Residential Feedback 

Devices and Programs: 

Opportunities for Natural Gas 

R. Kerr and M. Tondro

Building America Partnership for Improved Residential 

Construction (BA-PIRC)

December 2012 
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the 

United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency 

thereof, nor any of their employees, subcontractors, or affiliated partners makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the 

accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. 

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade 

name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply 

its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or 

any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not 

necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency 

thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

Residential Feedback Devices and Programs: Opportunities for 

Natural Gas

Prepared for: 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America Program 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

15013 Denver West Parkway 

Golden, CO 80401 

NREL Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 

Prepared by: 

Ryan Kerr and Meredith Tondro

Gas Technology Institute for 

Building America Partnership for Improved Residential Construction 

1679 Clearlake Road 

Cocoa, Florida 32922-5703 

NREL Technical Monitor: Stacey Rothgeb 

Prepared under subcontract #: KNDJ-0-40339-00 

December 2012 
iv

[This page left blank]
v 

Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ vii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... ix

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Importance of Natural Gas Feedback................................................................................................. 2

3 Types of Energy Monitoring and Feedback....................................................................................... 3

3.1 Direct Feedback ...................................................................................................................4

3.1.1 Device Types and Features ......................................................................................4

3.1.2 Benefits and Challenges ...........................................................................................4

3.1.3 Disaggregated Direct Feedback ...............................................................................5

3.2 Indirect Feedback .................................................................................................................6

3.2.1 Device Type and Features ........................................................................................6

3.2.2 Benefits and Challenges ...........................................................................................7

3.3 Design and Efficacy .............................................................................................................8

3.4 Driving Gas-Saving Behaviors and Upgrades ...................................................................12

4 Integrating Feedback with Controls and Home Area Networks .................................................... 13

4.1 Thermostats ........................................................................................................................14

5 Role of the Smart Gas Grid and Smart Gas Meters ........................................................................ 16

6 Total U.S. Energy Savings Potential and Other Benefits ............................................................... 17

7 Integrating Gas in Residential Energy Monitoring.......................................................................... 18

7.1 Technical, Design, and Program Challenges .....................................................................18

7.2 Distribution Channels ........................................................................................................22

7.3 High Priority Gas Feedback Options .................................................................................23

7.3.1 Priority Gas Option: Enhanced Billing ..................................................................23

7.3.2 Priority Gas Option: Advanced Thermostats .........................................................24

7.3.3 Priority Gas Option: AMI-Driven Usage Alerts ....................................................25

7.4 Cost Comparisons ..............................................................................................................25

8 Conclusions and Future Research ................................................................................................... 30

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................ 32

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................ 33

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................ 34

Appendix D ................................................................................................................................................ 36

References................................................................................................................................................. 37
vi 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Metadata review of average residential electricity savings by feedback type ..................... 1

Figure 2. U.S. gas energy efficiency program budgets, 2007-2011 ....................................................... 2

Figure 3. 2010 residential fuel mix and 2010 end-use splits for residential gas use ........................... 3

Figure 4. Home Area Network (HAN) for home energy management.................................................. 13

Figure 5. Nest thermostat......................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6. Modeled estimate of U.S. natural gas savings scenario....................................................... 18

Figure 7. Simple payback periods for three enhanced billing options ............................................... 27

Figure 8. Simple payback periods for three advanced thermostat options........................................ 28

Figure 9. Simple payback periods for three AMI-driven alert feedback options................................ 29

Figure 10. Total impact of three thermostats on homeowner annual mortgage and utility costs 

compared to a benchmark home ...................................................................................................... 35

Unless otherwise noted, all figures were created by the BA-PIRC team.

List of Tables

Table 1. Core Variables for Gas Feedback Design, Adapted from Froehlich (2009)............................ 9

Table 2. Key Barriers to Residential Energy Feedback (Electric + Gas)............................................. 19

Table 3. High Priority Barriers Specific to Residential Gas Feedback ................................................ 20

Table 4. Favored Distribution Channels for Feedback Devices........................................................... 22

Table 5. Monthly Mortgage and Utility Costs for Three Advanced Thermostat Options................... 29

Unless otherwise noted, all tables were created by the BA-PIRC team.
vii 

List of Abbreviations

AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure

AMR Automatic Meter Reading

BBEE Behavior-Based Energy Efficiency

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CSR Customer Service Representative

DIY Do-it-Yourself 

DOE Department of Energy 

DSM Demand Side Management

EE Energy Efficiency 

EIA Energy Information Administration

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act 

EMS Energy Management System

EM&V Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

HAN Home Area Network

HEM Home Energy Management

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 

IHD In-Home Display

NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology 

ODC Opinion Dynamics Corporation 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
viii

R&D Research and Development

RFI Request for Information 

RECS Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District

SPP Simple Payback Period

TOU Time-of-Use

Wi-Fi Wireless Fidelity
ix

Executive Summary

Energy use is largely invisible to most consumers—they may notice when lights are on, but they 

are far less likely to be aware of how much natural gas their water heater is consuming at any 

given time. Energy monitoring devices are able to transform the invisible to the visible by 

providing consumers with a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their usage 

patterns. This meaningful boost in knowledge enables consumers to make more informed shortand long-term decisions about their energy use, from highlighting the importance of shutting off 

lights to showing the value of replacing an old furnace with a new higher efficiency model. 

Residential energy feedback has growing interest among consumers, utilities, and researchers as 

a way to save energy, save money, and increase consumer understanding of their home energy 

use. Providing more detailed information about how—and possibly when—a consumer uses 

energy in their home can help identify opportunities for energy efficiency upgrades. Though still 

a relatively young market, residential feedback has focused historically on electricity. The 

ubiquity of electricity, combined with the potential for utilities to achieve demand response 

savings and the high number of electric devices in a home, has made it the fuel of focus. Low 

natural gas prices and a relatively limited set of gas devices in the home have made gas feedback 

a less compelling option. Yet, given that nearly 43% of energy used in the residential sector in 

2010 was natural gas, the lack of development of the gas feedback market is surprising. 

This project aimed to provide a better understanding of gas feedback by: 

• Reviewing the body of research on electricity feedback to identify parallel lessons that 

could be drawn for gas 

• Discussing benefits and challenges of different types of feedback as related to gas 

• Examining commercially available feedback options 

• Identifying three gas feedback options that show strong potential and should be the focus 

of future research and demonstration projects. 

The large body of literature on residential energy feedback spans the past four decades. From this 

literature, key variables to designing feedback that can effectively drive energy-saving behaviors 

have been identified, including frequency, level of granularity, display medium, display design, 

and consumer targeting, among others. Feedback can be categorized as direct (real time) or 

indirect (post facto), and existing research has demonstrated that these two types achieve 

different levels of savings. Direct feedback can achieve whole home energy savings averaging 

about 5% to 15% while indirect feedback generally yields savings averaging about 4% to 8%.1,2

It should be noted that the majority of research pilots have been for a year or less, which means 

there is a lack of data on how savings may change year-to-year. These savings ranges are also 

based on largely electric-driven research, though recent data tends to indicate gas savings are 

somewhat lower. For example, work by large indirect feedback provider Opower indicates 

enhanced billing can achieve annual gas savings of about 1% to 2% while electricity savings can 

be 1.5% to 3.5%.3,4 Direct feedback is also more costly than indirect feedback as it often 

requires additional hardware, which plays a strong role in cost effectiveness of each option. 
x 

A primary direct feedback option is an in-home display (IHD) that can show a variety of 

information, such as real-time energy use, energy cost for a day or month to date, and historical 

energy use, among many others. Commercially available IHDs monitor electricity and even 

water use in some cases, but no options for monitoring gas were identified. The challenge of 

connecting a gas meter to an IHD is driven by the mechanical nature of most conventional gas 

meters, the limited roll-out of advanced smart gas meters, modest to no market pull for such a 

device, and concerns surrounding attaching an electrical monitor to a gas meter. There has been 

ongoing debate about how critical or not an IHD is to providing effective feedback, and given 

the challenges faced by an IHD for gas monitoring, it is clear that non-IHD options should be 

considered. 

Indirect gas feedback through enhanced billing does not offer consumers information in real 

time, but does provide significantly more information than a typical utility bill, including 

neighbor comparisons, tips and recommendations, and normative ratings. Enhanced billing has 

grown rapidly over the past three years, with estimates that about 5% of U.S. households 

received these types of comparative reports in 2011.5 Recent research suggests a paper bill or 

report is the favored medium for many consumers to monitor their energy use, so providing 

enhanced billing would leverage this already favored communication channel.6 

While not considered a feedback device in itself, the development of advanced, Internetconnected thermostats presents an early market entry point for residential gas feedback. As the 

primary control system for space conditioning, which represents the majority of residential gas 

use, the thermostat is a leverage point for incorporating feedback into the home. Recent efforts 

have centered on next-generation thermostat designs, as evidenced by the Nest learning 

thermostat. Given the historical difficulties with understanding how programmable thermostats 

may or may not save energy, the market and key stakeholders (like ENERGY STAR®) are 

placing increased emphasis on good, user-friendly thermostat design. This provides a ripe 

development environment for advanced thermostats, which could provide users with increased 

control, feedback, remote access capabilities, and overall energy savings.

The nascent, but growing smart gas grid infrastructure represents another feedback opportunity. 

Though less market ready than enhanced billing and smart thermostats, gas Advanced Metering 

Infrastructure (AMI), commonly called smart meters, offer two-way communication potential 

and the ability to access real-time meter data. This could be used to develop an alert/notification 

system for consumers regarding their gas use, including warning of unusually large usage, 

providing recommendations, or even participation in an energy savings goal-setting program. 

Natural gas use patterns are highly seasonal yet are not affected by the same capacity constraints 

as electricity, which means there is not the same level of interest in demand response programs. 

Taking into account these unique characteristics, it’s important to balance the potential for gas 

savings offered by a feedback option with the overall cost. Given how gas is used, feedback 

options must make sense from both an energy efficiency and economic standpoint. Based on the 

existing body of research as well as results from limited pilot project efforts in recent years, we 

identify three high priority feedback options for natural gas: enhanced billing, advanced 

thermostats, and AMI-driven alerts. 
1 

1 Introduction

The opportunity presented by regular and detailed feedback to inform individual decisions about 

energy use is strong, though many barriers have been identified. Results vary across research 

studies, pilot projects, national borders, and time periods, but generally the development and 

wide-commercialization of residential home energy management (HEM) devices and programs 

has shown great potential for energy and cost savings, both to the consumer and the utility. 

According to a large, recent review of research in this area, these devices can yield a 3.8% to 

12% savings over total electricity use depending on the type of feedback provided (Figure 1). 

The savings range expands slightly when gas and electricity studies are reviewed, which have 

been shown to result in 5% to 15% savings in total home energy use. 

 

Figure 1. Metadata review of average residential electricity savings by feedback type

(Source: Ehrhardt-Martinez et al., American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2010, 

reprinted with permission) 

 

Research in the field of residential energy feedback has been ongoing since the 1970s. In the past 

two decades, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on incorporation of feedback 

devices with smart meters and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), high efficiency 

appliances, and controls/automation. Other drivers include: 

• Rising capital costs of building new generation facilities 

• Growing concern about fossil fuel-related climate change 

• Expanding utility energy efficiency programs (Figure 2) 

• Rising consumer awareness over energy conservation

• Increasingly technology-savvy consumers 

• Improved wireless capabilities. 
2 

This momentum has led to the recent surge of research in the effective design, application, and 

impacts of residential energy feedback devices and their potential inclusion as part of a utilityrun energy efficiency program. 

 

Figure 2. U.S. gas energy efficiency program budgets, 2007-2011 

(Source: Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 20117

, reprinted with permission)

2 Importance of Natural Gas Feedback

The focus of research is strongly skewed toward electric feedback with much less attention to 

gas. Peak demand issues associated with electricity use have long made demand-side 

management options, such as real-time information on energy use and pricing, a focus of electric 

utility interest. Another reason that electricity has garnered so much research is its ubiquity in 

U.S. homes. Although gas use is also widespread, there are areas where it is either not available 

or less prevalent. 

About 61% of the 114 million U.S. households use gas for any of a variety of applications.8 The 

reasons behind this may be lack of gas infrastructure in rural/remote areas or chronically low 

electric-to-gas price ratios (such as in the Southeast), which result in lower levels of residential 

gas connections. Though less than two-thirds of American households utilize gas, the residential 

sector consumed nearly 5 Quads of natural gas in 2010, largely for space heating, followed by 

water heating (Figure 3).
3 

Figure 3. 2010 residential fuel mix and 2010 end-use splits for residential gas use 

(Source: EIA 2011)

Beyond significant residential gas use, there are other reasons that consumers and utilities are 

interested in communicating gas feedback to achieve energy savings. The considerable growth in 

gas energy efficiency (EE) programs over the past five years has resulted in utility budgets 

exceeding $1.1 billion for these programs, which has spurred research and commercial 

development. As these programs have developed and captured the initial “low hanging fruit” 

such as furnace upgrades and tune-ups, a growing need for next generation gas EE measures has 

come into focus to meet the increasing goals set by regulatory commissions. Behavior-based 

measures, such as energy feedback, can represent the next tier of EE options and have gained the 

growing interest of utilities and consumers. Energy feedback programs also have the potential to 

boost consumer participation rates in other utility EE program offerings by up to 20% or more 

while potentially reducing call volumes to utility call centers.3,9 Similarly, by providing 

consumers with a stronger understanding of their gas usage patterns, they are able to focus 

technological fixes and behavioral change on those end uses that will make the largest difference 

to their bill. 

Energy and cost savings, meeting gas utility EE program targets, improving service and 

customer satisfaction, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are just some of the reasons that 

residential gas feedback is a valuable resource worth developing. Natural gas must be considered 

as feedback research, development, and commercialization efforts move forward. 

3 Types of Energy Monitoring and Feedback

The goal of monitoring and feedback is to provide the user with detailed information on 

consumption patterns to inform decisions about current and future use. This information must be 

sufficiently detailed, easy to understand, and reported regularly (Table 1 explores these design 

variables in detail). This information, referred to here as “feedback,” is generally categorized as 

direct or indirect, with various distinctions underneath these two groups.
4 

3.1 Direct Feedback

Direct feedback, also referred to as real-time or near real-time feedback, provides energy usage 

information to a consumer in the moment. Research estimates direct feedback can yield whole 

home energy savings of 5% to 15% percent.1 Most commonly, direct feedback is conveyed via a 

display monitor in the home. The IHD can be fixed or mobile and can provide usage information 

from the whole house level down to the level of individual appliances. Appliance level 

disaggregation is much less common, and more expensive and complex to install. Many 

commercially available devices offer the ability to monitor use away from home via Web access 

or a mobile phone application. This supplemental Web software can offer additional features and 

details, such as goal setting, neighbor comparison, alarms, or long-term projections. This helps 

the user interpret the data in meaningful ways and can be a strong driver in maintaining energy 

savings and contributing to the overall “energy literacy” of the consumer. 

3.1.1 Device Types and Features

Though IHDs are most common, they are not the only means of direct feedback. Other types of 

direct feedback include: 

• Manually self-reading the home’s meter

• Plug meters for individual appliances 

• Select advanced thermostats that include feedback information

• Novel visual/ambient devices. 

The ZigBee Alliance website contains an extensive list of ZigBee Smart Energy Certified 

products, including IHDs, thermostats, and other products, though the majority of these offerings 

are electric. The features offered by these devices vary, though typically there is some form of 

data storage offered (ranging from about a month to multiple years). A few of the devices that 

offer information on total whole-house energy use can also be configured to display data at the 

circuit level. Circuit-level data gives consumers more granularity in how they view their home 

energy use, which can inform decision-making while also identifying areas of high consumption. 

Devices typically report a key set of basic information, such as current use and cost estimates, 

and some devices include information on slightly more complex variables such as peak use or 

energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. 

Reports have highlighted the fact that direct feedback devices are experiencing a boom in 

development and commercialization, with frequent new product offerings and steadily 

decreasing prices.2,10 Currently, the vast majority of these devices monitor electricity usage 

exclusively. Almost all of these devices are available direct to user and can be purchased online. 

Although there are some early adopters that are driving the small but growing direct purchase 

market, utilities are also becoming involved by offering rebates or launching pilot programs to 

test these devices.11,10 

3.1.2 Benefits and Challenges

Direct feedback generally yields the greatest level of energy savings due to the refined-level of 

detail provided by these devices and their constant flow of information to the consumer. Direct 

feedback also has the opportunity for incorporating even more data if a utility should decide to 

maintain two-way communication between the IHD and a smart meter. Recent reviews of real-
5 

time electric feedback studies suggest that it can provide incremental savings of 2% to 4% above 

the savings achieved by after the fact, indirect feedback, such as enhanced billing as discussed in 

a later section of this report.12 

The key challenge faced by direct real-time feedback is cost. Device price will vary based on 

features, energy types, and consumer needs. Electric-only monitoring devices can range in price 

from about $100 to over $400 depending on design. Basic, off-the-shelf devices can be more 

affordable but the functionality of the devices is often limited (no integration of controls) and the 

hardware provided may not be sufficient to monitor the whole home, necessitating the purchase 

of additional sensors or wires. For devices that provide greater functionality and can gather and 

display more complex information, the cost increases. The cost of these devices paired with their 

relative savings can lead to long payback periods. Initial costs may be further increased if the 

device must be professionally installed. This has been identified as a key barrier within the 

industry and many manufacturers are aiming to keep installation as simple as possible, preferably 

making it easy for the consumer to complete. 

3.1.3 Disaggregated Direct Feedback

Disaggregated, or appliance-level monitoring (also called “real-time plus”), is more complex and 

expensive than conventional real-time devices due to increased system and installation 

complexity. Disaggregated data can be collected either through distributed direct sensing or 

single-point sensing. The most conceptually straightforward approach is distributed direct 

sensing, which is the placement of a sensor on each individual plug or pipe in the home. 

However, research has also focused on the development of single-point sensing, which would 

utilize a single-sensor to assess and disaggregate appliance-level use. For electricity, the breaker 

box can serve as an ideal candidate for single-point sensing, while for gas the meter itself

represents the most likely single point for sensing. Single-sensor systems would have the 

advantage of greater simplicity, easier installation, and reduced hardware costs.

An example of a disaggregated, real-time plus system is the SeriousEnergy Manager by Serious 

Energy, which provides real-time information on electric, gas, and water use within a 

commercial building with details possible down to the appliance level; however, the added 

information comes at a significantly increased cost, with systems costing upwards of $5,000 or 

more depending upon functionality and user needs. This high cost means that unless substantial 

price reductions are achieved, either through rebates or economies of scale, these systems are 

likely to be limited to industrial, commercial, and possibly large multiunit residential 

applications, such as nursing homes or dormitories. It is worth noting that Serious Energy 

exclusively focuses on commercial and industrial applications for their products, which makes 

the cost more manageable for their target customer base given the increased level of savings 

supplied by the system. 

Disaggregation can offer unique advantages by providing high-resolution usage data. These data 

could be used to develop better targeted efficiency recommendations. For example, given the 

high energy use of the refrigerator, the end user may have an older model and may respond to a 

utility rebate for a more efficient model. From a utility-perspective, the increased level of detail 

could be rolled up to better determine which appliance classes have the greatest potential energy 

savings for energy efficiency or retrofit programs and rebates. An ancillary benefit to utilities 
6 

may also include the use of this information to inform state and federal appliance efficiency 

rulemakings by creating a more accurate understanding of residential energy use rather than 

relying on modeled scenarios.

3.2 Indirect Feedback

Indirect feedback provides energy usage information to the end user after the fact. A recent 

review of research indicated a range of electricity savings from 3.8% to 8.4%.2 Far fewer studies 

have been completed for gas, but savings are estimated to be roughly similar though slightly 

smaller since gas use is focused on a limited number of appliances, resulting in fewer 

opportunities for behavioral intervention. Two of the most recent and sizable studies include one 

in Massachusetts and one in Ireland. A Massachusetts utility, National Grid, released preliminary 

results of a gas indirect feedback pilot with Opower, which showed average annual savings of 

0.77% across nearly 48,000 households.3 Savings are expected to be higher if consumer targeting 

efforts are made. The National Grid and Opower pilot indicated that high consumption 

households had an average annual savings of 1.1%—an increase of over 25% from the average 

across the program. In 2011, Ireland’s Commission for Energy Regulation presented findings on 

a gas customer behavior pilot program that showed average annual gas savings of 2.2% to 3.6%, 

depending on the type of behavioral intervention.13 

The current Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) infrastructure and billing used by utilities is the 

most general and basic example of indirect feedback. The usage information is sent to the utility 

via a one-way communication protocol, this information serves as the basis for the monthly gas 

bill, and the bill is delivered to the consumer thereby informing them of their gas use after the 

fact. In contrast, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), more commonly called smart 

metering, is capable of providing two-way communication (the role of smart metering will be 

discussed in more detail below). AMI is able to provide both direct and indirect feedback, though 

these functions have not yet been widely pursued by the utility industry. According to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, less than 1% of AMI meters have been integrated with 

home area networks and other feedback devices.14 

3.2.1 Device Type and Features

Though indirect feedback is more simplistic and affordable than direct feedback, its availability 

is relatively limited. This may be because it is initiated by the utility rather than by the consumer 

(though in select cases direct feedback may also require work on a utility’s part, such as the 

placement of a smart meter). Indirect feedback must be initiated by the utility because it relies on 

the utility’s ability to process raw data and present it back to consumers, or at least enable a third 

party to do so. Historically, indirect feedback from utilities has been limited to pilot projects and 

programs in order to assess the potential for energy savings; these efforts varied from case to 

case, but generally indirect feedback programs have attempted to provide billing information 

with increased frequency, detail, and/or accuracy in order to affect consumer change. Indirect 

feedback includes enhanced billing services and estimated feedback that uses statistical 

techniques to model disaggregated home energy use. 

Recently, utilities have begun to partner with third parties to provide indirect feedback. For 

example, Opower is a private company that specializes in providing indirect feedback to more 

than 10 million households in the form of home energy reports. It is estimated that Opower 
7 

accounts for roughly 90% of the enhanced billing market.15 Opower indicates that typical natural 

gas savings from their program fall in the range of 0.9% to 1.5%.4,16 In 2011, Opower indicated 

that the average cost of their program was about $10 per household per year, depending on the 

particular structure and features of the program.5 

Other vendors working in this space include Efficiency 2.0, Aclara, and Enerlyte. Each of these 

vendors offers different variations of indirect feedback to try to maximize energy savings and 

maintain customer engagement. Some vendors offer feedback through multiple mediums—

mobile applications, online dashboards, and printed reports. Online dashboards may incorporate 

bill paying functionality as a way to ensure consumers are driven to the website. The use of a 

rewards program is a prime example of the way in which consumer behavior and psychology can 

be integrated into indirect feedback to maintain consumer engagement. Financial rewards are a 

relatively unique feature in feedback programs to date. 

Indirect feedback can include monthly energy use estimates that are statistically disaggregated by 

end uses based on hourly weather data, home characteristics (such as water heating fuel type), 

home type, square footage, and numerous other factors. Some vendors implement hybrid optin/opt-out programs by identifying a target population that is automatically enrolled in the 

program (who must opt-out) while still allowing the remaining utility customers to participate if 

they wish (who must opt-in). This helps capture both high energy users that have good savings 

potential and other more modest users that are particularly interested in maximizing energy 

savings. A recent evaluation of a year-long feedback pilot partnership between Efficiency 2.0 

and Citizens Utility Board in Illinois demonstrated electricity only savings of about 6% for opt-in 

users and 1.47% to 1.63% for passive opt-out users, demonstrating just how strongly savings can 

be influenced by consumer targeting and program opt-in/out-out design.17

3.2.2 Benefits and Challenges

One of the most highlighted benefits of indirect feedback is its relatively low costs compared to 

other methods of feedback. Estimated utility costs for indirect feedback programs are about 

$0.03/kWh for the first year compared to about $0.30/kWh for a real-time direct feedback 

program.18,19 Part of the reason for the low cost of indirect feedback is that no additional 

advanced metering hardware is required. 

Though the disaggregation provided by indirect feedback is achieved through statistical analysis 

and modeling rather than direct measurement, this information can still yield energy savings. The 

efficacy of indirect feedback is strongly influenced by how the information is displayed. From a 

utility-perspective, a key benefit of using a third party vendor for this service is that they have 

typically performed field-testing of their report designs to maximize their impact. For example, 

Opower partnered with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) early in their 

development to pilot test a range of report styles, including text versus graphics-weighted and 

monthly versus quarterly reports, to determine the approach with the most customer appeal.20 

The primary challenge to third party-provided indirect feedback is the relative immaturity of the 

market. Vendors have only become more accepted in the industry within the past 3 to 5 years and 

some, such as Google and Microsoft, have cited slow growth as the driver for discontinuing the 

service. Another challenge is the difficulty in engaging passive customers to become more 
8 

involved in saving energy. As has been noted in a number of pilot programs, there is often a 

small percentage of individuals that choose to opt out. A recent study of indirect feedback to 

about 25,000 households showed that less than 1% of participants opted out of receiving gas 

feedback.3 Although programs structured around indirect feedback may be relatively affordable 

to implement, the cost comes with modest energy savings. A review of the pilot program 

partnership between SMUD and Opower two years after implementation demonstrated that 

average annual savings were about 2% to 3% across the customer base with the potential for 

higher savings by targeting high use customers.21 These results are consistent with the reported 

results from other third parties feedback providers, such as Efficiency 2.0 and fall within the 

estimated savings range for “Enhanced Billing” and “Estimated Feedback” shown in research 

literature.2,16 

The significance of these savings will depend on the overall savings goals of a utility EE 

program and how many of their consumers receive feedback. However, recent data reviews have 

shown that most utilities are saving between 0.5% and 1.0% of their overall gas sales through 

their EE programs, which means that feedback can be a good complementary measure to 

conventional EE measures, such as furnace rebates, especially if it is launched widely or 

targeting high consumption users.22 

3.3 Design and Efficacy

Research over the past four decades has consistently emphasized the importance of feedback 

design to achieve energy savings. Though much of the focus has been on electric devices, the 

fundamental lessons about what information should be provided, frequency of reporting, and 

how information is presented are still applicable to other energy sources, including gas. Design 

considerations may vary slightly if the feedback is direct or indirect, but as was noted by 

Froehlich (2009), there is a consistent core set of critical variables.23 Table 1 reviews these 

variables and discusses their previous substantiation in research literature and application to gas 

feedback.
9 

Table 1. Core Variables for Gas Feedback Design, Adapted from Froehlich (2009)24

Feedback Design Variable

Frequency Frequency of feedback to consumers is a strong influencing factor with regards 

to energy savings. Many studies found that more frequent feedback resulted in 

higher energy savings.19, 25, 26, 27, 28 The ideal frequency may vary by consumer 

and device/program, and although monthly reports may lead to higher savings, 

quarterly reports may be sufficiently cost effective.19,29 Given the seasonality of 

gas usage, a key question may be if frequency should vary between winter and 

summer months.

Unit of 

Measurement

Feedback must be easily understood and interpreted by the consumer. This can 

be a challenge as it is difficult for most people to visualize a therm of natural 

gas. Other information, including cost ($/ccf, $/therm, $/day, total for week, 

month, etc.) and environmental effects can also be hard to visualize but 

powerful drivers. These units can be converted or compared to equivalents (e.g. 

number of trips in a car) which may make them more accessible for users.23

Given the limited amount of research to date on consumer response to gas usage 

data it is not possible to say which of these units of measurement would be most 

likely to spur energy savings. 

Level of 

Granularity

Research to date has focused on the effects of aggregated data provided to users 

but with increased frequency or detail. The effects of disaggregated, appliancelevel data have been less well-explored though it is speculated that such finescale feedback may be more effective.23 The level of granularity can be 

increased using statistical methods to estimate disaggregated use based on 

household characteristics and total energy use, though since this is a modeled 

approach that relies on assumptions, there may be accuracy concerns. To date, 

this type of statistical estimation is heavily used in indirect feedback. 

Display 

Medium

The presentation medium affects the accessibility of the information. 

Information can be communicated to consumers via a paper bill, electronic 

display, website, mobile phone application, or a combination of these. Design 

of the medium has implications both for the cost of the device/program and the 

potential energy savings. 

Location This variable is most applicable for direct feedback. The location of a device 

within a home will affect how frequently it is viewed and by how many people. 

A display in the kitchen or living room will undoubtedly get more attention than 

one in the laundry room or garage. Location may also play a role in other 

localized types of feedback, such as a display on a smart appliance. 
10 

Display 

Design 

Limited publically available research has focused on the effect the visual 

display of information has on the overall energy savings. However, it is likely 

that some proprietary research has been completed during the development of 

feedback devices and programs to judge consumer reactions. Nonetheless, 

research from the communication sciences has strongly shown that the clear and 

visually appealing display of the information is critical to user engagement and 

learning.28,30 Research has shown statistically different consumer reactions to a 

range of energy information Web interface designs, demonstrating the 

importance of this design variable.31 

Tips Many feedback devices and programs provide consumers with 

recommendations for increasing energy efficiency and savings. Research has 

suggested that these recommendations should be limited and targeted. For 

example, individuals in apartments are unlikely to heed recommendations to 

upgrade their appliances whereas a homeowner may be more receptive. 

Likewise, providing too many recommendations can overwhelm consumers, 

which actually reduces the likelihood that they’ll take any action at all (called 

the “status quo effect”).32 

Consumer 

Targeting 

The use of basic customer segmentation and targeting efforts has shown the 

potential for increasing energy savings. Analysis of the savings from enhanced 

billing/indirect feedback has shown that targeting users that have higher 

baseline energy use patterns can increase the average savings effect, sometimes 

by over three-fold.16, 19,27 High energy users are arguably the most reliable 

variable on which to target consumers, but research has also indicated that 

smaller square footage homes, homes with fewer occupants, and homes that 

have older heads of house may also be ways to increase the effectiveness of 

feedback treatment.16 Similarly, program design that allows for “opt-in” users 

can capture those customers that are actively seeking more information to help 

them achieve gas savings. Not only does this increase the effectiveness of the 

feedback, but it also improves the cost effectiveness of providing the feedback. 

Comparisons Providing comparisons—historical, normative, or relative—can be an extremely 

useful driver for energy savings. Each of these types of comparisons has its pros 

and cons. For example, the usefulness of historical comparisons (comparing a 

consumer’s use to the use on the same date the previous month or year) may be 

limited if the consumer is still utilizing above average levels of energy since it 

will not signal the need for reduction. Relative comparisons (comparing a 

consumer’s use to the use of other similar homeowners) can be viewed 

suspiciously by users who question their accuracy. Nonetheless, comparisons 

are a critical means of benchmarking for consumers and provide context for 

current energy use. Use of social norms to spur energy savings has arguably 

been one of the most addressed variables in recent research.19,32, 33, 34 
11 

Push/Pull This less clear-cut variable requires device and program designers to weigh and 

trade off the merits of different types of user push and pull in order to achieve 

energy savings. Should the device provide feedback constantly or only when 

usage exceeds some threshold set by the user? Should the program be optin/opt-out or a hybrid of both? How many recommendations should be provided 

to be helpful but not overwhelming? Should goal setting be incorporated? All 

these design options must be considered. 

Just as with the ranges of estimated energy savings, the persistence of the savings varies widely, 

with some programs indicating that savings dropped off after a trial was complete while other 

programs indicate that savings persisted for considerable lengths of time. This variation is a 

function of differences in feedback program/device design, targeting of participants, and the 

length of the pilot. The length of the feedback pilot may be especially important as it must allow 

time for consumers to reshape their energy habits, which will increase the persistence of the 

savings. As was noted by Darby (2006) “a new type of behavior formed over a three-month 

period or longer seems likely to persist—but continued feedback is needed to help maintain the 

change and, in time, encourage other changes”.1 This is supported by recent findings indicating 

that over a multiyear trial, average annual gas savings not only persisted, but in some cases 

grew.13,35 The seasonality of gas savings should also be considered when assessing the 

persistence of pilot programs. 

Maintaining consumer engagement can be a challenge. For IHDs, the initial excitement 

surrounding installation and new learning can fade. Enhanced billing offerings may fail to be 

engaging if the information presented over time remains the same. Consumer engagement is 

important in helping maintain energy savings behaviors and increasing savings over time by 

urging continual improvement. However, customers may also choose to take non-behavioral

approaches to reducing their energy use in response to feedback, such as adding insulation to 

their home. These types of capital improvement approaches will not have to rely on continued 

consumer engagement with the feedback to yield energy savings. 

Ways to continue consumer engagement includes providing sufficiently frequent feedback and 

capturing customer attention by presenting new information.35 In tandem with these approaches, 

the feedback could be presented in an area or medium that is difficult for a consumer to ignore—

such as displayed on the home’s thermostat or placed within a billing statement. Consumers are 

more likely to view feedback if it is integrated with other functions and if it is presented in a 

clear and visually appealing way.35 Utilities should be prepared to amend their engagement 

strategies over time, based on what’s most effective. For example, in a pilot effort between 

National Grid and Opower, a “heat map” of the energy report was created that identified those 

areas of the report that received the most attention from consumers. This can help designers to 

locate areas where consumers are less engaged and target these for improvement. Analysis of 

pilot programs has also shown that prompting users to set an energy savings goal can help 

achieve savings while maintaining or even increasing consumer engagement.2,36,37 

Additionally, the highly seasonal usage of gas may require a unique engagement strategy that 

focuses primarily on the transitional fall months and the heating-dominated winter months, with 

less frequent updates in the summer. 
12 

3.4 Driving Gas-Saving Behaviors and Upgrades 

Designing feedback that is effective in driving gas-saving behavioral change or capital 

improvements is still an evolving field. While the body of research on energy savings potential, 

persistence, and design has been steadily growing, an understanding of which behaviors or 

improvements consumers are making is still in the very early stages. This type of research is 

complicated by the small dataset for gas feedback and reporting challenges. Behavioral change 

can be difficult to track, particularly in large numbers. A common method is the use of self 

reporting, though this requires the consumer to be conscious that they’ve changed their behavior, 

which is not always the case. 

A recent study on this issue by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (ODC) shed some light on what 

may be driving gas savings from an indirect gas feedback program.3 The results are preliminary 

and the authors caution against deriving conclusions for the broader population; however, as a 

recent, well-designed, and gas-specific study, it should be highlighted. The ODC report was 

prepared for the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council to provide an evaluation of 

behavioral programs in the state, including an enhanced billing gas pilot of about 24,000 

households. Behavioral changes and capital improvements (equipment and appliance upgrades) 

were tracked through self-reporting, and implementation rates were compared between the 

treatment group of households and a similarly sized control group with similar characteristics. 

Below are the key findings within the gas pilot.3

 

• The treatment group receiving feedback was more likely to install building envelope* and 

light fixture†

 upgrades than the control group. 

o Of three different types of building envelope upgrades, the measure that was 

statistically implemented more frequently than in the control group was the 

installation of attic, ceiling, or wall insulation.

o Of two different types of light fixture upgrades, the measure that was statistically 

implemented more frequently than in the control group was upgrades to indoor 

light fixtures. 

• The treatment group receiving feedback implemented a larger average number of energy 

efficiency measures than the control group.

• Within a set of low-cost measures, the gas pilot treatment group receiving feedback was 

more likely to install weather stripping/caulking around windows/doors and insulate 

outlets and/or light switches than the control group. 

While these preliminary findings need to be further substantiated and explored through 

additional research, they can provide an important perspective for feedback designers. If the 

most likely changes resulting from gas feedback are improvements to the building envelope, can 

gas feedback be designed to better drive this result? Can alternative methods yield more accurate 

and consistent results in tracking which behaviors change? Can behavior changes be predicted 

based on other factors, such as housing type or location? These questions remain outstanding, but 

may provide a critical piece in designing feedback that more effectively drives gas savings. 

 

* Significantly higher than other treatment group at 95% confidence level.

† Significantly higher than other treatment group at 90% confidence level.

†

†

†

†

†
13 

4 Integrating Feedback with Controls and Home Area Networks 

The future of feedback may be within a Home Area Network (HAN), also sometimes called a 

home automation network or home energy management system (EMS). The HAN incorporates 

numerous household devices and provides significantly enhanced control. Generally, a HAN 

involves appliances, advanced software and network systems, display and feedback devices, and 

the potential for two-way communication with the utility (Figure 4).2 In addition to energy 

management, HAN systems can provide greater control for other home features such as security 

systems. HAN systems range in size and complexity, from basic systems designed to provide 

monitoring and control of a single end-use, such as space conditioning (heating and cooling) 

through a smart thermostat, to a complex automation network that includes electricity, gas, and 

water devices that communicate with local utilities. 

Figure 4. Home Area Network (HAN) for home energy management

The home automation market comprises countless vendors, systems, designs, and features. 

Vendors include Control4, Tendril, ecobee, Greenswitch, and EnergyHub, among others. 

Previously, home automation focused on enhanced controls with energy efficiency features just 

emerging in recent years. As an example, a combined energy management product offering is the 

Control4 EMS 100, which includes software, a programmable thermostat, and the EC-100 inhome energy controller that communicates with any smart devices on the HAN. In addition to 

the automation functions, the EMS 100 delivers real-time energy feedback data to both the utility 

and customer. 

By integrating energy use feedback within a system that both informs and provides additional 

automated controls for the consumer, it may be possible to secure greater energy savings. The 

availability of settings and controls can shorten the “habit-forming” timeframe of the consumer. 

They can view the energy feedback, set the control to manage and reduce energy use, and then 

“forget it,” thereby shortcutting the longer time it typically takes for consumers to form new 
14 

habits. HAN systems are able to contribute both to consumer comfort by actively engaging them 

in tailoring their energy environment and to energy savings by avoiding the need for consumers 

to make continual manual changes.2

 

Although HAN systems have been available for decades, they have not always incorporated 

energy efficiency features. This, combined with their high initial costs, have limited them to 

high-end custom homes and technology enthusiasts. Very simple, self-installed systems can 

range from $200 to $5,000 while complex luxury systems can easily exceed $25,000.2,38

However, as the potential for HAN systems in the broader market has grown, some vendors have 

begun to work with utility partners to develop products that are compatible with advanced utility 

metering hardware (such as ZigBee-enabled communication protocols). Other vendors, such as 

Control4, continue to focus on the direct-to-consumer market channel. Data on the number of 

HAN systems is very limited, though market research has estimated that by 2015, there will be a 

total of 28 million home energy management users worldwide.39 Data on the impact of adding 

full HAN controls to feedback programs and the incremental effect on overall savings are 

extremely limited. They have not been included in many large-scale pilots due to their higher 

costs and because many of the technological advances in home automation and controls for 

energy efficiency are still relatively recent. 

Although the design of a HAN system for home energy management can vary, advanced 

thermostats are a key sub-component worth additional discussion as a potential early market 

entry point for residential gas feedback. 

4.1 Thermostats

The thermostat is a practical integration point for feedback since space conditioning often 

represents the bulk of home energy use. Thermostats are control devices, though they may also 

be strong early market entry points for residential energy feedback, most especially since 

majority of gas use is typically space heating. 

Beyond programming a customer’s space conditioning schedule, some thermostats are also 

capable of two-way communication with the utility, and because of this similar functionality to 

smart meters are sometimes called “smart thermostats.” However, there is no standard set of 

criteria that every smart thermostat meets. This has been an area of growing interest for 

manufacturers. As an example, Honeywell demoed an online energy analysis portal that provides 

homeowners with the ability to view their disaggregated and historical electricity use, set goals, 

and schedule alerts.40 Although this portal is not commercially available right now, it 

demonstrates the long-term trajectory and potential functionality of the market. 

An example of how feedback is being incorporated with the functionality of thermostats can be 

seen in the Nest thermostat (Figure 5). The Nest is promoted as a user-friendly, learning 

thermostat. Generally, installation can be completed by the customer. In addition to the 

conventional temperature sensors, by incorporating activity sensors the Nest can determine when 

a home is unoccupied and switch to an “auto-away” setting. The Nest is Wi-Fi-enabled to gather 

weather information and provide users with remote access through computers and mobile 

devices. Although the primary function of the Nest is for space conditioning control, the 

thermostat also provides the user with an energy history and identifies the key driver behind the 
15 

usage (e.g. weather, manual temperature adjustments, auto-away, etc.). However, the detail 

offered by the energy history is limited and aggregated across the household. Additional 

information and functionality would need to be added to Nest to make it a true feedback device, 

but it represents movement in this direction. 

Figure 5. Nest thermostat 

(Source: Nest, reprinted with permission) 

Some advanced thermostats, such as Energy Hub’s smart thermostat can retail for as low as $100 

while others can cost to up $500.41 Additional installation costs may also be necessary for more 

complex systems. 

Although smart thermostats are being actively developed and marketed as a pathway to energy 

savings, the demonstrated savings of advanced thermostats remain unclear. Prior to the 

introduction of smart thermostats, programmable thermostats represented the advanced 

technology of the day. Initially, ENERGY STAR developed standards to make programmable 

thermostats qualifying products. However, mounting levels of research indicated that not only 

were many programmable thermostats not saving energy, many units were not actually being 

programmed at all and therefore functioned like conventional, manual thermostats. According to 

2009 data from EIA, 47% of households that have programmable thermostats do not set back the 

thermostat during the day when the house may be unoccupied and 38% do not use setbacks 

during sleeping hours.8

 

One of the important reasons behind low usage of programmable thermostats is usability. Many 

people find these units difficult to understand and adjust. Common user complaints included: the 

units were too complicated to use, buttons/fonts too small, symbols hard to understand, unit was 

placed in an inaccessible location, difficult to set the date and time, among others.42 In response 

to this, ENERGY STAR discontinued the programmable thermostat standard. 

The significant usability issues faced by programmable thermostats must be addressed for 

feedback-enhanced smart thermostats to effectively enter the market and achieve energy savings. 

Evaluations of smart thermostat usage patterns can help determine if these barriers have been 

addressed. Additional barriers that will need to be addressed are the relatively high initial costs 

of these systems and consumer education regarding their benefits. 
16 

5 Role of the Smart Gas Grid and Smart Gas Meters

Though largely untapped at present, the growth of the smart gas grid may also offer an early 

market entry point for residential gas feedback, by enabling non-IHD options, such as text/email 

alert systems. 

Conventional gas meters are most commonly diaphragm meters, which are designed to have two 

or more chambers formed by movable diaphragms. These chambers alternate between filling and 

releasing gas, resulting in a steady flow of gas through the meter and into the building. 

Traditionally, a meter reader is called out on a regular basis to read the meter and determine how 

much gas has been used. The development of Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) technology in 

the 1970s changed that by enabling the gas, electric, and water meters to automatically collect 

and transmit usage and diagnostic data from the meter to the utility. Some AMR technologies 

still require a meter reader to walk or drive by the meter in order to pick-up the low-power 

transmission of the meter, but it greatly expedites the process of meter reading. Alternately, fixed 

network AMR technologies rely on the installation of permanent infrastructure to collect and 

transmit the meter signals through a network back to the utility without requiring a meter reader.

The next technological leap was Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), also called smart 

metering, which enables two-way communication between the gas meter and the utility. While 

AMR technology relies on one-way communication of data from the gas meter to the utility, 

AMI enables the utility to send data to the meter. In 2010 smart gas meters were estimated to 

account for about 4.1% of total U.S. gas meters.43 

Providing energy use feedback does not require a smart meter. Many of the direct feedback 

devices that provide data on electric usage can simply be connected to the circuit breaker in the 

home and do not have to intimately interact with the meter itself. However, there are very few 

direct feedback devices that offer the ability to monitor gas usage and many of these are limited 

to prototype designs or are only available outside the United States. Some of these designs are 

able to operate with conventional meters, such as the prototype GasSense monitoring system, 

while others require a specific type of smart meter, such as EnergyAware’s PowerTab SMI 

which must communicate with a meter that uses Zigbee Smart Energy as its wireless 

protocol.44,45 

Gas AMI could provide a unique form of indirect feedback—customer usage alerts or 

notifications—where the consumer could set a usage threshold or a series of thresholds that 

would trigger an alert to be sent via email or mobile text. For example, if a consumer usually 

uses 200 therms in December, they may elect to receive an alert when their monthly usage 

exceeds 225 therms. Multiple thresholds could be set and could even be unique to each month of 

the year to adjust for seasonal expectations. This type of indirect gas feedback speaks directly to 

customer financial interests, while also communicating information on usage patterns that 

encourage conservation. Although AMI could be paired with direct feedback, this type of 

indirect feedback could be offered at lower cost to the consumer. The body of research on this 

type of feedback system is limited, but it may be possible to draw parallels from lessons learned 

in pay-as-you-go programs and use similar notification systems. 
17 

It is important to note that although AMI is viewed by many as the next-generation of metering, 

there are still a sizable number of conventional gas meters in the United States, which means that 

there is still a large portion of the market that will require feedback devices that can work with 

conventional gas meters. Hardware and software is still being actively developed for 

compatibility with conventional and AMR systems as evidenced by Grid Insight, a vendor that is 

currently in the beta testing phase of hardware that could be integrated in other products and 

communicate using the radio signals already transmitted by AMR systems.46 Some vendors 

predict that AMR infrastructure for gas will remain in place longer than for electric, where issues 

such as load control and demand response have largely driven the switch to AMI.46 

Providing direct gas feedback is a challenge, though there appear to be some small developments 

that are compatible with conventional AMR and/or smart AMI systems. However, a key 

remaining issue that remains unresolved is the designation of a wireless protocol for 

communication between the utility, smart meter, and consumer. Data transfer from the meter to 

either the utility or the consumer must be reliable and secure. Although there is currently no 

official standard, the development of interoperability standards is ongoing. The Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 identified the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) as the agency responsible for developing a framework for protocols and 

model standards for data management related to smart grid devices and systems.47 However, our 

report will not cover the detailed technical issues surrounding wireless protocol, other than to say 

that it is an important issue that will require consideration as energy feedback devices are 

developed and launched. 

6 Total U.S. Energy Savings Potential and Other Benefits

Research to date indicates that gas use could be reduced from about 1%-4% with the effective 

incorporation of feedback. Although these savings may be modest on a per household basis, the 

potential cumulative national energy savings is strong. The challenge in maximizing gas savings 

lies in the design of the feedback program and/or device. A key consideration is the scope of the 

program offered to utility customers—whether the feedback is offered to a small, targeted group 

of high consumption households or if the program aims at capturing a larger audience with the 

understanding that savings will vary across participants. An analytical scenario was developed to 

gauge potential nationwide energy savings offered by residential gas feedback. In this scenario, 

participants representing 15% of total gas use in the United States are targeted for feedback, with 

the assumption that savings average 2.5%, in keeping consistent with past research results. The 

gas savings under this scenario are based on projected gas consumption data from EIA’s Annual 

Energy Outlook 2011 Reference Case. The savings are divided by census region to illustrate how 

savings may vary regionally depending on the intensity of gas usage. 
18 

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Cumulative Gas Savings (Quadrillion Btu)

Residential Gas Savings Potential

Pacific

Mountain

West South Central

East South Central

South Atlantic

West North Central

East North Central

Middle Atlantic

New England

Figure 6. Modeled estimate of U.S. natural gas savings scenario 

Some of the largest savings are possible in areas that have heating-dominated climates and 

largely rely on gas for space heating needs, for example, the East North Central census division 

(comprising Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio) and the Middle Atlantic (New 

York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey) census division. The next largest census for gas savings is 

the Pacific, where gas use is relatively high due to favorable electric to gas price ratios. 

Ultimately, these gas savings estimates are intended to be illustrative of the potential energy 

savings from feedback. In reality, the savings will vary across households, regions, and even 

time. 

7 Integrating Gas in Residential Energy Monitoring

7.1 Technical, Design, and Program Challenges

There are a number of challenges to providing residential energy monitoring at large for both 

electricity and natural gas. Table 2 includes overview of barriers to residential feedback as a 

whole (for electricity and gas), while Table 3 outlines barriers that are unique to gas feedback.
19 

Table 2. Key Barriers to Residential Energy Feedback (Electric + Gas)

Utility “Hardware Bias” in Energy Efficiency (EE) Programs

• Issue: Behavior-based EE is less familiar to many utilities and usually requires ongoing 

customer engagement, in contrast to the one-time transaction typical of traditional, capitalbased EE measures. 5

 

• Solution Opportunities: Broad sharing of more/better data will mitigate perceived risks of 

behavior-based EE. Expanded research is needed to provide quantitative, reliable, and 

vetted data, thereby making EE programs more comfortable with behavior-based measures.

Unclear Energy Savings/Return on Investment

• Issue: For many products, rigorous studies quantifying energy savings potential are limited 

or not available. Longer, multiyear studies are particularly rare, but highly valuable. 

• Solution Opportunities: Rigorous field studies to prove cost effectiveness using 

sufficiently large sample sizes, experimental design (control and test groups), over longer 

time periods. These studies help prove both savings and cost.

Complexity of HEM Products

• Issue: Complexity of the device, installation, and/or information presented to the consumer 

slows the market acceptance of HEM offerings and can add significantly to their cost.

• Solution Opportunities: Framework for evaluating user-friendliness of displays, develop 

feedback devices that do not require professional installation, and field evaluation of “plug 

and play” devices to assess ease of installation.

Lack of Consumer Awareness

• Issue: Many U.S. consumers are not aware of feedback devices available today. HEM 

devices are relatively young technologically and the market is rapidly developing and 

changing, which can add to consumer confusion.

• Solution Opportunities: This challenge can possibly be addressed through solutions to the 

other barriers, since those will increase market acceptance and thus boost awareness.

Low Interest in Energy Saving

• Issue: Though the cumulative effect of a small average savings can be substantial, on a per 

household basis, the interest in saving 5% to 15% on utility costs can be relatively low. 

This is a common problem in EE programs and is not unique to feedback devices.

• Solution Opportunities: Leverage existing appliances/functions valued by consumers 

(security systems, entertainment, etc.), add mobile applications for easy use/access to the 

HEM device, and make information and/or the display customizable to meet users’ needs.
20 

Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) Issues

• Issue: Many EM&V protocols rely on engineering-based evaluation, which estimates the 

performance of a piece of technology before it is implemented. But for feedback, the most 

appropriate EM&V method is an experimental design with control/test groups, which is 

more quantitatively rigorous, though less familiar to utilities and regulatory commissions.

• Solution Opportunities: Generally, feedback pilots are assessed on a case-by-case basis to 

determine if they qualify for inclusion in an EE program. The development of EM&V 

protocols for behavior-based measures would help to standardize this process. Some state 

utility commissions have already chosen to address this, such as the California Public 

Utility Commission and the Bonneville Power Administration. 37

Control/Access to Smart Meter Data

• Issue: Increased levels of data now available through smart meter infrastructure presents 

new concerns related to consumer privacy. What types of consumer protections should be 

considered for smart meter data? 

• Solution Opportunities: This issue will likely be resolved through regulatory and legal 

bodies. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been ordered to 

develop smart grid protocols and standards. NIST has a subgroup devoted exclusively to 

issues of privacy. Additionally, some states, such as California, Colorado, and New York 

have taken preliminary stances on consumer privacy protection in relation to utility data.5

Table 3. High Priority Barriers Specific to Residential Gas Feedback

Few Commercially Available, Consumer-Initiated Options

• Issue: This is a crucial barrier to expanding residential gas monitoring and feedback and is 

deeply rooted in the other barriers discussed above. There is a substantial lack of 

commercially available options and even fewer that can be initiated by the consumer. One 

of the fastest growing options is enhanced billing, which can only be provided by either the 

utility or a third party operating in cooperation with the utility. This leaves a profound lack 

of choice in the market for consumers seeking more detailed information on their gas use. 

• Solution Opportunities: This barrier is somewhat unique in that it will largely be 

addressed through the solution of the other barriers discussed above. As the research and 

datasets improve, so will the certainty of energy savings. Continued product development 

will seek to simplify the design, installation, and operation of HEM products. Utilities and 

regulators will become more familiar with behavior-based approaches and novel EM&V 

methods. As a result, it is expected that the market demand for gas feedback devices will 

grow and that manufacturers, product designers, and utilities will seek to meet it. 
21 

Limited Gas-Specific Research and Datasets

• Issue: As noted throughout this report, electricity has been the favored energy source for 

residential monitoring and feedback. Quantitative research and datasets are less available 

for gas, which means that some of the unique features of gas consumption patterns 

(seasonality, few appliances, etc.) have been under explored. 

• Solution Opportunities: Until the research literature reflects a greater quantity and variety 

of gas studies it will be challenging to design a programmatic approach that maximizes the 

potential savings of gas feedback. Additionally, some of the existing research was not 

performed in a systematic or scientific way – making it difficult to apply the lessons 

learned more broadly. Research and pilot projects should use an experimental design with a 

representative sample, systematically vary the feedback type/design, and utilize control 

groups to isolate the effects of different types of feedback.28 

Disaggregated Gas Flow Monitoring

• Issue: Unlike electricity, there has been little development progress on monitoring 

individual gas lines in a home beyond the meter. Electricity can be monitored at the circuitlevel through hardware attached to the electrical panel and at the device-level by attaching 

small clamps to the electrical wires that monitor the pulses and can determine energy use 

by the end device. No such low-cost, easy, and safe option exists yet for natural gas. 

• Solution Opportunities: There are two main avenues for solutions to this issue. Firstly, the 

development of a novel approach for gas monitoring could address this barrier. For 

example, researchers at the University of Washington’s Ubiquitous Computing Lab have 

developed GasSense, a low-cost, single-point sensing solution for gas monitoring.44

GasSense monitors the acoustic response of a gas meter’s diaphragm to determine which 

appliance is calling for gas at any given time. This system is still in the lab-stage of 

development and more research and development work will be needed to bring such a 

system to market. Additional research on non-intrusive gas flow monitoring was completed 

by Tokyo Gas in the mid-1990s though some concerns were raised about the feasibility of 

moving this technology to the United States.

48 The development of other non-gas-flow 

methods of data collection may also be under active, though potentially proprietary, 

development.49

Secondly, if it’s determined that real-time information on gas use is not crucial to driving 

energy savings, then this becomes a non-issue. It has been suggested that given that there 

are not the same peak-shifting concerns regarding gas and its heavy seasonality of use, it 

may not be necessary to provide direct, real-time feedback to consumers. Further research 

confirming the relative cost effectiveness of these two approaches could provide a 

quantitative foundation to support or refute this suggestion.

These barriers are seen as true challenges, though perceived challenges can be just as limiting 

when it comes to market development. Some utilities have cited concerns about implementing 

behavior-based programs, such as they’re too complicated, can’t be done in a small territory, 

they don’t know how to design an effective program, or that behavior-based savings are not a 

reliable EE resource.50 However, as the barriers outlined in Table 2, and Table 3 are addressed, 
22 

these perceived barriers are likely to disappear as utilities become more familiar with behaviorbased approaches and the supporting research data expands and becomes more robust. Some 

organizations are taking a more proactive approach, such as the Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA). BPA has outlined a strategy for addressing the barriers, which includes 

three high-level objectives supported by staff efforts and multiyear funding opportunities:50

1. Monitor and assess national and regional behavior-based energy efficiency (BBEE) 

programs and activities, identify and promote use of best practices. 

2. Create policies that help build program infrastructure that all Northwest public utilities 

can use to operate BBEE programs and achieve related energy savings.

3. Collaborate with Northwest public utilities and market partners to implement and 

evaluate innovative BBEE pilot programs. 

7.2 Distribution Channels

Feedback devices are primarily available either direct to consumer or through a utility. The 

favored distribution channel may depend on the product’s characteristics, level of technological 

maturity, cost, and infrastructure required for support. A single feedback device may be available 

through multiple distribution channels, though there is often a dominant channel the market 

favors. Table 4 notes which drivers are impacting the favored distribution channel for a device. 

Table 4. Favored Distribution Channels for Feedback Devices

Feedback 

Device

Favored 

Channel

Is this a Driver for the Favored Distribution Channel?...

Product 

Characteristics?

Technological 

Maturity? Cost? Infrastructure Needs?

Enhanced 

Billing

Utility Yes

Often requires 

utility to permit/ 

perform data 

collection

No

This form of 

feedback is 

relatively mature

No

Little to no 

need for 

economic 

support from 

utility

Yes

May need AMI, 

requires utility 

cooperation with 

data collection

In-Home 

Display

Utility and 

Direct to

Consumer

No

Can be installed 

by consumers or 

utilities

Yes

Relatively young 

technologically; 

development is 

rapid

Varies

Costs vary 

widely, which 

will affect this 

driver

Varies

Some work with 

regular meters 

while others 

require AMI

Advanced/ 

Smart 

Thermostat

Direct-toConsumer

Yes

Can be installed 

by consumers or 

utilities; plus 

consumers prefer 

freedom of device 

choice

Yes

Somewhat new 

technologically, 

but consumers 

familiar with 

conventional 

thermostats

Varies

Often higher 

cost, but may 

not require 

utility financial 

support

Yes

Consumers can 

choose to install 

an advanced 

thermostat
23 

Feedback 

Device

Favored 

Channel

Is this a Driver for the Favored Distribution Channel?...

Product 

Characteristics?

Technological 

Maturity? Cost? Infrastructure Needs?

Home Area

Network 

(HAN)

Direct-toConsumer

Yes

Detailed 

installation and 

variable reqs.

based on the 

home

Yes

HANs are still a 

niche market 

product with 

utilities choosing 

to “wait and see”

Yes

Costs are high

& variable, 

unclear how to 

set a utility 

rebate 

Varies

Consumers can 

have a HAN

professionally 

installed. Some 

systems may 

require AMI 

Smart Gas 

Meter 

Usage 

Alerts 

Utility Yes

Requires a utility 

to permit/perform 

data collection

Yes

Relatively new 

technological 

offering; ongoing 

development 

Varies

If AMI is in 

place, costs 

could be very 

low 

Yes

Requires AMI 

and utility 

cooperation with 

data collection

7.3 High Priority Gas Feedback Options

The original intent of this project was to survey the commercially available options for 

residential gas monitoring, use lessons from existing research literature to inform gas feedback 

design, review and discuss the role of controls and automation, and highlight three low-cost gas 

monitoring and feedback solutions. As the project moved forward we were presented with new 

and unexpected challenges—primarily, the profound lack of commercially available gas 

feedback options. This fundamentally limited our ability to compare and contrast a large range of 

gas feedback options to find the best of the best. After reviewing available products, the body of 

research in the field, and speaking with many experts on HEM products and development, it was 

determined that there are three high potential, relatively low-cost options for residential gas 

feedback—enhanced billing, advanced thermostats, and AMI-driven usage alerts. These options 

are still in the early stages of market readiness, but represent promising integration points for 

residential gas feedback. 

7.3.1 Priority Gas Option: Enhanced Billing

The market for enhanced residential energy billing has grown tremendously over the past three to 

five years. Numerous new actors are entering the market and significant developments are 

continuously being launched, such as mobile applications, online portals, and rewards programs. 

Most utility efforts have consisted of pilot programs, though there have been some programmatic 

adoptions of this type of feedback. It is expected that enhanced billing approaches will represent 

the majority of energy feedback programs, which are estimated to have reached over 5% of U.S. 

households in 2011.5
24 

• Key Advantages of Enhanced Billing: 

o Relatively low cost 

o Potential to reach large residential market

o Customer targeting can achieve greater savings

o Potential to increase participation in other EE programs

o Reasonable and growing market of third party implementers. 

• Potential Challenges to Enhanced Billing: 

o Persistence of savings has not been firmly established

o Unique M&V requirements (test/control groups) 

o Regulatory uncertainty regarding inclusion in utility EE programs

o Limited supporting research on applications to natural gas use. 

7.3.2 Priority Gas Option: Advanced Thermostats

Smart or advanced thermostats have been an area of increased development, though the 

definition of “smart” has been applied liberally in some cases. Generally, smart thermostats 

incorporate an Internet connection that allows users to remotely access the device, and have the 

potential for two-way communication between the consumer and the utility in the future. 

Though not strictly a feedback device, as the central control for the largest gas load in the 

home—space heating—they are a naturally promising integration point for gas feedback. By 

leveraging the existing regular use of the thermostat, the incorporation of advanced controls and 

feedback could be a reliable means of maintaining consumer engagement and having the greatest 

impact by presenting feedback right at the moment that a consumer is making a decision about 

gas use (i.e. do I turn my thermostat up or down?). 

There have been recent efforts to develop next-generation thermostat designs that show early 

offerings of feedback, as evidenced by the Nest learning thermostat. Given the recent increased 

emphasis on user-friendly thermostat design, this is a ripe development environment for 

advanced thermostats, which could provide users with increased control, energy use feedback, 

remote access capabilities, and overall energy savings.

• Key Advantages of Smart Thermostats 

o Potential to reach large residential market

o Potentially large energy savings

o Can incorporate HVAC controls 

o Strong market pull for a more user friendly, better designed thermostat. 

• Potential Challenges to Smart Thermostats 

o Historical and persistent design challenges to user friendliness 

o Body of research large but inconsistent on energy savings potential 

o New smart thermostat designs require new research efforts regarding savings 

potential to better gauge their unique features (two-way communication, Wi-Fi

capabilities, etc.). 
25 

7.3.3 Priority Gas Option: AMI-Driven Usage Alerts

The ability of AMI to provide two-way communication between the gas meter and utility offers 

unique opportunities to provide gas feedback to consumers. A promising option is an alert 

system that would activate at certain thresholds—set by the consumer or utility—to notify 

consumers if their monthly gas usage has exceeded a designated level. This alert could be 

delivered in both therms and dollars, e.g. “Your December natural gas use is over 200 therms 

(about $85).” The alert could be paired with recommendations for how to reduce usage or 

provide other information, such as the customer’s historical use. 

Utilities have expressed interest in such systems, though it will require larger scale deployment 

of smart gas meters before reaching wide commercialization.51,52 While feedback alone is not an 

economically compelling reason to install AMI, this option could be pursued in areas where gas 

AMI has already been installed. Recent research by Southern California Gas indicated most 

residential customers would like to be able to sign-up for alerts that notify them that gas use is 

high or exceeded some customer-determined threshold and prefer to receive this alert through 

email.53 This type of system does not have extensive pilot testing, but is still a promising means 

of communicating gas use to consumers beyond the post facto monthly bill. 

• Key Advantages of AMI-Driven Usage Alerts

o Relatively lower cost

o Potential to reach large residential market

o Increase customer satisfaction/reduce customer calls re: high bills

o Speaks to a key customer motive—saving money.

• Potential Challenges to AMI-Driven Usage Alerts

o Very limited testing of this type of feedback system

o Gas AMI deployed to a small number of customers to date

o Unique EM&V requirements (test/control group)

7.4 Cost Comparisons

The cost of behavioral-based EE will vary, but depends strongly on the type of feedback 

provided and the size and design of the program. As the complexity and frequency of the 

feedback increases, the cost also typically increases.2 Providing a customer with real-time, 

disaggregated feedback with control options will cost significantly more than providing monthly 

feedback through an enhanced billing program. The program design will determine the use of 

financial incentives, whether feedback is provided via the Web or paper-based reports, planned 

community outreach efforts, and other variables that will have inherent cost implications. 

Given the stark lack of market-ready options for residential natural gas feedback, the most likely 

options for behavior-based EE are enhanced billing, advanced thermostats, and AMI-driven 

usage alerts/notifications. Although these represent the commercially “ripest” options, these 

measures are still relatively new and costs will change as the market becomes more competitive. 

The estimated utility costs for enhanced billing programs are about $0.03/kWh for the first year, 

in comparison to about $0.30/kWh for a real-time, direct feedback program. 19,35 This cost for 

enhanced billing programs is consistent with the average cost of $0.025 per kWh saved for 

electricity energy efficiency programs at large.54 Given that the average U.S. residential price for 
26 

electricity in 2010 was $0.098/kWh, it is clear that selecting the appropriate feedback system is 

critical to its cost-competitiveness.55 

Advanced thermostats can range in cost from about $100 up to $500 depending on the 

functionality and optional technological add-ons incorporated. An AMI-driven alert system 

would range in price depending on the complexity and detail of the information presented to the 

consumer, the number of consumers involved in the program, and customer’s communication 

preferences (email versus text message). This leads to two primary questions: how can the cost 

effectiveness of these different feedback options be compared and how will changes in behavior 

affect energy savings (and, in turn, the cost effectiveness)? Simple payback periods (SPPs) were 

calculated for a handful of different scenarios for enhanced billing and smart thermostats. The 

SPP indicates how long it will take for the initial cost of the energy efficiency measure to pay for 

itself in savings. SPPs are a common, easy-to-understand metric that are often used within utility 

energy efficiency programs to compare the economic performance of different measures from 

the consumer’s perspective.

Enhanced Billing SPP Scenarios: The SPP for an enhanced billing program was calculated for 

two sets of initial costs ($10 per participant per year and $15 per participant per year) and three 

levels of savings (0.77 percent, 1.1 percent, and 2.8 percent). The lowest savings level (0.77 

percent) was selected since it was the average annual savings rate of natural gas consumers in a 

recent National Grid and Opower pilot program that ran from fall 2009 and fall 2010.3 The midlevel savings rate (1.1 percent) was selected because it represented the average annual savings 

rate of high consumption end users in the same National Grid and Opower pilot. The largest 

savings level (2.8%) was selected because it was the savings level observed in a large 2011 study 

by Ireland’s Commission for Energy Regulation for customers that received a monthly bill and 

energy usage statement. Calculations tables are shown in Appendix A. 

Of course, it was expected the most advantageous scenario would be the low-cost, high savings 

option, but the scenarios indicate the relative spread of SPPs as the two main variables change 

(Figure 7). SPPs ranged from just over seven months to about two and a half years, indicating 

that this form of feedback has the potential for attractive payback periods. However, unlike 

conventional capital EE programs, the cost of this program recurs on an annual basis, which 

requires that the SPP be stronger than for a one-time, upfront cost program. 

The impact of this recurring cost remains an outstanding question. In the first year, program 

design, roll-out, and revisions could lead to higher overall costs; however, in year two and 

beyond the costs of maintaining the program may be much lower. This combination of varying 

costs over multiple years should be considered in overall program cost-effectiveness. 
27 

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Annual Gas Savings #1 @ 

0.77% per household

Annual Gas Savings #2 @ 

1.10% per household

Annual Gas Savings #3 @ 

2.80% per household

Simple Payback Period (Years)

Simple Payback Periods for Enhanced 

Billing Feedback Options

$10/participant/yr $15/participant/yr

Figure 7. Simple payback periods for three enhanced billing options 

Advanced Thermostat SPP Scenarios: The SPP for advanced thermostats was calculated for 

three initial retail costs ($100, $250, and $500) and two levels of installation cost (professional 

installation for $80 or do-it-yourself installation for free). The lowest retail cost ($100) was 

considered to be a reasonable lower-bound estimate for an Internet-connected, programmable 

thermostat based on current market offerings. The mid-level retail cost ($250) is reflective of 

design-enhanced offerings that are coming to the market, such as the Nest learning thermostat. 

The high retail cost ($500) was considered an upper-bound estimate for smart thermostats that 

are being offered with top-of-the-line functionality, such as offering weather updates or serving 

as a rotating digital picture frame. Although many of the advanced thermostat offerings require 

professional installation, there has been some movement towards the development of do-ityourself (DIY) installations. Therefore, two different installation costs were considered—$80 for 

a professional installation or free for DIY installations. 

The expected annual savings were 66 therms of natural gas and 62.6 kWh of electricity, based on 

the preliminary results of a small pilot program between National Grid and ecobee testing of 

their Wi-Fi-enabled programmable thermostat.56 This equates to roughly 10% of annual 

household energy use. Although these were preliminary results from a very small sample size, 

they were used since the piloted thermostat was deemed representative of the type of advanced 

thermostat proposed here. This savings level was consistent with similar manufacturer market 

claims, such as the partnership between Honeywell and Opower on their advanced thermostat, 

which estimates a 30% reduction in HVAC usage. This would be about roughly 15% of the total 

home energy use.57 
28 

A portion of the overall energy savings of advanced thermostats is attributable to electric savings 

from reduced air-conditioning use. Like whole home programs, it is important for utility energy 

efficiency programs to promote this technology across programs to fully capture the cost 

effectiveness of this option. Considered on the gas savings alone, the SPPs are less favorable but 

still reasonably strong. 

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

$100 Retail Thermostat $250 Retail Thermostat $500 Retail Thermostat

Simple Payback Period (Years)

Simple Payback Periods for Advanced Thermostat 

Options

w/DIY Install w/$80 Pro Install

Gas Savings Only w/DIY Install Gas Savings Only w/Pro Install

Figure 8. Simple payback periods for three advanced thermostat options 

A larger spread across SPPs is seen with advanced thermostats than with enhanced billing, with 

about six years separating the most expensive scenarios from the most affordable ones. The 

lower and mid-level scenarios still present reasonably favorable SPPs, since the residential sector 

will often tolerate payback periods of up to 7 to 10 years for larger energy efficiency upgrades, 

such as HVAC equipment. However, the high-end scenario pushes the limits of a reasonable SPP 

for a relatively small appliance upgrade and likely represents an upper-bound limit for future 

pricing. Of course, these results are dependent on the level of gas savings possible, and if an 

advanced thermostat design was able to capture a larger amount of savings, then the retail prices 

could be adjusted accordingly. Full calculation tables are in Appendix B. 

There is an alternate way to assess the cost effectiveness of advanced thermostat options. Unlike 

enhanced billing, which is a service provided by the utility with no upfront financial investment 

from the customer, advanced thermostats can be customer-initiated EE upgrades. They can be 

considered in a similar fashion to other one-time capital upgrades, such as a more efficient 

furnace or increased wall insulation. Such upgrades can be economically evaluated by 

considering the additional cost they would add to a typical mortgage compared to the annual 

energy savings they would accrue over time. The same retail costs and savings assumptions were 

used for this as the SPP analysis above. The mortgage was valued at $250,000 with a 5% annual 
29 

interest rate for 30 years. The utility energy costs were based on U.S. average prices and U.S. 

average annual electricity and natural gas use based on the EIA’s 2005 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (RECS). As seen in Table 5, the savings from the advanced thermostat 

outweigh the mortgage addition for each of the three scenarios, meaning that such an investment 

is cost-effective at $100, $250, and even $500. Full calculation tables are in Appendix C. 

Table 5. Monthly Mortgage and Utility Costs for Three Advanced Thermostat Options

Model Monthly Mortgage and Utility Costs

Building America Benchmark Home $1,489.09

Home w/$100 Advanced Thermostat $1,483.02

Home w/$250 Advanced Thermostat $1,483.83

Home w/$500 Advanced Thermostat $1,485.19

AMI Usage Alerts SPP Scenarios: Since this feedback option has not received significant study 

yet, data on costs and savings have not been well-substantiated. Though real-world data is not 

readily available, such a system has some key similarities to an enhanced billing program. An 

AMI-driven customer notification system would be initiated by a utility with no upfront 

customer costs. It would require back-end work on the utility’s part to process usage data on a 

daily basis, compare it to a threshold, and send out the necessary alerts. The cost of providing 

electronic alerts would be less than the cost of printing and mailing paper reports, though an 

AMI-based feedback system may require a customer-facing Web portal that could allow the 

customer to personalize their threshold and communication preferences (e.g. email or text, etc.). 

Figure 9 shows the SPPs of an AMI-driven alert system that is assumed to achieve roughly the 

same gas savings as an enhanced billing program but at a 20% lower cost due to the elimination 

of printing and mailing charges and the nominal cost increases associated with the development 

of a customer-facing Web portal. Full calculation tables are in Appendix D. 

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Annual Gas Savings #1 @ 

0.77% per household

Annual Gas Savings #2 @ 

1.10% per household

Annual Gas Savings #3 @ 

2.80% per household

Simple Payback Period (Years)

Simple Payback Periods for Three AMIDriven Alert Options

$8 /participant/yr $12 /participant/yr

Figure 9. Simple payback periods for three AMI-driven alert feedback options 
30 

8 Conclusions and Future Research

Energy feedback has the ability to transform the largely “invisible” use of gas to the visible by 

providing consumers with a more detailed and holistic understanding of their energy usage 

patterns. Such feedback offers a great opportunity to achieve energy savings, both for electricity 

and natural gas. The majority of existing research focuses on electricity, but as gas represents 

nearly 43% of residential energy use, it is clear that there is untapped potential. Though savings 

are modest on a per-household basis, the cumulative effect in the residential sector has the 

potential to be sizable. 

The market for feedback is young, but growing, with up to 5% of U.S. households estimated to 

have received some type of energy feedback in 2011.5 Although disaggregated residential gas 

monitoring is not yet commercially cost effective, there are opportunities for natural gas to 

become more involved in the feedback market. AMI-driven gas usage customer alerts are a 

promising avenue for leveraging the growing smart gas grid infrastructure, but it is not necessary 

to wait for full AMI smart meter roll-out to capture feedback-induced gas savings. Enhanced 

billing relies on statistical disaggregation of utility data based on key variables (house size, age, 

HVAC equipment, etc.) to provide users with a snapshot of their energy use broken down by end 

use. Though not strictly feedback devices, advanced thermostats show compelling potential as an 

integration point for feedback into the primary control system for residential HVAC systems, 

which is the largest energy end use in nearly all households. These are the strongest marketready options, though development improvements are still ongoing. 

Commercialization of residential gas feedback devices has been intensely limited due to a 

number of challenges, such as unclear energy savings potential, lack of consumer awareness, 

complexity of disaggregated gas monitoring, and utility reluctance and unfamiliarity with 

behavior-based approaches. These barriers are not insurmountable. Some barriers will require 

concerted, focused efforts (such as unclear energy savings potential), while others are likely to 

diminish as the market for residential feedback matures (such as low consumer awareness). 

Potential solutions to these challenges were presented within this report, but it is anticipated that 

well-crafted research in the future is indispensible to overcoming these obstacles. 

Specific future research needs include large enhanced gas billing pilots that employ test and 

control groups and systematically change the feedback design to determine those features that 

are critical to achieving gas savings. Features that should be tested for impacts on gas savings 

include: frequency of reporting (such as increased frequency during the heating-dominated 

winter season and possibly a single summary report in the summer or fall when 

retrofits/replacements may occur); targeting of high consumption gas users as compared to a 

general sample of the population; use of additional alerts/notifications where AMI is available; 

and access to a Web-based portal. Ideally, pilots should occur for at least two heating seasons, 

preferably with data from two previous heating seasons that can be used as a baseline. These 

datasets will also prove valuable in assessing the persistence of feedback-induced gas savings. 

Additional information on the types of behaviors that consumers change in response to gas 

feedback would also be valuable to help drive future R&D. 
31 

Future research for advanced thermostats should focus on usability testing and establishing 

energy savings. This research may be performed by utilities, as evidenced by Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD) intention to launch a thermostat lab where they will recruit 

consumers to perform usability testing. Energy savings research should focus exclusively on 

advanced thermostat designs, and consider how behaviors can impact average consumer savings 

and how incremental design changes may affect overall savings. Incremental design changes 

may include the use of a touch screen, color display, programming that is question-driven, and 

other similar alterations. Similarly, the development of a companion Web portal or on-thermostat 

display that includes historic thermostat usage and settings, and provides additional energy 

information to consumers should be explored. 

Overall, there is a profound lack of gas-oriented feedback research. Until the dataset is larger and 

more robust, it will be challenging for utilities to design sure-fire feedback programs that will 

maximize gas savings. Once in place however, the emerging field of behavior-based, feedbackdriven energy efficiency shows good potential for gas savings. 
32 

Appendix A 

Enhanced Billing Simple Payback Period and ROI

Price Inputs

Residential Gas Price (2010$) 11.39 TCF

1.11 therm

Residential Electric Price (2010$) 0.983 kWh

Average Annual U.S. Residential Gas Use 4655 billion cf

69.4 million households use gas

688.86 therms/household

Savings

Annual Gas Savings #1 @ 0.77% per household 5.30 therms

Annual Gas Savings #2 @ 1.10% per household 7.58 therms

Annual Gas Savings #3 @ 2.80% per household 19.29 therms

Costs

Enhanced Billing Option A Initial Cost ($) 10 per person/yr

Enhanced Billing Option B Initial Cost ($) 15 per person/yr

Simple Payback Period (in years) ROI (per year)

Enhanced Billing Option A #1 SPP 1.70 59%

Enhanced Billing Option A #2 SPP 1.19 84%

Enhanced Billing Option A #3 SPP 0.47 214%

Enhanced Billing Option B #1 SPP 2.55 39%

Enhanced Billing Option B #2 SPP 1.78 56%

Enhanced Billing Option B #3 SPP 0.70 143%
33 

Appendix B 

Advanced Thermostat Simple Payback Period and ROI

Price Inputs

Residential Gas Price (2010$) 11.39 TCF

1.11 therm

Residential Electric Price (2010$) 0.0983 kWh

Savings

Annual Gas Savings (per unit) 66 therms

Annual Electric Savings (per unit) 62.6 kWh

Costs

Professional Installation 1 # of installers

Number of hours 2

Hourly labor rate $40 

Total $80 

Smart Thermostat #1 Initial Cost $100 per unit

Smart Thermostat #1 Pro Install Cost $80 per unit

Smart Thermostat #2 Initial Cost $250 per unit

Smart Thermostat #2 Pro Install Cost $80 per unit

Smart Thermostat #3 Initial Cost $500 per unit

Smart Thermostat #3 Pro Install Cost $80 per unit

Simple Payback Period (in years) Simple ROI (per year)

Smart Thermostat #1 SPP w/Pro Install 2.27 44%

Smart Thermostat #2 SPP w/Pro Install 4.16 24%

Smart Thermostat #3 SPP w/Pro Install 7.31 14%

Smart Thermostat #1 SPP w/DIY Install 1.26 79%

Smart Thermostat #2 SPP w/DIY Install 3.15 32%

Smart Thermostat #3 SPP w/DIY Install 6.30 16%
34 

Appendix C 

Advanced Thermostat Monthly Mortgage and Utility Bill Analysis 

US Average US Average US Average US Average

Building Costs Benchmark

w/Thermost

at $100

w/Thermostat 

$250

w/Thermostat 

$500

Benchmark Mortgage Value $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00

Energy Saving Premium (Retail 

Cost of Thermostat) - $100.00 $250.00 $500.00

High Performance Mortgage Value $250,000.00 $250,100.00 $250,250.00 $250,500.00

Annual Interest Rate 5% 5% 5% 5%

Term in Years 30 30 30 30

Annual Payments $16,262.86 $16,269.36 $16,279.12 $16,295.38

Monthly Payments $1,355.24 $1,355.78 $1,356.59 $1,357.95

Utility Energy Costs

Annual Electricity

kWh (from 2005 RECS) 11,475 11,413 11,413 11,413

$/kWh 0.0983 0.0983 0.0983 0.0983

$ for Electricity $1,128.03 $1,121.87 $1,121.87 $1,121.87

Annual Gas

therms (from RECS) 431 365 365 365 

$/therm 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11

$ for Gas $478.16 $404.96 $404.96 $404.96 

$ Total Utility Energy Costs $1,606.19 $1,526.84 $1,526.84 $1,526.84 

Monthly Utility Costs $133.85 $127.24 $127.24 $127.24 

Annual Combined Expenses $17,869.05 $17,796.20 $17,805.96 $17,822.22 

Difference from Benchmark - $72.85 $63.09 $46.83 

Monthly Combined Expenses $1,489.09 $1,483.02 $1,483.83 $1,485.19 
35 

$0 

$2,000 

$4,000 

$6,000 

$8,000 

$10,000 

$12,000 

$14,000 

$16,000 

$18,000 

$20,000 

Benchmark w/Thermostat $100 w/Thermostat $250 w/Thermostat $500

Annual Mortgage + Utility Costs

Annual Payments $ Total Utility Energy Costs

$17,869 $17,796 $17,806 $17,822

Figure 10. Total impact of three thermostats on homeowner annual mortgage and utility costs

compared to a benchmark home
36 

Appendix D 

AMI-Driven Use Alert System Simple Payback Period and ROI

Price Inputs

Residential Gas Price (2010$) 11.39 TCF

1.11 therm

Residential Electric Price (2010$) 0.0983 kWh

Average Annual U.S. Residential Gas Use 4655 billion cf

69.4 million households use gas

688.86 therms/household

Savings

Annual Gas Savings #1 @ 0.77% per household 5.30 therms

Annual Gas Savings #2 @ 1.10% per household 7.58 therms

Annual Gas Savings #3 @ 2.80% per household 19.29 therms

Costs

Enhanced Billing Option A Initial Cost ($) $8 /participant/yr

Enhanced Billing Option B Initial Cost ($) $12 /participant/yr

Simple Payback Period (in years) Simple ROI (per year)

Enhanced Billing Option A #1 SPP 1.36 74%

Enhanced Billing Option A #2 SPP 0.95 105%

Enhanced Billing Option A #3 SPP 0.37 267%

Enhanced Billing Option B #1 SPP 2.04 49%

Enhanced Billing Option B #2 SPP 1.43 70%

Enhanced Billing Option B #3 SPP 0.56 178%
References 

1 Darby, S. April 2006. The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption. University of 

Oxford, Environmental Change Institute.

2

 Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., Donnelly, K.A., Laitner, J.A. 2010. Advanced Metering Initiatives and 

Residential Feedback Programs: A Meta-Review for Household Electricity-Saving 

Opportunities. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Washington, D.C. 

3

 Opinion Dynamics Corporation and Navigant Consulting. June 2011 Massachusetts CrossCutting Behavioral Program Evaluation, Volume 2: Final. Prepared for Massachusetts Energy 

Efficiency Advisory Council. Waltham, Massachusetts.

4 Opower website. “Results”. http://opower.com/utilities/results. Accessed February 17, 2012. 

5

 Mahone, A. and Haley, B. 2011. Overview of Residential Energy Feedback and Behaviorbased Energy Efficiency. Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. San Francisco, 

California.

6

 ZPryme. May 2011. The New Energy Consumer. Sponsored by Itron. 

7

 Consortium for Energy Efficiency. State of the Efficiency Program Industry: Budgets, 

Expenditures, and Impacts 2011. http://www.cee1.org/ee-pe/2011AIR.php3, posted March 

2012. © Copyright 2012 Consortium for Energy Efficiency. All rights reserved. 

8

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009. Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (RECS). 

9 Linda Richardson, Aclara, Executive Sales Director, Software. Personal communication to 

author, December 19, 2011. 

10 Clamp, A. May 2010. “Putting Home Energy Monitoring Systems to the Test”. PublicPower 

magazine. Accessed August 30, 2011. 

http://www.publicpower.org/Media/magazine/ArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=27548. 11 Center Point Energy presentation. July 26, 2011. “In-Home Display Pilot”. Accessed August 

16, 2011. 

http://www.centerpointenergy.com/staticfiles/CNP/Common/SiteAssets/doc/In_Home_Display

_Survey_Results.pdf. 12 Foster, B. and Mazur-Stommen, S. February 2012. Results from Recent Real-Time Feedback 

Studies. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Report Number B122. 

13 Commission for Energy Regulation. 2011. Smart Metering Information Paper: Gas Customer 

Behaviour Trial Findings Report. Information Paper CER11180a. Dublin, Ireland. 

14 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. December 2008. Assessment of Demand Response 

and Advanced Metering: Staff Report. Washington, D.C. 

15 Fehrenbacher, Katie. November 30, 2011. “A Home Energy Battle in Court: Opower vs. 

Efficiency 2.0”. GigaOm. http://gigaom.com/cleantech/a-home-energy-battle-in-court-opowervs-efficiency-2-0/. Accessed January 9, 2012. 

16 Davis, M. 2011. Behavior and Energy Savings: Evidence from a Series of Experimental 

Interventions. Environmental Defense Fund. Washington, D.C. 

17 Harding, M. and McNamara, P. 2011. Rewarding Energy Engagement: Evaluation of 

Electricity Impacts from CUB Energy Saver, a Residential Efficiency Pilot Program in the 

ComEd Service Territory. Draft Whitepaper. 

18 Carroll, E., Hatton, E., Brown, M. 2009. Research Study: Residential Energy Use Behavior 

Change Pilot. Franklin Energy. Port Washington, WI. 

37
 19 Allcott, H. 2009. Social Norms and Energy Conservation. Journal of Public Economics, vol. 

95, issues 9-10, pp. 1082-1095. 

20 Ceniceros, Bruce. Sacramento Municipal Utility District presentation. March 12, 2008. “Do 

They Care How Much Their Neighbors Use? Lessons Learned from SMUD’s Normative 

Messaging Pilot”. 

21 Cooney, K. 2011. Evaluation Report: OPOWER SMUD Pilot Year 2. Navigant Consulting. 

Chicago, IL. 

22 York, D. Witte, P., Friedrich, K., Kushler, M. January 2012. A National Review of Natural 

Gas Energy Efficiency Programs. American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy. 

Report Number U121. 

23 Froehlich, J. 2009. Promoting Energy Efficient Behaviors in the Home through Feedback: The 

Role of Human-Computer Interaction. HCIC 2009 Workshop. University of Washington Tech 

Note #09-02-01. University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 

24 Ibid. 

25 Wilhite and Ling. 1992. The Person Behind the Meter: An Ethnographic Analysis of 

Residential Energy Consumption in Oslo, Norway. Proceedings of the American Council for 

an Energy-Efficient Economy. Washington, D.C. 

26 Kempton, W., Layne, L.L. 1994. The Consumer’s Energy Analysis Environment. Energy 

Policy, vol. 22, issue 10, pp. 857-866. 

27 Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Rothengatter, T. 2005. A Review of Intervention Studies Aimed at 

Household Energy Conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 273-291. 

28 Fischer, C. 2008. Feedback on Household Electricity Consumption: A Tool for Saving 

Energy? Energy Efficiency. Vol. 1, pp. 79-104. 

29 Wilhelm, Bobette, personal communication to author, December 20, 2011. 

30 Roberts, S., Baker, W. 2003. Towards Effective Energy Information: Improving Consumer 

Feedback on Energy Consumption. A report to Ofgem. Centre for Sustainable Energy, Bristol, 

UK.

31 LaMarche, J. and Sachs, O. 2011 Designing Interfaces for Home Energy Users: A Preference 

Study. Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

32 Ashby, K.V., Nevius, M., Walton, M., Ceniceros, B. 2010. Behaving Ourselves: How 

Behavior Change Insights are Being Applied to Energy Efficiency Programs. ACEEE Summer 

Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

Washington, D.C. 

33 Todd, A. June 2010. Precourt Energy Efficiency Center presentation. “Behavioral Economics 

is the New Green”. Stanford University. Palo Alto, CA. 

34 Ferraro, P., Price, M. Undated. Using Non-Pecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: 

Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment. Georgia State University and University of 

Tennessee, Knoxville. Accessed December 13, 2011. 

35 Carroll, E., Hatton, E., Brown, M. 2009. Research Study: Residential Energy Use Behavior 

Change Pilot. Franklin Energy. Port Washington, WI. 

36 Donnelly, K. 2010. “The Technological and Human Dimensions of Residential Feedback: An 

Introduction to the Broad Range of Today’s Feedback Strategies”. Within People-Centered 

Initiatives for Increasing Energy Savings. American Council for an Energy Efficiency 

Economy. Washington, D.C. 

38
 37 Goodwin, Summer. December 2010. Residential Sector Research Findings for Behavior-based 

Energy Efficiency. Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, Oregon. 

38 CEPro. 2009. The Ultimate Guide to Home Automation 2009. Accessed October 4, 2011. 

http://www.cepro.com/ 39 Pike Research website. December 10, 2009. “Home Energy Management Users Will Reach 28 

Million by 2015.” http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/home-energy-management-userswill-reach-28-million-by-2015. Accessed November 15, 2011. 

40 AHR Expo 2012. January 23-25, 2012. McCormick Place North and South. Chicago, Illinois. 

41 LaMarche, J., Cheney, K., Christian, S., Roth, K. 2011. Home Energy Management Products 

and Trends. Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

42 Meier, A., Aragon, C., Hurwitz, B., Peffer, T., Pritoni, M. 2010 How People Actually Use 

Thermostats. ACEEE Summary Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. American Council 

for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C. 

43 Pike Research. “Smart Gas Meter Penetration to Reach 11% by 2016”. Press Release. March 

24, 2011. http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/smart-gas-meter-penetration-to-reach-11-

by-2016. Accessed May 3, 2012. 

44 Cohn, G., Gupta, S., Froehlich, J., Larson, E., Patel, S.N. 2010. GasSense: Appliance-Level, 

Single-Point Sensing of Gas Activity in the Home. Pervasive 2010.

45 Janice Cheam, Energy Aware Technology, Inc. Personal communication to author, September 

22, 2011. 

46 Gregory Hancock, Grid Insight, Chief Technology Officer. Personal communication to author, 

September 21, 2011. 

47 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. February 2011. Assessment of Demand Response 

and Advanced Metering: Staff Report. Washington, D.C. 

48 Yamagami, S., Nakamura, H., Meier, A. 1996. Non-Intrusive Submetering of Residential Gas 

Appliances. Tokyo Gas Company and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. ACEEE White 

Paper. 

49 Kingston, Tim, Gas Technology Institute, Senior Engineer. Personal communication to author, 

August 17, 2011. 

50 Goodwin, Summer. November 2, 2011. Residential Behavior Based Energy Efficiency 

Programs. Bonneville Power Administration presentation at Efficiency Connections 

Northwest, November 2-3, 2011. Tacoma, Washington. 

51 SDG&E website. “About Smart Meters”. http://sdge.com/residential/about-smartmeters/about-smart-meters. Accessed February 23, 2012. 

52 Metering.com website. “Portland General Electric – AMI is Only the Beginning”. 

http://www.metering.com/node/12880. Accessed February 23, 2012. 

53 Southern California Gas Company. September 9, 2010. SoCalGas Advanced Metering 

Initiative (AMI) Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) Kick-off Meeting. Powerpoint presentation. 

54 Friedrich, K., Eldridge, M., York, D., Witte P., Kushler, M. 2009. Saving Energy CostEffectively: A National Review of the Cost of Energy Saved through Utility-Sector Energy 

Efficiency Programs. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

55 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. State Electricity Profiles. 

Accessed February 6, 2012. 

39
 56 The Cadmus Group, Inc. November 2011. The Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a National 

Grid 2012 System Reliability Plan Report, Docket No. 4296, Appendix 8. Memo from The 

Cadmus Group dated August 12, 2011. 

57 Honeywell and Opower brochure. November 2011. Energy Management Thermostat. 

40
DOE/GO-102012-3683 ▪ December 2012

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post-consumer waste.