The Impact of Informational Feedback on Energy Consumption -- A Survey of the Experimental Evidence

Technical and governance considerations for advanced metering infrastructure/smart meters: Technology, security, uncertainty, costs, benefits, and risks

“…The full benefits of AMI are contingent on how the interval meters are coupled with other enabling technologies, and the ability for various stakeholders to use such technology and information to extract benefits while minimising costs, and the sensitivity of each element (Energy Networks Association Limited, 2011;Faruqui et al, 2010). There is relatively high confidence in the magnitude of benefits from improved network operation and metering efficiencies from AMI investments (Hoch and James, 2010).…”

“…A significant uncertainty is the extent to which retailers will invest in data handling and processing of AMI-enabled datasets and how these investment costs will be passed onto consumers (Victorian Auditor General, 2009). Furthermore, any benefits from residential consumer behavioural change is dependent on their current tariff and payment methods, and the characteristics of the required behavioural changes themselves (Faruqui et al, 2010;Hoch and James, 2010). Therefore, it is clear that the scale of AMI investments are an almost unprecedented challenge to energy policymakers.…”

“…Therefore, energy retailers are unlikely to be motivated participants in an AMI roll-out if it is led by the network utility. Furthermore, a highly sensitive component of AMI CBAs are the level of consumer behaviour change, as it is often location dependent, yet is generally very small in terms of energy savings (<10 -<5%) (Faruqui et al, 2010). As such, the market value from residential consumer behaviour change is highly sensitive to assumptions regarding the level of eventual penetration and firmness (Faruqui et al, 2010;Hoch and James, 2010).…”

Energy monitoring as a practice: Investigating use of the iMeasure online energy feedback tool

“…Alahmad et al, 2012;Buchanan et al, 2015Buchanan et al, , 2014Faruqui et al, 2010;Hargreaves et al, 2013Hargreaves et al, , 2010McKerracher and Torriti, 2013;Wood and Newborough, 2007). But in exploring quantitative energy feedback, there has been relatively little research on non-automated energy feedback, which can require personal input of data.…”

A study on the effect of ground surface boundary conditions in modelling shallow ground heat exchangers

“…Based the review of over 200 TOU trials, it found that total energy consumption for TOU projects with some kind of energy feedback was lower by 4% whereas those without energy feedback saw 1% increase in total energy use, and that reduction in peak electricity use in TOU projects with energy feedback is on average 40% higher than those without any form of feedback. Similarly Faruqui et al, discovered in their review of international IHD programmes that the average rate of energy saving in these programmes is around 7% if prepayment is not involved, and that IHDs have the potential of enhancing 'the impact of time-of-use rates' (Faruqui et al, 2010(Faruqui et al, : p.1598(Faruqui et al, -1608. Besides such quantitative assessments of the impacts of energy feedback on energy use, other scholars employ more qualitative approach to understanding of the process whereby energy feedback promotes demand reduction, thus underlining the socio-technical underpinnings of energy feedback (Hargreaves et al, 2010: p.6111-6119).…”