Move it! How an electric contest motivates households to shift their load profile

Abstract

Photovoltaic systems generate electricity around noon, when many homes are empty. Conversely, residential electricity demand peaks in the evening, when production from solar sources is impossible. Based on a randomized control trial, we assess the effectiveness of alternative demand response measures aimed at mitigating these imbalances. More precisely, through information feedback and financial rewards, we encourage households to shift electricity consumption toward the middle of the day. Using a difference-indifferences approach, we find that financial incentives induce a significant increase of the relative consumption during the period of the day when most solar radiation takes place. Information feedback, however, pushes households to decrease overall consumption, but induces no load shifting.

Italian Household Load Profiles: A Monitoring Campaign

“…Based on smart meter data, households may switch electrical devices on and off, within comfort boundaries, in order to handle demand peaks; sophisticated technical solutions in this matter include an automatic system within a smart home [29][30][31]. Further insight into household flexibility potentials is provided by Weber et al [32], showing how an economic incentive (a contest with different prices) can motivate households' electricity consumption shift from peak times to higher RES production hours, through a monthly information provision. Indeed, load management can be exploited to better characterize individual end users in order to implement demand-response programs [8,33].…”

Consumers’ preferences for electricity-saving programs: Evidence from a choice-based conjoint study

“…However, research has also provided evidence that rewards can have unintended consequences. For example, the effects of financial rewards may be short-lived, in that the altered behavior often reverts to baseline levels after the reward scheme is discontinued (Katzev and Johnson, 1984;Weber et al, 2017b). Evidence from outside the energy context shows that consumers who have high intrinsic motivation can react negatively when extrinsic rewards are introduced (crowding-out effect, see Deci et al, 1999;Handgraaf et al, 2013).…”

“…It has been shown that providing feedback is an effective tool for achieving electricity savings (e.g., Allcott, 2011;Costa and Kahn, 2013;Weber et al, 2017b), even though wide discrepancies arise in terms of effectiveness due to different feedback channels (e.g., by post, online, by SMS, or through an in-home display unit) and differences in frequency (once, monthly, daily, or in real time). Darby's (2006) review reveals that savings occur in the region of 5e15% for direct feedback (e.g., in-home display units) but only 0e10% for indirect feedback (e.g., utility bills, including historical and comparative feedback).…”

“…Swiss households consume around 3,000 kWh per year (see e.g.,Weber et al, 2017b). Considering a price of 20 cents per kWh (see the statistics from the Swiss Federal Electricity Commission), the average annual bill is thus around CHF 600, and the bonuses go up to 25% of the annual electricity expenses.…”

Electronic feedback as a tool for changing households energy consumption

“…Nonetheless, for achieving specific goals combining several types of instruments is more effective. For example, both Weber, Puddu & Pacheco (2017), as well as Bradley, Coke & Leach (2016) showed that information combined with additional incentives (e.g. participation in a content, monetary incentives, access to electricity monitoring equipment) is more effective both in the case of reduced consumption and displacement of consumption to the off-peak time.…”