SERIITR·254·3386

UC Category: 95

DE89000872

Effects of Feedback on

Residential Electricity

Consumption:

A Literature Review

Barbara C. Farhar

Colleen Fitzpatrick

January 1989

Prepared under Task No. BE911041

Solar Energy Research Institute

A Division of MidwestResearch Institute

1617Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Energy

Contract No. DE-AC02-83CH10093
INTRODUCTION

CONTENTS

......................................................... 1

FINDINGS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Studies Using Both Feedback and Incentives •••

Studies Using Goal Setting ••••••••••••••••••

Studies on Cost Information Feedback ••••••••

Studies Using Displays

Other Related Studies

DISCUSSION ............................................................

5

5

7

10

15

16

18

Policy Implications

Research Needs

18

18

REFERENCES ••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 20

ii
INTRODUCTION

Purchasing energy for one's home is like shopping in a store without price tags. You

select what you want and pay a total amount without ever knowing how much each item

cost. A utility bill ordinarily provides some information about the number of units of

electricity or natural gas consumed and a total amount due. Customers usually receive

no information on how much various energy users (such as refrigerators or waterbeds)

cost to operate. They don't receive information on their weather-adjusted heating or

cooling usage. If customers attempt to conserve energy, they receive little or no

feedback on how well they did. •

Yet it would be sensible to expect customers to change their energy consumption

behavior if they had information on which to base decisions about it. Price is known to

affect demand to some extent. If customers could tell how much they were being

charged for energy users, they could decide how they wanted to spend their energy

dollars.

Utility companies have not expressed much interest in how information feedback might

affect energy consumption. For a utility to reprogram its billing algorithms and to

collect and maintain the data bases necessary to provide accurate disaggregated

information feedback would indeed be a costly enterprise. Such costs are unlikely to be

approved by utility regulators in the absence of evidence that they would result in

substantial conservation. The evidence in hand on the role of information feedback in

reducing energy consumption is scanty at best.

Various research groups have conducted studies to assess the effects of feedback on residential electricity consumption. Several investigators analyzed the effects of feedback

alone or in conjunction with other factors, such as goal setting and monetary incentives.

Findings show that feedback alone and in conjunction with other factors can be effective

in reducing electricity consumption. No studies were found that investigated the use of

monthly utility bills as a means of providing feedback. One pilot study on a household

energy report to accompany monthly bills used monthly utility billings as a means of

feedback (Layne et ale 1987). Another study investigated a pilot disaggregated electric

usage analysis conducted by a utility (Morgan 1988).

Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics in the studies discussed. This review briefly

describes the design and findings of research conducted in various parts of the country

investigating the effects of feedback as a single variable or in combination with other

factors.

The studies reviewed are organized into categories according to key elements of feedback that they investigated. These are:

• Studies using both feedback and incentives

• Studies using goal setting'with feedback

• Studies on cost information feedback

• Studies using displays for feedback

• Other related studies.

1
III

Table 1. Characteristics of Feedback Used (Concluded)

III

--u

-

• Savings I J

,,_v

. Frequency Over What For What Form Achieved

of Time Energy of by

Study Feedback (Location) End Uses Feedback Feedback

Winett, 1 time/day March-May Lighting, appli- Notes 10% to 15%

Kaiser, and for 6 weeks (Lexington, ances, and air left on reduction

Haberkorn KY) cond itioning door (included

(1976-77) info.)

Winett et ale I time/week August Air conditioning Meter None

(1978) for 4 weeks (TX) reading

consumption

comparisons

Winett et ale Every day for June-July Air conditioning Notes left 7% to 20%

(1978-79) 5-6 weeks (Greenbelt, at door reduction

MD)

Winett, Daily for 28 March Heating, cooking, Self-moni- 7 to 11%

Neale, and consecutive (Washington, air conditioning, toring; notes reductions

Grier (1979) days DC suburbs) refrigeration, left at door

and lights

Winett et ale Daily for Winter Heating, cooking, Notes left 17% less

(1982) 35 days (Blacksburg, lights, and at door than conVA) refrigeration trol group

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daily for

30 days

Summer

(Salem,

VA)

Cooking, air

conditioning,

lights, and

refrigeration

Notes left

at door

19% reduction from

baseline
FINDINGS

Studies Using Both Feedback and Incentives

Four studies were located which explored the use of information feedback along with

monetary incentives. These were: (a) Kohlenberg, Phillips, and Procter (1976),

(b) Winett, Kaiser, and Haberkorn (1976-77), (c) Hayes and Cone (1977), and (d)

Winett, et ale (1978).

Kohlenberg, Phillips, and Proctor (1976) investigated variables influencing consumers in

reducing peak demand energy consumption, which tested the effects of information,

feedback, and feedback plus monetary incentives on electricity consumption. The participants in this study were three Seattle, Wash., households, none of which were electrically heated; each had an electric stove, dryer, dishwasher, and water heater.

The researchers installed 24-h chart recorders in each residence to monitor electrical

energy consumption in 15-min intervals. An experimenter informed the households about

peaking problems and their relationship to the raising of Ross Dam (the subject of local

controversy). Participants were asked to avoid using too much power at anyone time

and to try reducing peaking. Participants received a list of 100-W light bulb equivalents

for the power ratings of the electrical appliances in their homes.

Feedback consisted of a current-sensitive relay installed in each house. When current

levels reached 9096 of the peak levels, which had been recorded 2 weeks prior during a

baseline period, a 40-W bulb located in the kitchen was triggered, Each .houeehold

received explanations on how the signal light could be used for helping to reduce peak

consumption.

The investigators asked each household to make special efforts to demonstrate that it

was possible to reduce peaking. As an incentive, participants received double the prorated amount of the electricity bill for a 2-week period for a 10096 reduction in peaking,

20096 for a 7596 reduction, 10096 for a 5096 reduction, and 5096 for a 2596 reduction. Subjects received instructions on how to compute peaking reductions from a chart recorder

installed previously. The research spanned a 3-month period from early January through

March. Weekly data collection consisted of an experimenter recording electricity consumption on a device installed for recording normal power use.

Findings showed that information alone had little effect. Feedback alone seemed to be

effective but only to a small magnitude. The greatest effect on reducing electricity consumption was in the incentive-feedback condition-resulting in a 5096 reduction in peaking. The study concluded that although feedback was important in producing changes in

peak energy use behavior, feedback combined with a payment condition had a greater

effect. Removal of the experimental conditions resulted in a return to previous consumption patterns.

Winett, Kaiser, and Haberkorn (1976-77) investigated feedback, information, and arebate

system in 12 (6 control and 6 experimental) apartments where electricity was used for

lighting, appliances, and air conditioning. The study, conducted over a 6-week period

from March to May, with temperatures varying from 84° to 27°F, involved students or '

recent college graduates in Lexington, Ky., who tended to be consistently away from

their apartments most of the day and sporadically away on weekends,

5
Information sheets, included in letters describing the experimental procedures, indicated

six ways to conserve electricity:

• Reduce the use of major appliances

• Moderate the use of air conditioning

• Close the drapes on warm sunny days

• Use no air conditioning when windows are open

• Reduce the use of hot water

• Turn out unnecessary lights.

Following a I-week baseline period, all six experimental units were placed on a I-week

rebate schedule (Monday-Sunday), which provided payments of $2 for a 596-996 reduction

in electricity consumption, $3 for a 1096-2096 reduction, $5 for a 2196-3096 reduction, and

$7 for a reduction greater than 3096. This rebate system represented a price reduction in

electricity consumption between 30096 and 40096. A daily note left at the apartment following the daily meter reading by a research assistant provided the percentage of

increase or decrease in electricity consumption, average increase or decrease for the

week, and expected earnings.

The investigators then placed three experimental units on a rebate system, which consisted of payments that were 5096 of the first system. The remaining three experimental

units received only daily feedback notes. All experimental units received feedback and

information sheets for a period of either 4 or 5 weeks without a rebate system.

The study found daily feedback, preceded by a rebate system representing a price reduction between 30096 and 40096, resulted in a reduction in apartment electricity consumption averaging from 1096-15%. However, feedback was not effective during very warm

days when air conditioning was used frequently. The reduction of the experimental group

each week exceeded the control group's reduction. The study did not investigate the

effects of feedback without information sheets.

Hayes and Cone (1977) examined the effects of payments, information, and feedback on

levels of electrical energy consumption. This study differed from previous studies by

looking at all three variable classes (feedback alone, feedback plus payment, and payment alone) separately and in various combinations. The study was conducted from January to May, involving four units from a housing complex for married students at West

Virginia University. Electricity was used for cooking, refrigeration, and ventilation

fans. Meter readings, taken for 8 to 13 days, provided a baseline electricity consumption

level.

For the first week, all four units received cash payments according to a percent reduction in weekly electricity consumption compared to baseline levels. The study implemented the following payment schedule:

• $3 for a 10%-1996 reduction

• $6 for a 20%-29% reduction

• $9 for a 30%-39% reduction

• $12 for a 4096-49% reduction

• $15 for a 50% or more reduction.

Later phases of the study reduced these levels to 83%, 50%, 25%, or 1096 of the original

dollar amount in two of the four units.

6
Feedback consisted of a flier left in the mailbox every day, which contained the following (in dollars and cents):

• Amount of electricity consumed the previous day

• Amount of electricity consumed so far for the week

• Amount of electricity that would be consumed for the week at that rate of

consumption

• The percentage above or below baseline levels.

Information consisted of a poster describing ways to reduce electricity consumption and

the amount of energy consumed per yearfor most common household electrical devices.

The study found that paying consumers for reduced energy consumption was the most

effective of the three procedures resulting in an average 3396 reduction in electricity

consumption from baseline levels. The combined effect of feedback and 10096 payment

was no greater than 10096 payment alone. Feedback alone was studied in only one of the

four units. In this case, feedback produced a 1596 to 2196 reduction in baseline electricity consumption during a 2-week period.

Winett, et ale (1978) reported that of high monetary rebates, weekly written feedback, or

conservation information, only a high rebate condition significantly reduced electricity

consumption--by about 1296. This study involved 12 Texas households whose primary use

of electricity was for air conditioning. The period of the study was from June to August.

After a 2-week period of meter readings to establish a baseline consumption level, investigators randomly assigned each household to one of five groups:

• High rebate: received rebates up to 30¢ for each 196 reduction in weekly kWh usage

plus feedback information

• Low rebate: received 1.3¢ payment for each kWh reduced plus feedback information

• Feedback: received copies of weekly meter readings and mailings comparing each

week's use with the previous summer's average

• Information: received booklets on household energy conservation tips and information

on how to compute the electric bill

• Control: received information booklets at the end of 4 weeks.

Results indicated that overall, only the high rebate system (which included feedback)

resulted in substantial reductions (1496-1696) in electricity usage. Information alone may

have actually increased usage. Weekly feedback and information were ineffective in

reducing electricity consumption.

Summary. The studies exhibit a consistent pattern of findings that feedback plus

monetary incentives worked well in reducing energy consumption. Information on

consumption by itself had little effect.

Studies Using Goal Setting

Four studies were located which investigated using feedback in combination with setting

goals to reduce consumption. These were: (a) Becker (I978), (b) Winett, et ale (1978-79~

(c) Winett, Neale,and Grier (1979), and (d) Winett, et ale (1982).

7
Becker (1978) found that feedback in relationship to goal setting significantly reduced

energy consumption. This study occurred from June through August in central New

Jersey. It consisted of 100 families residing in townhouses. The investigator assigned

each household to either a control or feedback group. Research staff recorded the

household's meter readings over a 9-week period to determine average daily consumption.

The investigator used the average daily consumption of each household in the feedback

group to produce a predicted average daily consumption value.

Each household received an information sheet listing various appliances found in the

home and the amount of electricity each consumed. The researcher asked each family in

both the feedback and control groups to adopt either C3 ;ifficult (2096 reduction) or an

easy (296 reduction) conservation goal. Research assista.. .s recorded the meter readings

from each household on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings for 3 weeks; after each

meter reading, on the same day, the feedback group received data on a plastic chart

attached to the outside of the kitchen window facing inward, reflecting actual reduction

in electricity consumption with respect to the reduction goal of 2096 or 296. The families

assigned to the 2096 goal and given feedback consumed the least amount of electricity

and was the only group that ·used significantly fewer kWh than the control group. The

2096 feedback group used 1396 less electricity than the control group and the 296 feedback group used 5% less. The results pointed out the importance of setting difficult conservation goals and giving feedback on performance with respect to the goals.

Winett, et ale (1978-79), in a replication of prior research, studied the effects of feedback alone. This study, conducted from April to September, involved 121 households in

Greenbelt, Md., using electricity for air conditioning. Researchers assigned households

to one of four conditions:

• Control • Individual feedback

• Group feedback • Individual-group feedback.

Research assistants read the electricity meters for all households every day for 22 to

29 days to establish baseline levels. Investigators asked each feedback household to

select a reduction goal--resulting in an average goal of 5%.

Individual feedback consisted of kWh used the previous day and the percentage of

increase or decrease based on the control group's baseline and prior day's use. The feedback form indicated whether the reduction was better than the individual household's

chosen goal. Group feedback was based on figures for the total group's kWh usage,

reflecting a group percentage of increase or decrease. Participants received feedback

presented on color-eoded forms with a series of smiles or frowns depicting different

levels of increase or decrease in electricity consumption.

Findings demonstrated that group feedback yielded negligible reductions. Where individual feedback was used alone or in combination with group feedback, both approaches

reduced consumption by 796-2096, with no difference in the effectiveness of the 2 feedback methods found. The study concluded that individual feedback may be the most

efficacious method.

This study also provided ideas on how to offer feedback, such as the use of energy monitors that display kWh used, cost at current rates of use, and cumulative cost. The investigators also suggested that consumers be taught how to monitor their own conventional

electricity meters persistently and reliably.

8
Winett, Neale, and Grier (1979) evaluated a more practical feedback procedure of selfmonitoring meter reading. With minimal training and prompting, self-monitoring consumers were found to be highly reliable and persistent meter readers. This study, conducted from January to May. in an all-electric townhouse community near. Wa~hington,

DC, involved 45 households assigned to a feedback, self-monitoring, or volunteer comparison group. A fourth group consisted of a nonvolunteer comparison group. Investigators established a 3-week baseline usage level in January for each household.

The feedback and self-monitoring groups attended separate meetings where they were

given conservation information emphasizing thermostat control and a booklet showing

savings from retrofitting and better use of appliances. After the meetings, each feedback household received a feedback sheet placed on the doorstep every day for 28 consecutive days. The feedback sheet replicated the form used in the Winett, et ale (1978)

study, which stated use in terms of the household's reduction goal. The self-monitoring

households received the same information as the feedback group and, in addition, were

taught to read their own electricity meters. After being instructed to determine if the

prior day's use had been above or below expected levels, the self-monitoring group

received a note on the doorstep for 28 days that showed expected use for the prior day.

Research staff read the electricity meters every day•. The self-monitoring households

meter readings were compared to the staff's meter readings to determine reliability.

Results showed no significant differences between groups in baseline electrical use

levels, although the nonvolunteer comparison group used more kWh per household than

the other three groups. During the intervention and subsequent 4- and 6-week follow-up

periods, the feedback group reduced electricity consumption by about 1196 and the selfmonitoring group by about 796, compared with the combined comparison group.

Reductions found in this study were primarily attributed to thermostat setting behavior.

Analysis of cost-benefits found that each feedback household saved an average $44 and

each self-monitoring household saved an average $26 from expected expenditures based

on the comparison group's use during the 14 weeks of intervention and follow-up.

Winett, et ale (1982) found feedback and/or videotape modeling programs reduced electricity consumption in all-electric townhouses or apartments. This research consisted of

two studies, one conducted during the winter in Blacksburg, Va. (N=83) and the other

during the summer in Salem, Va. (N=54). The study placed each household in one of the

following conditions: .

• Feedback and discussion

• Information and modeling

• Information and discussion

• Feedback and modeling

• Information and discussion

• Control.

The researchers provided households in the feedback group with a thermostat change

schedule card, placed near the thermostat, which called for a 1°F reduction in

thermostat setting per week for 4 weeks. Feedback, given for 35 days in the winter and

30 days in the summer, provided,daily.information indicating the percentage of increase

or decrease from baseline levels. Feedback replicated the form used in the Winett, Neal,

and Grier (1979) study. The study included weather-adjusted data and asked each participant to reduce electricity consumption by 1596 with each signing a form agreeing to

attempt reaching this goal. Videotape modeling consisted of two 20-min videotapes

9
s=~.

depicting various ways of coping with changes in thermostat settings with demonstrations

on using setbacks. Emphasis was placed on thermostat setbacks.

Results of the winter study indicated that groups receiving feedback and/or modeling

consumed about 12% less electricity than the information and discussion group and about

1796 less than the control group. During intervention, both feedback and modeling groups

reduced their baseline electricity for heating consumption by about 2396 compared to

baseline levels. The overall results indicated that feedback and/or modeling were effective in reducing electricity consumption by thermostat control (particularly set-backs)

with a warmer follow-up period demonstrating some evidence for maintenance of effect.

Results of the summer study indicated that, during intervention, the feedback group

reduced electricity consumption by 1996 and the feedback-modeling group reduced consumption by 2296, compared to baseline levels. During the follow-up phase, both the

feedback and feedback-modeling groups maintained reduction compared to baseline

levels by 2996 and 3796, respectively.

Summary. Only one of the four studies reviewed investigated the role of goal-setting in

combination with feedback in reducing electricity consumption. This study found that

setting difficult conservation goals and providing feedback on performance with respect

to the goals resulted in the most energy saved. The other three studies used goal-setting

as the context within which feedback information was provided, thereby not testing the

effect of goal-setting itself.

The other three studies found the feedback tailored to the individual household rather

than to a group of households, feedback provided by an external source rather than selfmonitoring, and feedback that included suggestions about how to cope with reduced

consumption were more effective. These results obtained in the context of conservation

goal-setting.

Studies on Cost Information Feedback

Five studies were found that included giving feedback on costs alone or on both kWh consumption and costs. These were (a) Palmer, Lloyd, and Lloyd (1977), (b) Morgan (1988),

(c) Ramey-Smith and Gagnon (1979), (d) Bittle, Valesano, and Thaler (1979), and (e)

Layne, et ale (1987).

Palmer, Lloyd, and Lloyd (1977) studied the effects of daily prompts and feedback on

electricity consumption in four households in Des Moines, Iowa. Investigatorsestablished

baseline levels of electricity consumption at various intervals throughout the study.

Research staff collected data from February to May for a total of 106 days. All households used electric heat.

The study involved five conditions:

• Feedback:

• Cost information:

Each night, a card (taped to the inside of the front storm

door} showed electricity consumption for the day compared to

consumption for a previous baseline period.

Added to the feedback was the expected monthly bill projected from the mean baseline consumption. The difference

between the two was identified as the amount of money that

would be saved or wasted if that day's consumption were

maintained for 30 days.

10
• Daily prompt: Each night, one of a series of eight prompts was taped to the

inside of the storm door.

• Prompt plus feedback: Each night, feedback with a prompt on the back was taped to

the door.

• Government prompt: A personal letter was mailed to each family from the Iowa

Office of Energy.

Results showed that introduction of cost information appeared to have the greatest

impact on reducing consumption. The investigators did not analyze the magnitude of this

reduction. The power company provided comparable J-month consumption data for preexperimental, experimental, and postexperimental years. In all households, electricity

consumption was lower, by an average of 1696, during the experimental period than during the preexperimental period. Three of the households' (one moved from the area)

electricity consumption averaged 996 lower for the postexperimental period than the preexperimental period.

The study demonstrated the effectiveness of prompting and feedback techniques in

reducing electricity consumption. The study also pointed out that the local power company seemed to encourage high rates of electricity consumption by charging a lower kWh

rate for increased usage resulting in proportionately smaller money savings for large

reductions in usage, indicating that it would be more efficient to reverse the billing procedures by charging increasingly more for greater consumption.

Morgan (I988) evaluated a pilot electricity usage analysis for residential customers which

Boston Edison piggybacked on its home energy audit program. The project, called EASYPlus, used proprietary software developed by ENERCOM, Inc. to collect data from

households to use in a computer algorithm to produce monthly and annual usage

analyses. The results were presented as bar charts showing electricity costs broken down

by 13 end uses (such as refrigerator and clothes washer).

The EASY-Plus service was delivered in two different modes--(I) by an auditor in person

at the end of the regular audit, and (2) by mail. The study tested customer behavioral

response to the analysis results, which constituted feedback on their electricity use.

Morgan completed an analysis of the actual electricity consumed in households receiving

and not receiving the analyses. He found that households receiving the analyses saved

,about 796 more electricity than the average Boston Edison residential customer, although

the findings should be viewed with caution due to limitations in sample size and other

study problems. Additionally, Boston Edison found that the electricity usage analysis

helped resolve high bill complaints. '

Ramey-Smith and Gagnon (I979) studied cost feedback preferences in 18 metropolitan

Washington, DC, households. The study did not describe the exact use of electric energy

and some of the households used gas or oil in addition to electricity. Feedback consisted

of an LED display device installed in each home, which indicated the dollar and cent cost

of operating various appliances. Each household received feedback in one of the following ways:

• Cumulative: accumulated cost of electricity consumption for daily, weekly, or

monthly periods

• Instantaneous: the rate of present usage and estimates on what the cost would be if

consumption continued at that rate for 1 hour, I day, or I month

11
• Projected: the rate of usage based on the previous day's cost, which was used to

estimate the energy cost for the following day, week, or month.

Results showed that daily and monthly cumulative feedback were the preferred forms of

cumulative feedback, hourly instantaneous feedback was the preferred form of instantaneous feedback, and daily projected feedback was the preferred form of projected

feedback.

When asked to choose a combination of feedback procedures, the majority of participants

included some form of cumulative feedback. All participants having two energy sources

expressed a need to have feedback presented in separate values reflecting the energy

source. This study did not involve an analysis concerning the effects of feedback on

energy consumption.

Bittle, Valesano, and Thaler (1979) reported that feedback efforts may be more effective

if made when demands for energy were high. This study involved 30 rural southern

Illinois households for which use of electrical energy was not determined. The study,

conducted between June and September, involved three procedure phases:

• l2-day daily meter reading baseline period

• 42-day weekday meter reading with feedback for an experimental group and no feedback for a control group period

• 24-day reversal period during which feedback was provided to the previous no-feedback

group and no feedback was provided to the previous feedback group.

Feedback cards, placed daily in the appropriate household's mailbox, contained date,

number of kWh used, cost of kWh used on a particular day or .weekend period, and the

cumulative cast of electricity since the feedback period began.

During the first feedback phase, the feedback group used an average of 4% less electricity per day than the control group. During the second feedback phase, the feedback

group consumed an average of 14% less electricity than when feedback was not given.

To determine if temperature change was the determining variable in decreasing consumption during the second feedback phase, a comparison was made of consumption rates

in both feedback and no-feedback conditions on days when the temperature was

comparable. This comparison clearly demonstrated that electricity consumption varied

as a function of feedback regardless of average temperature highs. On days when temperatures ranged from 76° to 80°F, the rate of consumption averaged 3096 less when

feedback was given. On days when temperatures ranged from 81° to 85°F, 86° to 90°F,

and 91° to 95°F, the average consumption was about 1596 lower when feedback was

given.

Although this study found feedback related to reduced electricity consumption in

general, a greater difference in consumption between feedback and no-feedback conditions was found when the need for electricity for cooling purposes was lowest. This

indicates that feedback could be more effective in reducing consumption when needs are

lower. The study further pointed out that efforts should be made to promote conservation habits at low-use times rather than at peak usage times.

Presenting contradictory findings, Bittle, Valesano, and Thaler (1979-80) later found that

feedback was effective in restraining consumption in high consumers but had an opposite

effect on medium and low consumers, suggesting that feedback efforts may be more

12
effective if made when demands for energy are high. This study involved 353 households

in a rural southern Illinois community conducted between June and August. Meter

readings taken daily (Monday through Saturday) for 16 to 26 days determined baseline

consumption levels. The study did not describe household uses of electricity.

Investigators assigned all households to one of four types of daily feedback conditions:

• Number of kWh used the previous day

• Cumulative number of kWh used since the first of the month

• Dollar and cents of electricity for the previous day

• Cumulative dollars and cents of electricity used since the first of the month.

The researchers then assigned one-fourth of the households in each group to a delay

group, which began receiving feedback 10 days after the primary group. Feedback

periods spanned 35 days for the primary group and 26 days for the delay group.

Research staff read the electric meters each Monday through Saturday morning. The

staff calculated and then recorded consumption and cost on feedback cards delivered to

each household. Each experimental group was divided into high, medium, and lower consumer groups based on a frequency distribution of mean daily consumption during the

baseline period.

The weather became considerably warmer after the baseline consumption level was

established; therefore, all the groups increased consumption over their baseline levels

during the feedback phase of the study. The data were not weather-adjusted and thus the

effects of feedback could not be determined by comparing consumption during feedback

to baseline levels, although intergroup comparisons were made.

Intergroup comparisons revealed that feedback was effective in restraining electricity

consumption for consumers who used large amounts of electricity. However, for lower

consumers, feedback appeared to increase consumption. For high consumers, cumulative

feedback was more effective than daily consumption feedback only. For medium consumers, cumulative feedback was more effective initially but tended to equalize as feedback continued. For lower consumers, cumulative feedback was least effective. The

data in this study indicated that:

• Under extreme weather conditions, feedback was effective in restraining consumption

in consumers who used large amounts of electricity.

• Daily cumulative feedback was more effective than daily noncumulative feedback.

• Feedback during extremely hot weather increased consumption in low to medium users.

Layne, et ale (I987) conducted a pilot study evaluating the effectiveness of a household

energy report providing annual (not just monthly) weather-adjusted feedback data to

electricity consumers. This study asserted that annual feedback was preferable in

programs that were aimed at affecting the consumer's evaluation of retrofit investments

(such as insulation or a new furnace). The feedback model used a monthly and annual

report rather than more frequent feedback.

The research team developed a questionnaire and a prototype report called the Home

Energy Report (HER) for use in conducting interviews with a nonrandomly selected sample (N=173) of all-electric households in central New Jersey. The interviews revealed

that energy bills were used for at least two purposes beyond making monthly payments:

13
• Checking on unusual months • Evaluating conservation actions.

Both purposes required electrical consumption comparisons involving three methods:

• This versus recent months

• This month versus same month last year

• The highest this year versus the highest last year.

The study found optimum frequency of feedback dependent on the purpose for which it

was used. Monthly feedback was needed for monitoring short-term changes and yearly

feedback was better for larger and lasting changes such as those in family structures,

major retrofits, or deliberate changes in management, asserting that a report with both

types of feedback would enable people to make the largest number of inferences.

The investigators designed the HER under the assumption that weather-adjusted and

cost-adjusted figures would help consumers sort out weather fluctuations and rate

changes that affect their bills. However, they found that people were suspicious of or

did not grasp the concept of weather-adjusted figures when they were presented without

the corresponding actual figures. This indicates that it is better to give both actual and

weather-adjusted figures together.

As part of the experiment, the HER presented a distinction between space heating from

nonheating (such as water heating and cooking). The study found people reacted with

skepticism and suspicion to this heating/nonheating .division involving . two separate

issues:

• Some did not understand how this number could be known since there was only one

utility meter. .

• Some felt that their privacy was being invaded.

The final section of the HER showed the individual household's "normalized annual consumption" (NAC) for 2 prior years in comparison to the group's average NAC for the

same period, and the New Jersey average over a previous 4-year period. The study

assumed that consumers would use this information either as a diagnostic tool or as a

measure for gauging their consumption relative to others. Respondents were evenly split

between those who liked this information and those who did not.

This study concluded that, although consumers exploit a wide array of tools for understanding energy consumption, the monthly bill is the most extensively used. -The HER

differed from existing bills in having:

• Annual total with monthly breakdowns

• Rate-adjusted dollar figures • Weather-adjusted consumption rather than daily average temperature or degree days

• Usage breakdowns • Comparisons with averages.

The investigators suggested that a HER would provide the following:

• Save people the trouble of computing an annual energy total on their own

• Add more valuable comparative information than the unadjusted dollar totals most

respondents used for computations

14
• Enable people to feel more confident of savings that result from conservation efforts

by reliably accounting for weather fluctuations and rate changes

• Separate ·space heating from other energy uses analytically

• Compare individual usage to neighborhood usage.

Integrating interviews into the design of this study found the HER flawed in two ways:

• Raw monthly data needed to be used.

• Allowance for the fact that most consumers did not understand weather-adjusted consumption was needed.

Summary. The studies including feedback on energy costs, either alone or in combination

with information about kWh consumed, showed that cumulative cost information

feedback appeared to be most effective in reducing usage. In two studies with different

forms of feedback, customers tended to prefer cumulative information over daily or

hourly information. Two studies, both by Bittle, Valesano, and Thaler, resulted in

contradictory findings. Both studies provided cumulative feedback on costs and kWh

used, yet one found that higher electricity users conserved more, while the other found

that lower-use customers saved more in the feedback condition. :

Studies Using Displays

Four studies were located that used electronic displays in the home as the medium

through which feedback on electricity consumption was provided. These were

(a) McClelland and Cook (1979-80), (b) Seligman and Darley (1976-77), (c) Kohlenberg,

Phillips, and Proctor (1976), and (d) Ramey-Smith and Gagnon (1979). The latter two

studies are described in the sections on feedback with incentives and feedback using.cost

information, respectively.

McClelland and Cook (1979-80) found homes with continuous in-home monitors had lower

levels of consumption over an Ll-rnonth period than homes without continuous monitors.

This study involved 101 all-electric single-family homes in Carrboro, N.C. When built, 25

of the homes were equipped with ''Fitch energy monitors," which measured electrical

current, translated the current used at any given moment into cents per hour according

to a cents per kWh figure set manually on the device, and displayed this feedback on a

digital read-out located on the thermostat.

Carolina Light and Power Company provided utility billing records of electricity consumption for each home from September to July. A multiple regression analysis associated monitors with lower electricity consumption in all 11 months. The homes equipped

with monitors averaged 1296 less electricity consumption than those without monitors.

The differences neither increased or decreased over time, although they did tend to be

larger during months when demands for heating or cooling were lower, suggesting that

conservation actions taken by households with monitors primarily affected energy uses

other than heating and cooling. The study further suggested that the monitor's greater

impact on nonheating and cooling energy uses indicated that the monitors may have

served to teach consumers what activities consumed the most energy rather than to call

attention to the cost of energy.

15
Seligman and Darley (1977) investigated the effects of feedback alone via a Lucite display attached to the outside of the kitchen window in houses located in central New

Jersey. Investigators randomly assigned four households, where electricity was used for

central air conditioning, lighting, and refrigeration, to either a feedback or a control

condition. The study covered a 3-month period from July to September.

Meter readings taken for 5 weeks provided data for predicting each household's future

rate of energy usage based on an outdoor temperature. Research staff then read the

households' electric meters for 5 days per week over a 3-week period. The participants

were told that air conditioning was the largest use of electricity and that it was hoped

air conditioning use would be reduced.

Research staff calculated an actual over predicted electricity consumption ratio for each

feedback household and recorded this percentage in the Lucite display 4 times per week

for 3 weeks. If the household's predicted performance was to use 10 units of energy and

8 units were actually used, the display read "8096."

The study revealed that the feedback group used approximately 1196 less electricity

during the feedback period than the control group receiving no feedback. This study also

found that the level of conservation obtained through feedback was unrelated to the

lnltial Ievel of energy used, suggesting that lower users are as capable of reducing energy

consumption as higher users through feedback techniques.

Summary. Three of the studies using digital displays provided feedback on kWh usage

only, not on costs. The fourth displayed cost information, As in the other studies, the

feedback condition tended to result in lower electricity consumption. However, the

studies offer no evidence that displays are a more effective mode of providing

information than notes, cards, utility bills or one-time reports.

Other Related Studies

Two other studies did not fit within these categories. They were: (a) Winkler and Winett

(1982) and (b) Katzev, et ale (1980-81).

Winkler and Winett (I982) performed a meta-analysis on behavioral residential energy

conservation studies using feedback in which effects were reported by different household income levels. They found a relationship between energy behavior resulting from

feedback and the proportion of the household budget used for energy (electricity or natural gas) needs. This analysis concluded that feedback had little effect in reducing energy

consumption in households where energy costs were no more than ·296 of the household

budgets. By contrast, people using a larger proportion (>296) of their income for energy

were likely to benefit more from a feedback program.

Katzev, Cooper, and Fisher 0980-80 investigated the effects of feedback and social

reinforcement during a 7-week summer period on 11 all-electric apartments in a

Portland, Oreg., suburb. The study consisted of 2-week baseline, information, and treatment phases and a I-week follow-up phase.

The study distinguished four groups as follows:

• Control: Meter readings were taken daily with no intervention

given.

16
• Daily contingent feedback:

• 3-day contingent

feedback plus decal:

• 3-day noncontingent

feedback plus decal:

Meters were read daily. Feedback sheets comparing

the previous days meter reading to the control group's

average for the preceding day translated into monetary costs were taped to the door for 14 days.

Meters were read daily. Every third day, feedback

sheets covering total usage for the 3 preceding days

compared to the control group were taped to the

door. When consumption was less than the previous

3-day period, a stick-on decal with the statement "We

~re conserving energy" was given.

Meters were read daily. Every third day, feedback

slips indicating only if they had been successful in

reducing energy were taped to the doors. Five decals

were given over a 2-week period.

Results indicated that feedback had little or no impact on reducing electrical energy

consumption in households receiving feedback compared to households receiving no

feedback. Feedback also had little or no impact on feedback households when compared

to baseline levels of usage.

17
DISCUSSION

Policy Implications

The bulk of the literature provides evidence that information feedback can playa role in

reducing electricity consumption, on the order of from 596 to 2096. This variation may be

explained by the varying ways in which feedback was provided, varying content of the

feedback messages, and the weather at the time the feedback was provided. The studies

suggest strongly that:

• Feedback in combination with monetary incentives is most effective.

• Feedback in connection with conservation performance goals may be most effective.

• Feedback in written form is probably more effective than on-site displays.

• Cumulative information is more effective than other forms.

• Cost information or cost plus consumption information is more effective than

information on kWh consumption alone.

Although most of the researchers used feedback methods involving cards, charts, fliers,

and notes delivered to the household, such means of providing feedback would not be

feasible on a broader scale. The most likely source of feedback information is the

customer's utility company. Thus, the findings on feedback should be considered in the

light of what utility companies might effectively provide their customers by way of

feedback information.

The studies which looked at utility participation in feedback were McClelland and Cook

(1979-80), Layne, et ale (1987), and Morgan (1988). None of these studies investigated the

difference between utility company and other sources of information feedback. They

seem to offer preliminary evidence, however, that electricity consumption can be

reduced by the utility company providing feedback information to customers. Further,

the evidence in the literature would support the notion that information provided should

be on cumulative costs (annually and, perhaps, monthly or seasonally), rather than on kWh

usage, although including both costs and kWh usage might be best.

A one-time analysis in an annual report rather than a monthly billing might be sufficient

to achieve consumption declines. Weather-adjusted information would apparently be

useful also. An added benefit to the utility company of providing disaggregated cost

information is the resolution of high bill complaints by customers.

Research Needs

Much of the difficulty in defining the effects of feedback lies in the inability to

generalize existing research findings. Even though feedback appears to reduce electricity consumption effectively, the findings are far from convincing. Many questions

remain unanswered, such as:

• What types of feedback procedures are best depending on various weather conditions?

• What types of consumers should be targeted for feedback?

• Does the frequency of feedback, such as daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly, impact its

effectiveness?

• Does feedback alone provide the desired effects?

18
• Does the source of feedback, such as researcher or power company, have a bearing on

results?

• Does the form in which feedback is presented, (e.g., written notes, light signals, continuous monitoring devices, conventional meter reading, or weekly/monthly reports)

have a bearing on desired effects?

.- Does the way in which the feedback is presented, such as absolute kWh usage, percentage of change from baseline levels, actual kWh usage compared with corrected estimates of usage, or kWh usage compared with consumption of other individuals, impact

its effectiveness?

• Must the desired amount of conservation be defined before feedback effectiveness can

be determined?

• To what degree are interested parties, such as consumers, power companies, and

government, willing to.invest in such conservation techniques?

At the present time, the conditions under which feedback is most effective have not been

determined. Also to be determined is the degree of change that feedback techniques

could be expected to produce. In addition, the parameters (e.g., source and form of

feedback, method of delivery, and period of time it is presented) for determining when,

where, and how feedback is effective remain unclear. Finally, follow-up on long-term

effects is missing. The longevity effects of feedback once stimuli have been removed or

when feedback becomes a routine part of consumers' lives remains unexplored.

In short, the effectiveness of feedback in promoting electricity conservation must be

viewed cautiously. Before feedback as a conservation technique can be employed with

greater 'confidence, the parameters of influence 'should be defined adequately. Without

such definition, generalizations on the impacts of such techniques cannot be formulated

accurately.

19
REFERENCES

Becker, Lawrence J. (1978). "Joint Effect of Feedback and Goal Setting on Performance:

A Field Study of Residential Energy Conservation." Joumal of Applied Psychology

63:428-433.

Bittle, Ronald G., Robert Valesano, and Greg Thaler (I979). "The Effects of Daily Cost

Feedback on Residential Electricity Consumption." Behavior Modification 3:187-201.

Bittle, Ronald G., Robert Valesano, and Greg Thaler (1979-80). "The Effects of Daily

Feedback on Residential Electricity Usage As A Function of Usage Level and Type of

Feedback Information." Journal of Environmental Systems 9:275-287.

Hayes, Steven C. and John D. Cone (1977). "Reducing Residential Electrical Energy

Use: Payments, Information, and Feedback." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

10:425-435.

Katzev, Richard, Laura Cooper, and Pat Fisher (1980-81). ''The Effect of Feedback and

Social Reinforcement on Residential Electricity Consumption." Journal of Environmental Systems 10:215-227.

Kempton, W. and L. L. Layne (1988). ''The Consumer's Energy Information Environment." Behavior and Lifestyle, Proceedings of the 1988 Summer Study on Energy

Efficiency in Buildings II:11.51-11.66.

Kohlenberg, Robert, Thomas Phillips, and William Proctor (1976). "A Behavioral Analysis

of peaking in Residential Electrical-Energy Consumers." Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis 9:13-18.

Layne, L., W. Kempton, A. Behrens, R. Diamond, M. Fels, and C. Reynolds, (CEES)

(1987). "Design Criteria For A Consumer Energy Report: A Pilot Field Study." Unpublished. Princeton University.

McClelland, Lou and Stuart W. Cook (1979-80). "Energy Conservation Effects of Continuous In-Home Feedback In All-Electric Homes." Journal of Environmental Systems

9:169-173.

Morgan, Stephen J. (1988). "Evaluation of the Boston Edison Company 'EASY-Plus'

Disaggregated Utility Electric Usage Analysis," in Innovative Energy Programs for

Homes: Two Case Studies, (final draft) Barbara C. Farhar (ed.), Golden, CO: Solar

Energy Research Institute. .

Palmer, Michael H., Margaret E. Lloyd, and Kenneth E. Lloyd (1977). "An Experimental

. Analysis of Electricity Conservation Procedures." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

10:665-671.

Ramey-Smith, Ann and Jennifer L. -Gagnon (l979). "An Investigation of Preferences for

Various Types of Energy Cost Feedback." U.S. Department of Energy Report No.

NBSIR 79-1771.

Seligman, Clive and John M. Darley (1977). "Feedback as a Means of Decreasing Residential Energy Consumption." Journal of Applied Psychology 62:363-368.

20
Winett, Richard A., John H. Kagel, Raymond C. Battalio, and Robin C. Winkler (1978).

"Effects of Monetary Rebates, Feedback, and Information on Residential Electricity

Conservation." Journal of Applied Psychology 63:73-80.

Winett, Richard A., Stephen Kaiser, and Gerald Haberkorn ·(-[976-77). "The Effects of

Monetary Rebates and Daily Feedback on Electricity Consumption." Journal of Environmental Systems 6:329-341.

Winett, Richard A., Michael S. Neale, and H. Cannon Grier (1979). "Effects of SelfMonitoring and Feedback on Electricity Consumption." Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis 12:173-184.

Winett, Richard A., Michael S. Neale, Kenneth Williams, James Yokley, and Hugh Kauder

(1978-79). "The Effects of Feedback on Residential Electricity Consumption: Three

Replications." Journal of Environmental Systems 8:217-233.

Winett, Richard A., Joseph W. Hatcher, T. Richard Fort, Ingrid N. Leckliter,

Susan Q. Love, Anne W. Riley, and James F. Fishback (1982). "The Effects of

Videotape Modeling and Daily Feedback on Residential Electricity Conservation, Home

Temperature and Humidity, Perceived Comfort, and Clothing Worn: Winter and

Summer." Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis 15(3):381-402.

Winkler, Robin C., and Richard A. Winett (1982). "Behavioral Interventions in Resource

Conservation." American Psychologist 37:421-435.

21
Document Control 11. SERI Report No.

Page TR-254-3386

12. NTIS Accession No. 3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Effects of Feedback on Residential Electricity

Consumption: A Literature Review

7. Author(s)

Barbara Farhar~ Colleen Fitzpatrick

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Solar Energy Research Institute

A Division of Midwest Research Institute

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

15. Supplementary Notes

5. Publication Date

January 1989

6.

8. Performing Organization Rept. No.

10. ProjecVTask/Work Unit No.

BE911041

11 . Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.

(C)

(G)

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Technical Report

14.

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

This report reviews 17 studies assessing the effect of information feedback on

residential electricity consumption. Most of the studies were conducted in

experimental or quasi-experimental conditions. The studies reviewed used (1) both

feedback and incentives, (2) goal setting, (3) cost information feedback, and

(4) displays. The study findings, taken together, provide some evidence that

feedback is effective in reducing electricity consumption, although questions

remain concerning the conditions under which feedback can best be provided.

Reductions in consumption found in most of the studies ranged from 5% to 20%.

Utility companies are the most likely source of feedback information for residential customers. Three of the studies investigated utility feedback projects.

The report discusses the policy implications of these as well as the other

studies. The report also lists questions remaining to be researched.

17. Document Analysis

a. Descriptors

residential electricity consumption, f eedback, . Ln c entfves

b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

c. UC Categories

95

18. Availability Statement

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

. Form No. 0069 (6-30-87)

19. No. of Pages

21

20. Price

A02