OPower recently went public, and has received attention from energy industry insiders and consumers (ie: everyone).
"We started as newcomers to the industry […] with the idea that if we could provide people with better information we could help them save energy." Alex Laskey, president and founder of Opower, from http://www.utilitydive.com/news/after-ipo-opower-charts-course-for-utility-of-the-future/305412/. This is a very exciting proposition to go from efficiency to engagement. There is a central understanding about the systems of behavior change that is miss placed. The above statement is based on a linear assumption of behavior.
new information----> change in observable action
This is a common assumption within economics: that providing good information will lead the target consumer to change their behavior. From the quote above, it seems that OPower is functioning on that same assumption.
Simply providing information has shown not to be a powerful catalyst for behavior change (Tversky and Kahneman 1974, 1981, 1991). I will say this once again, as it obviously bears repeating: simply presenting people with new facts, data, or concepts is not a successful way to change behavior. In fact, a number of different aspects of information (the source, availability, tone, complexity for example) effect its impact in a more profound way than the information itself.
While OPower has components that are potentially revolutionary, the president and founder is expressing an opinion that matches much of the other energy efficiency program attitudes in my experience over the years, not something new. Namely, that by providing consumers (end-use customers in the energy world) with information about the importance of saving energy and direct advice on how to save energy, then consumers will change their behavior and use energy dependent technologies in a more efficient manner. For example, in lighting: older bulbs use more energy, were cheaper to buy, but lasted only a few years. New LEDs save a great deal of energy, are very expensive to buy and last a long time. Many lighting programs simply inform customers of the benefits and how long term - over the life of the product, they will save money, and expect them to buy LEDs. Some of these lighting programs have been around for years before OPower, working from the same old theoretical perspective.
Another example: some energy plans have become variable so that energy costs more when there is a great deal of demand - such as in the morning, when everyone is turning on lights, coffee pots and hair dryers, to get ready for the day, and the evening, when all the ovens, microwaves and tvs go on. At those times energy would be a higher rate than at 1pm when more people are at work and not home to use energy. Telling people this, according to some utilities, will cause poeple to shift their behavior so that more of their energy using applianes run at 'off peak times' or times of lower demand. That way they will save money and also help the utilities stabilize demand. If a large number of people consistently did this, it could reduce the maximum (peak ) load of an area and instead of energy use rising (as is common in all states except CA--but that is another story for anther day) it would flat line and the utillity wouldnt have to build more energy plants.
Now do people do this? First, let me say that some do. Some buy those LED lights. In some cases, such as commercial buildings-the reduction in maintenance is a huge benefit and greatly offsets the high ticket price. In the second example, some families are able to change their use. Sometimes they own a programmable clothes washer, or have a flexible schedule that someone is home to start a dishwasher at 11am and a clothes washer at 2. But the majority of customers do not follow the advice.
They do not follow the advice not because they are bad people, and not because they are stupid, but because the whole linear assumption is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. It is missing a number of important steps and ignoring some serious barriers that modern Americans must navigate in every situation. Since the steps and barriers are overlapping I will deal with them together. 1) Getting the message: people are not blank slates waiting for guiding utility companies to come and inform them. People have numerous and almost constant demands on their attention, the utility message has to compete with TV, family, bills, chores and work with their limited time. And there are only so many hours in the day. That cuts out a significant group already with one major hurdle. 2) Ability: often people are not able to make the change. They may not have the money at the moment to buy LED lights and they might not have the schedule to use appliances in the middle of the day. There are inflexible demands on our time and life that have to ahve a higher priority than the utility energy advice. 3) Priority: if they receive the message, if they are able to make the change: behavior change takes additional mental and emotional resources. As human beings we are wired to do the easy thing. There must be intrinsic benefits to make a change worthwhile. It is these benefits that I am most interested in.
Psychology has many theories that might be of use here and new developments are appearing every day. I hope that soon we can look beyond the simplistic view to a more nuanced and colorful understanding of end use customers to meet them where they are, improve energy, increase sustainability and make the world a better place. The assumptions of economics is fundamentally flawed. In life, it is no where near that simple.
kaledo-art
snowghoul
blakekathryn
ellievsbear
origamiaround
theartofmadeline
baratheonpilled
andulkaphoto