Providing individuals with improved insights into their energy usage, coupled with personalized guidance, can significantly help them decrease their energy consumption and expenses, as demonstrated by a recent study.
Across the globe, numerous families grapple with energy poverty, defined as spending at least 8% of their annual household income on energy costs. Tackling this issue is challenging, but research conducted by MIT reveals that accessible data on energy consumption and coaching can empower individuals to dramatically lower their energy usage and related costs.
The research, which took place in Amsterdam, showed that participating households could reduce their energy bills by an average of 50%, thereby lifting three-quarters of them out of energy poverty.
“Our energy coaching initiative overall demonstrated a 75% success rate in alleviating energy poverty,” explains Joseph Llewellyn, a researcher at MIT’s Senseable City Lab and the co-author of a newly published study that outlines the findings of this experiment.
“Energy poverty affects families worldwide. With documented evidence on effective policies, governments could better streamline their efforts,” adds Fábio Duarte, associate director of MIT’s Senseable City Lab and co-author of the research paper.
The study, titled “Assessing the impact of energy coaching with smart technology interventions to alleviate energy poverty,” appears today in Nature Scientific Reports.
The research team includes Llewellyn, who is also affiliated with the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (AMS) and the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm; Titus Venverloo, a research fellow at both MIT Senseable City Lab and AMS; Fábio Duarte, a principal researcher at MIT’s Senseable City Lab; Carlo Ratti, the director of the Senseable City Lab; and researchers Cecilia Katzeff, Fredrik Johansson, and Daniel Pargman from KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
This study was initiated after discussions with city officials in Amsterdam. In the Netherlands, around 550,000 households, equating to 7% of the population, endure energy poverty; across the European Union, this number rises to approximately 50 million. Research in the U.S. indicates that about 30% of households face difficulties in paying their energy bills.
For the experiment, the researchers implemented two types of energy coaching interventions. One group of 67 households received a single report on their energy usage, accompanied by efficiency enhancement coaching. In contrast, another group of 50 households received both the report and coaching, in addition to a smart device that displayed real-time energy use updates. (All participating households started with some basic improvements to enhance energy efficiency, like additional insulation.)
On average, the households in both groups cut their monthly electricity usage by 33% and gas consumption by 42%. Overall, their energy bills decreased by 53%, while the percentage of their income allocated to energy costs fell from 10.1% to 5.3%.
What changes did these households implement? Key alterations included heating only the rooms in use and unplugging idle devices. While both practices conserve energy, their advantages were not always recognized by residents prior to receiving coaching.
“The level of energy awareness varied significantly from one home to another,” Llewellyn observes. “When I visited as an energy coach, my approach was never to lecture about energy consumption. I never said, ‘You’re wasting too much energy.’ Instead, I collaborated with households based on their specific needs.”
Interestingly, households equipped with smart devices that provided real-time energy feedback generally utilized them for only three to four weeks after a coaching session before their interest waned. However, even a few weeks of monitoring was often sufficient to encourage lasting behavior changes.
“Our findings indicate that smart devices must be paired with a solid understanding of the factors driving families to modify their behavior,” notes Venverloo.
The researchers acknowledge that guiding consumers to reduce energy consumption is just one strategy to help alleviate energy poverty. Other structural factors contributing to this effort include reducing energy prices and enhancing building energy efficiency.
In line with this, a new initiative is underway that Llewellyn is creating with Amsterdam officials to explore the benefits of retrofitting residential properties for cost-effective energy savings. Policymakers are currently focused on determining how to finance retrofitting without shifting costs onto tenants.
“We aim to ensure that households save on energy bills without facing increased rents, as that would merely transfer the financial burden from one area to another,” Llewellyn explains.
Households can also make investments in products that improve insulation for windows or heating systems. However, for low-income families, affording these expenses can be challenging, especially when energy costs often seem “invisible” and less urgent compared to necessities like food and clothing.
“For households lacking 100 Euros to spare, paying upfront costs for energy efficiency improvements can be daunting,” Llewellyn says. He adds that “Energy usually ranks last on their priority list, due to its often hidden nature behind walls, making it hard to address.”
