Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Consumer viewpoint on a new kind of energy market T

a, a b
Anne Immonen *, Jussi Kiljander , Matti Aro
a
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, P.O. Box 1100, Oulu, FIN-90571, Finland
b
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, P.O. Box 1300, Tampere, FIN-33101, Finland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Energy markets are currently evolving due to the rapid digitalization, increasing amount of renewable energy
Energy markets sources, and rapid technology development. Market actors are being forced to adapt their business models to
Electricity these changes or find new business opportunities. In our earlier work, new change scenarios were identified that
Demand flexibility reflect the future business potential of Finnish companies in energy domain particularly with respect to demand
Electricity consumer
flexibility, new actor roles, new consumer services and novel activities in a new kind of energy market. The
Consumer viewpoint
purpose of this paper is to examine the energy consumer viewpoint on these new scenarios. As consumers are
becoming more central actors in the energy markets via demand flexibility and new type of services, it is critical
to design the solutions in a user-centric way. A consumer survey was conducted to identify consumers’ opinions
and attitudes and determine their willingness to participate in the new energy market scenarios. The survey
reached a large number of consumers representing a considerable portion of the Finnish population. According
to the results, a half of consumers consider the forecasted scenarios as positive changes, but a lot of commu-
nication must still be done in order to win the majority support of consumers.

1. Introduction
Digitalization is changing how we receive and consume productsand
services. The transformation of things and assets into digital format has
already occurred or is ongoing in several application domains and is
rapidly entering new domains. The change brought about by digitali-
zation is smoothest in industries where business is based mostly on
digitalized assets, data and services. The recognized new innovation
patterns of data use [1] – generating data, digitizing assets, combining
data within and across industries, trading data, and codifying a dis-
tinctive service capability – provide several opportunities in businesses
where data is the key asset. Internet-of-Things (IoT) systems enable a
huge amount of data to be produced by distributed, connected sensors
and smart devices that also communicate and exchange the data with
each other [2]. Data management technologies enable reliable data
exchange and trading in real time between companies and between
companies and customers. Furthermore, data analytics technologies can
be used to increase the value of data, providing strategic and opera-
tional benefits for different purposes and situations.
Companies in the energy domain are being forced to find new
business models and to change their business actions to adapt to these
changes. The continuously increasing amounts of energy data collected
from smart devices, appliances and systems (hereafter generally
‘devices’) together with rapid technology development are enabling the
emergence of new kinds of business opportunities. The energy data can
be utilized, for example, in the innovation of new products and services,
in monitoring and controlling devices and systems, and in real-time
decision making. In particular, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies
are enabling intelligent services and the automation of evidence-based
business decision making. Smart and rationalized use of data enables
the emergence of new actors in the domain and can provide competitive
advantage for existing actors acting in new roles. The roles and re-
sponsibilities in the energy markets are being refined and blended; in-
dividual actors can now perform multiple roles, such as energy pro-
vider, aggregator and service provider.
In our earlier work [3], we conducted company interviews among
energy domain actors to find out how aware Finnish energy domain
actors are about the forthcoming changes, and to identify which future
scenarios and business actions they are willing to implement. According
to the results, Finnish electricity companies are very well aware of the
change pressure caused by digitalization. Some of the companies have
already recognized new business opportunities that these changes en-
able and have clear targets and goals for their future action. Our ana-
lysis of the results enabled us to identify two main scenarios re-
presenting the tendencies of the domain actors [3]; enabling demand
flexibility in the current energy (here; electricity) markets, and enabling

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anne.immonen@vtt.fi (A. Immonen), jussi.kiljander@vtt.fi (J. Kiljander), matti.aro@vtt.fi (M. Aro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2019.106153
Received 11 April 2019; Received in revised form 16 September 2019; Accepted 4 December 2019
Available online 14 December 2019
0378-7796/ © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Immonen, et al.
smaller consumers to become an active player in the future energy
markets. In both cases, the electricity consumer is in the key role.
Demand flexibility, or demand response [4], means that the elec-
tricity end-users shift the timing of their electricity consumption in
order to support the supply of renewable energy sources, which cannot
be accurately predicted. In this paper, end-users are defined to include
any electricity consumers, from home resident to small property
owners. From the consumer’s viewpoint, supporting demand flexibility
means, for example, simply washing laundry or heating water at dif-
ferent times than usual, or otherwise changing consumption behavior
when required. Demand flexibility requires consent from the consumer
for different actors to collect data from the consumer’s premises’ smart
devices and a signed agreement enabling a third party actor to control
the consumer’s devices as agreed when necessary. Energy markets are
evolving and the role of the consumer is strengthening. Consumers have
already been active as prosumers and are becoming increasingly en-
ergy-aware, knowing the effects of their own behavior on energy con-
sumption. If the existing market structure was changed, future energy
markets could even enable consumers to participate, albeit in a small
role, in certain market actions.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the motives and drivers of
energy consumers’ participation in a new kind of energy market. The
overall goal is to identify the consumers’ viewpoint regarding the future
scenarios of the energy domain actors [3]; what are the consumers’
attitudes and opinions regarding the companies’ new actions, and what
is required to encourage consumers to participate in new kinds of ac-
tivities. The paper presents the benefits and opportunities as well as the
threats and disadvantages identified by the consumers. In addition, the
paper introduces some open questions raised by the consumers. How-
ever, the purpose is not to solve these issues, but to draw attention to
these yet unresolved problem areas. In this regard this paper provides
valuable new knowledge that need to be taken into account by en-
gineers developing solutions such as demand response for smart grids.
This is especially important as the trend is to empower consumers by
moving towards user-centric energy markets. When users are not any-
more passive consumers but actors that can trade their flexibility and
operate in the markets, it will be even more important to take their
viewpoint into account and design the new solutions in a user-centric
way.
To capture the consumers’ point of view, a comprehensive consumer
survey was designed and implemented. This paper is structured as
follows: Section 2 describes the background of this work; the identified
change drivers and change scenarios in the energy markets. Next, the
goals and forecast scenarios of the Finnish energy domain actors pre-
sented in Ref. [3] are described. These goals were identified through
industry interviews of Finnish energy domain companies, and are used
as a starting point for this study. Section 3 presents the design and
implementation of this research, with an emphasis on the energy con-
sumer survey. The results of the consumer survey are introduced in
Section 4, and the key points of the results are discussed in Section 5.
Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 6.
2. Background
2.1. Change drivers in the energy market
This study was motivated by the major transformation of the energy
domain that is forecasted to take place in the near future [5]. The re-
newal of the energy domain is in part driven by global warming, and in
part by technological advancements, which have the potential to
change the way we produce and consume energy. In particular, the
following development trends affecting energy markets on the global
scale can be identified:
1 Electrification: Global warming and the consequential need for
cleaner and more cost-efficient energy are driving the electrification
2
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
of transportation and a number of industry sectors. A key technology
supporting this development trend is Power-to-X [6]. The im-
portance of flexibility management will also increase as the amounts
of electricity transmitted and distributed will increase significantly.
2 Renewable energy: The share of renewable energy sources is in-
creasing rapidly due to environmental and economic drivers. Solar
and wind power are already low-cost ways of building new elec-
tricity production capacity. This development will make flexibility
even more important as solar and wind power generation are vo-
latile and cannot be controlled in the same way as fossil-fuel power
stations.
3 Internet of Things: The trend towards embedded connectivity and
computation in devices and building automation systems is in-
creasingly enabling real-time control of distributed energy resources
such as freezers, fridges, water boilers, electric vehicle (EV) char-
ging, and heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems (HVAC).
The party that has control of these flexibility resources will be a key
player in future energy markets, where flexibility will come pri-
marily from the demand side.
2.2. Change scenarios in the future energy market
Based on the change drivers identified above, three interlinked
change scenarios for future energy markets can be depicted.
2.2.1. Scenario 1: need for demand and storage flexibility increases
Currently, power grid balance is achieved by adjusting production
to match consumption. Additionally, most balancing is done long ahead
of real-time, and frequency controlled reserves are only used for fine-
tuning. The transformation towards clean and renewable energy will
change this in two ways. First, renewable generation such as solar and
wind power cannot be controlled in the same fashion as fossil-fuel
power stations. This means that the flexibility has to come instead from
the demand side and storage. Second, renewable generation, such as
wind power, is difficult to forecast accurately [7]. This means that even
more flexibility as a backup to compensate forecasting errors or more
real-time mechanisms for flexibility management is needed.
A straightforward approach would be to meet all flexibility man-
agement needs with batteries, however this is not cost-efficient and also
wastes natural resources when compared to demand-side management
using existing infrastructure [8]. Therefore, it will be important to first
exploit all existing flexibility resources, and deploy additional batteries
for flexibility management only when it is absolutely required. To this
end, small-scale resources such as electric heaters, HVAC, water boilers
and smart appliances will play an important role in flexibility man-
agement. In areas such as Finland there will also be a need for longer
term flexibility so that energy produced during the summer could be
utilized during the coldest and darkest periods of winter. Power-to-X
technology will therefore play an important role in energy balancing, at
least in certain geographical locations.
2.2.2. Scenario 2: consumers will become active players
At present, consumers are mainly passive users of electricity and the
power grid. They have limited possibilities for load shifting, and even if
they are willing to do so by changing their own behavior and con-
suming habits, this typically has no significant effect on prices. The
need for flexibility and the drive to empower consumers1 with more
control over their electricity and transmission fees will make consumers
much more active and important players in the energy market. This
change is facilitated by the high penetration of IoT devices, which en-
able near real-time and remote control of consumer devices [9]. In
1
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/
20181217IPR21949/eu-deal-on-electricity-market-rules-to-benefit-both-
consumers-and-environment
A. Immonen, et al.
addition to the physical devices, appliances and systems providing the
means for flexibility management, the data collected from consumers’
homes and devices will play important role in the energy business, as
this data is key to decision making and operating in the market. Con-
sumers should have full control over their data and privacy and security
technologies will be crucial in realizing this change scenario.
In practice, managing the demand side in real-time and at a high
level of granularity is a challenging task that will need to be fully au-
tomated in order to make it feasible for consumers. Therefore, AI
technologies will be needed for empowering consumers to become ac-
tive participants in the energy market. To this end, the autonomous
energy agents need to be able to adapt to each individual consumer by
learning their behavioral patterns and habits. Interaction between these
autonomous agents and the consumer must also be seamless and fluent
to ensure that the consumer is in charge.
2.2.3. Scenario 3: New market structures and stakeholders
Current regulation and markets need to evolve to enable full ex-
ploitation of flexibility in smart grids. For instance, it is important to
enable smaller units to participate in the energy and flexibility trade.
Additionally, it will be important to support more real-time operation
of the energy market in order to cope with high penetration of re-
newable energy sources. Locality will also be important aspect in the
market. For example, local markets could be used to support distribu-
tion network operation so that distribution network operators (DSO)
can buy flexibility to prevent overloads. Other use cases for local
markets include peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading in local energy
communities or microgrids. With the emergence of local and distributed
markets, the complexity of the overall system will increase.
Transparency between the different markets and sectors will thus be
important in order to obtain globally optimal solutions.
Some of the changes in the markets and regulation will also affect
consumers directly. For instance, power-base network tariffing schemes
will provide incentives for consumers to avoid peak loads. This will
create new business for companies such as retailers and energy service
companies to provide such services for consumers. The transformation
of the energy sector will also introduce new business opportunities
leading to the emergence of new stakeholders and changes in the roles
of existing stakeholders. For example, aggregators, virtual power plant
operators and technical service providers are likely to play an important
role in future energy markets.
2.3. Goals of energy domain actors as a starting point for this study
In [3], the goals and tasks of Finnish energy domain actors in future
energy markets were identified. Company interviews were conducted to
capture the viewpoints of a range of actors including a transmission
system operator, distribution system operators, energy sellers, energy
service providers, technology providers and energy consumers.
The results in [3] revealed two main scenarios that energy domain
actors foresee occurring in the future. In this paper, these scenarios are
examined from the viewpoint of the energy consumer (e.g. single home
or other property owner).
2.3.1. Scenario 1
Bringing small loads to current flexibility markets: Aggregators
combine controllable loads from several properties and provide this as
an offering to the flexibility markets.
Consumer viewpoint: An aggregator controls several smart homes
and/or properties from which he/she combines the total package of
flexible potentials, which is then provided to the flexibility markets.
Commonly, a single home or property is represented by a sub-ag-
gregator that provides the technology and systems to monitor and
control the devices, providing the collected data to the aggregator, who
makes decisions based on this data. From the consumer (e.g. home
resident or property owner) viewpoint, this requires the consumer to
3
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
sign a contract with an aggregator or sub-aggregator enabling them to
measure the devices in their home or property and to control them as
agreed. The contract specifies the data to be collected, and the control
commands used with the agreed limits for device adjustment and
conditions. Thus, the consumer does not need to adjust or control the
devices in their home or property themselves, but rather entrusts this to
the hands of a third party. In return, the consumer is expected to benefit
from enabling the use of their devices for demand flexibility.
2.3.2. Scenario 2
Acting in a new kind of flexibility market: The market structure is
changed to enable all flexibility providers to equally provide their of-
ferings to the market.
Consumer viewpoint: Flexibility can be offered to the market in the
form of a virtual power plant that aggregates several energy resources
into one controllable unit, or, if the market structure were changed, also
smaller units could participate in the market. Energy resources can
include distributed energy production units, energy storage systems,
and site-specific controllable loads. The latter includes, for example,
building maintenance technologies, heat pumps, freezers, and water
heaters. This means that consumers could provide their home devices
and energy storages directly as flexibility potential, thus being active
participants in the energy market. However, this would also increase
the responsibilities of consumers and it is not clear whether the benefits
would match the penalty risk that the new responsibilities would yield.
Therefore, this could require the emergence of new service providers
that would be responsible for the functionality between the household
and the market.
2.4. Related research on consumer participation in energy markets
In the case of smart grid, the development is often technology-
driven. The fast technology development provides the stakeholders
economic advantages, and more real-time and sustainable systems. In
this kind of scenario, users are often considered as potential obstacles to
smart grid deployment [10]. In Ref. [11], research has been conducted
to investigate users’ perceptions against the technological innovations
in smart grid. The research concludes that currently not any single
technology meets the consumers’ needs for convenience, transparency
and usability, and an approach is required that integrates consumer
experiences into the product design process to provide solutions that
satisfy the consumers. Another way to approach consumers has been to
observe and understand their behavior. In Ref. [12], a survey is con-
ducted on consumer engagement experiences in European smart grid
projects. According to the results, the focus in many projects is on ex-
ploring consumer response to new regulatory, technical and market
solutions, and on collecting information on consumption patterns,
needs and consumer experiences. Consumers’ side has also been ex-
amined in the case of demand management mechanisms that can be
used to optimally manage the energy resources of consumers. In Ref.
[13], the different types of demand-side management (DSM) schemas
are reviewed. According to the results, the optimization methods pro-
vide a promising way for shifting loads to off-peak hours, and especially
cooperative methods where users actively collaborate are expected to
have a greater impact on the efficiency of power grids. In Ref. [14], an
approach is introduced for achieving demand response with an in-
telligent framework at the consumption side. Although the frameworks
and optimization methods considers consumers’ point of view, no
consumer opinions or experiences are achieved.
A lot of work has been done to achieve demand response in gen-
eration level or transmission level [14], but not, however, at the con-
sumer level. According the earlier researches, the financial incentives
are the best instrument to engage the consumers to participate in de-
mand flexibility [10], but in the current situation, the concern about the
other issues such as environment is growing. The role of consumer is
changing as their awareness about energy markets, environmental
A. Immonen, et al.
issues and energy consumption is increasing. In Finland, this is seen in
the recommendations of the Smart Grid Working Group by the Ministry
of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland [15]. The group pre-
sented concrete actions that improve consumers’ opportunities to par-
ticipate in the electricity market. These are the suggestions that do not,
once again, reach the consumers’ voice.
Including the consumers at an early stage is the key issues for the
new energy solutions to both fulfill the business goals of the domain
actors and the requirements of the consumers. Also, new business
models are required to involve the users as a part of value chains, and
even enable the consumers become independent actor in new kind of
energy markets. The earlier researches concentrate on how consumers
experience the competitive ICT solutions and different kind of sugges-
tions how they could support the business goals of the different energy
domain actors. Consumers are seen as passive actors that have no in-
tensives on their own to participate in the energy markets. In this re-
search, we look the energy markets from the consumers’ viewpoint:
how the consumers can have an influence in demand flexibility and
how they can participate in energy markets, what are their motives,
incentives, requirements and criteria, and most of all, how do these
relate with the goals of the domain actors. Although a lot of work al-
ready exist on demand flexibility (or demand response), most of the
research focus on the viewpoint of large energy domain actors, such as
DSOs, TSOs and energy sellers. Currently, the consumer viewpoint has
not researched in the case of demand flexibility. This research is based
on the identified business goals of the Finnish energy domain actors. In
our case, the actors are willing to reach the consumers’ opinion on their
goals before the large investments and implementation of the plans. In
this way, the actors can still influence on the implementation, and most
of all, to detect the rationale and viability of their goals.
3. Design and implementation of the research
The research was implemented in a national research project, EDES
(Energy Data Ecosystem and Services)2 that has nine company partners
from energy domain, including electricity sellers, consumers, distribu-
tion system operators (DSOs), a transmission system operator, tech-
nology providers and service providers. To capture the electricity
consumers’ viewpoint regarding the electricity markets and the ten-
dencies of energy domain actors, a survey research method was used for
data collection. Survey methods are qualitative research methods that
enable the study of social and cultural phenomena, helping us to un-
derstand people, their motives and actions [16]. Surveys are commonly
used to ask questions about opinions, attitudes, beliefs and personal
preferences [17]. Surveys also enable standardized data collection,
ensuring that the same data is collected from each respondent. The
cross-sectional survey approach was selected to collect insights and
opinions from respondents during a particular time interval. This
survey method was seen to be the most applicable because it can be
used in both quantitative and qualitative research, which in this case is
necessary. Quantitative research here focuses on collecting hard facts,
such as numbers and percentages, whereas qualitative research focuses
on collecting data that tends to describe certain topics, consisting of the
descriptions, attitudes and opinions of electricity consumers.
Surveys can be roughly divided into two categories: questionnaires
and interviews. The questionnaire format was chosen because a high
number of responses was desired and an online questionnaire would be
able to reach more people. The questionnaire included both closed- and
open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions typically have a limited
set of possible answers. Some of the close-ended questions were mul-
tiple choice questions, whereas some allowed only one answer.
Quantitative methods were used to analyze the responses to the closed-
ended questions, described as percentages. Open-ended questions
2
https://www.vtt.fi/sites/EDES/en
4
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
enable respondents to describe their thoughts and opinions freely in
their own words. The answers obtained from the open-ended questions
were analyzed using qualitative methods involving discussions and
critical analyses. As a qualitative analysis method, the constant com-
parative method was used to reveal the themes emerging from the data.
Open coding was used as an iterative process in which the data was
read through several times and conceptual labels were created, ac-
cording to which the data was compared and summarized.
The results achieved in the earlier research concerning the identi-
fied future scenarios and goals of energy domain actors (see Section
2.3) and the forthcoming changes in energy markets were used as a
basis when defining the content of the questionnaire. “A consumer” was
defined to be any electricity consumer. The whole project group (nine
research scientists) and the representatives of nine energy domain
companies participated in the preparation of the questions, which in-
volved several iterations. The questions focused on the following topics:
• Consumers’ current status: energy consumption profile and habits of
consumers, existence of smart devices in consumer premises, and
consumer opinions about current energy markets.
• Consumer attitudes towards smart devices and towards the notion of
a third party controlling their devices in their own home. Benefits,
disadvantages and risks that consumers may face when allowing
third party control of home devices and appliances.
• Consumer interest in acquiring different smart devices and systems,
and in new kinds of energy services.
• Consumer reactions to the increasing amount of data collection on
their consumption behavior and use of home devices.
• Consumers’ thoughts and attitudes towards new forms of electricity
pricing and a new kind of energy market.
It should be noted that consumer attitudes and interests related to
flexibility management and associated services are heavily dependent
on incentives and benefits. Therefore, the customer benefits were
clearly defined for each closed-ended question related to flexibility
management in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was conducted as a web-based questionnaire [18]
using the Questback Essential (https://www.questback.com/) on-line
survey tool. The questionnaire was first tested, during which it went
through several iterations. The test persons included the members of
the project team and company representatives. Each iteration resulted
in modifications and additions.
The final questionnaire was made available in several ways via a
direct link. The distribution channels used were the social media
(Twitter and/or Facebook) of four companies in the energy domain,
VTT, and the Finnish Real Estate Union, and the website of the research
project (https://www.vtt.fi/sites/EDES/en). In addition, the Finnish
Union of Property Owners sent e-mails directly to its members. The
survey was available during 5.11.-9.12.2018 and received 2,110 re-
sponses.
4. Results of the consumer survey
This section presents the results of the consumer survey prior to
further discussion and analysis in Section 5.
4.1. Current status of consumers
4.1.1. Background of the consumers
Most of the respondents represented small property owners
(90.2%). Other respondents included owners of a larger property
(5.1%), small property tenants (3.7%) and miscellaneous property
owners (0.9%), such as owners of a leisure home or smallholdings. The
electricity consumption (kWh/year) of the respondents is presented in
Table 1 and the heating methods in Table 2. Direct electrical heating
was the most used heating method. Other heating (14.3%) consisted
A. Immonen, et al. Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153

Table 1 Table 4
Electricity consumption of respondents per annum. Controllable units in respondents’ homes/properties.
Consumption/year Share Controllable unit Share

Under 10,000 kW h 26.1% Heating 27.4%

10,000–20,000 kW h 47.0% Lighting 6.7%
20,000–40,000 kW h 17.5% Ventilation/air conditioning 9.6%
Over 40,000 kW h 0.9% Refrigeration 0.9%
Don’t know 8.5% Car heating 13.9%
Number of respondents 2,110 No controllable devices/systems 60.4%
Other, what? 2.9%
Number of respondents 2109
Table 2
Heating methods of respondents.
Table 5
Heating method Share Energy units in respondents’ homes/ properties.
Direct electrical heating 36.5% Energy unit Share
Storage electric heating 5.9%
Oil / wood / pellet, etc. 16.3% Electric car 1.4%
Geothermal 14.7% Solar panels (electricity) 5.5%
Exhaust air heat pump 3.0% Solar collectors (heat) 2.1%
Air-water heat pump 4.7% Home automation system 3.7%
Hearth 4.6% None of the above 87.1%
Other, what? 14.3% Other, what? 2.7%
Number of respondents 2110 Number of respondents 2,110

mainly of district heating. Only 12.3% of the respondents reported Table 6

having their own energy production, consisting mainly of solar panels, Respondent satisfaction regarding the electricity market.
solar collectors, air heat pumps, fireplaces and heat-storing fireplaces. Respondent satisfaction, aspects Share

4.1.2. Activity of the consumer Electricity price 43.9%

Table 3 describes how the respondents follow price developments
and events in the electricity market. Electricity company newsletters
still seem to be the most used data source. The Internet and other
general media are also well-used sources of information. Other ways of
obtaining information included offer requests from competitive elec-
tricity companies, using the application of TSO of hourly prices, and
inspecting the electric bill.
The consumers were asked whether their home or other property is
equipped with any kind of smart technology, referring to automatic
optimization or control of, for example, heating, lighting, ventilation/
air conditioning, refrigeration, or car heating. Of the respondents,
64.4% had no such “intelligence” in their home or property (Table 4).
Table 4 presents the responses to the question regarding con-
trollable units. Heating was the most optimized or controlled unit
among the respondents (27.4%), although the clear majority of re-
spondents (60.4%) had no controllable units in their homes. Other
controllable units consisted mostly of water heaters and air heat pumps.
Table 5 shows the electricity units (e.g. electric cars, solar panels and
collectors, and home automation systems) that the respondents cur-
rently had in their home or property. Most of the respondents (87.1%)
did not own any of these. Other mentioned units included air heat
pumps or a hybrid car or other electric vehicle (e.g. electric bike).
4.1.3. Consumer satisfaction
The respondents were asked to identify aspects of the electricity
market with which they are satisfied (Table 6). Respondents were most
Table 3
Data sources of respondents.
Data source Share
Using a Web app (e.g. sahkonhinta.fi) 32.2%
Electricity company newsletters 41.2%
General media (e.g. tv, papers) 36.4%
Not following price developments or events 19.2%
Other, what? 4.0%
Number of respondents 2110
Electricity transfer price 4.4%
Electricity company 57.4%
Electricity transfer company 14.5%
Current commercial energy services 2.1%
Devices and their providers 37.0%
Number of respondents 1,723
satisfied with their electricity sellers (43.9%) and the price of electricity
(43.9%), and more than a third of respondents were satisfied with their
devices and device providers.
4.1.4. Consumer dissatisfaction
An optional, open-ended question regarding areas of dissatisfaction
with the energy market gained 1386 responses. The stated reasons for
dissatisfaction are listed below in order of relevance.
1. Price of electricity distribution and monopoly of distribution system
operators. The respondents presented several arguments, including
• Price of electricity distribution is much too high.
• Monopoly of the DSO; consumers are dependent on the local DSO.
• Fixed monthly fees do not follow consumption.
• Justification for cost increases no longer credible.
• Pricing of electricity distribution not transparent.
• Regulation of operation of DSOs not transparent to consumers.
2. Electricity taxes. Respondents viewed taxes as excessive and dis-
approved of the government charging value-added tax (VAT) on top of
electricity tax, i.e. tax on tax.
3. Selling the electricity network abroad/to foreign owners. Respondents
felt that the network should belong to the Finnish government, as it is a
strategic asset. When foreign companies own the network, tax levies
and profits are exported abroad, and network-related issues are difficult
to follow for Finnish consumers.
4. Solar panels and benefits. Respondents were highly interested in
solar panels, but felt that alternative means of producing energy are not
supported well enough and in reasonable ways. They consider the in-
itial investment in solar panels too high and the payback time too long,

5
A. Immonen, et al.
Fig. 1. Respondents' attitudes towards third-party device control.
and that small-scale systems are not profitable.
5. Future’s power charging (peak power). The future’s power charges,
as the electricity bill is affected by the momentary peak power of a
given time period, were considered frightening by the respondents.
They felt that this kind of operation will not positively affect consumers
in single family houses.
6. Environment/emissions. Respondents felt that use of coal for heat
production and the current emissions trading are far from ecological
thinking. Use of nuclear power was not considered to be safe.
7. Condition of the grid. Respondents considered the grid unreliable
and not sufficiently maintained, as blackouts still occur.
8. Competition between electricity sellers. According to the re-
spondents, electricity consumers need to be active and regularly cause
the electricity sellers to compete for customers. In addition, they felt
that there is not enough competition in Finland and that price variation
is low.
4.2. Consumer interest in smart devices and third-party control
Fig. 1 presents the respondents’ attitudes towards allowing a third
party to control their smart devices in their home.
4.2.1. Approval
According to Fig. 1, 57.5% of the respondents had a positive attitude
towards smart devices and the idea that a third party could control the
devices; either unconditionally positive (21.7%) or positive on condi-
tion that the remote control does not affect the use of the device and if
the consumer defines the control limits (e.g. the amount and need and
temperature range of hot water) (35.8%).
The respondents were directly asked whether they would allow
their home devices to be controlled by a third party. As Table 7 shows,
almost half of all respondents (49.4%) would enable a third party to
control their home devices if it occurred without disruption and if the
consumer would benefit from it. The 49.4% were further asked about
their preferences. Their preferred benefits are presented in Table 8.
Decrease in electricity bill is the most preferred (91.6%) and the de-
crease in electricity bill was wished to be from 5% up to 30%/year. In
addition, 30.1% wished financial compensation, of which the majority
wished the compensation to be over 50 €/year. Half of the respondents
(50.5%) that would allow the third party control were also concerned
about the environment and wanted support the reduction of emissions.
Table 7
Respondents’ willingness to allow third party control in return for certain
benefits.
Willingness to allow third-party device control
Yes
No
Number of respondents
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
Table 8
Respondents’ desired benefits from allowing device control by a third party.
Advantage Share
Financial compensation 30.1%
Decrease in electricity bill 91.6%
Network reliability; e.g. blocking fault situations 38.2%
Some service; e.g. automatic heat control 32.5%
Supporting the environment through reducing emissions 50.5%
Don’t know 1.5%
Other, what? 1.5%
Number of respondents 1042
Other described advantages included, for example, better reporting of
the status of devices and the need for maintenance, device repair and
maintenance at a low cost and financial compensation from measurable
benefits.
4.2.2. Doubts
As Fig. 1 above reveals, 23% of the respondents were tentative and
19.5% had a negative attitude towards third-party control. These re-
spondents were given the possibility to justify their opinion and 741
respondents provided their comments. The topics of these comments
are listed below in order of relevance, and they reflect the respondents'
tentative or negative attitudes towards third-party control.
1. Desire to maintain control. Most respondents with a tentative or
negative attitude felt that they have the right maintain control of their
own home without outside interference. They considered that with
third party control it would be impossible to monitor what is being
remotely controlled in their home and in what ways, to affect con-
sumption as wished, and to ensure that the third party control is not
unfavorable. They expressed concern that their home comfort might be
reduced as a result and questioned the ability of third-party control to
function properly in practice and to take into account individual dif-
ferences. Finally, the respondents expressed concern that third-party
control would enable others to monitor everything that occurs in the
house and to detect when there is nobody home, enabling criminals to
know when the house is empty.
2. Insecurity of the Internet. The respondents felt that devices con-
nected to the Internet are too vulnerable, that the protection of IoT
devices is poor and that they are too easy to hack, and that the security
and data protection of such devices is not yet sufficient. Lack of privacy
protection and virus protection were seen as the most important
threats. In addition, dependency on the Internet was also seen as an
operational risk, e.g. in the case of heating, due to breaks in con-
nectivity.
Share 3. Lack of experience/knowledge. According to the respondents, there
is insufficient information about third-party device control and too
49.4%
many unresolved issues. They were unwilling to put their trust in the
50.6%
2,110 unfamiliar technology and felt more information is needed about its
benefits and disadvantages. The respondents considered third party
6
A. Immonen, et al.
control to be of no use, and could not see why it is needed or who
benefits from it.
4. Costs / costs vs. benefits. The respondents considered that a third-
party control system would likely be expensive. They also felt that the
benefits of remote control would go primarily to the energy companies,
not to the consumer. They were also concerned about additional costs;
the respondents thought that the system would require them to buy new
home devices, and that the investment would be expensive, the payback
time relatively long, and that the life cycle of the new devices would be
much shorter than conventional domestic devices or appliances.
5. Problems and uncertainty. The respondents expressed concern that
third-party control systems would be more sensitive to malfunctions
due to hardware failures and human errors. Uncertainty was also ex-
pressed regarding the reliability of the control and the vulnerability of
the technology. The respondents also raised concerns about system
supervision and problem situations.
6. Data collection and utilization. Too much data is already being
collected with the help of IoT according to the respondents. Data
privacy was seen as a big concern; it was considered that if a third party
is given access to home devices, other outsiders will also receive the
collected data. Numerous issues were considered unsolved, such as
what data should be allowed to be collected from consumers and
transferred to other parties, who owns the data, and who can access the
data.
7. Objectives and motives. The objectives of third-party control were
unclear to the respondents. There was doubt about who receives the
benefits and whose interest the control is in, energy companies or
consumers. The respondents felt that the advantage to consumer would
be insignificant and that the benefit to the consumer needs to be sig-
nificant for the proposition to be credible. A general lack of trust in
corporate actors and their motives was evident.
8. Concern about the property. Concern was expressed among the
respondents that remote control of home devices would be detrimental
to their property. For example, some insurance conditions forbid the
use of certain devices without supervision, and fire risk was considered
a crucial drawback.
9. Contracts. Respondents were concerned about the content and
extent of third-party control contracts, as the third party may not un-
derstand the energy use patterns of different consumers. Doubts were
raised that third-party control would be capable of adapting to person-
specific variations in consumption, individual needs, different family
situations, different needs of family members in the same household, or
the different needs of different kinds of houses and properties. They also
felt that the consumer should have the ultimate right to bypass the
control.
10. Stuck with the same provider. Some respondents had previous
negative experiences with unreliable actors in the energy domain and
felt uneasy about being tied to a single technology provider or service
provider.
4.2.3. Impact on consumer behavior
Respondents that would allow third party control were asked about
the effect of the control on their own behavior. Of these, 19.7% con-
sidered that device control by a third party would have no effect on
their electricity consumption patterns, whereas 67.9% of respondents
would consider changing their consumption behavior to some degree,
such as going to sauna an hour later or doing the laundry at a different
time, if sufficient benefits are received in return. Of all respondents that
would allow third party control, 12.4% would change their consump-
tion behavior as advised. Those who would not allow the third party
control were asked describe the reasons for their refusal. This optional
free-form question was answered by 777 respondents, and the re-
sponses largely addressed the same issues as in the case of negative
attitudes towards smart devices mentioned previously, namely un-
certainty about the benefits, lack of information, loss of privacy, not
wanting to hand over equipment to external management, lack of
7
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
Table 9
Respondent permission criteria for third-party control of room temperature.
Permission to control room temperature Share
Allow if effect is not noticeable 22.5%
Allow if effect is noticeable only occasionally (e.g. a few times a month a 19.0%
little cooler)
Allow if effect is often noticeable but the benefit is sufficient 12.7%
Would not allow remote control even if effect is not noticeable 45.9%
Number of respondents 2,110
confidence in technology and operators, fear of additional costs, and no
need or no interest.
The respondents were asked how prepared they would be to be
flexible with respect to residential comfort control (specifically room
temperature). Table 9 describes the respondents’ stated criteria for al-
lowing a third party to control devices that affect room temperature.
Over half of the respondents (54.2%) would allow a third party to
control their room temperature based on different criteria: 22.5%
would allow control if the effect is not noticeable, 19% if the effect is
noticeable only occasionally (e.g. a few times a month a little cooler)
and 12.7% if the effect would often be noticeable but the benefit would
be sufficient. Of those who would allow third-party control of room
temperature, 71% would be ready to define and allow a fixed indoor
temperature range to a few degrees of accuracy if sufficient benefit is
gained, 12% wished to define an accurate and fixed indoor tempera-
ture, while 17% wished to actively adjust the indoor temperature at any
time according to the situation. In total, 45.9% of respondents would
not allow any third-party control of room temperature at all.
4.2.4. Willingness to invest
Respondents were asked about their willingness to invest in meters
and smart devices and systems themselves to enable control by a third
party. In total, 37.8% of the respondents stated a willingness to invest.
Those respondents were asked to describe their incentives for doing so.
This optional, open-ended question received 652 responses. The in-
centives included (in order of relevance):
• Financial savings.
• Saving energy.
• Environmental benefits and ecology.
• Residential comfort and better conditions.
• Smart home and possibility for remote device management.
• Ease of management and making everyday life easier.
• Monitoring and reporting electricity consumption.
Of the 37.8% of respondents that would be ready to invest in smart
devices and systems, 504 respondents answered an optional, open-
ended question about foreseen obstacles. The obstacles included the
following (in order of relevance):
• High price of investment.
• Safety and reliability of devices.
• Security issues.
• Difficulty installing devices and systems.
• Compatibility issues.
• Contract issues.
• Too small incentive.
• Lack of experience.
• Too long payback time, i.e. cost of devices outweighs the benefits.
The majority of respondents (56.5% of those who were willing to
invest) agreed that the payback time of the devices should not be longer
than five years.
Those that were not willing to invest in meters and smart devices
were asked to describe the reasons for their refusal. Of these, 963
A. Immonen, et al.
Table 10
Future acquisition targets of respondents.
Device/equipment Share
Electric car 18.6%
Solar panels (electricity) 25.8%
Solar collectors (heat) 8.3%
Home automation system 8.4%
None of the above 38.2%
Don’t know 18.8%
Other, what? 5.9%
Number of respondents 2096
respondents answered this optional question and rationalized their re-
fusal on the basis that the costs caused by the device and system in-
vestments should be paid by the electricity company, the distribution
system operator, the controlling party or the service provider; i.e. the
party that gains the most benefit. They were of the view that the con-
sumer should somehow receive their share of the forthcoming benefits
and that government support was also required, for example, in the
form of tax reliefs. Moreover, most of these respondents stated that they
had no need for smart devices or their control, or they could not en-
vision the possible benefits.
4.3. Consumer’s future device and equipment acquisitions
The respondents were asked to list any electrical devices or equip-
ment that they might consider purchasing in the future. Table 10 de-
scribes the acquisition plan of the respondents. Many of the respondents
planned to invest in some electricity devices and equipment to optimize
their electricity consumption or to otherwise support the environment.
In total, 25.8% of respondents were interested in solar panels and
18.6% planned to acquire an electric car in the near future. Hybrid car,
air–water heat pump and air heat pump were also identified as acqui-
sition targets in the future.
Energy companies tend to be more customer-centric, providing
more consumer services. The respondents were asked what kinds of
services they would be interested in. Table 11 describes the interests of
the respondents regarding energy services. As many as 75.4% of the
respondents showed interest towards energy services. Electricity price
monitoring and energy consumption optimization were seen as the
most interesting services (52.4% of respondents).
4.4. Consumers’ opinions about data collection
Smart devices and their connectivity enable increased data collec-
tion. The respondents were asked to reveal their opinions on the idea of
a third party collecting increasing amounts of data about the consumer
(e.g. energy consumption and consumption habits). In total, 14.5% of
the respondents would allow a third party to collect all possible data
about their consumption behavior, whereas 52.3% of the respondents
Table 11
Interest of respondents towards energy services.
Services
Automatic heat adjustment
Automatic advance detection of electrical equipment malfunction and
related maintenance or reinvestment
Monitoring electricity prices and optimizing own consumption
accordingly
Electric car charging service
Guidance services based on energy data analysis to optimize consumer
habits and energy usage
No interest in additional services
Other, what?
Number of respondents
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
would want to decide what data can, and cannot, be collected about
them, and 33.2% of respondents considered that the current level of
data collection on energy consumption is enough. The respondents
were asked what issues should be taken into account in data collection.
This optional question was answered by 853 respondents and, based on
their responses, the following issues were considered important with
respect to data collection (in order of relevance):
• Security, data privacy and GDPR data protection regulation.
• Trustworthiness of the data collector.
• Disclosure of information forbidden without consumer’s consent.
• Consumer’s right to decide what data is collected about them and to
what purposes it can be used.
• Consumer’s access to their own data.
• Justifiable data collection; only collecting relevant data.
The respondents were asked their opinion regarding the exploita-
tion of the collected data on their energy consumption. Of the re-
spondents, 56.6% wanted to decide who will use the information col-
lected from them and for what purpose; 12% thought that anyone
should be able to access their data anytime if their anonymity is pro-
tected, whereas 31.5% trusted the data collector to ensure that the in-
formation is passed on only to those who will use it for the appropriate,
pre-defined purposes. The respondents were asked whether they would
like to monitor their own consumption behavior. Most of the re-
spondents (90.6%) stated that they would like to monitor their own
behavior. Those respondents were further asked what data they would
like to obtain. Table 12 shows the types of data of most interest to the
consumers. As many as 74.1% of these respondents were interested in
information on consumption peaks of their home or property, and
64.5% would like to obtain notifications of pricing and price variations
in advance. In addition, the respondents showed interest in comparative
data, such as comparisons with data from similar properties or with
data from previous years.
4.5. Consumer’s thoughts about future energy markets
Over half of the respondents (57.6%) would consider becoming a
producer of electricity for their own or others’ consumption. Of these,
95.7% would use solar panels, 15.2% would use wind power, and the
remainder would use, for example, solar collectors, geothermal heat, or
some form of hydroelectric, wave, or tidal power.
Electricity bills will, in future, also be affected by the instantaneous
peak power (kW) of the follow-up period. The respondents were asked
to comment on this development. Table 13 presents the respondents’
thoughts on this and Table 14 the respondents’ reactions to the new
kind of pricing. In total, 22.7% of the respondents considered charging
according to peak power to be “good” and an incentive to rationalize
consumption; 48.5% considered it satisfactory if the electricity bill can
be sufficiently lowered by the consumer’s own behavior. According to
Table 14, the consumers clearly have a tendency to rationalize their
consumption behavior; up to 64.7% of respondents would rationalize
their own consumption to avoid higher charges.
The final open-ended question in the survey enabled the
Share
Table 12
29.2%
Data items of interest to the respondents.
30.9%
Data item Share
52.4%
Detailed information and statistics on individual equipment 51.6%
15.2% consumption
27.4% Information about the consumption peaks of my home / property 74.1%
Predictions about my own consumption 35.2%
24.6% Advance notification of pricing and price variations 64.5%
1.4% Other, what? 2.8%
2110 Number of respondents 1911
8
A. Immonen, et al.
Table 13
Respondents’ attitudes towards peak power pricing.
Respondents’ opinions
Good; forces you to rationalize consumption
Satisfactory if own consumption behavior sufficiently lowers the bill
Bad, don't like the idea
Don’t know
Number of respondents
Table 14
Effect of the peak power pricing on consumer behavior.
Effect on consumer behavior
Does not affect my consumption habits
Will try to rationalize my consumption, e.g., by trying to avoid laundry,
cooking and sauna at the same time
Will let a service provider adjust my consumption so I can benefit the
most from it
Don’t know
Number of respondents
respondents to freely comment on any issues that arose during the
survey. As many as 674 respondents voluntarily provided their com-
ments, which is itself indicative of the activity of the Finnish electricity
consumer and their interest in the survey topics. The comments mainly
concerned the price of electricity distribution, future charges of elec-
tricity according to peak power, and personal opinions regarding third-
party control.
5. Discussion
The data gathered via the questionnaire was collected directly from
people and is therefore subjective, consisting of personal opinions and
attitudes. Although the results represent only a portion of the popula-
tion, the large number of responses (2110) supports the generalization
of the findings back to the population. This section discusses the issues
that emerged from the results of the survey.
5.1. Consumer opinions regarding the energy market
According to the survey, the respondents seemed to be currently
satisfied overall with their electricity sellers and electricity prices. This
consumer satisfaction is influenced by the ability of consumers to force
the electricity sellers compete with each other and to freely select the
best offerings and change the seller as desired. The consumers never-
theless felt that there is still not enough competition in the current
market and that the electricity prices of different sellers are too similar.
However, at the same time, the electricity sellers are engaged in tough
competition with each other, innovating new services to attract custo-
mers and readjusting electricity prices to maintain customer relation-
ships. Currently, margins are so low that energy price is not a compe-
titive advantage, so electricity sellers are seeking customer
relationships through ease and additional services.
Environmental issues were an important concern for a large pro-
portion of the respondents. Opinions were divided on the most viable
alternative means of producing energy, although there was high in-
terest in solar power. Some respondents were skeptical about the im-
pact of renewable energy sources (RES) on total emissions and some
consumers wanted more information about the effects of RES on total
emissions. Since the electricity prices of the different sellers are largely
similar, consumers are seeking electricity sellers with attributes other
than price competitiveness. According to this survey, environmental
performance is a promising competitive benefit for electricity sellers;
half of the respondents that would allow third-party control in their
homes are in the hope that doing so would benefit the environment.
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
Better transparency is needed from electricity sellers regarding their
RES and environmental standpoint in order to convince the consumers.
Share Financial benefits may be easy to make visible to consumers, but en-
vironmental benefits should also be made visible and their validation to
22.7% consumers should be emphasized.
48.5%
The biggest reason for consumer dissatisfaction was identified to be
19.8%
9.0%
the price of electricity distribution and the monopoly of distribution
2,110 system operators. The price of distribution was described to be simply
too high, and the consumers disliked being entirely dependent on their
local DSO company. The DSO companies maintain that they are forced
by law to invest in a trouble-free electricity grid and that their prices are
therefore driven by maintenance and development costs, such as the
Share cost of undergrounding overhead power lines, currently required by
law in Finland. However, consumers did not consider these justifica-
18.5% tions to be credible. The respondents claimed that the pricing of elec-
64.7%
tricity distribution lacks transparency and that the benefits of im-
5.4%
plemented investments cannot be measured (at least not by consumers
directly) and, thus, the reasons for costs often remain unclear to con-
11.4% sumers. Therefore, better transparency is also required from the DSO
2110 companies.
Alternative means of energy production are not supported well
enough in Finland according to the respondents. The consumers were
particularly interested in solar panels: with up to a quarter of re-
spondents considered installing solar panels for electricity production.
However, they considered the current system for selling self-produced
electricity to be not profitable. Many respondents were willing to sell
their surplus electricity to neighbors. This would enable the emergence
of small electricity communities in which everyone would benefit,
which would in turn decrease the threshold for acquisition of solar
panels and systems. Bigger and bigger communities of this kind could
emerge as a result. Such self-producing cells where energy production
and consumption are in balance could even produce energy beyond the
needs of the cell. However, currently selling electricity to neighbors and
self-producing communities of this kind are not possible due to legal
constraints.
The possible future peak power based billing was viewed with
considerable mistrust by the majority of the respondents. The con-
sumers were afraid that the peak power charge would be unfair for
single-family houses that tend to shift the most of their energy con-
sumption to night time when the electricity price is slightly lower. On
the other hand, the original purpose of the new charging mechanism is
to give consumers more options to influence their own electricity bill
and to facilitate the allocation of DSO investments [19]. According to
the consumers, there is a clear lack of detailed information available,
but the general assumption is that this kind of charging would cause
extra costs. However, according to the results, most of the consumers
(64.6%) were willing to rationalize their consumption behavior, such as
avoiding using concurrently devices with high energy consumption, in
order to avoid the higher charges. A small proportion of the consumers
would allow a third party service provider to control their home devices
in such a scenario, which, on the other hand, is the intention of energy
service providers. Since the majority of the consumers were unaware of
this charging method, more information must be provided.
In summary, the consumers raised following rationalization and
management concerns:
• Operation of DSO companies — Better transparency is required;
regulation of DSO operations should be better reported, and free
competition should be opened up to disrupt the monopoly of DSOs.
• Competition of electricity sellers — More supervision is required to
monitor the competition of different electricity sellers. Transparency
of electricity pricing and other competitive advantages is required to
enable consumers to choose a seller that best represents their values.
• Self-produced energy — A regulated system is required for selling
self-produced solar power to neighbors, and to make the acquisition
of solar panels profitable, thus also supporting the fight against
9
A. Immonen, et al.
climate change.
• New charging model — Charging according to peak power should
be rationalized so that it has minimal impact on the daily life of the
consumer. In addition, it should be equal for all consumers.
• Consumer privacy — Data collection via different kinds of smart
devices should be regulated, and data management and trading
should be a certified process to protect consumers’ safety and
privacy.
• Consumer participation — The government should support con-
sumers’ efforts to rationalize their electricity consumption and to
produce energy in the form of tax reliefs.
Currently, the respondents have no economic interest in reducing
their energy consumption because transmission costs and taxes are high
and these cannot be influenced. Nevertheless, energy saving is always
rational; the more energy is saved, the less taxes and transmission costs
must be paid. However, the respondents felt conversely that, at present,
the actions for energy saving do not make any difference and are
therefore not viable.
5.2. Attitudes towards smart devices and third-party control
One of the biggest topics of this research was to identify the atti-
tudes of electricity consumers towards smart devices and towards the
thought that a third party would control these devices in consumers’
homes and properties (see the scenarios in Section 2.3). The consumers
were clearly not aware of the tendencies and motives of the energy
domain actors and did not understand why third-party control is re-
quired. However, even though third-party control is a relatively new
concept for the consumers and earlier experiences of it are few, almost
the half of the respondents would permit third-party control into their
home. In return, the consumers sought benefits mostly in the form of
financial compensation or supporting RES and reduced emissions. In
particular, roughly a quarter of all respondents were willing to allow a
third party to control their devices if this would lead to environmental
benefits such as supporting the integration of RES. In addition, almost a
third of respondents were interested in some kind of additional service.
Customer-centricity and consumer services were identified as central
goals especially for electricity sellers in Ref. [3]. Such new energy
services could resemble ‘comfort services’, such as heat-as-a-service, or
may aim at consumer’s individual goals tailored to their own situation.
From the consumer’s viewpoint, these services may be entirely auto-
matic; the consumer sets certain wishes and parameters and also has the
right to bypass the control. Such services also get the consumer more
involved as an active player in the energy market. The consumer ser-
vices thus enable and support the electricity sellers’ ultimate goal:
providing flexibility.
These new consumer services require more real-time and accurate
data. New smart IoT devices and fast developing technology are in-
creasingly enabling this data collection. IoT data and data analysis will
increase even more in the future and gain more significance in data-
based business. In this survey, increasing data collection through new
smart devices divided opinions. A third of the respondents declared
directly that the current form of data collection is enough. These con-
sumers only need information about their total consumption, which
they use to monitor their own consumption. On the other hand, the
majority of respondents could identify several different ways of using
the collected data, such as consumption statistics and predictions, and
information about consumption peaks. Monitoring electricity prices and
optimizing consumption were seen as the most interesting uses of data,
which indicates that the consumers understand the benefits of data
collection and how to exploit it for their own benefit. However, privacy
issues worried the respondents; data in the wrong hands enables it to be
used against the interests of the consumer, even for criminal purposes.
Therefore, a trusted contract and a trusted relationship with the data
collector are critical to getting consumers involved.
10
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
Controlling consumers’ devices requires a reliable Internet connec-
tion. Insecurity of the Internet was identified as one of the biggest
threats. The consumers considered IoT devices connected via the
Internet to be insecure, and breaks in connectivity were seen as a major
obstacle to reliable remote third-party control. Some efforts have been
made to specify security provisions for consumer devices connected to
the network. For example, the provisions in the technical specification
of ETSI [20] provide guidance on the development and manufacturing
of consumer IoT in manufacturing domain. However, currently there
are no generally recognized or binding security requirements for IoT
devices, and therefore the prevention of security deficiencies is difficult.
According to the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency
(Traficom) [21], the lack of security in consumer IoT devices in 2018
occurred mostly in the form of data leaks and privacy violations. The
cases showed that only few consumers can evaluate and manage their
connected IoT devices themselves. The reliability of these devices
should not be the problem of the consumer; instead, the technology
provider and the service provider should both ensure reliability and
privacy for consumers. Thus, as a response to the respondents’ concern
regarding the insecurity of the Internet, standards are required for
technology providers and service providers to ensure and verify se-
curity and privacy.
According to this survey, there are still several key issues that need
to be carefully considered regarding the implementation of third-party
device control. First is the concern over additional costs; the consumers
consider the new smart devices to be expensive and the life cycle of the
devices to be much shorter due to rapid technology development. The
consumers were concerned that they will have to invest highly and
more often in order to enable third-party control. Nevertheless, 37.8%
of the respondents considered purchasing devices to enable them to
save energy and to support the environment. However, they felt that
there are too many unsolved technical questions remaining, and feared
that each technology provider will offer their own non cross-compatible
solutions. Potential dependency on a single technology and service
provider also worried consumers. Secondly, consumers were concerned
as to whether this kind of control would work in practice in Finland due
to the extreme seasonal weather variations, and what might happen in
problem situations. In particular, questions arose regarding how to
monitor that the devices are working correctly and who is responsible if
a problem situation arises. Older consumers in particular were con-
cerned that the system as a whole would be too complicated for con-
sumers to manage. A major reason for a negative attitude towards third-
party control was the desire of the consumer to maintain control of
their own devices. The thought of a third party controlling parts of the
home was seen as frightening; the main reasons being fear of dis-
comfort, lack of trust in the third party, fear of criminal activity, and
concern that the third party will take control of the home environment
entirely. The lack of previous experiences of third-party control clearly
complicates and slows the adoption and spread of the approach.
However, as initial user experiences start to be made known and the
current concerns and problems become addressed, consumers are likely
to be more open to adopting the approach and saving energy.
The contract between the consumer and the third-party device
controller should be unambiguous and should emphasize the rights and
responsibilities of each party. First of all, the consumer’s part of the
contract should be simple, keeping aware that most consumers will
have only a layman’s understanding of the technical aspects involved.
The respondents felt that such a contract would be very difficult to
word, as there are so many open questions and the concept is new with
no earlier experiences to draw on. Most of all, the consumers were
afraid of losing control of their own home. Consumers must, therefore,
have the ability to set the limits or boundaries that they are willing to
accept, and the consumers should also maintain overall control, for
example in the case of exceptional situations. Transparency is required
in the contracts between consumers and service providers, and the
benefits for the consumers must be validated for them.
A. Immonen, et al.
5.3. Summary
The role of the consumer will be strengthened in the future energy
market. However, since the vast majority of consumers are not energy
market actors or familiar with the market, some system of guiding and
supporting consumers and their actions in the market is required. This
would be an important role of the aggregator or sub-aggregator that
represents the consumers in the market. A change in the market
structure is required to enable the benefits of demand flexibility to be
shared by all participating actors. Currently, delaying or otherwise
moving the time of consumption is not profitable, because taxes and
transmission costs are no cheaper at any other time, only the energy
itself may be marginally cheaper. Although about a half of the re-
spondents were willing to allow third-party device control, several fears
and obstacles were identified in the survey that have a negative impact
on the respondents’ willingness to enable third-party control or to in-
vest in energy saving, and potentially also energy producing, units.
These aspects need be addressed in order to encourage consumers to
become active market actors. The results of this research show that
Finnish consumers are currently not familiar with the concept of ‘de-
mand flexibility’ or do not understand why or how they could become
active market players themselves. On the other hand, the consumers
seemed to be very interested in developments in the energy market and
were aware of how their own behavior can affect their energy con-
sumption. Therefore, it is up to the actors in the energy domain to
decide how to encourage and motivate consumers to become active
players in the market.
6. Conclusions
In the future scenarios of the energy domain actors, the electricity
consumer has the key role. In these scenarios, homes and properties
with smart devices will form a total package of flexible potential that is
provided to the flexibility markets. To enable this, electricity consumers
agree to allow a third party to collect data from their home devices
about their electricity consumption behavior and to remotely control
their home devices. Furthermore, the consumers become active players
in the market, being aware of the effect of their behavior in the market.
The purpose of this research was to determine the viewpoint of energy
consumers regarding the identified goals and planned scenarios of en-
ergy domain actors.
The results of the consumer study presented in this paper enable
actors in energy domain to identify the current situation in the con-
sumer market as well as consumers’ attitudes towards future scenarios
and their willingness to be active players in the energy market. The
results enable actors to plan their future business and highlight the
questions that current consumers consider relevant. A significant
number of responses in the study indicate the interest of the Finnish
electricity consumer in the energy markets and their development.
Statistically, the response rate is sufficient to achieve reliable results.
Over half of the respondents held positive views towards smart devices
and third-party control. Similarly, almost half of the respondents would
already be willing to allow a third party to control their devices in order
to achieve the benefits and, of these, two thirds would be ready to
change their consumption behavior when required. The preferred
benefits were mainly financial, but, in addition, a quarter of all re-
spondents raised concern about the environment, hoping that this kind
of activity would support the reduction of emissions. In both cases, the
achieved benefit must be able to be validated to the consumers. A
considerable number of questions were also raised regarding third-
party device control. Lack of knowledge and prior experiences were
clearly evident in the consumer responses, indicating that the future
prospects of energy companies and the effort towards demand
11
Electric Power Systems Research 180 (2020) 106153
flexibility are not currently familiar to a large proportion of energy
consumers. Actors in the energy domain should therefore address these
open issues and inform consumers more about demand flexibility and
their own objectives, and also emphasize the consumers’ role and
benefits and thus gradually encourage consumers to become active
participants in the energy market.
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Strategic Research Project,
Energy Data Ecosystem and Services, funded by Business Finland, VTT
Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd and Finnish companies.
References
[1] R. Parmar, I. Mackenzie, D. Cohn, D. Gann, The new patterns of innovation, Harv.
Bus. Rev. (JAN-FEB) (2014) 86–95.
[2] A. Karkouch, H. Mousannif, H.Al Moatassime, T. Noel, Data quality in internet of
things: a state-of-the-art survey, J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 73 (2016) 57–81.
[3] A. Immonen, J. Kalaoja, Requirements of an energy data ecosystem, IEEE Access 7
(2019) 111692–111708, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2933919.
[4] M.H. Albadi, E.F. El-Saadany, Demand response in electricity markets: an overview,
2007 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting (2007) 1–5, https://doi.org/
10.1109/PES.2007.385728.
[5] S. Erlinghagen, J. Markard, Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity
sector: ICT firms as potential catalysts for sectoral change, Energy Policy 51 (C)
(2012) 895–906, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.045.
[6] C. Schnuelle, J. Thoeming, T. Wassermann, P. Thier, A. von Gleich, S. Goessling-
Reisemann, Socio-technical-economic assessment of power-to-X: potentials and
limitations for an integration into the German energy system, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
51 (2019) 187–197, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2019.01.017.
[7] Y. Zhang, J. Wang, X. Wang, Review on probabilistic forecasting of wind power
generation, in: A.M. Foley (Ed.), Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014,
pp. 255–270, , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.033.
[8] B.P. Roberts, C. Sandberg, The role of energy storage in development of smart grids,
Proceedings of the IEEE (Volume: 99, Issue: 6) (2011) 1139–1144.
[9] A. Zanella, N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, M. Zorzi, Internet of things for smart
cities, IEEE Internet Things J. 1 (1) (2014) 22–32.
[10] G.P.J. Verbong, S. Beemsterboer, F. Sengers, Smart grids or smart users? Involving
users in developing a low carbon electricity economy, Energy Policy 52 (2013)
117–125.
[11] A.-G. Paetzil, E. Dütschke, W. Fichtner, Smart homes as a means to sustainable
energy consumption: a study of consumer perceptions, J. Consum. Policy 35 (1)
(2012) 23–41.
[12] F. Gangale, A. Mengolini, I. Onyeji, Consumer engagement: an insight from smart
grid projects in Europe, Energy Policy 60 (2013) 621–628.
[13] A. Barbato, A. Capone, Optimization models and methods for demand-side man-
agement of residential users: a survey, Energies 7 (2014) 5787–5824.
[14] O.A. Sianaki, O. Hussain, T. Dillon, A.R. Tabesh, Intelligent decision support system
for including consumers’ preferences in residential energy consumption in smart
grid, Second International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Modelling
and Simulation, Tuban, Indonesia, 2010, pp. 154–159.
[15] Smart Grid Working Group, A Flexible and Customer-driven Electricity System.
Final Report by the Smart Grid Working Group, Publications of the Ministry of
Economic Affairs and Employment 39/2018, Helsinki, Finland, (2018).
[16] M.D. Myers, Qualitative Research in Business & Management, 2nd ed., (2013)
London.
[17] J.W. Creswell, V.L. Plano Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research, Sage Publications, CA, 2007.
[18] R.N. Davis, Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: comparison
with traditional methods, Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 31 (4) (1999)
572–577, https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200737.
[19] S. Honkapuro, J. Haapaniemi, J. Haakana, J. Lassila, J. Partanen, K. Lummi, et al.,
Jakeluverkon Tariffirakenteen Kehitysmahdollisuudet Ja Vaikutukset (in Finnish),
LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications, 2017 No. 65. ISBN 978-952-335-105-9.
[20] ETSI, CYBER; Cyber security for consumer internet of things, Technical
Specification ETSI TS 103 645 V1.1.1 (2019-02), ETSI, France, 2019.
[21] The Finnish Transport and Communications Agency Traficom, Tietoturvan vuosi
2018 (in Finnish), Annual Review, (2019), p. 48. Available at: Https://Www.
Kyberturvallisuuskeskus.Fi/Fi.