smart net metering for promotion and cost- efficient … seis_v.2.pdfthe project will aim to...

Issued by: Eliza Loucaidou

Action C.2 Leader: DELOITTE

Date: 31/10/2017

Version: 2

Project reference number: LIFE12/ENV/CY/000276

Smart net metering for promotion and cost-

efficient grid-integration of PV technology in Cyprus

Deliverable: Socio-economic Impact Study

Action No [C.2]:

SmartPV: Action C2. Socioeconomic impact study

2

SmartPV: The main objective of the project is to develop and validate a cost optimum scheme for

higher RES penetration in the energy mix of Cyprus. SmartPV will thoroughly investigate pilot net

metering schemes for cost-effective PV implementation and higher grid penetration in Cyprus of

distributed generation with the target of achieving a WIN WIN scenario for both consumers and energy

utilities. Essentially, the project will put to the test, evaluate and disseminate a simple and timely

concept (net metering) which should be more widely applied in Europe under appropriate, customized

circumstances. The project will aim to highlight and understand the impact of smart net metering

implementation on consumer billing options, consumption sensitivities, consumer energy-related

behaviours, and cost and benefit implications for network owners and operators (financial impact). For

this purpose, energy consumption and production profiles of about 300 consumers-producers

(prosumers) in Cyprus will be examined and behavioural changes in energy consumption will be

promoted.

The project started on 1st July 2013 and is expected to be completed on 31st December 2017.

PROJECT COORDINATOR:

Dr. George Elias Georgiou, University of Cyprus, Tel. +357 22892272 and +35722894396

E-mail: [email protected]

PROJECT PARTNERS:

University of Cyprus (UCY), Coordinating Partner

Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC)

Cyprus Energy Regulatory Authority of Cyprus (CERA)

Ministry of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment – Environment

Department (MANRE)

Deloitte Limited (DT)

ACTION C2 LEADER:

Deloitte (DT)

DELIVERABLE EDITOR:

Deloitte (DT)

CONTROLLED:

Deloitte (DT)

CONTRIBUTORS:

Cyprus Energy Regulatory Authority (CERA)

University of Cyprus (UCY)

Legal Disclaimer: This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European

Commission under the LIFE+ Programme. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility

of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European

Union or the Programme’s management structures.

mailto:[email protected]


3

Glossary of Acronyms

Cost-benefit Analysis CBA

Cyprus Energy Regulatory Authority CERA

Demand Response DR

Demand Side Management DSM

Electricity Authority of Cyprus EAC

Energy Management System EMS

Feed-in-Tariff FiT

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's

Development Assistance Committee

OECD/DAC

Photovoltaics PV

Renewable Energy Sources RES

Social Impact Assessment SIA

Socio-economic impact study SEIS

Time Of Use TOU

United States Agency for International Development USAID

University of Cyprus UCY


4

Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 5

1. Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 5

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Aim of the study ..................................................................................................... 6

2.2 The importance of the study .................................................................................. 6

2.3 Report structure ..................................................................................................... 8

3. Context ........................................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Socio-demographic profile of the SmartPV pilot site areas .................................... 8

3.2 Stakeholder involvement ....................................................................................... 9

4. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 10

4.1 The methodological framework ............................................................................ 10

4.2 Methods of data collection and analyses ............................................................. 11

4.3 Definition of indicators ......................................................................................... 12

5. Baseline Scenario ...................................................................................................... 15

6. Identification of impacts ............................................................................................. 18

7. Key lessons learnt ..................................................................................................... 39

8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 40

9. Appendices ................................................................................................................ 41

9.1. Appendix 1: Survey among prosumers – Wave 1 – Analysis of Survey Results ...... 42

9.2. Appendix 2: Survey among prosumers – Wave 2 – Analysis of Survey Results ...... 81

9.3. Appendix 3: Survey among stakeholders – Wave 1 – Analysis of Survey Results . 121

9.4. Appendix 4: Survey among stakeholders – Wave 2 – Analysis of Survey Results . 134

9.5. Appendix 5: Ερωτηματολόγιο έρευνας μεταξύ καταναλωτών που συμμετέχουν στο

έργο SmartPV – wave 1................................................................................................... 147

9.6 Appendix 6: Ερωτηματολόγιο μεταξύ καταναλωτών που συμμετέχουν στο έργο

SmartPv – wave 2 ........................................................................................................... 155

9.7 Appendix 7: Ερωτηματολόγιο έρευνας μεταξύ εμπλεκόμενων φορέων / οργανισμών

(wave 1 & wave 2) ........................................................................................................... 165

9.8 Appendix 8: Key bibliographic references ............................................................. 170


5

Acknowledgements

This study was not produced exclusively by the study team, as a lot of people and

organizations supported its development. We would like to acknowledge some of these

contributors and thank them for their assistance and feedback. We would like to thank the

SmartPV Partners for their feedback during the designing of the questions for the primary

research and for providing us with the necessary input throughout the process. Also we would

like to express our gratitude to the consumers and stakeholders participating both in the

quantitative and qualitative research activities, for taking the time to answer our questions

and provide their valuable feedback.

1. Executive summary

Increasing concerns about climate change mitigation and the security of electricity supply are

the two main factors driving widespread adoption of renewable energy policy. Renewable-

energy technologies in the urban environment, are increasingly regarded as an important

solution to deal with climate change and energy security. Already the rate of deployment of

RES in the last fifteen years has been very intense, displaying strong dynamism and potential

across many countries within and outside Europe. The technological progress made and

increased potential for application in energy production have given rise to the so-called

photovoltaic boom that occurred in many countries starting in 2010, including Europe.

Millions of European consumers already have invested in renewable energy supply for

electricity generation, heating and cooling and the use of distributed renewable energy

sources (RES) represents a way consumers can engage in the market.1 Europe nowadays

represents around 42.3% of the world-wide installed capacity2. In the context of the SmartPV

project, a pre-selected sample of residential prosumers were offered Time of Use tariffs (ToU)

as a smart pricing scheme and were trained appropriately in order to manage their energy

consumption accordingly. Their baseline profiles were identified, so as to be able to make

fruitful comparisons and arrive at useful conclusions about the impact of the pilot activities of

SmartPV. Primary research was conducted in waves in order to monitor changes in

prosumers’ perceptions and behaviour. The socio-economic assessment therefore,

described in the present report, has taken into account the influence of the project activities

on consumers’ attitudes, perceptions and energy consumption behaviour.

1 Building a consumer-centric Energy Union [Position Paper], BEUC (The European Consumer

Organisation). 2 IEA, 2016b: EPIA, 2015


6

2. Introduction

2.1 Aim of the study

The aim of action C2 is to provide a platform of monitoring the impact of the project activities

on the society and the economy of Cyprus. The socio-economic impact study (SEIS)

constitutes essentially an ex post evaluation of the implementation of the SmartPV project in

Cyprus, aiming to assess the impact of the project on the local economy and society, touching

upon cultural aspects, institutional aspects and financial aspects.

According to the literature there are various factors influencing the impact of certain measures

undertaken, that can be grouped under the: (i) social dimension, (ii) institutional dimension,

and (iii) economic dimension. Table 1 below analyses further these factors. Taking into

account the possibilities of the project and its local context, as well as the availability of

information for measuring its impact, the study focuses on specific factors and indicators

which are mentioned in the subsequent chapters.

2.2 The importance of the study

Even though the major importance of performing an appraisal of the socio-economic impact

is undisputable, in the literature there is a variety of definitions. According to the SE Impact

Assessment Report conducted for CONCERTO3, in the academic literature there is

widespread accord that the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) tried to estimate the effects

which specific policies or projects have on social and economic condition in a given

community or region. Similarly to the approach adopted by the CONCERTO team, the SEIS

of the SmartPV project combines elements of the sustainability assessment, thus including

the environment and economic dimension, at the household level though.

It is important to note that both the environmental and economic dimensions are thoroughly

analyzed under separate actions with specific deliverables, namely actions B3 Data analysis

and dynamic tariff model validation (including cost-benefit analysis) and C1 Monitoring of the

project’s environmental impact. Key findings from these actions are also included in the

present report, which places more emphasis on the social dimension, taking into

consideration the analysis of primary data from the research conducted among the main

target groups, namely prosumers and stakeholders.

3 CONCERTO is a European Commission initiative within the European Research Framework

Programme (FP6 and FP7) which aims to demonstrate that the optimisation of the building sector of

whole communities is more efficient and cheaper than optimisation of each building individually.


7

TABLE 1: SOCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING THE IMPACT4

SO

CIA

L D

IME

NS

ION

Attitudes Cultural norms, routine habits and practices

Openness Level of tolerance/interest of

inhabitants/stakeholders to the concept of smart

metering

Awareness Understanding of the consumers about the specific

measure

Participation Level of involvement of consumers in the decision-

making processes. This factor is related to the

social dialogue with experts and projects’

stakeholders.

INS

TIT

UT

ION

AL

DIM

EN

SIO

N

Governance structures Quality of the governance structures, related to

interaction between different institutional

stakeholder groups who are influencing decisions,

efficiency of the decision-making process.

Continuity Continuity of administrative traditions, policies,

policy measures, campaigns, etc.

Trade-off between

policies

Shifting of funding to other policy areas.

EC

ON

OM

IC

DIM

EN

SIO

N

Uncertainty Possible impacts of unexpected economic changes,

i.e. economic crisis, construction sectors crisis,

restriction on municipal budget, price changes, etc.

Economic diversity Enlarged economic activities and services in their

area/municipality.

4 European Commission (2010), CONCERTO Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Report


8

2.3 Report structure

The report is structured in three main parts, the introductory part which includes: (a) the

executive summary and a brief introduction, the context of the study and the methodology;

(b) the main section which focuses on the baseline scenario and the impacts identified; (c)

the final closing part that entails the lessons learnt and the concluding remarks. The report

also includes in the Appendices section the complete analysis of findings from the

quantitative surveys conducted throughout the project lifecycle (wave 1 and wave 2), for the

purpose of recording the attitudes and trends among the target groups and monitoring the

impact of the project activities.

3. Context

In this chapter the context of the study is set out. More analytically, the socio-demographic

profile of the demonstration sites is presented, as well as the stakeholders’ involvement

throughout the various stages of the project.

3.1 Socio-demographic profile of the SmartPV pilot site

areas

The SmartPV sample of prosumers is considered to be representative of the household

population on the island in terms of the energy consumption profiles (further information about

this can be found in Deliverable B2). Table 2 below presents the geographical dispersion of

the sample per district and the number of first and second contacts completed for each one.

It also analyses the sample according to the parameter of single or double meter installation.

Taking into consideration the number of successful visits to the pilot sites during May-June

2016 (2nd contact), it appears that nearly 41% of the final sample (both 1st and 2nd contacts

completed) is based in the Nicosia district, 27% in Larnaca-Ammochostos, 17% in Paphos

and 15% in Limassol.

TABLE 2: PILOT SITE INSTALLATIONS

VISITS TO PILOT SITES

SINGLE METER SITES

DOUBLE METER SITES

2ND CONTACT

COMPLETED

FORESEEN FOR 2ND CONTACT

FORESEEN FOR 1ND CONTACT

COMPLETED FORESEEN COMPLETED FORESEEN

PAPHOS 41 46 46 33 31 8 17

LARNACA-AMMOCHOSTOS

65 67 71 45 53 20 21

LIMASSOL 37 43 51 31 42 6 12

NICOSIA 99 101 116 61 74 38 50

TOTAL 242 257 284 170 200 72 100


9

3.2 Stakeholder involvement

The involvement of different stakeholder groups is an essential element for acceptance of

any new policy under pilot testing and implementation. Getting stakeholders involved is the

cornerstone of commitment and only by making a commitment, people will most likely act

upon it. In the case of SmartPV demand response entails a large variety of benefits for almost

all stakeholders. Stakeholders were therefore involved from the beginning of the project until

its final stages, through different activities, mainly direct contact and bilateral meetings with

the Coordinating Beneficiary and attending training sessions, events and workshops where

the project progress and findings were presented. Understanding the target groups,

prosumers, utilities, companies, associations and other actors was the key to the success of

the project. The effective engagement of stakeholders in this case was secured by their direct

and indirect involvement in the project activities throughout its duration that went beyond just

awareness raising and understanding.

To this end, a stakeholders’ workshop was organised in October 2016 during which the

project promoters had the opportunity to present the framework of project implementation,

the pilot smart net-metering program as well as the first results of the quantitative survey.

Both the members of the advisory board as well as other stakeholders, demonstrated a

particular interest in the application of the dynamic tariffs and stressed the importance of the

capability of consumers to turn from passive to active users of the electrical energy grid,

through the use of smart meters. It was also stressed that efforts should continue with the

objective to solve potential issues and make corrections, where necessary, so as to achieve

the optimum scheme based on the costs and benefits for the grid. The workshop was well

attended by representatives of the Ministry of Energy, Electronic Communications and Postal

Service, the Cyprus Employers and Industrialists Federation, the Cyprus Energy Agency, the

Cyprus Scientific and Technical Chamber, the Cypriot Association of RES Companies,

academics and private sector industry professionals.

A second round of dedicated meetings with targeted stakeholders was organised in October

2017, with the aim to present the project findings and gather constructive feedback with

regards to the impact of the smart net metering to prosumers’ energy behaviour and the

related benefits. The meetings with the Cyprus Energy Regulatory Authority, the Electricity

Authority and the Ministry of Energy were held with success and it was made obvious that all

main energy authorities and stakeholders are positive towards the provision of incentives to

consumers for improving their energy consumption behaviour and the application of

innovative pilot programs such as the smart net metering program implemented through this

project for finding the optimum solution and achieve a win-win scenario for everyone.


10

4. Methodology

Best practice examples suggest that taking a bottom-up approach is more effective towards

persuading householders to get involved and acquire a sense of identification and ownership

of the project. To this end, it was considered necessary to encourage participation from the

beginning of the project, by taking a user-centric approach and thus evaluating the success

by gathering feedback directly from prosumers themselves. It was also important to repeat

the exercise after the implementation of the dynamic tariffs and the training of the participants

to record possible shifts in their behaviour.

In the framework of this action, the methodology employed consisted of: (i) subjective

assessment, meaning mainly the survey research conducted among different target groups,

in order to obtain information about their general attitudes, opinions, expectations from the

project, level of satisfaction and usage of the smart net metering/price-based tariffs offered;

and (ii) objective assessment, which includes economic and environment parameters

obtained by means of direct measurement. These data were derived from the other

deliverables of the project.

As mentioned already, for both types of assessment comparisons were made before and

after the implementation of the SmartPV pilot activities to track changes. Even though it was

difficult to clearly distinguish between direct/ indirect impact and the social impacts are

generally more subtle, this action attempted to determine in a structured way the extent to

which the project has affected the Cypriot households.

The study was executed in the five following phases:

1. Inception phase and determination of monitoring indicators.

2. Research design, analytical framework development and work planning.

3. Data collection and initial analyses, being the desk research, research based on secondary

sources, and first analysis based on the collected data.

4. Completion of data collection (through interviews, focus groups and surveys), and final

analyses, based on complete data sets and developing conclusions and recommendations.

5. Final report.

4.1 The methodological framework

This chapter describes the methodological framework upon which the SEIS is based and the

specific methodological tools which have been adopted for its implementation. The main

steps followed for the implementation of the assessment consisted in:

Understanding the key questions that needed to be answered;

Definition of the indicators that would be monitored;

Designing an integrated methodological framework with an appropriate work planning

closely related to the other technical activities of the project (demonstration actions

“B”);

Gathering of primary and secondary data and performing initial analyses;


11

Completing data gathering exercise and finalizing the analyses;

Drawing conclusions and lessons learnt for policy-makers which are included in the

Final Report.

The combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods was regarded as most suitable

in this case, as it enabled us on the one hand to measure the quantifiable impact of the

project, and on the other hand to understand the underlying perceptions, reasons and

interventions producing the outcomes and overall impact.

The figure below illustrates the major steps in configuring the methodological framework:

FIGURE 1: STEPS

4.2 Methods of data collection and analyses

In conducting primary research, there is a wealth of methods and tools availability for

collecting information from primary sources such as stakeholders and citizens themselves.

These may include self-completion paper or on-line questionnaires, face-to-face or telephone

interviews, focus groups or interactive workshops, direct or in-direct observations, ad hoc

surveys during site visits and other methods.

For the purposes of investigating and monitoring the impact of the SmartPV project we

selected telephone interviews with prosumers as the most efficient method for achieving high

quality results, a good response rate and within the set timeframe. A cognitive pilot was

completed with 5 respondents who were at least jointly responsible for paying their household

Structuring

• Setting the objectives

• Preparatory work

Observing

• Defining indicators

• Collecting data

Analysing

• Comparing data

• Estimating impact

Assessing

• Evaluation of indicators

• Formulating findings

• Drawing conclusions


12

energy bills. The purpose of the cognitive pilot was to ensure that respondents were able to

interpret the questions correctly and provide meaningful responses.

On the other hand for gathering the views and opinions of stakeholders, we designed and

sent out an online questionnaire to a selected sample of stakeholders, as this was considered

by the study team as the most appropriate method for collecting this target group’s feedback.

In addition, for gathering more in-depth information and feedback from the target groups we

also used qualitative techniques, such as focus groups with prosumers and workshops with

stakeholders.

4.3 Definition of indicators

In order to identify the measurement indicators for the purposes of the project, firstly we

looked at various definitions from secondary sources. The English Language Dictionary

describes an indicator as “an instrument which gives you information”. According to

OECD/DAC, an indicator is: “A quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a

simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect changes connected to an

intervention, or to help assess the performance of a development actor”.5 Finally, the

definition adopted by USAID is that: “it is a variable, which purpose it is to measure change

in a phenomena or process”.

For the purpose of this project, indicators are used as means to measure the magnitude of

change which has occurred due to the project activities, in connection to specific target

groups and intervention area. The CONCERTO team designed the project’s measurement

indicators, following the recommendation of the European Commission (2005) that all

indicators used should be RACER6:

Relevant: closely linked to the objectives that should be reached

Accepted: by project actors, stakeholders, etc.

Credible: easy to interpret also for non-experts

Easy to monitor: data collection should be possible at low cost

Robust

The SmartPV study team agrees with the above approach and stresses the fact that in

selecting the key indicators for monitoring the impact of SmartPV project an important

parameter was the availability of data, since socio-economic research that is based on

indicators and data sets, which are not available cannot be practically executed. In the table

that follows the social, economic and environmental criteria/ indicators defined for the

SmartPV project are presented:

5 DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation, May 2002 6 European Commission: Annex to Impact Assessment Guidelines: 15.06.2005, p.46


13

TABLE 3: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA/ INDICATORS

SOCIAL DIMENSION

1. Degree of satisfaction/ acceptance by householders (inhabitants/tenants/owners)

2. Level of information & direct participation

3. Active/proactive householders’ behaviour

ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION

4. Improvement of the environment

ECONOMIC DIMENSION

5. Economic-ecological cost effectiveness

6. Increase in control of energy supply

7. Payback Period (investor side)

Furthermore, each dimension mentioned above and corresponding indicator has been

measured using a specific unit or scale. The table that follows presents an overview of the

measurements undertaken for each dimension.


14

TABLE 4: INDICATORS AND UNIT/ SCALE OF MEASUREMENT

SOCIAL DIMENSION UNIT/ SCALE OF MEASUREMENT

Degree of satisfaction/ acceptance by

householders

% of householders satisfied with smart metering

5 point Likert scale: degree of acceptance

Level of information & direct participation % of householders satisfied with the level of

information provided

% of stakeholders/ inhabitants/ tenants etc. who feel

more informed about energy topic after the

SmartPV project than before

Active/proactive householders’ behaviour % of householders taking part in a feedback system

on their energy consumption

% of householders who changed their energy

consumption behaviour

5 point Likert scale: perception on how much

SmartPV changed the behaviour of householders

5 point Likert scale: willingness to invest further in

renewable energy sources (RES) or energy

efficiency/ saving measures

ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION UNIT/ SCALE OF MEASUREMENT

Improvement of the environment % of reduction in CO2 emissions

% of main carbon footprint indicator

ECONOMIC DIMENSION UNIT/ SCALE OF MEASUREMENT

Economic-ecologic cost effectiveness Costs in € per avoided ton of CO2

5 point Likert scale: influence of the SmartPV on the

energy bills

Increase in control of energy supply % of locally produced energy of the total energy

consumption

Payback Period (investor side) Payback Period

5 point Likert scale: perception of Pay Back period

of Net Metering Investment


15

5. Baseline Scenario

In the framework of Action A1, the design and preparation for the implementation of the pilot

sites was carried out, consisting of the design of the metering, meteorological, data

acquisition/storage and data communication solutions. Moreover, the SmartPV prosumers’

sample was defined in alignment with the following characteristics:

- Geographical dispersion (2/3 urban households and 1/3 rural households) and district

distribution: Nicosia 40%, Larnaca-Ammochostos 25%, Limassol 20%, Paphos 15%.

- Total yearly consumption in kWh and consumption-production relationship (90% of

households with greater consumption than production).

FIGURE 2: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE

Baseline is continuation of “status quo”. It was considered as important to collect a baseline

with fundamental socio-demographic data on the households and consumers before the

implementation of the pilot in order to be able to compare later the impact of smart metering.

The basic socio-economic data covered the characteristics of the consumers participating in

the pilots such as gender, age, and level of education, and an analysis of collected subjective

data including their opinions, values, preferences and other variables.


16

According to the results of the survey conducted in 2015, the highest level of participation in

the pilot was among the ages of 45-54, whereas those between the ages of 25-34 were the

least represented group (just 8%). The majority of the respondents (57%) lived in a household

with 4-5 individuals, whereas a proportion of 11% lived in households of more than six people.

Four in ten respondents completed undergraduate studies while 16% mentioned that they

had postgraduate qualifications. 35% of the sample were high-school graduates and 4% were

primary education level graduates. More information about the socio-demographic analysis

of the survey can be found Appendix 1.

Furthermore, findings of the completed questionnaires during the first contact that was

implemented by the EAC, suggest that nearly all prosumers had access to the internet (98%)

with wi-fi (94%) and they were willing to use other electronic devices (96%). More than three

in five prosumers (62%) were willing to utilise in-house displays for the purpose of monitoring.

It is also noted that during the first audit that was conducted by EAC in prosumers’ homes,

on average 2.5 appliances could be transferred to a different time zone, more so in the winter

period. As far as prosumers’ perceptions are concerned, it is evident that overall they have a

positive opinion about the net metering scheme (30% fairly positive and 61% positive), as

they see a clear financial benefit through the reduction of the electricity cost that can be

achieved by installing a PV system with the net-metering scheme (88%).

Moreover, during the planning stage the project team collected the consumption data of the

selected sample of prosumers for a period of one year, so as to construct a baseline scenario

that would be compared to the total aggregated consumption of prosumers according to the

initial scenario. Both initial and baseline profiles of prosumers during the summer and winter

periods are depicted in the figures below.


17

FIGURE 3: CONSUMPTION PROFILES DURING SUMMER PERIOD

FIGURE 4: CONSUMPTION PROFILES DURING WINTER PERIOD


18

6. Identification of impacts

The project’s results demonstrate that the activities implemented during the life cycle of the

SmartPV project had a positive effect on the households using different indicators. Generally

householders had a positive experience with TOU tariffs. According to bibliographic sources,

initial risk aversion may be demonstrated by customers when considering enrolling in a TOU

tariff, but are typically highly satisfied once they have experience with the tariff and

understand its impacts and the opportunities it presents.7

The positive impact of the project on the prosumers’ perceptions is verified by the fact that

seven in ten are fairly or very satisfied with the smart net metering and dynamic tariffs offered

by the project (32% and 39% respectively), while it is also very encouraging that an equally

high proportion is either fairly or very satisfied by the level of information provided, which has

resulted in increased levels of awareness about the issue of consumption level and tariffs. In

fact seven in ten prosumers feel that they are fairly or very well informed (32% and 40%

respectively) compared with the situation prior to the participation in the SmartPV project.

FIGURE 5: DEGREE OF SATISFACTION WITH THE SMART NET METERING SYSTEM AND DYNAMIC

TARIFFS OFFERED BY THE PROJECT AND THE LEVEL OF INFORMATION PROVIDED

(BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS)

7 The Brattle Group, The Value of TOU Tariffs in Great Britain: Insights for Decision-makers, July 2017.

39%

32%

16%

5%7%

1%

35% 34%

18%

6% 6%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfiednor dissatisfied

Fairlydissatisfied

Very dissatisfied Don't know/Noanswer

Satisfaction with net metering & dynamic tariffs

Satisfaction with the level of information


19

Through the project’s main pilot activity, it was made evident that over the implementation

period, the application of the ToU tariffs created incentives for the prosumers to shift their

energy demand from the peak to off-peak periods, driven by the price variations.

FIGURE 6: COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE LOAD PROFILE OF ALL THE PARTICIPANT

PROSUMERS BETWEEN THE REFERENCE YEAR (2015) AND THE RESPECTIVE SEASON OF THE

IMPLEMENTATION YEAR (2016) FOR THE SUMMER PERIOD


20



IMPLEMENTATION YEAR (2016) FOR THE MIDDLE PERIOD


21



IMPLEMENTATION YEAR (2016) FOR THE WINTER PERIOD


22

The above observation is consistent with the finding that participation in the SmartPV project

had a positive effect on the prosumers’ energy behaviour and the ability to transfer their loads.

Around one in four prosumers (24%) mentioned this aspect as the benefit from participation

in the project, compared to a proportion of 15% that gave the same answer in 2015 (difference

of +9 percentage points). The reduced electricity cost remains as the main benefit, mentioned

by half the sample and energy savings in general come third, with no significant variation

compared with the 2015 survey. During the focus group discussions that were held, it was

evident that prosumers were quite satisfied with the benefits offered through the program and

that it is particularly important for large families/households.

FIGURE 9: PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE BENEFITS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE SMARTPV

PROJECT


52%

23%

15%12%

9%

20%

51%

22%24%

19%

6%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Reducedelectricity cost/

Financialbenefit

Energy Savings Improvementof consumption

behaviour/load transfer

Information/training about

time of usetariff

Other Don't know/No answer

2015 2017


23

As a result, nearly two in three householders stated through the survey that was conducted

in October 2017, that they have seen a positive change in their electricity bill due to their

participation in the SmartPV project (43% fairly and 21% very positive).

FIGURE 10: PROSUMERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE ELECTRICITY BILL


Very positive22%

Fairly positive45%

Neither positive nor negative

24%

Fairly negative5%

Very negative4%


24

Through the research conducted among stakeholders, it is reaffirmed that the most important

benefit for prosumers participating in SmartPV project is the improved energy consumer

behaviour. According to the information depicted in the table that follows, stakeholders

mentioned this benefit to a greater extent in the second wave of the survey.

TABLE 5: PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH PROJECT

SMARTPV

(BASE: ALL WHO KNOW ABOUT THE PROJECT)

2016 2017

Improved energy consumer behaviour / consumption at different times of day depending on the price / charge of the zone

70,7% 81.3%

Awareness raising, information and training as regards the use of dynamic tariffs Time-of-Use (different price of kWh depending on the time of day for network support)

46,3% 37.5%

Lower electricity cost/economic benefits 46,3% 50%

Saving electricity 34,1% 43.8%

Other

9,8% -


25

During the pilot implementation period prosumers obtained useful information that made them

significantly more aware of the price-based demand-side management system implemented

through the SmartPV project. Only 13% of the sample mentioned that they are still not aware

of the energy management system, compared to 29% recorded in 2015. In contrast, 27% of

the sample is now fairly aware about the system (compared to 15% in 2015) and almost one

in five (17%) knows everything about the system (compared to 12% in 2015). All in all, around

seven in ten prosumers (69%) are aware of the price-based demand side management,

compared to five in ten who had the same awareness level two years ago.

FIGURE 11: AWARENESS OF THE DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT (PRICE-BASED) APPLIED

THROUGH SMARTPV USING A FIVE-POINT SCALE


29%

22% 23%

15%12%13%

19%

25%27%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

I am not aware ofthe energy

managementsystem at all (1)

I have very littleknowledge about

the energymanagement

system (2)

I am aware aboutthe system to a

limited extent (3)

I am fairly awareabout the system

(4)

I know everythingabout the system

(5)

2015 2017


26

The one-to-one meetings with prosumers of a training nature initiated by the EAC and the

UCY actually paid off, since during the second survey wave, almost eight in ten prosumers

who are aware of the demand-side management mentioned EAC as the source of information

(increase of 6 percentage points), and one in ten mentioned other SmartPV partners

(increase of 9 percentage points). On the other hand, a significant reduction is observed

among those who mentioned other sources of information by ten percentage points,

indicating that prosumers are more certain about where information is provided from with

regard to the energy management system.

There is however still room for improvement, as prosumers actually put forward the

suggestion during the focus groups, for follow-up meetings aiming for more rounded-

information.

FIGURE 12: SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

(BASE: ALL WHO ARE AWARE OF THE DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT)

72%

16%

1% 1%

13%

2%

78%

11% 10%

2% 1% 3% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ElectricityAuthority

Cyprus

Media SmartPVproject

partners

CyprusEnergy

RegulatoryAuthority

Ministry ofEnergy

Other Don'tknow/Noanswer

2015 2017


27

Primary research has shown that prosumers’ behaviour due to the installation and use of the

energy management system has been positively affected, since more than two in five have

seen fairly or very large change (31% and 12% respectively), while an equivalent proportion

has experienced a slight or moderate change (14% and 29% respectively). Only 15% of the

sample mentioned that nothing has changed in their behaviour, compared to 25% of the

sample who expected this to happen two years ago. In contrast, positive shifts are observed

by comparing the results of the two surveys, as depicted in the figure below.

FIGURE 13: PERCEPTIONS IN RELATION TO BEHAVIOURAL IMPACT DUE TO THE INSTALLATION

AND USAGE OF THE EMS USING A FIVE-POINT SCALE

(BASE: ALL WHO ARE AWARE OF THE DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT)

This finding is aligned also with prosumers’ perception that they have transferred some loads

to cheaper zones either to a fairly large (22%) or to a very large (17%) extent. In addition

another one in four has done this even though to a limited extent. Only 18% of the sample

has not transferred any loads at all. According to the qualitative research conducted, this may

be due to the lack of appliances with timing capabilities.

In addition stakeholders expressed the belief that the EMS implemented through the project

had a notable impact on prosumers’ behaviour.

25%

9%

18%

25%

16%

7%

15% 14%

29%31%

12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Nothing willchange/has

changed

My behaviourwill slightlychange/has

slightly changed

My behaviourwill change/has

changed to alimited extent


changed to afairly large

extent


changed to avery large

extent

Don't know/Noanswer

2015 2017


28

The prosumers mentioned to a greater extent in the second survey wave, that the possibility

to transfer consumption based on the tariff offered is a benefit of the EMS (21% spontaneous

vs. 8% in 2015) and also that the actual better tariff offer is a benefit of the EMS (27%

spontaneous vs. 14% in 2015). Another major shift concerns the proportion of people who

mentioned that through EMS over charging due to estimations is avoided (25% spontaneous

vs. 9% in 2015). The findings above verify that prosumers who took part in the pilot and

training program have experienced and realized the benefits of an EMS.

TABLE 6: PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF THE EMS


2015 2017

Benefits Sponta-

neous

Aided Total Sponta-

neous

Aided Total

Decrease of electricity bills 68% 28% 96% 63% 23% 86%

Energy savings 36% 53% 89% 37% 49% 86%

Protection of the environment from the

CO2 emissions

17% 74% 91% 10% 67%

77%

Better tariff offer 14% 63% 77% 27% 47% 74%

Capacity to monitor the energy

consumption costs

11% 69% 80% 14% 56% 70%

Avoid over charging due to estimations

(not actual measurement)

9% 53% 62% 25% 43% 68%

Possibility to transfer consumption

based on the tariff offered

8% 61% 69% 21% 52% 73%

Education about the importance of

energy saving

5% 78% 83% 7% 67% 74%

Better management of the energy

offered by the authorities

5% 72% 77% 2% 59% 61%

Improvement of the energy security for

the next generations

1% 86% 87% - 60% 60%

Other 3% 3% 6% - - -

Don’t know/No answer 15% 15% 30% 20% 6% 26%


29

The ability to monitor energy costs and energy saving, as well as the reduction of the

electricity bill appear to be the most important benefits of the EMS according to stakeholders’

perceptions.

TABLE 7: PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF THE EMS


2016 2017

Ability to monitor energy costs 73% 56%

Avoidance of excessive use of energy / energy saving 68% 56%

Education on the importance of energy saving 63% 38%

Reduction of the electricity bill 61% 56%

Load Transfer 56% 38%

Improving energy security for future generations 49% 38%

Protecting the environment from emissions caused by electricity consumption from fossil fuels

4% 38%

Financially advantageous tariff depending on time of day used 44% 38%

Preventing overcharging and bills based in estimations 27% 19%

Other 61% -

It is important to note that seven in ten prosumers believe that there is no disadvantage of

the installation of a smart meter and the web application that was used, while on the other

hand stakeholders mentioned some concerns, such as the difficulty in understanding the

system and possible charges related to meter installation and meter communication. Focus

group participants also mentioned the fact that the information was made available to them

with a certain delay (i.e. lack of live data).


30

Stakeholders also held a positive stance from the beginning of the project with regard to the

implementation of dynamic tariffs, as three in four expressed a very positive/positive opinion

about them. Stakeholders are overall supportive to a very large extent towards the

exploitation of technologies leading to the application of dynamic and flexible tariffs.

FIGURE 14: STAKEHOLDERS’ OPINION ABOUT DYNAMIC TARIFFS


This is also linked to their perceptions, which were recorded during the second survey wave,

that lower tariffs constitute an important motivation for prosumers in utilizing EMS in their

homes (25% answered fairly important and 69% very important).

Even though prosumers mentioned that they have seen a change in the energy behaviour of

their household, due to the intensive training and follow-up by the project team, only half of

them use the web application or the tablet provided, in order to read the measurements of

their smart meter. Sixteen per cent of the sample use it quite or very frequently, one in five

sometimes (22%) and one in ten (12%) rarely. This result clearly indicates the need for further

education and training of consumers on using technology tools provided for monitoring their

energy consumption.

The motivation and the understanding that they have control over the amount of energy

consumed in their homes is at a very good level, however, there is a need for continuous

awareness-raising and training activities for further uptake of an energy-conscious consumer

behaviour. The same trend was also observed during the focus group discussions that took

51%

25% 24%

50%

25% 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Very positive Positive Neutral

2015 2017


31

place. A proportion of the householders were seen eager to use the web application, while

others to a lesser extent. However, they have requested for the extension of the ToU program

as well as the ability to continue using the web application that was made available to them

during the SmartPV project life cycle.

FIGURE 15: FREQUENCY OF MONITORING THE SMART METER MEASUREMENTS THROUGH THE

TABLET OR THE WEB APPLICATION


Furthermore, the simple fact that prosumers are able to produce and consume their own

energy is reducing the fossil fuel consumption. Self-consumption lessens the burden on

power grids in two respects. First, the energy that is consumed at the same location where it

is generated no longer has to be transported over the grid. Second, the energy needed for

consumption does not have to be purchased via the power grid. The developed ToU tariffs

also promoted self-consumption by incentivizing the participants to shift their load from peak

to shoulder hours which match the PV production hours (summer season being the

exception). The annual average self-consumption levels during the implementation period

were 39.5% of the total consumption.

I have never used it50%

I rarely use it12%

I use it sometimes22%

I use it frequently11%

I use it very frequently (daily

basis)5%


32

According to the comparative environmental study, which was conducted in the framework

of the project8, measuring and studying the potential environmental impact from the project

actions, the findings are also positive from an environment perspective since the overall trend

is that CO2 emissions are generally decreasing by year (average decrease of 12.4% per

year). More analytically, the study concluded that net-metering PV panels system save 0.375

tons of CO2 emission for every kWh of electricity produced and there is an average bimonthly

reduction of CO2 emissions of the prosumers with smart metering by 11.2%.

Moreover, the smart-net metering PV panels system can save approximately 0,417 tons of

CO2 emission for every MWh of electricity produced and the emission reduction per

household per year is 1.5 tons of CO2 for net-metering PV panels system. The total emission

reductions amount to approximately 800 tons of CO2 over the implementation period of the

project.

There is a reduction of the main carbon footprint indicator by 35% and there are significant

savings in terms of emission costs (approximately 32% for our project) for Cyprus and

European countries targeting higher PV penetration in the existing electricity grid.

FIGURE 16: CO2 EMISSIONS PER YEAR OF OPERATION OF THE NET-METERING PV PANELS

SYSTEM

It is also worth mentioning that shifting loads away from peak hours can yield a notable

reduction of the fossil fuel consumption. This is actually calculated as equal to the differential

between the efficiencies of the gas turbines multiplied by the average annual peak

8 In the environmental impact study conducted, two main specific indicators are used: Net-metering

Carbon Footprint Reduction Indicator (NMCFR) and Emissions Cost Reduction (ECR) per MWh.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Emis_4 Emis_5 Emis_6 Emis_1 Emis_2 Emis_3

CO

2em

issi

on

s [k

gCO

2]

2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017


33

consumption reduction.9 Additionally, the average annual generation of the sample compared

to the average annual consumption during the implementation period is equal to 73.91.

Therefore the total reduction of the fossil fuel consumption is equal to – 2.18 – 0.3553 – 73.91

= - 76.4453 (> - 10 %).

As mentioned in the environmental study the subject of behaviour change vis-à-vis energy

consumption is complex and involves a wide range of different possible measures to address

it. According to the data analysis, there is a notable change in consumer behaviour but smart-

metering alone cannot not deliver significant changes in consumer behaviour. It is

nevertheless an essential part of wider behaviour change programmes, as it provides

necessary information that allows for more informed decision-making on energy use.

9 (.51 – .32) * (- 1.87) = .19 * (- 1.87) = - 0.3553


34

Demand Response allows for the management of demand side resources in real-time; i.e.

shifting electricity demand according to fluctuating supply. According to bibliographical

sources, load shifting provides the highest benefit in terms of financial savings.10 According

to the findings of Action B3, “smart” prosumers’ energy consumption has reduced by 2.18%,

compared to the rest of Cyprus domestic consumers. This behavioral change is a positive

finding, which showcases that adapted policies through the SmartPV project including

targeted training, detailed feedback and utilization of incentives through ToU tariff, aided

prosumers to reduce their consumption levels. This is depicted in the table that follows:

TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF THE CONSUMPTION PERCENTAGE BETWEEN THE YEAR 2015 AND

2016

Average Consumption

(Baseline Year)

Average Consumption

(Implementation Year)

% increase

SmartPV Sample 6864.11 kWh 7138.98 kWh 4,00

Rest of Cyprus Sample 6785 kWh 7204 kWh 6,18

SmartPV % savings 1.012 0.99 -2,18

In addition, compared to the FiT, the net metering scheme reduces costs by 89% as the

government is not contributing the excess amount from the special fund to meet the agreed

FiT but is losing some money due to less VAT collection11.

10 Energy Policy 96 (2016) 231-240, Stefan Feuerriegel, Dirk Neumann 11 E.g. 1610 kWh is the generation of one kWp then FiT contribution is 1610x(0,25 – 0,075)=€281 and

through net metering is losing in VAT contributions which amount to 1610x0,1385x0,19=€42,36 less

€65x0,19=€12,35 giving €30,01.


35

The economic benefit is also perceived from the householders’ perspective, since according

to the ex-post survey findings more than eight in ten evaluate positively the payback period

of their investment (35% fairly and 47% very positively).

FIGURE 17: EVALUATION OF THE PAYBACK PERIOD OF INVESTMENT


Very positive47%

Fairly positive35%


11%

Fairly negative4%

Very negative1%

Don't know/No answer

2%


36

The experience of consumers in the project participation has evidently had a positive impact

on their future investment behaviour, since nearly eight in ten stated that they would be fairly

or very willing to invest in the future in RES or other energy efficiency measures (77%) while

an additional 12% of the sample is also willing but to a limited degree.

FIGURE 18: WILLINGNESS TO INVEST IN THE FUTURE IN RES & OTHER ENERGY EFFICIENCY

MEASURES


Very willing52%

Fairly willing25%

To a limited degree12%

Slightly willing2%

Not willing at all7%


2%


37

Furthermore it is interesting to note that prosumers are willing and interested to extend their

participation in the project even after it officially ends and continue price-based DSM without

the security of paying the lower price at the end of payment period. In fact, two in three are

either fairly (33%) or very (30%) willing and an additional 11% willing to a limited degree. All

in all, three in four prosumers expressed their intention to continue the implementation of the

project. This demonstrates clearly a significant after-LIFE potential of the project. It is noted

that three in ten prosumers are also interested in participating in further qualitative research

such as focus groups, for providing feedback and allowing further research.

FIGURE 19: WILLINGNESS TO EXTEND PARTICIPATION IN THE SMARTPV PROJECT (PRICE-

BASED DSM)


Very willing30%

Fairly willing33%


Slightly willing3%



6%


38

In table 9 below an overview of the main results of the study is presented using the pre-

defined socio-economic indicators. Overall the project had a positive impact on the

perceptions of the participants, which demonstrates that project activities managed to a great

extent to engage prosumers actively in the program towards shifting their energy loads to

better tariff zones due to the incentives offered, with the respective benefit mirrored in the bill

and the respective reduction in emission costs and carbon footprint.

TABLE 9: OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT RESULTS

INDICATOR RESULTS

Degree of satisfaction/ acceptance by

householders

71% of householders were fairly/very satisfied with

smart metering

Level of information & direct participation 72% of householders were satisfied with the level of

information provided

69% of stakeholders/ inhabitants/ tenants etc. who

felt more informed about energy topic after the

SmartPV project (DSM system) than before

Active/proactive householders’ behaviour 72% of householders who changed their energy

consumption behaviour (to a limited, fairly/very

large extent)

77% of householders were fairly/very willing to

invest further in renewable energy sources (RES) or

energy efficiency/ saving measures

Improvement of the environment 11% reduction in CO2 emissions (on average, bi-

monthly)

35% reduction of main carbon footprint indicator

76% reduction of the fossil fuel consumption

indicator

Economic-ecologic cost effectiveness 32% reduction of emission costs

89% reduction in PV penetration costs to the state

with adoption of net metering compared with FiT

64% of householders were fairly/very positive on

the SmartPV influence on their energy bills

Increase in control of energy supply 40% of locally produced energy of the total energy

consumption

Payback Period (investor side) 82% of householders were fairly/very positive of the

Pay Back period of Net Metering Investment


39

7. Key lessons learnt

A major challenge of this study is to translate the results of the socio-economic analysis into

lessons for policy concerning energy-related behavioural change and provide an indication

on the effectiveness of the SmartPV project by focusing on consumers and stakeholders. The

results of the project highlight the ToU tariffs applied to the pilot network are quite effective in

persuading consumers to shift loads from peak to off-peak and shoulder periods. This was

verified through the variation of the load factor and the total consumption percentage during

the implementation period. Therefore these changes suggest that targeted training, feedback

provided and the application of the ToU tariffs encourage the consumers to modify their

energy behaviour and potentially lead to the reduction of the system’s cost.

As the survey findings indicate, there should be a focus on customer engagement and

communication, as they constitute critical considerations in any tariff transition. Regular

updates from the authorities and effective communication keep customers engaged and have

a positive impact on their energy behaviour in the medium and long run. Therefore there

should be an effort towards creating awareness and providing information on a continuous

basis. The analysis of the primary and secondary research conducted in other studies, as

well as the present study, suggests that consumers need to understand the actual

contribution of the various appliances and electrical loads to the overall consumption of a

household and understand every single load in their installation.12

Going back to the basics, there is a need to enlighten the consumer and educate on the basic

concepts and terms directly related to electricity consumption, hence cultivate the

consciousness of householder and trigger energy behaviour. The literature suggests that

additional considerations may be necessary for vulnerable households and exploring options

available for making automating technologies accessible to low income households. Besides

the monetary aspect, consumers want to make a difference with their “green choice” in order

to contribute to combating climate change.13 The role of consumer empowerment is moving

into the foreground, contributing to the efforts towards relieving pressure on the electricity

network. Enabling the employment of Demand-Side Flexibility at the residential level will be

particularly important to achieve this benefit.

Another vital element for effective policy implementation is ensuring stakeholder commitment.

The stakeholders’ meetings and workshops have shown that keeping them informed and

engaged has a positive impact. During the meeting with CERA the project team suggested

the continuation of dynamic tariffs for one more year, which will be taken into consideration

by the authorities. Therefore, the role of the institutions is important in trying to achieve the

desirable outcomes.

12 Domestic Electricity Consumption and the Public Awareness Factor, 4th Intern. Conference on RES

– New Challenges (2013) (Paper No.1342). 13 Building a consumer-centric Energy Union [Position Paper], BEUC (The European Consumer

Organisation)


40

8. Conclusions

The analysis of the social criteria and respective indicators provides evidence that the

SmartPV activities had a positive impact on prosumers’ perceptions, attitudes and energy

behaviour. Prosumers who participated in training activities are much more aware of price-

based demand-side management system implemented through the project and the vast

majority mentioned that their behaviour in relation to energy consumption was notably

affected. This finding is also supported by the fact that prosumers managed to transfer loads

to off-peak zones to an extent, since they realized the benefits of the EMS implemented

through the program. This has resulted in high satisfaction levels with net metering and

dynamic tariffs, as well as with the level of information provided by the project promoters.

From the prosumers’ perspective, the large majority evaluated positively the payback period

of their investment and expressed a willingness to invest in the future in RES or other energy

efficiency measures, denoting the positive economic potential impact of the SmartPV project

in the medium to long run. It can be also argued that in the long run the country will become

more livable and appealing to citizens (and indirectly increase property value). At the

macroeconomic level, as the green industry sector grows, employment opportunities will also

increase.

There is also a notable scaling potential at EU level. The size and scope of this project could

provide opportunities to identify good practices. Other countries may thus benefit from the

development and implementation of the dynamic tariffs. This denotes the after-LIFE and

upscaling potentials of the project.

There has been evidence that a combination of feedback with education and incentives

motivate consumers to reduce electricity use. This can be achieved if consumers are

provided with understandable, readily-accessible information so as to make informed

choices. With the implementation of smart technologies, consumers should be able to take

control of their energy consumption.14

In conclusion, combining renewable and energy management technologies to balance supply

and demand, and smart metering technologies helping individuals to manage their own

consumption demonstrate a great potential to achieve cost-efficient energy savings and play

a pivotal role towards achieving the national as well as European RES targets. Nevertheless,

the offering of economic incentives, consistent information and on-going training of

consumers for demand-side management, in association with other automated technologies

(i.e. smart appliances) are necessary in order to be effective.

14 Building a consumer-centric Energy Union [Position Paper], BEUC (The European Consumer

Organisation)

SmartPV: Action B1. Metering studies, policy analyses and dynamic tariff model development

41

9. Appendices


42

9.1. Appendix 1: Survey among prosumers – Wave 1 –

Analysis of Survey Results

1

With regards to the demographics of the survey, the highest level of participation can be seen in the ages of 45-54, whereas those between the ages of 25-34 were the least represented group (just 8%). The majority of the respondents (57%) lives in a household with 4-5 individuals, whereas a proportion of 11% lives in households of more than six people. Four in ten respondents have completed undergraduate studies while 16% mentioned that they have postgraduate qualifications. 35% of the sample were high-school graduates and 4% were primary education level graduates.

The anticipated financial benefit is by far the most important motivation for the installation of PV system with net-metering scheme in their homes (first mention – 88%, total mentions – 96%). More than two-thirds of the sample have a very positive opinion about the net metering scheme while another 30% has a fairly positive opinion. As far as the awareness of the energy management system used through SmartPV, it is evident that the vast majority has either limited knowledge about the system or no knowledge/awareness at all.

In response to the question whether the EMS would have an impact on the consumption behaviour, around two in five mentioned that they expected a fairly or very large change, while nearly three in ten a quite limited impact. This finding is linked to the fact that prosumers perceive that the decrease of the electricity bill is the most important benefit of the EMS (spontaneous mention 68%). In fact, the reduction of the electricity bill is the most important motive for utilizing an EMS (important/very important 96%), followed by a more detailed analysis of consumption (important/very important 87%).

It is important to note that nearly two-thirds of the sample mentioned that they were willing to transfer consumption to lower charging zones (63%), i.e. from the expensive zone to the medium or cheap zone and another one in five quite willing (23%). Finally three in five prosumers mentioned that they could do more to reduce their households’ electricity consumption.

A detailed analysis of the responses recorded for each question separately, follows in the next chapters.

Appendix 1

Survey among prosumers –Wave 1


2

1. Motivation for installation of PV systems with the net-metering scheme in their homes

The reduction of the electricity cost hence the financial benefit offered to householders with PV systems is the primary motive for installing a PV system with the net-metering scheme, as it is mentioned spontaneously as the first mention by nearly nine in ten respondents (88%). Other reasons such as the environmental benefit, self-production of energy, and avoidance of future increases in electricity bills or other reasons, are mentioned spontaneously by an insignificant proportion of prosumers ranging 1% - 5%.

This is particularly the case for households with 4-6 rooms and younger age groups aged 25-44, as well as households with more than 4 persons living in the property. In addition, this is the first reason mentioned to a greater extent by prosumers with high school or primary school level education, while postgraduates mentioned to a greater extent than the other prosumers the environmental benefit and reduction of CO2 emissions.

By adding first mention and all the other spontaneous mentions together it appears that the financial benefit is by far the most significant motive for nearly all respondents (96%), while in a second grouping follow the environmental benefit (CO2 emissions’ reduction) and the self-production of energy hence energy independence (20% and 15% respectively). A mere 6% of the sample mentioned the avoidance of future cost increase of electricity and 6% other funding schemes, while 14% mentioned various other reasons.

Figure 1: Motivation for installation of PV systems with the net-metering scheme in their homes (First Mention) (Base: All Respondents)

Reduction of electricity bill/

Financial benefit88%

Environmental benefit/ reduction of

CO2 emissions3%

Self-production of energy/

independence3%

Avoidance of future increases in electricity bills

1% Other5%

3

Figure 2: Motivation for installation of PV systems with the net-metering scheme in their homes (First Mention) - Analysis by number of rooms in the property (Base: All Respondents)

Figure 3: Motivation for installation of PV systems with the net-metering scheme in their homes (First Mention) - Analysis by respondents’ age group (Base: All Respondents)

100%90%

3% 2%5%

86%

5%1% 1%

5%

86%

3% 5%1%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reduction ofelectricity bill/

Financialbenefit

Environmentalbenefit/

reduction ofCO2 emissions

Self-productionof energy/

independence

Avoidance offuture

increases inelectricity bills

Fundingschemes

Other

25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

91%

3% 2% 1% 1% 3%

85%

3% 4% 1%7%

80%

13%7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Financialbenefit


reduction ofCO2

emissions


independence

Avoidance offuture


Fundingschemes

Other

4-6 7-9 10+

4

Figure 4: Motivation for installation of PV systems with the net-metering scheme in their homes (First Mention) - Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) (Base: All Respondents)

Figure 5: Motivation for installation of PV systems with the net-metering scheme in their homes (First Mention) - Analysis by respondents’ education level (Base: All Respondents)

87%

6%1% 1%

5%

88%

3% 3% 1% 1% 4%

90%

3%7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Financialbenefit




independence

Avoidance offuture increases

in electricitybills

Fundingschemes

Other

1-3 4-5 6+

91%

9%

95%

1% 1% 3%

89%

3% 3% 1% 1%3%

71%

12%5%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Financialbenefit




independence

Avoidance offuture


Fundingschemes

Other

Primary School High school Undergraduate Postgraduate

5

Table 1: Motivation for installation of PV systems with the net-metering scheme in their homes (First Mention vs. Other Mentions) (Base: All Respondents)

First Mention Other Mentions Total

Reduction of electricity bill/ Financial benefit

88% 8% 96%

Environmental benefit/ CO2 emissions

3% 17% 20%

Self-production of energy/ independence

3% 12% 15%

Avoidance of future increases in electricity bills

1% 5% 6%

Funding schemes - 4% 4%

Other 5% 9% 14%

Don’t know/ No Answer - 50% 50%

6

2. Perceptions about the net metering scheme using a five-point scale

The vast majority of respondents have a positive perception about the net metering scheme, with three in ten expressing a fairly positive opinion (30%) and around three in five (61%) a very positive opinion. Only 5% of the sample held a neutral position while three per cent were not able to position themselves. Using a five-point scale (where 1=very negative and 5=very positive) the mean score is 4.6, without any particular variations across the different ages groups, households with different number of rooms or household size. However, people with primary-school level of education have a slightly less positive perception overall (mean score 4.3), as they appear to be more reluctant to express either a negative or positive opinion (27% held a neutral position).

Table 2: Perceptions about the net metering scheme using a five-point scale – Analysis by numbers of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-35 35-44 45-54 55+

Very negative opinion (1) * 1% - - - - 1%

Fairly negative opinion (2) - - - - - - -

Neither negative nor positive (3) 5% 4% 7% 7% - 5% 1% 10%

Fairly positive opinion (4) 30% 32% 28% 20% 37% 26% 37% 26%

Very positive opinion (5) 61% 58% 64% 73% 63% 66% 57% 61%

Don’t know/ No Answer 3% 5% 1% - - 3% 4% 3%

Mean Score 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5

7

Table 3: Perceptions about the net metering scheme using a five-point scale – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property and respondents’ education level) (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Household Size

Education Level

1-3 4-5 6+ Primary

High school

Undergraduate

Postgraduate

Very negative opinion (1)

* - 1% - - - 1% -

Fairly negative opinion (2)

- - - - - - - -

Neither negative nor positive (3)

5% 4% 6% 7% 27% 4% 4% 5%

Fairly positive opinion (4)

30% 30%

28%

38%

18% 26% 35% 27%

Very positive opinion (5) 61% 60%

64%

52%

55% 65% 58% 63%

Don’t know/ No Answer 3% 6% 1% 3% - 4% 2% 5%

Mean Score 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.6

8

3. Perceptions about the benefits of participation in the SmartPV project

According to prosumers’ perceptions in connection to the benefits of participating in the SmartPV project, the majority expected to experience reduced electricity costs (52%), nearly one in four energy savings (23%), 15% of the sample an improved consumption behaviour and a slightly lower proportion information and training about the time of use tariffs (12%). Around one in ten mentioned some other reasons and one in five expressed lack of awareness about the possible benefits from participating in the project. Among those expressing the belief that they would have a benefit from the reduction of electricity in their household, the tendency is greater among the older age group over 55 years (59%) and prosumers with primary school level education (64%). On the other hand, prosumers with postgraduate level education mentioned to a greater extent than the other sub-groups the improvement of energy behavior (34%) and the training with regard to the time of use tariffs (29%).

Figure 6: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project (Base: All Respondents)

52%

23%15% 12% 9%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Financialbenefit

EnergySavings

Improvementof

consumptionbehaviour/

load transfer


time of usetariff


9

Figure 7: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project participation – Analysis by number of rooms in the property (Base: All Respondents)

Figure 8: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project participation – Analysis by respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

52%

23%15%

12%9%

20%

55%

20%16%

11%8%

21%

47%

24%

13%

13%

10%

21%

53%

40%

13%

20%

13%7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Financialbenefit from

lowerelectricity

costs

Energysavings

Improvementof energy


load transfer

Informationand training

about time-of-use tariff

Other Don't know/Noanswer

Total 4-6 7-9 10+

52%

23%

15%12%

9%

20%

37%

16% 16%

5%

26% 26%

44%

19%23% 21%

5%

29%

49%

24%

14% 13% 12% 15%

59%

24%

14%22%

3%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


lowerelectricity

costs

Energysavings



load transfer




Total 25-34 35-44 45-55 55+

10

Figure 9: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project participation – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) (Base: All Respondents)

52%

23%

15%12%

9%

20%

54%

23%

13%

7%10%

24%

49%

23%

17% 16%

9%

19%

59%

24%

7%10%

7%14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


lowerelectricity

costs

Energysavings



load transfer




Total 4-6 7-9 10+

11

Figure 10: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project participation – Analysis by respondents’ education level (Base: All Respondents)

64%

36%

18%

56%

20%

9%8% 4%

22%

49%

24%

14%11% 12%

22%

49%

22%

34%29%

12% 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


lowerelectricity

costs

Energysavings



load transfer




Primary Highschool Undergaduate Postgraduate

12

4. Awareness of the energy management system used through SmartPV

The majority of prosumers (51%) is either not aware at all of the energy management system used through the SmartPV project, or they have very little knowledge about the energy management system (22%). Around one in four is aware of the system but to a limited extent (23%), while nearly three in ten (27%) are either fairly aware about the system or know everything about it (15% and 12% respectively). Among those who are not aware of the system at all, higher than the average proportion is observed among the older age group 55+ (35%).

Using a five-point scale where 1=I am not aware of the energy system at all and 5=I know everything about the system, the mean score is estimated to be 2.6 and appears to be slightly higher among prosumers with more than 10 rooms in their households (3.1) and bigger households in terms of the number of people living in the property (2.9). In addition, it appears that the level of awareness tends to increase according to the level of education, as it reaches 2.9 among prosumers with postgraduate level of education.

Table 4: Awareness of the energy management system used through SmartPV using a five-point scale – Analysis by numbers of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Number of rooms

Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34

35-44

45-54

55+

I am not aware of the energy management system at all (1)

29% 29% 31%

13%

26%

27%

22%

35%

I have very little knowledge about the energy management system (2)

22% 22% 21%

20%

21%

26%

20%

21%

I am aware about the system to a limited extent (3)

23% 25% 20%

27%

26%

24%

28%

19%

I am fairly aware about the system (4)

15% 11% 19%

20%

21%

15%

18%

11%

I know everything about the system (5)

12% 13% 8% 20%

5% 8% 12%

15%

Mean Score 2.6 2.6 2.5 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.5

13

Table 5: Awareness of the energy management system used through SmartPV using a five-point scale – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property and respondents’ education level) (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Household Size Education

1-3 4-5 6+ Primary

High school

Undergraduate

Postgraduate


29% 39% 25% 21% 45% 33% 26%%

22%


22% 17% 25% 17% 45% 22% 21% 17%


23% 23% 23% 28% - 22% 26% 24%


15% 14% 13% 24% 9% 11% 16% 22%


12% 7% 14% 10% - 12% 11% 15%

Mean Score 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.9 1.7 2.5 2.7 2.9

14

5. Sources of information about the EMS

Seven in ten respondents mentioned the Electricity Authority of Cyprus as the primary source of information about the energy management system (72%), while the media follow in the second place with 16% of the sample of prosumers, who mentioned they are aware about the energy management system in the scope of the SmartPV project.

Eight out of ten of the prosumers with less than three (3) people living in the property pointed out that the Electricity Authority of Cyprus was the primary source of information about the energy management system, while the media followed in the second place with 14%.

It is also apparent that prosumers with university education preferred to a larger extent the retrieval of information from the Electricity Authority.

Figure 11: Sources of information about the energy management system – Analysis by age (Base: All who are aware about the EMS, N=184)

72%

16%

1% 1%

13%

2%

71%

14%

7%

14%

73%

20%

9%

2%

76%

10%

2%

14%

2%

68%

20%

2%

14%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Media CyprusEnergy

RegulatoryAuthority

SmartPVpartners


Total 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

15

Figure 12: Sources of information about the energy management system – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) (Base: All who are aware about the EMS, N=184)

Figure 13: Sources of information about the energy management system – Analysis by respondents’ education level (Base: All who are aware about the EMS, N=184)

72%

16%

1% 1%

13%

2%

84%

14%

2%6%

2%

72%

12%

2%

15%

3%

48%43%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Media CyprusEnergy

RegulatoryAuthority

SmartPVpartners


Total 1-3 4-5 6+

72%

16%

1% 1%

13%

2%

33%

67%64%

26%

15%

2%

82%

12%

1%8%

1%

69%

13%

3% 3%9%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Media CyprusEnergy

RegulatoryAuthority

SmartPVpartners


Total Primary High-school Undergraduate Postgraduate

16

6. Perceptions/expectations in relation to behavioural impact due to the installation and usage of the EMS

In response to the question in relation to the impact that the EMS will have on prosumers’ behaviour, one in four stated that nothing will change (25%) and almost one in ten that their behaviour will change slightly. Around one in five stated that their behaviour will change but to a limited extent (18%), while two in five (41%) expected their behaviour to change either to fairly large or very large extent (25% and 16% respectively). Nevertheless a small proportion of respondents (7%) was unable to take a position. The mean score using the five-point scale (1=nothing will change, 5=our behaviour will change to a very large extent) is 3.0.

Through a sub-group analysis of the responses, it is evident that the prosumers aged over 55+ are more negative towards changing their behaviour (mean score 2.8), since one in three do not anticipate the EMS to influence their behaviour. On the other hand, among those who expect their behaviour to change significantly, higher proportions than the average are observed among the youngest age group 25-34 (37% respectively mentioned their behaviour will change to a limited or fairly large extent), with a mean score of 3.2. It is also worth noting that among those who expect their behaviour to change to a very large extent, a greater proportion than the average is observed in the age group 45-54 (22%), with a mean score of 3.2.

Finally, it also appears that there is a positive relationship between the level of education and the perceptions in connection to the behavioural impact because of the installation and usage of the EMS, since the mean score follows an increasing trend according to the level of education. It is 1.9 among prosumers with primary school level education, increasing to 2.9 among those with high-school level education, 3.1 among undergraduates, and reaching 3.5 among those with postgraduate education.

Figure 14: Perceptions/ expectations in relation to behavioural impact due to the installation and usage of the EMS using a five-point scale (Base: All who are aware about the EMS, N=184)

25%

9%

18%

25%

16%

7% Nothing will change

Our behaviour will slightlychange

Our behaviour will change to alimited extent

Our behaviour will change to afairly large extent

Our behaviour will change to avery large extent

Don't know/ No answer

17

Table 6: Perceptions/expectations in relation to behavioural impact due to the installation and usage of the EMS using a five-point scale – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

Nothing will change (1) 25% 28% 23% - 11% 27% 16% 33%

Our behaviour will slightly change (2)

9% 8% 9% 7% 5% 3% 13% 8%

Our behaviour will change to a limited extent (3)

18% 20% 15% 20% 37% 19% 17% 15%

Our behaviour will change to a fairly large extent (4)

25% 20% 32% 33% 37% 32% 20% 23%

Our behaviour will change to a very large extent (5)

16% 14% 16% 33% 5% 15% 22% 15%

Don’t know/No answer 7% 10% 4% 7% 5% 3% 12% 7%

Mean score 3.0 2.8 3.1 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.2 2.8

Table 7: Perceptions/expectations in relation to behavioural impact due to the installation and usage of the EMS using a five-point scale – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property and respondents’ education level) (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Household Size Education level

1-3 4-5 6+ Primary High school

Under-grad.

Post-grad.

Nothing will change (1) 25% 24%

24% 31%

73% 33% 18% 12%

Our behaviour will slightly change (2)

8% 7% 9% 7% 9% 5% 10% 7%

Our behaviour will change to a limited extent (3)

18% 19%

19% 10%

9% 16% 19% 22%

Our behaviour will change to a fairly large extent (4)

25% 24%

25% 31%

- 19% 29% 37%

Our behaviour will change to a very large extent (5)

16% 16%

17% 14%

9% 20% 13% 20%

Don’t know/ No answer 7% 10%

6% 7% - 7% 10% 2%

Mean score 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 1.6 2.9 3.1 3.5

18

7. Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS

The most important benefit of the energy management system appears to be the decrease of electricity bills, as it was mentioned first spontaneously by more than two-thirds of the sample (68%). This is particularly the case for those aged over 55 years, as the frequency of this response increases by +10 percentage points to 78%, as well as among prosumers with primary school level education (91%).

Energy savings follow in the second place (36%), the protection of the environment third (17%) and the offer of better tariffs comes fourth (14%). The other benefits are mentioned spontaneously by much lower proportions of prosumers. Respondents were subsequently asked to mention other benefits of the EMS, aided by the interviewer.

By adding the two types of responses (spontaneous and aided) it appears that the decrease in electricity costs is by far the most important advantage that an EMS has for the prosumer (96% total - 68% spontaneous). This was followed closely by the protection of the environment due to lower CO2 emissions (91% - with much lower number of spontaneous mentions 17%). Energy savings followed in a second grouping (89%), with the capacity for monitoring the energy consumption costs (80%).

Table 8: Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS (Base: All Respondents)

Benefits Spontaneous Aided Total

Decrease of electricity bills 68% 28% 96%

Energy savings 36% 53% 89%

Protection of the environment from the CO2 emissions 17% 74% 91%

Better tariff offer 14% 63% 77%

Capacity to monitor the energy consumption costs 11% 69% 80%

Avoid over charging due to estimations (not actual measurement)

9% 53% 62%

Possibility to transfer consumption based on the tariff offered 8% 61% 69%

Education about the importance of energy saving 5% 78% 83%

Better management of the energy offered by the authorities 5% 72% 77%

Improvement of the energy security for the next generations 1% 86% 87%

Other 3% 3% 6%

Don’t know/No answer 15% 15% 30%

19

Figure 15: Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS (Spontaneous) – Analysis by respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

68%

36%

17% 14%

11% 9% 8%5% 5%

1%3%

0

58%

32%

16%

5% 5%

11%

5% 5%

5%

21%

56%

24%

11%

21%

11%

10%

16%

10%

10%

2% 2%

24%

66%

36%

18%16%

16%

5%8%

5%4%

3%

16%

78%

46%

21%

11%9%

12%

4% 4% 4%1%

3%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Decre

ase o

fele

ctr

icity b

ills

En

erg

y s

avin

gs

Pro

tectio

n o

fenvironm

ent fr

om

the C

O2 e

mis

sio

ns

Be

tter

tarr

if o

ffer

Capacity to

mo

nitor

the e

ne

rgy

con

sum

ptio

n c

osts

Avoid

over-

charg

ing

due to e

stim

atio

ns

(not a

ctu

al

me

asure

me

nt)

Po

ssib

ility

to

transfe

rcon

sum

ptio

n b

ased

on the t

ariff o

ffere

d

Ed

ucation

about

the

impo

rtance o

fenerg

y s

avin

g

Be

tter

ma

nagem

ent

of th

e e

nerg

yoffere

d b

y the

auth

oritie

s

Impro

vem

ent of th

eenerg

y s

ecurity

for

the n

ext

genera

tio

ns Oth

er

Don't k

now

/ N

oansw

er

Total 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

20

Figure 16: Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS (Spontaneous) – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property (Base: All Respondents)

68%

36%

17%14%

11%9%

8%

5%

5%

1% 3% 0

72%

40%

18%

12%

10%

12%

4%8%

7%

1%2%

11%

65%

36%

19%

16%

12%

8%

10%

4%

5% 3%

16%

69%

31%

7%

14% 14%

7%

10%

3% 3% 3% 3%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Decre

ase o

f ele

ctr

icity

bill

s

En

erg

y s

avin

gs

Pro

tectio

n o

fenvironm

ent fr

om

the

CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns

Be

tter

tarr

if o

ffer

Capacity to

mo

nitor

the

energ

y c

onsum

ption

costs

Avoid

over-

charg

ing d

ue

to e

stim

atio

ns (

not

actu

al m

easure

me

nt)

Po

ssib

ility

to

tra

nsfe

rcon

sum

ptio

n b

ased o

nth

e tariff o

ffere

d

Ed

ucation

about

the

impo

rtance o

f energ

ysavin

g

Be

tter

ma

nagem

ent of

the e

ne

rgy o

ffere

d b

yth

e a

uth

oritie

s

Impro

vem

ent of th

eenerg

y s

ecurity

for

the

next genera

tio

ns

Oth

er

Don't k

now

/ N

o a

nsw

er

Total 1-3 4-5 6+

21

Figure 17: Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS (Spontaneous) – Analysis by respondents’ level of education (Base: All Respondents)

68%

36%

17%14%

11%9% 8%

5% 5%

1%3%

0

91%

27%

9%

64%

38%

13%

9%

9%

8%5%

2% 3%

1%

22%

71%

37%

19%

14% 13%

11%9% 9%

7%

2% 3%

11%

61%

32%

27%

32%

15%

10%

15%

5%7%

5%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

De

cre

ase

of

ele

ctr

icity b

ills

Ene

rgy s

avin

gs

Pro

tection

of

en

viro

nm

en

tfr

om

th

e C

O2 e

mis

sio

ns

Bett

er

tarr

if o

ffer

Ca

pa

city to

mon

itor

the

en

erg

y c

on

sum

ption c

osts

Avo

id o

ver-

ch

arg

ing

due

to

estim

ation

s (

no

t a

ctu

al

mea

sure

men

t)

Possib

ility

to t

ransfe

rco

nsu

mp

tion

base

d o

n t

he

tariff o

ffere

d

Edu

cation

ab

ou

t th

eim

port

ance

of

en

erg

ysa

vin

g

Bett

er

ma

na

ge

me

nt

of

the

en

erg

y o

ffere

d b

y t

he

au

thorities

Impro

ve

me

nt

of

the

en

erg

yse

curi

ty fo

r th

e n

ext

ge

ne

ration

s

Oth

er

Do

n't

kno

w/ N

o a

nsw

er

Total Primary Highschool Undergraduate Postgraduate

22

8. Importance of motives for utilizing an energy management system using a five-point scale

In response to the question in relation to the importance of motives for utilizing an EMS, it was made obvious through the use of a five-point scale, that nearly all prosumers (96%) believe that the reduction of the electricity bill is the most important motive for utilizing an EMS. 87% of prosumers pointed out the detailed analysis of consumption was also of high importance to them, while lower tariffs were also a major advantage of the EMS (83%).

The high importance of the reduction of the electricity bill is reflected in all age groups (mean score ranges between 4.8-4.9), education levels as well as household size.

It is worth noting that the accuracy and timely provision of information to prosumers is comparatively less important among respondents with primary level of education (3.9).

Table 9: Importance of motives for utilizing an energy management system using a five-point scale – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age

(Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Number of rooms

Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

Reduction of electricity bill 4.9 4.9* 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.9

Accurate and timely information & education

4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.4

Lower tariffs 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4

More detailed analysis of consumption

4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.4

* Mean Score of a 5-point scale where 1 = not important at all and 5 = very important

23

Figure 18: Importance of motives for utilizing an energy management system (Base: All Respondents)

Table 10: Importance of motives for utilizing an energy management system – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) and respondents’ education (Base: All Respondents)


Scale 1-3 4-5 6+ Primary High school

Under-graduate

Post-graduate

Reduction of electricity bill

4.9* 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.8


4.4 4.5 4.4 3.9 4.7 4.3 4.4

Lower tariffs 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.5


4.6 4.4 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.4


1% 6% 5% 4%

96%78% 83% 87%

2%

8%7% 5%

1%

8% 5% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Reduction of electrcitiy bill Accurate and timelyinformation and educationabout load transferring and

management ofconsumption

Lower tariffs More detailed analysis ofconsumption

Not important at all/Not important Important/Very important

Neither important/nor unimportant Don't know/No answer

24

9. Willingness to transfer consumption to lower charging zones

Nearly two-thirds of the sample mentioned they were willing to transfer consumption to lower charging zones (63%), i.e. from the expensive zone to the medium or cheap zone (32% are willing and 31% very willing). Around one in four was quite willing to transfer consumption to lower charging zones, while a small proportion of 8% were either slightly willing or not willing at all.

Among those expressing eagerness to transfer to lower charging zones, the greatest proportions are observed among households with more than 10 rooms (40%) and the age group 25-34 (47%), while this interest demonstrates a decreasing tendency as age increases. Using a five-point scale where 1=not willing at all and 5=very willing the mean score is estimated at 4.2 and it appears that the age group of 25-34 was indeed more willing to transfer to medium or cheap zones. It is also worth noting that in households with 1-3 persons the mean score is 3.7, meaning that the willingness to move is not as strong as in larger households.

Finally, it also appears that highly educated prosumers were more likely to transfer their consumption (mean score 4.1).

Figure 19: Willingness to transfer consumption to lower charging zones (i.e. from the expensive to the medium or cheap zone) (Base: All Respondents)

Not willing at all6% Slightly willing

2%

Quite willing23%

Willing32%

Very willing31%


6%

25

Table 11: Willingness to transfer consumption to lower charging zones (i.e. from the expensive to the medium or cheap zone) – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age


Scale Total

Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

Not willing at all 6% 6% 6% 7% - 3% 4% 11%

Slightly willing 2% 1% 2% - 5% 2% - 2%

Quite willing 23% 22% 24% 20% 21% 21% 29% 20%

Willing 32% 30% 36% 27% 26% 34% 37% 29%

Very willing 31% 33% 28% 40% 47% 37% 26% 29%


6% 8% 4% 6% 1% 3% 4% 9%

Mean* 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.7

* Mean Score of a 5-point scale where 1 = not wiling at all and 5 = very willing

Table 12: Willingness to transfer consumption to lower charging zones (i.e. from the expensive to the medium or cheap zone) (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total



Undergrad.

Postgrad.

Not willing at all 6% 8% 4% 10% 18% 5% 8% -

Slightly willing 2% 2% 1% - - 3% - 2%

Quite willing 23% 24% 21% 28% 18% 23% 24% 20%

Willing 32% 27% 38% 21% 9% 22% 41% 37%

Very willing 31% 29% 32% 34% 27% 40% 24% 34%


6% 10% 4% 7% 28% 7% 3% 7%

Mean* 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.8 4.1


26

10. Levels of electricity consumption

Nearly five in ten households consumed much less electricity compared with the past 12 months (47%) and another fifteen percent experienced a minor decrease. Around three in ten mentioned that there was no change in their electricity consumption, while only a minor proportion stated that the level of electricity consumption increased (3%).

Figure 20: Levels of electricity consumption in the household compared with 12 months ago (Base: All Respondents)


6%

Major decrease47%

Minor decrease15%

No change (same levels)

29%

Minor increase2%

Major increase1%

27

11. Energy saving interventions

It is interesting to note that two in five prosumers had some energy saving or energy upgrading interventions made in their households (40%), concerning mainly the substitution of lamps (83%), while the vast majority (74%) believe they made an effort to reduce the consumption of energy in the household. The most popular solution for energy savings was the substitution of lamps as the overwhelming majority of respondents (8 out of 10) mentioned this measure in order to save energy.

Figure 21: Energy saving or energy upgrading interventions made in the households (Base: All Respondents)

Yes40%

No60%

28

Figure 22: Types of energy saving or energy upgrading interventions made in the households (Base: All who made some energy-related interventions - 102)

83%

8%

6%

3%

27%

Substitution of lamps

Double-glazing

Wall/roof insulation

Heating system

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

29

12. Consumption reduction efforts

Nearly three in four (74%) prosumers have made some effort in order to reduce the consumption rate of energy within their households, whereas 11% have done nothing to reduce the consumption rate.

Figure 23: Efforts made for reducing the consumption rate of energy in the household (Base: All Respondents)

Strongly Disagree

8%Disagree

3%

Neutral14%

Agree31%

Strongly Agree43%

N/A1%

30

13. More efforts to reduce consumption of electricity

Three in five prosumers mentioned that they could do more to reduce their households’ consumption of electricity (28% agree strongly and another 32% agree), whilst one in five (21%) strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement (12% and 9% respectively). Around one in ten (9%) neither agreed nor disagreed with this position hence they felt uncertain about the extent to which they could be more proactive towards reducing their consumption of electricity. A more positive position was expressed by prosumers belonging to the 45-54 age group (3.8), the householders with more than 10 rooms in their homes (3.6) and the households with more than six members (3,7).

Figure 24: More efforts to reduce consumption of electricity (Base: All Respondents)

Strongly Disagree

12% Disagree9%

Neutral18%

Agree32%

Strongly Agree28%

N/A1%

31

Table 13: Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

Strongly disagree (1)

28% 12% 13% 7% 21% 8% 7% 18%

Disagree (2) 9% 8% 10% 7% 5% 8% 7% 11%

Neither agree nor disagree (3)

18% 20% 13% 27% 16% 26% 18% 13%

Agree (4) 32% 28% 37% 40% 32% 32% 38% 28%

Strongly agree (5) 12% 30% 26% 19% 26% 23% 29% 30%

Don’t know/ No answer

1% 2% 1% - - 3% 1% -

Mean 3.6* 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.4

* Mean Score of a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree

Table 14: Analysis by household size (i.e. number of people living in the household) and education (Base: All Respondents)

Household size Education

Scale Total 1-3 4-5 6+ Primary High

school Undergrad.

Postgrad.


28% 20% 8% 10% 9% 12% 12% 15%

Disagree (2) 9% 8% 10% 3% 27% 9% 5% 12%


18% 11% 21% 21% 18% 14% 19% 22%

Agree (4) 32% 27% 34% 41% 18% 32% 33% 34%

Strongly agree (5) 12% 31% 27% 24% 27% 32% 30% 15%


1% 3% - 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

Mean 3.4* 3.6 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.2


32

14. Comfort vs Energy savings

While more than one in three prosumers preferred comfort at home vis-à-vis energy savings (22% agree and 14% strongly agree), one in five opposed this view (10% disagreed or disagreed strongly). Nevertheless an important percentage of 44% held a neutral position.

Figure 25: Prefer comfort at home vs. energy savings (Base: All Respondents)

Strongly Disagree

10%Disagree

10%

Neutral44%

Agree22%

Strongly Agree14%

33

Table 15: Prefer comfort at home vs. energy savings – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age



4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+


10% 12% 7% 7% 16% 13% 8% 8%

Disagree (2) 10% 11% 9% 13% - 16% 9% 10%


44% 41% 45% 67% 42% 40% 47% 44%

Agree (4) 22% 24% 22% - 37% 15% 21% 25%

Strongly agree (5) 14% 12% 16% 13% 5% 15% 14% 13%


- 1% - - 1% 1% -

Mean 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.3


Table 16: Prefer comfort at home vs. energy savings – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of people living in the household) and education (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total



Undergrad. Postgrad.


10% 7% 8% 24% 9% 14% 7% 7%

Disagree (2) 10% 7% 11%

17% 36% 9% 9% 12%


44% 42% 49%

21% - 37% 49% 56%

Agree (4) 22% 24% 21%

21% 36% 26% 21% 12%

Strongly agree (5)

14% 18% 10%

17% 18% 13% 14% 12%


2% 1% - 1% 1% - 1%

Mean 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1


34

15. Demographic analysis

15.1. Number of rooms in the household

The majority of survey respondents lived in households with 4-6 rooms whereas 38% lived in households with 7-9 rooms and a small minority (6%) in properties with more than 10 rooms.

Figure 26: Number of rooms in the household (Base: All Respondents)

4-656%

7-938%

10+6%

35

15.2. Respondents age

The survey was answered mostly by people over the age of 50 (39%), whereas those between the ages of 25-34 were the least represented group (8%).

Figure 27: Respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

25-34; 8% 35-44

24%

45-5429%

55+39%

36

16.1. Household size

The majority of the prosumers stated that their households (57%) consisted of 4-5 individuals, while 11% lived in households of more than 6 people.

Figure 28: Size of household (i.e. number of people living in the household) (Base: All Respondents)

1-332%

4-557%

6+11%

37

16.2. Education of survey respondents

More than three in five respondents (61%) were highly educated. Four out of ten prosumers completed undergraduate studies, and 16% had a postgraduate certification. Three out of ten were high-school graduates and a minority of 4% were primary school graduates.

Figure 29: Respondents’ education (Base: All Respondents)

Primary4% High school

35%

Undergraduate45%

Postgraduate16%

38

16.3. Consumption habbits

Nearly half of the respondents had consumption levels exceeding 6001 kWhs, while one fourth had consumption levels within the range of 5001-6000 kWhs. The rest of the respondents stated that their consumption was below 5000 kWhs.

Figure 30: Consumption (Base: All Respondents)

Less than 40009%

4001-500017%

5001-600026%6001-7000

15%

7001-800014%

More than 800115%

No information4%


81

9.2. Appendix 2: Survey among prosumers – Wave 2 –


1

Evidence from the second wave of the SmartPV survey among prosumers suggests that the reduction of electricity cost and associated financial benefit offered to householders with PV systems remains as the main benefit of participation in the SmartPV project. The survey findings highlight that prosumers had a positive perception about the impact of the SmartPV energy system on their behavior, while the decrease of electricity bill was considered to be the most important benefit of the EMS offered through the project. In fact, nearly two in three prosumers expressed the belief that their electricity bill was positively affected by participating in the project.

Overall, prosumers seemed to be quite aware of the energy management system used through the project, with nearly two in ten survey respondents stating that they knew everything about the system. It appears that the trainings conducted by the EAC in raising awareness have had a positive influence, with the large majority of prosumers listing the Electricity Authority as their main source of information retrieval. It is important to note that around seven in ten were fairly or very satisfied with the smart net metering implementation of the project and an almost equivalent proportion stated that they were satisfied with the level of information offered, as they felt more informed towards the end of the project lifecycle.

Therefore, prosumers tend to evaluate positively the payback period of their investment in RES and the majority expressed a willingness for future investments in RES or energy efficiency measures. Finally around two in three prosumers expressed a willingness to extend their participation in the program, even if they did not have the safety of paying the lowest bill (as it was in the case of the SmartPV project).

A detailed analysis of the responses recorded for each question separately, follows in the next chapters.

Appendix 2

Survey among prosumers –Wave 2


2


According to prosumers’ perceptions in connection to the benefits of participating in the SmartPV project, the majority of respondents (51%) stated that the reduction of electricity cost was the main benefit derived from their participation to the SmartPV project. Among those expressing the belief that they would benefit from the reduction of electricity in their household, the tendency is greater among the younger age group of 25-34 (100%), those living in smaller households (58%) and prosumers with postgraduate level education (63%).

Participants also reported that the improvement of electricity consumption behaviour (24%), along with energy savings (22%) and information/training about dynamic tariff use (19%) were also benefits of their participation to the project.

Figure 1: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project (Base: All Respondents)

51%

24%22%

19%

6%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Financialbenefit

Improvementof


load transfer

Energysavings


time of usetariff


3

Figure 2: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project participation – Analysis by number of rooms in the property (Base: All Respondents)

Figure 3: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project participation – Analysis by respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

51%

22%24%

19%

6%

19%

55%

23% 24%

16%

6%

16%

45%

18%

26% 25%

5%

25%

55%

36%

9%

18%

9%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


lowerelectricity

costs

Energysavings



load transfer




Total 4-6 7-9 10+

51%

22% 24%19%

6%

19%

100%

14% 14%

0% 0% 0%

48%

27% 25%20%

0%

30%

48%

13%

24%21%

13% 18%

52%

26%24%

19%

4%

17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


lowerelectricity

costs

Energysavings



load transfer




Total 25-34 35-44 45-55 55+

4

Figure 4: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project participation – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) (Base: All Respondents)

Figure 5: Perceptions about the benefits from participation in the SmartPV project participation – Analysis by respondents’ education level (Base: All Respondents)

51%

22%24%

19%

6%

19%

58%

22%22% 22%

3%

16%

49%

23%25%

20%

6%

21%

45%

18%

23%

9%

14%

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


lowerelectricity

costs

Energysavings



load transfer




Total 1-3 4-5 6+

51%

22%24%

19%

6%

19%

56%

11%

33%

49%

26%

18%16%

9%

18%

49%

19%

29%

18%

6%

23%

63%

23%27%

37%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


lowerelectricity

costs

Energysavings



load transfer




Total Primary Highschool Undergaduate Postgraduate

5

2. Awareness of the energy management system used through SmartPV

Using a five-point scale where 1=I am not aware of the energy system at all and 5=I know everything about the system, prosumers were asked to rank their level of awareness with regard to the energy management system used through the SmartPV project. Nearly half of the prosumers reported a high level of awareness, with one in six knowing everything about the system (17%) and nearly three in ten being fairly aware about the system (27%). In addition, one in four expressed awareness even though to a limited extent and nearly one in five said they had very little knowledge about the EMS (25% and 19% respectively). Only one in ten were not aware of the EMS at all (13%).

Table 1: Awareness of the energy management system used through SmartPV using a five-point scale – Analysis by numbers of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34

35-44

45-54

55+


13% 12% 15% - - 11% 15% 13%


19% 17% 22% 18% - 23%

18% 19%


25% 26% 21% 36% 14% 25% 29% 23%


27% 31% 21% 18% 57% 25% 23% 28%


17% 13% 22% 27% 29% 16% 16% 17%

6

Table 2: Awareness of the energy management system used through SmartPV using a five-point scale – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) and respondents’ education level (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total



Undergrad.

Post-grad.


13% 12% 14% 9% 22% 21% 7% 10%


19% 21% 19% 14% 44% 24% 15% 13%


25% 27% 22% 32% 33% 24% 26% 20%


27% 22% 30% 27% - 26% 29% 27%


17% 18% 16% 18% - 6% 22% 30%

7

3. Sources of information about the EMS

As far as the sources of information about the energy management system are concerned, nearly eight in ten survey participants listed the Electricity Authority as the primary source of information (83%), while the media (11%) and other SmartPV partners (10%) followed as secondary sources of information.

Figure 6: Sources of information about the energy management system – Analysis by age (Base: All who are aware about the EMS, N=184)

78%

11%

2%

10%

3% 2%

71%

0% 0

29%

0%0

82%

13%

0

10%3%

3%

83%

9%

2%

13%

0%0%

73%

12%

4% 6% 6% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Media Cyprus EnergyRegulatoryAuthority

SmartPV partners Other Don't know/ Noanswer

Total 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

8

Figure 7: Sources of information about the energy management system – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) (Base: All who are aware about the EMS, N=184)

Figure 8: Sources of information about the energy management system – Analysis by respondents’ education level (Base: All who are aware about the EMS, N=184)

78%

11%

2%

10%

3% 2%

72%

9% 5%8%

3%5%

79%

15%

1%

11%

4%

90%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Media CyprusEnergy

RegulatoryAuthority

SmartPVpartners


Total 1-3 4-5 6+

78%

11%

2%

10%

3%2%

86%

14%

67%

11%7%

17%

2%2%

84%

9% 7%4% 1%

78%

22%

11%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Media CyprusEnergy

RegulatoryAuthority

SmartPVpartners


Total Primary High-school Undergraduate Postgraduate

9

4. Perceptions in relation to behavioural impact due to the installation and usage of the EMS

Survey research has shown that prosumers’ behaviour due to the installation and use of the energy management system has been positively affected, since more than two in five have seen fairly or very large change (31% and 12% respectively), while an equivalent proportion has seen a slight or moderate change (14% and 29% respectively). Only 15% of the sample mentioned that nothing has changed in their behaviour.

Through a sub-group analysis of responses, it is evident that prosumers belonging to the 35-44 age group and those with primary education level, were the least affected by the EMS usage (mean score 2.8 and 2.7 respectively).

Figure 9: Perceptions in relation to behavioural impact due to the installation and usage of the EMS using a five-point scale (Base: All respondents)

15%

14%

29%

31%

12% Nothing has changed

My behaviour has slightlychanged

My behaviour has changed to alimited extent

My behaviour has changed to afairly large extent

My behaviour has changed to avery large extent

10

Table 3: Perceptions in relation to behavioural impact due to the installation and usage of the EMS using a five-point scale – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

Nothing has changed (1) 15% 11% 21% 9% 14% 25% 10% 13%

Our behaviour has slightly changed (2)

14% 11% 19% 18% 0% 11% 21% 12%

Our behaviour has changed to a limited extent (3)

29% 33% 23% 18% 57% 27% 34% 24%

Our behaviour has changed to a fairly large extent (4)

31% 34% 22% 45% 14% 30% 26% 35%

Our behaviour has changed to a very large extent (5)

12% 10% 15% 9% 14% 7% 8% 16%

Don’t know/No answer - 1% - - - - 2% -

Mean score 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.3 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.3

Table 4: Perceptions in relation to behavioural impact due to the installation and usage of the EMS using a five-point scale – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) and respondents’ education level (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total

Household Size Education level


Under-grad.

Post-grad.

Nothing has changed (1) 15% 12% 16% 14% 22% 15% 14% 13%

Our behaviour has slightly changed (2)

14% 12% 12% 32% 33% 12% 17% 3%

Our behaviour has changed to a limited extent (3)

29% 27% 31% 23% 11% 29% 28% 33%

Our behaviour has changed to a fairly large extent (4)

31% 36% 30% 18% 22% 35% 27% 33%

Our behaviour has changed to a very large extent (5)

12% 12% 11% 14% 11% 9% 12% 17%

Don’t know/ No answer - - 1% - - - 1% -

Mean score 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.4

11

5. Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS

It appears that the decrease of electricity bills stemming from EMS implementation was of outmost importance to nearly two in three prosumers (63%), followed by energy savings (37%) and better ToU tariff (27%). The avoidance of overcharging due to estimations was also thought to be an important benefit of the EMS by one in four prosumers (25%), followed by the possibility to transfer consumption based on the tariff offered (21%). Other benefits reported by survey participants to a lesser extent were the capacity to monitor the energy consumption costs (14%), the protection of the environment from CO2 emissions (10%), the education about the importance of energy saving (7%) and the improved management of the energy offered by the authorities (2%).

By adding spontaneous and aided responses of the prosumers, it is evident that the top two benefits of the EMS were thought to be the electricity bill reduction and energy savings, followed by the protection of the environment.

Table 5: Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS (Base: All Respondents)

Benefits Spontaneous Aided Total

Decrease of electricity bills 63% 23% 86%

Energy savings 37% 49% 86%

Protection of the environment from the CO2 emissions 10% 67% 77%

Better tariff offer 27% 47% 74%

Education about the importance of energy saving 7% 67% 74%

Possibility to transfer consumption based on the tariff offered 21% 52% 73%

Capacity to monitor the energy consumption costs 14% 56% 70%

Avoid over charging due to estimations (not actual measurement)

25% 43% 68%

Better management of the energy offered by the authorities 2% 59% 61%

Improvement of the energy security for the next generations - 60% 60%

Don’t know/No answer 20% 6% 26%

12

Figure 10: Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS (Spontaneous) – Analysis by respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

63%

37%

10%

27%

14%

25%

21%

7%

2%

20%

71%

29%

2…

14%

50%

32%

9%

36%

14%

25%

25%

5%

2%

32%

61%

35%

13%

23%

15%

27%

21%

6%

3%

19%

70%

42%

9%

28%

14%

24%

22%

9%

1%

16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Decrease of electricity bills

Energy savings

Protection of environment from the CO2 emissions

Better tarrif offer

Capacity to monitor the energy consumption costs

Avoid over-charging due to estimations (not actualmeasurement)

Possibility to transfer consumption based on the tariffoffered

Education about the importance of energy saving

Better management of the energy offered by theauthorities

Don't know/ No answer55+ 45-54

35-44 25-34

Total

13

Figure 11: Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS (Spontaneous) – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) (Base: All Respondents)

63%

37%

10%

27%

14%

25%

21%

7%

2%

20%

67%

36%

7%

21%

14%

15%

14%

7%

21%

62%

37%

14%

32%

15%

30%

26%

7%

4%

19%

55%

45%

27%

5%

36%

23%

5%

27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%


Energy savings


Better tarrif offer







6+ 4-5 1-3 Total

14

Figure 12: Perceptions about the benefits of the EMS (Spontaneous) – Analysis by respondents’ level of education (Base: All Respondents)

63%

37%

10%

27%

14%

25%

21%

7%

2%

20%

56%

33%

11%

22%

0%

22%

0%

33%

22%

62%

35%

6%

25%

9%

26%

19%

3%

43%

7%

64%

40%

10%

32%

15%

29%

26%

6%

70%

5%

67%

33%

17%

17%

23%

17%

10%

20%

67%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


Energy savings


Better tarrif offer







Postgraduate Undergraduate Highschool Primary Total

15

6. Importance of motives for utilizing an energy management system using a five-point scale

When asked to rate the importance of motives in terms of the utilization of energy management systems, it was made apparent that the reduction of electricity bills was by far the most important incentive. More analytically, nearly all prosumers (96%) ranked the reduction of electricity bills to be an important/very important motive for the utilization of an energy management system. The accuracy and timeliness of the information/education of prosumers as well as the lower tariffs were also considered as important/very important motives for 86% of the sample, while the detailed analysis of consumption by 81% of the sample.

Table 6: Importance of motives for utilizing an energy management system using a five-point scale – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age


Scale Total

Number of rooms

Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

Reduction of electricity bill 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.8


4.4 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.5 4.4

Lower tariffs 4.4. 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.3


4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.2


16

Figure 13: Importance of motives for utilizing an energy management system (Base: All Respondents)

Table 7: Importance of motives for utilizing an energy management system – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of persons living in the property) and respondents’ education (Base: All Respondents)



Under-graduate

Post-graduate

Reduction of electricity bill

4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.6


4.3 4.4 4.4 3.7 4.5 4.5 4.2

Lower tariffs 4.2 4.5 4.2 3.6 4.3 4.6 4.0


4.1 4.2 4.5 3.4 4.2 4.3 4.1


7% 9% 8%

96% 86% 86% 81%

2% 7% 5% 10%

1% 8% 5% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Reduction of electrcitiy bill Accurate and timelyinformation and educationabout load transferring and

management ofconsumption


Not important at all/Not important Important/Very important

Neither important/nor unimportant Don't know/No answer

17

7. Perceptions about loads’ transfer to lower charging zones

Nearly two in three prosumers (63%) mentioned that they managed to transfer some loads to lower charging zones in the framework of the SmartPV project. In fact, one in six managed to do so to a large degree (17%) and another one in five to a fairly large degree (22%). On the other hand, a slightly lower proportion mentioned they did no transfers at all (18%).

Figure 14: Perceptions about loads’ transfer to lower charging zones (Base: All Respondents)

No transfer at all18%

Slightly19%

To a limited degree

24%

To fairly large degree

22%

To a large degree17%

18

Table 8: Perceptions about loads’ transfer to lower charging zones (i.e. from the expensive to the medium or cheap zone) – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age


Scale Total

Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

No transfer at all (1)

18% 14% 27% 9% 14% 25% 16% 17%

Slightly (2) 19% 22% 14% 18% 29% 16% 21% 18%

To a limited degree (3)

23% - 23% 30% 14% 25% 24% 23%

To a fairly large degree (4)

22% 33% 22% 22% 14% 20% 31% 18%

To a large degree (5)

17% 19% 18% 13% 29% 14% 8% 24%

Mean* 3.0 3.1 2.8 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.1


Table 9: Perceptions about loads’ transfer to lower charging zones (i.e. from the expensive to the medium or cheap zone) (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total



Undergrad.

Postgrad.

No transfer at all (1)

18% 21% 16% 23% 33% 19% 16% 20%

Slightly (2) 19% 19% 18% 23% 22% 16% 23% 10%

To a limited degree (3)

23% 22% 23% 32% 11% 25% 25% 17%

To a fairly large degree (4)

22% 23% 24% 9% 11% 21% 18% 43%

To a large degree (5)

17% 15% 19% 14% 22% 19% 17% 10%

Mean* 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.1


19

8. Levels of electricity consumption

When asked to comment on the levels of electricity consumption in the last 12 months, nearly four in ten prosumers (37%) reported a minor decrease, while one in ten mentioned a major decrease (13%). A large proportion of 35% said there was no change, while nearly one in ten experience an increase (9%).

Figure 15: Levels of electricity consumption in the household compared with 12 months ago (Base: All Respondents)


6% Major decrease13%

Minor decrease37%

No change (same levels)

35%

Minor increase8%

Major increase1%

20

9. Energy saving interventions

In response to the question in relation to energy saving and/or energy interventions made, only a quarter of the participants stated that they had in fact made an intervention in their households (25%). The vast majority of those who made an intervention, substituted lamps (69%), while a smaller proportion installed double-glazed windows (11%), upgraded their heating system (10%) and upgraded their wall/roof installation (6%).

Figure 16: Energy saving or energy upgrading interventions made in the households (Base: All Respondents)

Yes25%

No75%

21

Figure 17: Types of energy saving or energy upgrading interventions made in the households (Base: All who made some energy-related interventions - 51)

69%

12%

6%

10%

29%

Substitution of lamps

Double-glazing

Wall/roof insulation

Heating system

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

22

10. Consumption reduction efforts

With regard to the efforts made for reducing the consumption rate of energy within households, more than six out of ten prosumers stated that they have indeed tried to reduce their electricity consumption (25% -strongly agree and 39%- agree). On the other hand, 15% of the sample was in disagreement with the specific statement.

Figure 18: Efforts made for reducing the consumption rate of energy in the household (Base: All Respondents)

Strongly Disagree

6% Disagree9%

Neither agree nor disagree

20%

Agree39%

Strongly Agree25%

23

11. More efforts to reduce consumption of electricity

With regard to the possibility of doing more in order to reduce electricity consumption, about half of the survey participants agreed that they could do more (47%) while in addition one in ten strongly agreed with the statement (11%). On the other hand, three out of ten were hesistant to put any effort into the reduction of electricity consumption (30%).

Figure 19: More efforts to reduce consumption of electricity (Base: All Respondents)

Strongly Disagree8%

Disagree22%


14%

Agree46%

Strongly Agree11%

24

Table 10: Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)


4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+


8% 5% 12% 9% 14% 5% 8% 9%

Disagree (2) 22% 23% 19% 27% 29% 25% 26% 17%


14% 14% 15% 0% 14% 14% 15% 13%

Agree (4) 46% 46% 47% 45% 29% 48% 42% 49%

Strongly agree (5) 11% 12% 7% 18% 14% 9% 10% 12%

Mean 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.4

Mean Score of a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree

Table 11: Analysis by household size (i.e. number of people living in the household) and education (Base: All Respondents)

Household size Education

Scale Total 1-3 4-5 6+ Primary High

school Undergrad

. Postgrad.


8% 8% 9% - - 7% 10% 3%

Disagree (2) 22% 25% 20% 23% 44% 18% 22% 23%


14% 12% 14% 18% 44% 10% 9% 27%

Agree (4) 46% 45% 46% 50% 11% 53% 45% 43%

Strongly agree (5) 11% 10% 12% 9% - 12% 13% 3%

Mean 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.5 2.7 3.4 3.3 3.2

Mean Score of a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree

25

12. Comfort vs Energy savings

While more than one in three prosumers prefer comfort at home versus energy savings (27% agree and 8% strongly agree), one in ten opposes this view (12% respectively disagree). Nevertheless an important percentage of 44% held a neutral position.

Figure 20: Prefer comfort at home vs. energy savings (Base: All Respondents)

Strongly Disagree

1% Disagree11%


53%

Agree27%

Strongly Agree8%

26

Table 12: Prefer comfort at home vs. energy savings – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)


4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+


1% 1% 1% - - - 2% 1%

Disagree (2) 11% 12% 8% 9% - 14% 6% 13%


53% 53% 51% 64% 71% 61% 56% 45%

Agree (4) 27% 27% 30% 9% 14% 18% 27% 32%

Strongly agree (5) 8% 6% 10% 18% 14% 7% 6% 9%


- 1% - - - - 2% -

Mean 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.3


Table 13: Prefer comfort at home vs. energy savings – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of people living in the household) and education (Base: All Respondents)

Scale Total





1% - 2% - - 1% 1% -

Disagree (2) 11% 12% 9% 14% 11% 12% 10% 10%


53% 45% 57% 59% 33% 49% 54% 67%

Agree (4) 27% 33% 23% 27% 44% 34% 23% 20%

Strongly agree (5)

8% 10% 8% - 11% 4% 11% 3%


- - 1% - - - 1% -

Mean 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.2


27

13. Frequency of monitoring the smart meter measurements through the tablet or the web application

Even though prosumers mentioned that they have seen a change in the energy behaviour of their household, due to the intensive training and follow-up by the project team, only half of them use the web application or the tablet provided, in order to read the measurements of their smart meter. Sixteen per cent of the sample use it quite or very frequently, one in five sometimes (22%) and one in ten (12%) rarely. Among those who never used it, the tendency is more evident among older respondents 55+ years and women (56% respectively), as well as smaller households with up to 3 people (56%) and prosumers with primary or secondary education (89% and 66% respectively).

Figure 21: Frequency of Monitoring the Smart Meter Measurements through the Tablet or the Web Application (Base: All Respondents)

I have never used it

50%I rarely use it

12%

I use it sometimes

22%

I use it frequently

11%

I use it very frequently (daily

basis) 5%

28

Table 14: Frequency of Monitoring the Smart Meter Measurements through the Tablet or the Web Application – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

Total Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

I have never used it 50% 48% 52% 55% 43% 39% 48% 56%

I rarely use it 12% 14% 8% 18% 29% 16% 15% 8%

I use it sometimes 22% 25% 18% 9% 29% 27% 13% 25%

I use it frequently 11% 9% 14% 18% - 14% 19% 5%

I use it very frequently

5% 4% 8% - - 5% 5% 6%

Table 15: Frequency of Monitoring the Smart Meter Measurements through the Tablet or the Web Application – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of people living in the household) and education (Base: All Respondents)

Total




I have never used it

50% 56% 45% 50% 89% 66% 40% 30%

I rarely use it 12% 10% 13% 18% - 12% 11% 20%

I use it sometimes

22% 25% 20% 23% 11% 16% 26% 23%

I use it frequently

11% 5% 15% 9% - 4% 14% 20%

I use it very frequently

5% 4% 7% - - 1% 8% 7%

29

14. Degree of satisfaction with the smart net metering system and dynamic tariffs offered by the project and the level of information provided

The positive impact of the project on the prosumers’ perceptions is verified by the fact that seven in ten are fairly or very satisfied with the smart net metering and dynamic tariffs offered by the project (32% and 39% respectively), while it is also very encouraging that an equally high proportion is either fairly or very satisfied by the level of information provided, which has resulted in increased levels of awareness about the issue of consumption level and tariffs. In fact seven in ten prosumers feel that they are fairly or very well informed (32% and 40% respectively) compared with the situation prior to the participation in the SmartPV project.

Figure 22: Degree of satisfaction with the smart net metering system and dynamic tariffs offered by the project and the level of information provided (Base: All Respondents)

39%

32%

16%

5%7%

1%

35% 34%

18%

6% 6%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neithersatisfied nordissatisfied

Fairlydissatisfied

Verydissatisfied

Don't know/Noanswer

Satisfaction with net metering & dynamic tariffs

Satisfaction with the level of information

30

15. Changes in prosumers’ level of information and knowledge about energy consumption and dynamic tariffs

More than seven in ten prosumers feel more informed about energy consumption issues and dynamic tariffs (72%), while another 14% of the sample has increased their knowledge due to participation in the SmartPV project, but to a limited degree. On the other hand, six per cent said they felt slightly informed or not at all (7%).

Figure 23: Changes in prosumers’ level of information and knowledge about energy consumption and dynamic tariffs (Base: All Respondents)

Not at all 7%

Slightly 6%


Fairly 32%

Very 40%

Don't know/No answer 1%

31

16. Prosumers’ perceptions about the impact on the electricity bill

Nearly two in three householders stated through the prosumers’ survey that they have seen a positive change in their electricity bill due to their participation in the SmartPV project (43% fairly and 21% very positive). Around one in four were neither positive nor negative, while nine per cent of the sample had a negative opinion.

Figure 24: Prosumers’ perceptions about the impact on the electricity bill (Base: All Respondents)

Very positive 21%

Fairly positive 43%

Neither positive nor negative 23%

Fairly negative 5%

Very negative 4%


32

Table 16: Prosumers’ perceptions about the impact on the electricity bill – Analysis by number of rooms in the property and respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

Total Number of rooms Age

4-6 7-9 10+ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+

Very negative 4% 4% 4% 9% - 5% 6% 3%

Fairly negative 5% 6% 3% 9% 14% 7% 6% 2%


23% 20% 29% 27% 29% 18% 19% 28%

Fairly positive 43% 47% 38% 36% 29% 50% 42% 42%

Very positive 21% 21% 22% 18% 29% 20% 18% 24%

Don’t know/no answer

3% 2% 4% - - - 8% 1%

Table 17: Prosumers’ perceptions about the impact on the electricity bill – Analysis by household size (i.e. number of people living in the household) and education (Base: All Respondents)

Total




Very negative 4% 3% 5% 5% - 4% 6% -

Fairly negative 5% 3% 5% 14% - 6% 5% 3%


23% 25% 23% 18% 44% 25% 16% 37%

Fairly positive 43% 40% 46% 41% 22% 44% 44% 43%

Very positive 21% 27% 18% 18% 22% 21% 24% 13%

Don’t know/no answer

3% 3% 3% 5% 11% - 4% 3%

33

17. Prosumers’ perceptions about the payback period of their investment in RES

The vast majority of prosumers (81%) are either very positive or fairly positive (46% and 35% respectively) about the payback period of their investment in RES, since as already demonstrated in earlier sections they have had a positive experience so far with net metering schemes and the implementation of ToU tariffs through the participation in SmartPV.

Figure 25: Prosumers’ perceptions about the payback period of their investment in RES (Base: All Respondents)

Very positive 46%

Fairly positive 35%


Fairly negative 4%Very negative 1%


34

18. Prosumers’ willingness to invest in RES or other energy efficiency measures in the future

Prosumers’ positive experience recorded through previous sections of the report is also evident through their willingness to invest in RES or other energy efficiency measures in the future, since almost eight in ten (77%) were fairly or very willing (25% and 52% respectively) and another 12% of the sample willing to a limited extent. Around one in ten were rather unwilling to proceed with another investment in RES. It appears that among those who were very willing to invest further, the tendency was greater according to the level of education of prosumers (77% among those with postgraduate qualifications).

Figure 26: Prosumers’ willingness to invest in RES or other energy efficiency measures in the future (Base: All Respondents)

Very willing 52%

Fairly willing 25%


Slightly willing 2%

Not willing at all 7%


35

19. Prosumers’ willingness to extend their participation in the SmartPV program without the safety of the lower bill

Around two in three prosumers (63%) would be willing to extend their participation in the program without the safety of paying the lower bill in case the cost is higher than what they would have paid if they were charged the normal tariff (Tariff 5). To a limited degree mentioned one in ten (11%) and one in five would rather not participate (20%) even if they had this option. As mentioned in the previous section, prosumers with postgraduate qualifications tended to appear more willing towards extending participation in the smart net metering scheme applied through SmartPV (47% were very willing).

Figure 27: Prosumers’ willingness to extend their participation in the SmartPV program without the safety of the lower bill (Base: All Respondents)

Very willing 30%

Fairly willing 33%


Slightly willing 3%



36

20. Demographic analysis

20.1. Number of rooms in the household

The great majority of survey respondents said they had up to six rooms within their households (59%), while one third were living in households with 7-9 rooms, and just 5% of the sample lived in households with more than ten rooms.

Figure 28: Number of rooms in the household (Base: All Respondents)

4-659%

7-935% 10+

5%

37

20.2. Respondents’ age

Nearly half of the respondents belonged to the older age group 55+ (55%), while three out of ten belonged to the 45-54 age group. A smaller proportion of the sample belonged 35-44 age group (21%) and only three per cent was between 25-34 years.

Figure 29: Respondents’ age (Base: All Respondents)

25-343%

35-4421%

45-5430%

55+45%

38

20.3Household size

About half of the prosumers that participated in the survey belonged to a household with 4-5 persons (54%) and around one in three in households of 1-3 persons (35%). A minority of prosumers mentioned that their household consisted of 6+ persons (11%).

Figure 30: Size of household (i.e. number of people living in the household) (Base: All Respondents)

1-335%

4-554%

6+11%

39

20.4. Education of survey respondents

Nearly half of the prosumers in the sample were holders of a Bachelors’ degree (48%), while just over one tenth of the respondents had a Masters’ degree. A third of the sample were high-school graduates (33%) and just 4% of the sample were primary school graduates.

Figure 31: Respondents’ education (Base: All Respondents)

Primary4% High school

33%

Undergraduate48%

Postgraduate15%


121

9.3. Appendix 3: Survey among stakeholders – Wave 1 –


1

Survey findings highlighted that stakeholders were familiar with the SmartPV project, with the majority having an overall positive perception about the net metering scheme. The majority stated that the most important benefit of prosumers’ participation in the project was the improved energy behaviour and the expectation was that the project would have made a significant impact on the transfer of loads. The ability to monitor the energy costs was considered as the most important benefit of the energy management system and the most important motive for its utilisation by prosumers appeared to be the lower electricity bill. Stakeholders held overall a positive opinion about the ToU tariffs. The questionnaire was available at https://goo.gl/forms/wSFMXSBUPWQ3cz0a2.

Appendix 3

Survey among stakeholders – Wave 1


2

1. Organisation Type

Four in ten stakeholders (40%) worked in the private sector, nearly one in four in the public sector and one in three in another type of organisation. Only 2% of the sample belonged to an association. Figure 1: Organisation Type (Base: All respondents)

Public 24%

Private 40%

Association2%

Other 34%

3

2. Perceptions about the net metering scheme

Using a five-point scale where 1=very negative and 5=very positive, the vast majority of stakeholders expressed positive perceptions about the net metering scheme (34% positive and 54% very positive). A smaller proportion held a neutral position (12%).

Figure 2: Perceptions about the net metering scheme (Base: All respondents)

Neither positive nor

negative 12%

Positive34%

Very Positive 54%

4

3. Awareness of Smart PV Project As far as the stakeholders’ degree of awareness of the project was concerned, around two in five either have heard a lot about the project or knew enough about it (17% and 27% respectively). A lower proportion knew very little about the project (39%), whilst one in six was completely unaware of the SmartPV project (17%).

Figure 3: Awareness of Smart PV project (Base: All respondents)

I do not know anything 17%

I know very little39%

I know enough about the project

27%

I know/heard a lot about the project

17%

5


Seven in ten respondents (70%) reported that the most beneficial aspect of participation to the SmartPV project was the improved energy behaviour and the consumption of electricity at different times of day depending on the charging zone. In addition, the lower cost of electricity and associated economic benefits and awareness raising, information and training with regard to the ToU tariffs, were also mentioned by nearly half of the sample (46% respectively). Electricity saving was reported as a benefit by one in three stakeholders (34%). Table 1: Perceptions about the benefits of participation in the SmartPV project (Base: All who know about the project - 16 responses)


70%

Lower electricity cost/economic benefits 46%


46%

Saving electricity 34%

6

5. Perceptions about the impact of the energy management system (EMS) on consumer behaviour

Stakeholders expressed the belief that the EMS implemented through the project would have a notable impact on prosumers’ energy behaviour. In fact, nearly nine ten believed that it would contribute a little (15%), to a fairly large extent (68%) or large extent (17%).

Figure 4: Perceptions about the impact of the energy management system (EMS) on consumer behaviour (Base: All respondents)

Would contribute a litte15%

Would contribute to a fairly large extent

68%

Would contribute to a large extent

17%

7

6. Perceptions regarding the benefits of an EMS

The ability to monitor energy costs was considered as the top benefit of an EMS according to three in four stakeholders (73%). The avoidance of excessive use of energy followed in the second place (68%) and the education on the importance of energy saving came third (63%). Other benefits were also mentioned by large proportions of stakeholders but to a comparatively lesser extent.

Table 2: Perceptions regarding the benefits of an EMS (Base: All respondents)

Ability to monitor energy costs 73%

Avoidance of excessive use of energy / energy saving 68%

Education on the importance of energy saving 63%

Reduction of the electricity bill 61%

Load Transfer 56%

Improving energy security for future generations 49%

Protecting the environment from emissions caused by electricity consumption from fossil fuels

46%

Financially advantageous tariff depending on time of day used 44%

Preventing overcharging and bills based in estimations 27%

8

6. Perceptions regarding the disadvantages of EMS installation and use

Four out of ten survey participants revealed that the main disadvantage of the energy management system was the difficulty in understanding and using the system (43,8%), whereas an equal proportion mentioned no disadvantage with the installation and use of the EMS (37,5%). The risk of breaching law provisions as regards the management of personal data came in third (31,30%), while a quarter of the participants mentioned that the operational costs related to meter communication are also a prohibitory factor of EMS installation. Only a small minority mentioned the possible one-off charge for the purchase and installation of the meter (18,80%) to be a disadvantage of the EMS, whereas very few individuals were concerned with the job losses of individuals in charge of meter indications reporting (6,3%).

Table 3: Perceptions regarding the disadvantages of EMS installation and use (Base: All respondents)

Possible operational costs related to meter communication 49%

Possible one-off charge for the purchase and installation of the meter 44%

Difficulty in understanding and using the system 29%

No disadvantage 17%

Risk of breaching law provisions as regards the management of personal data 15%

Don’t know 15%

9

7. Importance of incentives for enabling consumers to utilize EMS Using a 5-point scale where 1=not important at all and 5=very important, survey participants were asked to rate the different incentives for enabling consumers to utilize EMS in their homes. Survey findings reveal that the strongest incentive for almost every stakeholder was the lower electricity bill (98% thought of it as fairly/ very important). This was followed by lower tariffs (88% fairly/very important), whereas the more detailed consumption analysis (81%) came in third.

Figure 5: Importance of incentives for enabling consumers to utilize EMS (Base: All respondents)

2%2%

29%

12%17%

22%

39%44%

39%

76%

27%

44% 42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower electricity bill Accurate and timelyinformation and

education for movingloads and management

consumption

Lower tariffs More detailed analysisof consumption

Not important at all Fairly unimportant

Neither important nor unimportant Fairly important

Very important

10

8. Stakeholders’ opinions about dynamic tariffs From the findings of the survey it appeared that stakeholders had a positive opinion as regards dynamic tariffs, as half of the sample expressed a very positive opinion (51%), and another one in four a positive opinion (25%). An almost equal proportion expressed a neither positive nor negative opinion (24%).

Figure 6: Stakeholders’ opinions about dynamic tariffs (Base: All respondents)


Positive 25%

Very Positive 51%

11

9. Support towards the exploitation of technologies leading to the application of dynamic and flexible tariffs

All of the survey respondents revealed their support towards the use of technologies that assist with the implementation of dynamic and flexible tariffs, which consequently lead to a fairer and more efficient use of energy resources. More specifically, one in three was fairly supportive and two in three very supportive (34% and 66% respectively).

Figure 7: Support towards the exploitation of technologies leading to the application of dynamic and flexible tariffs (Base: All respondents)

Fairly supportive34%

Very supportive

66%

12

10. Perceptions about the impact of SmartPV project on PV Demand Around three in ten stakeholders expressed the opinion that the SmartPV project would have a large impact on PV demand (63% fairly large and 10% large impact respectively). In addition, around three in ten said the project would have a minor impact.

Figure 8: Perceptions about the impact of SmartPV project on PV Demand (Base: All respondents)

Minor impact 27%

Fairly large impact 63%

Large impact10%


134

9.4. Appendix 4: Survey among stakeholders – Wave 2 –


1

Nearly nine in ten stakeholders expressed a positive opinion about the net metering scheme and a slightly higher proportion stated they were aware of the SmartPV project. More than eight in ten stakeholders believed that price based DSM, implemented through the project had a contribution on prosumers’ behaviour in connection to load transfer. The most important motivation for the adoption of DSM was according to stakeholders the lower tariffs. In fact, three in four stakeholders expressed a positive opinion about the implementation of dynamic tariffs and nearly nine in ten were supportive towards the utilisation of technologies that would help towards the adoption of dynamic and flexible tariffs.

Appendix 4

Survey among stakeholders – Wave 2


2

1. Organisation Type

Half of the stakeholders (50%) worked in the private sector, nearly one in five in an Association or another type of organisation (19% respectively), and a smaller proportion mentioned a public sector body (12%).

Figure 1: Organisation Type (Base: All respondents)

Public 12%

Private 50%

Association19%

Other 19%

3

2. Perceptions about the net metering scheme

Using a five-point scale where 1=very negative and 5=very positive, the vast majority of stakeholders expressed positive perceptions about the net metering scheme (25% positive and 63% very positive). A smaller proportion held a neutral position (12%).

Figure 2: Perceptions about the net metering scheme (Base: All respondents)

Neither positive nor

negative 12%

Positive25%

Very Positive 63%

4

3. Awareness of Smart PV Project As far as the stakeholders’ degree of awareness of the project was concerned, around two in five expressed awareness, with two in five knowing very little (44%), three in ten enough (31%) and six per cent mentioning they heard a lot.

Figure 3: Awareness of Smart PV project (Base: All respondents)

I do not know anything 19%

I know very little44%

I know enough about the project

31%

I know/heard a lot about the project

6%

5


Eight in ten respondents (81%) reported that the most beneficial aspect of participation to the SmartPV project was the improved energy behaviour and the consumption of electricity at different times of day depending on the charging zone. In addition, the lower cost of electricity and associated economic benefits, was also mentioned by half of the sample (50%). Electricity saving and the increased awareness on dynamic tariffs were other benefits that were reported by stakeholders (44% and 38%). Table 1: Perceptions about the benefits of participation in the SmartPV project (Base: All respondents)


81%

Lower electricity cost/economic benefits 50%

Saving electricity 44%


38%

6

5. Perceptions about the impact of the energy management system (EMS) on consumer behaviour

Stakeholders expressed the belief that the EMS implemented through the project had a notable impact on consumer behaviour. In fact, Two in five thought that the project has contributed to a fairly large/large extent (44%) and an equal proportion that it has contributed slightly (44%).

Figure 4: Perceptions about the impact of the energy management system (EMS) on consumer behaviour (Base: All respondents)

Has not contributed at all

12%

Has contributed slightly

44%

Has contributed to a fairly large extent

38%

Has contributed to a large extent

6%

7

6. Perceptions regarding the benefits of an EMS

About six out in ten stakeholders regarded the ability to monitor energy costs, the avoidance of excessive use of energy / energy saving and the reduction of the electricity bill to be the main benefits of the EMS (56% respectively). Education on the importance of energy saving, load transfer according to tariff, protection of the environment from emissions caused by electricity consumption from fossil fuels along with the financial benefits associated with the tariff depending on time of day used, were all equally thought to be important benefits of the EMS by almost four in ten (38%). The prevention of overcharging and bills based on estimations was mentioned by one in five stakeholders (19%), while the improvement of energy security for future generations was reported by just one out of ten.

Table 2: Perceptions regarding the benefits of an EMS (Base: All respondents)

Ability to monitor energy costs 56%

Avoidance of excessive use of energy / energy saving 56%

Reduction of the electricity bill 56%

Education on the importance of energy saving 38%

Load Transfer 38%

Protecting the environment from emissions caused by electricity consumption from fossil fuels 38%

Financially advantageous tariff depending on time of day used 38%

Preventing overcharging and bills based in estimations 19%

Improving energy security for future generations 13%

8

7. Perceptions regarding the disadvantages of EMS installation and use

Two in five stakeholders stated that the main disadvantage of the energy management system was the difficulty in understanding and using the system (44%), followed by the risk of breaching law provisions as regards the management of personal data (31%). One in four participants mentioned that the operational costs related to meter communication are also a prohibitory factor of EMS installation. Other disadvantages were mentioned by lower proportions.

Table 3: Perceptions regarding the disadvantages of EMS installation and use (Base: All respondents)

Difficulty in understanding and using the system 44%

Risk of breaching law provisions as regards the management of personal data 31%

Possible operational costs related to meter communication 25%

Possible one-off charge for the purchase and installation of the meter 19%

Job loss for people that report meter indications 6%

No disadvantage 38%

9

8. Importance of incentives for enabling consumers to utilize EMS Using a 5-point scale where 1=not important at all and 5=very important, stakeholders were asked to rate the different incentives for enabling consumers to utilize EMS in their homes. The strongest incentive for almost every stakeholder was lower tariffs (94% fairly/very important), followed by the lower electricity bill (88% fairly/ very important). Figure 5: Importance of incentives for enabling consumers to utilize EMS (Base: All respondents)

13%13%

6%

19%

6%

31%

6%

38%

25%31%

88%

19%

69%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower electricity bill Accurate and timelyinformation and education

for moving loads andmanagementconsumption


Not important at all Fairly unimportant

Neither important nor unimportant Fairly important

Very important

10

9. Stakeholders’ opinions about dynamic tariffs From the findings of the survey it became evident that three in four stakeholders had a positive opinion as regards dynamic tariffs (25% fairly positive and 50% very positive). Still one in four expressed a neutral position.

Figure 6: Stakeholders’ opinions about dynamic tariffs (Base: All respondents)

Neutral25%

Positive 25%

Very Positive50%

11

10. Support towards the exploitation of technologies leading to the application of dynamic and flexible tariffs

All stakeholders expressed their support towards the use of technologies that assist with the implementation of dynamic and flexible tariffs, which consequently lead to a fairer and more efficient use of energy resources. More specifically, three in five highlighted that they were very supportive (60%) of such technologies, while one in three stated that they were fairly supportive (27%) and one tenth stated that they were a little supportive (13%).

Figure 7: Support towards the exploitation of technologies leading to the application of dynamic and flexible tariffs (Base: All respondents)

Slightly supportive 13%

Fairly supportive 27%Very supportive

60%

12

11. Perceptions about the impact of SmartPV project on PV Demand The majority of stakeholders had the perception that the SmartPV project had a fairly large or large impact on PV demand (38% and 13% respectively), while another three in ten reported a minor impact. Only one in five selected the answer no impact at all (19%).

Figure 8: Perceptions about the impact of SmartPV project on PV Demand (Base: All respondents)

No impact at all19%

Minor impact31%

Fairly large impact

38%

Large impact13%


147

9.5. Appendix 5: Ερωτηματολόγιο έρευνας μεταξύ

καταναλωτών που συμμετέχουν στο έργο SmartPV – wave 1

1

Appendix 5 Ερωτηματολόγιο Έρευνας μεταξύ καταναλωτών που συμμετέχουν στο έργο

SmartPV –wave 1

Καλημέρα/ καλησπέρα/ χαίρεται. Είμαι ο/η… (όνομα ερευνητή) από…. (όνομα εταιρείας ερευνών/ υπεργολάβου) και επικοινωνώ μαζί σας αναφορικά με το έργο SmartPV στο

οποίο συμμετέχετε. Θα μπορούσα να σας απασχολήσω για λίγο;

0. Μπορείτε να μου πείτε σας παρακαλώ κατά πόσο είστε εσείς το πιο κατάλληλο άτομο από το υποστατικό σας για τα θέματα ηλεκτρικής κατανάλωσης και χρήσης ηλεκτρικών συσκευών, το οποίο έχει ήδη συναντηθεί με το προσωπικό της ΑΗΚ; ΕΑΝ ΝΑΙ, ΣΥΝΕΧΙΣΕ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΗ. ΕΑΝ ΟΧΙ, ΝΑ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΘΕΙ ΤΟ ΟΝΟΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΤΟΜΟΥ ΠΟΥ ΕΧΕΙ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΘΕΙ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΑΗΚ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΗΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΖΙ ΤΟΥ. ΕΑΝ ΔΕΝ ΜΠΟΡΕΙ ΝΑ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΕΙ ΤΟ ΑΡΜΟΔΙΟ ΓΙΑ ΘΕΜΑΤΑ ΗΛΕΚΤΡΙΚΗΣ ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΣΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΥΠΟΣΤΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΤΗ ΔΕΔΟΜΕΝΗ ΣΤΙΓΜΗ, ΝΑ ΔΙΕΥΘΕΤΗΘΕΙ ΚΑΤΑΛΛΗΛΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ ΚΑΙ ΩΡΑ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΓΙΝΕΙ Η ΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΗ ΤΗΛΕΦΩΝΙΚΑ.

1. Καταρχήν πείτε μου τι σας οδήγησε στην εγκατάσταση ΦΒ συστημάτων με το σχέδιο συμψηφισμού «net metering» στο υποστατικό σας; (Αυθόρμητα – Μην διαβάσεις) S3

Πρώτη αναφορά

Άλλες αναφορές

Μείωση λογαριασμού ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος/οικονομικό όφελος

1 1

Αποφυγή τυχόν μελλοντικών αυξήσεων στο ηλεκτρικό ρεύμα

2 2

Αυτοπαραγωγή ενέργειας/Ενεργειακή αυτονομία 3 3

Σχέδια επιδοτήσεων/επιχορηγήσεων 4 4

Περιβαλλοντικό όφελος/ μείωση εκπομπών αερίων ρύπων 5 5

Άλλο (διευκρινίστε) ………………………………………………………………

6 6

2. Χρησιμοποιώντας μια 5-βάθμια κλίμακα όπου 1=πολύ αρνητική και 5=πολύ θετική, ποια η

γνώμη σας για το σχέδιο net metering; (Διάβασε την κλίμακα – Μία απάντηση μόνο) S2

Πολύ αρνητική 1

Λίγο αρνητική 2

Ούτε θετική ούτε αρνητική 3

Λίγο θετική 4

Πολύ θετική 5

2

3. Ποια κατά τη γνώμη σας είναι τα οφέλη από τη συμμετοχή σας στο ερευνητικό έργο SmartPV; (Αυθόρμητα – Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S3

Εξοικονόμηση ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας 1

Χαμηλότερο κόστος ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος/οικονομικό όφελος

2

Βελτίωση ενεργειακής καταναλωτικής συμπεριφοράς/μετακίνηση φορτίων σε διαφορετικές περιόδους της μέρας (ζώνες) ανάλογα με την τιμή/ χρέωση

3

Ενημέρωση/ πληροφόρηση και εκπαίδευση για αξιοποίηση των δυναμικών διατιμήσεων Time-of-Use (διαφορά της τιμής της kWh ανάλογα με την ώρα της μέρας

4


5

4. Σε ποιο βαθμό γνωρίζετε για το σύστημα διαχείρισης ενέργειας που εφαρμόζεται μέσω του

προγράμματος SmartPV; Το σύστημα διαχείρισης ενέργειας δίδει έγκαιρες και έγκυρες πληροφορίες για την κατανάλωση ηλεκτρισμού μέσα από τη χρήση έξυπνων μετρητών και την αντίστοιχη ηλεκτρονική εφαρμογή. (Διάβασε τις επιλογές - Μία απάντηση μόνο) S3

Δεν γνωρίζω απολύτως τίποτα 1 → Ερ.6

Γνωρίζω ελάχιστα για το σύστημα 2

Γνωρίζω σε περιορισμένο βαθμό για το σύστημα 3

Γνωρίζω αρκετά για το σύστημα 4

Γνωρίζω τα πάντα για το σύστημα 5

5. ΝΑ ΕΡΩΤΗΘΟΥΝ ΟΛΟΙ ΟΣΟΙ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΑΝ 2-5 ΣΤΗΝ ΕΡ.4 ΜΟΝΟ

Από πού έχετε ακούσει ή πληροφορηθεί για αυτό το σύστημα διαχείρισης ενέργειας; (Αυθόρμητα - Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S3

Από την Αρχή Ηλεκτρισμού Κύπρου 1

Από τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης 2

Από τους συντελεστές του ερευνητικού προγράμματος SmartPV

3

Από το Υπουργείο Ενέργειας, Εμπορίου, Βιομηχανίας και Τουρισμού/ Υπηρεσία Ενέργειας

4

Από τη Ρυθμιστική Αρχή Ενέργειας Κύπρου 5

Αλλού (διευκρινίστε) ……………………………………………………………………

6

3

6. Νομίζετε ότι θα αλλάξει κάτι στη συμπεριφορά σας, μετά από την εγκατάσταση και χρήση του συστήματος διαχείρισης ενέργειας (με τη χρήση του μετρητή και του συστήματος πληροφόρησης) στο υποστατικό σας; (Διάβασε τις επιλογές - Μία απάντηση μόνο)S4

Δεν θα αλλάξει τίποτα 1

Θα αλλάξει ελάχιστα 2

Θα αλλάξει σε περιορισμένο βαθμό 3

Θα αλλάξει σε αρκετά μεγάλο βαθμό 4

Θα αλλάξει σε πολύ μεγάλο βαθμό 5

Δεν γνωρίζω 6

7. Ποια είναι κατά τη γνώμη σας είναι τα οφέλη του συστήματος διαχείρισης ενέργειας; (Αυθόρμητα) Ακολούθως διάβασε τα υπόλοιπα και σημείωσέ τα στη διπλανή στήλη. (Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S2/S3

Αυθόρμητα Βοηθούμενη

ΣΥΝΟΛΟ (Σύνολο Αυθόρμητης & Βοηθούμενης)

Αποφυγή αλόγιστης χρήσης της ενέργειας/ εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας

1 1 1

Μείωση του λογαριασμού του ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος που λαμβάνω για το υποστατικό μου

2 2 2

Αποφυγή υπερχρεώσεων και λογαριασμών βασισμένων σε εκτιμήσεις

3 3 3

Δυνατότητα παρακολούθησης της δαπάνης/κόστους κατανάλωσης ενέργειας

4 4 4

Δυνατότητα μετακίνησης καταναλώσεων ανάλογα με την ταρίφα

5 5 5

Προσφορά συμφέρουσας ταρίφας ανάλογα με την ποσότητα ενέργειας και τις ώρες της ημέρας που χρησιμοποιείται

6 6 6

Προστασία του περιβάλλοντος από τις εκπομπές ρύπων που προκαλούνται από την κατανάλωση ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας από συμβατικά καύσιμα

7 7 7

4

Διαπαιδαγώγηση για τη σημασία της εξοικονόμησης ενέργειας

8 8 8

Καλύτερη διαχείριση της προσφερόμενης ενέργειας από τις αρμόδιες αρχές

9 9 9

Βελτίωση της ενεργειακής ασφάλειας για τις επόμενες γενεές

10 10 10

Άλλο (διευκρινίστε) ……………………….

11 11 11

8. Ποια είναι κατά τη γνώμη σας τα μειονεκτήματα από την εγκατάσταση και χρήση του

συστήματος διαχείρισης ενέργειας (με τη χρήση του μετρητή και του συστήματος πληροφόρησης ή in-house display); (Αυθόρμητα – Μην βοηθήσεις – Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S2/S3

Δυσκολία στην κατανόηση και χρήση του συστήματος 1

Κίνδυνος παραβίασης προσωπικών δεδομένων 2

Απώλεια εργασίας για τα άτομα που καταγράφουν τις ενδείξεις στους μετρητές

3

Πιθανή εφάπαξ χρέωση για την αγορά και εγκατάσταση του μετρητή 4

Πιθανή χρέωση για λειτουργικό κόστος επικοινωνίας του μετρητή 5

Άλλο (διευκρινίστε) ……………………………………………………..

6

Κανένα μειονέκτημα 7


9. Ποια από τα πιο κάτω κίνητρα είναι τα πιο σημαντικά ώστε οι καταναλωτές γενικά να

αξιοποιούν ένα τέτοιο σύστημα διαχείρισης ενέργειας για τα υποστατικά τους; Για κάθε ένα παρακαλώ πέστε μου το βαθμό σημαντικότητας, χρησιμοποιώντας μία 5-βάθμια κλίμακα όπου 1=καθόλου σημαντικό και 5=πολύ σημαντικό. (Μία απάντηση μόνο) S2/S3

Χαμηλότερος λογαριασμός ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος 1 1 2 3 4 5

Έγκυρη και έγκαιρη ενημέρωση και εκπαίδευση για μετακίνηση φορτίων και διαχείριση καταναλώσεων 2 1 2 3 4 5

Χαμηλότερες διατιμήσεις (ταρίφες) 3 1 2 3 4 5

Πιο λεπτομερής ανάλυση της κατανάλωσης 4 1 2 3 4 5

5

10. Όσον αφορά την πιλοτική εφαρμογή της διατίμησης στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος SmartPV, σε ποιο βαθμό είστε πρόθυμος/η να μετακινήσετε κάποιες καταναλώσεις σας σε φθηνότερη ζώνη (π.χ. από την ακριβή στη μεσαία ή φτηνή ζώνη) (Διάβασε τις επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο);

Δεν είμαι καθόλου πρόθυμος/η 1

Ελάχιστα πρόθυμος/η 2

Σε περιορισμένο βαθμό 3

Αρκετά πρόθυμος/η 4

Πολύ πρόθυμος/η 5

11. Σε σχέση με 12 μήνες πριν η κατανάλωση ηλεκτρισμού στο υποστατικό σας … (Διάβασε τις

επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο);

Έχει μειωθεί πολύ 1

Έχει μειωθεί λίγο 2

Βρίσκεται στα ίδια επίπεδα 3

Έχει αυξηθεί λίγο 4

Έχει αυξηθεί πολύ 5

12. Τους τελευταίους 12 μήνες μήπως έχετε προβεί σε οποιεσδήποτε παρεμβάσεις στο

υποστατικό σας που να αφορούν στην εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας και την ενεργειακή αναβάθμιση; Εάν ναι, ποιες; (π.χ. επεμβάσεις στο κτίριο, αντικατάσταση λαμπτήρων, επεμβάσεις στο σύστημα θέρμανσης) (Πολλαπλές Απαντήσεις)

Ναι, έχω προβεί σε ενέργειες/παρεμβάσεις για εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας

1

Αντικατάσταση λαμπτήρων 2

Διπλά τζάμια (συμπεριλαμβάνονται παντζούρια, ρολά κλπ.) και κουφώματα

3

Ενίσχυση θερμομόνωσης τοίχων, μόνωση ταράτσας ή/και τοποθέτηση κελύφους

4

Σύστημα θέρμανσης 5

Άλλο (διευκρινίστε)

…………………………………………………………………… 6

Όχι 7

6

13. Σε ποιο βαθμό θα λέγατε ότι συμφωνείτε ή διαφωνείτε με τις ακόλουθες δηλώσεις με βάση μια 5-βάθμια κλίμακα όπου 1=διαφωνώ απόλυτα και 5=συμφωνώ απόλυτα (Διάβασε τις δηλώσεις εκ περιτροπής – Μία απάντηση μόνο για κάθε μια) 1=διαφωνώ απόλυτα 2=διαφωνώ εν μέρει 3=ούτε συμφωνώ ούτε διαφωνώ 4=συμφωνώ εν μέρει 5=συμφωνώ απόλυτα

Έχω προσπαθήσει να μειώσω την ποσότητα ενέργειας που καταναλώνουμε στο σπίτι.

1 2 3 4 5

Θα μπορούσα να κάνω περισσότερα για να μειώσω την ποσότητα ενέργειας που καταναλώνεται στο σπίτι.

1 2 3 4 5

Με ενδιαφέρει περισσότερο να αισθανόμαστε άνετα στο σπίτι, παρά να εξοικονομούμε ενέργεια.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Στα πλαίσια του ερευνητικού προγράμματος SmartPV πρόκειται να διεξαχθούν ομάδες συζήτησης (Focus Groups) με απώτερο σκοπό την καταγραφή των απόψεων και αντιλήψεων των καταναλωτών που συμμετέχουν στο πρόγραμμα σε ένα φιλικό και άνετο περιβάλλον. Θα σας ενδιέφερε να λάβετε μέρος;

Ναι 1

Όχι 2

Εξαρτάται/υπό προϋποθέσεις (διευκρινίστε)

……………………………………………………….. 3

7

Συμπληρωματικές Πληροφορίες (Τμήμα Δημογραφικών)

Δ.1. Ποιο από τα ακόλουθα περιγράφει καλύτερα τον τύπο του υποστατικού σας;

Διαμέρισμα ή Μεζονέτα 1

Ανεξάρτητη κατοικία 2

Ημι-ανεξάρτητη κατοικία 3

Άλλος τύπος (διευκρινίστε)

………………………………………………………… 4

Δ.2. Πόσα δωμάτια διαθέτει το υποστατικό σας (εξαιρούνται τα μπάνια/ αποχωρητήρια, αποθηκευτικοί χώροι, χώροι υποδοχής κλπ.) Παρακαλώ όπως συμπεριλάβετε όλα τα δωμάτια που χρησιμοποιείτε όπως για παράδειγμα κουζίνες, καθιστικά, υπνοδωμάτια, δωμάτια μελέτης κλπ.

………………………..

Δ.3. ΗΛΙΚΙΑ

18-24 1

25-34 2

35-44 3

45-54 4

55+ 5

Δ.4. ΦΥΛΟ

Άνδρας 1

Γυναίκα 2

Δ.5. ΑΡΙΘΜΟΣ ΑΤΟΜΩΝ/ΜΕΓΕΘΟΣ ΝΟΙΚΟΚΥΡΙΟΥ: …………………………

Δ.6. ΕΠΑΓΓΕΛΜΑ/ΜΟΡΦΩΣΗ

Δημοτικό 1

Γυμνάσιο/Λύκειο 2

Κολέγιο/Πανεπιστήμιο 3

Μεταπτυχιακό/Διδακτορικό 4


155

9.6 Appendix 6: Ερωτηματολόγιο μεταξύ καταναλωτών που

συμμετέχουν στο έργο SmartPv – wave 2

8

Appendix 6 Ερωτηματολόγιο Έρευνας μεταξύ καταναλωτών που συμμετέχουν στο έργο

SmartPV –wave 2

Καλημέρα/ καλησπέρα/ χαίρεται. Είμαι ο/η… (όνομα ερευνητή) από…. (όνομα εταιρείας ερευνών/ υπεργολάβου) και επικοινωνώ μαζί σας αναφορικά με το έργο SmartPV στο

οποίο συμμετέχετε. Θα μπορούσα να σας απασχολήσω για λίγο;

0. Μπορείτε να μου πείτε σας παρακαλώ κατά πόσο είστε εσείς το πιο κατάλληλο άτομο από το υποστατικό σας για τα θέματα ηλεκτρικής κατανάλωσης και χρήσης ηλεκτρικών συσκευών, το οποίο έχει ήδη συναντηθεί με το προσωπικό της ΑΗΚ;

ΕΑΝ ΝΑΙ, ΣΥΝΕΧΙΣΕ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΗ. ΕΑΝ ΟΧΙ, ΝΑ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΘΕΙ ΤΟ ΟΝΟΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΤΟΜΟΥ ΠΟΥ ΕΧΕΙ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΘΕΙ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΑΗΚ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΗΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΖΙ ΤΟΥ.

ΕΑΝ ΔΕΝ ΜΠΟΡΕΙ ΝΑ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΕΙ ΤΟ ΑΡΜΟΔΙΟ ΓΙΑ ΘΕΜΑΤΑ ΗΛΕΚΤΡΙΚΗΣ ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΣΗΣ ΤΟΥ ΥΠΟΣΤΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΤΗ ΔΕΔΟΜΕΝΗ ΣΤΙΓΜΗ, ΝΑ ΔΙΕΥΘΕΤΗΘΕΙ ΚΑΤΑΛΛΗΛΗ ΗΜΕΡΑ ΚΑΙ ΩΡΑ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΓΙΝΕΙ Η ΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΗ ΤΗΛΕΦΩΝΙΚΑ.

1. Ποια κατά τη γνώμη σας είναι τα οφέλη από τη συμμετοχή σας στο ερευνητικό έργο

SmartPV; (Αυθόρμητα – Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S3



2


3

Ενημέρωση/ πληροφόρηση και εκπαίδευση για αξιοποίηση των δυναμικών διατιμήσεων Time-of-Use (διαφορά της τιμής της kWh ανάλογα με την ώρα της μέρας

4


5

2. Σε ποιο βαθμό γνωρίζετε για τη τιμολογιακή Διαχείριση της Ζήτησης (price-based Demand

Side Management) που εφαρμόζεται μέσω του προγράμματος SmartPV; Η Διαχείριση της Ζήτησης ενέργειας επιτυγχάνεται με την έγκαιρη και έγκυρη πληροφόρηση για την κατανάλωση ηλεκτρισμού μέσα από τη χρήση «έξυπνων» μετρητών, την αντίστοιχη διαδικτυακή εφαρμογή (web application) καθώς και την χρήση της δυναμικής διατίμησης (Time-of-Use tariff). (Διάβασε τις επιλογές - Μία απάντηση μόνο) S3

Δεν γνωρίζω απολύτως τίποτα 1 → Ερ.4

Γνωρίζω ελάχιστα για το σύστημα 2

Γνωρίζω σε περιορισμένο βαθμό για το σύστημα 3

Γνωρίζω αρκετά για το σύστημα 4

Γνωρίζω τα πάντα για το σύστημα 5

9

ΝΑ ΕΡΩΤΗΘΟΥΝ ΟΛΟΙ ΟΣΟΙ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΑΝ 2-5 ΣΤΗΝ ΕΡ.3 ΜΟΝΟ 3. Από πού έχετε ακούσει ή πληροφορηθεί για αυτό το σύστημα διαχείρισης ενέργειας;

(Αυθόρμητα - Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S3

Από την Αρχή Ηλεκτρισμού Κύπρου 1

Από τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης 2

Από τους συντελεστές του ερευνητικού προγράμματος SmartPV

3

Από το Υπουργείο Ενέργειας, Εμπορίου, Βιομηχανίας και Τουρισμού/ Υπηρεσία Ενέργειας

4

Από τη Ρυθμιστική Αρχή Ενέργειας Κύπρου 5

Αλλού (διευκρινίστε) ……………………………………………………………………

6

4. Μετά από την εγκατάσταση του «έξυπνου» μετρητή στο υποστατικό σας και με τη χρήση

της διαδικτυακής εφαρμογής, σε ποιο βαθμό θα λέγατε ότι έχει αλλάξει η συμπεριφορά σας όσον αφορά την ενεργειακή σας κατανάλωση; (Διάβασε τις επιλογές - Μία απάντηση μόνο)S4

Δεν έχει αλλάξει τίποτα 1

Έχει αλλάξει ελάχιστα 2

Έχει αλλάξει σε περιορισμένο βαθμό 3

Έχει αλλάξει σε αρκετά μεγάλο βαθμό 4

Έχει αλλάξει σε πολύ μεγάλο βαθμό 5


5. Ποια είναι κατά τη γνώμη σας τα οφέλη της τιμολογιακής Διαχείρισης της Ζήτησης ; (Αυθόρμητα) Ακολούθως διάβασε τα υπόλοιπα και σημείωσέ τα στη διπλανή στήλη. (Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S2/S3

Αυθόρμητα Βοηθούμενη

ΣΥΝΟΛΟ (Σύνολο Αυθόρμητης & Βοηθούμενης)

Αποφυγή αλόγιστης χρήσης της ενέργειας/ εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας

1 1 1

Μείωση του λογαριασμού του ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος που λαμβάνω για το υποστατικό μου

2 2 2

Αποφυγή υπερχρεώσεων και λογαριασμών βασισμένων σε εκτιμήσεις

3 3 3


4 4 4

10

Δυνατότητα μετακίνησης καταναλώσεων ανάλογα με την ταρίφα

5 5 5

Προσφορά συμφέρουσας ταρίφας ανάλογα με την ποσότητα ενέργειας και τις ώρες της ημέρας που χρησιμοποιείται

6 6 6


7 7 7

Διαπαιδαγώγηση για τη σημασία της εξοικονόμησης ενέργειας

8 8 8

Καλύτερη διαχείριση της προσφερόμενης ενέργειας από τις αρμόδιες αρχές

9 9 9

Βελτίωση της ενεργειακής ασφάλειας για τις επόμενες γενεές

10 10 10


11 11 11

6. Ποια είναι κατά τη γνώμη σας τα μειονεκτήματα από την εγκατάσταση του «έξυπνου»

μετρητή και τη χρήση της διαδικτυακής εφαρμογής (Αυθόρμητα – Μην βοηθήσεις – Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S2/S3


Κίνδυνος παραβίασης προσωπικών δεδομένων 2


3




6



11

7. Ποια από τα πιο κάτω κίνητρα είναι τα πιο σημαντικά ώστε οι καταναλωτές γενικά να υιοθετήσουν την τιμολογιακή Διαχείριση της Ζήτησης; Για κάθε ένα παρακαλώ πέστε μου το βαθμό σημαντικότητας, χρησιμοποιώντας μία 5-βάθμια κλίμακα όπου 1=καθόλου σημαντικό και 5=πολύ σημαντικό. (Μία απάντηση μόνο) S2/S3





8. Όσον αφορά την πιλοτική εφαρμογή της διατίμησης στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος

SmartPV, σε ποιο βαθμό πιστεύετε ότι έχετε μετακινήσει κάποιες καταναλώσεις σας σε φθηνότερη ζώνη (π.χ. από την ακριβή στη μεσαία ή φτηνή ζώνη) (Διάβασε τις επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο); S4

Καθόλου 1

Ελάχιστα 2


Αρκετά 4

Πολύ 5

9. Σε σχέση με 12 μήνες πριν, η κατανάλωση ηλεκτρισμού στο υποστατικό σας … (Διάβασε

τις επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο);

Έχει μειωθεί πολύ 1

Έχει μειωθεί λίγο 2

Βρίσκεται στα ίδια επίπεδα 3

Έχει αυξηθεί λίγο 4

Έχει αυξηθεί πολύ 5

10. Τους τελευταίους 12 μήνες μήπως έχετε προβεί σε οποιεσδήποτε παρεμβάσεις στο

υποστατικό σας που να αφορούν στην εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας και την ενεργειακή αναβάθμιση; Εάν ναι, ποιες; (π.χ. επεμβάσεις στο κτίριο, αντικατάσταση λαμπτήρων, επεμβάσεις στο σύστημα θέρμανσης) (Πολλαπλές Απαντήσεις)

Ναι, έχω προβεί σε ενέργειες/παρεμβάσεις για εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας

1

Αντικατάσταση λαμπτήρων 2

Διπλά τζάμια (συμπεριλαμβάνονται παντζούρια, ρολά κλπ.) και κουφώματα

3

12

Ενίσχυση θερμομόνωσης τοίχων, μόνωση ταράτσας ή/και τοποθέτηση κελύφους

4

Σύστημα θέρμανσης 5

Άλλο (διευκρινίστε)

…………………………………………………………………… 6

Όχι 7

11. Σε ποιο βαθμό θα λέγατε ότι συμφωνείτε ή διαφωνείτε με τις ακόλουθες δηλώσεις με βάση

μια 5-βάθμια κλίμακα όπου 1=διαφωνώ απόλυτα και 5=συμφωνώ απόλυτα (Διάβασε τις δηλώσεις εκ περιτροπής – Μία απάντηση μόνο για κάθε μια)

1=διαφωνώ απόλυτα 2=διαφωνώ εν μέρει 3=ούτε συμφωνώ ούτε διαφωνώ 4=συμφωνώ εν μέρει 5=συμφωνώ απόλυτα

Έχω προσπαθήσει να μειώσω την ποσότητα ενέργειας που καταναλώνουμε στο σπίτι.

1 2 3 4 5

Θα μπορούσα να κάνω περισσότερα για να μειώσω την ποσότητα ενέργειας που καταναλώνεται στο σπίτι.

1 2 3 4 5

Με ενδιαφέρει περισσότερο να αισθανόμαστε άνετα στο σπίτι, παρά να εξοικονομούμε ενέργεια.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Όσον αφορά τη διαδικτυακή εφαρμογή μέσα από την οποία μπορείτε να παρακολουθείτε

εξ αποστάσεως τις ενδείξεις του μετρητή σας (από Η/Υ ή tablet), πόσο τακτικά τη χρησιμοποιείτε; (Διάβασε τις επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο);

Δεν την έχω χρησιμοποιήσει ποτέ 1

Τη χρησιμοποιώ σπάνια 2

Τη χρησιμοποιώ κάποιες φορές 3

Τη χρησιμοποιώ αρκετά συχνά 4

Τη χρησιμοποιώ πολύ συχνά (σε καθημερινή βάση) 5

13

13. Γενικά πόσο ικανοποιημένοι ή δυσαρεστημένοι είστε από το όλο σύστημα που εφαρμόζει το πρόγραμμα SmartPV με την εφαρμογή των δυναμικών διατιμήσεων και του ευφυούς συμψηφισμού (smart net metering), χρησιμοποιώντας μία πενταβάθμια κλίμακα όπου 1=πολύ δυσαρεστημένοι και 5=πολύ ικανοποιημένοι; (Μία απάντηση μόνο) S1

Πολύ δυσαρεστημένοι 1

Λίγο δυσαρεστημένοι 2

Ούτε δυσαρεστημένοι ούτε ικανοποιημένοι 3

Λίγο ικανοποιημένοι 4

Πολύ ικανοποιημένοι 5

14. Πόσο ικανοποιημένοι ή δυσαρεστημένοι είστε από το επίπεδο πληροφόρησης για το

πρόγραμμα SmartPV με την εφαρμογή των δυναμικών διατιμήσεων και του ευφυούς συμψηφισμού (smart net metering); (Μία απάντηση μόνο) S3

Πολύ δυσαρεστημένοι 1

Λίγο δυσαρεστημένοι 2

Ούτε δυσαρεστημένοι ούτε ικανοποιημένοι 3

Λίγο ικανοποιημένοι 4

Πολύ ικανοποιημένοι 5

15. Σε σχέση με το επίπεδο πληροφόρησης σας για το θέμα της ενεργειακής σας

κατανάλωσης και των διατιμήσεων, πριν από τη συμμετοχή σας στο πρόγραμμα του ευφυούς συμψηφισμού (smart net metering), σε ποιο βαθμό θα λέγατε ότι τώρα είστε πιο ενημερωμένοι; (Διάβασε τις επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο) S3

Καθόλου 1

Ελάχιστα 2


Αρκετά 4

Πολύ 5

14

16. Σε ποιο βαθμό πιστεύετε ότι έχει επηρεαστεί θετικά ο λογαριασμός ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος του υποστατικού σας ένεκα της συμμετοχής σας στο έργο Smart PV; (Διάβασε τις επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο) E1

Πολύ αρνητικά 1

Λίγο αρνητικά 2

Ούτε θετικά ούτε αρνητικά 3

Λίγο θετικά 4

Πολύ θετικά 5

17. Πόσο θετικά ή αρνητικά κρίνετε τη χρονική περίοδο απόσβεσης της επένδυσής σας σε

ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας; (Διάβασε τις επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο) E2

Πολύ αρνητικά 1

Λίγο αρνητικά 2

Ούτε θετικά ούτε αρνητικά 3

Λίγο θετικά 4

Πολύ θετικά 5

18. Και πόσο διατεθειμένοι θα λέγατε ότι είστε να επενδύσετε στο μέλλον σε ανανεώσιμες

πηγές ενέργειας ή άλλα μέτρα εξοικονόμησης ενέργειας; (Διάβασε τις επιλογές – Μία απάντηση μόνο) S4

Καθόλου 1

Ελάχιστα 2


Αρκετά 4

Πολύ 5

19. Μήπως έχετε δει ή ακούσει κάποια διαφήμιση στα ΜΜΕ για τη μείωση της ενεργειακής κατανάλωσης που προωθεί το έργο SmartPV;

Ναι 1

Όχι 2

15

20. Σε ποιο βαθμό είστε πρόθυμοι να συνεχίσετε τη συμμετοχή σας στο πρόγραμμα (λογαριασμός SmartPV-Δυναμική Διατίμηση) χωρίς να σας παρέχεται η ασφάλεια του χαμηλότερου λογαριασμού (δηλαδή στο τέλος του κάθε διμήνου ο λογαριασμός σας θα υπολογίζεται αποκλειστικά βάση της Δυναμικής Διατίμησης. Η σύγκριση με Διατίμηση 05 και η χρέωση του χαμηλότερου λογαριασμού θα παύει να υφίσταται);

Καθόλου 1

Ελάχιστα 2


Αρκετά 4

Πολύ 5

21. Τέλος, στα πλαίσια του ερευνητικού προγράμματος SmartPV πρόκειται να διεξαχθούν

ομάδες συζήτησης (Focus Groups) με απώτερο σκοπό την καταγραφή των απόψεων και αντιλήψεων των καταναλωτών που συμμετέχουν στο πρόγραμμα σε ένα φιλικό και άνετο περιβάλλον. Θα σας ενδιέφερε να λάβετε μέρος;

Ναι 1

Όχι 2

Εξαρτάται/υπό προϋποθέσεις (διευκρινίστε)

……………………………………………………….. 3

16

Συμπληρωματικές Πληροφορίες (Τμήμα Δημογραφικών)

Δ.1. Ποιο από τα ακόλουθα περιγράφει καλύτερα τον τύπο του υποστατικού σας;

Διαμέρισμα ή Μεζονέτα 1

Ανεξάρτητη κατοικία 2

Ημι-ανεξάρτητη κατοικία 3

Άλλος τύπος (διευκρινίστε)

………………………………………………………… 4

Δ.2. Πόσα δωμάτια διαθέτει το υποστατικό σας (εξαιρούνται τα μπάνια/ αποχωρητήρια, αποθηκευτικοί χώροι, χώροι υποδοχής κλπ.) Παρακαλώ όπως συμπεριλάβετε όλα τα δωμάτια που χρησιμοποιείτε όπως για παράδειγμα κουζίνες, καθιστικά, υπνοδωμάτια, δωμάτια μελέτης κλπ.

………………………..

Δ.3. ΗΛΙΚΙΑ

18-24 1

25-34 2

35-44 3

45-54 4

55+ 5

Δ.4. ΦΥΛΟ

Άνδρας 1

Γυναίκα 2

Δ.5. ΑΡΙΘΜΟΣ ΑΤΟΜΩΝ/ΜΕΓΕΘΟΣ ΝΟΙΚΟΚΥΡΙΟΥ: …………………………

Δ.6. ΕΠΑΓΓΕΛΜΑ/ΜΟΡΦΩΣΗ

Δημοτικό 1

Γυμνάσιο/Λύκειο 2

Κολέγιο/Πανεπιστήμιο 3

Μεταπτυχιακό/Διδακτορικό 4

Έχουμε ολοκληρώσει την έρευνα. Ευχαριστώ πολύ για το χρόνο σας.


165

9.7 Appendix 7: Ερωτηματολόγιο έρευνας μεταξύ

εμπλεκόμενων φορέων / οργανισμών (wave 1 & wave 2)

17

Appendix 7 Ερωτηματολόγιο Έρευνας μεταξύ εμπλεκόμενων φορέων/ οργανισμών (wave 1 &

wave 2)

15. Χρησιμοποιώντας μια 5-βάθμια κλίμακα όπου 1=πολύ αρνητική και 5=πολύ θετική, ποια η γνώμη σας για το σχέδιο net metering; (Μία απάντηση μόνο) S2






16. Σε ποιο βαθμό γνωρίζετε ή έχετε ακούσει για το ερευνητικό έργο SmartPV; (Μία απάντηση

μόνο) S2

Δεν γνωρίζω τίποτα 1

Γνωρίζω ελάχιστα για το έργο 2

Γνωρίζω αρκετά για το έργο 3

Γνωρίζω/ έχω ακούσει σε μεγάλο βαθμό για το έργο 4

17. Εάν η απάντηση σας είναι ότι γνωρίζετε έστω και ελάχιστα για το έργο (Κωδ. 2-4 στην

προηγούμενη Ερ.) Ποια κατά τη γνώμη σας είναι τα οφέλη συμμετοχής των καταναλωτών-παραγωγών ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας από ΦΒ στο ερευνητικό έργο SmartPV; (Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S3



2


3

Ενημέρωση/ πληροφόρηση και εκπαίδευση για αξιοποίηση των δυναμικών διατιμήσεων Time-of-Use (διαφορετική τιμή της kWh ανάλογα με την ώρα της μέρας προς υποστήριξη του δικτύου)

4


5

18

18. Σε ποιο βαθμό πιστεύετε ότι το σύστημα διαχείρισης ενέργειας που εφαρμόζεται μέσω του προγράμματος SmartPV με τη χρήση έξυπνων μετρητών θα συμβάλει στην αλλαγή της καταναλωτικής συμπεριφοράς ως προς τη μετακίνηση των φορτίων; S3 (Μία απάντηση μόνο)

Δεν θα συμβάλει καθόλου 1

Θα συμβάλει ελάχιστα 2

Θα συμβάλει σε αρκετά μεγάλο βαθμό 3

Θα συμβάλει σε μεγάλο βαθμό 4

19. Ποια είναι κατά τη γνώμη σας τα οφέλη ενός συστήματος διαχείρισης ενέργειας; Το σύστημα

διαχείρισης ενέργειας δίδει έγκαιρες και έγκυρες πληροφορίες για την κατανάλωση ηλεκτρισμού μέσα από τη χρήση έξυπνων μετρητών και την αντίστοιχη ηλεκτρονική εφαρμογή. (Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S2/S3

Αποφυγή αλόγιστης χρήσης της ενέργειας/ εξοικονόμηση ενέργειας 1

Μείωση του λογαριασμού του ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος των υποστατικών 2

Αποφυγή υπερχρεώσεων και λογαριασμών βασισμένων σε εκτιμήσεις 3


4

Δυνατότητα μετακίνησης καταναλώσεων ανάλογα με την ταρίφα 5

Προσφορά συμφέρουσας διατίμησης ανάλογα με τις ώρες της ημέρας που χρησιμοποιείται

6


7

Διαπαιδαγώγηση για τη σημασία της εξοικονόμησης ενέργειας 8

Καλύτερη διαχείριση της προσφερόμενης ενέργειας από τις αρμόδιες αρχές 9

Βελτίωση της ενεργειακής ασφάλειας για τις επόμενες γενεές 10


11

19

20. Ποια είναι κατά τη γνώμη σας τα μειονεκτήματα από την εγκατάσταση και χρήση του συστήματος διαχείρισης ενέργειας (με τη χρήση του μετρητή και του συστήματος πληροφόρησης ή in-house display); (Πολλαπλές απαντήσεις) S2/S3


Κίνδυνος παραβίασης προνοιών της νομοθεσίας που καλύπτουν την ορθολογική διαχείριση προσωπικών δεδομένων

2


3




6



21. Ποια από τα πιο κάτω κίνητρα είναι τα πιο σημαντικά ώστε οι καταναλωτές γενικά να

αξιοποιούν ένα τέτοιο σύστημα διαχείρισης ενέργειας για τα υποστατικά τους; Για κάθε ένα δηλώστε το βαθμό σημαντικότητας, χρησιμοποιώντας μία 5-βάθμια κλίμακα όπου 1=καθόλου σημαντικό και 5=πολύ σημαντικό. (Μία απάντηση μόνο) S2/S3





22. Όπως πιθανόν να έχετε ακούσει στα πλαίσια του προγράμματος SmartPV γίνεται πιλοτική

εφαρμογή της διατίμησης με στόχο τη μετακίνηση κάποιων καταναλώσεων σε φθηνότερη ζώνη (π.χ. από την ακριβή στη μεσαία ή φτηνή ζώνη) προς υποστήριξη αναγκών του δικτύου για μείωση του συνολικού κόστους προμήθειας ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας. Ποια είναι η γνώμη σας για το θέμα εφαρμογής της δυναμικής διατίμησης; (Μία απάντηση μόνο) S1






20

23. Σε ποιο βαθμό υποστηρίζετε την αξιοποίηση τεχνολογιών που θα βοηθήσουν στην εφαρμογή των δυναμικών και ευέλικτων διατιμήσεων που θα οδηγούν σε δικαιότερη και αποτελεσματικότερη χρήση των ενεργειακών πόρων; (Μία απάντηση μόνο)

Καθόλου 1

Λίγο 2

Αρκετά 3

Πολύ 4

24. Σε ποιο βαθμό εκτιμάται ότι το πρόγραμμα SmartPV ενδεχομένως να επηρεάσει θετικά τη ζήτηση των ΦΒ μέσω του σχεδίου net metering; (Μία απάντηση μόνο)

Δεν θα επηρεάσει καθόλου 1

Θα επηρεάσει ελάχιστα 2

Θα επηρεάσει σε αρκετά μεγάλο βαθμό 3

Θα επηρεάσει σε μεγάλο βαθμό 4

Κατηγορία φορέα

Δημόσιος 1

Ιδιωτικός τομέας, επιχείρηση 2

Σύνδεσμος 3

Άλλο 4


170

9.8 Appendix 8: Key bibliographic references

1

Annex 8: Key bibliographic references Key Bibliography

Almirall Garcia P. (2008), Montse Moix Bergadà and Pau Queraltó Ros, The Socio-economic Impact of the Spatial Data Infrastructure of Catalonia, (European Commission Joint Research Centre, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).

Boie, I., Fernadnes, C. Frias, P., & Klobasa, M. (2014), Efficient strategies for the integration of renewable energy into future energy infrastructures in Europe – An analysis based on transnational modelling and case studies for nine European regions, from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151301121X (accessed 5 August 2015)

Clean Energy Council (2016), Analysis of demand-side management opportunities, from https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/dam/cec/policy-and-advocacy/ARENA/FPDI/CEC-demand-side-management-report.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2017)

CONCERTO (2010), Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Report, from: https://www.google.com.cy/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjd1oSHnLHXAhUE7CYKHUIjBTkQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smartcities-infosystem.eu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fconcerto_files%2Fconcerto_publications%2FCONCERTO-SOCIO-ECONOMIC_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_REPORT_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1F4YYLgbGGjSWdy8Iz4euq

Council of the European Union (2012), Transport, Telecommunications and Energy, (Press Release, 3171st Council meeting, Luxembourg, 7 and 8 June 2012).

Department of Energy & Climate Change (2014), Quantitative Research into public awareness, attitudes, and experience of smart meters: wave 4, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/quantitative-research-into-public-awareness-attitudes-and-experience-of-smart-meters-wave-4 (accessed 3 October 2016)

Eissa, M.M. (2011), Demand side management program evaluation based on industrial and commercial field data, from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511005131 (accessed 3 June 2014)

Eurelectric (2017), Dynamic pricing in electricity supply, from http://www.eurelectric.org/media/309103/dynamic_pricing_in_electricity_supply-2017-2520-0003-01-e.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2017)

European Commission (2009), Guidance for assessing Social Impacts within the Commission Impact Assessment system, from: https://www.google.com.cy/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOtLqFgLTXAhVMKsAKHf9FBuEQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fsmart-regulation%2Fimpact%2Fkey_docs%2Fdocs%2Fguidance_for_assessing_social_impacts.pdf&usg=AOvVaw06oavFp0GyZs5Es5qF7z9w (accessed 6 February 2015)

2

European Commission (2009), Impact Assessment Guidelines, from http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf (accessed 6 February 2015)

European Commission (2010), CONCERTO Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Report, from http://www.smartcities-infosystem.eu/sites/default/files/concerto_files/concerto_publications/CONCERTO-SOCIO-ECONOMIC_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_REPORT_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.pdf (accessed 5 August 2015)

European Commission (2010), CONCERTO Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Report, from http://www.smartcities-infosystem.eu/sites/default/files/concerto_files/concerto_publications/CONCERTO-SOCIO-ECONOMIC_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_REPORT_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.pdf (accessed 5 August 2015)

European Commission (2010), Energy 2020: A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0639:FIN:En:PDF (accessed 6 February 2013)

European Commission (2013), Renewable Energy Progress Report, from http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2013/EN/1-2013-175-EN-F1-1.Pdf (accessed 28 January 2014)

Fahrioglu, M. (2015) Effect of demand management on regulated and deregulated electricity sectors, from: Fahrioglu, M. (2015) Effect of demand management on regulated and deregulated electricity sectors, from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515302317 (accessed on 27 September 2016)

Feuerriegel, S. & Neumann, D. (2016) Integration scenarios of Demand Response into electricity markets: Load shifting, financial savings and policy implications, from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516302804 (accessed on 27 October 2017)

Georgiou, A., Ioannou, P., & Christodoulides, P. (2013), Domestic Electricity Consumption and the Public Awareness Factor, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259738312_Domestic_Electricity_consumption_and_the_public_awareness_factor (accessed 10 March 2015).

HELM Group and Zenc (2006), Measuring European Public Sector Information Resources (MEPSIR), (Directorate General for the Information Society, European Commission).

Kalkbrenner, B.J., Yonezawa, K. & Roosen, J. (2016) Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter, from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517302355 (accessed on 1 March 2017)

Kanellakis, M., Martinopoulos, G. & Zachariadis, T. (2013), European energy policy – A review, from: https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v62y2013icp1020-1030.html (accessed 15 February 2016)

3

Koski H. (2011), Does Marginal Cost Pricing of Public Sector Information Spur Firm Growth?

MDF Tool: Indicators from http://www.undg.org/docs/11652/MDF-Indicators-Brief-(2005).pdf (accessed 3 June 2014)

Neueleers, S. Mulders, M. & Hindricks, F. (2017), Assessing fairness of dynamic grid tariffs, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517303129 (accessed 10 March 2015)

Ramalho, M.S., Camara, L., Pereira, G.I., Silva, P.P., & Dantas, G. (2017) Photovoltaic energy diffusion through net-metering and feed-in tariff policies: Learning from Germany, California, Japan and Brazil, from: http://www.gesel.ie.ufrj.br/app/webroot/files/publications/01_ELAEE%202017%20-%20Camara_Ramalho_Pereira_Silva_Dantas.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2017)

Ramirez, F.J., Honrubia-Escribano, A., Gomez-Lazaro, E. & Pham D.T. (2017), Combining feed-in tariffs and net-metering schemes to balance development in adoption of photovoltaic energy: Comparative economic assessment and policy implications for European countries, from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307078 (accessed on 30 October 2017)

Science for Environment Policy (2017), Renewable-energy technologies can help meet the increased cooling demand in cities due to climate change. Issue 492: A service from the European Commission

The Brattle Group (2017), The Value of TOU Tarrifs in Great Britain: Insights for Decision-makers, from http://www.brattle.com/system/publications/pdfs/000/005/467/original/The_Value_of_TOU_Tariffs_in_Great_Britain_Insights_for_Decision-makers.pdf?1499443854 (accessed 9 November 2017)

The European Consumer Organisation (2015), Building a consumer-centric Energy Union, from http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2015-068_mst_building_a_consumer-centric_energy_union.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2017)

U.S. Department of Energy (2016), Energy Policy Case Study – California: Renewables and Distributed Energy Resources, from: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-25821.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2017)

smart net metering for promotion and cost- efficient … seis_v.2.pdfthe project will aim to...

Documents