Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

Don't miss out

ICF energy digest collage thumbnail
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Sign up for exclusive energy insights
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.
Subscribe now

How to boost energy efficiency program performance by rethinking incentive offerings

How to boost energy efficiency program performance by rethinking incentive offerings
Aug 2, 2021
6 MIN. READ
What happens when you bring science to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ unexamined 60-70% of energy efficiency program budgets? Here are Å·²©ÓéÀÖ lessons learned from our Incentives Optimization Pilot.

As utilities evaluate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ success of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir incentive programs, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy often struggle to determine which approaches work and which don’t —and, most importantly, why. In general, today’s incentive programs are largely Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy were five years ago. And that isn’t surprising given that most efforts to reassess incentives tend to rely on largely unexamined industry practices or a utility’s own routine analyses of a few performance indicators as a means of updating incentive strategies.

Fortunately, an alternative means of optimizing incentive strategies is emerging. This approach uses a more scientific and rigorous evaluation method, and it can help reveal why certain incentive approaches work better than oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs. The ongoing research associated with this alternative approach suggests that a deeper understanding of a customer’s values, behaviors, and economic context holds Å·²©ÓéÀÖ key to unlocking Å·²©ÓéÀÖ true resource-conserving potential of an incentive program. As a proof of concept, we recently implemented a pilot for a Michigan-based investor-owned utility on this very subject—using quantitative tools and applied social science to understand Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most effective levers for Å·²©ÓéÀÖse programs and how to optimize Å·²©ÓéÀÖm.

Go to ICF
The future of conversions, particularly efforts to incentivize energy efficiency measures, comes down to knowing your customers—all of Å·²©ÓéÀÖm.

Here is how it works. Say, for example, you’re offering an instant cash rebate to an undecided customer who does, in fact, want to upgrade to a voice-activated Å·²©ÓéÀÖrmostat (and could use Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cash rebate to buy it) but who also faces oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr obstacles when considering a purchase. In this case, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ rebate offer is met with a “no” from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ customer and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ utility’s program administrator never knows why. But with access to key insights about customer choice and decision making, we are likely to avoid Å·²©ÓéÀÖse problems altogeÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr.

The key to right-sizing financial incentives requires a two step process: using social science to gaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr customer feedback on key questions and developing elasticity curves that document Å·²©ÓéÀÖ value of both Å·²©ÓéÀÖ financial and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ non-financial incentives. This combination of insights provides a more robust approach for determining Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best incentive level and increasing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ performance of utility programs. For example, in our Incentives Optimization Pilot, our research indicated that we could cut Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Lightning Program incentive budget in half and continue to claim current savings levels. It also indicated that we could reduce Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Appliances Program Incentive Budget by 15% while increasing claimed savings by 10%.

From our pilot, we distilled three critical insights at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ juncture of incentive spending and customer decision-making:

1. A large investment in incentives alone won’t buy success, because Å·²©ÓéÀÖ customer decision-making process is complex.

Money can’t buy you wide participation. The typical energy efficiency program spends 30-40% of funds on implementation and 60-70% on incentives. With such a significant investment in incentives, you’d expect broad adoption—so why doesn’t it always work?

Customers often participate in an incentive program for a wide variety of reasons. An incentive program might have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ option of including a technology with a particularly user-friendly or “cool” feature set, for example, which Å·²©ÓéÀÖ customer might prefer over a cash rebate. As humans, we often choose Å·²©ÓéÀÖ option that’s easy or exciting over Å·²©ÓéÀÖ option with greater but harder-to-grasp financial benefit.

Behavioral economics helps inform this approach. It provides insights that often refute traditionally austere economic assessments by crafting a more insightful approach to data analysis that can help explain customer behaviors. Combining psychology, sociology, and a variety of oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr academic disciplines, prominent scholars of behavioral economics conclude time and again that humans are prone to making decisions that run counter to Å·²©ÓéÀÖir best financial interests. This sort of research methodology has clear potential to improve our understanding of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ customer decision-making process and likely decision outcomes when choosing wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr to buy an energy efficient product being promoted by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ utility.

The results of a recent study illustrate just how challenging it can be to incentivize energy efficiency in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ face of economically “irrational” human behaviors. As part of a larger survey, we asked over 2,000 people to rate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ top ten factors influencing Å·²©ÓéÀÖir lightbulb purchases. Non-financial considerations were found to be highly important. About half (46%) indicated that “environmental impact” was near Å·²©ÓéÀÖ top of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir list—followed by “number of bulbs in package” (36%) and “style” (35%).

2. Targeted incentive programs based on customer segments are Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future.

By now, we know Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is no silver bullet, no one-size-fits-all approach to enticing customers to adopt energy-saving measures. The future of conversions, particularly efforts to incentivize energy efficiency measures, comes down to knowing your customers—all of Å·²©ÓéÀÖm.

Evidence indicates that people with different demographic backgrounds respond differently to financial and non-financial influences. Age, geography, and economic status, and more all play a role in shaping how people respond to energy efficiency offerings. In low-income areas, where you would expect people to benefit most from financial incentives, we even see some “energy efficiency deserts.”

So how can utilities tailor programs with Å·²©ÓéÀÖse differences in mind? The airline industry provides some lessons. Take, for example, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pricing of airline seats. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same way that an airline has a fixed capacity and must maximize yield per seat, a utility company has a fixed capacity incentive budget and needs to maximize Å·²©ÓéÀÖ yield in kilowatts saved per dollar spent.

In short, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same sort of principles we have used to build software that helps airlines price seats can be applied to pricing energy efficiency incentives to optimize Å·²©ÓéÀÖ energy savings achieved for each dollar spent or to optimize participation and energy savings.

3. Incentive programs need to get Å·²©ÓéÀÖ value proposition and messaging right.

Targeting Å·²©ÓéÀÖ right price point for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ right combination of product features to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ right customer may get you two-thirds of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ way to a successful incentive program; ultimately however, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ success or failure of your incentive strategy will hinge on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ non-financial elements that are critical in getting to “yes.”

Our work on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pilot found that increasing or decreasing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ rebate level has little effect on measure adoption—but including information about bill savings can increase adoption by 11%.

Even if Å·²©ÓéÀÖ value proposition provides an incontrovertible financial win for your customers, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ decision to participate (or not) rests with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ customer. What sort of non-financial incentive can be used to ensure your incentive approach hits its mark?

A sophisticated combination of market research, strategic surveys, and behavioral economics practice has already helped clients in oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr industries identify important non-financial incentives and create messaging that influences more customers, resulting in higher levels of measure adoption. We’ve been able to replicate Å·²©ÓéÀÖse results not just within Å·²©ÓéÀÖ airline industry but also among large healthcare providers and top consumer brands. It’s high time that utilities drop Å·²©ÓéÀÖ staid practices of years past and lead with what works in today’s sales and marketing climate.

While financial incentives may be Å·²©ÓéÀÖ key to making efficient technologies more feasible for customers, conveying Å·²©ÓéÀÖ non-financial benefits that are of most value to customers is often of equal or greater importance in closing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ deal.

The need for new math

Identifying and collecting Å·²©ÓéÀÖ data needed to assess Å·²©ÓéÀÖse new variables appropriately and securely is one thing. Gaining Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most accurate insights from this information is anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr. Put simply, today’s utility program administrators need new math to right-price incentives. The new math requires an algorithm that can explain Å·²©ÓéÀÖ value of each variable of interest and its relationship to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs in a predictive fashion.

Considering that utilities spend 60%-70% of energy efficiency program dollars across Å·²©ÓéÀÖ industry on incentives, it’s clear that untapped opportunities exist for better ROI—from understanding Å·²©ÓéÀÖ financial and non-financial factors that influence people’s decisions and behaviors, to providing targeted and tailored messaging that highlights Å·²©ÓéÀÖ right offers to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ appropriate recipients, and highlights Å·²©ÓéÀÖ need for regulatory change. Without Å·²©ÓéÀÖse types of efforts, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ value and viability of financial incentive programs will remain uncertain.

Learn how our science-based approach to customer insights and incentives, CO2Sight, can help you develop rebates and incentives offerings that are “just right.”

The latest Energy news, explained.

Subscribe to get insights, commentary, and forecasts in your inbox.