|
|
Consumer Opinions from Other Parts of the Nation
National Surveys
Dr. Barbara Farhar, one of the nation's leading researchers in this area, has constructed tables from extensive reviews of the literature at the national level that show customer preferences among energy alternatives. In a December 1990 survey, consumers were asked the question: "In order to help provide for the country's overall need for energy in the future, which do you think should be emphasized most?" According to her data, renewables were favored by 59 percent (Table 2). Twenty-five percent said they preferred ways to use less energy. Finding ways to produce more oil, gas and coal earned only 11 percent support (Table 2).
When consumers were asked about funding for research and development (R&D), Farhar reports that 34 percent supported funding for new renewable technologies and 21 percent supported development of energy efficiency and conservation. Survey participants were asked not only which R&D projects should be funded first, but which should be cut first. Again, renewable energy programs fared far better than fossil fuels and nuclear power (Table 3).
Another national survey cited by Dr. Farhar finds, " . . . if given a choice between a utility company using coal to generate electricity and one using 'cleaner, but slightly more expensive renewables,' . . . three-quarters said they would pay something more (75 percent chose something in the range of 2 percent to 20 percent more) for renewables."
Three Texas Utilities' Experience with Town Meetings
In Texas, several utilities conducted experiments to determine customer opinion. The results of three of these studies, sponsored by Central Power and Light (CPL), West Texas Utilities (WTU), and Southwestern Electric and Power Company (SWEPCO), are in this report. Several other Texas utilities used the same methodology (called "Deliberative PollingTM"). This includes Houston Power and Light and El Paso Electric Company, whose studies are cited in this paper. The first step of "Deliberative PollingTM" was a baseline consumer survey using statistical samples designed to produce high levels of confidence. Then consumers were invited to participate in town meetings. The purpose of the survey and meetings was to get public input in guiding the integrated resource planning process for the three utilities.
Two hundred people were selected as a representative sample to ensure they were demographically similar to the larger group that was invited to attend the town meetings. Using the Deliberative PollingTM technique, interviewers asked participants about their resource preferences. The researchers selected a scientifically representative sample from customers of the utility and were surveyed before the meetings. Meeting participants were invited; though some of those invited did not attend, so some self selection of the cohort occurred at this stage. At the meetings, independent moderators led small group discussions of issues. Efforts were made to present accurate information and to avoid directing conclusions.
There were also large group discussions moderated by Ron Lehr, former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The session included a televised question and answer format in which participants were invited to ask questions of representatives from the Texas Public Utility Commission. Later, participants were asked if they felt the moderators were attempting to direct rather than inform. The vast majority did not feel they were directed (see Figure 7 for results of test for perceived partiality in this process as implemented in the Houston Power and Light study).
An intriguing result of the survey and town meeting was finding not just that conservation and renewables were favored but seeing a shift in attitudes from before and after the meeting. The presumption is that this was due to the education, which resulted from information provided at the town meetings. (Figures 3, 4, and 5). Participants were asked which of four choices the utility should support: (1) reduce need for more energy; (2) build more fossil fuel plants; (3) add renewable resources; or (4) buy and transport energy from outside the company's service system. Responses prior to the town meeting differed significantly from those at the end of the meeting (before and after surveys.) For each of the three utilities, "pre-event" consumers recorded a marked preference for renewables. After the event, energy efficiency is preferred as the first choice, with renewables following at a close second.
Sustainable Energy Coalition
The Sustainable Energy Coalition released a report on December 1996, presenting the results of a national survey of 1,000 voters. The respondents were asked the following question: "Which one of these research and development programs do you think should receive the highest priority for funding in the Department of Energy's research and development budget?" (The choices were renewable energy, technologies to improve energy efficiency, natural gas, fossil fuels, nuclear, none of these, and don't know.) The results were 34 percent renewables, 22 percent efficiency improvement, 10 percent fossil fuels, 10 percent natural gas, 10 percent fossil fuels, and 8 percent nuclear.
In addition to expressing their preferences in order for resources, the respondents were asked if they felt utilities should be required to invest in renewables. According to this study, " . . . a large majority (69 percent), [of] voters favor requiring utilities to invest in energy efficiency programs, either strongly (37 percent) or at least somewhat (32 percent)". Support for mandatory utility investments in a deregulated environment is strong also, at 78 percent in favor.
While willingness to pay for conservation was not discussed in this report, support for mandatory requirements for renewables was high with 53 percent favoring investments in renewables even if this meant an increase in $1.00 a month for consumers electric bills.
The study included some demographic data such as age, area of the country, military experience, race, education level, income, political party affiliation, and political ideology (five gradations from very liberal to very conservative).
The authors reported on some correlation between certain demographics and respondents' answers. Higher education levels equated with more willingness to support renewable energy and conservation. For example, 61 percent of college graduates support the Environmental Protection Agency's Green Lights and Energy Star program, compared to 41 percent support among high school graduates.
Similarly, higher-income people support these programs more than those of lower income. Only 46 percent of those with annual incomes under $25,000 support these programs, while 51 percent of respondents between $25,000 and $50,000 support them. Fifty-five percent of those who earn above $50,000 express support.
Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT) California Survey
The firm of Fairbank, Naslin, Kaullin and Associates conducted a statewide interview in California for the CEERT in September 1996. The firm posed the question, "If you were sure that the money you spend for electrical energy was paying for clean alternative sources of power and not for electricity from nuclear or coal plants, how willing would you be to pay approximately 10 percent more on your monthly energy bill, very willing, somewhat willing, not very willing, or not at all willing?" A majority, 66 percent, reported that they were willing (30 percent were very willing and 36 percent were somewhat willing). Thirty percent reported that they were unwilling.
Demographic breakouts were done by age, gender, and race. Consistent with other studies, there are significant age/gender differences. Among those who responded to the question regarding willingness to pay more for renewable energy, men aged 50 years or older were 57 percent willing and 38 percent unwilling. However, men between the ages of 18 to 49 were 71 percent willing and 27 percent unwilling.
There is a similar, although less significant, gap by gender. Women, 50 years or older, are 64 percent willing and 36 percent unwilling. Women aged 18-49 were 81 percent willing and 18 percent unwilling. It is apparent that a somewhat different picture emerges of what consumers want depending on the age group and gender surveyed. For example, the perspective derived from speaking to men 50 years or older would be significantly different from that derived from talking to younger women (Tables 4 and 5).
| Table 4 |
 |
| Table 5 |
 |
Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P): Partners in Planning
In January 1998, HL&P held a two-day meeting with 200 customers to discuss electrical issues. The purpose was to seek consumer opinions regarding resource acquisition planning, that is, the utility's Integrated Resource Plan. The process also used Deliberative PollingTM, which has been described earlier. The question posed was, "Assuming the cost is the same, which option should HL&P pursue first?"
- Generating electricity using renewable technologies such as wind and solar power.
- Providing services and products to customers, which reduce the need for additional electric generation.
- Generating electricity using fuels like natural gas or coal.
- Purchasing power from another producer of electricity.
Customers were asked to rank their choices. Fifty-eight percent selected renewable resources as their first choice. Twenty percent selected energy efficiency as their preferred choice.
When asked which they would do second, 51 percent selected energy efficiency. Customers said they would be willing to pay increased monthly bills of $10.93 (the mean) or $6.50 ("midpoint") for wind and solar energy. They said they would be willing to pay $7.04 (the mean) or $3 (the "midpoint") for efficiency actions to reduce need.
The Houston study also did demographic comparisons. The following participants chose renewables as their first choice (given no differences in cost):
- 82 percent of those aged 18-35
- 55 percent of those aged 36-45
- 50 percent of those aged 46-55
- 32 percent of those aged 56-65
There is almost a linear drop in percentage preference for each increasing decade in age. The trend is reversed over the age of 65, however, where preference for renewables is back up to 55 percent. (Figure 6) Likewise when asked about a voluntary choice to purchase electricity from solar and wind, the results showed the following were very likely to buy.
- 64 percent of those aged 18-35
- 39 percent of those aged 36-45
- 44 percent of those aged 46-55
- 19 percent of those aged 56-65
- 15 percent of those over 65.
Clearly, age is a significant determinant in likelihood to buy green. It appears anyone marketing green resources would be wise to target the younger market.
The Deliberative PollingTM results for all five Texas utilities showed changes in the larger-scale survey and in the post-town-hall discussion polls of participants. Since there were dramatic shifts among preferred alternative resources, it is important to note that participants did not feel led to conclusions. When asked, 80 percent of the participants report they disagreed strongly with the following statement: "The group leader often tried to influence the group with his or her own views." (Figure 7)
Southwest Town Meeting on Electrical Issues
In August 1997, El Paso Electric Company held meetings similar to those held in Houston and by the three Central Texas utilities reported above. The Deliberative PollingTM was the same as that in the other Texas cities. The poll asked the question, "Assuming the cost is the same, which of these should your utility pursue first:
- Providing programs/technologies that increase the energy efficiency of homes and businesses to decrease the need for additional electric generation facilities.
- Acquiring energy from electric generation facilities that use coal or natural gas.
- Acquiring energy from electric generation facilities that rely on solar power, wind power, or other renewable sources."
The results showed 44 percent of those surveyed preferred energy efficiency as their first choice, while 42 percent made renewable resources their first choice. For their second choice, 37 percent chose efficiency and 39 percent opted for renewable resources. When asked how much more they would pay on monthly bills for generation by wind and solar, the results were $6.99 (mean) and $5 (midpoint). For efficiency, the results were $4.52 (mean) and $2 (midpoint).
The El Paso study did some demographic separation on the basis of income. Customers were asked, "Using a scale of 0-10, where 0 stands for not at all important and 10 stands for extremely important . . . how important is it for El Paso Electric to tailor energy-efficiency programs to make sure that low-income customers can participate?" Sixty-five percent of those with annual incomes under $15,000 thought it extremely important, while 36 percent of those over $15,000 felt it was extremely important. Interestingly, 36 percent of those above $15,000 thought it was important.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)
In February 1995, SMUD surveyed a random sample of customers for their opinions on energy conservation and renewable resources and the deregulation of the electrical utility business. The survey reached 401 residential customers, 392 business customers, and 25 large industrial customers. Residential customers selected "environmental responsibility as an important utility service" by 87 percent. An only slightly smaller number (72 percent) supported "promoting renewable electricity production" as an important service. Eighty-five percent of business customers supported being environmentally responsible, and 72 percent were for promoting renewable electricity production. Industrial customers were much more interested in keeping outages low (100 percent) and keeping prices low (100 percent). Seventy-two percent considered being environmentally responsible as important, with 32 percent choosing to promote renewable electricity production.
Forty-three percent of residential customers were willing to pay five percent more for renewable resources, with thirty-eight percent willing to pay five percent more for conservation. Businesses were willing to pay 5 percent more for renewables while 36 percent were willing to pay 5 percent more for conservation. It appears SMUD consumers feel that the environment is important. Of those who rated service as an important issue in making a choice among utilities, 87 percent rated environmental responsibility as important. Keeping rates low was important to somewhat more people at 95 percent of the respondents
Public Power Customer Insights
In 1998, RKS Research & Consulting surveyed a scientifically selected national cross section of 1,002 electric bill-paying residential Public Power customers (heads of households). The American Public Power Association supplied sampling information in the form of ZIP codes, nationwide, from areas served by public power. Interviews covered a representative sample of public power nationally. One question asked was, "If you had a choice, would you prefer to buy electricity from a company that has a reputation for being environmentally friendly or one that has a reputation for low prices?"
Of the 60 percent who responded "Environmentally Friendly" or "Depends," a further probed. "If (your utility) offered 'green power'--that is, electricity that comes from nonpolluting, renewable energy sources, would you be willing to pay 20 percent more (if no, depends, not sure ask [whether they would be willing to pay]) 10 percent more? (if no, depends, not sure, ask [whether they would be willing to pay]) 5 percent." Of the 606 customers who were in this category, the responses showed that 33 percent were willing to spend 20 percent more, and 24 percent were willing to spend 10 percent more (Table 6).
| Table 6 Question: "If [your] utility offered 'green power'--that is, electricity that comes from nonpolluting, renewable energy sources, would you be willing to pay 20 percent more, 10 percent more, [etc.] . . ." |
| Total U.S Willing to Pay More |
|
| 20 percent more |
33 percent |
| 10 percent more |
24 percent |
| 5 percent more |
14 percent |
| Not willing to pay more |
16 percent |
| It depends |
4 percent |
| Not sure |
9 percent |
Taken from "Hometown Connections; Residential Survey," RKS Research, Consulting, Table from Appendix C: question 10d, page 13.
North Dakota
A 1994 study of North Dakota residents found that 83 percent said "developing resources such as solar and wind is as important as development of fossil energy resources . . ." Sixty-one percent said they would pay something more for electricity generated from renewables. The breakout shows:
- 19 percent would pay $0-$5
- 45 percent would pay $6-$10
- 11 percent would pay $11-$15
- 9 percent would pay $21 or more.
Next: Conclusions
|
|
|
Finance & Rates
EE Home
