Consumer demand for time of use electricity tariffs: A systematized review of the empirical evidence

Time of use (TOU) tariffs, if widely adopted, could help make electricity more secure, clean and affordable. However, quite little is known about whether consumers will switch to a TOU tariff or what might increase uptake if switching rates are lower than required. This paper presents the results of a systematized review and meta-analysis combining the results of 66 measures of uptake to a variety of TOU tariffs across 27 studies conducted in six countries. It provides the first robust estimate of consumer demand and correlates of demand for TOU tariffs that is not based on the results from just a single study or tariff. Four main conclusions emerge. First, if consumers are left to opt-in to TOU tariffs, uptake could be as low as 1% unless efforts are made to close the intention-action gap, otherwise enrolment could reach 43%. Second, if enrolment is opt-out, uptake could approach 100%. Third, whilst national surveys indicate the potential appetite for TOU tariffs in a population, they are insufficient for predicting future TOU tariff adoption rates; the median proportion of domestic energy bill payers who say they would be willing to switch to a TOU tariff in national surveys is five times higher than the median enrolment rate to TOU tariffs offered by utilities. Fourth, real-time pricing tariffs, in which the price of electricity varies freely throughout the day, are less popular than static TOU tariffs which have fixed peak and off-peak rates. This paper discusses the limitations of opt-out enrolment for TOU tariffs and presents results suggesting that small upfront payments, bill protection and automation are promising alternative methods of increasing opt-in enrolment. Policymakers and researchers should now consider how recruitment will be performed, weighing up the benefits to society as a whole against the distributional impacts for individuals and groups.

[1]  H. Bulkeley,et al.  Insight report : domestic time of use tariff : a comparison of the time of use tariff trial to the baseline domestic profiles. , 2013 .

[2]  The Behavioralist As Tax Collector: Using Natural Field Experiments to Enhance Tax Compliance , 2017 .

[3]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms , 2007, Psychological science.

[4]  M. Wetzstein,et al.  Risk preference and adverse selection for participation in time-of-use electricity pricing programs , 2017 .

[5]  Gj Raw,et al.  Energy Demand Research Project: final analysis , 2011 .

[6]  Guy R. Newsham,et al.  The effect of utility time-varying pricing and load control strategies on residential summer peak electricity use: A review , 2010 .

[7]  Gesche M. Huebner,et al.  Tailored emails prompt electric vehicle owners to engage with tariff switching information , 2017, Nature Energy.

[8]  J. Andreoni Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion? , 1995 .

[9]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Advertising energy saving programs: The potential environmental cost of emphasizing monetary savings. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[10]  Snuller Price,et al.  Smart meter, customer choice and profitable time-of-use rate option , 1999 .

[11]  Susan Lutzenhiser Beyond the Price Effect in Time-of-Use Programs: Results from a Municipal Utility Pilot, 2007-2008 , 2009 .

[12]  Applying Behavioural Insights to Organ Donation: preliminary results from a randomised controlled trial , 2013 .

[13]  D. Shipworth,et al.  Are consumers willing to switch to smart time of use electricity tariffs? The importance of loss-aversion and electric vehicle ownership , 2017 .

[14]  Maria J Grant,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[15]  Evangelos Kontopantelis,et al.  Metaan: Random-effects Meta-analysis , 2010 .

[16]  R. Thaler,et al.  Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2008 .

[17]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Consumer Attitudes and Voluntary Rate Schedules for Public Utilities , 1987 .

[18]  Daniel Pichert,et al.  Green defaults : Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour , 2008 .

[19]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  Small behavioral science–informed changes can produce large policy-relevant effects , 2015, Behavioral Science & Policy.

[20]  Karen Herter Residential implementation of critical-peak pricing of electricity , 2007 .

[21]  E. Hobman,et al.  Uptake and usage of cost-reflective electricity pricing: Insights from psychology and behavioural economics , 2016 .

[22]  Jacopo Torriti,et al.  Investigating preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: The effect of environmental and system benefit disclosure , 2015 .

[23]  J. Herriges,et al.  Residential response to voluntary time-of-use electricity rates , 1998 .

[24]  Elisabeth Dütschke,et al.  Dynamic electricity pricing - Which programs do consumers prefer? , 2013 .

[25]  P. Sheeran Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review , 2002 .

[26]  H. Dowlatabadi,et al.  Models of Decision Making and Residential Energy Use , 2007, Renewable Energy.

[27]  Cooperation in public-goods experiments: kindness or confusion? , 2002 .

[28]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Do Defaults Save Lives? , 2006 .

[29]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  The Use of Contingent Valuation in Benefit–Cost Analysis , 2006 .

[30]  E. Hobman,et al.  Australian Consumers' Likely Response to Cost- Reflective Electricity Pricing , 2015 .

[31]  Blair H. Sheppard,et al.  The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research , 1988 .

[32]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  George A Kelley,et al.  Statistical models for meta-analysis: A brief tutorial. , 2012, World journal of methodology.

[34]  E. Hobman,et al.  Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour , 2015 .

[35]  Michael J. Fell Taking charge: perceived control and acceptability of domestic demand-side response , 2016 .

[36]  L. Rook,et al.  The impact of framing on consumer selection of energy tariffs , 2012, 2012 International Conference on Smart Grid Technology, Economics and Policies (SG-TEP).

[37]  D. Green,et al.  Collection of Delinquent Fines: An Adaptive Randomized Trial to Assess the Effectiveness of Alternative Text Messages , 2013 .

[38]  Vicki G. Morwitz,et al.  When Do Purchase Intentions Predict Sales? , 2006 .

[39]  Gesche M. Huebner,et al.  Public acceptability of domestic demand-side response in Great Britain: The role of automation and direct load control , 2015 .

[40]  Carlos Henggeler Antunes,et al.  Energy management systems aggregators: A literature survey , 2017 .

[41]  Christophe Defeuilley,et al.  Retail competition in electricity markets , 2009 .