency in load shift experiments are ambiguous CONSTANT

    Savings due to Critical Peak Pricing: 12% in year 1, 13% in year 2 (Faruqui and Sergici, 2010) Constant savings in test period (eTelligence, Agsten et al., 2012) Interest remained in year 2 (Smart-A, Kollmann et al., 2014) Manual reactions in response to real-time pricing remained for a long period (Hillemacher et

    al., 2013) Constant participation (Karg et al., 2013)

    REDUCED Participation decreases to 33% after 3 months (Frey, 2013) Many expert interviews mention decreasing interest

    Is any more interest necessary after behaviour and appliances are adopted?8

    m

    o

    s

    e

    r

    @

    e

    n

    e

    r

    g

    i

    e

    i

    n

    s

    t

    i

    t

    u

    t

    -

    l

    i

    n

    z

    .

    a

    t

  • Thank you for your attention!

    9

    m

    o

    s

    e

    r

    @

    e

    n

    e

    r

    g

    i

    e

    i

    n

    s

    t

    i

    t

    u

    t

    -

    l

    i

    n

    z

    .

    a

    t

    Simon MoserEnergy Institute at the Johannes Kepler

    University of Linz

    moser@energieinstitut-linz.atT: +43 732 2468 5658