Heat Loss Comparison Group: received a personalized HEAT Map of their home, and a HEAT Rating comparing their home to their neighbours' and the city average on their utility bills.
Homeowners shown the MyHEAT imagery achieved significantly higher energy savings, demonstrating the powerful impact of Energy Made Visible™.
The City of Medicine Hat approached MyHEAT to explore opportunities to capture more energy savings. Nicknamed 'The Gas City', Medicine Hat is located in a politically conservative region with abundant natural gas resources — factors which can typically prevent significant progress on topics like energy efficiency.
The goal was to motivate action through behavioural change and educational channels to drive uptake in weatherization programs and home retrofits, reducing gas consumption and increasing energy savings.
The municipally-owned gas and electric utility conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to measure consumption and program uplift amongst homeowners in two groups. The first group, Heat Loss Comparison Group, received MyHEAT's visual heat loss details, and the second group received standard Home Energy Reports (HER) messaging. We then compared the two groups to a control group that received no treatment-specific messaging.
Each group consisted of approximately 4,600 homes and they were balanced based on consumption, building size, building value, and HEAT Rating. Treatment groups received the following personalized messaging on utility bills during 2018:
Home Energy Report (HER) Group: received a graphical comparison of energy usage to similar sized-homes on their utility bills.
Control Group: received no treatment-specific messaging on utility bills.
The Heat Loss Comparison Group was shown the following:
Academic teams from the University of Ottawa and Carleton University analyzed the findings. They discovered that overall during the pilot, customers in the Heat Loss Comparison Group saved 2X more energy than customers in the HER Group. Homes in both groups were also shown their potential cost savings, and customers with higher money-saving potential achieved larger energy savings.
Looking into these numbers further, the pilot found an 8.1% reduction in natural gas consumption per $100 of estimated savings for low consumption homes. This suggests that targeting homes with the largest saving potential could achieve higher energy savings (this pilot considered all homes, regardless of savings potential).
Customers in the Heat Loss Comparison Group were more likely to participate in offered incentive programs when compared to the Control Group.