Due to the economy, there should be many more solar panels in the United States. With the dramatic rise in the price of panels, solar systems have become competitive with the cost of electricity in a growing number of states, making the question of exposure to solar the primary driver of whether adoption makes sense. However, photovoltaic homes remain a rarity in the US, despite many states pushing for the adoption of renewable energy.
So why does that pressure not work? To try to figure it out, a small team of researchers worked with a nonprofit that installs for solar installations, and helped test two different posts. One post focused on self-interest and emphasized the economic benefits of installing panels. The other was what is called “pro-social”, which means emphasizing that installing solar would bring benefits to the community. As the researchers found, self-interest was king – even after the promotion was over. But self-interest had a side advantage in that the systems that were installed get the most energy out of their panels.
Solarize script
The work depends on a program called Solarize. Solarize runs city-level programs that include one installer that provides the entire city with a group rate. Program ambassadors also run pro-solar programs in the city, encouraging adoption. These programs were the objectives of the researchers, who organized an experiment based on the message provided by these ambassadors. Some cities received self-interest messages, such as “save thousands by installing solar.” Others were more community-oriented – “Our community is doing something together to have more clean energy,” for example. The researchers worked with the program in Connecticut (one of the researchers is at Yale), which has expensive electricity.
Previous research by Solarize participants suggests that both messages could resonate. Of the top three reasons people were in the program, two were economics (cheap prices and savings on utilities), and the other was caring for the environment.
To do this in an experiment, the researchers identified sets of three cities that were roughly demographically similar. Those cities were then divided so that one received a self-interested message, the other received the pro-social message, and one did not participate in the Solarize program. Due to some financial problems, one of the planned programs did not materialize, so the experiment was done with 29 cities and a total of just under 700,000 people who participated. Data on existing trends and households were obtained using Connecticut data on all state solar installations, as well as data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Participants also received follow-up surveys.
Overall, the Solarize program was effective, driving more installations than happened in the control communities, as well as higher than the previous trends in the participating cities. And, during the campaign, the self-interest brass resulted in higher overall installations than happened in the cities that received pro-social messaging. While cities that received pro-social messaging saw a higher installation than cities for control, the difference was not statistically significant.
Better economy
In addition, self-interest messaging resulted in more productive installations. Using Google’s solar calculator, the authors estimate that the panels installed in response to these messages receive more sunlight on an average day, producing an additional 4.4 megawatt-hours over the life of a typical system. This is consistent with the fact that the people who received the self-interested messaging had reported money as their main reason for installing solar. In addition, they were more likely to pay for their systems in advance, rather than take out loans, which increased the return on purchase.
Not surprisingly, this type of messaging also worked better in high-income communities. There are some hints that pro-social messaging worked better in low-income communities, but the results were not statistically significant. The one thing that was consistently true for those who received the pro-social message is that they reported that they were more satisfied with their installations and more likely to approach their friends and neighbors.
Overall, the researchers suggest that there is no message about one-size-fits-all that people are likely to encourage to install solar energy. For those with the means to pay in advance for installations, an appeal to financial interest seems to be the way to go. Meanwhile, the community-focused messaging may attract consumers who may not be in the strongest financial position, but are primarily motivated by environmental concerns – and are willing to install panels in less productive locations.
The value of receiving the message is not limited to the campaign itself. The researchers also had data from after the campaign was wrapped up, and they found that the impact of self-interest reporting persisted for almost two years thereafter. The researchers suggest that it is exposure to the panels themselves – now present in more of the neighbors’ homes – rather than an exposure to the campaign, which is driving more interest in the technology. What drives the importance of getting the message right as we continue to expand renewable energy.
PNAS, 2020. DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.2004428117 (About DOIs).
