Apollon - Energy Efficiency - Setup of the Experiment in the Crossborder Living Lab

DELIVERABLE Project Acronym:

APOLLON

Grant Agreement number:

250516

Project Title:

Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

D3.4 Setup of the Experiment in the Crossborder Living Lab Revision: Final

Authors: Pentti Launonen (AAL)

Andreas Andersson (LE) Marita Holst (CDT) Anna Stรฅhlbrรถst (LUT) All WP3 partners

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT Policy Support Programme Dissemination Level P

Public

C

Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services

X

1

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

Revision History Revision Date 1.0

Author/editor Organisation

2012-04-23 Pentti AAL Launonen, all WP 3 partners

Description Final draft for internal review

The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability.

Statement of originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both.

2

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

Table of Contents 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 2.2 2.3

Objectives............................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Structure .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Energy efficiency experiments at Living Labs ................................................................ 8

3.1 Luleå experiment .............................................................................................................................. 8 3.1.1 Research focus.......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 User Recruitment .................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.3 Base-line Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.4 Assignments and Story lines used in the local pilot on Luleå ............................................... 12 3.1.5 Closing Questionnaire – Comparison of Results from Base-Line Questionnaire.......... 20 3.1.6 Focus Group Interview with Test Users ........................................................................................ 21 3.2 Amsterdam experiment ............................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Lisbon experiment ......................................................................................................................... 39 3.4 Helsinki experiment ..................................................................................................................... 42

Benchmarking and best practices for cross-border activities .............................. 50

4.1 Cross-border cases – technology transfer and testing ..................................................... 50 4.2 Knowledge transfer – cross-border case methodology.................................................... 57 4.2.1 Local Pilots ................................................................................................................................................. 59 4.2.2 The template ............................................................................................................................................. 59 4.2.3 Storyline ...................................................................................................................................................... 61 4.2.4 Workshops ................................................................................................................................................. 62 4.2.5 Survey .......................................................................................................................................................... 63 4.2.6 Benchmark and recommendation for User Behaviour Change ........................................... 63 4.3 Business partnerships.................................................................................................................. 69

Living Lab operations........................................................................................................... 75

5.1 5.2

Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................... 75 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................... 76

Tools and methods ................................................................................................................ 78

6.1 Research Frameworks ................................................................................................................. 78 6.1.1 Research Framework Helsinki .......................................................................................................... 79 6.1.2 Research Framework Luleå – User Behaviour Change ........................................................... 82 6.1.3 Research Framework Lisbon ............................................................................................................. 83 6.1.4 Research Framework Amsterdam ................................................................................................... 86 6.2 Project plan ...................................................................................................................................... 86

Impact on energy efficiency ............................................................................................... 87

7.1 Energy savings Luleå..................................................................................................................... 87 7.1.1 Comparison of electricity usage on households with ELIQ ................................................... 87 7.1.2 Comparison of electricity usage on households with SABER ............................................... 88 7.2 Energy Savings Lisbon .................................................................................................................. 91 7.3 Energy Savings Amsterdam ........................................................................................................ 94 7.4 Energy Savings Helsinki .............................................................................................................. 95

Attachment A – Use Transformation Methodology Case – Development, Experiences and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 98 3

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

Attachment B – Acquisition, Retention and Contribution of Pilot Project Participants ..................................................................................................................................... 99 Attachment C – Pilot Plans........................................................................................................100 C.1

4

Project Plan – Process Vision / Aalto Living Lab, Helsinki ............................................ 100

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

1. Executive Summary This Deliverable D3.4 describes the setup of the experiments performed in the 4 LLs and the cross border activities as well as the methodologies and tools, extrapolating their use in other LL. The cross border activities have been carried out on three levels: technology transfer, knowledge transfer and business partnerships. The experiments, their results in energy efficiency and related learnings are described in this Deliverable, creating a benchmark for future energy efficiency experiments.

5

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

2. Introduction This Chapter describes the objectives, methodology, and structure of this Deliverable.

2.1 Objectives

As stated in the Description of Work Document (DoW) and in Deliverable D3.1 of this Work Package (“Requirements�), Work Package 3 within Apollon clusters four Living Labs that focus on energy efficient solutions that will be transferred and piloted from one Living Lab to another (receiving) Living Lab. Task 3.3 comprises the actual cross-border piloting of the experiments at the receiving Living Labs (Amsterdam Living Lab, Aalto Living Lab, Portugal Energy Living Lab, Botnia Living Lab), after which Task 3.4 covers the evaluation and recommendation activities.

Outcomes from the Task 3.3 are reported in this Deliverable D3.4. Objectives of this Task T3.3 are as defined in Description of Work (DoW) for Task T3.3/D3.4: Task 3.3. Cross-border piloting

This Task pilots the experiments in the four Living Labs. It will test the impact of real time data on the Energy consumers. After the pilots launched they will be monitored on a permanent basis to assess how they are running. The monitoring framework comprises the following levels: 1.

2.

3.

4.

End-users level: how is the technology being used, experienced; Pilot level: how are the partners / stakeholders are experiencing the collaboration, identification of problems occurring; Methods and tools used level: are these tools sufficient, appropriate, who is using them; Impact level: to what extent do the participating stakeholders benefit from the crossborder aspects, how is this relevant for other Living Labs, can they be replicated, what are the concrete benefits in up scaling.

The results of the different pilots will be compared with each other. Firstly this will be done between the transferring and hosting Living Lab and secondly, it will be done between the two cross-border experiments.

The approach to monitor the above aspects will be based on the common approach defined in Task 3.1 and will be discussed between the transferring and receiving Living Lab. Automated logging tools will be used to collect usage data, interviews with stakeholders and analysis of contextual information from Task 3.2. This Task allows to establish a common benchmarking framework between the 4 Energy Efficiency related LLs including a service model for clients, business model for sustainability, as well as a reference model to share data, knowledge, experience and competencies and seek towards more efficient resources usage. The results of this task will be reported in Deliverable D3.4.

This Deliverable continues from Deliverable D3.3 as the same experiments are covered but more in detail and retrospectively. The content of this deliverable is described in the Apollon Description of Work (DoW) as follows: D.3.4

6

Setup of the Experiment in the crossborder Living Lab

This deliverable describes the setup of the experiments performed in the 4 LLs and the crossborder activities as well as the methodologies and tools,

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

2.2 Methodology

extrapolating their use in other LL.

This Deliverable is based on information from regular face-to-face Apollon WP3 project management meetings and teleconferences, from project templates developed during Apollon programme, from energy efficiency roadshows during 2010-12 and from partner interviews carried out during September 2011 and March 2013 by AAL. The interviews utilised open-ended, semi-structured interviewing template, and the transcribed interview texts have been shared with the interviewees for correctness.

Further, this Deliverable has been co-authored by the partners in order to ensure further correctness of interpretations made by the interviewer and author. Each Living Lab has also gathered information of its experiments and reported advancements periodically to WP1, and writing the section describing methods and tools has been led

by WP1. CDT has led the work on User Behaviour Change. The outcomes of these are reported in the respective sections.

2.3 Structure

This Deliverable describes the pilots, methodology and impact in the following structure: 3.

4.

Energy efficiency experiments at Living Labs Benchmarking and best practices 4.1

4.2

4.3

Cross-border cases – technology transfer and testing Knowledge transfer methodology Business partnerships

5. Living Lab operations 5.1

5.2

Scenarios

Sustainability

6. Tools and methods

7. Impact on energy efficiency

7

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

3. Energy efficiency experiments at Living Labs This Chapter describes the energy efficiency experiments at the four participating Living Labs. The experiments were carried out in four different contexts: • • • •

Luleå: 20 private houses Amsterdam: two blocks of houses of private households, part of Amsterdam Smart City project Lisbon: one block of houses of energy efficiency –driven early adopters Helsinki: one office building with several companies as tenants

3.1 Luleå experiment

The purpose of the Luleå Energy case was to implement visualisation technologies in private households to be able to test an approach that stimulates users to adopt the technology for a longer period of time.

The key question to be answered was whether continuous interaction with the users by giving them tasks can help them to adopt the technology and increase their intention to change their energy consumption behaviour. In this case, the overarching research objective was to lower the users’ energy consumption by using energy visualization tools. In this study, we encouraged use of the visualization technology by providing the users with tasks they should carry out while they increase their familiarity with the technology. In this way, the adoption of the innovations that were implemented in the users homes was stimulated which in the longterm perspective led to behavior change and lower energy consumption. Through the users increased knowledge about energy saving and energy consumption their intentions and attitudes towards energy saving were influenced positively.

An additional aim of this study was to stimulate knowledge exchange between the Apollon partners regarding methodologies that stimulate behaviour change. The focus was to test different ways of sharing knowledge among the partners.

Innovations to be implemented in the user context were energy visualisation tools from ELIQ and SABER. Additionally, test and evaluation of Plugwise and Quby Energy Display were planned but did not materialise due to differences in installation environments – for details, please see Chapter on technology transfer.

The partners involved were Luleå Energy, Botnia Living Lab and Kyab in the implementation case where the methodology was tested. In the knowledge exchange process, Amsterdam Living Lab, Botnia Living Lab, Lisbon Living Lab and Aalto Living Lab and their partners were involved.

The experiment was ongoing between April 2011 and February 2012.

The set-up phase of the case for energy use transformation •

The technology implemented was SABER and ELIQ o Test storylines were developed for ELIQ and SABER

8

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

•

User groups were determined o The users are private persons that are interested in energy saving and have their own home where they pay for their energy themselves. o Luleå Energy customer database, invitations sent to around 300 people o Information at Luleå Energy website o Selection criterions - suggestions for selection might be: 

Both genders



Children that are under 18 (we suspect that changes in their family can happen otherwise that influence their energy consumption)



They should live in a house



The users should have district heating for the SABER technology and electrical warming for the ELIQ



We tried to not include people that planned large renovations in terms of changing windows or other energy saving plans since these will influence their energy consumption



They should be interested in energy saving

o 40 users were planned to be involved, 10 households/technology – 20 households chosen •

Roles were divided among partners o In this case, Luleå Energy was responsible for the communication with the customers, they installed the technology and they had the technological support. Botnia Living Lab was responsible for methodologies for user interaction.

Process design The process for the case was as follows:

9

•

Training sessions to learn about the technology for the partners (Luleå Energy and Botnia Living Lab) involved

•

Functional testing within the Living Labs to make sure that the technology is working and to become acquainted with the technology

•

Translation of instructions, screen texts, messages and other information

•

We decided to use the survey tool Survey Monkey, Facebook and the discussion forums provided by KYAB

•

The experiment was continuously evaluated during the case with questions to the users about their experiences of getting tasks that increases their knowledge about energy

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

consumption and at the same time stimulate usage of the technology. In the end, the case was evaluated in accordance with the research questions, such as intention to change their energy consumption, the users’ experience of being given tasks to do (methodology evaluation). In addition, the base-line questionnaire was distributed to the users in the end of the project which will show if any changes in their interest etc has occurred.

•

Recruitment of participants (see above)

•

Selection of participants (see above)

•

Set up of collaboration agreements and other legal agreements among partners

•

Develop tools for comparing results from the implementation of the technology. o A base-line questionnaire about the users’ interest in energy-saving and climate actions was distributed to the users in the beginning of the case as well as in the end. o The users’ energy consumption was measured before the case started and was measured for the test period and then a comparison between the two took place.

•

Determine how user input will be gathered and develop sufficient tools (see above)

•

Develop user interaction scheme (how often should they be contacted, what kind of contacts should it be, why have you chosen to do it like that). See test storylines developed

•

Develop a test-storyline with activities the users should conduct, time schedule for when they should do what and the technology to collect their experiences of the activities, their energy behaviour change and their attitudes. Keep track of temperature and other influential factors that might influence the energy-consumption and behaviour. Also design tasks for the users to carry out in accordance to the season.

•

Installation of technology in the field. If a technician was needed to do the implementation, one was provided. Otherwise, it was made sure that explicit implementation instructions were provided to lower the threshold of start using the innovation.

•

Interact with the users according to the test storyline o After each interaction, self-evaluate the approach to make sure it gives the needed input. If not, make needed adjustment in correlation with the purpose of the case

10

•

After the test was finalised, the same base-line questionnaire was conducted again to be able to compare the results.

•

Evaluate the users’ experiences of using the innovation, taking part in the test and their energy consumption behaviour in general.

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

•

Document the findings and reflect to learn for the next user study.

3.1.1 Research focus In this case, the overarching research objective was to lower the users’ energy consumption by using energy visualization tools. In this study, we encouraged use of the visualization technology by providing the users with tasks they should carry out while they increase their familiarity with the technology. In this way, the adoption of the innovations that are implemented in the users homes were stimulated which in the longterm perspective led to behavior change and lower energy consumption. Through the users increased knowledge about energy saving and energy consumption their intentions and attitudes towards energy saving were influenced positively.

3.1.2 User Recruitment

To recruit users to this case, adds on Luleå Energy home page and advertisement on the customers’ bills were used where they users were invited to participate in the study.

The interested users (75) answered a qualification survey. In this survey, the users answered questions about: • • • • • • • •

their gender

how many adults and children that lived in their home the age of the children

how they lived (house, apartment etc)

what kind of heating they had in their home the size of their house

if they planned any renovations in their house ( if, so which),

their interest in energy saving questions

These questions were identified as significant for our study of energy behavior change to make it possible for us to identify appropriate users. Hence, users who planned to, for example, do large renovations such as bathroom or changing windows were not included in the study due to the difficulty of comparing their energy consumption between years.

3.1.3 Base-line Questionnaire

Twenty households were chosen and invited into the test. Ten of them should test the ELIQ visualization technology and ten of them should test the SABER visualization technology. ELIQ can only measure and visualize electricity consumption, hence households with electrical heating were chosen, while SABER can visualize district heating, electricity and warm water consumption and therefore households with district heating were chosen to test this technology.

The test was started with a base-line questionnaire focused on the test users’ interest in energy and environmental issues. The idea was that the same questionnaire should be given to the users at the end of the test, to find out if the test had affected their interest and behavior.

11

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

3.1.4 Assignments and Story lines used in the local pilot on LuleĂĽ When designing the storylines for each assignment we used a matrix to draft and outline the assignments and to get a good overview of the assignments. We tried to make sure that each assignment would be instructive and to enable learning in the families who were testing the technologies, at the same time we tried to make them easy to perform and that they should not be too large and cumbersome to perform. We strived in the assignments to stimulate the usage of the different functions that each technology offers.

Hence, the assignments could differ partly, but they had the same goal. For example the test pilots using the SABER were given assignments on district heating, electricity and hot water consumption while the assignments on ELIQ all were designed in ways that focused on electricity consumption.

Thereafter each assignment was outlined in more detail in a document and also sent to the test users in relation to the starting time for each assignment. In connection to all assignments a questionnaire were given to all test pilots. The questions were focused on the test of functions, on performing readings to make comparisons in consumption, they were also focused on a changed behavior, so the first part of the assignment they did as they always do, and then the second part they got instructions on how to change behavior, and thereafter make readings and comparisons in consumption. Finally we always had questions on their experiences of the assignments and the results. Were they expected or were the results surprising, for example, or would they consider making a change in behavior based on what they learned. Hence, each assignment was closed with a questionnaire.

In the table below you find all the assignments outlined and the areas of questions given.

In the last column we have added results from the questionnaires to show how users experienced the assignments and on what changes in behavior they see as possible to implement in their household on a more stable way.

12

Final Version

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

Month March Starting up

April/M ay

Assignment ELIQ

Assignment SABER

Question areas

Welcoming document to all test users. Describing ELIQ and its functions. Also describing how to start up the test, how the test will be performed and finally how we will make evaluations and follow up on results.

Radio/TV/Tele

Welcoming document to all test users. Describing SABER and its functions.

Also describing how to start up the test, how the test will be performed and finally how we will make evaluations and follow up on results.

• Measure the energy consumption during night time an ordinary night and note it down, also note the outside temperature • Turn off all unnecessary energy consumers such as lamps, stand-by TV, computers, phone loaders, etc.

• Measure the energy consumption for that night and note it down

• Keep all your gadgets on in standby for a whole week.

• Read the meter for consumption.

• Turn off all unnecessary energy consumers such as lamps, stand-by TV, computers, phone loaders, always when not using them for a whole week.

• Read the meter for this

Radio/TV/Tele

13

Evaluation

• No questions here

• No evaluation made here.

• Was there any difference in energy consumption?

• Which equipment did you turn off?

• Do you think that you will continue turning these off?

• Which consequences would that have for you?

• What was your experience of doing the assignment?

• 83% of ELIQ users noticed a reduction in electricity consumption. 88,9% of ELIQ users found that doing the assignments increased their awareness of how the electricity consumption is distributed in the house. 2/3 of the ELIQ users claim that they are motivated to change their behaviour in terms of electricity usage thanks to the assignments.

• The SABER users found the assignments more difficult

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

also note the outside temperature • Note which day of the month that had the highest level of energy consumption

• • •

•

June/Jul y Summer time

Laundry and drying

week.

Note the difference between the two weeks.

Note the outdoor temperature all days.

Note which day of the month that had the highest level of energy consumption Does it correlate to the outdoor temperature

Laundry and drying

• Measure the energy • During one week: consumption when you Measure the energy wash your laundry in 90, consumption when you 60 and/or 40 degrees wash your laundry in and with different 90, 60 and/or 40 programs. degrees and with different programs as • Note the energy you normally do it. consumption for each washing machine • Note the energy consumption for each • If you have a tumbler washing machine dryer that you use, please note the energy • If you have a tumbler consumption of a dryer that you use, 14

• What was the difference in energy consumption between the different degrees?

• Do you think that you will change your washing routines due to this information? Why, why not?

• Compare the energy consumption between April and May • Is there a noticeable difference between the months? If so, what might be the reasons for the

to perform. The SABER has more functionality compared to the ELIQ and this could affect the results. However all SABER users claim that the assignments increased their awareness of electricity consumption in the house, and almost 90% say they are motivated to change their behaviour in terms of electricity consumption.

• Using the ELIQ and the SABER in this assignment was difficult. It was difficult to make comparisons between weeks. For example washing less numbers of machines or in different temperature. Also difficult to know what the difference stemmed from.

However the assignments made the users reflect on their consumption and user behaviour.

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

machine • During another week.

Wash and dry your laundry as energy efficient as possible. E.g. choose not to wash in hot/warm programs, do not tumble dry etc. measure the energy consumption.

• Compare the two weeks.

August

Warm water •

•

•

Take your showers as you are used to during one week. Use an egg-clock to measure the time you shower.

The second week you should take showers which are 3 minutes shorter than your normal showers.

Check water consumption on the ELIQ and note the difference between the two weeks.

please note the energy difference? consumption of a • What was your experience of machine. doing the assignment?

• During another week.

Wash and dry your laundry as energy efficient as possible.

E.g. choose not to wash in hot/warm programs, do not tumble dry etc. measure the energy consumption.

• Compare the two weeks.

• Consider how it feels to take • Both ELIQ and SABER Warm water three minutes shorter users claim that the • Take your showers as showers. Is it OK? Is it assignment made them you are used to during enough? reflect on consumption. one week. Use an eggHowever it was difficult to • Is the difference in water clock to measure the read the meter to see if consumption big enough for time you shower. there was any difference in you to change your • The second week you consumption. behaviour? should take showers • SABER users could read • How much water and how which are 3 minutes the water consumption on much money would you save shorter than your the meter. in one year if you changed normal showers. your behaviour • Check water • Do you think that you will consumption on the change your shower routines Saber web and note the due to this information?

15

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

October

difference between the two weeks.

•

Lightning

Lightning

•

• See the filmes at:

• See the filmes at:

•

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv /avsnitt-19--glodlampor.htm http://www.vattenfall.se/sv /avsnitt-6---belysning.htm

Calculation of how much of electricity usage comes from lamps. Turn of heating and radiators. Also increase temperature in freezer and fridge as well as all gadgets on standby. Compare consumption with low energy or LED lamps.

Calculate possible savings and compare.

http://www.vattenfall.se/ sv/avsnitt-19--glodlampor.htm http://www.vattenfall.se/ sv/avsnitt-6--belysning.htm

• •

Calculation of how much of electricity usage comes • from lamps. Turn of heating and radiators. Also increase temperature in freezer and fridge as well as all gadgets on standby.

Compare consumption with low energy or LED lamps. Calculate possible savings and compare.

16

Why, why not?

What was your experience of doing the assignment?

What is the possible savings for your household, based on the calculations?

Is the difference big enough for you to realize the changes?

Which savings are you ready to realize?

Will you realize changes in lightning in your household (based on what you have learned from this assignment?)

What was your experience of doing the assignment?

• 2/3 ELIQ and ¾ SABER users found the possible savings big enough to realize them.

• Favoured activities were to change into low energy lamps and to turn of lights in empty rooms, but also to use timers to reduce the number of hours lamps are turned on.

• All ELIQ and ¾ SABER participants argue that they will change behaviour and how they light their households based on what they have learned from this assignment.

• Participants reflections were that lamps really use more energy than they realized before. Hence, they saw this as a good area for changing behaviour and realizing saving actions.

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

Novemb er

Watch these films with tips on energy savings:

http://www.vattenfal l.se/sv/avsnitt-11--vinterbona-bilen.htm http://www.vattenfal l.se/sv/avsnitt-25--lasses-vardagsti.htm http://www.vattenfall.se /sv/avsnitt-10--vinterbona-hemmet.htm

Watch these films with tips on energy savings:

http://www.vatten fall.se/sv/avsnitt11---vinterbonabilen.htm http://www.vatten fall.se/sv/avsnitt25---lassesvardagsti.htm http://www.vattenfall .se/sv/avsnitt-10--vinterbonahemmet.htm

17

Answer the questions on which savings you are ready to realize, or maybe already have realized. • Calculate the savings you already have made, and then the ones you could make if you realized them.

Saving activities already realized were mainly; unplugging mobile phone charger when not in use, turning off computers etc from stand by when not in use, boiling water in a boiler, filling up dish washer and washing machines before starting them. Drying laundry by hanging it up to air dry.

Using low energy lamps, using timers for lamps and other gadgets to decrease the numbers of hours turned on. Lowering the temperature on rooms that are not used so much.

Activities that they would consider doing were mainly to; take shorter showers and not so warm showers, connect TV and other gadgets to a socket where you can turn them all of when not in use, lowering room temperature to 18 degrees,

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

Decemb er

Christmas Decorations and outdoor lightning plus Refrigerator and freezer Watch the films at: http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/avsn itt-9---utomhusbelysning.htm http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/avsn itt-2---kyl-och-frys.htm

•

Read the meter before you install your Christmas decorations. (a few days) • Read the meter after installing all your Christmas decorations. (a few days) • Install timers to your decorations to make sure they turn off during

Christmas Decorations and outdoor lightning plus Refrigerator and freezer Watch the films at:

http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/av snitt-9---utomhusbelysning.htm http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/av snitt-2---kyl-och-frys.htm

• Read the meter before you install your Christmas decorations. (a few days) • Read the meter after installing all your Christmas decorations. (a few days) • Install timers to your decorations to make sure they turn off

18

• How big difference is there before and after installing Christmas decorations.

• How big difference is there between having Christmas decorations running all the time compared to only certain hours per day?

• Is the difference big enough for you to change your behaviour? How much money could you save in only one month from taking this action?

• What was your experience of doing the assignment?

• Which energy class do your refrigerator and freezer have? (A, B, C, D, E, F, G?) • Will the knowledge you gained now lead to changed behaviour?

• In what way will you change

reduce number of lamps and also to use shades when it is dark outside.

Using timer for floor heating was also considered by a majority.

• Respondents claim it was difficult to read the difference on Christmas decorations. Also the outdoor temperature was very different between the days so the consumption was affected.

• A majority already had LED lightning in their Christmas decorations and further they also used timers on them. Hence, in this sense the test group had already made smart investments to save energy.

• When it comes to freezers and refrigerators most users already had A+ or A. No reflections on the test with a paper were given.

Apollon – Deliverable D.3.4

nights and hours when you are not at home (e.g. working) (a few days)

Find out what energy class your refrigerator and freezer has.

Do the test with a paper on your freezer. Note the results. Will you make any adjustments based on the test?

during nights and your behaviour? hours when you are not • What was your experience of at home (e.g. working) doing the assignment? (a few days)

Find out what energy class your refrigerator and freezer has.

Do the test with a paper on your freezer. Note the results. Will you make any adjustments based on the test?

19

3.1.5 Closing Questionnaire – Comparison of Results from Base-Line Questionnaire After completing all assignments we sent out a questionnaire to all test users. It was designed in the same way as the first base line questionnaire, with a small number of questions added. We wanted to learn if there had been any changes in interest energy and environment, but also if the interest in changing behavior hade increased (or changed at all).

The results showed that in general the interest and ambitions in energy savings and being environment friendly had increased. Even though the level in many cases was high already from the start, it had increased in several issues. For example on activities they already are doing sorting of garbage had increased from 90% to 100%. This is also (obviously) the activity that most participants are doing. But, lowering indoor temperature had increased from 50% to 60% of the participants and removing car roof rack and/or car roof box from the car to reduce the consumption of gasoline from 30% to 53% of the participants. Buying local products had also increased from 50% to 60% of the participants. Drinking water from the tap instead of buying water on bottle had an increase from 75% to 93% which is a remarkable increase.

On the other hand in some cases the interest and willingness had decreased. For example being engaged in environmental issues had a decrease from 25% to 20% and driving “eco-driving� style also had decreased from 50% to 40% of the participants.

On the questions on what they value as important there were also some changes.

For example there was a small decrease in how important they consider it to have control on the energy consumption in their households as well as in how interested they are in the energy consumption in their household. Our interpretation of this result is that now, when they have learned a lot about their consumption it is not as important to follow the consumption in detail.

On the other hand the importance of knowing WHAT consuming energy in the household is had increased. And we interpret this as lessons learned from the assignments. They now know where the energy is consumed and how they can affect the consumption.

The more detailed questions on activities they already are doing showed that there was an increase in almost all areas. The biggest changes were found in installing energy effective taps in kitchen and bathroom. This increase went from 10% up to 58%. Otherwise the increase was overall around 10% on e.g. dishing and washing with full machines, taking shorter showers, and around 20% on activities such as turning of gadgets fully instead of keeping them in standby mode, further lowering 20

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

the indoor temperature was done by 61% compared to 37% to begin with. Also insulation overall and open windows and doors tight had an increase from 47% up to 69%. Keeping the space in front of radiators had increased from 42% up to 92%.

Also, using a water boiler to boil water went up from 47% to 92%. Defrosting freezers regularly went up from 52% to 77% and turning off the towel heater when not used went up from 31% to 84%. So in total users have increased their activities to save energy and decrease consumption in many areas and in some areas to a large extent.

In the last questionnaire we asked how much they believed that they could decrease their consumption in total if they really put their mind on it. The largest group (26%) believed 4-6% while 20% believed that they would be able to save 8-10% and 13% believed that they would be able to save more than 10%. 20% believed that they would be able to save less than 4% and 20% did not know. We will show later in the results how much they actually saved (or not saved) during the test period.

Further, in the last questionnaire we asked what led to the energy savings and 80% argue that it was the assignments that helped increase their understanding of energy consumption. 60% also argued that the visualization of energy consumption affected while 6% believe it was a total coincidence. When asking how often they have read the visualization meter 40% of the users answer a few times per week while 27% answer a few times per month and 13% less than a few times per month.

20% of the users answer that they looked more than once a day.

On the question on how much they would consider paying for a visualization technology per month the replies vary quite a lot. 40% say between 0-29 kr/month while 53% say between 49-100 kr/month. One respondent answers that they don’t understand the question.

3.1.6 Focus Group Interview with Test Users

As a closing activity we invited eight of the test persons to a focus group interview.

The purpose was to learn more in detail how they had experienced the test and what they had learned. We invited four ELIQ and four SABER users, some who had made large energy savings and some that had not saved as much, or even had increased their consumption. Seven test users joined the meeting and we talked for approx. two hours with them. As a sign of gratitude we served a light dinner and they all received two movie vouchers each.

All participants were male and most of them showed a large interest in energy and environmental issues. In fact several of them had this interest already when they were children. One interesting lesson was that they had all joined this test quite spontaneously without involving their family in the decision of participating. This fact had then turned into a problem during the test period. The rest of their family were in fact not interested at all in saving energy, and so a lot of energy had been spend on convincing their family members to make an effort and contribute to the test (and energy savings in the household).

21

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Some of the issues raised from the users during the discussion were the problem of reading the visualization meter and to know what appliance was consuming. This was especially a problem for the test users who had the ELIQ and only could see electricity consumption. This was because you could never know when different radiators turned on or off, when the freezer turned on or off or when some other major appliance turned on or off. Hence, it was difficult to know if the difference in consumption when doing an assignment was based on their effort or if it only was based on their appliances turning on and off in another way than earlier. But, even if this was a problem, they still felt that they learned a lot from the different assignments and the reflections they had to do when performing them, and answering the follow up questions. The assignment which was considered the best, was the October assignment, in which they turned off all appliances one after another to see how it affected the meter. Hence, this would have been a very good assignment to start the test period with.

A few of the test users have had technological problems during the test period, for example with the SABER it was a problem with the wire-less connections, and every time it lost connection, they had to restart the whole set-up. In fact most of the test users have had to restart the SABER continuously. To really have good data, it was found that a wired solution was best. Also for some of them it took quite some time to realize this. They believed they had good data, when in fact they had lost contact.

Therefore, it was argued that it would have been good to have participated in the installation of the technology, and also if there had been an early information meeting where a walk-through of the technology and its functions had been given.

The test users give several examples of AHA moments when doing the assignments and also on actions they have taken in order to reduce consumption. For example most of them have made investments in low energy lamps and/or LED lamps. They have also continuously reflected on what appliances are the major consumers of energy in their households. For example the outdoor Christmas lights were put on timer when they realized that it consumed 150 watt. This had never been reflected on earlier. Further, actions they describe they are doing to a larger extent are; turning of lamps when leaving a room, connection appliances with transformers to a socket which can be turned off and using timers to a larger extent.

Another reflection is that the weather and outdoor temperature affects the consumption to a very large extent. Therefore, several of the test users would have liked to have a technology which could also visualize temperature, sun hours and other outdoor issues that affects the consumption.

The test users also confirm the added value of having the consumption visualized, and say that having it in the mobile like an application would have been great.

Feedback to us as test designers is that as mentioned earlier having a meeting early on would have been helpful. Further, several of the users gave comments and/or questions in the questionnaire, which they expected to receive feedback on. From our point this was not clear, and hence, we missed this opportunity.

22

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Before closing the focus group we asked them for input on future design of enabling technologies. The answers vary a bit, but some of the suggestions were that being able to steer their appliances on a distance would be good. For example the motor heater to the car, or the outdoor lamps on the house, were suggestions on appliances they would like to be able to steer via e.g. the mobile phone. In fact, having a combination of a web based and a mobile based interface was discussed a lot.

One other clear wish was that the consumption should be possible to visualize in a monetary scale. This would then be used to e.g. show the teenagers how much a 30 minute shower cost. Relating the usage to real cost was considered valuable.

Further, being able to follow each appliance and its consumption was also considered as valuable. This had been experienced as a problem during the test, to not know which appliance was consuming energy.

Thereafter it was discussed for some time, the value of being able to separate heating, warm water and electricity into separate graphs. Having smart diagrams which made it possible to exchange some parts and to make simulations with the data was also discussed to a large extent.

3.2 Amsterdam experiment The Amsterdam Living Lab was started by the Amsterdam Innovation Motor (AIM) together with Waag Society, NoVay and the University of Amsterdam. Via the Amsterdam Smart City initiative many additional industry partners are included to specifically tackle the key challenge for sustainability programs and smart grid development in the city of Amsterdam w.r.t. Sustainable Living, Sustainable working, Sustainable Transport and Sustainable Municipality. Partners are: Amsterdam Innovation Motor (AIM), Home Automation Europe, Alliander, Process Vision Netherlands and Logica.

Home Automation Europe (HAE) came to Amsterdam Smart City project as a partner to test and continuously develop energy displays, and later joined the Apollon programme to improve their concept by gaining international experience and to create business abroad. With the Amsterdam projects, however, HAE learned some capital-intensive revisions were needed for their hardware platform and that their product was not as exportable as originally planned. Via Apollon partner contacts, HAE also learned that they had designed a Dutch product based on homes heated with gas, whereas in Sweden there was much district heating and in Portugal cooling was of higher priority. Therefore, the technology transfer from HAE in Apollon project never got into realization – for details, please see Chapter on technology transfer.

The network company Alliander, via its business unit Liander, participated in Apollon project in order to stimulate technological innovations in the field of energy management, to exchange information with the participating companies in the 23

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Apollon project about pilot projects Liander had run in the past and to explore new technologies from different countries. Further, Liander wanted to research the acquisition, retention and contribution of pilot project participants. As a regulated company, owned mainly by municipalities and local government, Liander´s task is also to contribute to an improved society, a.o. via stimulating SMEs. Liander is though strictly a Dutch company with Dutch interests and as such different from various other Apollon partners.

The afore-mentioned Amsterdam Smart City initiative tackles the key challenge for sustainability programs and smart grid development. It is a Living Lab with real life measurement capabilities across the whole energy chain, from energy production, delivery and consumption that includes smart meters & smart grid technology. The pilot area covers two city parts of Amsterdam and involves about 1250 households.

The focus is activities on sustainable living in social and supported housing. It aims to reduce the energy consumption in (households via using innovative products, services and techniques, including smart meters, energy control mechanisms, direct feedback and information provisioning etc. It deals both gaining is insights in usage behavior as well as raising awareness and achieving behavioral change.

The Amsterdam Smart City program (being payer of the Amsterdam Living Lab) consists of many different projects (20) which each have many different stakeholders (more than 65 overall). Detailed descriptions from all the smart stories of 16 projects can be found online (http://www.aimsterdam.nl/over-AIM/smartstories) over on all. Three of those are relevant for the Apollon: the West-Orange pilot and the Guezenveld pilot both trying to save energy via introducing smart displays, and the ITO Tower for saving energy in office buildings. Of these three, the ”Geuzenveld” pilot is described below as the most relevant for the project.

The experiment - Geuzenveld The purpose of the Buurzaam Wonen – Geuzenveld project was to stimulate awareness among Amsterdam’s citizens and their energy consumption patterns, to make them aware of how to improve their behaviour and thereby to actually save energy. The residents were engaged in the project on an individual and collective basis. Another important objective was to gain experience on the implementation of the smart meters and energy feedback displays.

Exceptional about the Buurzaam Wonen (Neighbourly Living) project in Geuzenveld was the intensive activation and interaction between the local residents. Different sessions were organised to activate residents and to discuss issues related to energy saving. The residents were also stimulated to discuss the individual and collective aspects of energy saving. Moreover, residents could exchange their thoughts and ideas via a blog. Activation in this neighbourhood area was a challenge because of the high rate of social housing and the social structure of the neighbourhood. Over 500 smart meters were rolled out in the Geuzenveld area. Sixty residents were also 24

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

issued with a display that was connected to the smart meter. The purpose of the display was to give the residents insight into their energy consumption. Grid operator Liander was the leading partner in the project in Geuzenveld and was also responsible for the overall technical realization, infrastructural work and organisation of the project, which included the installation of the smart meters and energy displays. In addition, all eight partners played an important and indispensable role in the realization of the project.

Duration of the pilot was from 25 September 2010 till 16th of April 2011.

The research in this project was conducted by the University of Amsterdam. The research took into account the different factors that influence behavioural change.

So far, the research has shown that residents who have an energy feedback display tend to demonstrate more environmental friendly behavior and are more aware of the amount of energy they use than residents who do not have an energy feedback display. Another goal of the research was to determine the actual concrete savings percentages, the differences between the percentages attained with the use of the different types of displays, and how a neighbourhood, such as Geuzenveld, can effectively be engaged in themes such as energy saving.

Important part of the pilot project was focused on mobilizing and active engagement of the people in the neighbourhood by on-line and offline platforms and interactive programs: promotion material (flyers, T-shirts), sessions, information meetings, dialogs, dolls “Bonnie and Blitz�, involvement of energy experts, coaches, ambassador sessions, eco tours, as well as all kind of social media (Twitter, Facebook, blogs etc.). Ambassador sessions are for identifying the key players in the neighborhood and for engaging them in the design of the concept as well as execution of information sessions and eco-tours related to the rollout of the smart meters. Eco Tours are a guided tour to specific energy related facilities, e.g. energy production facility, waste management facility, etc. Eco Sessions at primary school engage with children and parents to discuss energy savings and sustainability issues, exchange of tips and suggestions, as well as hands on experiments.

Information sessions were held with experts and inhabitants to discuss the topic of energy savings and smart meter topics like safety, privacy issues and energy bill implications.

Two types of real time energy displays were used: Onzo display and the GEO display, that real-time interacted with the smart meter. The technology measured gas usage and electricity.

25

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

The pilots were carried out in private households in the Geuzenveld area of Amsterdam, see below for an overview.

The impacts on the user behavior were measured by energy consumption, energy interest, environmental interest, intention to change behavior and actions to decrease energy consumption.

26

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Picture

User involvement at West Orange pilot and Geuzenveld pilots

In the following are facts and figures from the Amsterdam’s Duurzaamwonen pilot (Sustainable Living) in Geuzenveld: •

541 addresses

27

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2 types of displays 60 displays 541 households 4 eco sessions 2 information evenings 1 ambassador session 50 energy saving tips collected 10 visits of “Bonnie and Blitz” in Geuzenveld 2 eco tours 120 children with “Bonnie and Blitz” inhabitants blog Facebook page 1 twitter account 5 environmental coaches 50 energy savings boxes handed out to inhabitants 1500 flyers 60 posters 300 T-shirts smart technologies 8 partners research by students of the UvA (University of Amsterdam) active neighbourhood involvement end party

Experience was accumulated during the course of the project, and is still being accumulated in the collaborative processes between the partners. The most important lesson learnt in terms of the engagement of the residents in the neighbourhood is that the use of local influentials to create awareness for the project and to generate support is necessary to succeed. Furthermore, it resulted that that house owners showed more interest and were more likely to join the programme compared people who live in rented houses. In addition, in order to activate people, it is also important to talk to all the members of the family – young and old – and to make the project objectives comprehensible to everyone.

Innovative technology must be simple for the participant to use and understand.

The residents must not be burdened with technological explanations. What does it mean to them and what can they do with it? Short, simple, and concrete explanations are required. An important lesson learnt regarding cooperation is the influence of external factors, such as the impact of internal decision making processes of the different partners may have on project planning.

The focus was on innovative technology and the user. The Geuzenveld project tests types of innovative technologies, including a smart meter and different types of energy feedback displays. Although this method of testing new technologies in an 28

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

existing neighbourhood is no novelty as such, the fact that it was combined with an intensive resident participation programme means that a great deal of experience was accumulated in the use of the technological system and the motivations for and thresholds to saving energy. The collaboration and harmonization between the different partners was a necessary condition for a successful implementation of the technologies and the engagement of the residents of the neighbourhood.

In the following are recommendations from the project: For communication: • • • • • • • • •

Use different communications channels to reach impact and outreach Sustainability is not something that lives with people, make it concrete and focus on something tangible.

Engage key-people in the neighbourhood Engage the whole family Be visible in the neighbourhood and approachable with the project Find local well informed ambassadors Piggy back on exciting local initiatives Communication via letters is NOT effective Standardise the information sessions

For project: • • •

Start with feasibility study, risk analysis Create infrastructure for communication/knowledge exchange Clear expectations

For technology: • •

Validate the technical feasibility of the goals of the project Sufficient time between test and roll-out

Results from the 20 Amsterdam Smart City projects

The biggest challenge all the partners in the different projects faced was to engage the people of Amsterdam; in other words to involve the residents, the entrepreneurs, the employees in the office buildings and also the visitors of the city.

There are many ways to render houses, office buildings and public spaces in a sustainable manner. Although significant cuts in CO2 emissions can be made by implementing technology, the bottom line is that a very high percentage of the total energy use is still controlled by the (end) user and his or her behavior. Not only in terms of making them aware of the different initiatives that are being rolled out, but also in terms of engaging them to become actively involved in energy saving.

While this might seem obvious, it is essential to be aware of the fact that, when it comes to the implementation of technologies, the (end) user may never be left out of the implementation equation. Projects reveal that the technology should not be 29

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

presented to the end user before the project team has gained a substantial amount of experience in testing the technology. At the same time, it is also extremely important not to burden the participant with technological complications, such as having to install the display system themselves. The ready-to-use solution is definitely preferable. Notwithstanding, the fact remains that sooner or later the smart technologies must be tested in real life situations, like in homes and shops.

Some projects have revealed that actively engaging users could, in itself, be an ambitious objective. While it was previously thought that it would be fine to engage occupants of a building regarding the implementation of a few sustainable technologies, it transpired that the processes involved in the first step – the actual implementation of the initiatives – were invariably more complex than expected.

The conclusion drawn from that lesson was that it is advisable to first complete the implementation process and gain results before communicating to the user and to engage them in the awareness–creation process and then to the actually start saving energy.

In several projects this was the case, for instance in the Monumental Buildings and the Smart Swimming Pools project. While this does not necessarily mean that those projects were unsuccessful (on the contrary, a great deal was learnt about the implementation of different types of technology), an even more important lesson that emerged from those projects was that it is essential to engage and focus on the right target group throughout the entire process. In summary, it would be fair to say that the visitor of these buildings is actually the secondary target group in the projects. The first and direct target group consists of, for example, the owners of the swimming pools and the parties responsible for making the monumental buildings sustainable Regarding process-based and technical lessons, a great deal was and is still being learnt in all the subprojects. The aspect of engaging the user is described above.

However, we also gained a lot of experience in implementing all the tested initiatives and the technologies as such. Was a specific energy display system really as user-friendly in the field as it was thought after testing it in the lab? Obviously, internal processes in organisations are tested and must in some cases be reorganised when new products are introduced to the market.

Regarding regulations, one of the lessons of several projects is the fact that currently only highly motivated persons and businesses are really trying to lower their carbon footprint. Due to the structure of the energy tax, it is more difficult for high consuming businesses (>50.000kWh) to create a positive business case on energy saving, than for households. Strict regulations from (local) governments can however boost the area of every reduction. Mandatory energy-labels for houses and offices and binding energy reduction plans are examples that can accelerate this.

Quby – Logica experiment

30

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Logica joined Apollon and changed from a supporting partner into a full partner in February 2010. They had discussions with Liander, its client, of possible joint projects with Logica’s in-house solutions but they did not result in a project proposal. Mid-2011 the proposals were adapted to HAE, and Logica and Quby (formerly Home Automation Europe (HAE)) proposed to contribute to the Apollon project with a description of reference model for Demand Response. This proposal was agreed in the Apollon Assemble meeting in Florence in October 2011.

Comments for the draft were requested from other WP3 cross-border partners. In WP3 meetings in Helsinki and Dresden, Logica and Quby presented an experiment proposal for charging electrical vehicles (EV) using a home controlled environment.

The experiment consists of two activities: 1) Develop a demonstrator that shows the process of home controlled EV charging in combination with a public, local district level charge management system 2) Develop a reference model of a (part) of a smart grid, i.e. the connection between a private charge station and a public load management infrastructure

31

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Logica’s part of the model is CiMS - Chargepoint Interactive Management System which is a central system to manage public charge points for charging of electric vehicles. It utilises Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP), an open protocol between charging stations and a central management system, initially intended for the 10,000 charging stations in the Netherlands but already adopted by several similar initiatives in different countries (http://www.ocpp.nl/).

Quby’s part of the system utilises Quby’s existing Home Energy Management display with an exciting user interface which will get additions for the control of EV 32

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

charging. The display is used for communication with residential EV charging system and with a centralised EV-charging scheduler.

A proto of the system is planned to be demonstrated in Apollon Final Event in May 2012.

Liander´s study on acquisition, retention and contribution Acquisition, retention and contribution have been below expectation in Liander’s collaborative pilots. Therefore, Liander researched this a.o. via a Master thesis “Optimising Acquisition, Retention and Contribution of participants in energy transition pilot projects” mentioned in Attachments, downloadable from MyBBT.

33

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Picture

Example of giving energy use insight to participants in Amsterdam

The main finding of Liander’s contribution to Apollon WP3 is that promising (and delivering) rewards, for achieving challenging goals and through a communal experience, and keeping participants informed and unburdened, is likely to improve Acquisition, Retention & Contribution rates of pilot project participants. The ideal energy transition (neighbourhood) pilot acquires participants by clearly communicating potential cost savings and benefits. During the pilot, the entire neighbourhood is activated through local ambassadors and joint sessions and participants are reinforced through feedback by comparison with (comparable) others.

Liander’s department Energy Saving Solutions carries out pilot projects to develop and test products and services aimed to facilitate the energy transition for energy end users, among others in Living Lab (LL) Amsterdam Smart City (ASC). Acquisition, retention and contribution (A, R & C) of participants for these pilots have been below expectation (see Fig. 1). Although R is acceptable during pilots, because participants do seem to stick, A, R, & C rates vary significantly between pilots and depend largely on the individual project goal. 1 Within Apollon project WP3, Liander provided eleven man-months to research A, R & C optimization in Liander pilots within and outside ASC and in WP3 partner pilots. The main research question was: how can A, R, & C of participants in energy transition pilots be optimized?

Contribution to the West Orange pilot decreased sharply to near-zero during the pilot, but this does not mean the project is not successful.

1

34

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Figure 1. Evolution of contribution to WestOrange project (average number of clicks on energy display).

Research Design The focus was on the motivation of individuals to join, stay and contribute in pilots.

Based on motivation theory, a conceptual model was developed: individuals are motivated to act if the action satisfies their needs. A pilot project should therefore set the participants goals that are relevant to their needs, so that the participants are motivated to join, stay and contribute in pilots.

To identify the relevant needs, qualitative research was carried out: - Exploration of relevant project reports and documentation within Liander and Apollon and outside; - Interviews with and survey among 10 pilot project leaders; - In-Depth Interviews with 25 pilot project participants summarized and analysed using laddering and hierarchical value maps.

This was followed by quantitative research: - Online Survey among Liander customers with 240 useful responses, analysed with factor and regression analysis.

Liander Pilot Examples

Uw Woning in de Watten

Geuzenveld (ASC)

Municipal initiative to tempt 1370 home owners to take energy saving measures based on professional advice and energy usage feedback from smart meter data.

Tested energy savings through feedback with 500 smart meters and 60 connected in-home energy displays and engaging participants by workshops and ambassadors in Geuzenveld, Amsterdam.

Electric driving & charging

WestOrange (ASC)

Develops and tests smart EV charging points for user experience and grid load. All riders receive a charging point and allow energy use measurement.

500 Amsterdam households tested an energy feedback display coupled to the smart energy meter.

35

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Results & Analysis Document exploration provided a list of needs likely to be important in the motivation of pilot participants. Figure 2 shows the relative importance pilot project leaders give to these needs. Project leaders indicated that the most important needs to be addressed in pilots are ‘safety of financial resources’ (Money), ‘Novelty’ and ‘Sustainability’.

‘Affiliativeness’, ‘Independence’ (from energy suppliers) and ‘Power’ are deemed less relevant.

Figure 2. Average variable scores (scale 1-5 with 1 being not important and 5 being very important) on importance of needs for motivation to join, stay and contribute in pilot projects, according to project leaders and industry experts.

Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c summarize the relevant needs for A, R and C respectively, based on In-Depth interviews with pilot participants. Pilot participants confirm that Money is important, remarkably complemented by ‘Understanding’, ‘Achievement’, ‘Idleness’, ‘Cognition’, ‘Affiliativeness’ and ‘Reinforcement’ (see Fig. 2a, b, c). Although relevant overall, ‘Novelty’ is interesting mainly in the acquisition phase, while the needs for ‘Achievement’, ‘Cognition’ and ‘Idleness’ are vital for retention and contribution.

Participant Uw Woning in de Watten: “If energy were free, why would I

Figure 3a. Acquisition: Number of direct (dark) and indirect (light) relations between project attributes and needs for motivation to join in pilot projects, according to project participants.

36

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Participant Electric Driving & Charging “I do not want to have problems with

Figure 3b. Retention: Number of direct (dark) and indirect (light) relations between project attributes and needs for motivation to stay in pilot projects, according to project participants.

Participant Geuzenveld: “I try to reduce my energy usage as

Figure 3c. Contribution: Number of direct (dark) and indirect (light) relations between project attributes and needs for motivation to contribute in pilot projects, according to project participants.

Figure 4 shows the importance of needs according to Liander customers in their motivation to join a pilot project (compare fig. 3a), based on a quantitative survey. As in the interviews, Novelty and Cognition are important. Remarkably, ‘Self Control’, ‘Independence’ and ‘Achievement’ are also important here, which received relatively low scores (for joining) from project leaders and participants in interviews.

37

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

The factor analysis identifies three categories (subsets) of motivational drivers: (1) Social (requires other people), (2) Monetary (only Money) and (3) Other/Egocentric drivers which contains the rest. Social drivers include Praise, Status, Belonging, Affiliativeness, and Competition with others. The Other/Egocentric drivers are divided into Type 1 (Self Control, Achievement, Material Rewards, Cognitive Stimulation, Cost Saving) and Type 2 (Independence, Sustainability, Novelty, Cognition, Reinforcement).

Regression analysis provides hints for optimization of acquisition rates. In particular, ‘likeliness to join’ is explained most by the Type 1 Other/Egocentric drivers. Focusing on needs in this category is most likely to enhance acquisition rates.

Figure 4: Average variable scores (unimportant – very important scale 1-5; control question: ‘agree – disagree’ scale 1-5) on importance of needs for motivation to join in pilot projects, according to 170-190 Liander customers.

Preliminary Conclusions & Recommendations In summary, the preliminary conclusion of this research project is that promising cost savings through setting challenging goals, to be achieved through a communal experience, and keeping participants informed is likely to improve Acquisition, Retention & Contribution of pilot project participants.

For A, R and C, the following recommendations are made: - Promising monetary gain through challenging (game) play and taking away (administrative) hurdles to joining improves participant acquisition. A good example is taking the administrative burden for subsidies granted in ‘Uw Woning in de Watten’ (see inset) off participants’ shoulders, which stimulated participation; the municipality paid the energy advisors directly.

- Positively reinforcing participant behaviour by feedback, keeping them informed about progress and end-goals, letting them share their experiences to create understanding and making saving energy easy, may improve participant retention. Regularly providing 38

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

energy usage overviews (by post) to provide insight to participants in the ‘Uw Woning in de Watten’-project was received very positively and reinforced participation. In-home energy feedback displays work similarly but require effort from the user and in both cases novelty wears off. Energy cost savings are usually small and should be reinforced by larger, proportional rewards. “Geuzenveld” showed that collective ‘energy sessions’ strengthen participant motivation.

- All of the above improve participant contribution, complemented by emphasizing novelty and aesthetics, making sure contribution is playful and participants are able to create / enhance a unique identity and are praised for their contribution. For example, in the West Orange project, the test display did not look nice in the opinion of many participants and was put away. As a positive example, the silence and nice looks of electric cars stimulated employees to participate and gave them a feeling of ‘identity’.

Position the test products as ‘gadgets’ to address ‘novelty’. Good, personal contact between pilot organization staff and participants was highly valued in the ‘Geuzenveld’project.

3.3 Lisbon experiment Alfamicro invited Lisboa Enova and ISA to join Apollon because they were all participating in the Save Energy project, extending the Save Energy project to a household level. Lisboa Enova’s role was to create good practices and be consultants for energy efficiency, energy savings and energy management. ISA provided equipment that can be used for electricity, gas and water consumption, but in these experiments only electricity consumption was measured. ISA joined the project also to learn from the other experiments in different countries.

Financing from Lisbon municipality for the experiment of 300 households was promised but not granted during the Apollon program. This delayed the start of Lisbon experiment as alternative sources of financing need to be sought, in the form of other projects with their different schedules.

The purpose of Lisbon’s case was to implement energy efficiency measures in private households though behaviour change and to test the effect of using smart metering technology in this decrease. The key question to be answered was how useful is smart metering technology in reducing energy consumption when users are subjected to a communications strategy and good practices advices are given? In this study, Lisboa E-Nova encouraged use of the visualization technology by providing the users with good practices advices at the same time they increase their familiarity with the technology, supporting the adoption of the innovations implemented. Therefore, through the users increased knowledge about energy efficiency their intentions and attitudes towards energy saving was expected to be influenced positively.

39

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Lisbon’s pilot is located at Lisbon’s Uptown Area. Jardins de São Bartolomeu Condominium is a medium level residential block with different dwellers (356 dwellings and 18 spaces reserved for commercial activity): - 1500 inhabitants; - Construction in 2006; - 4 blocks divided in 15 independent allotments with 10 floors each; - Common garage with 3 underground floors; - Total area: 12.120 m2 (site area), - Building implementation: 8.783 m2; In the condominium’s initial years of occupation a common problem arised: - Building lack of compliance with the expected energy behaviour; - Low energy efficiency materials chosen in the construction phase; - High-energy costs, common areas and private dwellings; - The high commitment of all the inhabitants related with the resolution of this problem was unusually high, considering the number of dwellings.

The positive implementation of energy efficiency measures motivated the dwellers to apply for installation of a microgeneration system, within the Micro-generation Framework for Renewables Energy Technologies adoption. 16 photovoltaic systems were installed, 3.68kWp each (288 panels). Thus, the dwellers can be considered early adopters for energy efficiency measures.

Lisbon user behavior experiment started with a meeting between the representatives from Lisboa Enova and the condominium administration, a group of three people elected to represent all the dwellers in the building. The project was explained and agreement made for participation in the experiment, based on inhabitants´ good experiences with energy efficiency measures earlier. A participation survey was carried out where interested dwellers gave their permission to access their normal baseline meters from the Portuguese utility and to start monthly monitoring of their consumption. A survey on electric equipment, on tariffs and on pricing scheme was also carried out among 50 participants willing to join the energy efficiency project. This data formed a database based on the two variables, energy consumption per month and electric equipment survey. Lisboa Enova also made a brochure explaining the project and sent newsletters to the dwellers with tips and information on electricity, energy and energy efficiency. The first meter was installed by ISA in May 2011 and in August 2011 other ten meters, nine in private households and one in a common space. Together these provide the raw base data, the data with user communication and the data with communication and smart meters.

The data is transmitted to the ISA database, from where Lisboa Enova gathers it. The data contains measurements of the consumption in the periods of every five minutes, given by smart meter displays. Using Excel, Lisboa Enova transforms this data to 15 minute averages and inserts them into the tool developed in-house, a 40

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

remote manager that allows a yearly energy data analysis with the 15 minute data, complementing the use of the smart meter technology. The daily and monthly consumption results are joined with recommendations for tariffs and prices, and reports with graphs are produced and reviewed together in meetings with all the dwellers. These graphs identify energy wastages, energy behaviours and opportunities to decrease energy consumption. The end-users have also an access to ISA´s EnerBook software, a tool allowing study and treatment of their consumption data in one-hour basis and their consumption trends.

Lisboa Enova also carried out interviews with the participating dwellers about their expectations of their energy consumption. The dwellers´ consumption in the more expensive peak hours was then reviewed, with the aim was to convince people to consume less energy during the day and more during the night and off-peak times.

This Lisbon experiment, which purpose was to implement energy efficiency measures in private households through behaviour change and to test the effect of using smart metering technology and the remote management tool in the decrease of energy consumption and after using the following methodology and tools, resulted in an overall energy savings to the whole group and to the sub-group that was using smart metering devices and visualization tools.

Methods used

Tools used

1. Participation survey and participants selection 2. Database on the electricity consumption 3. Electric equipment survey; 4. Smart metering installation 5. Remote manager analysis to produce a monthly report with - Consumption profile and recommendations (smart metering data) - Consumption analysis based on monthly readings – competition between users 6. Meetings with participators and active dissemination (newsletters, brochures, etc.)

7. Comparison of results between users with smart meters and without them

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Surveys and questionnaires Monthly data collection Smart metering Internet data presentation interface Visualization tools: display Energy remote manager algorithm Frequent contact with the end users, SMEs, and Apollon LL 8. Active dissemination tools: meetings, workshops and seminars, newsletters, brochures, Enerbook, reports on energy consumption

Table 1 – Methods and tools used in Lisbon’s case

41

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

The results were analyzed based on the energy consumption readings started on December 2010 with the on-going ones. Hence, there is more than a year of monitoring data. As the most part of the smart-meters were installed in October 2011, the consumption effect of the use of this kind visualization tools was possible from December 2011. The results are described in the respective Chapter.

Picture

Lisbon household negotiations and roadshow demonstrations

3.4 Helsinki experiment Goal of the Aalto Living Lab in Helsinki is to test out technical solutions on the metering frontier and to see how energy savings can be achieved through smart metering and user involvement. The most vital energy saving components can be seen on the picture below. The benefits of these three energy saving points will 42

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

benefit the energy markets as a whole as well as though monetary gain for the building owner/users. The points of interest are: 1. Curbing unnecessary energy consumption peaks 2. Mitigation of base load 3. Down shifting of consumption profile

1.

3.

2.

For these different points in the Aalto Living Lab, an energy saving competition was implemented. As shown from previous studies, the user participating in energy saving projects must be given an incentive to participate and contribute. The living lab and most of all the consumption changes within it have to be visible to all users and stakeholders in order to gain the wanted changes on energy consumption. The users involved were given an opportunity to view the energy consumption through internet based energy consumption portal as well as hourly updated excel report, also the users could view the weekly consumption from other excel reports. These reports have been targeted mainly for the users involved in the user behavior study but also for the other stakeholders needing the information. This has been planned to be implemented by mounting a TV screen to the lobby of the office building and through this to show the same reports the end-users are seeing.

43

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

eGENE

MS

The Aalto Living Lab is situated in Varma house. Other user groups within the building are Keskinäinen työeläkevakuutusyhtiö Varma (building owner), Maxxium Finland Oy, Cuuma Communication Oy, BCC Finland Oy, Datame Oy, Dicame Oy, Oy Breakaway Ab, Search & Selection – S&S Consulting Oy Ab, Informatum Oy, Informatum Research Oy, Neomedit Oy, Oy Suomen LEGO Ab and Thominvest Oy.

Partners have been metering equipment vendors, electrical engineers and other user groups within the office building. Equipment Vendors were chosen via the tendering process described in the earlier Deliverable 3.3: There Corporation, UTU Powell Oy, Aidon and ISA. As a cross-border activity, ProcessVision bought three metering devices from ISA but the interface could not be created (please see Chapter on technology transfer). In all, three new interfaces between Generis software of Process Vision and measurement hardware were created, but one of these could not be executed in the end. Electrical engineering was provided by Arandi Oy. Expected outcomes from the project were comparison of technical set-ups and of business/sustainability models, comparison of user involvement methodologies and creation of common business values including common architecture, joint tendering in each other’s markets, collaborative contracts signed and creation of trusted business networks.

The user behavior study in Aalto Living Lab was implemented as an energy saving competition. The competition took place between two Process Vision employee departments. Use case comparisons started in September 2011. The results were compared to the history data from previous years and corrected with temperatures as well as with the number of employees. The competition and lessons learned are described in the following.

Energy Saving Competition and Guided Involvement

44

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

All the employees within Process Vision were included in the pilot as pilot users.

Employees were motivated to participate in the energy saving pilot by promising financial benefits strongly linked to the monetary value of the energy saving.

Employees of other companies within the Aalto Living Lab building were contacted

by Process Vision and motivated to participate in the Energy saving pilot, with no interest received. When the contact was made by the building owner, some level of activity was made as the pilot was conceived as obligatory, but these activities quickly diminished into none as the contact from the building owner was not renewed.

A competition between two Process Vision employee groups was established for a matter of 10 weeks. Users were encouraged to think of energy saving activities.

These activities were documented based on questionnaires sent to team leaders within the user groups. The energy saving activities were documented and refined to be used in the second stage. All the user groups were given full access to the energy measurements.

In the second phase, the end-users were given reminders and tips along the pilot duration. End-users were sent weekly emails, with a weekly energy saving theme as well as a follow-up questionnaire of the themes of previous weeks. Also a status of the originally promised monetary gain was followed-up. As the end-users received the monetary price as a cumulative one-time payment, Process Vision let the endusers know what the energy savings have been and what the payment would be on the current saving level.

Process Vision Oy

1st Floor TV Tools Oy

Process Vision Oy Competititon Group1

Nedcon Oy Maxxium Finland

2nd Floor

Process Vision Oy

Process Vision Oy Competition Group2

45

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

This 2nd phase, the guided involvement, was also divided into two sections. During the first ten weeks of the 2nd phase different areas of energy saving in office living were tackled, and during the last four weeks of the experience the users are to be inspired by so-called super saving weeks where all the previous themes are used together. In these last four weeks the users shall be motivated and reminded on a shorter interval then just weekly emails and questionnaires.

The topics or themes of the first ten weeks were: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

setting computer monitors to energy saving modes Shutting down computer monitors Setting the computers to hibernate mode Setting the computers to energy saving modes Shutting down computers Plugging off chargers (laptop and mobile phones) Shutting down lights (2 weeks with different topics) Shutting down printers etc.

Shutting down coffee machines and other kitchen appliances

On the super saving weeks these same themes are tackled with twice a week email.

One email telling the theme of next week’s theme will be sent to users on Friday.

The same theme and more motivation, tips and concrete information of the situation will be sent during the beginning of the week (mainly Tuesday). During the time of writing this Deliverable, the energy saving competition is still ongoing.

Below is an example of one the questionnaires sent to employees:

46

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Kuva 1: Example of a sent questionnaire

The response rate for the questionnaires has been pretty low which is understandable in a hectic business world, but the participation level for the energy 47

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

saving themes has been surprisingly high. By this time, the cumulative energy saving on an average between the floors has been on an average 23%.

The original plan was to keep the two compartments of Process Vision as comparison groups but due to massive amount of complaints these two compartments had to be into the competition as well in a way of letting them now the themes and letting them participate in the active themes.

Within this pilot it was easy to distinguish that the monetary gain was the most important motivator. The monetary motivation for the office employees worked well as the winning department received the energy savings in full (100%); also the non-winning department received 50% of their savings. Some end-users (only few) were interested in the carbon footprint change and the green aspects of energy savings, these however were taken into consideration on a higher level (building level, not individual level), but this level was enough as the end-users, to which this was important, felt that it is more important to work in a green building rather than to be green employee in a building.

Lessons learned

Varma case was a domestic client for Process Vision, so Apollon experimentation brought about competency more on local market and clientele. However, crossborder activities led to the new business model creation for Enterprise Energy Management (EEM).

From Aalto Living Lab perspective, the strengths experienced in the cross-border activities were the following: strong interest of SMEs to enter new markets, good user involvement, research expertise, open innovation principles, and trusted relationships. The challenges identified included the following: SMEs are usually small and may have weak resources, also they lack international business experience; local markets and regulatory environments differ by market; each pilot site set-up is very challenging due to the need of creative solutions to set-up; and some competitors and overlaps of business goals exist. Therefore, a need to increase joint business interest and trusted relationships was identified, and researchers and other partners can help in this. Sharing outcomes has big value, also analysis of SME challenges and obstacles was considered very valuable.

48

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Pictures from Helsinki Roadshow and experiment demonstrations

49

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

4. Benchmarking and best practices for cross-border activities The cross border activities consisted of several cases all having the purpose to test and evaluate new technology for energy saving and change of behaviour in terms of consumption of energy, at the same time as the cases strived to share experiences, methods and tools among the four living labs. Hence, the cases took the form of e.g. workshops, showcases, showrooms and real life tests. See the figure below which illustrates the different cross border activities.

Together the activities contributed to the creation of a common benchmarking framework including a service model for clients, business model for sustainability as well as a reference model to share date, knowledge, experience and competencies.

The cross border activities also tested the impact of real time date on the consumers as well as fostered SME innovation commitment and supported its scalability in the European market place.

The benchmark formed consists of best practices experimented in these contexts, the lessons learned and related recommendations for future Living Lab operations.

The cross-border benchmark contains three layers as depicted in Deliverable 3.3: technology transfer, knowledge transfer and business partnerships. These are described in the following.

4.1 Cross-border cases – technology transfer and testing

In the following Table, technology transfer and testing outcomes are summarized.

This is followed by the description of each cross-border activity.

50

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Table 1

Results from technology transfers summarized from the view-point of decision-making at receiving Living Labs (LL)

Amsterdam-Amsterdam (HAE -> Liander, demo of Quby and Logica)

Liander and Home Automation Europe (HAE, later Quby) were already involved in Amsterdam Smart City project during the definition of Apollon programme. HAE provided the displays, infrastructure and analysis for a Living Lab pilot, which was mainly funded by Liander, in collaboration with other companies within Amsterdam Living Lab. Therefore, Amsterdam Living Lab, represented by Amsterdam Innovation Motor, asked HAE to join Apollon programme, contrary to an SME approaching a Living Lab.

Consequently, HAE was interested to learn different central heating systems in the participating countries in Apollon programme, for learning and adapting the interface at their displays for extreme conditions like very cold in the North to very hot and need for air-conditioning in the South, different from their current markets and from Germany or France. Obviously, the target was also to enter these Apollon markets.

In the Amsterdam projects, HAE learned some capital-intensive revisions were needed for their hardware platform and that their product was not as exportable as originally planned. Via Apollon partner contacts, HAE also learned that they had designed a Dutch product based on homes heated with gas, whereas in Sweden there was much district heating and in Portugal cooling was of higher priority.

Therefore, the Apollon technology transfer from HAE never got into realization, also due to the failing integration at the partners.

51

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Logica joined Apollon from a supporting partner into a full partner in February 2010. They had discussions with Liander, its client, of possible joint projects with Logica’s in-house solutions but they did not result in a project proposal. Mid-2011 the proposals were adapted to HAE and the project plans were accepted in Florence in October 2011. These plans were further developed and presented in Helsinki in December 2011. For details, please see the Chapter on Amsterdam experiment.

Amsterdam-Lisbon (HAE -> ISA and Lisboa Enova)

The vision was to link HAE energy display to ISA energy sensors, starting in Portugal and then exporting at least to Finnish situations. In the start, companies had contacts and made a high-level architectural solution which appeared straightforward to implement. After a meeting to agree on Application-ProgrammingInterface (API), it was agreed that ISA would send the data over Internet to Amsterdam for a HAE demo but those plans did not materialize. Neither of the companies seemed to have an immediate business need for the solution but struggled heavily with their basic survival and existence. There were also personnel changes at the companies, creating discontinuities for the project. Further, there was not any budget for the modifications required for the products, and efforts were prioritized into local Apollon experiments.

Amsterdam-Luleå (HAE -> Luleå Energi, Plugwise -> Luleå Energi)

The Luleå experiment was set up during the negotiation phase of Apollon programme. Botnia Living Lab contacted Luleå Energy for their participation in the experiment. For the technology transfer, Botnia Living Lab also provided contacts for Dutch technology providers that Amsterdam Living Lab had brought to the Apollon programme, namely Home Automation Europe and Plugwise. Thus, the Living Lab scenario was a match of both seeking and providing technologies to be tested, initiated by the hosting Living Lab and supported by the sending Living Lab.

The companies met during the knowledge transfer events, namely roadshows, and agreed on testing the equipment in Luleå environment. However, Home Automation Europe did not have a product that could have been made to work in a Swedish environment of district heating and of electricity meters that were outside of homes vs. inside in the Netherlands where the displays deployed RF protocols, unsuitable for outdoor-indoor communication. Luleå Energy asked their partner Kyab to help in solving the technical challenges but HAE could not deliver a technical solution to be tested. Further, Dutch contract negotiations forced HAE to focus commercial interests in thousands of Dutch installations compared to Apollon´s installations of three displays. Consequently, meetings between HAE and Luleå Energy never materialized as HAE´s focus was on the basic survival.

Plugwise sent a test product that could not be configured to work in time for the experiments, despite of efforts between Luleå Energy and Plugwise´s remote technical support. Thus, Luleå Energy utilised Swedish technology available, Kyab´s SABER tested in the previous energy project Save Energy and ELIQ that was tested internally first at Luleå Energy.

52

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Amsterdam-Helsinki (HAE -> PV, Plugwise -> PV, Liander -> PV) For Finland, there were open discussions to add HAE´s displays into Process Vision´s office building with energy measurements. The situation was though similar to Portugal: there were talks about integration but neither party found technical people to define the solutions needed and neither pushed for such due to non-direct business interest.

There were negotiations of Process Vision´s buying one piece of Plugwise´s equipment for tests but the negotiations did not result in an experiment. There were doubts whether Plugwise’s solution would require electrical safety approvals from local authorities as it did in Save Energy project in the U.K. which there delayed the project by one year.

As an extension to Apollon, Amsterdam Innovation Motor offered the Living Lab Amsterdam as a testing site for other Apollon partners. However, this did not result in further product experiments as foreign SMEs did not have resources for extra activities outside of Apollon DoW.

Liander presented one of its pilot projects related to energy management at one of its own offices and its results as an example of such pilot projects in Apollon meeting in Luleå on March 2011. This aroused a lot of interest from the participants in the Apollon programme for exchanging the experience and data as a benchmark.

Consequently, this resulted in an additional technology transfer activity as a technical feasibility test of measurement data transfer from Liander to Process Vision and as a demonstration of PV´s data analysis. Electricity usage had been measured at three Dutch offices (AIM, Alliander, ITO Tower) and at Helsinki PV office, and the data was sent to Finland to Process Vision in September 2011. The process was as follows: 1. Liander shared results of their energy management pilots in a knowledge sharing event 2. PV (as Living Lab 1) contacted AIM (Living Lab 2) to find an environment comparable to PV’s environment, in order to compare measurement data

3. AIM (LL2) contacted Liander that operates in Amsterdam Smart City projects 4. Negotiations led to mutual benefits, Liander willing to learn and exchange knowledge of similar implementations 5. Liander sent the measurement data to PV

6. PV run test analyses on the data and sent results to Liander

7. The results were shared at Apollon knowledge transfer event

8. The experiment did not result in commercial negotiations as that was not the driver for the experiment

Lisbon-Amsterdam (ISA -> Liander)

53

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Alfamicro, ISA and Amsterdam Innovation Motor had worked together earlier in Save Energy project. By the time the Apollon project was drafted, HAE got involved with the Amsterdam Smart City project, their display was pitched for the Apollon and there was interaction with Save Energy meeting, resulting in a natural fit between measuring energy consumption and presenting it. Thus, ISA and HAE had a logical fit for Amsterdam Smart City project, for Liander. However, as described in HAE -> ISA above, this cooperation did not result in a working solution.

Further, ISA´s highest priority was trying to solve the problems in the Lisbon pilot and the problems with the funding. Thus, additional cross-border activities not originally planned in Apollon Description-Of-Work had to put on background.

Lisbon-Lisbon (ISA -> Lisboa Enova)

ISA joined Apollon in order to develop the functionalities of their product in a prebeta testing phase and to involve users. However, they soon learned that they had to change their technology and developed a product that was launched to the market in September 2011. With Lisboa Enova, they though defined detailed definitions of the experiment and research and sought for financing for the experiments in Lisbon.

Lisbon-Luleå (ISA -> Luleå Energi)

ISA was familiar to Luleå Energi and Kyab already from Save Energy project where their technology was successfully deployed in the House of Culture in Luleå. Luleå experiments were though expanded from House of Culture to local households and other technologies were sought to be tested.

Lisbon-Helsinki (ISA, Lisboa Enova -> PV)

During planning of Apollon programme, Alfamicro facilitated and coached the process of creating a business relationship between Process Vision and ISA. Alfamicro and Process Vision understood that Process Vision had a business strategy and business skills that could complement the product line and business skills of ISA. Process Vision was in the business of remote reading, processing large amounts of data and providing services based on that data, and ISA had the knowledge to design, to produce and to install smart metering equipment. Alfamicro and Process Vision created the concept and brought the CEOs of PV and of ISA together to a meeting in Leiden, before Apollon. This resulted in further negotiations and visits to each other´s companies and also clients. Co-operation at foreign markets outside of Apollon was already piloted before any agreements between the companies, creating trust and understanding between the companies. A Letter of Intent for joint business was signed and action plans created, but then Process Vision was bought by a foreign company and discussions for co-operation did not continue.

For Apollon programme, Process Vision bought three pieces of equipment from ISA and had trials in Finland with the equipment. However, they could not receive satisfactory measurement results with that technology, had technical challenges in integration into PV’s data management system and did not reach a common 54

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

understanding with ISA relating to the management of the measurement data.

During the process, there were also changes in project personnel at ISA and they expanded their business into the management of measurement data where PV operates, and thus PV and ISA became competitors in that field of business. Further, PV’s own customers, building owners, required local technical support that none of the foreign Apollon partners had in Finland.

Luleå-Amsterdam, Luleå-Lisbon (-)

No technology transfer planned but knowledge transfer.

Luleå-Luleå (Kyab, ELIQ -> Luleå Energi)

Local purchases as planned and as an outcome of failed cross-border technology transfers.

Luleå-Helsinki (KYAB -> PV)

There have been negotiations between Kyab and PV of co-operation opportunities for entering each other’s markets and to expand current experiments. Kyab also participated in PV´s tendering process.

Helsinki-Amsterdam (PV -> Liander)

Process Vision was developing GENERIS, a visualisation tool for end users, and Liander was also considering such tools. The data of Liander’s pilot project was useful to Process Vision as an example of possibilities in terms of measurements.

Process Vision’s ideas were valuable for Liander as exchanging knowledge. For details, please see Liander -> PV. Helsinki-Lisbon (PV -> ISA, Lisboa Enova)

Process Vision sent its measurement data to ISA´s management system but the interfaces were incompatible. Additionally, an agreement on the ownership of the data and related access was not reached – please see ISA -> PV and Deliverable 3.5.

As additional efforts outside of Apollon DoW, Process Vision and Lisboa Enova also shared their measurement data sets for further processing in each other’s energy management systems. The results are described in Deliverable 3.5.

Helsinki-Luleå (PV -> Luleå Energi)

Process Vision approached Luleå Energy earlier for co-operation, and there were commercial discussions to test the Process Vision´s measurement and data collection system. However, Luleå Energy had recently purchased a new energy management system, and consequently there was no commercial opportunity for co-operation in a joint experiment of data analysis and integration.

Helsinki-Helsinki (local vendors -> PV)

Based on its tendering process and technology support requirements from its clientele, Process Vision chose local vendors. However, it took more time than 55

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

planned to get the equipment from There Corporation (previously Nokia Home Automation) to work.

Recommendations for technology transfer

Based on the cross-border activities for technology transfer described above, the following recommendations are suggested: 1) Technical feasibility of the goals of the project need to be verified – local context, user drivers and applications matter Environment for energy efficiency measures varies between countries as do the drivers of usage (e.g. heating by gas, air-conditioning by electricity, water consumption) 2) Products to be tested need to be sufficiently mature to be integrated into Living Lab experiments and for the use by the end-users

3) Local technical support for the receiving Living Lab needs to be resourced and trained sufficiently, with remote support and resources for problemsolving at the sending Living Lab “If they would have visit us and come to us for one or two days and, we could test techniques and see what the problem is, it would've been an easy way. Not sending emails and stuff like that.” (an energy company) 4) Sufficient time between product tests and roll-out need to be allocated in case of emerging challenges

5) Access to and ownership of installation sites may vary between the countries, complicating planning and installations “When we are talking about households, it can be very different from country to country, the access you have to the main switchboard and who the main switchboard belongs to, does it belong to the owner of the house or to the company, the energy provider.” (a SME) “Consumers can not be put to enter the electric board of their homes” (a SME)

6) Site solutions need to planned Sites, including electricity cabinets, differ in terms of space available and radio-frequency fields which may complicate installing metering and communication equipment to homes and offices.

7) Interfaces between energy system components and products need to be defined 8) Verify regulations and standards that differ from country to country 9) Ownership of customer and energy data need to be agreed

56

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

4.2 Knowledge transfer – cross-border case methodology Knowledge Transfer methodology developed and utilised in Apollon WP3 consisted of the following cross-border activities: •

• • • •

User behaviour transformation methodology, developed and led by Botnia Living Lab, described in detail below as the benchmark for cross-border case methodology

Competence transfer and monitoring with regular face-to-face workshops and conference calls Dissemination among WP3 partners via sharing of case studies, existing research, and research results Roadshows open to local ecosystems, arranged adjacent to WP3 meetings Site visits and demonstrations of each experiment and partner

These took place via regular official and unofficial cross-border meetings among WP3 partners. In addition to the meetings described in the previous Deliverables, official WP3 face-to-face meetings were held in Luleå in March 2011, Bled in June 2011 (Apollon review), Florence in October 2011, Helsinki in December 2011, Amsterdam in February 2012 and Dresden in March 2012. Additional, unofficial working meetings were arranged in Lisbon in May 2011, Barcelona in August 2011 (ENoLL Summer School) and Amsterdam in September 2011 (Picnic).

An example of the WP3 meeting agenda follows:

57

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

WP3 partners have additionally participated in numerous external seminars and conferences, disseminating learnings from Apollon experiments to a wider audience.

The main outcome, Apollon methodology for user behavior transformation, was carried out between December 2010 and February 2012. In short, the experiment exchanged best practices from local and cross-border pilots regarding userbehavior change mechanisms and measurements. Partners have documented and shared their experiences in measuring energy consumption changes among endusers when experimenting with new ICT solutions for energy saving. From an overarching perspective the process for the case was designed in three steps where it started with a presentation of the case and a template was distributed among the teams to ensure that all cases were reported in the same format. In this case, the local pilots from all four sites were used as a basis for sharing experiences. These cases were discussed and analyzed jointly in workshops during 2011 in which all 58

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

WP3 participants were invited and participated. The results from these knowledgesharing workshops were then analyzed and the results formed the basis for the unified methodology for use transformation presented in the end of this report.

Furthermore, all living labs have answered a questionnaire at the end of the work and the results from this are also included in the final sections of this report.

We have used several methods to support the cross-border knowledge sharing process. In the following sections we will describe the usage of the local pilots, a template that have been used, a test storyline that has been distributed to the other Living Labs, the workshops and a survey study that has been carried out in the case.

All these methods do together comprise the cross-border case methodology.

4.2.1 Local Pilots

In this case we have worked with local pilots in Finland, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. In these local pilots, the focus has been to implement energy saving technologies to stimulate users to decrease their energy consumption by different means. In the set-up of these local pilots, a common framework reported on in D.3.3.

– Experiment design transfer technology and protocol have been used to ensure that they were documented in the same way. This framework was developed in order to establish a common language and terminology and to have an easy and effective communication with the partners within the various experiments. In this framework the local pilots were described from an overarching perspective focusing on for instance, the purpose of the pilot, time frames, partners involved and data collection method. This framework was useful to get a common view of the pilots but it did not support the design and reporting of the pilots as such in detail. Hence, a template for this was developed and distributed to the partners.

4.2.2 The template

This template, see below, was designed to be envisioned as both a framework to guide the process, but also as a template for documenting the case. The template was distributed to all local pilots who filled it in and sent it back to Botnia Living Lab. This is important since the aim of our case was to share knowledge and then develop a methodology to study behavior change based on the collected experiences. The filled in templates from all local pilots will be presented in the empirical application section.

Background of the case

Describe the background of the case, • Purpose, identify key-questions to be answered •

Research questions

•

Innovation to be implemented in the users context

•

Partners (who are involved in the case and what are their competence area)

Time frame:

59

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4 Specify the duration of the case as well as the duration of the test as such The set-up phase of the case for energy use transformation •

Define which technology to implement in the users context

•

Define the functionalities of the technology (determine all that is possible to do with the technology). This will guide your design of the case later on

•

Determine user groups

•

o

who are the users

o

where can they be found

o

how can you get in contact with them

o

which selection criterions should you have. Suggestions for selection might be:

o

gender

o

how many adults and children that lived in their home

o

the age of the children

o

how they live (house, apartment etc)

o

what kind of heating they have in their home

o

the size of their house

o

if they plan any renovations in their house, ( if, so which),

o

their interest in energy saving questions

o

how many users are you involving. The appropriate number depend on what you want to achieve with your study

Divide roles among partners o

Define who are in charge of which activity during the case and the test as such

Process design Describe the suggested process for the case. One suggested process might be: •

Training sessions to learn about the technology for the partners involved

•

Functional testing within the Living Labs to make sure that the technology is working and to become acquainted with the technology

•

Translation of instructions, screen texts, messages and other information if needed

•

Decide on user interaction technologies to be used (surveys, communities, social media etc)

•

Decide on how to evaluate the experiment

60

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4 •

Recruitment of participants

•

Selection of participants

•

Set up of collaboration agreements and other legal agreements among partners

•

Develop tools for comparing results from the implementation of the technology.

•

Determine how user input will be gathered and develop sufficient tools

•

Develop user interaction scheme (how often should they be contacted, what kind of contacts should it be, why have you chosen to do it like that)

•

Develop a test-storyline with activities the users should conduct, time schedule for when they should do what and the technology to collect their experiences of the activities, their energy behaviour change and their attitudes.

•

Installation of technology in the field.

•

Interact with the users according to the test storyline

•

After each interaction, self-evaluate the approach to make sure it gives the needed input. If not, make needed adjustment in correlation with the purpose of the case

•

After the test is finalised, conduct the same base-line questionnaire again to be able to compare the results.

•

Evaluate the users experiences of using the innovation, taking part in the test and their energy consumption behaviour in general.

•

Document the findings and reflect to learn for the next user study.

4.2.3 Storyline The usage of a storyline aims to contribute to the issue of designing a test for a longer period of time, and to be able to share the experiences from that across borders. By means of this storyline, knowledge on methods, questions, and approaches were shared among the project partners. This template was also aimed at supporting the communication between the Living Lab and its users to make sure that they understand what is required from them during the test they plan to enter.

This is a tool that guides the process of designing the test for a longer period of time.

This test storyline is meant as a tool for the designers of the test where they can make sure that all the functionality of the technology are covered while at the same time the tasks the users should do are both meaningful and related to the functionality that should be tested and evaluated.

The focus for the storyline is to get a clear overview of: •

The functionality of the technology is tested

61

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

•

What you expect the users to do

•

What kind of

•

Why do you want them to do that

•

How we are going to interact with them

4.2.4 Workshops During the process of this case, 3-4 workshops were planned to be arranged. The purpose of the workshops were to share experiences and results from the four local pilots as a way to identify the best methods and to create a harmonized model/method for studying and stimulating behavioral changes. Hence, to each workshop an agenda was prepared and each local pilot made presentations on their best cases and experiences.

To each workshop participants were encouraged to focus on knowledge sharing and the unified methodology we planned to create. Further they were encouraged to focus on methods for creation of behavioral changes or for studying behavioral changes. Hence, other aspects of the local pilots were not focused on.

It turned out to be possible and relevant to hold three workshops. They were held back to back with work package meetings or general assembly’s held as part of the Apollon project. The first workshop was held in Luleå on March 16 2011. Each living lab gave a presentation of their pilot to start with. Thereafter we held a joint discussion on methods. Each presenter brought two specific questions to the discussion on e.g. a methodological issue they needed support with to manage. The joint discussion was closed with each living lab having decided to use a specific method to study or stimulate behavioral changes in energy consumption. The experiences from this were thereafter discussed at the next workshop.

The second workshop was held in Lisbon in May 4, 2011. Also in this workshop all living labs gave presentations on the status and experiences from their local pilots.

Discussions on methods and good/successful examples were held.

The third workshop was held in Firenze in October 2011. This workshop was a bit different than the others. This was performed more like a focus group interview.

This was done in order to intensify the discussions and also to focus on knowledge sharing and best cases more than on presentations. The focus group interview was structured according to the template of designing the local pilots. Hence these issues were discussed.

– Process/flow in case – Technological support in case (for studying and measuring) – Methods in case – focus on methods for creating and studying behavioral changes in energy consumptions – Which questions were answered by users?

– Users in case 62

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

– Lessons learned in case – Identified KPIs in case (how to measure behavioral changes)

The focus group interview was recorded. All workshops results have thereafter been analyzed and give input to the recommendations found at the end of the document.

4.2.5 Survey

As a last input to the data collection in this case all four living labs have answered an evaluation questionnaire. Questions focused on the same areas as has been used throughout the whole case, and of course on results in each local pilot. All four living labs have answered and results are again, summarized and used as input to the recommendations given at the end of this report.

4.2.6 Benchmark and recommendation for User Behaviour Change 4.2.6.1

Description of the Method

This method is based on the findings from the different pilots carried out in in WP3.

The results from the different knowledge sharing workshops has been gathered and analyzed together with the effects from the method usages in the pilots. These experiences and results ended up in a five step method that starts with a step called Case Definition. In this phase the purpose etc. is determined for the pilot, in the second step the process is designed and planned for. Thereafter, the technology implementation step is carried out in which guidance for how to carry out this step is given. The fourth step is the user interaction step where the actual use transformation process is carried out and users are engaged. Finally, the results are evaluated in the last step, evaluation. In this method, the overarching goal is to support the design of a process that is focusing in studying use transformation among users of innovative technology. Based on that, this method is targeted at stimulating use of new technology, which in turn influences user’s behavior. The aim of this method is to provide SMEs and Living Lab managers with a framework that facilitates the design of user involvement studies. The process is also designed to support knowledge sharing between experiments to facilitate the possibility that the results from an experiment can be compared with other experiments since the setup of the experiment is similar and considers similar matters.

63

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

The aim of this method is to support and stimulate users to change usage of technology by stimulating them to use the implemented innovation. The underlying proposition is that users that are guided and encouraged to use innovations are stimulated in their innovation decision processes which in turn leads to changes in their social systems where behavior is one part.

This framework should be envisioned as both a framework to guide the process of the experiments set up, but also as a template for documentation of the case. This is important in order to make it possible to share knowledge between different stakeholders.

4.2.6.2

First step: Case description

To support knowledge sharing and to get a coherent view of the context in which the study is being undertaken, it is important that the project or case is described in some detail. In this phase the focus is to understand the basis for the use transformation process and the purpose of it.

1. Describe the background of the case, • • • •

Define the purpose of the case Identify key-questions to be answered State the research questions Describe the innovation to be implemented in the users context

64

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

•

Define the partners in the project (who they are and and what are their competence area is) 2. Determine the time frame:

Specify the duration of the case as well as the duration of the test as such.

4.2.6.3

Second step: set-up phase of the use transformation process

In this step, the purpose is to define the setup of the process and to design the process as a whole. The outcome of this phase is a defined plan for the use transformation as a whole. In this process it is important to be aware of what the users should be doing and when they should do it in order to track the process and stimulate use transformation which in turn increases adoption of innovation.

1. Define which technology to implement in the users context

Define the functionalities of the technology (determine all that is possible to do with the technology). This will guide your design of the case later on

2. Decide whom to involve in the study (the user groups) • Who the users are (e.g. age, gender, educational background, technology usage, consumption habits) • How many users you should involve. The appropriate number depend on what you want to achieve with the study • Where they can be found (e.g. established groups, students in a course, shoppers etc.)

• How they can be contacted (e.g. mail, phone, on-line community) • Which selection criterions you should have. Suggestions for selection criterions when focusing on energy saving for instance can be: o gender o how many adults and children that lived in their home o the age of the children o how they live (house, apartment etc) o what kind of heating they have in their home o the size of their house o if they plan any renovations in their house, ( if, so which), o their interest in energy saving questions o etc.

3. Divide roles among partners 65

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

a. Define responsibilities of activities during the case and the test (e.g. who are responsible for contacting users, installation of technology, support during test) 4. Design the process for the pilot (a suggested process is given below) a. Start with training sessions to learn about the technology among all partners involved b. Do functional testing within the Living Labs or among the SMES to make sure that the technology is working and to become acquainted with the technology before the design of the tasks for the evaluation is done c. Translate instructions, screen texts, messages and other information if needed d. Decide on user interaction technologies to be used (surveys, communities, social media etc.) e. Decide on how to evaluate the experiment f. Recruit the participants g. Select the participants h. Set up collaboration agreements and other legal agreements among partners i. Develop tools for comparing results from the implementation of the technology. For instance, develop a base-line questionnaire with questions about their current behavior, interest etc. This baseline questionnaire can then be distributed to the selected users in the beginning of the case and in the end of the case to be able to measure changes in their self-reported behavior and interest in the topic being studied. j. Determine how user input will be gathered and develop sufficient tools, for instance surveys, workshops, seminars, meetings k. Develop user interaction scheme containing i. Frequency of user contact (e.g. every week, every month) ii. What kind of contacts it should be (e.g. personal visits, e-mail, SMS) l. Develop a test-storyline (see method “test storyline� for more information) containing: i. activities the users should do ii. time schedule for when they should do what iii. technology to collect their experiences of the activities, their behavior change and their attitudes. iv. Develop a competition if that is used. Make sure that the same things are compared. Competition among the participants of whom saves most energy for a specific period of time. m. Keep track influential factors that might influence their behavior but is outside the scope of the project. n. Make sure that the tasks for the users to carry out in accordance to the situation, for instance the season, and also make sure that the effect of the tasks can be easily measured and understood.

4.2.6.4

Third step: Technology implementation

In this phase the technology is installed in the field. When the technology is installed, it is important that the users are involved in the installation to facilitate and increase their understanding of the technology and its functionalities. This 66

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

approach also creates commitment among the users and increases the likelihood that the technology will be adopted.

1. Install the technology in the field. If a technician is needed to do the implementation, provide one. Otherwise, make sure that explicit implementation instructions are provided to lower the threshold of start using the innovation. Involve the users in the installation to ensure that they understand the technology and its functionalities.

2. Use visualization tools: The users want to see the energy they consume in real time to be stimulated to change their usage of energy. Make sure that the users consumption is visualized in some way.

3. Mobile app: If possible, develop a mobile application in which the users can monitor and, at best, control their energy consumption.

4.2.6.5

Fourth step: User Interaction

In this step, the interaction with the users is carried out. The aim of this step is to interact with the users so that the users are engaged and committed to the process.

This step is the main process of the method and should be ongoing for a longer period of time so that the effect of users´ behavior changes and usage of the technology can be discovered and measured.

67

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

1. Interact with the users according to the test storyline: Make sure that you interact with the users at least once a month in order to keep them motivated and engaged. Also invite them to a start-up meeting where they can get to know each other and the technology. At this session, create a social network site where they users can communicate with each other throughout the pilot case. This facilitates both their understanding of the technology and it creates commitment.

2. Engage the users to carry out the assignments. Start with an assignment that gives the users a thorough understanding of their energy consumption. For instance, Calculation of how much of electricity usage comes from lamps. Turn of heating and radiators. Also increase temperature in freezer and fridge as well as all gadgets on standby. Compare consumption with low energy or LED lamps. Calculate possible savings and compare.

Another engaging assignment is to support the users to calculate their costs for a shower, both in consumption of water and in consumption of energy.

3. Collect answers: Let the users answer questions related to each assignment and measurement task 4. Give feedback: When the users answer the questionnaire and perhaps have suggestions or questions, make sure that their input is taken seriously and react on their input to increase their engagement and commitment.

4.2.6.6

Fifth step: Evaluation

In this process, the results from the whole process should be evaluated from many different perspectives. Due to the fact that energy consumption and usage of technology to facilitate that process is complex, it is important that the evaluation covers as many aspects as possible.

1. Self-evaluate the assignments: After each interaction, self-evaluate the approach to make sure it gives the needed input. If not, make needed adjustment in correlation with the purpose of the case 2. Base-line Questionnaire again: After the test is finalised, conduct the same base-line questionnaire again to be able to compare the results and measure some input 3. Evaluate user experiences: Evaluate the users’ experiences of using the innovation, taking part in the test and their behavior in general.

4. Evaluate energy savings: Evaluate the energy saving continuously and make sure that each user is presented to their energy savings. Preferably, this feedback should be given in a monetary value and it should be corrected according to grade/day measurements.

68

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

5. Document the findings and reflect to learn for the next user study.

This method is to be used to support the design of the energy technology experiments in people’s real life context to support the users to change their behavior and to adopt energy technology.

4.3 Business partnerships

The cross-border experiments have not led to sustainable business models for companies because of several reasons. First, the expectations regarding the technology were over-optimistic and thus the products were not successfully integrated into the solutions of receiving partners. Second, the projects were of technology-push nature, without proper local technical support or local market presence required by some large, conservative property owners in order to have the products implemented into their business operations. Third, the market developments including turbulence in financial markets have forced some partners, mainly SMEs, to focus on survival and existing business opportunities vs. experiments of few installations without tangible future growth opportunities, stressing the need for prior business planning.

However, the experiments have provided the following benefits for partners, as evidenced by their quotes: 1. An increased awareness of opportunities in EU – both funding and market opportunities “Important lesson learned has been that there are many different opportunities going on in Europe and… we haven't been very aware of what's going on” (an energy company) “ It's been a very good learning experience in every aspect concerning the organisation of European projects - where the opportunities are, what the difficulties are and how we can try and overcome them.” (an energy company) 2. Increased awareness of socio-technical factors Privacy issues at homes vary between markets as explained later in this Chapter

3. Contribution to the internal development “Because you get to meet a lot more companies from different backgrounds and.. Based on contacts gained during the Luleå conference, we have started exploring this technology that's developed in Britain, the X, which is a clever algorithm to segregate a single data signal into the different components. The fridge, the TV, etcetera. Which is interesting for … a product we're developing as well internally” (an energy company) The business need was “expanding the innovation process around this project” (an energy company)

4. Knowledge transfer and actual site visits during roadshows providing most value “The physical meetings… when you visit the premises and you go and see the 69

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

insulation (where people are) at home, and see what they're actually doing in the city, that's very valuable” (an energy company) “We have toured all the Living Labs. (Most valuable are) the best practices that we have seen… and the opportunities and obstacles of operations, service or business models ” (a SME) “Roadshows were very important because that way you learn cultures, the experiments… and trigger new business ideas” (an enterprise)

5. Apollon meetings arranged jointly with other EU programs expanded the networking and learning opportunities for partners “Contacts and information gained at Apollon meetings in Luleå, … it's very useful that it was in combination with a different project, Save Energy” (an energy company) “I do like the combination of the meetings with different projects, I think that's really, that's really a strong point. Because it gives a much broader perspective on European pilot projects.” (an energy company) “Meetings… it is easy to gain some important knowledge from sharing” (a SME)

6. Tools and methodologies available “Think for example the one in Luleå was quite good because, I think really some steps were made in terms of the frameworks needed, that need to be filled in. I think for the SMEs… these frameworks were very useful” (a Living Lab) “They can be very useful for somebody who is new at running pilot projects” (a LL) 7. Creation of Energy Efficiency network “We've really gained a lot of useful contacts in the energy efficiency world” (an energy company)

8. Increasing interest in companies to do further research with the research partners and Living Labs

9. Access to the users and recommendations for improving the product or service “If we look at Company X, …he's …a supporting partner. So he has been involved more or less just by providing technology and then what we would get out of the project is, for one the contact with Energy Company Y, and also the contact with the end users, and also, I mean he will get … Evaluation of his technologies….He will get some suggestions on improvement. (a university) … And he's also been looking for international contacts, so he has participated in the roadshow and, been looking for.. collaborative partners” (a university)

10. Research serves as a market study, as a feasibility study and as a business reference “We have had a lot of discussion with Company X and his products to maybe use them. But at the moment, we haven't reached any understanding, we, it's still too big cost for us. And we also want to evaluate this test and really talk to customers and think and listen to them what they're saying, are they prepared 70

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

to pay for this and how much….” (an energy company) ”If there are battery life-times of one, two, or even three years, then it is difficult, if there are plenty of those in a property, their maintenance and replacing. And if there is manual work involved, it will destroy the business value.” (a SME) “Living Lab enabled a new revenue model for us, via this type of business (from corporate clients to small clients)” (a SME) “This is a good reference case” (a SME)

11. The experiments have deepened the cooperation relationships with partners 12. An experiment in one Living Lab can lead to replication at and entry to another Living Lab based on established relationships E.g. Alfamicro invited ISA to participate in energy efficiency experiments at Living Labs in Brazil and in China.

Thus, Learnings from and recommendations for the experiments are as follows: 1) Involve business planning prior to a technology test in order to evaluate long-term commitment from all the partners

2) To ensure sustainability, business partners should include market analysis and prioritised GoToMarket planning into the process of deciding involvement

The chosen markets were not as lucrative to some partners as emerged opportunities inside EU during the program: “If a commercial party shows interest for the rollout of, let us say, at least a pilot of 250 pieces where they´re willing to commit to a longer pilot, to process management fees, to everything, and the possibility of that extending to a real rollout, which … could actually be running to millions of pieces, then a lot more interesting than a pilot in such a programme limited by nature to a few pieces with, you get a feedback from a situation in a certain country, but there´s no direct business behind.” (a SME)

3) If not running experiments for only learning purposes of one project, evaluate the market potential and competitiveness of your offering first

4) Think the whole service offering, not only product but also related services, and arrange a local representative

If there are competing local solutions, those are preferred for easiness and capability to deliver, compared to a solution from a foreign SME that does not have local technical support: “If we have something nearby, then we'll probably do that. It's just easier.” (an energy company) “Energy companies are conservative…” (a SME) The local representative can be also the other company in the receiving Living Lab if that supports expansion to that market.

71

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

5) Think the complete value chain and related business drivers

6) For household energy efficiency, the business case needs to be proven The cost of smart metering and related services seems to be still high both for energy companies and for consumers, and the value proposition from energy companies seems to be in improving control of and understanding of consumers’ energy consumption: “Energy insight has very low interest for consumers… you need a different model to get to the consumer than a simple sale” (a SME)

7) Sharing of energy savings in monetary terms needs to addressed in order to motivate people to get involved and to continue in the experiments “There needs to be a clear benefit for the user… usually the monetary motivation is the best.” (a LL) 8) Privacy issues need to be addressed “ In Sweden, the electricity meters are outside the home. Whereas in Netherlands, inside. The same goes for Italy.” (a SME) “ For Holland, the introduction of the smart meter has been difficult, because people want to have their privacy protected”. (a LL) “A chance for burglary for instance” (a SME)

9) Normal agenda alignment and trust building activities are required for networking “I think, the cross-border cooperation… needs a lot of face-to-face meetings.

That’s the main thing…. An SME tends to like to see the other person in the eye, and try and understand, okay, I can trust this guy.” (a SME)

10) Facilitation process for partnering needs to be continuous and close, matchmaking is not sufficient “Markets change, organizations change, people change” (an enterprise)

11)Co-operation and competition needs to be addressed in the planning between the partners “I think you should discuss how you are going to scale, what markets you are going to pursue in cooperation and which ones you are going to pursue alone.” (a SME) 12)Plan for extra resources for product development due to different contexts and integration 13)Equipment costs should be allocated into budgets, especially rollouts of hundreds of pieces of equipment

14)Include project management, cooperation and administration overheads into the budget 15)Travelling budgets for cross-border activities need to be planned sufficiently large for a.o. regular meetings and knowledge transfer, business negotiations and technical support unless there are local representatives 72

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

16)Use project management methods to ensure communication throughout the experiments and to manage risks

The results also suggest some development areas for similar research programs:

1. Alignment of business partners’ goals and objectives of research programs Economic situation changes and markets develop much faster than the research program advances – emerging business opportunities are open only a short time and need responses from companies: “The speed with which SMEs develop doesn't match the speed at which this project goes” (a LL) “Objective doesn't match their goal any more, because they have a much bigger opportunity elsewhere” (a LL) “Guess the most important lesson learned is that, the alignment of business goals of the participating SMEs, with project goals is very difficult. Because, of the rapidly evolving… economic position let's say, or market position of these SMEs. Because they're in a growing market, they have to catch the opportunities as they come by, and… that makes the specific project rather difficult.” (a LL) “It is very important to... define one's objectives within a project a little bit more concretely from the start” (an energy company) “SME X contributed to the proposal. But it was a couple of years ago. So, everything’s changed a lot. So the goals we had are now fulfilled or abandoned, because in two years, you move or you die, if you are an SME. And so, all the expectations we had, the project took too long, and when we started looking at things, actually looking into putting things together, the SMEs already had changed.” (a SME)

2. Methodology has been wished to have been available from the start, vs. development during the program

3. Possibility for open subcontracting vs. the closed group of partners which pre-defined technologies available for deployment “Programme, that is not allowing too much subcontracting to a third party at a later stage, so it would be better if you just defined a lot of things and then said, "okay, now for the last seven months we are doing these pilots, we've prepared, we've selected carefully those SMEs that are ready, and capable, they have that technology ready, so we can really step"... instead of defining them in the start, … I think, selection of engagement with SMEs is, it should be done at the very last moment. And a budget should be available for that.” (a LL) 4. Amount of overhead in terms of meetings cf. budget allocated has been criticized “The amount of funding available for SMEs with respect to the amount of overhead, admin, is very cumbersome in the sense that if you have to be in all

73

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

these meetings and do all this planning and all the proposals and you only get 50,000 Euros subsidy for two and half years” (a Living Lab)

5. Every company´s needs and offerings should be explicitly stated in order to facilitate partnerships “I think in the beginning of the project every company, every SME should clearly say what they can offer and what they need. I didn't see that at the beginning of the project. Many partners, but no document of every company to see what can we do with them or something like that.” (an energy company)

74

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

5. Living Lab operations In the following, learnings for scenarios and sustainability for Living Labs are summarized.

5.1 Scenarios

There were different scenarios identified in the cross-border activities as described in the Chapters for experiments and technology transfer. Apollon programme differed from the scenario suggested mainly in that the cross-border contacts and activities were planned already when defining the Apollon programme and thus, Living Labs often invited SMEs and enterprises to join the experiments, instead of SMEs initiating the communication.

As one of the main learnings and recommendations for contingency, business and GoToMarket planning needs to be facilitated already in the beginning of activities between (cross-border) companies, not only as an outcome after technology and user testing.

Figure

Living Lab service model (scenario benchmark), with Business & GoTo-Market Planning first

75

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

5.2 Sustainability The project has improved the understanding of consumer behavior, leading to improved predictability of energy consumption. According to the interviews, this is important for energy companies where unpredictability and consumption peaks form a major negative impact on profitability in the consumer segment where margins are low.

All the Apollon WP3 experiments continue also after the Apollon programme: •

•

•

•

Luleå experiments –new research programmes for User Behaviour Transformation

Lisbon: The pilot forms a continuum from Save Energy project to Apollon experiments and will expand to other buildings of various nature: “We start(ed) with the visualization technology and display and behavioural changes with the Save Energy project…. The pilot will continue after the APOLLON project. So we are, during the next year (2012) we are going to install more smart meters with ISA, I think an upgraded version of the metering technology… We will extend this to other buildings in Lisbon, other private households and other service buildings and other kind of buildings. So we will extend this pilot. So this is kind of kick-off in private households.” (Lisboa Enova) Public procurement process has been initiated for 150 more smart meters for households and 100 more for service buildings by the end of 2012, expanding also to new geographic areas.

Helsinki: possibility for expansion of the energy savings project to other office buildings of Varma: “We have a good property owner that is interested to expand piloting and testing.. and it does not even have to be in this building” (Process Vision)

Amsterdam: continuation in Amsterdam Smart City project, new project spin-offs

A Living Lab can operate either on public or private funding, or on a combination of those: •

Public Funding for societal transformation objectives: There is a common research agenda for which Living Labs collect a consortium of large enterprises, companies, their customers and authorities to participate. This facilitates creating a joint agenda but requires capabilities for marketing and for selling at Living Labs as well as for facilitating building mutual trust. In this case, funding comes from national and international research or policy programmes, to fulfill policy and transformation objectives (like energy efficiency, EU projects to stimulate SME innovation and diffusion into larger corporations and a vehicle for Innovation Union & Horizon 2020 strategies) “It's more often we go to the SMEs than they come to us… Usually from a 76

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

•

research point of view” (a LL) ”We do piloting here as long as it is considered to make sense and we get public support for research and development” (a LL)

Private funding with technology push and market pull, for a facilitation fee from SMEs:

“And the idea is also then that the SME will pay a bit of a fee to the Living Lab to organise everything. Now it's of course coming from the EU.” (a LL)

However, Living Labs as service providers for a fee will compete with other consultants providing GoToMarket services:

“When you are looking for a consultant, you look for a consultant in the area. If you want a partner in telecommunications in Sweden, you look for somebody that’s Swedish and working in telecommunication and is now consulting.

Maybe it’s more expensive, but it’s more effective, because they know, that person would know exactly who was the right stakeholder for you. So, I don’t see the SMEs willing to invest a lot in the Living Labs. And also I personally don’t see the role of Living Labs as being a service provider. Kind of my vision of the Living Labs is being a non-profit thing.” (a SME) Further, not-for-profit service would facilitate openness in communication and knowledge-sharing: “If you are trying to have some profit, then people will immediately close.” (a SME) It can though be lucrative for companies to run Living Labs for their own knowledge exchange:

“Companies already understood that it can be very, very interesting for them to run a Living Lab and to exchange knowledge with other Living Labs and with other companies.” (a SME) Also, with the accumulation of benchmarking data from the experiments, Living Labs may provide value added services related to their specific knowledge.

77

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

6. Tools and methods In WP3, the most used methods and tools in the cross-border experiments were the following: Methods & Tools

Impact

Research framework

Research framework was used for each experiment. This was useful especially for structuring the project. It was foundational for organizing the work.

Project plan

Project plan enabled and facilitated project management and monitoring.

Roadshows

Roadshows have been useful for the companies in knowledge and business transfer, as companies (incl. SMEs) involved in the local ecosystem have been attending them.

Behavioural transformation approach (incl. Storyline)

Behavioral transformation approach has enabled transferring best practices within the pilot, structuring the experiments, as well as increased the competencies among the pilot partners.

Work Package 1 was in charge of researching the methodologies used and their validated impact. As those are reported in detail in the respective WP1 Deliverables, the outcomes are not repeated here.

In the following, research frameworks are presented for each experiment. Also, an example of a project plan is presented. Roadshows and behavioural transformation approach are presented in the Chapter Knowledge Transfer.

6.1 Research Frameworks

Key questions that each pilot was to answer are as follows from Apollon Work Package WP1 (Deliverable D1.2): Activities/Outputs

Build

Evaluate

78

Justify

Generalize

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4 Constructs

What are the variables that you study?

What are the elements that you measure?

Model

What are the basic assumptions, causalities and outcomes that you perceive?

What measures do you use to evaluate the validity of the assumptions?

What is the process for validating the assumptions?

Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

Method

Installation

How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

What are the success criteria that you use?

How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

How do you justify the use of selected methods?

How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

How do you ensure the scalability and wider applicability of the methods?

How do you compile recommendations for sustainability

This was elaborated and utilised per experiment as follows: 6.1.1 Research Framework Helsinki

The research framework for Helsinki was depicted in March 2011 by AAL and PV to contain the following: Activities/Outputs

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Constructs

What are the variables that you study?

What are the elements that you measure?

How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

1. feasibility of business model and cross-border partnering 2. change in user behaviour 3. improvement of usability of the solution tested

1. openness, trust, willingness to invest in ecosystem building, revenue sharing model 2. measured reduction in energy consumption and 79

1. revenue creation, level of openness 2. effectiveness of user intervention, empowerment of users 3.level of user participation

1. understanding socio-technical context

2. understanding the socio-cultural context of each practical

3. understanding technical solution and its applicability for intervention

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Model

What are the basic assumptions, causalities and outcomes that you perceive?

1. Research question: How to create a scalable crossborder business ecosystem?

Assumptions: SMEs do not compete with each other, market entry potential to multiple markets (scalability), market readiness, LL2 (PV) in driver´s seat .

sustainability of the change

created

What measures do you use to evaluate the validity of the assumptions?

What are the success criteria that you use?

3. impact of user feedback

1. Level of cross-border business activities

2. Replicability of interventions in another market 3. Number of solution changes, investments required, user feedback

2. Research question: How to create a sustainable change in user behaviour of his/her energy consumption?

Assumption: Uniformity of user population for effective intervention.

3. Research question: How to create a solution for a new sociotechnical system?

Assumption:

80

1. Number of market entries

2. Effectiveness of user intervention 3. Time to pilot and to fail/success, level of investment for localisation

How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

1. Increased revenue, partnership models, creation of cross-border ecosystem 2. Applicability and scalability 3. Time to business validation

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Method

Technical transferability of the solution.

What is the process for validating the assumptions?

1. Level of partner commitment, efficiency of ecosystem building activities

Installation

How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

1. Quality of commitment, contingency plans

2. Successive measurement of behavioural change

2. Measurement of user behaviour, introduction of new interventions

Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

3. Iterative development of technical solution and localisation

Technology provider ProcessVision, other providers open; building owner Varma; service provider open

How do you justify the use of selected methods?

1.Effectiveness of partnering activities, level of trust

2. Effectiveness of intervention

3. User trust and accessibility

Proof of new market potential for each partner

81

1. Understanding the roles in and expectations for the business ecosystem 2. Understanding the drivers for change in user behaviour

3. Localisation total cost, time to market

3. Quality of measurement data

PV: new service business (ecosystem) created on top of PV platform; Varma: value added to tenants

How do you ensure the scalability and wider applicability of the methods?

How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

PV: creating new service business with partners, reasonability and feasibility of offers; creation of common vision and readiness to invest Building owner: understanding the pilot and scaling it up

How do you compile recommendations for sustainability?

Sustainable revenue sharing and business model for PV and partners; pay-back model for Varma

Data collection: Interviews, savings proven, user satisfaction and behavioural change

Feasibility test of business ecosystem created

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Other Living Labs utilised this as a template and created their own frameworks as follows for Luleå in User Behaviour Change methodology and for Lisbon in an experiment in a condominium. Amsterdam had their selected, on-going pilots in Amsterdam Smart City project already reaching their final stages and thus utilised their own research framework.

6.1.2 Research Framework Luleå – User Behaviour Change

Activities/Outputs

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Constructs

What are the variables that you study?

What are the elements that you measure?

How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

Method usage

User interaction/intervention Studies of user behavior change

Shared method for user behavior change developed

Co-creation in work-shops

Intended usage of the developed method Model

What are the basic assumptions, causalities and outcomes that you perceive?

What measures do you use to evaluate the validity of the assumptions?

What are the success criteria that you use?

How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

What is the process for validating the assumptions?

How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

How do you justify the use of selected methods?

How do you ensure the scalability and wider applicability of the methods?

By transferring knowledge on methods for behavior change between partners, synergy effects can be reached and a best practices method can be developed in co-creation

Method

The cases are only describing the methods for stimulating and/or studying user behavior change.

A template has been provided

Three workshops in which knowledge is shared and best

By evaluating the separate methods firstly and then applying best practices from each case into one method

Through

82

Success criteria are the fact that a shared method is reached and then the intention to use the new method for user behavior change, a signed agreement to try to implement it

Knowledge transfer is

By studying the implementation of the method in other experiments

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Installation

practices are discussed.

A template for describing methods is distributed to the experiment which contributes to the validity of the approach.

After each workshop, the next step is decided on collaboratively

evaluations after each work-shop to ensure that the methods described are comparable and the essence of the methods described is clear

stimulated by openly discussing experiences and lessons learned from earlier cases hence, we strive to encourage knowledge exchange.

Referring to the method developed within the case, the endeavor is to develop a method that all involved stakeholder consider relevant and useful for their process of studying behavior change

Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

How do you compile recommendations for sustainability?

The stakeholders in our experiment are Living Labs aiming to study user behavior change

By applying framework 1.3

In this experiment co-creation is one basic approach where knowledge is shared based on a predefined template for method description.

Three workshops where LL from different countries share their experiences is considered a resource effective and efficient collaboration model.

We will design the method, based on best cases from four different LLs, in a collaborative way to ensure that users of the method easily can understand and assess the method in forthcoming projects.

6.1.3 Research Framework Lisbon Activities/Outputs

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Constructs

What are the variables that you study?

What are the elements that you measure?

How do you decide best practices across

How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

83

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4 1. feasibility of business model and cross-border cooperation between ISA (main provider) and other SMEs 2. change in user behaviour 3. Energy consumption patterns

4. User response to smart metering technology

Model

What are the basic assumptions, causalities and outcomes that you perceive?

1. Research question: How to create a sustainable change in user behaviour of his/her energy consumption?

Assumptions: Uniformity of user population for effective intervention.

The user behaviour is changed only through the proactive project dissemination and communication

1. openness, trust, willingness to invest in ecosystem building, revenue sharing model 2. measured reduction in energy consumption and sustainability of the change 3. impact of user feedback and response to smart metering technology

What measures do you use to evaluate the validity of the assumptions?

1. Level of cross-border business activities

2. Replicability of interventions in another market 3. User feedback

4. Energy reduction

84

the experiments?

1. integrated technical solution, cooperation agreement, revenue creation 2. effectiveness of user intervention (highest reduction in energy consumption without decreasing the comfort level), empowerment of users 3.level of user participation created

What are the success criteria that you use?

1. Number of market entries

2. Effectiveness of user intervention 3. Time to pilot and to fail/success, level of investment for localisation

1. understanding socio-technical context

2. understanding the socio-cultural context of each practical

3. understanding technical solution and its applicability for intervention 4. Understanding specific technical solutions depending on different climate conditions

How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

1. Increased revenue, partnership models, creation of cross-border ecosystem 2. Applicability and scalability 3. Time to business validation

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4 of best practices 2. Research question: How to measure cross border activities between different LLs?

Assumptions: Establish cooperation protocols between SMEs to promote technological transfer

Method

Assurance that SMEs won’t deviate from their natural core business What is the process for validating the assumptions?

1. Level of partner commitment

2. Continuous measurement of behavioural change 3. Iterative development of technical solution and of communication action Installation

Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

Technology provider ISA, other providers

How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

1. Quality of commitment

2. Measurement of user behaviour, introduction of new interventions 3. Quality of measurement data

4. Contingency plans

How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

ISA: solution demo and user feedback on the usability; 85

How do you justify the use of selected methods?

1.Effectiveness of partnering activities, level of trust, partner accessibility 2. Effectiveness of intervention

3. User trust and accessibility

How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

ISA: creating new service business with

How do you ensure the scalability and wider applicability of the methods?

1. Understanding the roles in and expectations for the business ecosystem 2. Understanding the drivers for change in user behaviour

3. Installation total cost, time to market

How do you compile recommendations for sustainability?

Sustainable revenue sharing and business model for ISA and

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4 open (HAE, Kyab, supporting partners), ; building dwellers and building administration; Lisboa E-Nova (local energy agency)

Dwellers and building administration: lower energy costs and increased energy and global sustainability awareness

Lisboa E-Nova: mainstreaming the best environmental and energy practices at a residential level Proof of new market potential for each partner

partners, reasonability and feasibility of offers; creation of common vision and readiness to invest

Dwellers and building’s administration: understanding the pilot and scaling it up

partners;

Pay-back model for the dwellers

Data collection: Dwellers and SME Interviews, savings proven, user satisfaction and behavioural change

Lisboa E-Nova: Obtaining a energy reduction pattern at a residential level

6.1.4 Research Framework Amsterdam

As described in the Chapter of Amsterdam experiment, the pilot started in September 2010 and lasted until April 2011. Thus, the pilot was already ending when the research framework was taken into use in March 2011, and therefore Amsterdam did not benefit from utilizing the research framework.

The research in this project was conducted by the University of Amsterdam and it took into account the different factors that influence behavioural change. Another goal of the research was to determine the actual concrete savings percentages, the differences between the percentages attained with the use of the different types of displays, and how a neighbourhood, such as Geuzenveld, can effectively be engaged in themes such as energy saving. Further research was carried out by Liander for the pilot participation.

6.2 Project plan

A project planning template was developed and utilised for structuring the pilots and their expectations. A work-in-progress plan used in the Helsinki experiment can be found in Attachment as an example.

86

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

7. Impact on energy efficiency The following Table summarizes average decreases in energy usage in the experiments that are then described in detail. The Apollon WP3 Energy Efficiency experiments can be considered successful: Living Lab

Average Context decrease in energy usage Helsinki 9.4% 1 company in 1 office building Luleå 5-12% 20 private households. Savings: ELIQ 2,6% average savings (4.5% average savings if the user with an increase of 15% is not included in results), SABER 11.8% average savings on electricity and 3.6% average savings on heating.

Amsterdam 4-8% 60 with a display, 541 with a smart meter Lisbon 9-20% 50 private households in 1 block of houses, 10 with a smart meter Table 1.

Duration

6+ mnths 10 mnths

7 mnths 15+ mnths

Impact on Energy Efficiency, average decreases in energy usage

7.1 Energy savings Luleå

In this section we will show the results of energy saving in the 20 households which participated in the pilot in Luleå. We begin with results from the ELIQ test and then results from the SABER test follows. Finally we will give a short discussion on the results and how they might have been affected by the level of participation and doing the assignments.

7.1.1 Comparison of electricity usage on households with ELIQ

To compare the electric usage between two different periods you have to remove the part that isn’t weather dependent, electricity for warm water and the household electricity. Then you remove the variables that affect the heating (in Swedish graddagskorrigering). The quota between the period 2010-04-2010-12 and 201104-2011-12 was 0,718. So it was considerably warmer 2011. After the correction of the variables above you get these results. As you can see eight households decreased the usage and one increased the usage.

87

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

As indicated in the diagram most of the households were able to reach a decrease in electricity usage during the test period. In the graph below you can see that the largest decrease was almost a 10% reduction. One household stands out in the other direction with an increase of 15% in usage. Analysis show that this household only performed one assignment and hence, did not really participate in the test program in the same way as the other test persons.

7.1.2 Comparison of electricity usage on households with SABER The comparison is similar to the ELIQ case except here all houses are heated with district heating and all the electric usage can assumed be household electricity. In the Saber case you can see that the households have reduced their usage of household electricity and district heating. 9 out of 10 have reduced the electric usage and 7 out of 10 have reduced the district heating.

88

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

As indicated by the graph above also in this case the majority of the test users were able to reach a decrease in electricity usage. Some of them even a substantial decrease. As shown in the graph below the largest decrease was more than 35% which is exceptional and also the second largest decrease of more than 20% is substantial. Two of the households had a small increase in electricity usage.

In the graph below we illustrate the comparison of heating between year 2010 and the same period in 2011. Seven out of ten households were able to reach a decrease in heating. We consider this as a very good result.

89

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

As illustrated in the graph below,you can see more in detail that the savings were substantial in four of the ten houses. A decrease in heating (district heating) of between 5 – 16 % is concidered a success. Three of the households had a small increase in heating, while, three had a small decrease in consumption.

Even if the number of test users is too small do any reliable assumptions you can see that visualization of the energy consumption has given a positive result. In the ELIQ case only one test user had increased the energy consumption and this was also the household that showed the smallest interest in the test and only accomplished one of six tasks.

If you compare the savings between ELIQ and SABER you see that the households with SABER have decreased the energy consumption more than households with ELIQ. This depends on various reasons but one of the repetitive comments from the 90

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

test users of ELIQ is that it’s difficult to really see what’s affecting the instantaneous energy consumption when the house is heated with electricity. It doesn’t matter if you turn of the lights, shutting of devises etc. if you have 10-15 radiators that go on and off. In the SABER case it’s much easier when the house is heated with district heating and that all electricity is household electricity.

The conclusion of this is that ELIQ or other equivalent equipment that only measures electricity is more suitable in apartments with another heat source, and that SABER is better in houses with district heating. A product like Plugwise where you can measure different devises would have given the households with ELIQ a better overview of their energy consumption.

In the end there was a lottery for one SABER and one ELIQ among the participants who had contributed to our test. Further, two of the test users wanted to keep their ELIQs and were offered to buy them to a reduced price.

7.2 Energy Savings Lisbon

The results presented below compare the consumption of the dwellers in the same months (2010, 2011 and 2012) with and without smart-meters. At the same time, a comparison was made using the results of all Apollon participants that were not using such meters. All the 51 participants (10 of which were provided with smartmeters – but only 8 provided valid data) were submitted to communication actions, in order to increase their awareness on energy consumption (newsletters, meetings, competition, brochures).

The figures below show the consumption of the smart-meter users (in green) for three different months. The temperature factor was used in order to compare different years.

91

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4 Figure 1 – Difference of consumptions between December 2010 (without smart meters) and December 2011 (with smart meters)

Figure 2 – Difference of consumptions between January 2011 (without smart meters) and December 2012 (with smart meters)

Figure 3 – Difference of consumptions between February 2011 (without smart meters) and February 2012 (with smart meters)

These figures show a reduction in most of the users for the compared months. The percentage of reduction is presented below: 92

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Figure 4 – Percentage of the difference between the compared months

In general, a reduction in all the 51 participants was verified, taking in account the temperature factor, with exception for the 2 bedroom flats. Nevertheless, this reduction was higher in the participants equipped with smart-meters.

Energy savings

With smart meters

Without smart meters

N

%

N

%

Smart meter contribution

2 Bedroom flat (T2)

3

-37

14

4

-42%

3 Bedroom flat (T3)

4

-32

22

-21

-11%

4 Bedroom flat (T4)

1

-19

7

-10

-9%

Table 2 – Comparison of the results between users with smart meters and without smart meters.

Considering the T2 flats (2 bedroom flat), it was observed that the user moved out during the weekdays. Therefore the consumption of this group was so high, compared with the other groups. Nevertheless, excluding this user (T2-2), a more acceptable reduction was observed (20% higher with smart meter).

Energy savings

93

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4 With smart meters

Without smart meters

N

%

N

%

Smart meter contribution

2 Bedroom flat (T2)

2

-23

14

4

-20%

3 Bedroom flat (T3)

4

-32

22

-21

-11%

4 Bedroom flat (T4)

1

-19

7

-10

-9%

Table 3 – Comparison of the results between users with smart meters and without smart meters (without the T2-2 user)

The presented results show an evident reduction on energy consumption in the Lisbon pilot due to behavior change methods and with the deployment of smart meters. In this last case, the reductions achieved were ever higher. However, it is important to state that the compared months are winter ones, where electrical heating systems were used. An annual comparison would produce slighter differences, once the heaters weight in the final result would be smaller.

7.3 Energy Savings Amsterdam

Beneath are the figures from the two Amsterdam pilots, Geuzenveld and West Orange pilots, indicating 3.9% (West Orange) and 7.8 % savings. The main results are that the users are more aware of environmental issues and their energy usage has been reduced. The experiments with their results are described in a Smart Stories publication that can be found on the Amsterdam Smart City website: http://www.aimsterdam.nl/over-AIM/smart-stories In the following measurements of gas (total used during the pilot) and total used electricity during the pilot are presented:

94

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

7.4 Energy Savings Helsinki Results in Helsinki Pilot show that the average saving in the Helsinki pilot was 9.4% less energy consumption.

An energy saving competition was set up as a way to involve users in the Helsinki Living Lab in the duration of the Apollon project. The competition took place between two compartments that had about the same amount of employees working within them; the 1st Floor customer Service Engineers and the 2nd Floor Software development Engineers. These two competing compartments, that can be seen below, achieved quite different energy savings. The other one achieved an energy reduction of 14,5% where as the other compartment increased their energy consumption with 5 per cent. The energy saving competition was set up so that the energy users were asked with weekly questionnaires about their attitudes towards the weekly themes as well as how they acted out the instructions. It became quite clear from the answers that the users on the second floor, that came out poorer, had originally a weak attitude towards energy savings and they weren’t interested in the competition and believed that their personal actions would not affect in the whole.

As a result of the energy saving competition the first floor staff, that came out as winners, achieved an energy reduction worth of 714 euros and this monetary gain was moved unreducted to their recreation fund.

95

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

During the competition there was in place two control groups that were not given any energy saving themes but however were informed of the energy saving competition taking place within the two competing compartments. The control groups were Administration on the 2nd Floor and customer technical support in the 1st floor. The users were asked about their attitudes towards energy savings and it turned out that the most interested and active users were found from the 96

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Administration compartment, as can be seen from the lowest chart that they achieved en energy reduction of 31 per cent.

97

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Attachment A – Use Transformation Methodology Case – Development, Experiences and Recommendations The attachment can be downloaded from MyBBT (39 pages).

98

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Attachment B – Acquisition, Retention and Contribution of Pilot Project Participants Robin Neven’s thesis on Acquisition, Retention and Contribution of Pilot Project Participants, successfully defended at the University of Groningen, made for Liander.

The attachment can be downloaded from MyBBT.

Optimising Acquisition, Retention and Contribution of participants in energy transition pilot projects Authors: Robin Neven, University of Groningen and Liander. Jochem Floor, Liander.

99

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Attachment C – Pilot Plans C.1 Project Plan – Process Vision / Aalto Living Lab, Helsinki Helsinki project plan in April 2011 was as follows: 1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1

Objectives

Objective of the project has been to find new business models and partners in the Energy Efficiency field. During the project a new business model has indeed been established; Enterprise Energy Management. Secondary objective has therefore been sprung up to see whether the energy consumption within the living lab building can be reduced and if the user-behavior change is permanent and therefore to cultivate the lessons learned to the new business model.

1.2

Drivers and Background

Deregulations of the energy market and a trend on energy saving by users have created a new service business model to address needed changes of the energy service ecosystems. Each country with their individual legacy industries and different regulatory environments create a challenge for Europe to be a leader in this fast growing business. CIP and other EU instruments can and should address these cross-border needs to demonstrate creation of such new service industries.

1.3

Key Results

As an outcome of Apollon project Process Vision wishes to have a mature business model based on the activities done in energy efficiency living labs. The business model will be created from those activities and methodologies created in the Apollon project. These inputs from the project partners will be tested out and cultivated in the Helsinki Living Lab. Apollon originated Living Lab will work as platform for optimizing the recommendations and action plans so that in later business scenarios the alike projects can be set up, delivered and carried out in a more stable, efficient and confident way. In the Apollon project a set of needed tools for energy efficiency projects will be created and tested out. After the project based on the lessons learned the created tools will be used as a starting point for further research and development.

1.4

Project Duration and Value

Apollon WP 3 duration is 30 months and lasts till 2013 April. Value will be measured in the creation of permanent trusted business and development 100

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

partnerships created in Apollon energy sector. Continuation with follow-up projects and sound business cases are measurable outcomes. Comparisons between different national ecosystems will bring-up needed European regulatory issues to be addressed.

2.

PROJECT DELIVERABLES

In the scope of the project two deliverables are expected: Apollon deliverable D3.5 and D3.6. Deliverable 3.5 is the evaluation report on the cross-border experiment and deliverable 3.6 is recommendations for a cross-border network of Living labs in Energy Efficiency.

2.1

Table of Deliverables

D.3.5

Evaluation report on the cross border experiment

D.3.6

Recommendations for a cross border network of Living labs in energy efficiency

2.2

Description of Deliverables

Deliverable 3.5 This deliverable will report the evaluation of the cross-border experiment requirements, results and recommendations based on the results achieved.

Deliverable 3.6 This deliverable will report the methodology to extend the recommendations to create and extend a large community of Living labs in the energy efficiency domain.

3.

WORK PLAN

3.1

Tasks

See tables below. The first table indicates which Tasks and subtasks need to be done and the second table shows a timeline and work allocation plans for these given tasks.

101

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Task Sub-Task

Responsible person

Effort (months)

Deadline

1. Cross border business cases and EEM proposals

Turja Juhani

3 months

Duration of project

1.1 Creation of new business model

Duration of project

1.2 Creation of cross-border business cases

Duration of project

2. Varma house measurements and user involvement

Oja Riitta Vuorinen Markus

15 months

in 2011

2.1 Installation of measurement

April 2011

2.2 Setting up the GENERIS software

June 2011

2.3 Creation of reporting templates and communication methods

June 2011

2.4 Setting up the user-behavior change study

June 2011

2.5 Managing the user-behavior change study and evaluating the results

November 2011

2.6 Creating best practices and evaluation of the results

December 2011

3. Evaluation and WP management

Niitamo Veli-Pekka

4 months

end of project

4. Amsterdam case,

Oirsouw Rob, Makkonen Simo, Jokinen Antti, Hulttinen Vesa

1 month

Duration of project

5. Cross border collaboration

Makkonen Simo, Jokinen Antti, Hulttinen Vesa

0,5 month

Duration of project

102

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

3.2

Milestones and Reviews

Important milestones within the project are: M1 – The set-up of the Helsinki Living Lab is complete

Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Feb

Jan

2011

Mar

M2 – The user-behavior study has been completed and the results are ready to be analyzed.

Task 1 Task 1.1 Task 1.2 Task 2

Task 2.1

1

1

1

1

Task 2.2

0,5 0,5

Task 2.4

0,5 0,5

Task 2.3

1

1

Task 2.5 Task 2.6 Task 3

1

1

1 1

0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2

Task 5

Milestones

1

1

Task 4

Total

1

M1

103

M2

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

3.3

IPR Management

Apollon is an innovation project addressing premarket issues between very innovative SME companies and has to acknowledge the need of SMEs to protect their IPRs and emergent business strategies. IPR questions have to be addressed between partner to partner negotiations in order to create healthy trusted business collaboration. Apollon project will summarize and evaluate IPR questions as enablers or challenges for collaboration and potential for SME business growth in this market.

3.4

Knowledge Transfer and Exploitation of the Results

Major outcomes of the cross-border knowledge transfers will be documented in the evaluation task 3.4 (D3.5) and Living Labs methodology with involving users to testing and development will result in learnings of organisations and individuals. SMEs sharing their business strategies in seeking for partnerships will result in major knowledge transfers between companies. Research partners will share research outcomes focusing on user transformation issues and policy and regulatory recommendations will be the outcomes in task 3.5.

Exploitation of results will also take place on three levels. Business outcomes, Research outcomes and Policy outcomes and can be evaluated after the expiration of this project better.

4.

PROJECT ORGANIZATION

4.1

Steering Group

Helsinki/Varma Living Lab has established its own steering and project groups.

Steering group consists of Client responsible from Varma Corporation (building owner, Matti Lindfors), CEO of Process Vision Dr. Makkonen, VP Niitamo PV/Task leader, Dr. Turkama/Launonen Aalto representative/research 4.2

Project Group

Project group consists of Launonen/Aalto University, Riitta Oja PV, Juhani Turja PV, Rob van Oirsouw PV Amsterdam and Niitamo PV 4.3

External Parties and Subcontracting

Juhani Turja will be a stakeholder manager and report to equipment vendor and building owner and collaboration issues on business potentials to Sweden and Finland, Riitta Oja is in charge of managing in-house testing and in-house organisations and reports on results to Apollon partners in other countries. Rob von Oirsouw will be collaboration manager for PV in Amsterdam. Launonen will be responsible on research partners.

4.4

Other Relevant Stakeholders

104

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

Helsinki energy and city energy policy (city of Helsinki), National energy networks (Cleantech Finland), National Industry research cluster on smart grids. Also other utility companies, several equipment vendors and service maintenance companies are stakeholders in the project.

5.

PROJECT STEERING, REPORTING AND COMMUNICATION

5.1

Steering Group Meetings and Project Reporting

SG meetings 2 times per year (next 9.5.2010) and monthly updates on project progress reporting, weekly project action item meetings.

Apollon reporting will follow DoW needs.

5.2

External Communication

Marketing Director Antti Jokinen will be in market communications and management of weekly meetings. Also trade journals will be Dir. Jokinen’s responsibility. Seminar and conference papers and presentations; Niitamo, Makkonen, Jokinen, Launonen 5.3

Project Group Meetings and Internal Communication

See 5.1.

6.

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND RISKS

6.1

Critical Success Factors

Success factors in following levels: 1. Living Lab level; energy savings, business model testing and sustainable change in user behavior. 2. Cross Building level; Scalability of solution/service for diverse buildings for Varma, scalability to emergent business models for PV. 3. Cross border/Cross country scalability; proposals, business deals, revenue, contracts and agreements. 4. European level generalizations.

6.2

Risks

IPR issues become dominant and no real trusted business collaboration created.

SME resources to scale. Volatility of SME situation in the market place. SME cultures being suspicious and not trustful. SME experiences mainly from national environments. Standards and regulatory changes. Big corporation dominance in the market.

6.3

Risk Management Practices

Monthly reviews on risks.

105

Apollon – Deliverable 3.4

7.

BUDGET

(not shown here) 7.1

Costs

(not shown here) 7.2

Invoicing & funding

(not shown here)

106