1. Project
co-­‐funded
by
the
European
Commission
within
the
IEE
Programme
Dissemination
Level
PU
Public
x
CO
Consortium
and
EASME
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
deliverable
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
EMPOWERING
customers
to
save
energy
by
informative
billing
Deliverable
2.2b
Publishable
report
on
customer
expectations
Project
No.
IEE/12/697/S12.645843

2.
EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
2
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Authors
Name
Organisation
Giovanni
Pede
SINERGIE
Speranza
Boccafogli
SINERGIE
Marina
Pirazzi
REGGIO
EMILIA
Duilio
Cangiari
REGGIO
EMILIA
Vincent
Revol
ALEC
Marine
Joos
HESPUL
Gitte
Wad
Thybo
ENERGIMIDT
Stoyan
Danov
CIMNE
Gabriela
Ganeva
CIMNE
Joan
M.
Grande
El
Gas
Federico
Boni
Castagnetti
IREN
Mariapia
Martino
POLITO
Andreas
G.
Wancura
LINZSTROM
Gilles
Deotto
GEG

3.
EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
3
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Revision
history
Revision
Date
Author
Organisation
Description
0.1
29/08/13
Giovanni
Pede
SINERGIE
Overall
methodology.
Partial
data
analysis
0.1
02/09/13
Marina
Pirazzi
REGGIO
EMILIA
Description
of
Reggio
Emilia
pilot
0.1
10/09/13
Gitte
Wad
Thybo
ENERGIMIDT
Data
report
and
description
of
the
Danish
pilot
0.2
24/09/13
Marina
Pirazzi
REGGIO
EMILIA
Overall
review
0.2
30/09/13
Giovanni
Pede
SINERGIE
Final
version
0.3
06/05/14
Giovanni
Pede
SINERGIE
Publishable
version
0.3
20/05/14
Gabriela
Ganeva
CIMNE
Overall
review
0.3
22/05/14
Michele
Pastorelli
POLITO
Peer
review

4.
EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
4
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Table
of
contents
1.
Introduction
and
Objectives
...........................................................................................
5
2.
Overall
Methodology
.....................................................................................................
6
3.
Local
surveys
..................................................................................................................
9
3.1
Italian
pilots
.........................................................................................................................
9
3.1.1
Reggio
Emilia
................................................................................................................................................
9
3.1.2
Torino
.........................................................................................................................................................
22
3.2
French
pilot
..................................................................................................................
30
3.3
Spanish
pilot
................................................................................................................
44
3.4
Danish
pilot
..................................................................................................................
52
3.5
Austrian
pilot
...............................................................................................................
61
4.
Conclusions
and
findings
..............................................................................................
70
5
Feedbacks
after
testing
................................................................................................
74
6
Bibliography
.................................................................................................................
80
7
ANNEXES
......................................................................................................................
81
Annex
I
-­‐
Questionnaire
on
users’
expectations
(basic
English
version
..................................
82
Annex
II
–
Italian
Questionnaire
..............................................................................................
83
Annex
III
–
French
Questionnaire
............................................................................................
84
Annex
IV
–
Spanish
Questionnaire
..........................................................................................
85
Annex
V
–
Danish
Questionnaire
.............................................................................................
86
Annex
VI
–
Austrian
Questionnaire
.........................................................................................
87

5. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
5
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
1. Introduction
and
Objectives
The
current
report
is
the
product
of
Task
2.3
“User
expectations
of
the
informative
billing
and
online
tools”
and
constitutes
the
core
of
the
service
definition.
The
objective
of
this
document
is
to
establish
the
requirements
in
term
of
users
expectations
referred
to
the
implementation
of
the
EMPOWERING
services.
The
process
of
requirements
collection
has
been
performed
in
two
iterations.
In
the
first
iteration
the
definition
has
been
based
on
the
market
knowledge
of
the
participating
utilities
and
the
technical
partners’
know-­‐how.
As
a
result
from
this,
an
initial
set
of
services
was
produced
and
the
available
data
and
utility
system
requirements
were
investigated.
Consecutively,
initial
specifications,
prototyping
and
testing
involving
utility
staff
was
done
in.
The
user
expectations
based
on
the
suggested
services
have
been
investigated
in
deliverable
D2.2a,
which
provided
the
basis
for
the
current
document.
In
the
second
iteration
the
previously
defined
requirements
have
been
revised
considering
the
results
from
the
initial
prototype
testing
and
user
feedback.
The
present
document
represents
thefinal
collection
of
data
on
users
expectations
and
feedbacks
from
stakeholders
involved
in
the
testing
phase
of
EMPOWERING.
Together
with
deliverables
D2.1b,
D2.3b
and
D2.4
it
provides
the
basis
for
the
final
service
specification
and
implementation
of
the
EMPOWERING
services.
The
process
is
schematically
outlined
in
Figure
1.
Overview
of
the
iterative
approach
The
activities
carried
out
aimed
at
the
analysis
of
end
users’
expectations
and
requirement
about
the
service
that
will
be
developed
within
the
EMPOWERING
project
in
4
different
pilot
countries.

6. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
6
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
The
foreseen
number
of
persons
to
be
reached
and
involved
in
the
Empowering
project
are
800,
200
per
country.
These
800
persons
will
constitute
the
“test
group”,
namely
the
first
group
of
consumers
that
receive
the
service
in
order
to
test
it.
The
customers
base
of
the
project
is,
in
effect,
divided
into
“Test
group”;
“Experimental
group”
and
“Control
group”.
The
pie
chart
below
shows
the
foreseen
distribution
per
country
and
group.
-­‐
The
Test
group
is
the
first
group
of
the
customer
base
to
be
the
surveyed
on
their
expectations
and
the
first
group
who
receives
the
service
in
order
to
test
it.
-­‐
The
Experimental
group
is
the
extended
group
of
customers
who
will
receive
the
service
after
the
testing
phase
and
the
validation
of
service.
-­‐
The
Control
group
is
the
group
who
does
not
receive
any
service
or
information.
Their
performance
will
be
compared
with
the
performance
of
the
rest
of
the
customer
base
who
will
have
received
the
service.
2. Overall
Methodology

7. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
7
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Given
the
differences
between
pilots
it
was
not
possible
to
adopt
an
identical
methodology
for
each
of
them.
This
chapter
reports
the
overall
methodology
adopted
and
its
rationale.
The
specificities
of
each
local
analysis
are
reported
in
the
specific
sections
of
the
pilots.
The
methodology
adopted
to
sample
the
users
followed
these
steps:
-­‐
identification
of
specific
areas
of
the
pilot
and/or
specific
customers
to
involve
in
the
first
phase
of
the
project
-­‐
contact
and
pre-­‐notification
(different
for
each
pilot)
The
following
table
show
the
foreseen
composition
of
the
test
group
in
each
pilot.
The
table
shows
also
the
survey
conducted
in
Denmark
before
their
withdrawal.
PILOT
Denmark
Austria
France
Spain
Italy
RE
Italy
TO
TEST
GROUP
Selection
of
users
located
in
the
Island
of
Fur
Selection
from
direct
contacts
of
the
utility
and
users
of
the
online
service
Plus24
Smart
meters
customer
+
Respondent
of
the
questionnaire
(sent
before
to
a
larger
pool
of
customers)
Selection
from
customer
database.
Pre-­‐defined
group
of
customers
based
on
the
knowledge
of
ELGAS
Selection
of
buildings
in
specific
areas
of
the
city
Selection
of
buildings
(district
heating)
+
Electricity:
Respondent
of
the
questionnaire
(sent
before
to
a
larger
pool
of
customers)
PARTNERS
ENERGIMIDT
LINZSTROM
GEG;
ALEC;
HESPUL
ELGAS
REGGIO
EMILIA
selection
of
buildings
IREN
checks
technical
feasibility
IREN
(supported
by
POLITO
and
Sinergie
if
necessary)
Number
of
customers
200
200
200
200
50
district
heating
50
district
heating
+
100
electricity
In
addition
to
the
questionnaires
filled
in
by
the
customers,
2
focus
groups
(one
in
Reggio
Emilia,
Italy
and
one
in
Grenoble,
France)
were
conducted
in
order
to
complement
collected
data.
The
focus
group
is
a
form
of
qualitative
research
in
which
a
group
of
people
(key
informant)
are
asked
about
their
perceptions,
opinion,
attitudes
and
beliefs
towards
a
product,
service
or
idea.
A
conductor
asks
questions
in
an
interactive
group
where
participants
are
free
to
talk
with
the
other
participants.
Data
are
collected
by
one
or
more
observers,
who
register
all
the
emerging
opinions.
In
the
focus
group
of
Empowering,
the
same
key
questions
of
the
questionnaire
had
been
asked
to
the
participant
in
order
to
collect
their
opinions
and
data
about
the
project
issues.
The
aims
of
the
focus
groups
were
the
following:
-­‐
mitigation
of
“non-­‐response”
or
“partial
response”
risk
of
the
involved
customer
test
groups;

8. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
8
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
-­‐
be
complementary
to
the
survey,
allowing
a
deeper
analysis
of
the
phenomena
and
catch
pilot-­‐specific
issues
which
the
questionnaires
cannot
identify.
The
results
and
the
detailed
descriptions
of
the
focus
groups
can
be
read
in
the
specific
section
of
the
Italian
and
French
pilots.
With
reference
to
the
questionnaire,
it
has
been
developed
with
a
collaboration
between
all
partners.
The
consortium
agreed
to
create
a
shared
common
version
of
the
questionnaire
(in
English,
see
Annex
I),
defining
step
by
step
every
item
and
discussing
about
the
utility
of
information
that
could
be
obtained
by
each
of
them.
The
questionnaire
is
divided
into
4
sections:
-­‐
“Section
I:
Information
on
the
household”:
this
section
aims
to
obtain
information
about
the
respondent
and
his/her
household
and
the
dwelling;
-­‐
“Section
II:
Questions
on
household’s
use
of
existing
source
of
energy
information”:
it
includes
questions
about
the
presence
of
appliances
and
their
energy
class,
the
comprehension
of
energy
bill,
the
realisation
of
investments
and
measures
to
save
energy
and
the
satisfaction
with
the
energy
provider;
-­‐
“Section
III:
evaluation
on
the
importance
of
integrative
information
to
be
added
in
the
bill
or
on-­‐line
service
for
a
better
comprehension
on
how
to
save
energy”:
the
questions
aim
to
analyse
the
importance
of
a
set
of
proposed
information
to
be
inserted
in
the
informative
billing;
-­‐
“Section
IV:
Intelligibility
of
the
integrative
information”:
this
section
is
different
for
each
pilot
as
it
aims
to
investigate
the
perception
about
the
different
mock-­‐ups
possibly
offered
by
the
service.
Given
the
specificity
of
each
pilot,
once
the
basic
English
version
has
been
agreed,
the
questionnaire
was
translated
into
the
4
languages
of
the
pilots,
allowing
differences
among
local
versions.
Some
items,
although
agreed
in
the
basic
version
of
the
questionnaire,
were
removed
in
the
local
versions
when
not
relevant.

9. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
9
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
3. Local
surveys
In
this
section
the
differences
among
the
surveys
carried
out
in
the
pilots
are
explained.
After
the
general
definition,
the
basic
questionnaire
in
English
was
translated
into
Italian,
Spanish,
French
and
Danish.
Different
methods
have
been
used
to
collect
data.
The
answers
to
sections
related
to
buildings,
dwellings
and
energy
systems
of
the
questionnaires
have
been
omitted
in
the
current
report
as
they
are
not
issues
strictly
related
to
the
customer
perceptions
about
the
energy
provision
services,
which
are
the
main
purpose
of
the
current
deliverable.
3.1
Italian
pilots
In
Italy
2
surveys
were
conducted
as
2
different
pilots
had
been
identified:
the
cities
of
Reggio
Emilia
and
Torino.
The
local
Italian
questionnaire
shows
little
differences
in
the
2
cities’
versions,
as
the
target
customers
were
different.
In
Reggio
Emilia,
particularly,
the
survey
aimed
at
involving
disadvantaged
customers,
such
as
people
of
minority
ethnic
groups
and
in
social
housing.
In
Reggio
Emilia
questionnaire’s
data
were
collected
almost
exclusively
by
a
trained
cultural
mediator,
in
Torino
an
online
version
of
the
questionnaire
was
mainly
used.
In
the
version
of
Reggio
Emilia
some
questions
were
added
in
order
to
investigate
the
fluency
of
users
of
different
ethnic
groups
with
the
Italian
language.
Almost
all
the
interviewees
showed
at
least
a
sufficient
understanding
of
Italian,
therefore
the
answers
related
to
these
group
of
questions
have
been
omitted
in
the
current
report.
3.1.1
Reggio
Emilia
The
analysis
in
Reggio
Emilia
was
limited
to
district
heating
customers.
In
Italy
the
bill
of
district
heating
are
calculated
and
sent
by
the
energy
provider
with
reference
to
the
entire
building.
The
bill
is
usually
received
by
the
building
manager
who
communicate
to
households
their
shares
to
be
paid.
As
shown
in
the
responses
given
by
the
involved
users,
this
practice
has
a
very
critical
point:
the
users
find
it
difficult
to
understand
how
their
share
of
the
bill
is
calculated
and
there
is
not
a
clear
relation
between
the
energy
consumption
and
the
amount
to
be
paid.
The
characteristic
of
district
heating
in
Italy
led
us
to
the
implementation
of
a
methodology
that
could
not
allow
us
to
select
the
users
directly.
The
analysis
therefore
started
with
the
selection
of
buildings
which
met
the
technical
requirements
(i.e.
remote
meter
reading).
The
first
involved
building
is
the
“Condominio
47”
located
in
the
railway
area
of
the
city,
which
has
been
the
subject
of
requalification
projects,
such
as
the
installation
of
devices
for
remote
reading.
The
analysis
in
Reggio
Emilia
started
in
June
the
12th
,
when
a
Focus
Group
was
organised
in
order
to
obtain
a
background
analysis
of
the
issues
that
would
be
submitted
to
the
test
group
and
of
the
activities
that
would
be
carried
out
during
the
project.
In
order
to
have
a
better
comprehension
and
analysis
on
the
opinions
about
the
service
that
will
be
developed
in
the
project,
some
key
informants
from
local
associations
or
organisations
were
involved,
in
addition
to
the
building
managers
and
a
few
residents.
The
Focus
Group
of
Reggio
Emilia
was
conducted
by
Giovanni
Pede
and
Speranza
Boccafogli
of
Sinergie.
The
Municipality
of
Reggio
Emilia
appointed
Extrafondente
to
transcript
and
record
the
Focus
Group.
As
observers
and
representatives
of
the
Project
also
the
Municipality
and
Iren
(local
utility)
were
involved.
The
participants
at
the
focus
group
were:
-­‐
The
building
manager
of
“Condominio
47”
and
two
residents;
-­‐
a
representative
of
ACER
Reggio
Emilia:
enterprise
who
manage
the
social
housing
in
Reggio
Emilia

10. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
10
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
-­‐
a
representative
of
Asspi:
Association
of
flats
owners
-­‐
a
representative
of
Sunia:
Union
of
tenants
-­‐
a
representative
of
Federconsumatori:
Consumers’
Association
-­‐
a
representative
of
Cgil:
Workers
Trade
union
After
a
presentation
of
the
EMPOWERING
project
and
the
introduction
of
participants,
several
debates
about
the
area
of
the
test
group
and
about
the
opinion
on
EMPOWERING
took
place.
The
Focus
Group
was
centred
on
the
possible
implementation
of
EMPOWERING
to
district
heating
users.
The
debate
highlighted
some
issues
that
must
be
taken
into
account
in
order
to
‘empower
these
customers
to
save
energy
by
informative
billing’.
The
Focus
Group
objectives
and
findings
are
listed
below.
Each
point
represents
an
issue
discussed
during
the
Focus
Group.
The
sentences
written
in
italic
are
the
main
opinions
expressed
by
the
participants.
1)
The
critical
issues
and
the
problems
of
the
households
of
the
district
heating
network
The
participants
underlined
a
generally
low
level
of
awareness
about
energy
saving.
This
could
be
explained
by
a
lack
of
education
about
this
theme
and,
probably,
by
the
poor
level
of
control
that
a
user
could
have
on
the
amount
of
the
bill
and
its
correlation
to
the
actual
energy
consumptions
(see
also
point
2).
“Users
are
not
aware
on
energy
saving.
The
first
thing
is
to
educate
users.
[…]
We
have
to
start
from
users’
interest
in
order
to
make
people
understand
that
this
leads
to
saving.”
“The
households
do
not
think
that
they
have
possibility
of
control.
If
you
tell
them,
a
part
of
them
follow
your
advice.”
“We
have
to
distinguish
between
tenant
users
on
one
hand,
who
do
not
have
the
saving
culture
and
do
not
pay
the
energy
bill
as
soon
as
they
are
in
trouble,
and
the
owners
on
the
other
hand.
The
owners
could
be
more
interested
in
understanding
the
ways
to
save
energy
because
they
directly
pay
the
bill.”
“There
are
3
factors
on
which
we
must
intervene:
we
have
tools
and
means
which
are
inadequate
and
anachronistic.
Means
that
do
not
give
the
user
the
perception
on
their
consumptions
in
terms
of
Euros.
Secondly,
there
is
a
cultural
problem:
we
are
children
of
the
consumer
society.
[..]
There
is
the
need
to
create
a
network,
also
involving
the
Municipality,
who
have
to
promote
the
saving
culture.
Thirdly,
we
have
to
sensitize
at
first
the
new
generations,
involving
schools.”
The
problem
emphasized
by
the
participants
related
to
the
way
of
calculation
of
the
bill.
This
problem
generates
dissatisfaction
of
users
and,
in
extreme
situations,
it
causes
the
disconnection
of
the
user
from
the
grid
of
district
heating.
In
general
it
could
happen
if
other
tenants
of
the
same
building
do
not
pay
their
share.
As
the
bill
is
unique
per
building,
this
kind
of
behaviour
impacts
directly
on
all
the
tenants.
“It
also
happens
that
in
some
building
the
residents
decide
to
disconnect
themselves
from
the
district
heating
[…]
because
some
tenants
did
not
pay
their
share
of
the
bill
of
district
heating.”
2)
The
perceptions
about
the
energy
bills,
comprehensibility
and
utility
in
understanding
energy
consumptions.
Opinions
on
what
kind
of
information
must
be
inserted
to
achieve
a
better
comprehension
of
energy
consumptions.

11. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
11
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
“Personally,
I
have
some
difficulties
because
it
is
written
in
bureaucratese1
”
People
do
not
find
comprehensible
the
energy
bill.
In
particular
the
cost
composition
is
the
most
critical
aspect.
The
district
heating
bill
do
not
allow
to
understand
the
real
individual
consumptions.
“The
building
manager
do
not
receive
the
‘broken
down’
contract
from
Iren
and
also
the
bill
of
the
individual
resident,
so
he
does
not
know
if
a
person
is
consuming
much
or
little.
[..]
I
receive
only
a
printout
who
says
“Tizio”
have
to
pay
X
and
“Caio”
have
to
pay
Y.
I
do
not
know
more.
This
is
the
contract
of
Iren
that
I
consider
aberrant.”
“We
need
a
tool
which
permits
to
rapidly
understand
what
our
consumptions
is.
It
should
not
be
only
a
“number”.
Because
when
I
see
how
many
kW
I
consumed
I
do
not
have
a
real
perception
of
what
is
a
kW,
this
measure
does
not
help
me.”
“The
invoice
is
hard
to
understand
[..]
because
the
cost
of
the
service
are
not
clear
and
because
there
is
also
the
taxation.
[..]
We
have
to
try
to
convince
the
users
and
to
make
them
understand
that
they
could
save.
It
will
help
the
arrearage.
[..].
We
have
to
start
from
the
cost
in
order
to
tell:
-­‐You
can
adopt
virtuous
behaviours
to
reduce
this
cost-­‐”
3)
The
perceptions
and
expectations
about
the
service
that
will
be
developed
during
the
project.
Suggestions
on
how
to
make
more
intelligible
the
informative
bill
and
the
online
tool
and
opinions
about
the
showed
mock-­‐up
were
collected.
The
discussion
on
this
issue
started
with
a
request
to
rearrange
a
set
of
possible
information
that
should
be
inserted
in
the
informative
bill.
The
participants
agreed
about
this
order
of
importance:
1.
Possibility
to
consult
more
detailed
information
by
accessing
an
online
tool
2.
Advices,
recommendations
and
online
self-­‐help
tools
on
how
to
save
energy
and
Reminders
of
good
practice
in
summer
and
winter
3.
Comparison
with
consumption
data
of
last
year
4.
Comparisons
between
one’s
expenditure
and
his/her
neighbours’
5.
Estimated
prediction
of
one’s
future
consumptions
6.
Comparison
with
average
national
consumption
“The
last
(in
the
list
is
explained
to
be)
the
‘Comparison
with
average
national
consumption’
because
nobody
care
about
that!”
The
participants
found
that
the
most
useful
indicator
that
can
catch
the
attention
of
the
user
is
“euros”.
In
their
opinions
it
is
important
to
introduce
in
the
service
the
quantification
of
energy
saved
in
money
terms,
as
to
the
general
users
do
not
matter
at
all
about
the
global
impact
of
energy
saving.
“I
would
insert
also
the
Euro
(costs),
because
people
look
rapidly
the
informative
bill.
If
they
could
have
just
the
consumptions
in
Euro…”
“There
is
an
underlying
problem:
the
bill
we
pay
now
is
based
on
the
average
of
the
bills
paid
during
the
last
year,
regardless
of
the
consumptions
of
the
period.
It
is
the
method
of
billing
that
have
to
be
changed
because
there
is
no
relation
at
all
between
behaviours
and
energy
bill.”
1
Bureaucratese is a style of language held to be characteristic of bureaucrats and marked by abstractions,
jargon, euphemisms, and circumlocutions

12. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
12
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
The
participants
provided
advices
on
how
to
make
more
“friendly”
the
integrative
information
on
energy
consumptions.
These
suggestions
could
be
useful
also
to
increase
the
usability
of
the
web-­‐based
tool
“As
it
is
impossible
to
modify
the
invoice,
the
best
thing
to
do
is
to
give
a
simple
information
to
the
user
[…]
for
example
a
graphic
indicator:
a
semaphore
with
red,
yellow
and
green
lights.”
“We
have
to
take
into
account
the
“average
user”
and
to
find
an
equilibrium
point
among
the
usefulness
of
data
and
the
ability
of
the
user
to
understand
them.
The
semaphore
could
be
simpler
and
could
be
the
starting
information.
Then
I
can
add
more
detailed
information.
[..]The
more
information
I
give
in
the
informative
billing
service
the
more
the
user
must
be
an
advanced
user.”
“With
reference
to
seasonality
it
will
be
useful
to
insert
a
chart
with
the
trend
of
the
climate
temperature
of
the
period”
“A
useful
information
could
be
a
simulation
on
the
changes
in
consumptions
relating
to
advices
in
making
investments”
“I
notice
that
if
a
(written)
communication
exceeds
10
lines
people
tend
not
to
read!”
“I
would
make
more
friendly
and
nice
the
informative
bill.
You
can
write
in
bold
and
in
large
as
a
title
“How
to
save
on
district
heating”;
Then
I
would
add
some
image
relating
to
the
issues.
Also
a
“key
terms”
explanation
and
more
large
and
readable
graphics.
Also
I
would
add
an
average
value
on
how
one
can
save
by
adopting
different
behaviors.”
“The
informative
bill
must
have
the
logo
of
the
Municipality
because
it
is
likely
that
if
a
person
receives
the
informative
bill
by
Iren
might
think
that
Iren
want
to
sell
a
contract.”
The
participants
insisted
on
the
importance
of
the
insertion
of
the
economic
indicator
in
the
informative
bill.
It
has
emerged
that
the
best
way
to
give
information
about
energy
saved
have
to
be
studied.
During
the
Focus
Group
the
example
of
water
consumptions
was
made,
whose
costs
are
less
than
2
€
per
1.000
litres.
“That’s
why
I
used
the
example
of
the
water:
if
you
only
give
information
on
the
money
saved
on
water
consumptions,
people
(that
have
saved
2.000
liters
of
water)
saw
a
saving
of
only
4
€!
They
could
say:
-­‐I
am
a
very
good
user.
I
used
the
toiled
flush
in
the
best
way!
...
All
of
this
to
save
4
euro??-­‐.
If
I
give
them
the
quantity
of
water
in
liters
they
can
understand
their
impact.”
4)
Testing
the
questionnaire
for
end-­‐users
At
the
end
of
the
Focus
Group
participants
were
asked
to
fill
in
the
end-­‐users’
questionnaire
in
order
to
provide
their
feedback
on
its
comprehensibility,
integrity,
ease
of
compilation.
The
questionnaire
was
validated
by
the
participants;
nevertheless
they
remarked
the
importance
of
the
presence
of
a
mediator
who
could
help
the
residents
to
answer
the
questions.
Given
the
characteristics
of
users
in
the
railway
station
area’s
buildings,
the
selected
method
to
collect
data
was
the
face-­‐to-­‐face
assisted
filling
of
the
questionnaire,
using
a
trained
cultural
mediator.
The
mediator
was
trained
in
a
conjoint
session
by
Sinergie,
Extrafondente
and
Iren
Rinnovabili,
explaining
her
the
objectives
of
the
project,
the
solutions
and
existing
technology,
the
benefits
the
user
could
receive,
and
the
interviewing
techniques.
During
this
session
the
strategy
to
involve
the
user
were
defined
and
an
informative
letter
was
drafted.
This
letter
was
sent
by
Extrafondente
to
the
building
manager
and
all
the

13. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
13
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
residents
of
“Condominio
47”.
As
using
the
logo
of
Iren
could
lead
the
user
to
think
that
the
letter
is
a
commercial
offer,
it
was
decided
to
use
the
project’s
and
the
municipality’s
logos.
After
the
focus
group,
the
potential
test
group
of
“Condominio
47”
was
estimated:
the
potential
test
group
to
include
in
the
first
experimentation
of
Empowering
service
resulted
35
persons.
All
these
persons
were
informed
about
their
possible
inclusion
in
the
test
group,
but
only
20
replied
by
filling-­‐in
the
questionnaire.
It
followed
the
necessity
to
include
other
buildings.
The
following
table
summarizes
the
potential
test
group
reached,
their
location
and
the
rate
of
response
to
the
questionnaire.
It
also
summarizes
the
collection
methodologies
that
were
adopted.
Building
Potential
test
group
methodology
Number
of
filled
questionnaires
Notes
Condominio
47
35,
all
informed
about
the
experimentation
Information
sent
by
the
building
manager.
All
questionnaire
collected
by
a
cultural
mediator
21
Survey
finished
Monte
S.Michele
13
-­‐
31
100,
all
informed
about
the
experimentation
Paper
+
Online
28
Survey
finished
Via
Mutilati
del
Lavoro
8
10,
all
informed
about
the
experimentation
Involvement
of
building
manager
to
inform
the
households.
Paper
+
Online
questionnaire
2
Survey
finished
Betulla
105
-­‐
151
36,
all
informed
about
the
experimentation
Involvement
of
building
managers
to
inform
the
households.
Paper
+
Online
questionnaire
0
Survey
finished
without
results
By
involving
the
above
listed
buildings,
out
of
a
potential
test
group
of
181
residents,
we
obtained
28%
responses,
a
lower
rate
than
expected.
The
reasons
are
twofold,
in
our
opinion
and
according
to
the
open
declarations
of
several
interviewees:
-­‐
the
time
for
annual
leaves
made
it
more
difficult
to
collect
questionnaires,
particularly
in
Via
Turri
47
where
many
residents
of
foreign
origins
live;
-­‐
the
state
of
hopelessness
of
many
families
who
have
seen
their
gas
invoices
raise
sharply
over
the
last
5
years
and
perceived
the
Empowering
experiment
as
the
umpteenth
service
provider’s
“trick”.
When
the
contact
was
made
through
the
building
manager
and
the
cooperation
of
a
resident
and
the
interviews
held
with
the
support
of
the
trained
mediator,
we
obtained
the
best
results
and
the
interview
was
also
an

14. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
14
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
opportunity
to
clarify
many
doubts
of
the
clients.
It
must
be
noticed,
however,
that,
in
that
case,
the
interview
lasted
an
average
of
two
hours
instead
of
the
1
planned.
A
few
more
notes
on
“Condominio
Via
Turri
47”:
Via
Turri
47
is
the
heart
of
the
railway
station
area,
where
most
of
the
inhabitants
are
immigrants
from
different
countries,
and
the
area
is
one
of
the
most
“degraded”
of
the
city.
The
great
majority
of
the
interviewees
asked
for
a
radical
simplification
of
bills
by
adopting
simple
and
understandable
language
-­‐
instead
of
technical
jargon
-­‐
and
shorter
texts.
The
mediator
also
collected
an
appeal
to
more
information
on
the
service
provider
and
the
adopted
system
for
the
distribution
of
energy.
As
strange
as
it
may
seem,
more
than
one
interviewee
have
no
idea
about
what
district
heating
is
and
doubts
on
who
is
their
service
provider.
Unclear
are
also
the
criteria
adopted
to
separate
individual
consumption
from
the
general
building
consumption.
Often
the
consumers,
be
them
Italians
or
of
foreign
origins,
underlined
the
importance
of
a
better
information,
demanding
that
IREN
“be
closer
to
citizens”,
by
undertaking
information
and
motivation
campaigns
on
the
benefits
of
saving
energy.
The
mediator
also
had
the
hard
task
to
convince
the
contacted
persons
that
adhering
to
the
project
implies
no
additional
costs.
A
few
more
notes
on
“Condomini
Via
Monte
San
Michele
13-­‐31”:
The
5
buildings
in
Via
Monte
San
Michele
are
classified
as
social-­‐housing
and
are
managed
by
ACER
(the
Regional
Agency
for
Social
Housing)
A
concerted
action
with
ACER
made
it
possible
to
target
the
5
buildings,
20
flats
each,
and
meet
34
residents
on
September
4th
in
one
single
meeting;
the
meeting
was
facilitated
by
Marina
Pirazzi
(Extrafondente)
and
Duilio
Cangiari
(Reggio
Emilia
Municipality).
Unfortunately,
due
to
the
high
level
of
dissatisfaction
about
the
district
heating
service,
only
28
people
remained
after
the
first
explanation
of
the
reasons
for
meeting
and
just
18
filled-­‐in
the
questionnaire.
To
this
figure
10
more
are
to
be
added
as
they
filled-­‐in
the
questionnaire
on-­‐line.
People
strongly
complained
that
the
costs
for
district
heating
is
enormously
high
and
information
is
unclear,
when
not
totally
missing.
With
the
exception
of
some
7
or
8,
participants
were
doubtful
that
Empowering
could
do
anything
to
improve
their
situation
and
help
them
reduce
energy
consumption.
In
the
following
section
the
responses
to
the
questionnaire
are
reported.
The
information
about
the
characteristics
of
building,
dwellings
and
appliance
owned
by
the
users
have
been
omitted,
as
the
related
questions
have
been
inserted
only
to
create
a
benchmark
to
be
used
when
EMPOWERING
service
will
be
implemented.

15. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
15
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Demography
of
respondents
The
total
respondents
in
Reggio
Emilia
amount
to
51.
The
following
graphs
and
tables
show
the
demographic
characteristics
of
the
respondents.
The
majority
of
respondents
are
female
(29
people/51).
The
age
class
distribution
is
illustrated
by
the
following
table.
The
median
age
is
57
years
old.
20
-­‐
30
years
old
3
6%
31
-­‐
40
years
old
8
16%
41
-­‐
50
years
old
9
18%
51
-­‐
60
years
old
12
24%
61
-­‐
70
years
old
8
16%
71
-­‐
80
years
old
5
10%
more
than
81
1
10%
The
75%
of
respondents
are
Italian
(38).
There
are
6
unemployed
people
among
the
respondents.
20
of
the
respondents
are
retired,
the
rest
is
occupied.
No
respondents
work
or
have
relatives
who
work
in
the
energy
sector.
The
education
shows
the
following
distribution:

16. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
16
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
The
median
number
of
members
of
interviewed
households
is
2
components.
The
distribution
of
the
household
composition
is
the
following:
With
reference
to
internet
access,
the
distribution
is
the
following

17. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
17
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
In
all
cases
the
heating
source
is
the
district
heating.
No
one
installed
a
renewable
energy
system
in
its
home.
Questions
on
household’s
use
of
existing
sources
of
energy
information
Does
the
format
of
your
bill
allow
you
to
clearly
understand
the
volume
of
energy
you
have
consumed
over
the
period?
Have
you
made
some
investments
or
adopted
some
measures
to
save
energy?
(Among
the
35
who
answer
“yes”
11
can
see
differences
in
their
energy
bill)

18. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
18
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
How
much
are
you
satisfied
of
the
service
provided
by
your
utility
company?
The
scale
used
ranged
from
very
satisfied
to
very
unsatisfied
The
great
majority
of
the
respondents
are
not
satisfied
of
their
utility
company.
The
main
comments
about
this
issue
is
that
the
dissatisfaction
is
related
to
the
excessively
high
cost
and
the
lack
of
transparency
on
how
the
cost
for
district
heating
are
calculated.

19. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
19
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Evaluation
on
the
importance
of
integrative
information
to
be
added
to
the
energy
bill
or
on
on-­‐line
service
for
a
better
comprehension
on
how
to
save
energy.
1)
Comparison
with
average
national
consumption
2)
Comparisons
between
your
expenditure
and
the
one
of
your
neighbours
3)
Comparisons
with
consumption
data
of
last
years

20. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
20
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
4)
Estimated
prediction
of
future
consumptions
on
the
basis
of
the
consumption
trends
5)
Advices,
recommendations
and
online
self-­‐help
tools
on
how
to
save
energy
and
Reminders
of
good
practice
in
summer
and
winter

21. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
21
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
6)
Possibility
to
check
more
detailed
information
by
accessing
an
online
tool

22. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
22
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Intelligibility
of
the
integrative
information
Would
you
prefer
having
access
to
more
details
about
your
energy
consumption
through
personalised
online
services
or
directly
integrated
into
your
energy
bill?
(Online
service
=
8;
Integrative
letter
=
43)
The
subsequent
two
questions
asked
the
respondents
to
select
among
graphs
and
tables
in
order
to
evaluate
what
kind
of
data
representation
method
is
more
understandable.
Graphs
are
judged
clearer
and
more
understandable
than
tables.
The
majority
of
respondents
selects
graphs
in
both
questions.
Almost
all
the
respondents
(47/51)
find
useful
the
inclusion
of
a
graphic
indicator
like
the
semaphore
below
in
the
informative
letter/online
service.
3.1.2
Torino
The
analysis
in
Torino
was
launched
with
an
online
questionnaire:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1euyomHp7-­‐u29Ey01mafSKLEK5di6n4iwN-­‐ZajZBEPcg/viewform
A
first
transmission
of
the
questionnaire
was
launched
to
a
mailing
list
of
200
residents
in
Torino
during
the
morning
of
the
10/07/2013.
The
following
week
it
was
mailed
to
the
mailing
list
of
Polito
and
Iren
(about
2000
users).
In
Torino,
the
survey
reached
463
respondents,
58
of
which
are
district
heating
users.
Only
67
respondents
agreed
to
be
involved
in
the
test
group.

23. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
23
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Demography
of
respondents
The
following
graphs
and
tables
show
the
demographic
characteristics
of
the
respondents.
The
majority
of
respondents
are
male
(318
people/463).
The
age
class
distribution
is
illustrated
by
the
following
table.
The
median
age
is
52
years
old.
20
-­‐
30
years
old
366 79%
30
-­‐
40
years
old
39 8%
40
-­‐
50
years
old
34 7%
50
-­‐
60
years
old
11 2%
60
-­‐
70
years
old
6 1%
70
-­‐
80
years
old
0 0%
more
than
80
7 2%
The
majority
of
respondents
are
Italian
(433
out
of
a
total
of
463).
There
are
5
unemployed
people
among
the
respondents.
10
of
the
respondents
are
retired,
the
rest
is
occupied.
57
respondents
work
or
have
relatives
who
work
in
the
energy
sector.
The
education
shows
the
following
distribution:

24. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
24
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
The
median
number
of
members
of
interviewed
households
is
3
components.
The
distribution
of
the
household
composition
is
the
following:
Almost
all
(only
the
3%
answers
“NO”)
the
respondents
have
an
internet
connection.
Questions
on
household’s
use
of
existing
sources
of
energy
information
Does
the
format
of
your
bill
allow
you
to
clearly
understand
the
volume
of
energy
you
have
consumed
over
the
period?

25. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
25
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
The
above
shown
percentages
remain
similar
filtering
the
whole
dataset
for
district
heating
users.
The
55%
of
district
heating
users
cannot
understand
the
consumed
volume
of
heating
over
the
period.
Have
you
made
some
investments
or
adopted
some
measures
to
save
energy?
(Among
the
250
who
answer
“yes”
192
can
see
differences
in
their
energy
bill)
How
much
are
you
satisfied
of
the
service
provided
by
your
utility
company?
The
scale
used
ranges
from
“very
dissatisfied”
to
“very
satisfied”.
The
majority
of
the
respondents
are
neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
of
their
utility
company.
Filtering
for
the
users
of
district
heating
the
percentage
of
not
satisfied
users
are
more
relevant:
about
the
56%
of
district
heating
users
are
not
satisfied.

26. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
26
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
The
reasons
given
by
the
respondents
are
mainly
related
to
the
high
costs
and
lack
of
transparency
of
the
bill.
Evaluation
on
the
importance
of
integrative
information
to
be
added
to
the
energy
bill
or
on
on-­‐line
service
for
a
better
comprehension
on
how
to
save
energy.
1)
Comparison
with
average
national
consumption
2)
Comparisons
between
your
expenditure
and
the
one
of
your
neighbours

27. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
27
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
3)
Comparisons
with
consumptions
data
of
the
last
years.
4)
Estimated
prediction
of
your
future
consumptions

28. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
28
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
5)
Advices
,
recommendations
and
online
self-­‐help
tools
on
how
to
save
energy
and
Reminders
of
good
practice
in
summer
and
winter
6)
Possibility
to
check
more
detailed
information
by
accessing
an
online
tool

29. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
29
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Intelligibility
of
the
integrative
information
Would
you
prefer
having
access
to
more
details
about
your
energy
consumption
through
personalised
online
services
or
directly
integrated
into
your
energy
bill?
(Online
service
=
352;
Integrative
letter
=
94)
With
reference
to
data
representation,
the
respondents
prefer
the
following
methods:
-­‐
to
use
charts
in
order
to
represent
energy
consumptions
trends
instead
of
table
(66%
of
respondents
select
the
graph
1
reported
in
the
questionnaire).
-­‐
to
use
tables
in
order
to
represent
periodic
cumulative
and
comparative
data
on
energy
consumptions
(54%
select
table
2)
Almost
all
the
respondents
(47/51)
find
useful
the
inclusion
of
a
graphic
indicator
like
the
semaphore
below
in
the
informative
letter/online
service.

30. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
30
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
This
graphic
indicator
is
resulted
useful
to
the
majority
of
respondents
(310/463):
3.2 French
pilot
The
analysis
in
Grenoble
focused
essentially
on
the
city
of
Grenoble,
but
people
from
the
greater
Grenoble
area
were
welcome
to
participate
if
they
wanted
to.
The
analysis
in
France
started
with
the
Focus
Group
organised
on
July,
the
8th
.
6
persons
participated
to
the
Focus
Group:
five
of
them
where
tenants
and/or
members
of
their
condominium
councils
and
one
of
them
was
the
representative
of
a
consumer
association.
During
the
focus
group
the
participants
were
invited
to
express
their
opinions
on
4
subjects/questions,
after
introducing
themselves.
The
focus
group
was
co-­‐organised
and
animated
by
ALEC
and
HESPUL,
and
GEG
was
taking
notes
and
also
helping
with
some
parts
of
the
animation.
The
focus
group
aimed
at
answering
the
following
questions
for
the
inhabitants
of
Grenoble:
1)
Can
you
easily
figure
out
your
actual
electricity
consumption
by
reading
your
electricity
bill?
Most
of
the
feedback
concerned
the
format
of
the
facture
in
general.
Main
suggestions
were:
• to
make
more
clearly
appear
the
price
of
a
kWh
• to
clarify
the
period
of
billing
(which
currently
varies
according
to
the
days
of
indexing
of
the
meter).
• Explain
better
what
a
kWh
represents
• Clarify
the
concepts
of
peak
and
off-­‐peak
times

31. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
31
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
• Clarify
the
meaning
of
the
contract
power
(kVA)
• Participants
ask
for
details
advice
how
to
save
energy
(which
was
also
dealt
with
in
the
following
questions)
• The
participants
also
suggested
to
offer
services
to
assess
their
energy
consumptions
(comparisons
with
the
previous
years,
with
neighbours,
comparisons
with
other
people
according
to
the
surface
area
of
the
flat…).
Most
of
this
service
were
also
proposed
late
in
the
4th
question
later
during
the
focus
group
meeting.
2)
What
type
of
information
would
be
necessary
according
to
you
to
analyse
correctly
your
electricity
bill
and
to
reduce
your
electricity
consumption?
For
billing
tools:
• weather
adjusted
comparisons
For
online
tools:
• Customise
the
services
and
advices
according
the
data
provided
by
the
customers
(surface
area,
appliance
used…)
• Weather
corrected
consumption
• Electricity
consumptions
compared
to
the
previous
year
• Consumptions
alerts
when
it
reaches
a
certain
level
• Alerts
related
to
fuel
poverty
• Link
the
electricity
consumption
to
financial
budget
of
the
household
3)
Same
question
but
with
5
suggested
propositions
to
rate.
The
five
propositions
of
suggested
information
were
rated
as
follow
(each
of
the
7
participants
had
3
points
to
spread
between
the
following
5
propositions):
1. Alerts
sent
when
your
consumption
is
too
high
compared
to
your
usual
consumption
(7
points)
Comments
from
the
participants:
the
alert
must
be
in
euros
or
kWh,
by
text
message,
online
platform
and
mail.
Text
message
can
also
be
sent
to
remind
the
users
to
do
meter
index
reading
2. A
comparison
of
your
electricity
consumption
with
the
previous
years
at
the
same
period
(6
points)
3. Advices,
recommendations
and
online
tools
to
save
energy
and
a
reminder
of
good
practices
in
winter
and
summer
(4
points)
Comments:
general
advice
(non-­‐customised,
advice
on
the
choices
of
appliances,
typical
consumption
of
appliances
4. A
comparison
of
your
electricity
consumption
with
your
neighbour’s
consumption
or
with
the
consumption
of
people
living
in
the
same
city
in
apartments
of
a
similar
size.
(4
points)
Comments:
the
number
of
people
living
in
the
household
must
be
taken
into
account
5. A
comparison
of
your
electricity
consumption
with
the
national
average
household
consumption
(0
points)
4)
In
the
last
question
we
presented
the
participants
with
some
of
the
mock-­‐ups
of
the
future
Empowering
tools
and
asked
the
participants
to
give
us
detailed
feedbacks
in
terms
of
importance
for
them.

32. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
32
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Graph
1
(mock-­‐up
101,
comparison
with
the
average
consumptions
of
a
neighbour)
Comments:
• Clarify
the
elements
taken
into
account:
age
of
the
building,
surface
area
of
the
flat...
Graph
2
(mock-­‐up
BT201,
comparison
with
the
same
period
of
the
last
year)
Comments:
• It
is
difficult
to
compare
the
consumption
because
the
columns
are
too
far
appart
• The
real
consumptions
and
the
climate-­‐adjusted
consumptions
should
be
next
to
each
others,
• Additional
years
could
be
included
for
a
better
comparison
Graph
3
(BT301,
distribution
of
energy
usages)

33. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
33
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Comments:
• Differentiate
electrical
heating
and
non-­‐electrical
heating,
• Insert
details
the
categories,
• Differentiate
colours,
• Specify
the
units
(kWh)
• Specified
over
what
time
period
is
the
measurements
made
Graph
4
(OT
202,
comparison
of
consumptions
trends
of
the
current
year
with
the
previous
year)
Comments:
• Specify
that
it’s
talking
about
the
outside
temperature
• No
very
clear
at
first
sight

34. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
34
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Graph
5
(OT105,
graphic
indicator
about
the
electric
consumptions
per
year
of
a
user
compared
with
the
consumptions
of
Grenoble
inhabitants.
The
second
graph
below
relates
the
conversion
of
the
volume
of
energy
consumed
to
CO2
emissions
50
kWh/m²/year
500
kWh/m²/year
120
kWh/m²/year
Comments:
• Specify
intermediary
values
• This
graph
is
very
relevant
3750
km/yr
37
500
km/yr
9000
km/yr
Comments:
• Specify
intermediary
values
• Not
very
useful
In
complement
to
the
focus
group,
an
online
questionnaire
has
been
created
asking
similar
questions.
At
the
end
of
the
Survey
period,
approximately
156
persons
have
filled
this
online
questionnaire.
As
not
all
the
participants
to
the
test
group
filled
in
the
questionnaire,
the
number
of
users
who
will
receive
the
Empowering
service
in
the
first
phase
amount
161.
The
test
group
in
France
involves
will
focus
only
on
the
electricity
consumption
whether
the
users
have
electric
heating
or
not.
The
users
have
been
reached
using
online
questionnaires,
spread
by
email
and
newsletter
to:
-­‐
contact
database
of
ALEC;
-­‐
customer
database
of
GEG;
-­‐
online
newsletters
for
internet
users.
Demography
of
respondents
The
following
graphs
and
tables
show
the
demographic
characteristics
of
the
respondents.

35. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
35
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
The
majority
of
respondents
are
male
(83
people/150).
The
female
are
61.
This
question
show
6
missing
answers.
The
age
class
distribution
is
illustrated
by
the
following
table.
The
median
age
is
47
years
old.
Age class n. %
< 30 26 17%
31 - 40 33 21%
41 - 50 24 15%
51 - 60 29 19%
61 - 70 32 21%
71 - 80 7 4%
> 81 1 1%
N/A 4 3%
There
are
not
unemployed
people
among
the
respondents.
33
of
them
are
retired,
the
rest
is
occupied.
The
question
about
the
occupation
shows
10
missing
values.
The
education
has
the
following
distribution:

36. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
36
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
The
median
number
of
members
of
interviewed
households
is
2.
The
distribution
of
the
household
composition
is
the
following:
Only
10
people
own
a
smart
meter.
85
do
not
have
a
smart
meter.
A
relevant
number
cannot
answer
the
question
related
to
this
issue
(54
people).
Most
of
the
respondents
do
not
have
any
member
of
their
family
working
in
the
energy
sector
(129).
All
the
respondents
have
an
internet
access.
Questions
on
household’s
use
of
existing
sources
of
energy
information
Does
the
format
of
your
bill
allow
you
to
clearly
understand
the
volume
of
energy
you
have
consumed
over
the
period?
(Yes
=
93;
No
=
61)

37. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
37
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Can
you
compare
your
current
power
consumptions
with
your
past
consumption?
(Yes
=
75;
No
=
68;)
Do
you
understand
how
your
energy
bill
is
calculated?
(Yes
=
95;
No
=
59)

38. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
38
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Have
you
made
some
investments
or
adopt
some
measures
to
save
energy?
(Yes
=
93;
No
=
57)
50
respondents
who
made
investments
or
took
measures
can
see
differences
in
the
bill.
Does
the
power
you
subscribed
in
your
electricity
contract
(6KVA,
9KVA,
12KVA
...)
fits
the
needs
of
your
home?
The
majority
answers
YES,
but
a
relevant
number
(48)
of
respondents
cannot
answer
to
this
question.
The
majority
of
respondents
expressed
their
readiness
to
read
once
a
month
for
themselves
the
value
on
the
meter
in
exchange
for
more
detailed
information
on
energy
consumption?
(Yes
=
111)

39. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
39
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
Evaluation
on
the
importance
of
integrative
information
to
be
added
to
the
energy
bill
or
on
on-­‐line
service
for
a
better
comprehension
on
how
to
save
energy.
1)
Comparison
with
average
national
consumption
2)
Comparisons
between
your
expenditure
and
the
one
of
your
neighbours
3)
Advices
,
recommendations
and
online
self
help
tools
on
how
to
save
energy
and
Reminders
of
good
practice
in
summer
and
winter

40. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
40
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
4)
Comparison
with
consumption
data
of
last
years
with
an
estimated
prediction
of
your
future
consumptions

41. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
41
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
5)
Alerts
when
your
consumption
is
relatively
higher
than
usual:
the
users
find
this
information
useful
Intelligibility
of
the
integrative
information
Would
you
prefer
having
access
to
more
details
about
your
energy
consumption
through
personalised
online
services
or
directly
integrated
into
your
energy
bill?
(Online
service
=
76;
Bill
=
71)
The
last
questions
aimed
to
evaluate
the
usefulness
of
mock-­‐ups
to
be
used
as
integrative
information.
The
respondents
assessed
the
utility
of
some
graphs
included
in
the
French
questionnaire.
Following
the
responses
are
summarized
with
charts.
1)
Graph
showing
the
comparison
on
quarterly
consumptions
between
a
user
and
his
neighbour,
measured
in
kWh
(see
Graph
1
in
the
French
version
of
the
questionnaire)

42. EMPOWERING:
D2.2b
Publishable
Report
on
Customer
Expectations
42
The
sole
responsibility
for
the
content
of
this
document
lies
with
the
authors.
It
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
opinion
of
the
European
Union.
Neither
the
EASME
nor
the
European
Commission
are
responsible
for
any
use
that
may
be
made
of
the
information
contained
therein.
2)
Graph
showing
the
comparison
with
actual
quarterly
consumptions
with
the
same
period
of
the
last
year
(Graph
2)
3)
Graph
showing
the
repartition
of
different
energy
uses
inside
the
dwelling
(Graph
3)