EMPOWERING_D2.2b

Project co-‐funded by the European Commission within the IEE Programme

Dissemination Level PU Public x CO Consortium and EASME

The sole responsibility for the content of this deliverable lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union.

Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

EMPOWERING customers to save energy by informative billing

Deliverable 2.2b

Publishable report on customer expectations

Project No. IEE/12/697/S12.645843

EMPOWERING: D2.2b Publishable Report on Customer Expectations

2 The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Authors

Name Organisation

Giovanni Pede SINERGIE

Speranza Boccafogli SINERGIE

Marina Pirazzi REGGIO EMILIA

Duilio Cangiari REGGIO EMILIA

Vincent Revol ALEC

Marine Joos HESPUL

Gitte Wad Thybo ENERGIMIDT

Stoyan Danov CIMNE

Gabriela Ganeva CIMNE

Joan M. Grande El Gas

Federico Boni Castagnetti IREN

Mariapia Martino POLITO

Andreas G. Wancura LINZSTROM

Gilles Deotto GEG



Revision history

Revision Date Author Organisation Description

0.1 29/08/13 Giovanni Pede SINERGIE Overall methodology. Partial data analysis

0.1 02/09/13 Marina Pirazzi REGGIO EMILIA Description of Reggio Emilia pilot

0.1 10/09/13 Gitte Wad Thybo ENERGIMIDT Data report and description of the Danish pilot

0.2 24/09/13 Marina Pirazzi REGGIO EMILIA Overall review

0.2 30/09/13 Giovanni Pede SINERGIE Final version

0.3 06/05/14 Giovanni Pede SINERGIE Publishable version

0.3 20/05/14 Gabriela Ganeva CIMNE Overall review

0.3 22/05/14 Michele Pastorelli POLITO Peer review



Table of contents

1. Introduction and Objectives ........................................................................................... 5

2. Overall Methodology ..................................................................................................... 6

3. Local surveys .................................................................................................................. 9

3.1 Italian pilots ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Reggio Emilia ................................................................................................................................................ 9 3.1.2 Torino ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 French pilot .................................................................................................................. 30

3.3 Spanish pilot ................................................................................................................ 44

3.4 Danish pilot .................................................................................................................. 52

3.5 Austrian pilot ............................................................................................................... 61

4. Conclusions and findings .............................................................................................. 70

5 Feedbacks after testing ................................................................................................ 74

6 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 80

7 ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................... 81

Annex I -‐ Questionnaire on users’ expectations (basic English version .................................. 82

Annex II – Italian Questionnaire .............................................................................................. 83

Annex III – French Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 84

Annex IV – Spanish Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 85

Annex V – Danish Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 86

Annex VI – Austrian Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 87


5

The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

1. Introduction and Objectives The current report is the product of Task 2.3 “User expectations of the informative billing and online tools” and constitutes the core of the service definition.

The objective of this document is to establish the requirements in term of users expectations referred to the implementation of the EMPOWERING services. The process of requirements collection has been performed in two iterations.

In the first iteration the definition has been based on the market knowledge of the participating utilities and the technical partners’ know-‐how. As a result from this, an initial set of services was produced and the available data and utility system requirements were investigated. Consecutively, initial specifications, prototyping and testing involving utility staff was done in. The user expectations based on the suggested services have been investigated in deliverable D2.2a, which provided the basis for the current document.

In the second iteration the previously defined requirements have been revised considering the results from the initial prototype testing and user feedback. The present document represents thefinal collection of data on users expectations and feedbacks from stakeholders involved in the testing phase of EMPOWERING. Together with deliverables D2.1b, D2.3b and D2.4 it provides the basis for the final service specification and implementation of the EMPOWERING services. The process is schematically outlined in

Figure 1. Overview of the iterative approach

The activities carried out aimed at the analysis of end users’ expectations and requirement about the service that will be developed within the EMPOWERING project in 4 different pilot countries.


6


The foreseen number of persons to be reached and involved in the Empowering project are 800, 200 per country. These 800 persons will constitute the “test group”, namely the first group of consumers that receive the service in order to test it. The customers base of the project is, in effect, divided into “Test group”; “Experimental group” and “Control group”. The pie chart below shows the foreseen distribution per country and group.

-‐ The Test group is the first group of the customer base to be the surveyed on their expectations and the first group who receives the service in order to test it.

-‐ The Experimental group is the extended group of customers who will receive the service after the testing phase and the validation of service.

-‐ The Control group is the group who does not receive any service or information. Their performance will be compared with the performance of the rest of the customer base who will have received the service.

2. Overall Methodology


7


Given the differences between pilots it was not possible to adopt an identical methodology for each of them. This chapter reports the overall methodology adopted and its rationale. The specificities of each local analysis are reported in the specific sections of the pilots.

The methodology adopted to sample the users followed these steps:

-‐ identification of specific areas of the pilot and/or specific customers to involve in the first phase of the project

-‐ contact and pre-‐notification (different for each pilot)

The following table show the foreseen composition of the test group in each pilot. The table shows also the survey conducted in Denmark before their withdrawal.

PILOT Denmark Austria France Spain Italy RE Italy TO

TEST GROUP Selection of

users located in the Island of Fur

Selection from direct contacts of

the utility and users of the online service

Plus24

Smart meters customer +

Respondent of the

questionnaire (sent before to a larger pool of

customers)

Selection from

customer database. Pre-‐defined group of customers

based on the knowledge of

ELGAS

Selection of buildings in

specific areas of the city

Selection of buildings (district heating)

+ Electricity: Respondent of

the questionnaire (sent before to a larger pool of

customers)

PARTNERS ENERGIMIDT LINZSTROM GEG; ALEC; HESPUL ELGAS

REGGIO EMILIA selection of buildings

IREN checks technical feasibility

IREN (supported by POLITO and Sinergie if necessary)

Number of customers 200 200 200 200 50 district heating

50 district heating + 100 electricity

In addition to the questionnaires filled in by the customers, 2 focus groups (one in Reggio Emilia, Italy and one in Grenoble, France) were conducted in order to complement collected data.

The focus group is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people (key informant) are asked about their perceptions, opinion, attitudes and beliefs towards a product, service or idea. A conductor asks questions in an interactive group where participants are free to talk with the other participants. Data are collected by one or more observers, who register all the emerging opinions.

In the focus group of Empowering, the same key questions of the questionnaire had been asked to the participant in order to collect their opinions and data about the project issues.

The aims of the focus groups were the following:

-‐ mitigation of “non-‐response” or “partial response” risk of the involved customer test groups;


8


-‐ be complementary to the survey, allowing a deeper analysis of the phenomena and catch pilot-‐specific issues which the questionnaires cannot identify.

The results and the detailed descriptions of the focus groups can be read in the specific section of the Italian and French pilots.

With reference to the questionnaire, it has been developed with a collaboration between all partners. The consortium agreed to create a shared common version of the questionnaire (in English, see Annex I), defining step by step every item and discussing about the utility of information that could be obtained by each of them.

The questionnaire is divided into 4 sections:

-‐ “Section I: Information on the household”: this section aims to obtain information about the respondent and his/her household and the dwelling;

-‐ “Section II: Questions on household’s use of existing source of energy information”: it includes questions about the presence of appliances and their energy class, the comprehension of energy bill, the realisation of investments and measures to save energy and the satisfaction with the energy provider;

-‐ “Section III: evaluation on the importance of integrative information to be added in the bill or on-‐line service for a better comprehension on how to save energy”: the questions aim to analyse the importance of a set of proposed information to be inserted in the informative billing;

-‐ “Section IV: Intelligibility of the integrative information”: this section is different for each pilot as it aims to investigate the perception about the different mock-‐ups possibly offered by the service.

Given the specificity of each pilot, once the basic English version has been agreed, the questionnaire was translated into the 4 languages of the pilots, allowing differences among local versions. Some items, although agreed in the basic version of the questionnaire, were removed in the local versions when not relevant.


9


3. Local surveys In this section the differences among the surveys carried out in the pilots are explained. After the general definition, the basic questionnaire in English was translated into Italian, Spanish, French and Danish. Different methods have been used to collect data.

The answers to sections related to buildings, dwellings and energy systems of the questionnaires have been omitted in the current report as they are not issues strictly related to the customer perceptions about the energy provision services, which are the main purpose of the current deliverable.

3.1 Italian pilots

In Italy 2 surveys were conducted as 2 different pilots had been identified: the cities of Reggio Emilia and Torino.

The local Italian questionnaire shows little differences in the 2 cities’ versions, as the target customers were different. In Reggio Emilia, particularly, the survey aimed at involving disadvantaged customers, such as people of minority ethnic groups and in social housing. In Reggio Emilia questionnaire’s data were collected almost exclusively by a trained cultural mediator, in Torino an online version of the questionnaire was mainly used. In the version of Reggio Emilia some questions were added in order to investigate the fluency of users of different ethnic groups with the Italian language. Almost all the interviewees showed at least a sufficient understanding of Italian, therefore the answers related to these group of questions have been omitted in the current report.

3.1.1 Reggio Emilia The analysis in Reggio Emilia was limited to district heating customers. In Italy the bill of district heating are calculated and sent by the energy provider with reference to the entire building. The bill is usually received by the building manager who communicate to households their shares to be paid. As shown in the responses given by the involved users, this practice has a very critical point: the users find it difficult to understand how their share of the bill is calculated and there is not a clear relation between the energy consumption and the amount to be paid.

The characteristic of district heating in Italy led us to the implementation of a methodology that could not allow us to select the users directly. The analysis therefore started with the selection of buildings which met the technical requirements (i.e. remote meter reading).

The first involved building is the “Condominio 47” located in the railway area of the city, which has been the subject of requalification projects, such as the installation of devices for remote reading.

The analysis in Reggio Emilia started in June the 12th, when a Focus Group was organised in order to obtain a background analysis of the issues that would be submitted to the test group and of the activities that would be carried out during the project. In order to have a better comprehension and analysis on the opinions about the service that will be developed in the project, some key informants from local associations or organisations were involved, in addition to the building managers and a few residents.

The Focus Group of Reggio Emilia was conducted by Giovanni Pede and Speranza Boccafogli of Sinergie. The Municipality of Reggio Emilia appointed Extrafondente to transcript and record the Focus Group. As observers and representatives of the Project also the Municipality and Iren (local utility) were involved.

The participants at the focus group were:

-‐ The building manager of “Condominio 47” and two residents;

-‐ a representative of ACER Reggio Emilia: enterprise who manage the social housing in Reggio Emilia


10


-‐ a representative of Asspi: Association of flats owners

-‐ a representative of Sunia: Union of tenants

-‐ a representative of Federconsumatori: Consumers’ Association

-‐ a representative of Cgil: Workers Trade union

After a presentation of the EMPOWERING project and the introduction of participants, several debates about the area of the test group and about the opinion on EMPOWERING took place.

The Focus Group was centred on the possible implementation of EMPOWERING to district heating users. The debate highlighted some issues that must be taken into account in order to ‘empower these customers to save energy by informative billing’.

The Focus Group objectives and findings are listed below. Each point represents an issue discussed during the Focus Group. The sentences written in italic are the main opinions expressed by the participants.

1) The critical issues and the problems of the households of the district heating network

The participants underlined a generally low level of awareness about energy saving. This could be explained by a lack of education about this theme and, probably, by the poor level of control that a user could have on the amount of the bill and its correlation to the actual energy consumptions (see also point 2).

“Users are not aware on energy saving. The first thing is to educate users. […] We have to start from users’ interest in order to make people understand that this leads to saving.”

“The households do not think that they have possibility of control. If you tell them, a part of them follow your advice.”

“We have to distinguish between tenant users on one hand, who do not have the saving culture and do not pay the energy bill as soon as they are in trouble, and the owners on the other hand. The owners could be more interested in understanding the ways to save energy because they directly pay the bill.”

“There are 3 factors on which we must intervene: we have tools and means which are inadequate and anachronistic. Means that do not give the user the perception on their consumptions in terms of Euros. Secondly, there is a cultural problem: we are children of the consumer society. [..] There is the need to create a network, also involving the Municipality, who have to promote the saving culture. Thirdly, we have to sensitize at first the new generations, involving schools.”

The problem emphasized by the participants related to the way of calculation of the bill. This problem generates dissatisfaction of users and, in extreme situations, it causes the disconnection of the user from the grid of district heating. In general it could happen if other tenants of the same building do not pay their share. As the bill is unique per building, this kind of behaviour impacts directly on all the tenants.

“It also happens that in some building the residents decide to disconnect themselves from the district heating […] because some tenants did not pay their share of the bill of district heating.”

2) The perceptions about the energy bills, comprehensibility and utility in understanding energy consumptions. Opinions on what kind of information must be inserted to achieve a better comprehension of energy consumptions.


11


“Personally, I have some difficulties because it is written in bureaucratese1”

People do not find comprehensible the energy bill. In particular the cost composition is the most critical aspect. The district heating bill do not allow to understand the real individual consumptions.

“The building manager do not receive the ‘broken down’ contract from Iren and also the bill of the individual resident, so he does not know if a person is consuming much or little. [..] I receive only a printout who says “Tizio” have to pay X and “Caio” have to pay Y. I do not know more. This is the contract of Iren that I consider aberrant.”

“We need a tool which permits to rapidly understand what our consumptions is. It should not be only a “number”. Because when I see how many kW I consumed I do not have a real perception of what is a kW, this measure does not help me.”

“The invoice is hard to understand [..] because the cost of the service are not clear and because there is also the taxation. [..] We have to try to convince the users and to make them understand that they could save. It will help the arrearage. [..]. We have to start from the cost in order to tell: -‐You can adopt virtuous behaviours to reduce this cost-‐”

3) The perceptions and expectations about the service that will be developed during the project. Suggestions on how to make more intelligible the informative bill and the online tool and opinions about the showed mock-‐up were collected.

The discussion on this issue started with a request to rearrange a set of possible information that should be inserted in the informative bill. The participants agreed about this order of importance:

1. Possibility to consult more detailed information by accessing an online tool

2. Advices, recommendations and online self-‐help tools on how to save energy and Reminders of good practice in summer and winter

3. Comparison with consumption data of last year

4. Comparisons between one’s expenditure and his/her neighbours’

5. Estimated prediction of one’s future consumptions

6. Comparison with average national consumption

“The last (in the list is explained to be) the ‘Comparison with average national consumption’ because nobody care about that!”

The participants found that the most useful indicator that can catch the attention of the user is “euros”. In their opinions it is important to introduce in the service the quantification of energy saved in money terms, as to the general users do not matter at all about the global impact of energy saving.

“I would insert also the Euro (costs), because people look rapidly the informative bill. If they could have just the consumptions in Euro…”

“There is an underlying problem: the bill we pay now is based on the average of the bills paid during the last year, regardless of the consumptions of the period. It is the method of billing that have to be changed because there is no relation at all between behaviours and energy bill.”

1 Bureaucratese is a style of language held to be characteristic of bureaucrats and marked by abstractions,

jargon, euphemisms, and circumlocutions


12


The participants provided advices on how to make more “friendly” the integrative information on energy consumptions. These suggestions could be useful also to increase the usability of the web-‐based tool

“As it is impossible to modify the invoice, the best thing to do is to give a simple information to the user […] for example a graphic indicator: a semaphore with red, yellow and green lights.”

“We have to take into account the “average user” and to find an equilibrium point among the usefulness of data and the ability of the user to understand them. The semaphore could be simpler and could be the starting information. Then I can add more detailed information. [..]The more information I give in the informative billing service the more the user must be an advanced user.”

“With reference to seasonality it will be useful to insert a chart with the trend of the climate temperature of the period”

“A useful information could be a simulation on the changes in consumptions relating to advices in making investments”

“I notice that if a (written) communication exceeds 10 lines people tend not to read!”

“I would make more friendly and nice the informative bill. You can write in bold and in large as a title “How to save on district heating”; Then I would add some image relating to the issues. Also a “key terms” explanation and more large and readable graphics. Also I would add an average value on how one can save by adopting different behaviors.”

“The informative bill must have the logo of the Municipality because it is likely that if a person receives the informative bill by Iren might think that Iren want to sell a contract.”

The participants insisted on the importance of the insertion of the economic indicator in the informative bill. It has emerged that the best way to give information about energy saved have to be studied. During the Focus Group the example of water consumptions was made, whose costs are less than 2 € per 1.000 litres.

“That’s why I used the example of the water: if you only give information on the money saved on water consumptions, people (that have saved 2.000 liters of water) saw a saving of only 4 €! They could say: -‐I am a very good user. I used the toiled flush in the best way! ... All of this to save 4 euro??-‐. If I give them the quantity of water in liters they can understand their impact.”

4) Testing the questionnaire for end-‐users

At the end of the Focus Group participants were asked to fill in the end-‐users’ questionnaire in order to provide their feedback on its comprehensibility, integrity, ease of compilation. The questionnaire was validated by the participants; nevertheless they remarked the importance of the presence of a mediator who could help the residents to answer the questions.

Given the characteristics of users in the railway station area’s buildings, the selected method to collect data was the face-‐to-‐face assisted filling of the questionnaire, using a trained cultural mediator. The mediator was trained in a conjoint session by Sinergie, Extrafondente and Iren Rinnovabili, explaining her the objectives of the project, the solutions and existing technology, the benefits the user could receive, and the interviewing techniques. During this session the strategy to involve the user were defined and an informative letter was drafted. This letter was sent by Extrafondente to the building manager and all the


13


residents of “Condominio 47”. As using the logo of Iren could lead the user to think that the letter is a commercial offer, it was decided to use the project’s and the municipality’s logos.

After the focus group, the potential test group of “Condominio 47” was estimated: the potential test group to include in the first experimentation of Empowering service resulted 35 persons. All these persons were informed about their possible inclusion in the test group, but only 20 replied by filling-‐in the questionnaire. It followed the necessity to include other buildings. The following table summarizes the potential test group reached, their location and the rate of response to the questionnaire. It also summarizes the collection methodologies that were adopted.

Building Potential test group methodology Number of filled

questionnaires Notes

Condominio 47 35, all informed

about the experimentation

Information sent by the building

manager. All questionnaire collected by a

cultural mediator

21 Survey finished

Monte S.Michele 13 -‐ 31

100, all informed about the

experimentation

Paper + Online 28 Survey finished

Via Mutilati del Lavoro 8

10, all informed about the

experimentation

Involvement of building manager to inform the households. Paper + Online

questionnaire

2 Survey finished

Betulla 105 -‐ 151 36, all informed

about the experimentation

Involvement of building managers to inform the households. Paper + Online

questionnaire

0 Survey finished without results

By involving the above listed buildings, out of a potential test group of 181 residents, we obtained 28% responses, a lower rate than expected. The reasons are twofold, in our opinion and according to the open declarations of several interviewees:

-‐ the time for annual leaves made it more difficult to collect questionnaires, particularly in Via Turri 47 where many residents of foreign origins live;

-‐ the state of hopelessness of many families who have seen their gas invoices raise sharply over the last 5 years and perceived the Empowering experiment as the umpteenth service provider’s “trick”. When the contact was made through the building manager and the cooperation of a resident and the interviews held with the support of the trained mediator, we obtained the best results and the interview was also an


14


opportunity to clarify many doubts of the clients. It must be noticed, however, that, in that case, the interview lasted an average of two hours instead of the 1 planned.

A few more notes on “Condominio Via Turri 47”: Via Turri 47 is the heart of the railway station area, where most of the inhabitants are immigrants from different countries, and the area is one of the most “degraded” of the city. The great majority of the interviewees asked for a radical simplification of bills by adopting simple and understandable language -‐ instead of technical jargon -‐ and shorter texts. The mediator also collected an appeal to more information on the service provider and the adopted system for the distribution of energy. As strange as it may seem, more than one interviewee have no idea about what district heating is and doubts on who is their service provider. Unclear are also the criteria adopted to separate individual consumption from the general building consumption. Often the consumers, be them Italians or of foreign origins, underlined the importance of a better information, demanding that IREN “be closer to citizens”, by undertaking information and motivation campaigns on the benefits of saving energy. The mediator also had the hard task to convince the contacted persons that adhering to the project implies no additional costs.

A few more notes on “Condomini Via Monte San Michele 13-‐31”: The 5 buildings in Via Monte San Michele are classified as social-‐housing and are managed by ACER (the Regional Agency for Social Housing) A concerted action with ACER made it possible to target the 5 buildings, 20 flats each, and meet 34 residents on September 4th in one single meeting; the meeting was facilitated by Marina Pirazzi (Extrafondente) and Duilio Cangiari (Reggio Emilia Municipality). Unfortunately, due to the high level of dissatisfaction about the district heating service, only 28 people remained after the first explanation of the reasons for meeting and just 18 filled-‐in the questionnaire. To this figure 10 more are to be added as they filled-‐in the questionnaire on-‐line. People strongly complained that the costs for district heating is enormously high and information is unclear, when not totally missing. With the exception of some 7 or 8, participants were doubtful that Empowering could do anything to improve their situation and help them reduce energy consumption.

In the following section the responses to the questionnaire are reported. The information about the characteristics of building, dwellings and appliance owned by the users have been omitted, as the related questions have been inserted only to create a benchmark to be used when EMPOWERING service will be implemented.


15


Demography of respondents

The total respondents in Reggio Emilia amount to 51. The following graphs and tables show the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The majority of respondents are female (29 people/51).

The age class distribution is illustrated by the following table. The median age is 57 years old.

20 -‐ 30 years old 3 6% 31 -‐ 40 years old 8 16% 41 -‐ 50 years old 9 18% 51 -‐ 60 years old 12 24% 61 -‐ 70 years old 8 16% 71 -‐ 80 years old 5 10% more than 81 1 10%

The 75% of respondents are Italian (38).

There are 6 unemployed people among the respondents. 20 of the respondents are retired, the rest is occupied. No respondents work or have relatives who work in the energy sector. The education shows the following distribution:


16


The median number of members of interviewed households is 2 components. The distribution of the household composition is the following:

With reference to internet access, the distribution is the following


17


In all cases the heating source is the district heating. No one installed a renewable energy system in its home.

Questions on household’s use of existing sources of energy information Does the format of your bill allow you to clearly understand the volume of energy you have consumed over the period?

Have you made some investments or adopted some measures to save energy? (Among the 35 who answer “yes” 11 can see differences in their energy bill)


18


How much are you satisfied of the service provided by your utility company?

The scale used ranged from very satisfied to very unsatisfied

The great majority of the respondents are not satisfied of their utility company. The main comments about this issue is that the dissatisfaction is related to the excessively high cost and the lack of transparency on how the cost for district heating are calculated.


19


Evaluation on the importance of integrative information to be added to the energy bill or on on-‐line service for a better comprehension on how to save energy. 1) Comparison with average national consumption

2) Comparisons between your expenditure and the one of your neighbours

3) Comparisons with consumption data of last years


20


4) Estimated prediction of future consumptions on the basis of the consumption trends

5) Advices, recommendations and online self-‐help tools on how to save energy and Reminders of good practice in summer and winter


21


6) Possibility to check more detailed information by accessing an online tool


22


Intelligibility of the integrative information Would you prefer having access to more details about your energy consumption through personalised online services or directly integrated into your energy bill? (Online service = 8; Integrative letter = 43)

The subsequent two questions asked the respondents to select among graphs and tables in order to evaluate what kind of data representation method is more understandable. Graphs are judged clearer and more understandable than tables. The majority of respondents selects graphs in both questions.

Almost all the respondents (47/51) find useful the inclusion of a graphic indicator like the semaphore below in the informative letter/online service.

3.1.2 Torino

The analysis in Torino was launched with an online questionnaire:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1euyomHp7-‐u29Ey01mafSKLEK5di6n4iwN-‐ZajZBEPcg/viewform

A first transmission of the questionnaire was launched to a mailing list of 200 residents in Torino during the morning of the 10/07/2013. The following week it was mailed to the mailing list of Polito and Iren (about 2000 users). In Torino, the survey reached 463 respondents, 58 of which are district heating users. Only 67 respondents agreed to be involved in the test group.


23



The following graphs and tables show the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The majority of respondents are male (318 people/463).


20 -‐ 30 years old 366 79%

30 -‐ 40 years old 39 8%

40 -‐ 50 years old 34 7%

50 -‐ 60 years old 11 2%

60 -‐ 70 years old 6 1%

70 -‐ 80 years old 0 0%

more than 80 7 2%

The majority of respondents are Italian (433 out of a total of 463).

There are 5 unemployed people among the respondents. 10 of the respondents are retired, the rest is occupied. 57 respondents work or have relatives who work in the energy sector. The education shows the following distribution:


24



Almost all (only the 3% answers “NO”) the respondents have an internet connection.

Questions on household’s use of existing sources of energy information Does the format of your bill allow you to clearly understand the volume of energy you have consumed over the period?


25


The above shown percentages remain similar filtering the whole dataset for district heating users. The 55% of district heating users cannot understand the consumed volume of heating over the period.



The scale used ranges from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”.

The majority of the respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied of their utility company. Filtering for the users of district heating the percentage of not satisfied users are more relevant: about the 56% of district heating users are not satisfied.


26


The reasons given by the respondents are mainly related to the high costs and lack of transparency of the bill.




27


3) Comparisons with consumptions data of the last years.

4) Estimated prediction of your future consumptions


28


5) Advices , recommendations and online self-‐help tools on how to save energy and Reminders of good practice in summer and winter



29



With reference to data representation, the respondents prefer the following methods:

-‐ to use charts in order to represent energy consumptions trends instead of table (66% of respondents select the graph 1 reported in the questionnaire).

-‐ to use tables in order to represent periodic cumulative and comparative data on energy consumptions (54% select table 2)

Almost all the respondents (47/51) find useful the inclusion of a graphic indicator like the semaphore below in the informative letter/online service.


30


This graphic indicator is resulted useful to the majority of respondents (310/463):

3.2 French pilot The analysis in Grenoble focused essentially on the city of Grenoble, but people from the greater Grenoble area were welcome to participate if they wanted to.

The analysis in France started with the Focus Group organised on July, the 8th.

6 persons participated to the Focus Group: five of them where tenants and/or members of their condominium councils and one of them was the representative of a consumer association.

During the focus group the participants were invited to express their opinions on 4 subjects/questions, after introducing themselves.

The focus group was co-‐organised and animated by ALEC and HESPUL, and GEG was taking notes and also helping with some parts of the animation.

The focus group aimed at answering the following questions for the inhabitants of Grenoble:

1) Can you easily figure out your actual electricity consumption by reading your electricity bill?

Most of the feedback concerned the format of the facture in general. Main suggestions were:

• to make more clearly appear the price of a kWh • to clarify the period of billing (which currently varies according to the days of indexing of

the meter). • Explain better what a kWh represents • Clarify the concepts of peak and off-‐peak times


31


• Clarify the meaning of the contract power (kVA) • Participants ask for details advice how to save energy (which was also dealt with in the

following questions) • The participants also suggested to offer services to assess their energy consumptions

(comparisons with the previous years, with neighbours, comparisons with other people according to the surface area of the flat…). Most of this service were also proposed late in the 4th question later during the focus group meeting.

2) What type of information would be necessary according to you to analyse correctly your electricity bill and to reduce your electricity consumption?

For billing tools:

• weather adjusted comparisons

For online tools: • Customise the services and advices according the data provided by the customers (surface

area, appliance used…) • Weather corrected consumption • Electricity consumptions compared to the previous year • Consumptions alerts when it reaches a certain level • Alerts related to fuel poverty • Link the electricity consumption to financial budget of the household

3) Same question but with 5 suggested propositions to rate. The five propositions of suggested information were rated as follow (each of the 7 participants had 3 points to spread between the following 5 propositions):

1. Alerts sent when your consumption is too high compared to your usual consumption (7 points)

Comments from the participants: the alert must be in euros or kWh, by text message, online platform and mail. Text message can also be sent to remind the users to do meter index reading

2. A comparison of your electricity consumption with the previous years at the same period (6 points)

3. Advices, recommendations and online tools to save energy and a reminder of good practices in winter and summer (4 points)

Comments: general advice (non-‐customised, advice on the choices of appliances, typical consumption of appliances

4. A comparison of your electricity consumption with your neighbour’s consumption or with the consumption of people living in the same city in apartments of a similar size. (4 points)

Comments: the number of people living in the household must be taken into account

5. A comparison of your electricity consumption with the national average household consumption (0 points)

4) In the last question we presented the participants with some of the mock-‐ups of the future Empowering tools and asked the participants to give us detailed feedbacks in terms of importance for them.


32


Graph 1 (mock-‐up 101, comparison with the average consumptions of a neighbour)

Comments:

• Clarify the elements taken into account: age of the building, surface area of the flat...

Graph 2 (mock-‐up BT201, comparison with the same period of the last year)

Comments:

• It is difficult to compare the consumption because the columns are too far appart

• The real consumptions and the climate-‐adjusted consumptions should be next to each others,

• Additional years could be included for a better comparison

Graph 3 (BT301, distribution of energy usages)


33


Comments:

• Differentiate electrical heating and non-‐electrical heating,

• Insert details the categories,

• Differentiate colours,

• Specify the units (kWh)

• Specified over what time period is the measurements made

Graph 4 (OT 202, comparison of consumptions trends of the current year with the previous year)

Comments:

• Specify that it’s talking about the outside temperature

• No very clear at first sight


34


Graph 5 (OT105, graphic indicator about the electric consumptions per year of a user compared with the consumptions of Grenoble inhabitants. The second graph below relates the conversion of the volume of energy consumed to CO2 emissions

50 kWh/m²/year

500 kWh/m²/year

120 kWh/m²/year

Comments:

• Specify intermediary values

• This graph is very relevant

3750 km/yr

37 500 km/yr

9000 km/yr

Comments:

• Specify intermediary values

• Not very useful

In complement to the focus group, an online questionnaire has been created asking similar questions. At the end of the Survey period, approximately 156 persons have filled this online questionnaire. As not all the participants to the test group filled in the questionnaire, the number of users who will receive the Empowering service in the first phase amount 161.

The test group in France involves will focus only on the electricity consumption whether the users have electric heating or not.

The users have been reached using online questionnaires, spread by email and newsletter to: -‐ contact database of ALEC; -‐ customer database of GEG; -‐ online newsletters for internet users.

Demography of respondents The following graphs and tables show the demographic characteristics of the respondents.


35


The majority of respondents are male (83 people/150). The female are 61. This question show 6 missing answers.


Age class n. % < 30 26 17%

31 - 40 33 21%

41 - 50 24 15%

51 - 60 29 19%

61 - 70 32 21%

71 - 80 7 4%

> 81 1 1%

N/A 4 3%

There are not unemployed people among the respondents. 33 of them are retired, the rest is occupied. The question about the occupation shows 10 missing values. The education has the following distribution:


36


The median number of members of interviewed households is 2. The distribution of the household composition is the following:

Only 10 people own a smart meter. 85 do not have a smart meter. A relevant number cannot answer the question related to this issue (54 people). Most of the respondents do not have any member of their family working in the energy sector (129). All the respondents have an internet access. Questions on household’s use of existing sources of energy information Does the format of your bill allow you to clearly understand the volume of energy you have consumed over the period? (Yes = 93; No = 61)


37


Can you compare your current power consumptions with your past consumption? (Yes = 75; No = 68;)

Do you understand how your energy bill is calculated? (Yes = 95; No = 59)


38


Have you made some investments or adopt some measures to save energy? (Yes = 93; No = 57)

50 respondents who made investments or took measures can see differences in the bill. Does the power you subscribed in your electricity contract (6KVA, 9KVA, 12KVA ...) fits the needs of your home? The majority answers YES, but a relevant number (48) of respondents cannot answer to this question.

The majority of respondents expressed their readiness to read once a month for themselves the value on the meter in exchange for more detailed information on energy consumption? (Yes = 111)


39




3) Advices , recommendations and online self help tools on how to save energy and Reminders of good practice in summer and winter


40


4) Comparison with consumption data of last years with an estimated prediction of your future consumptions


41


5) Alerts when your consumption is relatively higher than usual: the users find this information useful

Intelligibility of the integrative information Would you prefer having access to more details about your energy consumption through personalised online services or directly integrated into your energy bill? (Online service = 76; Bill = 71)

The last questions aimed to evaluate the usefulness of mock-‐ups to be used as integrative information. The respondents assessed the utility of some graphs included in the French questionnaire. Following the responses are summarized with charts. 1) Graph showing the comparison on quarterly consumptions between a user and his neighbour, measured in kWh (see Graph 1 in the French version of the questionnaire)


42


2) Graph showing the comparison with actual quarterly consumptions with the same period of the last year (Graph 2)

3) Graph showing the repartition of different energy uses inside the dwelling (Graph 3)


43


4) Graph with comparisons on actual monthly energy consumption with the same month of last year and at average temperatures (Graph 4)

5) Graph with comparison on household consumption per m2 and per year with the other inhabitants of the city (Graph 5)


44


6) Graph showing CO2 emissions related to energy consumption and converted in equivalent km travelled by car (Graph 6)

3.3 Spanish pilot The Spanish test group was selected in Mallorca from the customer database of ELGAS.

The test group has been reached in the following ways:

-‐ An emailing campaign to ELGAS customers/contacts

-‐ Meeting sessions in the square of the town of Soller

The Spanish questionnaire (see Annex IV) focused mainly on the first three sections. No mock-‐ups has been inserted as EL GAS foresee to provide them on the basis of questionnaire responses.

The collected questionnaires amount to 172.


45




Age class n. % < 30 19 11%

31 - 40 16 9%

41 - 50 37 22%

51 - 60 48 28%

61 - 70 31 18%

71 - 80 15 9%

> 81 6 3%

N/A 0 0%

There are 4 unemployed people among the respondents. 41 of the respondents are retired, 6 students and the rest is occupied. The question about the occupation shows 6 missing values. The education has the following distribution:


46



With reference to the internet accesses, the distribution is showed by the following pie chart.


47


Questions on household’s use of existing sources of energy information Does the format of your bill allow you to clearly understand the volume of energy you have consumed over the period? (Yes = 76; No = 95)

Have you made some investments or adopted some measures to save energy? (Yes = 92; No = 78)


48


29 respondents who made investments or took measures can see differences in the bill. How much are you satisfied of the service provided by your utility company?

The majority of the respondent are satisfied of their utility company.



49





50


4) Comparison with consumption data of last years with an estimated prediction of your future consumptions



51


6) Alerts when your consumption is relatively higher than usual: the users find this information useful



52


No mock-‐ups of the service have been inserted in the Spanish questionnaire as they will be developed on the basis of the responses of the questionnaires.

3.4 Danish pilot The Danish test group was selected in the island of Fur. The test group has been reached in the following sending the questionnaire to a Mailing list including all residents of the island.

The Danish questionnaire (see Annex V) focused mainly on the first three sections. No mock-‐ups have been inserted as EnergiMidt foresaw to provide them on the basis of questionnaire responses.

The collected questionnaires amount to 97. The data collection stopped with the withdrawal of Energimidt from the EMPOWERING project.



53



Age class n. % <30 2 2% 31-‐40 3 3% 41-‐50 17 18% 51-‐60 29 30% 61-‐70 22 23% 71-‐80 17 18% >81 6 6%

We had the possibility of a free text about education, which does not give us the opportunity to show a simple view of it. The occupation is as follows:

n. %

Retired 24 24% Unemployed 3 3% Employed 46 47% N/A 25 26%

The median number of members of interviewed households is 2,2 components. The distribution of the household composition is the following:


54


Everybody has a smart meter. Nobody works in the energy sector. Questions on household’s use of existing sources of energy information Does the format of your bill allow you to clearly understand the volume of energy you have consumed over the period? (Yes = 31; No = 58)

62% of the respondents find that their energy bill allows an easy comparison among their current consumptions and the ones of previous periods. Only the 35% of the respondents can understand how the total price on the bill is calculated.

Have you made some investments or adopt some measures to save energy? (Yes = 80; No = 16)


55


23 respondents who made investments or took measures can see differences in their bill. 47 respondents do not know.

If you had the possibility to have more detailed information on your energy consumption, how would you then prefer to receive it? The respondents could give more than one answer. Only 42 respondents on 97 want to receive the detailed information on energy consumption included in the bill.


56


Evaluation on the importance of integrative information to be added to the energy bill or on on-‐line service for a better comprehension on how to save energy. 1) Comparison with average consumption in alike houses

2) Comparisons between your consumption pattern and houses alike.

3) Advices, recommendations and online self help tools on how to save energy.


57


4) Comparison with consumption data of last years and current consumptions:

5) Comparison with current consumption data with an estimated prediction of your future consumptions.


58


6) Alerts when your consumption is relatively higher than usual



59


8) A smiley-‐solution, where energy consumption is being validated towards average consumption

9) The possibility to set up targets for energy consumptions and continuously see if they are on track.


60


10) A personal energy action plan which is developed on the basis of energy consumption data.

11) Forecast of future energy consumptions based on usage history


61


Other information which the users have mentioned:

• Alarm and suggestion to action if something is different • CO2-‐emission per house or person • Competition on lowest CO2-‐emission per house • Smart Grid info on electricity cost, so consumption can be moved to cheaper periods • Info about when it is cheap to start the washing machine • We would like not to have all these smart info all the time

How do you prefer to use your on-‐line service?

3.5 Austrian pilot The survey in Linz was launched with an online questionnaire:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1c5pijLUXh5_BmBKWxq9mQeenTyMIl9SRTTv0rNCKG8w/viewform


62


A first transmission of the questionnaire was launched to a mailing list of 1000 users of the online service Plus24 at the end of January 2014.

The Austrian survey reaches only 31 users. Though this very low rate of response, data have been gathered in this report as the number is sufficient to collect some indicative information. Corrective actions must be taken in the future activities in order to engage a higher number of customers for subsequent project tasks.


The total respondents in Linz amount to 31. The following graphs and tables show the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Almost all the respondents are male (27 people/31).


20 -‐ 30 years old 1 3%

31 -‐ 40 years old 9 29%

41 -‐ 50 years old 7 23%

51 -‐ 60 years old 6 19%

61 -‐ 70 years old 4 13%

More than 71 1 3%

N/A 3 10%

The totality of respondents are Austrian.

There are any unemployed among the respondents. 4 persons are retired. Only 4 persons work or have relatives who work in the field of energy. The distribution of the education level is shown by the chart below:


63


The median number of members of interviewed households is 2,5 components. The distribution of the household composition is the following:

Questions on household’s use of existing sources of energy information



64



The scale used ranged from very satisfied to very unsatisfied

The 29% of the respondents are not satisfied of their utility company and the 29% are indifferent. Several comments about this issue show that the dissatisfaction is related to high costs of services.


65




3) Comparisons with consumption data of last years


66



5) Alerts when your consumption is relatively higher than usual


67


6) With smart meters: representation of ¼-‐hour values including tariff zones for specific smart meter tariffs

7) With smart meters: Simulation of a smart meter tariff based on customer actual usage (i.e. monetary difference at the current rate)


68


8) With smart meters: representation of the individual ¼-‐hour values into daily values as a stack chart with totals of tariff zones

9) Representation of total consumption in different metering points


69


10) Representation of the benefits generated by additional energy supply systems (e.g. PV)


70


4. Conclusions and findings In this sections, the key answers are summarized in order to draw up conclusions to be used in the implementation of the Empowering service. For each point a review of responses and emerged critical issues to be taken into account are provided.

With reference to the energy bill, in almost all pilots the customers show a lack of understanding related to the actual energy consumptions:

Austria Italy_RE Italy_TO France Spain Denmark

Consumers' understanding of the bill and energy consumption information

-‐ a relevant part of respondents can easily recognize the differences in among periodic bills connected with the investment they realised to save energy -‐ respondents already have access to integrative information on their bill

-‐ difficult to understand the bill and the related volume of energy consumed -‐ difficult to understand how the share of district heating bill is calculated -‐ more and better contact with the service provider is hoped for.

-‐ half of the respondents find it difficult to understand the consumed amount of energy over the period using the bill

-‐ A relevant part of the respondents find it difficult to understand the consumed amount of energy over the period using the bill. They also find it difficult to compare current power consumption with the past consumptions -‐ During the Focus Group the respondents stated that the price per kWh must be clarified

-‐ More than half of the respondents find it difficult to understand the consumed amount of energy over the period using the bill

-‐ 61% of respondents find it difficult to understand the exact volume of consumed energy by the bill -‐ Difficulty to understand how the price is calculated

In some cases, the lack of information relates also to the cost composition. This is also reflected in the responses given about the customer’s satisfaction with the service provided by their utility company.

EMPOWERING services aim to increase the satisfaction of users providing more information on the behaviours which generate major consumptions. In this way, a user can identify what are their consumption behaviours which need intervention or modification in order to save money. Cost composition information depends on local regulations and laws. The main challenge of EMPOWERING is to help the users to identify the relation among their behaviours and the energy consumed, in order to make them understand the actions they can carry out to reduce their consumptions.


71



Satisfaction

-‐ Only 29% are satisfied or more

-‐ Only 23% are satisfied or more

-‐ Only 26% are satisfied or more -‐ The percentage of dissatisfied users is higher among the district heating users

not assessed

56% are satisfied.

A relevant part did not

answer (25%)

not assessed

Main comments

Dissatisfaction related to

costs

high costs, lack of

transparency of the bill, use of technical

and beaurocratic

jargon

high costs and lack of transparency of the bill

//

Among the

dissatisfied,

comments mostly relates to the costs

//

The importance of the information to be added to the informative bill (online or letter) is not always similar among the pilots, but there are information that are found useful by the majority of respondents in all pilots. More specifically, the comparisons among past and current consumptions and estimated trends for future consumptions and the advices/alerts about energy consumptions behaviours have been considered the most important information in all pilots. This should be the basic information to add in every local version of the Empowering service.


Comparison with average national consumption

38% find it important or very important





About 39% find it

important or very

important2

Comparisons between your expenditure and the one of your neighbours






Comparisons with consumption data of last years






Estimated prediction of future consumptions on

// 64% find it important or very

60% find it important or very


2 Similar responses in all questions


72


the basis of the consumption trends

important important

Advices , recommendations and online self-‐help tools on how to save energy and Reminders of good practice in summer and winter

38% find it important or very important. 58% find important or more to receive alerts when consumptions are higher than usual





Possibility to check more detailed information by accessing an online tool

All interviewed users have access to an OT



// 60% find it important or very important

Main comments

Possibilty to export data in .csv, .xls format, District information

Necessity to insert cost information

Necessity to insert cost information, at least composition in %

// //

CO2 emissions,

Costs info (at smart grid), Advices on consumption behaviours

The table below shows the preferences given by the users between receiving the Empowering service as a paper based informative letter or as an online tool:


Online service vs Integrative letter Only OT will

be developed

Integrative letter (84%)

Online service (76%)

same level of appreciation for both options

Integrative letter (74%)

Almost all prefer

online or similar

Regarding the data visualisation issues, it is important , to insert graphic indicators or “infographics” next to the insertion of raw data of energy consumptions in order to have a rapid understanding of the overall state at a first glance.


Data visualisation issues and main comments

-‐ For smart meters changes in data granularity is judged as very important

-‐ Graphs is preferred Almost all the respondents required the insertion graphic indicators

Not a real difference about the preferences between tables and graphs -‐ 67% required the insertion of graphic

-‐ Explain what is a kWh and a kVA -‐ Data must be shown as weather adjusted -‐ CO2

not assessed

not assessed


73


-‐ Data must be shown as weather adjusted (see discussion of the Focus Group)

indicators; No jargon, use of "infographics"

equivalent is a non-‐relevant indicator -‐ In the graphs the period of billing must be spelled out

The suggestions obtainable from the responses about data visualisation should be taken into account by all utility companies for the development of their local version of the Empowering service.


74


5 Feedbacks after testing After the implementation of the first version of Empowering, a feedback to non-‐partner organisation and stakeholders has been asked. In parallel, the internal staff of the utilities not involved in the EMPOWERING implementation has been involved.

The following table shows the organisations who provides comments and suggestions on the fine-‐tuning of empowering

Country Involved stakeholder

Italy

Social services of the Municipality of Reggio Emilia

Representative of households

ACER (Social housing organisation)

Building manager

CGIL (Trade Union)

Spain Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Territori i Sostenibilitat

Som Energia SCCL

Austria

Econgas Gmbh

OÖ Energiesparverband

OÖ Gas-‐Wärme Gmbh

Energie AG

E7

Energie AG Vertrieb Gmbh

Energie AG OÖ Vertrieb Gmbh & Co KG

Energie AG

France GEG decided to post-‐pone the collection of feedbacks after the definitive implementation of empowering. Non-‐partners organisation have been already involved in the first phase, organising a Focus Group in Grenoble (see chapter 3.2)

The surveys results inserted in the current chapter have been collected in parallel with the surveys foreseen in WP 4, related to the usability analysis of the services implemented. Given that the target groups was the same, a unique questionnaire has been implemented for collect data for the current report and for D4.1. Mock-‐ups of the developed services has been enclosed and showed to the interviewee in order to collect their feedbacks. To see the showed mock ups, refer to D4.1 where each service has been assessed by the target groups in term of their usability and data visualisation.

The following graphs show the responses of non-‐partner organisation about the impact of EMPOWERING on the customers. Each non-‐partner organisation provide the following answers after viewing the mock-‐ups of the services developed so far.

A relevant number of respondents have no opinion on the role that EMPOWERING will have on the improvement of end users capability to understand how to save energy.


75


The majority agree on the responsiveness of empowering to the users’ needs in term of energy consumptions awareness and information

EMPOWERING is found as a service that will improve the image of the utilities.


76


The same questions has been asked to the internal staff of the utilities, not currently involved in the implementation of the EMPOWERING project but that will be involved in the future provision of the services to the end users. The survey involved customer care staffs, technical supporting staff, call centers, managers. The aim of the questionnaires was to investigate the internal perception on the services by the internal staff. This kind of analysis can be seen as an internal marketing activity. Internal marketing can be used by the utilities to motivate all functions to satisfy customers, making the employees feel as if they were the end user, so that they learn to more easily promote the company's products and goals. After showing to the utilities’ internal staff the developed mock-‐ups of the services, their perceptions on EMPOWERING can be summarize by the following graphs.

Almost all the interviewed technicians agree that EMPOWERING will allow users to understand how to save energy.


77


Referring to responsiveness of EMPOWERING to the users needs, the respondents generally agree that they can be met by the developed services

Almost all the staffs of the utilities agree that the image of their company will benefit by the provision of the EMPOWERING services


78


Data collected with the surveys provides some suggestion for the fine-‐tuning of EMPOWERING, in term of developed services and in term of strategy to involve and reach the end users. General conclusion of the first period of survey are summarized by the following table.

Issue Fine-‐tuning action

Reaching the end users can be in some case very hard. It is recognisable from low rate of responses in some pilot and difficulties in the involvment of users within a test group for the first implementation of EMPOWERING

Wherever possible the direct contact with the customers must be increased. The first engagment can be done using qualitative techinques (Focus Groups) or home-‐to-‐home interviews with a trained interviewer. Direct contact can be obtained also training the staff involved in the information desks of the utilities, asking them to explain to the end users the services and asking them if they want to receive the new informative services. Local dissemination activities must be increased in order to reach a broader pool of users

The responses on the responsiveness of EMPOWERING in allowing end users how to save energy are not always satisfactory (see stakeholders responses)

Usability testing must be carried out for each service in order to understand what are the less effective in providing information to the end users. Testing must be carried out involving a sample of end users and collecting all issues in term of usability, understandability and visualitation

Users, stakeholders and utilities technicians generally agree on the improvement of the image of the utilities providing the EMPOWERING services

Use communication and dissemination tools and strategy to increase the effects of EMPOWERING to the utilities images

Improving customer satisfaction

Starting from the surveys reported in this deliverable, the implementation of EMPOWERING are following an user-‐centred approach. It will ensure that the services will be responsive referring to the users needs. Potentially, the EMPOWERING services can intervene in solving the issue related to the lack of satisfaction of users with their energy utility given that those issues are related to a low understanding of the relation among energy bills and


79


actual consumptions. Providing more information could influence positively the satisfaction of users. An appropriate indicators should be set in order to “measure” the changes in customer satisfaction after the provision of EMPOWERING


80


6 Bibliography Laine L. L. et al., Design criteria for a consumer energy report: a pilot field study, Center for Energy and Environment Princeton University, Princeton, 1988

Giusti A, Gawronski O, Maggini M. Indagine qualitativa sulla percezione dell’adeguatezza e sui bisogni informativi. Roma: Istituto Superiore di Sanità; 2009. (Rapporti ISTISAN 09/35)

Sudhakara Reddy B., Economic and social dimensions of household energy use: a case study of India, Ortega E. & Ulgiati S., 2004


81


7 ANNEXES

Used tools and documents

Annex I – Questionnaire on users’ expectations (basic English version)

Annex II – Italian Questionnaire

Annex III -‐ French Questionnaire

Annex IV -‐ Spanish Questionnaire

Annex V – Danish Questionnaire

Annex VI – Austrian Questionnaire


82


Annex I -‐ Questionnaire on users’ expectations (basic English version


83


Annex II – Italian Questionnaire


84


Annex III – French Questionnaire


85


Annex IV – Spanish Questionnaire


86


Annex V – Danish Questionnaire


87


Annex VI – Austrian Questionnaire

EMPOWERING_D2.2b

Documents

Transcript of EMPOWERING_D2.2b