PowerHouse dynamics

By Marty Flusberg, CEO, PowerHouse Dynamics

As someone involved with energy monitoring, I am often asked why monitoring should have any intrinsic effect on energy reduction.  I have found that defensively snapping: “because it does” somehow does not win the argument.

For that reason, when I recently again came across the EPRI study that was released earlier this year entitled Residential Electricity Use Feedback: A Research Synthesis and Economic Framework, I was struck anew by the wealth of insight that the study had to offer.  This was caused by a combination of the synthesis of multiple prior studies and the creation of a conceptual framework for the results.

For example, one of the conceptual elements was a topology of feedback mechanisms in order of relative effectiveness, as shown here:

This taxonomy neatly captures a range of factors that impact the effectiveness of feedback, including timing, breadth of information, granularity of information, and the complementary combination of monitoring and control.

Factors that are reported to impact effectiveness are spelled out elsewhere in the report as follows:

• It is provided frequently, as soon after the consumption behavior as possible.
• It is clearly and simply presented.
• It is customized to the household’s specific circumstances.
• It is provided relative to a meaningful standard of comparison.
• It is provided over an extended period of time.
• It includes appliance-specific consumption breakdown.
• It is interactive.

I would like to explore a couple of these in the context of understanding what type of feedback works, beginning with another conceptual framework from the report (actually a combination of 2 concepts) about the mechanism that makes feedback work:

“Feedback has a motivational effect because it leads people implicitly or explicitly to set goals for themselves that they then try to achieve………… analysis suggests that feedback works through a three-step process: learning, habit formation, and internalization of behavior.”

In other words, feedback by itself works because it allows consumers to see the impact of their behavior and take steps to change, with such steps ultimately becoming part of their standard behavior through reinforcing feedback.

Within that context, consider one of the items on the earlier list.  Appliance specific monitoring is important because without it, it is very difficult for consumers to understand the impact of their behavior.  Sure, they can run around the house and turn things on and off, but that wears thin very quickly, and may not accurately tell them what anything really costs in any event.  Telling a consumer that they are using 1800 watts right now has very limited value, because it is difficult to know what that means.  Telling them how much they are spending on air conditioning and their refrigerator has much more meaning, particularly if compared to norms, which is one of the other points on the above list.  I would take that even further; to be really effective it is not enough to tell a consumer what he is spending and how that compares; the next logical step is to let them know their options, and what impact each option would have.  Actionable intelligence is much more valuable than simple feedback data.

As an aside, having the right level of granularity is important.  Devices that measure energy at outlets have tremendous value, but fall short by themselves because they are not able to measure the biggest electricity users in the home, such as central air, electric stoves, electric dryers, and electric water heaters.  Trying to measure every device and every light bulb in the house may be too extreme in the other direction.

One of the other items on the list is providing feedback over time.  This is a logical conclusion from the conceptual framework that says that feedback leads to habit formation and then internalization.  Without ongoing feedback, it would be hard to see that evolutionary change in behavior.

One of the related questions I often get asked is: “wouldn’t the effect of monitoring wear off over time, since people will learn what they need to know, change their behavior, and then forget about it”?  One of the analogies I like to use in addressing this is a diet. Diets succeed when people continue to monitor their weight after reaching their goal (or plateau), and immediately change their behavior if they see their weight slipping back up.  Energy monitoring is exactly the same thing for an “energy diet”.  Besides, things can change in the home over time.  For example, monitoring at the right level of granularity will identify situations where an appliance is no longer functioning properly and starting to use a lot more energy.

Of course, I readily admit that once the newness wears off, people are likely to “play less” with their energy monitoring systems.  For that reason, monitoring should be proactive; don’t just wait for a consumer to come to an in-home display or web portal, but proactively provide performance reports (in comparison with norms or others wherever possible) as well as alerts to problems, such as a deteriorating appliance.

So, the answer to the challenge on why energy monitoring and feedback works is not just “because”.  In fact, the wrong approach to energy monitoring may not work at all.  There are a variety of factors that must be taken into consideration when designing an energy management system, but if done correctly there is ample evidence to suggest that it does work – and can work quite well.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 2nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm and is filed under From the CEO. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.