O

Mf

LS

a

ARRA

KPDPI

1

lsSwsets

irftss

h2

Energy Research & Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /erss

riginal research article

otivations and barriers to integrating ‘prosuming’ services into theuture decentralized electricity grid: Findings from Israel

ucy Michaels ∗, Yael Paragchool of Sustainability, Interdisciplinary College (IDC), Natan Alterman Street, Herzliya 46150, Israel

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 28 January 2016eceived in revised form 28 June 2016ccepted 28 June 2016

eywords:rosumersemand management technologiesublic acceptance

srael

a b s t r a c t

Technological advances allow electricity consumers to become ‘prosumers’, offering services to the grid,such as generation, demand reduction, load shifting and electricity storage. Well-integrated prosumersimprove the resilience and efficiency of the energy system and facilitate the integration of renewableenergy, improving energy and climate security. These technologies, however, change how energy servicesare experienced. Understanding public perceptions is necessary prior to widespread introduction.

A 2015 survey (n = 509) investigated perceptions of demand reduction, load shifting and energy storagetechnologies as prosumer activities in Israel. Israelis showed little interest in remote controlled householdappliances to facilitate load shifting, preferring to respond personally via smart controls to informationcommunicated by the grid. There was similar low interest in permitting grid access to electricity storedin personal electric vehicle batteries. Financial incentives increased acceptance in both cases to a third ofrespondents.

The survey identified various barriers to acceptance: health and privacy concerns about smart meters;low trust in the institutions overseeing these technologies; perceived low public support to reduce elec-tricity demand; how incentives were framed and no perceived relationship with meeting national energypriorities such as affordability and energy independence. The young and the observant Jewish communityshowed greatest acceptance of new technologies.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Governments worldwide face the challenge of providing clean,ow carbon, secure and affordable energy. In other words, theyeek to deliver both energy security and climate security [23,26].hifting to low carbon renewable energy sources, such as solar,ind, wave and tidal, increases climate security by reducing emis-

ions and contributes to the ‘security of supply’ by diversifyingnergy resources. When electricity is provided by many intermit-ent sources, however, the challenge lies in managing and matchingupply and demand.

In the traditional centralized electricity system, which is dom-nated by large fossil-fuelled power plants, the supply-side canelatively easily meet demand-side requirements. Managing a dif-used intermittent supply on a national scale, however, requires

hat the demand-side corresponds and reacts to additional supply-ide constraints in particular through load shifting and energytorage [27].

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: lucymichaels@gmail.com (L. Michaels).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.023214-6296/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Recent advances in micro-generation, smart metering, energymanagement systems and the growing number of electric vehi-cles (EV) with a vehicle-2-grid (V2G) connection, offer new andpromising ways for engaging electricity consumers in balancingsupply and demand [28]. Essentially, these technologies facilitatetransforming consumers into prosumers: consumers that, whenneeded, can provide ‘prosuming’ services to the grid, includingmicro-generation, demand reduction, load shifting and energy stor-age. Well-integrated prosumers can improve the resilience andefficiency of the energy system, hence improve energy security.They can also facilitate the integration of renewable energy andhence contribute to climate security [28].

The notion of prosumers and prosuming services offer a new,promising, yet underexplored phenomenon in the energy system.It is a phenomenon that blurs the dichotomy between supplyand demand. Sovacool [37] demonstrates how dominant techno-economic approaches, commonly applied in the field of energyresearch, overlook important social and psychological factors that

influence both consumer choice and level of engagement in theenergy system. We similarly argue here that in order to engage pro-sumers in the energy system, the prosumer phenomena should bestudied within the social and cultural context in which it evolves

arch &

aienrcf

isc2pi

iopasstit

ucoctfp

hmuhmwow

tttrpdiNittude[

tsanpfts

L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Rese

nd with reference to the other actors and institutions operatingn the energy field. Accordingly, we suggest that to successfullyngage prosumers requires more than offering them attractive eco-omic incentives. It requires understanding prosumer motivations,ecognizing non-economic barriers for engagement such as norms,omfort and practices, as well as identifying opportunities and plat-orms for engagement.

The research examines prosumers in the residential sector. Thiss because although residential electricity users appear small andcattered, globally, this sector consumes about 18% of final energyonsumption and 26% of final energy consumption within the EU-7 countries [10,44]. Residential prosumers thus represent a hugeotential for matching supply and demand efficiently and econom-

cally.We focus on the motivations and barriers to integrating prosum-

ng services into the Israeli residential sector. We present the resultsf a March 2015 survey (n = 509) that explores how the Israeli publicerceives a range of demand-side management (DSM) technologiesnd programmes that facilitate ‘prosumer’ engagement. The expan-ion of prosuming services would be particularly valuable for Israelince household demand accounts for 30% of final energy consump-ion (IEC Statistical report 2010) and because Israel is an ‘electricitysland’ with no connections to the grids of neighbouring countrieso stabilise supply during demand spikes or other emergencies.

Israel is a small country with a particular electricity market andnique characteristics. This study nevertheless offers a revealingase study for researchers, policy makers and electricity networkperators worldwide. This is for several reasons: first, Israel isonsidered a technologically-positive society, with a high level ofechnology uptake [5,30]. Lessons about barriers and motivationsor engagement in Israel thus offer insight for other technologicallyositive societies, especially OECD member countries.

Second, in Israel, uniquely, automated electrical appliancesave already been widely adopted by the observant Jewish com-unity to avoid contradicting the religious prohibition against

sing electricity on the Sabbath. Unlike other countries whereome automation technologies are more common in wealthier seg-ents of society, in Israel ‘Sabbath’ automation technologies areidespread across all income groups. Findings from Israel thus

ffer insight into willingness to adopt new technologies givenidespread prior experience with somewhat similar technologies.

And last, this research contributes to wider scholarship onhe prosumer phenomena and public acceptability of associatedechnologies. Prosuming technologies are relatively new, innova-ive and unfamiliar to regulators and consumers alike. Althoughesearch on energy use and behaviour has burgeoned over theast decade, many of the technologies discussed here are newlyeveloped thus existing research is mainly micro-level and qual-

tative [39]. See for example, Higginson [47] and Hargreaves andye [13]. This study is one of the first quantitative studies explor-

ng perceptions of ‘prosumer’ technologies, especially focusing onhe demand-side as a provider of a set of services to the grid and onhe acceptability of varying levels of external control over energysage. The survey questions partly draw on a 2012 survey con-ucted by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) thus allowingvidence of the cross-cultural applicability of the UKERC findings8,39].

The opening section of the paper presents a likely scenario forhe decentralization of the energy system and the evolution of con-umers to prosumers. It defines the concept of ‘prosuming services’nd explains why DSM services should also be included in this defi-ition. The second section discusses prosumer engagement via DSM

latforms, followed by a third section that explores the applicability

or the Israeli context. A forth section identifies potential motiva-ions and barriers for engagement based on literature. The fifthection presents the research method and the sixth section presents

Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83 71

and discusses the findings. We conclude the paper with some policyimplications for prosumer engagement and suggestions for furtherresearch.

1.1. The rise of prosumers in decentralized energy system

From the demand-side perspective, the primary means toaddress energy security and climate security challenges is to reduceoverall electricity demand [51]. Indeed, the International EnergyAgency (IEA) recognizes the global energy efficiency market asthe world’s ‘first fuel’: “an invisible powerhouse working behind thescenes to improve our energy security, lower our energy bills and moveus closer to reaching our climate goals” [16].

Although demand reduction is essential, it cannot ensure asecure electricity system that includes a large share of renewableenergy sources [27]. Such a system also requires the ability to shiftdemand to match available supply as well as energy storage capac-ity.

Energy systems are developing rapidly to accommodate theserequirements. A range of new household DSM technologies andprogrammes are being tested and introduced worldwide to facil-itate demand response (DR) for ‘load shifting’ [36]. Most existingDR programmes offer consumers economic incentives to shift theirenergy consumption according to supply constraints. There havealso been significant advances in small and medium scale storagecapacity [42] as well as rapid developments and falling costs forsmall and medium-scale generation technologies [16]. Advances inhome and building electricity management technologies are likelyto change the nature of DSM further. All these developments, poten-tially transform consumers to prosumers.

Traditionally, the term ‘prosumer’ was used in energy policyliterature to refer to the process by which ‘consumers’ (house-holds or communities) actively sell electricity they generated tothe grid. The term has, however, been expanded to include otherservices that the demand-side can offer to the grid, such as demandreduction, load shifting, storage and ancillary services facilitated bythe technologies described above and others [27]. Expanding theprosumer definition to include the provisioning of such servicesis appropriate because although consumers are not ‘producing’something per se, they act as valuable distributed resources of theelectricity system and, at times, perform as ‘virtual power plants’.Well-integrated prosuming services could improve the flexibilityand resilience of a future low carbon system [2,9,11]. A challenge,however, is how to effectively engage prosumers in order to maxi-mize the benefits they offer.

A distributed electricity system represents a paradigm shift fromcurrent supply-biased top-down systems, which are dominatedby techno-economic considerations [27]. Harvesting the potentialcontribution of a distributed, ‘bottom-up’ system depends on theavailable engagement platforms, such as smart grid and specificincentives. But it also depends on how willing prosumers are toparticipate more actively in the existing system. A socio-techno-economic approach offers a set of tools to uncover and address themotivations and barriers to participation [37] (see Section 1.4).

It is important to note that although from the supply-sideperspective, the different prosuming services vary on many param-eters, from an individual prosumer perspective, all these services –from electricity generation to DR or storage – have similar charac-teristics: they involve similar interactions and transactions withthe utility, they take place in the same social setting and theyare likely to be influenced by the same attitudes, beliefs and per-

ception towards actors, energy and the environment. This is afurther reason to expand the definition of ‘prosumer’ beyond elec-tricity generation to include the provisioning of a wider set ofservices.

7 arch &

1p

parbtg

taecca

igmahdiTin

mtroba

cctdseac

1a

3deg

pib[hFe

smiB

2 L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Rese

.2. Prosumer engagement via demand side managementrograms

Our research explores how the Israeli public perceives three pro-osed DSM technologies and programmes that facilitate prosumingctivity. These are smart devices that offer detailed information foresidents on household electricity use; smart appliances that cane operated automatically or remotely by a third party, and EV bat-eries that can be used for electricity storage and drawn on by therid as needed.

Since these technologies transform how individuals engage withheir electricity services, the survey sought to understand thecceptability and even desirability of such changes. It also sought toxplore barriers to uptake and the financial or social incentives thatould overcome these. It further sought to identify whether thesehanges aligned with perceived national energy policy prioritiesnd whom Israelis trusted most to operate such systems.

The technological innovation central to many of these scenar-os is the ‘smart meter’. In addition to measuring energy use andiving detailed consumer feedback, smart meters transmit infor-ation across the network facilitating a range of other technologies

nd systems [39]. The introduction of electricity smart meters has,owever, met a mixed response and rollouts have stalled or haltedue to concern about data inaccuracies e.g. Texas; possible health

mpacts e.g. California; and privacy e.g. The Netherlands [46,40,7].his highlights the value of gauging public perception in order to

mprove communication prior to the introduction of these tech-ologies.

Similarly, although ‘smart’ grids and smart appliances allow gridanagers to better match demand with supply, it is important

o consider how the public perceives automated appliances andemote control. It is also important to identify incentives that wouldvercome likely concerns around loss of control of the timing ofasic household management, such as food preparation, cleaningnd temperature regulation [52].

A scenario where there is widespread adoption of the electricar offers a further opportunity for prosumers: the vehicle-to-gridonnection would allow the electricity to be stored in EV batterieshat can be later exported to the grid at times of peak electricityemand [2,11]. This would be valuable for a system with a highhare of renewables where energy storage is an issue. Again, how-ver, there are likely to be barriers to adoption, such as concernbout car batteries being fully charged when needed. Incentivesould, however, increase engagement.

.3. The Israeli electricity sector and potential for prosumerctivity

In 2015, Israel’s fuel mix was: natural gas (48%); coal (49%) and% from renewable sources [20]. Israel has ambitious plans to pro-uce 17% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 althoughnthusiasm for renewables has declined with significant naturalas finds in Israel’s territorial waters from 2009 onwards [22].

Israel’s 2015 energy consumption was 52.86 TWh and 6562 kWher capita, comparable to the Netherlands [17]. Electricity demand

s growing at a rate of 2.5% a year, and is expected to grow by 45%y 2030 driven by rising standards of living and population growth20]. Israel lacks significant heavy industry, which means thatousehold use contributes significantly to this growing demand.or example, air conditioner use in summer accounts for 40% of alllectricity consumption [43].

Population growth and rising living standards have driven a

teady increase in the number of vehicles in Israel with approxi-ately 2.5 million cars on the road. There is also familiarity and

nterest in EVs inspired by the now defunct US-Israeli company,etter Place.

Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83

Israel’s energy consumption profile (both electricity and vehi-cle use) plus the need to integrate renewable energy sources intothe grid and the pro-technology cultural outlook discussed in theintroduction, make prosumer services appealing to Israel. In addi-tion, as highlighted above, the observant Jewish community inIsrael already uses automated electrical technologies. This allowsthem to enjoy electricity without contravening the prohibitionagainst directly operating electrical appliances during the Sabbath.For example, the ‘Sabbath timer’ can be programmed to operatelighting and other appliances on the Sabbath and the ‘Sabbath lift’operates continuously regardless of occupancy.

1.4. Becoming prosumers: demand-side motivations and driversfor participating in the energy system

In this study we employ a ‘socio-techno-economic approach’ todefine assumptions regarding willingness to accept engagementplatforms, such as smart meters; to reduce and shift electricityuse via new DSM and prosuming technologies and programmes;and to store electricity in EV batteries. These assumptions and ourhypotheses for our survey results are outlined below:

1.4.1. Relationship between willingness to reduce electricity useand perceived cost-savings

Policymakers assume that the cost-saving aspect of reducingelectricity demand is a primary motivation for consumers to adoptDSM and prosumer technologies. Spence et al. [39] however, illus-trate that in the UK those concerned about the affordability ofelectricity are significantly less likely to accept DSM technologies.They argue that the potential financial benefits of DSM technologiesmay not be apparent or believed by consumers. Here we also expectto find a negative relationship between willingness to reduce elec-tricity demand and concern about the cost of electricity.

1.4.2. Relationship between willingness to reduce electricity useand perceived national energy policy priorities

The way DSM technologies and programmes are framed bypolicy-makers and the media can influence willingness to engagein DSM, especially if such frames align with perceived national pri-orities (Nisbet 2009). In Europe and North America, DSM is oftenframed as a means to reduce GHG emissions and address climatechange [6]. Spence et al. [38] identified that this framing was influ-encing Britons: those who identified climate change as the UK’s keyenergy policy priority were also significantly more likely to engagein DSM behaviours.

In Israel, DSM has primarily been framed as a means to improvenational energy security. During 2011 and 2012, Israel experi-enced an ‘electricity drought’, when the threat of power shortageincreased due to rising demand and an unreliable gas supply. Thisperiod threatened to crash the grid causing electricity blackoutsand brownouts. During hours of peak demand, public broadcastsrequested that citizens avoid using energy intensive appliances[14,24].

A 2012 survey representative of Israel’s Jewish population foundwidespread understanding of the connection between personalelectricity use and national energy security [18]. In the survey, 87%of respondents said they had experienced the public informationcampaigns related to the electricity drought and 79% claimed tohave reduced or shifted the time-of-use of ‘power hungry’ elec-tronic devices, as requested. 78% of respondents agreed that theyfelt part of a national effort to regulate domestic electricity con-

sumption and reduce power shortages.

Our survey explores the extent to which willingness to adoptDSM in Israel is related to perceived national energy policy priori-ties. Given this recent experience, it expects to find that the Israel

arch &

pd

1

[taa

ciaItaww

nthe

1

‘cetpio

Iwewrr

1

p[taw

1

hae[etwtt

2

ip

L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Rese

ublic connects DSM with energy security and energy indepen-ence.

.4.3. Social normsSocial norms contribute to shaping energy use behaviour

48,4,33]. In our research we focus on ‘descriptive’ social norms i.e.he perception of how fellow citizens actually behave. Our surveysks whether Israelis believe that their peers are willing to reducend shift electricity demand [1].

Perceived social norms are relevant in Israel given the Israelionceptual frame of a ‘freier’ (Yiddish: sucker or chump). A ‘freier’s someone who can be easily exploited by others; to avoid being

freier is a fundamental principle in Israeli popular culture [31].f Israelis perceive their peers to be unwilling to reduce their elec-ricity use, this is likely to affect their own willingness in order tovoid being seen as a ‘freier’. We thus expect that perceived publicillingness to engage with DSM would strongly influence personalillingness.

We also hypothesise that Israelis may express greater willing-ess to adopt prosumer technologies than other countries givenhe positive experience of adopting novel water and passive solar-eating technologies, the pro-technology cultural outlook and thexisting experience of observant Jewish communities.

.4.4. Personal vs. remote controlResearch on the acceptability of ‘smart appliances’ identifies

control’ as a centrally important theme i.e. consumers tend to per-eive ‘smart appliances’ as affecting their control over personallectricity use [50,54,49,53]. Hargreaves et al. [52] also illustratehat acceptance varies by device and operation specified. For exam-le, a delayed start to a dishwasher based on the needs of the grid

s considered more acceptable than interfering with the operationf fridge-freezers, due to concerns about comfort and health.

Here we focus on the acceptance of technologies that allowsraelis to offer services to the electricity grid that also change the

ay in which they access their energy services. We focus on prefer-nces for differing levels of control: whether acceptance is greaterhen appliances are remotely controlled by the grid (with over-

ide options) or when individuals can personally respond to gridequirements via household smart electricity controls.

.4.5. Trust in institutions to oversee electricity DSMTrust has been identified as an important determinant of risk

erception and behaviour, but is an under researched field to date29,34,39]. Here we explore whether trust in a range of institutionshat currently oversee DSM or would do in the future (e.g. localnd national government or commercial firms) would influenceillingness to accept new technologies.

.4.6. Concern about ‘smart meters’The introduction of smart meter technologies worldwide has

ad varying degrees of success (See Section 1.2). Our researchssumes that Israelis are concerned about smart meters based onxisting concerns about radiation from cellular phone antennas32]. Research shows that this concern stems from low trust in gov-rnment and enforcement agencies to protect public health givenhe ‘invisible’ threat posed by radiation [25]. Here we examinehether specific concerns about smart meter technology (radia-

ion levels, privacy and data being sold commercially) are a barriero the acceptance of DSM technologies.

. Research method

An online survey was conducted from 12th–30th March 2015,n Hebrew, by the Israeli online survey company, iPanel. The com-any operates the largest survey panel in Israel with over a hundred

Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83 73

thousand members. It is widely used by research institutes andmarket research companies. Members are sent the survey by emailand receive gift vouchers on completion.

The survey included seven questions, each containing a numberof separate items related to the topics discussed in Section 1.4. Thisincluded:

Ranking the following four national energy policy priorities:climate change, energy security, energy independence and afford-ability. See Table 2 for full wording. Priorities were ranked from toppriority (1) to lowest priority (4). This question was adapted fromthe 2012 UKERC survey with the addition of energy independencewhich was considered relevant for the Israeli context (See [8] Q8);

Five items related to willingness to reduce electricity demand:personal willingness to reduce electricity use; perceived publicwillingness to reduce; willingness to reduce with added financialincentives; and stated barriers to adoption: a) concern about thecost of investing in new energy efficient appliances; and b) ‘other’reasons besides costs. Responses were recorded on a five-point Lik-ert scale. These items were adapted from the UKERC survey. Thequestion on the cost of energy efficient appliances as a barrier toadoption was inspired by Spence et al. [39] as an under-researchedtopic;

Two questions related to perceptions of smart meters: a) sixitems related to interest in detailed information about electricityuse detailing different ways of recording information about energyuse. Responses were given on a five-point Likert scale. The questionwas adapted from Q40a in the UKERC survey [8] with exact itemwording given in the results section below; b) three items relatedto Concerns about smart meters related to level of concern aboutdata being sold commercially; privacy and radiation and reportedon a five point Likert scale. These concerns were considered rele-vant for the Israeli context (see Section 1.3.6);

Four items related to control preferences for four appliances(washing machine, dishwasher, fridge-freezer and air-conditioner).The full question wording is given in Section 3.1.5. The fourresponse options were: preference for the current situation; per-sonal smart control, remote control by the network with pre-agreedconditions or remote control without conditions. A second setof four items related to preference for remote control over thesame appliances given an economic incentive with responses ona five point Likert scale. Two similar questions in the UKERC sur-vey focused on the acceptability of remote controlled washingmachines and fridge-freezers (Q46c and d) [8]. Air conditioners anddishwashers were considered relevant appliances to explore in theIsraeli context. Water heating, addressed in the UKERC survey, isless relevant given the prevalence of passive solar water heating inIsrael.

Five items related to trust in a range of institutions to run DSMprogrammes: the Israel Electric Corporation; government; privatecompanies; Non-profit organizations; or the local authority. Thelevel of trust was expressed on a five point Likert scale.

One item related to perceptions of who benefits the most fromreducing electricity demand: the public and the environment; theIsrael Electric Corporation; or consumers.

Six items related to the EV ownership. The first related to inter-est in owning an electric car and five items related to willingnessto allowing the grid to draw on electricity stored in car batteriesfor load shifting given different conditions. Responses were givenon a five point Likert scale. The full wording is given in Section 3.1.7.

To prevent bias, the order of the items within each question wasrandomised, and response options were counterbalanced, changingfrom questionnaire to questionnaire.

The descriptive results are presented in Section 3.1 followedby the results of the inferential analysis in Section 3.2. OLS linearregression analysis explored:

74 L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Research &

Table 1Socio-demographic data of survey respondents.

Socio-Demographic % in sample and in population

Male 52.1Female 47.9

Household IncomeBelow average 31.0Average 24.4Above Average 33.4(Missing) 11.2

Religiosity (Jewish)Secular or traditional 81.3Observant (religious or ultra-orthodox) 18.7

EducationHigh school or less 47.0Higher education (university or other) 53.0

Age21–24 6.725–34 28.735–44 17.745–54 17.5

abc

t

2

ibBocouSdp

3

3

3

I((

TN

55–64 15.765+ 13.8

.) Predictors for willingness to reduce electricity demand;

.) Predictors for the acceptability of remote controlled appliances;

.) Predictors for the acceptability of the grid accessing electricitystored in an EV battery.

The independent and dependent variables are explained in Sec-ion 3.2.

.1. Survey sample

The survey sample (n = 509) is representative of the non-nstitutionalised Jewish population over the age of 21 within Israelased on stratified sampling by iPanel based on 2015 Israel Nationalureau of Statistics data. The sample size gives a margin of errorf ±4.29% (95% confidence intervals) and was limited by time andost considerations. The non-Jewish (Muslim, Christian, Druze andthers) population, which comprise 20% of the overall Israeli pop-lation, is poorly represented by iPanel and was excluded (seeection 4.2). Table 1 provides a breakdown of socio-demographicata of sample which is thus broadly accurate for the surveyedopulation.

. Research findings

.1. Descriptive statistics

.1.1. National energy policy priorities

Respondents ranked four national energy policy priorities for

srael (see Table 2). ‘Energy independence’ was ranked most highly45.4% ranked it as their top priority), followed by ‘affordability’33%) and ‘energy security’ (12%). Climate change was the lowest

able 2ational energy policy priorities.

Full question

Energy Independence: Ensure that Israel will be ‘energy independent’, which means that itcan provide electricity on its own without the need to import fuel from other countries

Affordability: Ensure that household electricity bills are not too expensive

Energy security: Increase the electricity generation capacity to ensure power supply at anytime, anywhere

Climate change: Address the threat of climate change by switching to low- carbon sources

electricity production e.g. solar energy

Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83

priority (9.6%) and 39.3% of respondents ranked climate change asthe least important priority (figures not shown). For the secondpriority, energy security is ranked most highly, although support isfairly evenly spread between options.

3.1.2. Demand reduction services: economic considerations andsocial norms

Six questions explored willingness to reduce demand givenfinancial incentives, financial costs and social norms. Responseswere given on a five point Likert scale. In Table 3, the resultshave been combined to demonstrate agreement (4 + 5 on the Lik-ert scale), disagreement (1 + 2 on the Likert scale) and a neutralresponse (3 on the Likert scale).

Nearly 50% of Israelis were willing to reduce their electricity use,while 20% were unwilling to do so and 63.1% claimed to be alreadyreducing their electricity use. Almost a quarter (24.3%) agreed thatthe cost of energy saving appliances was a barrier to reducing per-sonal energy use although 42.4% disagreed with this statement. Anequal number (37.9%) agreed and disagreed that they would onlyreduce electricity demand with a financial incentive.

One item related directly to perceptions of social norms: 18.1%agreed with the statement, “the Israeli public is prepared to reducetheir electricity use” although almost half (47.5%) disagreed.

3.1.3. Smart meters: interest in a range of information aboutenergy use

A set of items explored interest in accessing a range of differ-ent data describing personal household electricity consumption.Respondents were given the following information: “One of thenew technologies that allow flexible power consumption is the smartelectricity meter. A smart meter is an electronic device that measureshousehold energy consumption continuously and precisely. Smartmeters allow you and network administrators to receive accurate ‘real-time’ information about your household electricity use. To what extentdo you think you could better manage your electricity consumption ifyou had a smart meter providing you with accurate information in thefollowing areas with answers on a scale ranging from 1 = ‘greatly’ to5 = “not at all”. See Fig. 1.

Respondents expressed greatest interest in information aboutfinancial savings available for turning off appliances (76.2%)although there was also strong interest in other proposed infor-mation. They were least interested in comparisons to other similarhouseholders (42.8%) despite research that suggests that this is aneffective and inexpensive way to reduce electricity use [4,33]. Thesix items created a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86) thereforethe responses were summed to create a score variable (see Section3.2 below).

3.1.4. Smart meters: concernsRespondents were asked about three concerns that could pose

barriers for adopting smart meters:

a Radiation emitted (with levels similar to cell phone radiation);b Information about my electricity use could be sold commercially;c Monitoring real-time electricity would invade my privacy;

1st ranking priority (%) 2nd ranking priority (%)

45.4 25.9

33 23.212 29.5

of 9.6 21.6

L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Research & Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83 75

Table 3Willingness to reduce demand: economic considerations and social norms.

Question Disagree (%) Neither agree not disagree (%) Agree (%)

I am willing to reduce my electricity use 20 31.6 48.4The Israeli public is prepared to reduce their electricity use 45.7 36.1 18.1I am already making efforts to reduce my electricity use 15.5 21.4 63.1I am willing to reduce my electricity demand only if I receive a financial incentive to do so 37.9 24.2 37.9I am not reducing my electricity use because I cannot afford to invest in energy saving appliances 42.4 33.2 24.3I am not reducing my electricity use for ‘other’ reasons 63.5 20.6 15.9

forma

d

smAaFcbs

Fig. 1. Interest in detailed in

Other (specify)

Over half expressed concern about personal information beingold commercially (52.5%) and radiation emissions from smarteters (57.7%). Israelis were less concerned about privacy (28.9%).

quarter (26.1%) expressed concern about all three issues, although quarter (25.1%) expressed no concern (figures not shown). See

ig. 2. Almost 10% indicated voluntarily concern with the possibleost of a smart meter. The three items created a reliable scale (Cron-ach’s alpha = 0.73) therefore responses were summed to create acore variable (see Section 3.2).

Fig. 2. Concern about sma

tion about electricity usage.

3.1.5. Load shifting services: remote versus personal smartcontrol of appliances

The survey gave four scenarios for future appliance use by whichelectricity prosumers could alter their consumption ‘time of use’ tomatch available supply. The survey assessed interest in:

a) Personally controlling appliances via personal smart controls torun at non-peak times based on information communicated in

advance;

b) Allowing the grid manager to remote control appliances to run atnon-peak times with terms defined in advance and an overrideoption;

rt meters by issue.

76 L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Research & Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83

r a ra

d

mgt

wbsw

otuf

npew2ct

a

Fig. 3. Control preference fo

c) Allowing the grid manager to remote control appliances simplyas required by the grid;

) Maintaining current situation.

Fewer than 2% selected option (c). In Fig. 3 these results wereerged with option (b) since both reflect willingness to allow the

rid manager to have varying degrees of remote control over theiming of appliance use.

The question discussed four appliances in turn: dishwashers andashing machines that ran at some time during a given window

ased on grid demand, and fridge-freezers and air conditioners thatwitched off for short periods while maintaining the temperatureithin a specified range.

Fig. 3 shows that of the two technological modes of controlffered, Israelis were most willing to accept personal smart con-rols, ranging from washing machine use (58.7%) to fridge-freezerse (29.3%). Willingness to accept remote control was low: ranging

rom dishwasher use (12.7%) to washing machine use (7.3%).Overall, 84.5% of Israelis were willing to accept one of the tech-

ological modes of control for at least one appliance, although 15.5%referred the existing situation for all four appliances. The prefer-nce was overwhelmingly for personal smart controls with 15.1%illing to set all four appliances by smart control. Nevertheless,

5% of Israelis were willing to have at least one appliance remotely

ontrolled although only 1% was willing to have all four applianceshis way. Figures not shown.

An internal reliability test for preferred mode of control acrossll appliances found that the Cronbach’s alphas were too low to cre-

Fig. 4. Comparing willingness to accept remote co

nge of different appliances.

ate a reliable scale (between 0.63 and 0.67). This finding illustratesthat respondents have different relationships with each appliancerather than having a fixed preference for a mode of control.

The next question tested whether a financial incentive in theform of lower electricity rate would increase willingness to allowthe grid remote control of the four appliances. Even with a finan-cial incentive, acceptance rates for remote control are low: 55%were still unwilling to accept any remote controlled applianceswith 70% unwilling to accept either a remote controlled fridge-freezer or air-conditioning system. Only 7.9% were willing to acceptall four appliances remote controlled with a financial incentive.Fig. 4 shows that given an incentive, there is greater acceptance forwashing appliances than for temperature-controlled appliances.

There was high internal reliability between these variables(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86). This suggests that a financial incentiveappealed across the appliances. The responses were summed tocreate a score variable (see Section 3.2).

3.1.6. Trust in institutions to manage electricity DSM programmesRespondents were asked to express the degree of trust in five

institutions to oversee DSM programmes: the Israel ElectricityCompany (IEC) a dedicated government agency, a private com-mercial company, a not-for-profit organization and local authority.Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from

‘very low trust’ (1) to ‘very high trust’ (5).

Fig. 5 shows extremely low trust expressed for all institu-tions. Greatest trust was expressed for not-for profit organizationsalthough this only represented a third of respondents (35.1%).

ntrol without and with a financial incentive.

L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Research & Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83 77

versee

0(

t‘‘

Es

3

eu

abuepiTi

3

3

ed

rm

t

Fig. 5. Trust in institutions to o

The five trust items created a reliable scale (Cronbach’s alpha.86) therefore responses were averaged to create a score variablesee Section 3.2).

The next question asked who respondents believed benefitedhe most from reducing electricity demand from three options: theIsrael Electric Corporation’, the ‘public and the environment’ orprivate consumers’. See Fig. 6.

A majority believed that the primary beneficiary is the Israellectric Company (46.2%). Only 12.6% believed that as private con-umers, they themselves are the primary beneficiaries.

.1.7. Electricity storage services: use of EVs batteriesThis set of items first examined general interest in buying an

lectric car. It found that 44.8% were interested and 26.9% wereninterested in doing so. Figures not shown.

A further set of items explored willingness to allow grid man-gers to access the electricity stored in personal EV batteries toalance the grid e.g. over night. Fig. 7 illustrates the responsesnder different scenarios. In the best-case scenario, just over a thirdxpressed willingness based on pre-agreed conditions and a directayment into their bank account (36.4%). This form of economic

ncentive is more appealing than a lower electricity rate (28.3%).he results also suggest that the car battery being full when needed

s a concern.

.2. Multivariate analysis

.2.1. Predictors for willingness to reduce electricity demandWe constructed an OLS multiple linear regression model to

xplore the predictors for personal willingness to reduce electricityemand.

The dependent variable was a continuous variable based on theesponses to the first item listed in Table 3: I am willing to reducey electricity consumption.

The independent variables were based on predictors theorisedo influence willingness to reduce demand (see Section 1.4):

a) National energy priorities: Four dummy categorical variableswere constructed based on the respondent’s top ranked energy

policy: energy independence, energy security, climate changeand affordability. See Table 2. Since these four variables summedtogether make 100%, one variable was omitted from the analysisto avoid the ‘dummy variable trap’ and the appearance of multi-

electricity demand reduction.

collinearity. We therefore omitted the ‘energy security priority’variable from the analysis;

b) Social norms: An independent continuous variable was con-structed based on the responses to the second item listed inTable 3;

c) Financial incentives: An independent continuous variable wasconstructed based on the responses to the fourth item listed inTable 3;

d) Already reducing electricity: An independent continuous vari-able was constructed based on the responses to the second itemlisted in Table 3;

e) Barriers to reducing electricity use: Two independent continu-ous variables were constructed based on responses to the lasttwo items listed in Table 3 (a) the cost of energy appliancesand (b) ‘other reasons’;

f) Concern about smart meters: a continuous variable was con-structed based on the sum of responses to items expressingconcern about smart meters;

g) Trust in institutions: a continuous variable was constructedbased on the sum of responses to five items expressing levelof trust in a range of institutions to manage electricity demandmanagement;

h) Socio-demographic variables: Five socio-economic variableswere constructed including i) education level as a dummy vari-able (attended or finished high school/educated beyond highschool); ii) gender as a dummy variable; iii) age as a con-tinuous variable; iv) Observant Jews—a dummy variable wasbased on Jews who self-identified as observant either as ‘reli-gious’ or ‘ultra-orthodox’ Jews and therefore habitual users ofautomated technologies for religious reasons; v) Income as con-tinuous variable (below the average national income/averageincome/above the average national income). There were 57missing cases related to the income question, which affects themargin of error of the results to this question (±4.56%). It wasnevertheless included because Spence et al. [39] identified it as asignificant predictor of willingness to reduce electricity demandin the UK.

Table 4 shows that five significant predictors explain 33.1% ofvariance. Positive predictors are a perception of wider public will-

ingness to engage (social norms), existing personal efforts to reduceelectricity use and education level (those educated beyond highschool were more likely to be reducing demand). The negative pre-dictors are gender (women are more likely to be reducing electricity

78 L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Research & Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83

electri

dcPiioe

3b

ea

sc

ai

Fig. 6. Who gains from

emand) and citing ‘other reasons’ besides the cost of energy effi-ient appliances, as a barrier to reducing electricity consumption.erceptions of national energy policy priorities, levels of trust in

nstitutions and concern about smart meters did not predict will-ngness to reduce electricity demand. Neither did the financial costf reducing demand, the promise of financial incentives or socio-conomic status.

.2.2. Predictors for acceptance of remote controlled appliancesy a third party

We constructed an OLS multiple linear regression model toxplore the predictors for the acceptance of remote controlledppliances by a third party.

The dependent variable was a continuous variable based on thecore of responses related to willingness to accept four remote

ontrolled appliances with a financial incentive (See Section 3.1.5).

The independent variables were constructed from responses to number of questions theorised to predict willingness to engagen demand response behaviour. This includes concern about smart

Fig. 7. Willingness to allow the grid to acce

city demand reduction.

meters, trust in institutions and the variable related to concernabout the cost of energy-saving appliances. This assesses whethergiven a financial incentive, those expressly concerned about thecost of energy saving appliances would show greater acceptanceof third party control over appliance use. The construction of thesevariables is discussed in Section 3.2.1. In addition, we included:

a) Interest in information about electricity usage: a continuousvariable was constructed based on the sum of responses to sixitems related to interest in different information about personalelectricity usage. This was included to observe whether thosewilling to accept remote control by a third party were more orless interested in details about personal electricity use;

b) Socio-demographic variables: the same as in Section 3.2.1although household income was not included because it is nottheorised in the literature as a significant predictor and becausethe missing cases reduced the statistical power of the findings.

ss electricity stored in an EV battery.

L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Research & Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83 79

Table 4An OLS Linear regression model showing predictors for willingness to reduce electricity demand.

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 1.890 0.376 5.019 0.000Priority Climate 0.034 0.199 0.009 0.173 0.863Priority Energy independence 0.026 0.148 0.011 0.174 0.862Priority Affordable −0.011 0.154 −0.004 −0.073 0.942Israeli Public is willing to reduce 0.260 0.045 0.237 5.743 0.000**Already reducing 0.417 0.041 0.415 10.252 0.000**Financial incentive −0.001 0.036 −0.001 −0.035 0.972Cost of energy saving appliances −0.056 0.041 −0.058 −1.380 0.168Other reasons −0.132 0.039 −0.140 −3.372 0.001**Concern score −0.019 0.014 −0.053 −1.295 0.196Trust score 0.001 0.010 0.006 0.144 0.886Gender −0.190 0.093 −0.081 −2.051 0.041*Age −0.023 0.031 −0.031 −0.753 0.452Observance 0.012 0.122 0.004 0.101 0.920Education level 0.189 0.093 0.080 2.025 0.043*Household income −0.014 0.056 −0.010 −0.256 0.798

aDependent Variable: I am willing to reduce my electricity consumption.R2 (R2 Adj) = 0.353 (0.331).F Change = 15.877 (15,436)**.Notes: a) * = p< 0.05, ** = p < 0.01.b) Variables were coded or recoded so that higher values indicated higher levels of that factor, e.g. higher and positive values indicate greater concern or stronger support.c table

m

vmias

3e

ee

sd

mc

TA

a

RF

) For all regressions shown, levels of variance inflation factors (VIF) were accepulti-collinearity was not a problem.

Table 5 shows that six significant predictors explain 45.8% ofariance. Positive predictors include high trust in institutions toanage DSM, not being able to afford energy saving appliances,

nterest in information about personal electricity use and beingn observant Jew. Negative predictors include low concern aboutmart meters and age (younger Israelis find it more acceptable).

.2.3. Predictors for the acceptability of the grid accessinglectricity stored in EV batteries

We constructed an OLS multiple linear regression model toxplore the predictors for the acceptability of the grid accessinglectricity stored in EV batteries.

The dependent variable was a continuous variable based on thecore of five questions related to willingness under a range of con-

itions (see Section 3.1.7).

The independent variables included concern about smarteters, trust in institutions, a score based on interest in remote

ontrolled appliances with an financial incentive and socio-

able 5n OLS linear regression model showing predictors for acceptability of remote controlled

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

B Std. Error

(Constant) 1.906 1.153

Gender 0.605 0.329

Age Groups −0.216 0.108

Observance 0.882 0.420

Education level −0.531 0.326

Cost of energy saving appliances 0.366 0.137

Trust score 0.587 0.033

Concern score −0.082 0.050

Interest in info electricity use 0.060 0.029

Dependent Variable: Score of willingness to accept four remote controlled appliances w2 (R2 Adj) = 0.458 (0.449).

Change = 51.586 (8496)**.* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

with none higher than 3 and an average of 1 in the full models indicating that

demographic variables. The construction of these variables isdiscussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.

Table 6 shows that five predictors explain 20.9% of the variance.Positive predictors include high trust in institutions to manageDSM, interest in remote controlled appliances by a third party andbeing an observant Jew. Negative predictors include low concernabout smart meters and age (younger Israelis find it more accept-able).

4. Discussion

4.1. Willingness to reduce electricity demand

Israelis are relatively unwilling to reduce their personal elec-

tricity use. In the 2012 UKERC survey, 81% of Britons expressedwillingness to reduce electricity use as compared to 48.3% ofIsraelis. Only 13% of Britons were unwilling to reduce demand ascompared to 20% of Israelis [8].

appliances with a financial incentive.

Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

Beta

1.654 0.0990.062 1.840 0.066

−0.068 −2.001 0.046*

0.071 2.102 0.036*

−0.055 −1.629 0.1040.091 2.674 0.008**

0.618 17.723 0.000**

−0.057 −1.628 0.014*

0.070 2.089 0.037*

ith a financial incentive.

80 L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Research & Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83

Table 6An OLS linear regression model showing predictors for the acceptability of EV battery to be accessed by the grid under a range of conditions.

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 8.558 1.212 7.061 0.000Gender 0.016 0.446 0.001 0.035 0.972Education Level 0.690 0.441 0.062 1.567 0.118Age Groups −0.359 0.145 −0.100 −2.473 0.014*

Observance 0.927 0.450 0.083 2.060 0.040*

Remote control third party plus incentive scores 0.328 0.061 0.287 5.406 0.000**

Trust score 0.165 0.058 0.153 2.869 0.004**

Concern score −0.111 0.068 −0.068 −1.640 0.012*

aDependent Variable: EV battery scores.R2 (R2 Adj) = 0.22 (0.209).F

fceIiblt

pLwwtttd

tterernc

ipwerdio

cedsow

ste

Change = 20.229 (7501)**.* p< 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

The multivariate analysis in Table 4 illustrates some of theactors predicting willingness to reduce demand. This includes per-eived social norms: Israelis who were willing to reduce theirlectricity use were also more likely to perceive that the widersraeli public was willing to reduce electricity use. This relationships widely supported in the literature; perceptions of how othersehave at the micro level (neighbours and peers) and the national

evel (industry, government and media figures) are widely showno influence personal behaviour [4,33].

That said, only 18.1% of Israelis felt that “the Israeli public isrepared to reduce their electricity use”. This is concerning becauseorenzoni et al. [19] identify a ‘tragedy of the commons’ effect byhich people choose not to change their energy use behaviourhen others around them are not making similar changes. Given

he importance of social norms in determining behaviour and addi-ional cultural concerns about being perceived as a ‘freier’ by peers,his result helps explain Israeli unwillingness to reduce electricityemand.

In the survey, 63.3% of respondents cited ‘other reasons’ besideshe high cost of energy saving appliances, for their unwillingnesso reduce electricity use. These other reasons were not furtherxplored by the survey. The multivariate analysis identified ‘othereasons’ as a significant predictor for lower willingness to reducelectricity use and offers some explanation for what these ‘other’easons might be. As discussed below, however, these reasons areot related to perceived national energy policy priorities, financialonstraints, distrust in institutions or concern about smart meters.

None of the stated national energy policy priorities (energyndependence, energy security, affordability or climate change)redicted willingness to reduce electricity demand. Israelis over-helmingly ranked ‘energy independence’ as the nation’s top

nergy policy priority (45.4%). Despite the public awarenesseported during the 2011–2012 electricity drought that personalemand reduction could increase both energy security and energy

ndependence, these were nevertheless not significant predictorsf willingness to reduce electricity demand (see Section 1.4.2).

In the 2012 UKERC survey, Spence et al. [39] identified a signifi-ant relationship between ranking affordability as a top nationalnergy policy priority and low willingness to reduce electricityemand. They also identified that respondents from less affluentocial grades were associated with lower acceptance of DSM. Inur survey, these were not, however, significant predictors of lowillingness to reduce electricity demand.

Further, unlike Spence et al. [39] our analysis did not find aignificant relationship between ranking climate change as theop national energy policy priority and willingness to reducelectricity demand. This is surprising given that the connection

between addressing climate change and reducing personal electric-ity demand or buying energy efficient appliances has been widelymade. This includes in public campaigns by the Israeli Ministry forEnvironmental Protection [20]. Overall, therefore, these findingssuggest that Israelis do not readily make a connection betweenreducing electricity demand and addressing climate change, energyindependence, affordability and energy security. These concernsare not currently central in motivating their personal electricityuse and behaviours.

Additional research would be valuable to identify additional‘other reasons’ why Israelis may be unwilling to reduce electricitydemand. These may include ideological objections, personal habitsand perceptions of comfort [55].

4.2. Acceptance of new DSM technologies

Since the actual DSM technologies discussed in the survey arenot currently widely available, the public is unfamiliar with howthey would work in practice. The survey responses given thusrepresent ‘affective’ responses to these technologies, based on pre-existing views related to health concerns, personal comfort andceding control over the timing of household chores [35].

Israelis are fairly negative about the idea of household smartappliances that are remote-controlled by a third party, such as thegrid manager. Although this appears to be a relatively simple wayfor householders to reduce personal energy use without having toengage or think too much about it, Israelis are clearly not yet con-vinced. In the 2012 UKERC survey, Britons were more willing toaccept these options and without additional financial incentives:48% found the idea of a washing machine remotely controlled bya third party acceptable and 30% found the idea of a fridge-freezerswitched off by the electricity network for short periods of timeacceptable.

The multivariate analysis did identify that some segments ofthe Jewish Israeli population showed greater acceptance for smartappliances and EV batteries remotely controlled by the grid. Ashypothesised, this includes observant Jews, most probably based onprior positive experiences of using automated electrical appliancesin meeting religious observance. This community is more likely toperceive remote controlled appliances as ‘enabling’ rather than asa loss of personal freedom having integrated similar techno-fixesinto their everyday life as a practical solution to overcome conflicts

between spiritual and material needs. This finding also suggeststhat in general prior experience of somewhat similar technologies,which offer an alternative experience over the control and timingof electricity use, is likely to support the acceptance of similar tech-

arch &

nd

sbtua

wFitae

meectfi

insTis

rdmccspa

cffirSmagtn

poTsptwhwraa

tti

L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Rese

ologies in the future. See Woodruff et al. [54] for a more in depthiscussion of this topic.

In addition, younger Israelis are more willing to accept bothmart appliances remotely controlled by a third party and the EVattery storage options. This, again, may relate to familiarity withechnology since this segment of the population more commonlyse technology in their day-to-day life for time management suchs electronic calendars, mobile phone apps.

Economic considerations were also found to be relevant. Thisas evident from the responses to the survey questions (see

igs. 4 and 7), which illustrate how financial incentives significantlyncrease acceptance in both cases. It is noteworthy that framinghe economic incentive for drawing electricity from EV battery as

payment into personal bank account increases acceptability byight percent over a discount on electricity rate (see Fig. 7).

The influence of financial incentives is also evident from theultivariate analysis. Those who stated that the high cost of

nergy savings appliances was a barrier to reducing electricity use,xpressed greater acceptance of demand response technologiesontrolled by a third party. This suggests that for those unableo meet the costs of energy saving appliances, the promise of anancial support overrides other concerns with third party control.

The multivariate analysis also indicated that high trust in thenstitutions most likely to introduce and manage these tech-ologies and low concern about smart metering technologies areignificant predictors for acceptance of both sets of technologies.he descriptive analysis, however, indicates that in general there

s low trust in such institutions and high concern expressed aboutmart meters.

The overall low trust in institutions to oversee DSM probablyeflects a more general and widely reported Israeli lack of confi-ence in government and other institutions in Israel [15]. Low trustight also be explained by the fact that the general public per-

eives the Israel Electric Company, and not themselves as privateonsumers, as the key beneficiary of DSM, as indicated in Fig. 6. Thisuggests that for DSM to gain wider acceptability in Israel, either theublic image of these institutions needs to significantly improve orlternative agents should be identified that engender greater trust.

Israelis are concerned about smart meters, with the greatestoncern relating to radiation emissions, despite the survey clari-ying that this would be equivalent to mobile phone radiation. Thisnding is not unexpected given existing concern in Israel aboutadiation emissions from cellular phone antennae highlighted inection 1.4. Israelis also expressed concern about personal infor-ation gathered from the smart meter being sold commercially

nd about privacy. This may similarly reflect a wider mistrust inovernment and the motivations for introducing smart meters inhe first place, as well as the perception that private consumers areot beneficiaries of DSM.

The multivariate analysis indicates that those accepting of thirdarty control over household appliance use are similarly acceptingf the grid drawing on electricity stored in personal EV batteries.his result and the existence of similar predictors in both regres-ions possibly suggests that there is a specific segment of theopulation consistently willing to cede control across a range ofechnologies. In addition, although one would assume that thoseilling to accept the grid to make decisions regarding their house-

old appliance use would be happy to receive the financial benefitithout having to engage too much with their electricity use, these

esults suggest otherwise. A high level of interest in informationbout personal electricity use was a predictor of willingness tollow third party control over appliance use.

Israelis express greater interest in using personal smart controlso shift the time of appliance use based on information provide byhe grid, rather than remote control by a third party. This technolog-cal approach would see households shifting their time of use but

Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83 81

without external interference in daily activity from outside partieswho could be perceived as having different priorities or motivesto the householder [3]. They are nevertheless still responding toexternal influence in the form of supply constraints and load shed-ding. At the same time, it requires greater personal involvement andengagement with personal electricity use, compared to the remotecontrol option.

There is also clear variation across different energy-usedomains. Proposals to interfere with heating and cooling appliances(AC and fridges) are less acceptable than washing and cleaningappliances (washing machine and dishwasher). Despite assur-ances that temperatures would remain within a specified range,Israelis preferred to keep the current option for fridge-freezer andair-conditioner use. These differences are likely to be related toperceived loss of thermal comfort and health concerns.

Additional research would be valuable to explore what kinds ofreassurances would be effective to convince Israelis especially as tothe benefits of remote control over heating and cooling appliances.These could include manual overrides or fail-safe mechanisms toprevent food thawing in the freezer [21]. It would also be valu-able to collaborate with, and learn from the experiences of religiousJews using Sabbath technologies. In general, better communicationabout the benefits is necessary given the perceived loss of controlover basic household tasks and the disruption to daily habits.

Finally, as discussed in the method section, these findings onlyrepresent the perceptions of Jewish Israeli society. They stronglyreflect the social, cultural and ideological priorities of this segmentof population. It is likely that the non-Jewish public would respondquite differently so an accurate overall picture of the acceptance ofDSM technologies in Israeli society may be different to the findingsreported here.

5. Conclusion

Integrating residential prosumers in the energy system offersa valuable means to facilitate the match between supply anddemand, improve the efficiency of the energy system and ulti-mately increase climate and energy security. As the energysystem becomes more distributed and prosuming become morewidespread, there is a merit in understanding how to best harvestthese benefits and design public policies accordingly.

Policy makers and engineers often perceive DSM technologiesas benign technologies with personal, social and environmentalbenefits. Our findings, however, illustrate that apart from specificsegments of the population, the public may be sceptical about themotivations for promoting these technologies and even perceivethem as a threat to personal comfort, quality of life and health.

Although the findings illustrate some peculiarities of the Israelicontext, they, nevertheless, identify barriers that are likely toinfluence the public acceptability of DSM technologies worldwide.These include trust in institutions overseeing DSM programmes;health and data protection concerns; the high upfront cost ofinvesting in energy saving technologies; social norms; and theframing of both energy demand reduction and economic incentives.Financial incentives can help address these concerns, but carefulthought about how these technologies are introduced and framed,and by whom, are necessary.

The caution expressed by the Israeli public towards DSM tech-nologies may seem unexpected given the country’s generallypro-technology cultural outlook and successful adoption of novel

technologies, such as seawater desalination plants, which provide75% of the domestic water consumption, and passive solar waterheating, which are installed in 85% of Israeli households. Thesetechnologies, however, were adopted at times of evident resource

8 arch &

st

stattpawd

fitticlcIpiiaw

A

ET3r

R

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

2 L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Rese

hortages, and when their necessity could be easily communicatedo the public.

Given the high priority given to ‘energy independence’ in theurvey, Israelis may be more willing to reduce their personal elec-ricity use and adopt DSM technologies if they were clearly frameds a personal way to help achieve this national goal. This is likelyo be a more effective framing for Israelis than environmental sus-ainability or financial savings. In addition, given that the Israeliublic is susceptible to perceived social norms, it would be valu-ble to communicate DSM as a ‘collective effort’ for the public good,hich was a successful strategy during the 2011–2012 electricity

roughts.Applying a socio-techno-economic approach identifies specific

ndings and insights for the Israeli context. The research never-heless offers a valuable methodology for scholars working on thisopic and highlights key areas for investigation prior to or whilentroducing DSM technologies and engagement platforms in otherountries. The Israeli experience highlights that even in techno-ogically positive societies, the timing and context of introductionould influence the successful uptake of new DSM technologies.t also highlights the merit in framing DSM technologies appro-riately for the cultural and social context and the importance of

dentifying trusted institutions to manage DSM schemes. Lastly, itllustrates the potential benefit to implementation of learning fromnd collaborating with populations that have previous experienceith similar technologies or platforms.

cknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the help of Alexa Spence, Nickyre and Sagit Porat in the survey design and preparation stage.his research was funded by the EU FP7 Marie Curie CIG grant no.03443, STESS: Socio-technical approach to energy services secu-ity.

eferences

[1] E. Aronson, T.D. Wilson, R.M. Akert, Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River,Prentice Hall, NJ, 2010.

[2] P. Bronski, J. Creyts, et al., The Economics of Load Defection: HowGrid-connected Solar-plus Battery Systems Will Compete with TraditionalElectric Service, Why It Matters, and Possible Paths Forward, Rocky MountainInstitute, 2015, April 2015 www.rmi.org/electricity load defection (accessed13.05.16).

[3] C. Butler, K.A. Parkhill, N. Pidgeon, Deliberating Energy Transitions in theUK—Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes andAcceptability, UKERC, London, 2013.

[4] R. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, William Morrow andCompany, New York, 2006.

[5] Compass, Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking 2015. http://startup-ecosystem.compass.co/report-download/, 2015 (accessed 13.05.16).

[6] A.J. Corner, D. Venables, A. Spence, W. Poortinga, C. Demski, N.F. Pidgeon,Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British publicattitudes, Energy Policy 39 (9) (2011) 4823–4833.

[7] C. Cuijpers, B.-J. Koops, et al., Smart metering and privacy in Europe: lessonsfrom the dutch case, in: S. Gutwirth (Ed.), European Data Protection: Comingof Age, 2012, Springer, Dordrecht, 2013, pp. 269–293.

[8] C. Demski, A. Spence, N. Pidgeon, Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted inAugust 2012 – Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudesand Acceptability, UKERC, London, 2013.

[9] M. Dyson, J. Mandel, et al., The Economics of Demand Flexibility: HowFlexiwatts Create Quantifiable Value for Customers and the Grid, RockyMountain Institute, 2015, August www.rmi.org/electricity demand flexibility.

10] European Commission, Energy Efficiency Status report: Electricityconsumption and efficiency trends in the EU27. European Commission JointResearch Centre Institute for Energy and Transport (Table page 19). https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/energy-efficiency-status-report-2012.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/energy-efficiency-status-

report-2012.pdf 2012.

11] G. Fitzgerald, J. Mandel, J. Morris, H. Touati, The Economics of Battery EnergyStorage: How Multi-use, Customer-sited Batteries Deliver the Most Servicesand Value to Customers and the Grid, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2015,September http://www.rmi.org/electricity battery value.

[

[

Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83

13] T. Hargreaves, M. Nye, Making energy visible: a qualitative field study of howhouseholders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors, EnergyPolicy 2010 (38) (2010) 6111–6119.

14] P. Hemmings, Addressing challenges in the energy sector in Israel, in: OECDEconomics Department Working Papers, No. 914, OECD Publishing, 2011.

15] T. Hermann, The Israeli Democracy Index 2014, The Israeli DemocracyInstitute, 2014, http://www.idi.org.il/media/3832946/democracy index2014 eng highlights.pdf (accessed 13.05.16).

16] IEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2015 Edition, InternationalEnergy Agency, 2015, https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2015SUM.pdf (accessed 13.05.16).

17] IEA, Key World Energy Statistics (p. 52), International Energy Agency, 2015,http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorldStatistics 2015.pdf (accessed 13.05.16).

18] IEC/Teleseker, Electric Corporation: presentation of executive summary‘Summer 2012’ (2012).

19] I. Lorenzoni, S. Nicholson-Cole, L. Whitmarsh, Barriers perceived to engagingwith climate change among the UK public and their policy implications, Glob.Environ. Change 17 (2007) 445–459.

20] MEP, Israel Climate Change Fact Sheet, Israel Minstry for EnvironmentalProtection, 2015, http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsenv/climatechange/conferencescc/documents/sustaiableinnovation2015/israelclimatechangefactsheet.pdf (accessed 13.05.16).

21] W. Mert, J. Suschek-Berger, W. Tritthart, Consumer acceptance of smartappliances, in: D5.5 of WP 5 Report from Smart-A Project, IFZ Inter-universityResearch Center for Technology, Work and Culture, Graz, Austria, 2008.

22] L. Michaels, A. Tal, Convergence and conflict with the ‘National Interest’: WhyIsrael abandoned its climate policy, Energy Policy 87 (C) (2015) 480–485.

23] C. Mitchell, J. Watson, J. Whiting, New Challenges in Energy Security: The UKin a Multipolar World, Palgrave MacMillan, 2013.

24] Energy Ministry warns of electricity blackouts. Globes Online. February 12,2012. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000720869&fid=1725, 2012 (accessed 13.05.16).

25] Y. Parag, Environmental process networks: the shaping of israelienvironmental policy, in: PhD Thesis, Tel Aviv, 2005.

26] Y. Parag, From energy security to the security of energy services:shortcomings of traditional supply-oriented approaches and the contributionof a socio-technical and user-oriented perspectives, Sci. Technol. Stud. 27 (1)(2014) 97–108.

27] Y. Parag, Beyond energy efficiency: a ‘prosumer market’ as an integratedplatform for consumer engagement with the energy system, ECEEE 2015Summer Study Energy Eff. France ECEEE (2015), http://proceedings.eceee.org/visabstrakt.php?event=5&doc=1-030-15 (accessed 15.05.16).

28] Y. Parag, B. Sovacool, Electricity market design for the prosumer era, Nat.Energy 1 (4) (2016).

29] W. Poortinga, N. Pidgeon, ‘Exploring the dimensionality of trust in riskregulation, Risk Anal. 2003 (23) (2003) 961–972.

30] J. Poushter, Smartphone Ownership and Internet Usage Continues to Climb inEmerging Economies, Pew Research Center, 2016, Pewglobal.com (accessed23.02.16).

31] L. Renee-Bloch, Who’s afraid of being a freier: the analysis of communicationthrough a key cultural frame, Commun. Theory 13 (2003) 2.

32] Z. Rinat, Environment Ministry Halts Cellular Antenna Permits Over RadiationConcerns, Ha’aretz, 2010, July 11 2010. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/environment-ministry-halts-cellular-antenna-permits-over-radiation-concerns-1.301163 (accessed 10.05.16).

33] P.W. Schultz, J.M. Nolan, et al., The constructive, destructive, andreconstructive power of social norms, Psychol. Sci. 18 (5) (2007) 429–434.

34] M. Siegrist, H. Gutscher, T.C. Earle, Perception of risk: the influence of generaltrust, and general confidence, J. Risk Res. 2005 (8) (2005) 145–156.

35] P. Slovic, M. Finucane, E. Peters, D. MacGregor, Rational actors or rationalfools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics, J.Soc.-Econ. 31 (2002) (2002) 329–342.

36] Smart Energy Demand Coalition, Mapping Demand Response in EuropeToday: Tracking Compliance with Article 15.8 of the Energy EfficiencyDirective, SEDC, 2014.

37] B.K. Sovacool, What are we doing here? Analysing fifteen years of energyscholarship and proposing a social science research agenda, Energy Res. Soc.Sci. 1 (0) (2014) 1–29.

38] A. Spence, C. Leygue, B. Bedwell, C. O’Malley, Engaging with energy reduction:does a climate change frame have the potential for achieving broadersustainable behaviour? J. Environ. Psychol. 38 (2014) 17–28.

39] A. Spence, C. Demski, C. Butler, K. Parkhill, N. Pidgeon, Affordability concernsreduce acceptance of smart technologies, Nat. Clim. Change (2015) 550–554,5 pps.

40] Stop Smart Meters, PG&E Begins Removing ‘Smart’ Meters Due to Health,Effects Stop Smart Meters website, Nov 1 2011. http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/11/01/pge-begins-removing-smart-meters-due-to-health-effects/,2011 (accessed 10.05.16).

42] M. Tran, D. Banister, J. Bishop, M. McCulloch, Realizing the electric-vehiclerevolution, Nat. Clim. Change 2 (5) (2012) 328–333.

43] I. Trilnick, With Energy Use Rising, an Old Technology Makes a Comeback inIsrael, Ha’aretz, 2012, September 12, 2012. www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/with-energy-use-rising-an-old-technology-makes-a-comeback-in-israel-1.464865 (accessed 10.05.16).

arch &

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[55] L.E. Whitmarsh, P. Upham, W. Poortinga, C. McLachlan, A. Darnton, F.Sherry-Brennan, P. Devine-Wright, C.C. Demski, Public attitudes,

L. Michaels, Y. Parag / Energy Rese

44] US EIA, How Much Energy Is Consumed in the World by Each Sector? EnergyInformation Administration, 2011, https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=447&t=1 (accessed 10.05.16).

46] T. Zeller, Smart Meters Draw Complaints of Inaccuracy, New York Times,2010, Nov 12 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/business/13meter.html? r=0 (accessed 10.05.16).

47] S. Higginson, M. Thomson, T. Bhamra, For the times they are a-changin: theimpact of shifting energy-use practices in time and space Local Env. (2013).

48] E. Shove, Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience, Oxford: Berg, 2003.49] Y. Strengers, Smart Energy Technologies in Everyday Life, Palgrave Macmillan,

UK, 2013.50] S. Davidoff, M.K. Lee, C. Yiu, J. Zimmerman, A.K. Dey, Principles of Smart Home

Control, International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (2006) 19–34.

51] R. Hoggett, N. Eyre, M. Keay, Demand and Energy Security, in: C. Mitchell, J.

Watson, J. Whiting (Eds.), New Challenges in Energy Security: The UK in aMultipolar World, Palgrave, London, 2013.

52] T. Hargreaves, R. Hauxwell-Baldwin, M. coleman, C. Wilson, L. Stankovic, V.Stankovic, D. Murray, J. Liao, T. Kane, S. Firth, T. Hassan, Smart Homes, control

Social Science 21 (2016) 70–83 83

and energy management: how do smart home technologies influence controlover energy use and domestic life? in: Paper presented at the EuropeanCouncil for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) 2015 Summer Study,Toulon/Hyeres, France, 2015, pp. 1021–1032.

53] C. Wilson, T. Hargreaves, R. Hauxwell-Baldwin, Smart homes and their users:a systematic analysis and key challenges Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 19 (2)(2014) 463–476.

54] A. Woodruff, S. Augustin, B. Foucault, Sabbath Day Home Automation: It’s likemixing technology and religion, in: Proceedings of Computer HumanInteraction 2007 (CHI 2007) April 28–May 3, San Jose California, 2007, pp.527–536.

understanding, and engagement in relation to low-carbon energy, in: Aselective review of academic and non-academic literatures: report for RCUKEnergy Programme, Research Councils UK, 2011.