Energy choices in households - a platform for change (2007-June 2011) Jenny Palm Linköping University Dept. of Technology and Social Change

Purpose Develop an understanding for household energy use Household energy use is analyzed in relation to - households understanding of the energy system, - possibilities and restrictions available to them - the contacts and information channels households develop - focus on different means of control (information and energy consultancy in particular), Building and estate companies understanding and interpretation of means of control and environmental goals. Communicated between these companies and the households. County Administrative Board – their energy related activities and existing regional networks

Households Energy behaviour Policy (regional, Local) Network & governance Habits and routines Appliances and technology Home-owner, tenants tenant-ownership Architecture and design Resources & restrictions Resources & restrictions Resources & restrictions

Sub-projects Municipal Energy Guidance: Östergötland and Dalarna; Energy Hunt in Linköping Regional Climate and Energy strategies – County Administrative Board Östergötland Dalarna, Skåne Energy saving potential Case-studies different living areas: - Colonia: on-campus student living - HSB – tenants ownership, Norrköping and Finspång - Home-owners, Sundsvall and Umeå Lambohov: 39 row-house apartments, including the 9 passive houses. Interview tenants in ordinary apartments and in the passive houses. Measure indoor thermal climate the apartments.

Public interest in the private sphere: how far into the home can local policy making reach? Discuss information provided by municipal energy guidance to households. How do these energy consultants try to influence households and how do the households perceive this guidance? What can these consultants discuss with the households? What subjects are too private?

Interviews 23 home-owners and 3 tenants that have been in contact with an energy consultants 14 energy consultants in the counties of Östergötland and Dalarna

The Energy consultants the boundary is drawn when energy use is connected to behavioural and lifestyle issues: “Yes, behaviour, I cannot interfere with that, only appeal. I can only make people aware”. (energy consultant N)

Technology often in focus Mainly discussion of energy-efficient technology available on the market but rarely of behaviour-related issues. Technology was a ‘safe’ area for the consultants: If they could advise the households to consume energy-efficient technology, then both they and the householders were happy and felt they had contributed to sustainable development.

Households: Energy advice do not threatening privacy The households thought no advice or policy means were too private because they related the question to existing regulations and measures used to reach the households: “There is nothing that is too private to request people to do. Not in the energy area – there is mostly information”. (householder P)

Inform but do not interfere The government should signal what they believe is a good choice, but it is still up to the consumer to decide. “I gladly receive tips and advice, but then it is up to me what to do with it, what suits my home the best. I want to decide on my own”. (householder L) what measures to invest or not invest in, is a private issue. The public cannot interfere with that. When it comes to how families accept the authorities’ interference in their own lives: can accept information, even individually specified information, but they do not accept requests to do certain things.

Individual inspections and feed-back Several householders said they wanted more individual inspections where the consultants measured all energy- related activities and appliances in their homes and gave them feedback on what they could do to reduce their energy consumption. That these inspections would result in figures seemed to make such advice neutral and could explain why the householders did not feel such supervision threatened their private sphere. “No sentimentality, but straight on, easy and simple information about your energy use and costs” (householder N).

Conclusions Today the information is too general according to both householders and advisers But it is ‘safe’ – do not trespassing into privacy The result of their guidance is often advice to consume, to buy new, more energy-efficient products. More individual related information is requested That this could expose and give a rather detailed picture of family life is not problematized. Instead, the householders highlight the possibilities of such mapping, letting the consultants give them specific information on how to change behaviour to reduce energy consumption. But – households in Sweden... (SCB, 2007)

Energy saving potential and social change in the use of residential electricity Mats Bladh Tema-institute Linköping University

Household el. consumption , TWh

Changing the stock Fridge and freezer units (millions) energy (TWh) Wash and dry Energy (TWh)2.41.4

Saving potential

Estimated savings Savings potential 50% 677 kWh/year households ≈ 1.5 TWh = 1%.

Hours-of-use

Rebound? Use CFLs longer? No. Increase of lighting points? Perhaps. Money saved spent on new things? Unavoidable?

Extended use?

Social change Household size Age structure Gender

Singles!

Structural change Loss of co-use As in 1980: –0.34 TWh (13%) Greece: + 1 TWh (36%) Hungary: +.7 TWh (24%)

The elderly 65 years or more 20% lower consumption Generation or old age?

Men and women

Element of chance

Mediated use (U  T)  E Eco-design successful!

Thank You!

Eco-design (lighting) Phase-out 2009–2013 and : Frosted + 100W 2010: 75W 2011: 60W 2012: 40W + 25W 2013: Standards for CFLs and LEDs 2016: Standards for halogen.

Mercury 1 July 2009 Exception CFLs Transitional solution

Light-emitting diodes