Energy poverty is a pressing global issue, impacting millions who spend over 8 percent of their annual household income on energy costs. A recent study led by researchers from MIT reveals that providing detailed insights into energy consumption, combined with personal coaching, can significantly lower these expenses and consumption levels.
Conducted in Amsterdam, this groundbreaking experiment showcased an astounding reality: households managed to reduce their energy bills by an average of 53%, collectively lifting around 75% of participant families out of energy poverty.
Joseph Llewellyn from MIT’s Senseable City Lab, who co-authored the study, remarked, “Our energy coaching project demonstrated a remarkable 75% success rate in alleviating energy poverty.”
According to Fábio Duarte, another researcher involved, “Countries can make their efforts more efficient by relying on empirical evidence about effective policies.” The findings were published in the comprehensive paper titled “Assessing the impact of energy coaching with smart technology interventions to alleviate energy poverty” in Nature Scientific Reports.
The research team comprises experts from MIT and other academic institutions, including the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (AMS). They highlighted that around 550,000 households in the Netherlands live in energy poverty, mirroring a staggering 50 million across the European Union. In the U.S., about 30% of families face challenges in managing their energy bills.
The experiment involved two approaches for energy coaching. One group of 67 households received a single report on their energy habits along with guidance on improving efficiency. Meanwhile, another group of 50 households received similar support plus a smart device that provided real-time data on their energy usage. Initial energy savings improvements were also introduced, such as enhanced insulation.
As a result, participants exhibited profound behavioral changes—reducing electricity consumption by 33% and gas by 42%. By prioritizing actions such as heating rooms only when occupied and unplugging unused devices, these families greatly enhanced their energy awareness and efficiency.
Llewellyn noted the wide variance in “energy literacy” among households. Instead of lecturing, coaches collaborated with families to tailor solutions to their specific circumstances. Intriguingly, the smart devices aimed at real-time tracking of energy use were mostly utilized for only three to four weeks following the initial coaching session. Nevertheless, this brief exposure was often sufficient to instigate long-term behavioral changes.
“Our findings suggest that smart devices must be complemented with a deeper understanding of familial motivators for changing behaviors,” Venverloo pointed out.
While the initiative demonstrated how to engage consumers toward reducing energy use, the authors noted that tackling energy poverty also involves addressing structural factors like lowering energy prices and improving building energy efficiency.
Building on this research, Llewellyn is collaborating with Amsterdam officials on a new initiative to study the advantages of retrofitting residences to decrease energy costs, particularly focusing on financing solutions that prevent landlords from transferring expenses to tenants.
Llewellyn emphasized the importance of not merely shifting costs from one area to another, stating, “We want to ensure that households saving on energy bills aren’t facing increased rents.”
For households looking to invest in efficiency improvements like better insulation for windows or heating components, the upfront costs can be a significant hurdle, especially for low-income families. Llewellyn pointed out how energy expenses often become an “invisible” priority, overshadowed by more immediate needs like food and clothing.
“It’s difficult for families who are already strained to allocate funds for energy solutions,” Llewellyn explained. “In the hierarchy of needs, energy expenses typically fall to the bottom of the list.”
Photo credit & article inspired by: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
