Energy Efficiency

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 799–822 | Cite as

Role of a forward-capacity market to promote electricity use reduction in the residential sector—a case study of the potential of social housing participation in the Electricity Demand Reduction Pilot in the UK

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 132 Downloads

Abstract

The residential sector is key for electricity demand in many developed economies. Reducing electricity use in households is valuable for carbon mitigation and capacity adequacy and addressing fuel poverty. In many liberalised systems, a forward-capacity market is established to remunerate resources’ capacity value, with some allowing electricity use reduction to participate. This paper focuses on the Electricity Demand Reduction Pilot in the UK that trials a novel approach of incentivising electric efficiency via the Great Britain capacity market. Using a case study of social housing, it identifies barriers faced by the residential sector to utilise funding from the pilot. While opportunities exist for electricity use reduction in lighting, appliances and heating, financial incentives based on the impact on system peak demand are unlikely to be attractive and disadvantage insulation and efficient heating system. Limited budget for electric efficiency project and inflexible requirement of over 2-year payback of Electricity Demand Reduction (EDR) Pilot pose the challenge of funding projects, especially for small organisations, even if they can deliver capacity value to the electricity system. The obligation to deliver and verify committed peak savings and limited scope for payback present challenges and risks for projects to target potential opportunities within households. For communal electricity use, the minimum savings, cash flow and limited internal capabilities are constraints. Therefore, it is inadequate to rely on a forward-capacity market as a primary vehicle for incentivising electric efficiency investment in the residential sector, highlighting the importance of alternative provisions like supplier obligation and market transformation.

Keywords

Electricity use reduction Peak demand Capacity market Residential Social housing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is supported by the China Scholarship Council to undertake this research. The author would like to thank all participants in this research, Professor Nick Eyre and Dr. Sarah Darby for their valuable comments on this paper and Dr. Gavin Killip and Dr. Marina Topouzi for their help with the design of survey.

Compliance with ethical standards

Consent for recording is obtained for all interviews.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. BEIS, 2016a. Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES), in: Department of Business, E.a.I.S. (Ed.).Google Scholar
  2. BEIS, 2016b. Energy consumption in the UK. November 2016. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.Google Scholar
  3. BEIS, 2017. Household energy efficiency national statistics, headline release January 2017, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.Google Scholar
  4. Bilton, M., Woolf, M., Djapic, P., Aunedi, M., Carmichael, R., Strbac, G., 2014. Impact of energy efficient appliances on network utilisation. Report C2 for the Low Carbon London LCNF Project: Imperial College London, 2014.Google Scholar
  5. Blumstein, C., Krieg, B., Schipper, L., & York, C. (1980). Overcoming social and institutional barriers to energy conservation. Energy, 5(4), 355–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(80)90036-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boardman, B. (2004a). Achieving energy efficiency through product policy: the UK experience. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(3), 165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boardman, B. (2004b). New directions for household energy efficiency: evidence from the UK. Energy Policy, 32(17), 1921–1933.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boardman, B. (2012). Fuel poverty synthesis: lessons learnt, actions needed. Energy Policy, 49, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boardman, B. (2014). Low-energy lights will keep the lights on. Carbon Management, 5(4), 361–371.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2015.1006020.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Brattle Group and Sustainability First, 2012. GB Electricity Demand—2010 and 2025. Initial Brattle electricity demand-side model—scope for demand reduction and flexible response. Sustainability First.Google Scholar
  11. Caird, S., Roy, R., & Potter, S. (2012). Domestic heat pumps in the UK: user behaviour, satisfaction and performance. Energy Efficiency, 5(3), 283–301.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-012-9146-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capon, C., 2004. Understanding organisational context: inside and outside organisations. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  13. Cebon, P. B. (1992). Twixt cup and lip organizational behaviour, technical prediction and conservation practice. Energy Policy, 20(9), 802–814.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(92)90117-K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. CPUC, 2006. California energy efficiency evaluation protocols: technical, methodological, and reporting requirements for evaluation professionals. State of California Public Utilities Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Darby, S., 2010a. Literature review for the Energy Demand Research Project. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford and Ofgem (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets), London.Google Scholar
  16. Darby, S. (2010b). Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? Building Research & Information, 38(5), 442–457.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2010.492660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darby, S., Liddell, C., Hills, D., Drabble, D., 2015. Smart metering early learning project: synthesis report. Research conducted for DECC by the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford, the University of Ulster and the Tavistock Institute. Department Energy and Climate Change.Google Scholar
  18. Darby, S. J., & McKenna, E. (2012). Social implications of residential demand response in cool temperate climates. Energy Policy, 49, 759–769.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DCLG. (2011). Private landlords survey 2010. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  20. DCLG, 2015. Social housing lettings: April 2014 to March 2015, England. Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  21. DCLG. (2016a). English housing survey 2014 to 2015: rousing stock report. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  22. DCLG, 2016b. English housing survey—energy report, 2014. Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  23. DCLG, 2016c. English housing survey headline report 2014 to 2015. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.Google Scholar
  24. DCLG, 2017. Local authority housing data. Table 100: number of dwellings by tenure and district, England (as of April 2015), in: Government, D.o.C.a.L.a. (Ed.).Google Scholar
  25. de la Rue du Can, S., Leventis, G., Phadke, A., & Gopal, A. (2014). Design of incentive programs for accelerating penetration of energy-efficient appliances. Energy Policy, 72, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DECC, 2013. Impact assessment (IA) for electricity demand reduction—amendment to capacity market clauses.Google Scholar
  27. DECC, 2014a. Electricity demand reduction pilot scheme: participant handbook. Department of Energy and Climate Change.Google Scholar
  28. DECC, 2014b. Evaluation of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target and Community Energy Saving Programme. Research undertaken for DECC by Ipsos MORI, CAG Consultants, UCL and Energy Saving Trust. Department of Energy and Climate Change, London.Google Scholar
  29. DECC. (2015a). Electricity Demand Reduction Pilot scheme phase II—participant handbook. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.Google Scholar
  30. DECC, 2015b. Successful bidders in EDR Pilot Auction 29 January 2015. Department of Energy and Climate Change.Google Scholar
  31. DECC, 2016a. Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics: 1990-2014. Department of Energy and Climate Change.Google Scholar
  32. DECC, 2016b. Successful bidders in EDR phase II auction. Department of Energy and Climate Change.Google Scholar
  33. Doris, E., Cochran, J., Vorum, M., 2009. Energy efficiency policy in the United States: overview of trends at different levels of government. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Google Scholar
  34. EC, 2013. Guidance note on Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EC, and reporting Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. Article 7: energy efficiency obligation schemes. The European Commission.Google Scholar
  35. EC, 2016. Commission staff working document accompanying the document report from the commission final report of the sector inquiry on capacity mechanisms. European Commission.Google Scholar
  36. Elsharkawy, H., & Rutherford, P. (2015). Retrofitting social housing in the UK: home energy use and performance in a pre-Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP). Energy and Buildings, 88, 25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. EST, 2011. Lit up: an LED lighting field trial. The Energy Saving Trust.Google Scholar
  38. Eyre, N. (1997). Barriers to energy efficiency: more than just market failure. Energy & Environment, 8(1), 25–43.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X9700800103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eyre, N., 2013. Review of technical potential for electricity demand reduction. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford and Department of Energy and Climate Change.Google Scholar
  40. Eyre, N., & Baruah, P. (2015). Uncertainties in future energy demand in UK residential heating. Energy Policy, 87, 641–653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.12.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Eyre, N., Fawcett, T., Spyridaki, N.-A., Oikonomou, V., Tourkolias, C., Barbero, J., 2015. Energy saving policies and energy efficiency obligation scheme. ENSPOL Energy Saving Policies.Google Scholar
  42. FERC, 2009. A national assessment of demand response potential. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  43. Gaspar, R., & Antunes, D. (2011). Energy efficiency and appliance purchases in Europe: consumer profiles and choice determinants. Energy Policy, 39(11), 7335–7346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. GfK, 2016. Energy efficiency: the rise of the ‘A’ team in domestic appliances. GfK.Google Scholar
  45. Golove, W.H., Eto, J.H., 1996. Market barriers to energy efficiency: a critical reappraisal of the rationale for public policies to promote energy efficiency. Energy & Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of Berkeley, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  46. Gottstein, M., Schwartz, L., 2010. The role of forward capacity markets in increasing demand-side and other low-carbon resources: experience and prospects. The Regulatory Assistance Project.Google Scholar
  47. Gottstein, M., Skillings, S.A., 2012. Beyond capacity markets 2014; delivering capability resources to Europe’s decarbonised power system, 2012 9th International Conference on the European Energy Market, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  48. Green Alliance, 2012. Cutting Britain’s energy bill: making the most of product efficiency standards. Green Alliance, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  49. Hausman, J. A. (1979). Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 33–54.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3003318.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. HCA, 2015. Stastical data return (SDR) 2014 to 2015—private registered provider social housing stock in England. Homes and Communities Agency.Google Scholar
  51. Hewett, M.J., 1998. Achieving energy efficiency in a restructured electric utility industry. Report prepared for Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy, Centre for Energy & Environment, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  52. Hirst, E., & Brown, M. (1990). Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 3(4), 267–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-3449(90)90023-W.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hogan, M. (2017). Follow the missing money: ensuring reliability at least cost to consumers in the transition to a low-carbon power system. The Electricity Journal, 30(1), 55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2016.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Houston, D. A. (1983). Implicit discount rates and the purchase of untried, energy-saving durable goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 236–246.  https://doi.org/10.1086/208962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. IEA. (2017). Market-based instrument for energy efficiency: policy choice and design. Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  56. Jenkins, C., Neme, C., & Enterline, S. (2011). Energy efficiency as a resource in the ISO New England Forward Capacity Market. Energy Efficiency, 4(1), 31–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-010-9083-5.
  57. Kelly, G. (2012). Sustainability at home: policy measures for energy-efficient appliances. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(9), 6851–6860.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Liu, Y. (2015). Seasonal relationship of peak demand and energy impacts of energy efficiency measures—a review of evidence in the electric energy efficiency programmes. Energy Efficiency, 1–21.Google Scholar
  59. Liu, Y. (2017). Demand response and energy efficiency in the capacity resource procurement: case studies of forward capacity markets in ISO New England, PJM and Great Britain. Energy Policy, 100, 271–282.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587–608.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3003600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Martinot, E., & Borg, N. (1998). Energy-efficient lighting programs: experience and lessons from eight countries. Energy Policy, 26(14), 1071–1081.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(98)00052-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nadel, S., Elliott, N., Langer, T., 2015. Energy efficiency in the United States: 35 years and counting. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Google Scholar
  63. Nadel, S., Latham, L., 1998. The role of market transformation strategies in achieving a more sustainable energy future. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  64. NEEP, 2016. The Regional Energy Efficiency Database (REED), in: Partnerships, N.E.E. (Ed.).Google Scholar
  65. Ofgem. (2013). The final report of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) 2008–2012. London: Office of Gas and Electricity Markets.Google Scholar
  66. Ofgem, 2015. Insights paper on households with electric and other non-gas heating. Office of Electricity and Gas Markets.Google Scholar
  67. Oyebanji, A.O., Akintoye, A., Liyanage, C.L., 2013. Barriers to sustainable social houisng provision, CIB World Building Congress 2013.Google Scholar
  68. Palmer, J., Terry, N., Kane, T., 2013. Further analysis of the household electricity survey - early findings: demand side management. Cambridge Architectural Research Limited, Element Energy and Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  69. Reeves, A. (2011). Making it viable: exploring the influence of organisational context on efforts to achieve deep carbon emission cuts in existing UK social housing. Energy Efficiency, 4(1), 75–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-010-9080-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosenberg, M., Hoefgen, L., 2009. Market effects and market transformation: their role in energy efficiency program design and evaluation. California Institute for Energy and Environment.Google Scholar
  71. Rosenow, J., & Eyre, N. (2013). The green deal and the energy company obligation. Proceedings of the ICE-Energy, 166, 127–136.Google Scholar
  72. Rosenow, J., Eyre, N., 2015. Re-energising the UK’s approach to domestic energy efficiency, ECEEE Summer Study Proceedings.Google Scholar
  73. Rosenow, J., & Eyre, N. (2016). A post mortem of the Green Deal: austerity, energy efficiency, and failure in British energy policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 21, 141–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rosenow, J., Fawcett, T., Eyre, N., & Oikonomou, V. (2016a). Energy efficiency and the policy mix. Building Research & Information, 44(5-6), 562–574.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1138803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosenow, J., Leguijt, C., Pató, Z., Eyre, N., Fawcett, T., 2016b. An ex-ante evaluation of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive—Article 7. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 5.Google Scholar
  76. Schiellerup, P. (2002). An examination of the effectiveness of the EU minimum standard on cold appliances: the British case. Energy Policy, 30(4), 327–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00099-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Scottish Government, 2015. Scottish house condition survey: 2014 key findings. The Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  78. Scottish Government, 2016a. Housing statistics for scotland—key information and summary tables—updated after Scottish Household Survey 2015 was published, in: Government, S. (Ed.).Google Scholar
  79. Scottish Government, 2016b. Scottish house condition survey: 2015 key findings. The Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  80. Scottish Housing Regulator, 2017. Directory of Social Landlords.Google Scholar
  81. Simon, H.A., 1966. Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioural science, Surveys of economic theory: resource allocation. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  82. Sorrell, S., Schleich, D. J., Scott, D. S., O'Malley, E., Trace, F., Boede, U., Ostertag, K., & Radgen, D. P. (2000). Understanding barriers to energy efficiency. Barriers to energy efficiency in public and private organisations. Final Report to the European Commission: SPRU Environment and Energy, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  83. SPEER, 2013. Toward a more efficient electric market: new frameworks for advancing energy efficiency in texas—considerations and suggestions for inclusion of energy efficiency as a resource in the ERCOT market. The South-central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a Resource.Google Scholar
  84. Steg, L. (2008). Promoting household energy conservation. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4449–4453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Strbac, G. (2008). Demand side management: benefits and challenges. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4419–4426.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thayer, D., Brummer, W., Smith, B.A., Aslin, R., Cook, J., 2016. Is Behavioral Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Really Better Together? 2016 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. https://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2016/data/papers/2_1222.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2018.
  87. Wade, J., Eyre, N., 2015. Energy efficiency evaluation: the evidence for real energy savings from energy efficiency programmes in the household sector. UK Energy Research Centre.Google Scholar
  88. Walton, R., 2015. How Opwer is pushing behavioral demand response into the mainstream. Utility Dive. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-opower-is-pushing-behavioral-demand-responseinto-the-mainstream/399790/. Accessed 10 December 2017.
  89. Welsh Government, 2016. Dwelling stock estimates for Wales, 2014-15, in: Statistics for Wales, W.G. (Ed.).Google Scholar
  90. York, D., Molina, M., Neubauer, M., Nowak, S., Nadel, S., Chittum, A., Elliott, N., Farley, K., Foster, B., Sachs, H., Witte, P., 2013. Frontiers of energy efficiency: next generation programs reach for high energy savings. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Change InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations