Back to Right Light Proceedings startpage
Helena Bülow-HübeLessons Learned About Incentive Methods Tested for Residential Lighting Efficiency Programs in Sweden Lund University, Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Building Science, Sweden Tommy Ankarljung Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development, Department of Energy Efficiency, Sweden Abstract This is an evaluation of four incentive methods for residential lighting efficiency programs initiated by the National Energy Administration (NEA) in Sweden. The penetration in the four regions was: 0.026 (shared rebates between customers and stores), 0.04 (rebates on electricity bill), 0.052 and 0.056 (cash rebates to customers) with an average of 0.045 redeemed coupons/eligible household. Lamp shortages were a large problem which could explain why penetration and variation among regions was not higher. Thus there was no clear indication which incentive method is better. According to the program survey - which included interviews with 1000 households - almost all households remembered seeing the information folder, and the message to save energy was well understood. Forty percent of the participants were retired and 65% lived in single-family or row houses. Participants felt that the main advantages with CFLs are energy savings and long lamp life. The main disadvantage is high lamp prices. Over 70% of those interviewed say they will buy CFLs in the future, but the high price still seems to dissuade most people from buying CFLs. Retailers are mostly positive about the programs, but late notification of the programs gave them trouble ordering lamps in time. Retailers also seem to have greatly underestimated the demand for CFLs. For the utilities, the programs were a method of promoting and familiarising their customers with CFLs and for improving customer relations.
|