|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online July/August 1999
Market Transformation:
Expectations vs.
Reality
by Nick Hall and John Reed
Nick Hall and John Reed are principals and
co-owners of the energy technology research and evaluation firm TecMRKT
Works.
As two program evaluators tell it, market
transformation is a beast with many heads. Designing, ramping up, and implementing
a program to tame all those heads requires years of sustained effort.
Increasingly, market transformation programs
are seen as a means of bridging the gap between regulated and unregulated
energy markets (see "Wisconsin Utilities Prime the
Whole-House Pump," HE Jan/Feb '99, p. 13). In planning new market
transformation efforts, one question inevitably arises: How long does it
take to transform the market for an energy product or service to the point
where the change will be maintained in the absence of the program? The
better one understands market transformation, the better one understands
why answering this question is difficult--and why it may not be the most
appropriate question anyway.
There is a big difference between a demand-side
management program--in which program planners need only to get energy-efficient
measures used in the market in order to achieve demand or consumption reductions--and
a market transformation program (see Table 1). In our
view, market transformation means applying market interventions in such
a way that the effects of the intervention last, in one or more segments
of the market, until other intended or unintended market forces act to
erode them. We like this definition for several reasons. It recognizes
that (1) interventions can have both long- and short-term effects; (2)
markets are always in a state of transformation by different market initiatives;
(3) energy-efficient interventions make up a small part of the intervention
mix at any given time; and (4) markets are made up of linked segments,
each of which reacts to transformation initiatives in different ways.
Reaching Market Segments
An initiative designed to move one segment of the
market can have little or no effect, or even an opposite effect, on another
segment. In studying green power sales in Colorado, for example, we identified
five market segments for wind energy: the no-frills greens; the traditionalists;
the full-service greens; the egalitarian greens; and the cost-conscious
individualists.
The cost-conscious individualists want power
at the lowest cost and believe that people who want green energy should
pay the full cost of the service. The egalitarian greens believe that the
environment should take precedence over cost, and that all customers should
pay for green energy. The other three segments fall somewhere in between
these two extremes.
The cost-conscious individualists will be transformed
only by programs that allow them to receive wind power at a cost equal
to or lower than the cost of other energy sources. The egalitarian greens
will want others to share the cost of wind power, so that they do not have
to pay the full ticket for environmentally friendly energy. Transformation
programs that offer proportional service or blocks of wind power will find
this group more receptive to their efforts.
Each market segment is distributed differently
across different geographic areas. Program planners must know how these
segments are distributed in their target areas in order to plan appropriate
market transformation time lines. They must also understand that market
segments change and that market transformation initiatives must plan for
these changes.
A recent study by our company, TecMRKT Works,
identified three operational approaches to new commercial construction
in Northern California. These are the collaborative method, the plan/design/
build method, and the design/build method. With the collaborative method,
the architects, designers, engineers, and builders form a team. Typically,
the members of this team have a history of working well together and communicating
well with other members of the team. With the plan/design/build method,
an architect is retained to design the building prior to construction.
With the design/build method, the building is designed at the same time
as it is under construction. The big advantage of this last method is that
it saves time.
While the collaborative method may give team
members time to entertain energy efficient building ideas introduced by
other team members exposed to market transformation programs, the design/build
method concentrates on getting the building up as fast as possible. "We
must have our retail buildings up and ready in eight weeks," one design/build
architect advised us. "We do not have time for energy efficient performance
planning or analysis." Market transformation programs that assist architects
and engineers with energy analysis and provide construction recommendations
may find a receptive audience with the members of a collaborative team
or with the plan/design/build architects and engineers, but they will have
a difficult time gaining an audience in the design/ build market. In order
to reach this market segment, they must find a way to make energy-efficient
building design and construction as easy, as fast, and possibly as cheap
as the design/ build community requires.
Adopting Energy-Efficient Technologies and Behaviors
Programmers who want to forecast the rate at which
an innovation will be adopted need to consider several factors. These factors
are (1) the way in which technologies or behaviors are adopted, (2) the
market actors they are trying to reach, (3) the attributes of the product
or innovation, and (4) the channels they use to communicate about the innovation
(see "Adoption of Technologies"). The adoption of
energy efficient recommendations typically follows a decision pathway known
as the diffusion-of-innovation path. Some market actors move through this
path and take action very rapidly; others may take a very long time. Homeowners,
for example, may have been convinced that they should install an energy
efficient improvement, but for various reasons they may not actually install
it for several years.
The attributes of energy efficiency products--their
complexity, their unfamiliarity, and often their higher first cost--can
work against a rapid adoption process. But program managers who can spread
news of their products or services through word of mouth are well on their
way to accomplishing their market transformation goals.
Step-by-Step Estimates
Designing and implementing a market transformation
program for an unspecified technology is done in a series of steps, each
of which may take more or less time to complete (see Table
2). Assuming that the technology is already available in the market,
the entire process can take anywhere from about 7 years to about 14 years.
However, some of these steps can take place simultaneously, shortening
the whole process.
The time estimates given in Table
2 assume a program management and operational structure that is uniformly
committed to the market transformation process and that can make prompt
decisions. We have been involved with market transformation collaboratives
that have made operational decisions, with supporting budgets, during brief,
team meetings that lasted anywhere from one to three hours. However, we
have also been involved with collaboratives that were managed by consensus,
some of whose members disagreed strongly with others. In one such effort,
it was not unusual for program planners to take from 12 to 24 months or
more to reach a decision. For situations like this, the time estimates
given in the table may be conservative.
What Are the Goals?
Beyond such organizational influences, the key factor
that determines how long a transformation program will last is what, exactly,
the goals of the program are. To transform the market toward reduced greenhouse
gas emissions, for example, planners may need to devise interventions that
last as long as they are committed to these goals, rather than targeting
near-term market changes.
In Wisconsin, high-efficiency residential furnaces
have become the standard throughout most of the state, as a result of past
furnace rebate programs. But the high-efficiency furnace's market share
has started to slip as the market reacts to other transformation efforts.
To maintain market share, periodic market transformation interventions
that reinforce the high-efficiency choice will need to be strategically
applied in the areas of the state that show market deterioration.
If we want to focus on single technologies or
behaviors and plan to achieve only short-term market effects, we need intervene
in the market only until the early majority begins to implement actions
based on their interaction with other market actors. Then we can exit out
of that market and let the technology sink or swim on its own.
However, if we truly want to guide markets toward
improved efficiency, we must be willing to supply them with transformation
programs that react to changes in the market as they occur. The real answer
to the question "How long does it take to implement market transformation
programs?" may be "How long do you want to influence the market?"
| Table 1. Examples of Market Transformation Initiatives |
| Initiative |
Initiative Components |
Results |
| Condensing furnaces in Wisconsin |
Inclusion of condensing furnaces in low-income weatherization program;
utility incentives |
Market share ~85%; prices have come down and local contractors routinely
recommend and install condensing furnaces; market share dropping since
the program ended |
| Residential construction practices in the Northwest |
Development of voluntary Model Conservation Standards; demonstration
projects; incentives for builders and local governments; development of
new building codes |
Model Conservation Standards now incorporated into building codes in
Washington and Oregon, affecting ~85% of regional construction; entire
effort cost regional utilities ~3 mils/kWh saved |
| Electric motors in British Columbia |
Education of customers and dealers; customer and dealer incentives;
promotion of provincial and national minimum efficiency standards |
As a result of first 3 components, by 1993 high-efficiency motors had
a 70% market share; provincial minimum efficiency standards adopted in
1993 effective 1995 |
| Energy Star office equipment |
Labeling program for office equipment with power management features;
legislative requirement for office equipment information program; Executive
Order requiring federal agencies to purchase Energy Star equipment |
Market share of Energy Star office equipment 70%-90%, varying by type
of equipment; efforts on-going to work with manufacturers and customers
to encourage use of power management features |
| Efficient magnetic ballasts |
Utility incentives; state minimum efficiency standards |
Federal minimum efficiency standards, which require performance levels
achievable with only efficient magnetic or more efficient products adopted
effective 1990 |
| High-efficiency refrigerators |
Super Efficient Refrigerator Program; other utility rebates; bulk-purchase
by housing authorities of high-efficiency apartment-size refrigerator;
negotiations with manufacturers on new federal minimum standard |
New federal standard adopted, to take effect 2001, which will result
in 30% energy savings for the most commonly sold models, relative to the
current federal standard |
| Source: Nadel, S. and L. Latham. The Role of Market
Transformation Strategies in Achieving a More Sustainable Energy Future.
Washington, D.C. 1998. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. |
| Table 2. Estimate of Time Needed For Hypothetical Market
Transformation Programs |
| Steps in the Market Transformation Process |
Number of Months |
-
Research the operations of the target market
-
Assess the potential intervention strategies and points of impact
-
Identify baseline operations
|
4-12 |
-
Design the market intervention strategies
-
Prepare the materials to support the intervention
|
10-18 |
| Find, hire and train an experienced, expert staff to support the intervention |
6-12 |
| Initiate the program and test the intervention strategies |
12-24 |
| Implement and assess the intervention strategies in a phased-in, sequenced
series of strategically focused intervention efforts |
36-60 |
| Implement exit strategies that wean the market off the intervention
strategies |
12-36 |
| Total time required |
80-162 |
| Additional and follow-up market observation and assessments |
Ongoing |
| Follow-up market re-interventions to maintain the transformation effort |
As needed over the life of the goal |
| Note: Times assume program budgets are set at levels to
counter undesired market trends in relation to the size of the total market
to be influenced. |
Adoption of Technologies
 |
| There are five different types of technology adopters. Most people
fall into the category of early majority or late majority. |
The Adoption Process
The diffusion model defines the process by which
market actors adopt an innovation. During the first stage the actors become
aware of an innovation. Next comes a persuasion stage, during which the
actors seek and process information in order to decide whether to adopt
the innovation. The persuasion stage is followed by a decision stage, which
in turn is followed by an implementation stage. Deciding to adopt and actually
implementing the decision are separate acts that may occur days, months,
or even years apart, which is why implementation is a separate stage. Finally,
in the confirmation stage, actors reevaluate and either confirm or reverse
their decision to take action. A study conducted for the Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) found that the entire adoption process took from
a few months to several years, depending on the technologies that were
adopted.
Types of Adopter
Different market actors need different periods of
time to move through the adoption process and take action. Adopters are
generally categorized into one of five groups: innovators, early adopters,
the early majority, the late majority, and laggards.
Innovators are a very small group, one that pursues
technology aggressively. Innovators are sufficiently tolerant that they
will use a technology that is not reliable, understanding that they will
need to work with it to make it perform for them. Their feedback can help
manufacturers to refine a technology. Early adopters appreciate the potential
benefits of a technology and will use the technology when they see that
its benefits meet their own needs and desires.
The early majority may have some interest in
the technology, but they are driven more by practical motivations. These
people will wait and see if a technology delivers on its promises, and
they tend to rely on the advice of others in their own group. Once a few
members of the early majority has converted, they then talk the rest into
joining them. This is the market takeoff point--the point that transformation
programs need to reach before planners can consider exit strategies. Products
that don't succeed in moving the early majority will not become self-sustaining,
and efforts to transform the market will become less effective.
The late adopters are not comfortable with new
technology and will wait until a product has become the standard before
they buy it. The laggards simply don't want to have anything to do with
the technology and adopt it only when they have no alternative.
Attributes of the Innovation
As for the innovative product or service itself,
it has five key attributes that determine how quickly it will be adopted.
These attributes are relative advantage, observability, compatibility,
trialability, and complexity. Relative advantage is the degree to which
an innovation is perceived as being better than the alternatives. It is
based on many factors. These include profits, costs, comfort, prestige,
time savings, level of effort, and immediacy of the reward. Economic profitability
tends to explain considerably less than half of the variance associated
with relative advantage.
Innovations are more likely to be adopted when
people can see, feel, touch, or experience them in some way. This attribute
is called observability. Relative advantage and observability are the most
important factors that influence the rate of adoption.
Energy-efficient products often have characteristics
that place them at a disadvantage relative to other products. These characteristics
can act to increase the time that is needed for market transformation programs
to work. Products that are adopted rapidly often have low initial costs,
for example, while energy efficiency products often have high initial costs.
Complexity--a trait also associated with many efficiency products--is another
barrier to acceptance. The simpler the device or the idea, or the easier
it is to use, the more likely it is to be adopted.
Talk It Up
Finally, there are two main communication channels--broadcast
and interpersonal--through which news of innovations can be spread to potential
purchasers. Broadcast channels involve the mass media. Interpersonal channels
involve people talking with one another. Which channel is carrying talk
of a specific innovation can significantly influence the rate of that innovation's
adoption. The transformation of the market does not kick in until the interpersonal
channels really begin to work. |
| Back to Contents Page |
Home Energy Index |
About
Home Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright Notice
|