TY - JOUR
T1 - Social norms and energy conservation
AU - Allcott, Hunt
N1 - Funding Information:
I thank, without implicating, Ian Ayres, Bob Cialdini, Tyler Curtis, Rajeev Dehejia, Kenneth Gillingham, Larry Goulder, Michael Greenstone, Matt Harding, Kosuke Imai, Seema Jayachandran, Karthik Kalyanaraman, Alex Kaufman, Ogi Kavazovic, Alex Laskey, Aprajit Mahajan, Justin Marion, Sendhil Mullainathan, Dave Rapson, Todd Rogers, Eldar Shafir, Joe Shapiro, Lan Shi, Marc Solomon, Dmitry Taubinsky, two anonymous referees, and seminar participants at the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Defense Fund, Harvard, the National Tax Association Annual Meetings, Stanford, and the University of Wisconsin for helpful conversations and feedback on this project. Appendix A
PY - 2011/10
Y1 - 2011/10
N2 - This paper evaluates a series of programs run by a company called OPOWER to send Home Energy Report letters to residential utility customers comparing their electricity use to that of their neighbors. Using data from randomized natural field experiments at 600,000 treatment and control households across the United States, I estimate that the average program reduces energy consumption by 2.0%. The program provides additional evidence that non-price interventions can substantially and cost effectively change consumer behavior: the effect is equivalent to that of a short-run electricity price increase of 11 to 20%, and the cost effectiveness compares favorably to that of traditional energy conservation programs. Perhaps because the treatment included descriptive social norms, effects are heterogeneous: households in the highest decile of pre-treatment consumption decrease usage by 6.3%, while consumption by the lowest decile decreases by only 0.3%. A regression discontinuity design shows that different categories of "injunctive norms" played an insignificant role in encouraging relatively low users not to increase usage.
AB - This paper evaluates a series of programs run by a company called OPOWER to send Home Energy Report letters to residential utility customers comparing their electricity use to that of their neighbors. Using data from randomized natural field experiments at 600,000 treatment and control households across the United States, I estimate that the average program reduces energy consumption by 2.0%. The program provides additional evidence that non-price interventions can substantially and cost effectively change consumer behavior: the effect is equivalent to that of a short-run electricity price increase of 11 to 20%, and the cost effectiveness compares favorably to that of traditional energy conservation programs. Perhaps because the treatment included descriptive social norms, effects are heterogeneous: households in the highest decile of pre-treatment consumption decrease usage by 6.3%, while consumption by the lowest decile decreases by only 0.3%. A regression discontinuity design shows that different categories of "injunctive norms" played an insignificant role in encouraging relatively low users not to increase usage.
KW - Energy demand
KW - Randomized field experiments
KW - Social norms
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79961027119&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79961027119&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
DO - 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:79961027119
SN - 0047-2727
VL - 95
SP - 1082
EP - 1095
JO - Journal of Public Economics
JF - Journal of Public Economics
IS - 9-10
ER -