Umeå University's logo

In a recent report to the Swedish Energy Markets Inspectorate (Broberg et al., 2014) consumer behavior and consumer flexibility concerning energy use were analyzed. Two main conclusions were drawn. First, electricity consumption follows a regular pattern over the day, week, and year, which to a large extent reflects household living patterns and climate variations over the year. Second, the average household needs a substantial economic compensation to voluntarily reschedule its electricity use away from peak demand hours. The required compensations were found to be far higher than the economic incentives households face today when exposed to real-time pricing. In addition, it was found that households are more flexible in the use of electricity for heating than in the use of electrical appliances. Finally, households were found to be more flexible during the morning peak hours than during the evening hours. These findings led to the overall conclusion that both the possibilities and incentives are such that we cannot expect any substantial change in energy use patterns from technical reforms that creates incentives for demand response in line with the current price variation on the wholesale market for electricity.

In the above-mentioned report we also analyzed people’s attitudes towards information dissemination. We concluded that many households do not wish to have their electricity use scrutinized by experts and other households. We found that people, on average, required a compensation to allow such information sharing. Again, new technologies open for various demand response policies, although it does not necessarily imply substantially higher demand flexibility. New technologies need to be combined with consumer interest to be successful in a market economy.

The overall objective of the current report is to further scrutinize consumer behavior and flexibility. The first part focuses on Swedish households’ choice of electricity supplier contracts. Specifically, we analyze what types of households choose a fixed price contract. 1 The choice of contract implicitly reveals a consumer’s flexibility since a fixed price contract works as an insurance against price variation. So, by studying what type of households chose a fixed price contract we are able to infer on which type of households are relatively inflexible. This part of the analysis is policy relevant since it touches on the question of what to expect from real-time pricing reforms. A central question is whether a household who uses relatively more electricity is more likely to have a fixed price contract. If this is the case, future access to real-time pricing and a greater price variation may not be a guarantee for a substantial increase in demand response as important consumers (from a policy perspective) are more likely to insure against such circumstances. From this perspective the market for price insurances (fixed price contracts) is a market for inflexibility.

While the analysis above considers the effectiveness of future energy policies to promote demand response, it is also relevant to study the question of how the peak demand problem may develop over time. This question is explicitly addressed in the current report by studying how consumer behavior varies across income levels. The existing literature suggests that electricity consumption is positively related to income, although the income elasticity 2 is fairly small. However, almost all studies concerning income effects have studied aggregate electricity use on monthly or yearly basis. The present study departs from the existing literature by studying how daily household electricity use patterns vary across income levels. This approach is novel since it allows us to analyze how the peak load problem may develop in the future as a result of higher income levels, which is commonly expected.

By studying the choice of electricity contracts and by estimating hourly income elasticities, the report approach demand flexibility in an indirect way. In the third analysis of the report we address these issues again, although with a somewhat more direct approach. The choice experiment part in Broberg et al. (2014), which focused on the economic incentives needed in order to change people’s energy consumption in a predefined way, is now deepened. The focus is on how socio-economic factors such as e.g. age, gender, education and income may explain preference heterogeneity among the Swedish population. Energy related factors such as living conditions and heating systems are also considered in the analysis. This analysis will inform us about what types of households are inclined to reschedule their energy use when given relatively small economic incentives, and what household’s that are relatively inflexible and thus require large compensations to change their behavior. We also study preference heterogeneity regarding information dissemination in purpose of anonymous peer comparisons.

In the final part of the report we deepen our analysis of households’ demand for information about their own and others electricity use. Besides creating incentives for demand response, new technologies included in the smart grid concept also make it possible for policy makers to use tailored information to help consumers to use energy more efficiently. A number of studies highlight inefficiencies in the households’ use of energy (see e.g. Broberg and Kazukauskas, 2014). One highlighted reality is that people seem to pay little attention to energy issues. Of course, if people pay little attention to the price of electricity, the effectiveness of policy measures that work through the pricechannel is limited. In this part of the report we address four basic questions of great relevance for energy efficiency policies worldwide. The questions are (1) What knowledge do people have about the marginal cost of electricity use in terms of everyday electrical appliances? (2) Are the cost perceptions biased and in what direction? (3) Do inattention to energy issues play a significant role in this bias? (4) Do households want information that may help them de-bias their perceptions about energy costs and use?

The report is structured such that section 2 gives a brief background on the issues analyzed in the report. The following sections correspond to the issues outlined in the introduction. Section 7 works to tie the analyses together and conclude our results

I rapporten ”En elmarknad i förändring – Är kundernas flexibilitet till salu eller ens verklig?” tittar en forskargrupp vid Centrum för Miljö- och Naturresursekonomi (CERE) vid Handelshögskolan, Umeå Universitet på konsumenternas nuvarande och framtida roll på elmarknaden. Rapporten är beställd av Energimarknadsinspektionen.

Incomplete information may be one reason why some households do not invest in energy efficiency even though it would benefit them to do so. Energy performance certificates (EPCs) have been promoted to overcome such information shortages. In this paper, we investigate whether EPCs together with mandatory home energy audits make households more likely to invest in energy efficiency. Our study takes advantage of the mandatory nature of the EPCs to avoid the potential selection bias problem that typically applies to studies using voluntary energy audits as the treatment. Our treatment group consists of single-household houses in Sweden sold from 2008, i.e., when EPCs became legally required in connection with sales of residential buildings, to 2015; while the control group consists of houses sold between 2002 and 2008, i.e., without an EPC. The results show that there is no statistically significant treatment effect for most of the measures that a household can take to improve the energy performance of their house. The significant treatment effect that we do find concerns a few heating system-related measures.

A rather large literature argues that firms and households do not always improve energy efficiency by investing in new technology even if it would be cost-effective to do so. In this paper, we review the theoretical and empirical literature on the so-called energy efficiency gap and provide a rationale for policymakers to act to improve energy efficiency. By eliminating market failures, welfare can be improved in a broad sense, including both environmental quality and material welfare. We also discuss social 'nudges' as examples of policy instruments that do not directly target any market failure in energy markets but that still may have a significant impact on energy use. Although we acknowledge the existence of the energy efficiency gap, we argue that the gap in general is overestimated as parts of it can be explained by heterogeneity in preferences and thus explained by rational choices.

We investigate the process of electricity price formation in the Swedish intraday market, given a large share of wind power in the Swedish electricity system. According to Karanfil and Li's (2017) approach, if the intraday market is efficient, with large shares of intermittent electricity in the entire electricity system, intraday prices should send signals based on scarcity pricing for balancing power. Based on this theory, we analyze Swedish electricity market data for the period 2015–2018 and find that the Swedish intraday market, despite its small trading volumes, is functioning properly. In particular, our results show that intraday price premia mostly respond to wind power forecast errors and other imbalances resulting from either supply or demand sides of the electricity market, as they should if the intraday market is efficient. The results of wind power forecast errors hold for central and southern Sweden, but not for northern Sweden where the share of wind power production is still very small. However, we find no effect of unplanned nuclear power plant outages on intraday price premia.

Using a cross-country firm-level dataset this study empirically analyses how the implemented renewable electricity promotion systems Tradable Green Certificates vs. Feed-in-Tariffs affected the profitability of the electricity production sector in Europe during the 2002-2010 period. In particular, it tests the hypothesis that due to market imperfections, namely because of higher investment risk, higher capital constraints and higher transaction costs, TGC schemes will be associated with excess profits for renewable electricity generating firms. The results somewhat support this hypothesis, showing that electricity generating firms, operating in EU countries that implemented TGC, were more profitable compared to FIT firms. 

Given the intensifying debates whether governments should use industrial policies to promote particular renewable energy technologies, the main objective of this study is to investigate the long-run effects of renewable energy support policies on economic growth and employment in 15 European Union (EU) member states for the 1990-2012 time period by using panel-data time-series econometric techniques. The first hypothesis is that the EU’s renewable energy support policies lead to technological advancement, followed by economy growth, in the long-run. The second hypothesis states that these policies at least generate an increase in output and employment in the short-run. In summary, our results provide some evidence in support of the second hypothesis, but, in contrary to the similar studies, our findings do not support the first hypothesis that these policies promote growth in the long-run.

Given the intensifying debates on whether governments should promote particular renewable energy technologies, the main objective of this study is to investigate the long-and short-run effects of policy-induced expansion of renewable solar and wind technologies on economic growth and employment in 15 European Union (EU) member states during 1990-2013 by using panel-data time-series econometric techniques. Instead of relying on renewable energy consumption or generation as commonly done in the literature, we focus on the capacity for solar and wind power generation, which is largely a consequence of the EU's renewable energy policies. In summary, we find that, to date, renewable energy policy-induced wind and solar power capacity promotes growth and/or employment in the short run, but these capacity increases do not stimulate economic growth in the long run in the EU-15 region. In fact, our results tend to support the opposite relationship: increases in wind and solar power capacity are associated with negative economic growth, at least at the total economy level.