WHITE PAPER
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Consumer Attitudes and Awareness of
13 Smart Energy Concepts
Published 4Q 2012
Charul Vyas
Industry Analyst
Carol L. Stimmel
Research Director
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1
Introduction
Pike Research conducted a consumer survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults, based on a
nationally representative and demographically balanced sample, during the third quarter of
2012. The survey included questions on a variety of energy topics, as well as a thorough
examination of consumer demand for electric vehicles and smart grid technologies.
Analysis of consumer demand for electric vehicles and smart grid technologies is featured in
two separate Pike Research reports: Electric Vehicle Consumer Survey and Smart Grid
Consumer Survey.
The 2012 consumer survey also included a question aimed at ascertaining a more general view
of consumer attitudes toward the following energy and environmental concepts:
»
»
»
»
»
Clean Energy
›
Solar energy
›
Wind energy
›
Clean coal
›
Nuclear power
Clean Transportation
›
Hybrid vehicles
›
Electric cars
›
Natural gas vehicles
›
Biofuels
Smart Grid
›
Smart grid
›
Smart meters
Carbon Management
›
Carbon offsets/credits
›
Cap and trade
Building Efficiency
›
LEED certification
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
1
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
In order to create this broad view of consumer opinions, Pike Research presented the following
question and possible responses to respondents:
Please indicate your impression of each of the following concepts related to energy
and the environment. If you are not familiar with a term, please choose N/A.
»
Strongly unfavorable
»
Somewhat unfavorable
»
Neutral
»
Favorable
»
Very favorable
»
N/A – Not sure / not familiar
This white paper presents all of the responses to this question as a basis for comparing
consumer views of these topics to one another. In addition to favorable and unfavorable
opinions, Pike Research analyzes the number of respondents unfamiliar with a concept to
compare the levels of consumer awareness within each topic.
1.2
Key Findings
There were few changes in the survey responses from 2011 to 2012. First, many in the general
population are likely to have already formed opinions about energy and environmental topics,
and these views are holding steady despite some challenges in the space. Examples of such
challenges include the demise of some high profile solar energy firms and concerns around
smart grids/smart meters and consumer privacy. In addition, despite efforts to educate
consumers about the benefits of these energy and environmental topics, attitudes around these
topics are slow or difficult to change.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
2
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 1.1 shows the percentage of favorable and very favorable responses to each of the 13
topics presented in the survey with the following noteworthy findings:
Chart 1.1
»
More than two-thirds of respondents (69%) favored the concept of solar energy, which led
all concepts in favorable responses.
»
Cap and trade received the fewest favorable responses (only 15%).
Favorable Impressions of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2012
Solar Energy
28%
41%
Wind Energy
30%
Hybrid Vehicles
30%
Electric Cars
28%
19%
Nuclear Power
23%
18%
25%
14%
23%
Smart Grid
16%
21%
Carbon Offsets/Credits
13%
LEED Certification
Cap and Trade
8%
0%
15%
8%
11%
9%
7%
10%
49%
21%
23%
Smart Meters
54%
22%
Clean Coal
Biofuels
66%
24%
27%
Natural Gas Vehicles
69%
36%
49%
42%
41%
39%
39%
Favorable
36%
Very Favorable
21%
20%
15%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
(n=989)
(Source: Pike Research)
Chart 1.2 includes the percentage of unfavorable responses while Chart 1.3 indicates the
percentage of respondents who were unfamiliar with or neutral on each topic. These summary
graphs reveal the following key results:
»
Nuclear power, cap and trade, and carbon credits/offsets garnered the most unfavorable
reactions with 20%, 19%, and 19% respectively. Solar and Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certification had the smallest percentage of negative
responses (7% and 8%, respectively).
»
Consumers were the least familiar with LEED certification; nearly three-fourths of
respondents reported that they were not familiar with or neutral on the concept. Solar
energy and wind were recognizable to most consumers, resulting in less than a quarter of
respondents choosing the unfamiliar/neutral response option.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
3
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 1.2
Unfavorable Impressions of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2012
Nuclear Power
20%
12%
8%
Cap and Trade
11%
8%
19%
Carbon Offsets/Credits
11%
8%
19%
Electric Cars
Hybrid Vehicles
5%
Biofuels
5%
Clean Coal
4%
14%
9%
7%
12%
11%
7%
Wind Energy
4% 6%
Natural Gas Vehicles
4% 6%
Smart Meters
4% 5%
Smart Grid
4% 4%
8%
LEED Certification
4% 4%
8%
10%
10%
9%
7%
Solar Energy 3% 4%
0%
Somewhat Unfavorable
17%
10%
7%
Strongly Unfavorable
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
(n=989)
(Source: Pike Research)
Chart 1.3
Neutral Impression/No Opinion of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2012
LEED Certification
42%
Cap and Trade
30%
36%
Carbon Offsets/Credits
Smart Grid
31%
30%
31%
9%
Electric Cars
6%
Hybrid Vehicles
6%
Wind Energy
6%
Solar Energy
5%
0%
50%
46%
28%
11%
Nuclear Power
51%
34%
18%
Natural Gas Vehicles
57%
27%
16%
Clean Coal
58%
27%
24%
Biofuels
42%
38%
29%
2034
28%
26%
N/A
32%
Neutral
24%
18%
23%
18%
10%
66%
30%
27%
Smart Meters
72%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
(n=989)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
4
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Table 1.1 shows the favorable impressions (top two boxes) of energy and environmental
concepts for each year between 2009 and 2012. For concepts where there is a year over year
change that falls beyond the 3% margin of error an up or down arrow is shown, indicating that
these concepts have seen a change from the previous year. Not all concepts were asked about
from the start of the survey, and those that were not in earlier surveys are indicated with an
N/A.
Since 2009, there have been steady declines in favorability for some concepts, particularly the
most favorable concepts such as solar energy, wind energy, hybrid vehicles, and electric cars.
For other concepts such as clean coal, nuclear power, and biofuels, there has been stabilization
in favorability between 2011 and 2012.
Table 1.1
Favorable Impressions of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2009-2012
Concept
2009
2010
2011
2012
Solar Energy
81%
79%
77%
 69%
Wind Energy
79%
 75%
 71%
 66%
Hybrid Vehicles
70%
 64%
61%
 54%
Electric Cars
62%
57%
 55%
 49%
N/A
N/A
51%
49%
Clean Coal
52%
 47%
 42%
42%
Nuclear Power
47%
 42%
40%
41%
Biofuels
56%
 47%
 39%
39%
N/A
37%
38%
39%
Smart Grid
47%
 37%
37%
36%
Carbon Offsets/Credits
26%
24%
 19%
21%
LEED Certification
16%
19%
18%
20%
Cap and Trade
16%
15%
14%
15%
Average Favorability
50%
 45%
43%
42%
Natural Gas Vehicles
Smart Meters
(Source: Pike Research)
Arrows indicate a significant increase or decrease from the previous year outside the
+/- 3% margin of error for this survey.
Table 1.2 shows the unfavorable responses (bottom two boxes) to the 13 energy and
environmental concepts the survey inquired about. As expected, the unfavorable responses to
topics such as solar energy, wind energy, hybrid vehicles, and electric cars has increased over
the years as favorable responses have decreased. However, these changes have been slow
and not significant, aside from electric cars between 2010 and 2011 and hybrid vehicles
between 2011 and 2012. Some other concepts that had seen increases in unfavorable ratings
in past years, such as carbon offsets, cap and trade, and LEED certification, saw stabilization
between 2011 and 2012.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
5
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Table 1.2
Unfavorable Impressions of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2009-2012
Concept
2009
2010
2011
2012
Solar Energy
3%
4%
6%
7%
Wind Energy
4%
5%
8%
10%
Hybrid Vehicles
8%
9%
10%
 14%
Electric Cars
9%
10%
 16%
17%
Natural Gas Vehicles
N/A
N/A
9%
10%
Clean Coal
11%
11%
12%
11%
Nuclear Power
16%
19%
 23%
20%
Biofuels
8%
9%
9%
12%
Smart Meters
N/A
7%
9%
9%
Smart Grid
7%
5%
6%
8%
20%
18%
 25%
19%
5%
5%
 9%
8%
12%
 18%
 22%
19%
9%
10%
13%
13%
Carbon Offsets/Credits
LEED Certification
Cap and Trade
Average Unfavorability
(Source: Pike Research)
Arrows indicate a significant increase or decrease from the previous year outside the
+/- 3% margin of error for this survey.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
6
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 2
CLEAN ENERGY
2.1
Solar Energy
As shown in Chart 1.1 and Chart 1.2 in the previous section, solar energy possesses both the
highest percentage of favorable opinions (69%) and the lowest percentage of unfavorable
opinions (7%) among all energy and environmental concepts covered. This concept also
received the smallest percentage of neutral (18%) and not sure/not familiar (5%) responses.
Chart 2.1 below illustrates the breakdown of consumer impressions of the solar energy concept.
Responses for the top two boxes (very favorable and favorable) are down 8 percentage points
from 2011 when 77% of respondents viewed solar energy in a positive light. While the survey
did not explore the reasons behind this decrease, Pike Research believes it may be due to the
negative media attention around the failure of some solar energy firms in the United States.
A large number of respondents (42%) indicated a very favorable impression of the solar energy
concept; it is one of the least controversial green technologies in the eyes of consumers.
Pike Research attributes solar energy’s high level of consumer acceptance to its relatively long
history in the market, the variety of applications, and the non-intrusive nature of most solar
technologies, including photovoltaic (PV) panels.
Chart 2.1
Consumer Favorability for Solar Energy, United States: 2012
Strongly
Unfavorable
3%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
4%
N/A
5%
Very Favorable
42%
Neutral
18%
Favorable
28%
(n=989)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
7
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Pike Research’s demographic analysis of responses to the solar energy concept revealed a few
distinct trends, as shown in Chart 2.2 below. The high levels of favorable impressions across
the gender, income, education, and age segments suggest that solar energy enjoys widespread
appeal from the mass market.
While favorable opinions were high among all education segments, those with the highest level
of education had the highest favorable rating for solar energy at 77%.Those with the lowest
level of education, a high school diploma or less, exhibited a distinctly lower percentage of
favorable responses (58%).
Another interesting demographic correlation exists across age segments. Surprisingly, older
respondents were more likely to have a favorable view of solar energy than younger
respondents. While it is commonly assumed that younger consumers are more enthusiastic
about energy and environmental concepts, the percentage of favorable responses in the under
30 age segment was 13 percentage points lower than in the 45–64 age segment. However, it
was the oldest age segment (65 or older) that had the highest percent of respondents that
viewed solar energy positively (76%).
Also of note, solar energy favorability increases as income levels increase. A higher percent of
respondents with incomes of $125,000 or more (80%) had a favorable view of solar energy
compared to those with incomes of less than $35,000 (66%).
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
8
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 2.2
Consumer Favorability for Solar Energy by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Average
41%
Education
Graduate School
44%
4-Year College Degree
2-Year College Degree
Income
30%
39%
44%
$75,000 - $125,000
44%
$35,000 - 75,000
44%
Less than $35,000
Gender
35%
44%
$125,000+
Very
Favorable
Favorable
27%
36%
High School Graduate or Less
Age
33%
41%
Technical School/Some College
19%
35%
24%
27%
40%
26%
Female
42%
Male
41%
65+
41%
35%
45 - 64
43%
31%
30 - 44
42%
Under 30
29%
26%
28%
37%
Caucasian
Ethnicity
28%
23%
43%
Hispanic
28%
36%
African American
32%
Asian American
33%
17%
41%
All Other
39%
33%
0%
20%
29%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
9
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
A segmentation analysis based on behavioral and political trends such as the respondents’
monthly spend on electricity, self-identification in the tech adopter lifecycle, and political
identification is shown below in Chart 2.3. It shows that favorability levels were varied across
monthly electric spending segments and that Democrats had higher favorability for solar than
Republicans (75% and 65%, respectively). While the merits of some clean technologies have
yet to be established in the minds of consumers, solar energy has reached a point where the
vast majority of consumers view the concept in a positive light.
Chart 2.3
Consumer Favorability for Solar Energy by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012
Very Favorable
Average
41%
Early Adopter
42%
Early Majority
28%
21%
46%
Late Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
Favorable
27%
43%
Laggards
31%
30%
Less than $100
28%
44%
$100 - $200
24%
41%
$200 - $300
31%
43%
More than $300
29%
38%
Not Sure About Bill
38%
29%
24%
Democrats
49%
Republicans
26%
36%
0%
10%
20%
29%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
(n=989)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
10
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
2.2
Wind Energy
Only slightly less popular than solar energy, wind energy was viewed as either favorable or very
favorable by 66% of respondents, down slightly from 71% in 2011. Only 10% of respondents
held unfavorable opinions of wind energy, up slightly (2 percentage points) from 2011.
Approximately a quarter of respondents were neutral or had no opinion on wind energy. The
similarly high levels of favorable views toward solar and wind energy indicates that consumers
are generally supportive of the more established renewable energies that harness naturally
occurring power sources. Since these two concepts have retained their most favored status
year over year, Pike Research asserts that consumers consider these renewable energies to be
important pieces in the power generation portfolio of the future.
Chart 2.4
Consumer Favorability for Wind Energy, United States: 2012
Strongly
Unfavorable
4%
N/A
6%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
6%
Very Favorable
36%
Neutral
18%
Favorable
30%
(n=989)
(Source: Pike Research)
The demographic patterns of consumer views of wind energy are analogous to those of solar
energy. As shown in Chart 2.5 below, education, income, and age exhibit the most significant
impact on a consumer’s view of wind energy. The high school graduate or less segment
displayed a slightly lower favorability response (57%) compared to the higher education
segments. The 65 and older age group had the highest favorability with wind energy (73%),
while the under 30 age group was least enthusiastic about wind energy (59%). Favorable
opinions of wind energy also rose with incomes. Of the respondents who made less than
$35,000, 62% reported favorable opinions of wind energy compared to 74% of those with
incomes of $125,000 or more.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
11
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 2.5
Consumer Favorability for Wind Energy by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Average
Education
Graduate School
4-Year College Degree
Income
Gender
30%
35%
2-Year College Degree
34%
$125,000+
34%
$75,000 - $125,000
23%
40%
26%
43%
$35,000 - 75,000
28%
40%
28%
33%
Female
37%
Male
35%
65+
31%
29%
32%
41%
45 - 64
35%
33%
30 - 44
27%
39%
Under 30
Favorable
30%
38%
High School Graduate or Less
Very Favorable
33%
33%
Less than $35,000
Age
34%
40%
Technical School/Some College
Ethnicity
30%
36%
29%
30%
Caucasian
39%
29%
Hispanic
40%
28%
African American
24%
Asian American
22%
All Other
23%
0%
20%
52%
32%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
12
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
When viewed by behavioral and political segmentation, Pike Research’s survey shows that
respondents who viewed themselves as the early majority or late majority in terms of
technology adoption held slightly more positive views of wind energy, 70% and 69%,
respectively. Note that these results differ from those for clean technology topics such as smart
grids where early adopters reported the highest level of favorability. This may be because wind
and solar energy are becoming more mainstream. Also of note, respondents with electric bills
in excess of $200 held more positive opinions of wind energy, as did those who identified
themselves as Democrats.
Chart 2.6
Consumer Favorability for Wind Energy by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012
Very Favorable
Average
36%
Early Adopter
36%
Early Majority
30%
26%
39%
Late Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
Favorable
31%
37%
Laggards
32%
29%
Less than $100
27%
37%
$100 - $200
29%
35%
32%
$200 - $300
41%
31%
More than $300
42%
30%
Not Sure About Bill
23%
28%
Democrats
44%
Republicans
28%
34%
0%
10%
20%
26%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
(n=989)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
13
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
2.3
Clean Coal
Consumer impressions of clean coal were less favorable than those for the renewable energy
concepts covered. 42% of respondents indicated a very favorable or favorable impression of
clean coal, the same percentage as 2011 and a decrease of 5 percentage points from Pike
Research’s survey in 2010. This concept ranked seventh among all the concepts covered in
this survey in terms of unfavorable impressions with 11% of respondents. A large percentage
of respondents (47%) were unfamiliar with clean coal or had no opinion on it.
Chart 2.7
Consumer Favorability for Clean Coal, United States: 2012
N/A
18%
Very Favorable
19%
Strongly
Unfavorable
4%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
7%
Favorable
23%
Neutral
29%
(n=988)
(Source: Pike Research)
When demographic information is applied to consumer attitudes toward clean coal, some
interesting variations are evident. As Chart 2.8 below shows, men had a more favorable view of
clean coal than women (46% vs. 38%). In addition, favorability varied by age group, as older
respondents had a more favorable opinion of clean coal technology. Only 37% of the under 30
segment had favorable views on the concept. However, more than half of the 65 and older
segment reported a favorable view on the concept.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
14
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Education
Chart 2.8
Consumer Favorability for Clean Coal by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Average
19%
Graduate School
20%
4-Year College Degree
19%
2-Year College Degree
Income
Gender
23%
Favorable
24%
High School Graduate or Less
21%
$125,000+
19%
$75,000 - $125,000
17%
23%
21%
27%
$35,000 - 75,000
27%
16%
19%
20%
Female
22%
16%
Male
24%
21%
65+
32%
19%
45 - 64
23%
17%
30 - 44
22%
21%
Under 30
18%
Caucasian
18%
Hispanic
19%
23%
19%
22%
African American
16%
Asian American
17%
All Other
19%
28%
24%
20%
0%
Very
Favorable
23%
17%
Less than $35,000
Age
29%
16%
Technical School/Some College
Ethnicity
23%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
(n=986)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
15
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Certain behavioral trends also play a role in a consumer’s view of clean coal, as illustrated in
Chart 2.9. Consumers who indicated that they are early adopters of new technologies showed
significantly higher levels of favorable responses (55%) than the entire sample (42%). Those
with electric bills in excess of $200 per month also held more favorable views of clean coal.
When viewed along political lines, more Republicans (53%) held favorable views of clean coal
than Democrats (35%).
Chart 2.9
Consumer Favorability for Clean Coal by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012
Average
23%
19%
Early Adopter
Early Majority
24%
20%
Late Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
22%
33%
Laggards
Very Favorable
24%
17%
22%
12%
Less than $100
17%
$100 - $200
18%
$200 - $300
Favorable
23%
24%
23%
28%
More than $300
31%
33%
Not Sure About Bill
17%
6%
Democrats
20%
15%
Republicans
29%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
(n=988)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
16
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
2.4
Nuclear Power
Among the clean energy concepts covered in this report, nuclear power received the smallest
percentage of favorable responses (41%) and the largest percentage of unfavorable responses
(20%). Additionally, 39% of respondents had a neutral opinion or no opinion when it comes to
nuclear power. It is interesting to note that even with the disaster in Fukushima, Japan
opinions of nuclear power have not changed much in the past 2 years.
Chart 2.10
Consumer Favorability for Nuclear Power, United States: 2012
N/A
9%
Strongly
Unfavorable
8%
Very Favorable
18%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
12%
Favorable
23%
Neutral
30%
(n=982)
(Source: Pike Research)
Opinions of nuclear power vary significantly depending on the consumer’s demographics. As
shown in Chart 2.11 below, clear correlations exist within each demographic category. Similar
to clean coal, there are differences in opinions about nuclear energy in relation to gender.
These differences are even more pronounced for nuclear, with 30% of women and half of men
holding favorable views of nuclear energy.
Favorable opinions of nuclear energy increase with age. In fact, it is the 65 and older segment
that has the highest favorable impression of nuclear energy (52%). This percentage is slightly
lower than in the 2011 survey (54%) and much lower than in the 2010 survey. In the latter
survey, 72% of respondents in the 65 and older age group reported a favorable impression of
nuclear energy.
There is also a clear positive correlation between level of education and favorability toward
nuclear power, as the percentage of favorable responses increases along with the level of
education. A similarly positive correlation exists across income segments. Half of respondents
earning between $75,000 and $125,000 per year and 54% of respondents earning $125,000 or
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
17
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
more a year had a favorable impression of nuclear power, while only 34% of those earning less
than $35,000 expressed this view.
Chart 2.11
Consumer Favorability for Nuclear Power by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Average
18%
Education
Graduate School
22%
4-Year College Degree
2-Year College Degree
Income
Gender
25%
19%
Technical School/Some College
15%
High School Graduate or Less
15%
Very
Favorable
16%
28%
Favorable
15%
22%
$75,000 - $125,000
33%
30%
$35,000 - 75,000
20%
19%
Less than $35,000
22%
13%
Female
21%
11%
19%
Male
25%
65+
Age
25%
21%
$125,000+
26%
24%
45 - 64
18%
30 - 44
18%
Under 30
Ethnicity
23%
28%
23%
20%
13%
Caucasian
20%
Hispanic
19%
African American
7%
Asian American
22%
23%
19%
19%
14%
All Other
11%
0%
31%
20%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
(n=980)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
18
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Behavioral tendencies are weaker indicators of favorability toward nuclear power. However,
58% of respondents with electric bills higher than $300 a month held positive impressions of
nuclear energy. Those consumers who identified themselves as laggards in the technology
adoption curve and those who identified themselves as Democrats were less enthusiastic about
nuclear energy.
Chart 2.12
Consumer Favorability for Nuclear Power by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012
Average
Early Adopter
25%
25%
Early Majority
24%
18%
Late Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
23%
18%
24%
20%
Laggards
Less than $100
Very Favorable
18%
10%
Favorable
24%
16%
$100 - $200
20%
$200 - $300
20%
More than $300
23%
23%
26%
32%
Not Sure About Bill
18%
9%
Democrats
22%
11%
Republicans
25%
27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
(n=982)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
19
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 3
CLEAN TRANSPORTATION
3.1
Hybrid Vehicles
Following the two clean energy concepts of solar and wind, hybrid vehicles received the highest
percentage of favorable responses at 54%, down from 62% in 2011. With a majority of
favorable responses (only 14% unfavorable responses), hybrid vehicles are another widely
accepted clean technology among consumers. The concept also received the third fewest
neutral and not familiar responses among all concepts at 32%. The full breakdown of
responses to the hybrid vehicle concept can be found in Chart 3.1.
Chart 3.1
Consumer Favorability for Hybrid Vehicles, United States: 2012
Strongly
Unfavorable
5%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
9%
N/A
6%
Very Favorable
24%
Neutral
26%
Favorable
30%
(n=986)
(Source: Pike Research)
A demographic segmentation analysis of responses within the hybrid vehicle section shows
little significant variation. The exceptions exist within the education and income segments.
Those respondents with a high school education or less had a lower favorability rating for
hybrid vehicles, and those with graduate degrees had the highest favorability rating (59%).
Favorability also increases with income. 47% of respondents with incomes of less than $35,000
and 61% of respondents with incomes of $125,000 or more per year held favorable views of
hybrid vehicles.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
20
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 3.2
Consumer Favorability for Hybrid Vehicles by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Education
Average
Graduate School
26%
4-Year College Degree
26%
2-Year College Degree
Income
33%
$125,000+
28%
$75,000 - $125,000
29%
$35,000 - 75,000
33%
29%
31%
27%
20%
Female
24%
29%
Male
24%
30%
65+
26%
31%
34%
23%
30 - 44
28%
27%
Under 30
30%
21%
Caucasian
29%
24%
Hispanic
31%
African American
31%
Asian American
29%
20%
43%
24%
All Other
36%
16%
0%
Favorable
18%
27%
45 - 64
Very
Favorable
32%
23%
Less than $35,000
Gender
31%
25%
High School Graduate or Less
Age
33%
20%
Technical School/Some College
Ethnicity
29%
24%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(n=984)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
21
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 3.3 demonstrates that a segmentation analysis based on behavioral habits revealed a few
notable findings. As expected, those respondents who categorized themselves as early
adopters or early majority held more positive views of hybrid vehicles (62% and 61%,
respectively), while those that described themselves as laggards held less favorable opinions of
hybrid vehicles (40%). Additionally, respondents with electric bills in excess of $300 held much
more favorable opinions of hybrid vehicles (70%). In terms of political segments, there was a
25 percentage point spread between Republicans and Democrats; 41% of Republicans and
66% of Democrats held positive views of hybrids.
Chart 3.3
Consumer Favorability for Hybrid Vehicles by Behavioral and Political Segment, United
States: 2012
Average
24%
Early Adopter
39%
Early Majority
23%
26%
Late Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
30%
34%
23%
Laggards
31%
16%
Less than $100
24%
$100 - $200
23%
$200 - $300
Very Favorable
24%
29%
Favorable
33%
29%
19%
More than $300
44%
Not Sure About Bill
15%
Democrats
26%
29%
32%
Republicans
16%
0%
10%
34%
25%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
(n=986)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
22
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
3.2
Electric Cars
The concept of electric cars tied for fourth place with the concept of natural gas cars (after
wind, solar, and hybrid vehicles) in terms of having the most favorable responses at 49%, which
decreased 6 percentage points in the last year. Chart 3.4 points out that of the remaining 51%,
a third were neutral or had no opinion and 17% held unfavorable views.
Chart 3.4
Consumer Favorability for Electric Cars, United States: 2012
Strongly
Unfavorable
7%
N/A
6%
Very Favorable
22%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
10%
Neutral
28%
Favorable
27%
(n=980)
(Source: Pike Research)
When segmenting the favorable responses by the demographic characteristics of the
respondents, differences were again seen within the education segments. The least educated
respondents had lower favorability ratings for electric cars (40%), and the most educated had
the highest favorability ratings (56%). Within the income levels, only the highest income
bracket gave electric cars a noticeably higher favorability rating.
Unlike previous years, there was little difference by age range; favorability ranged between 46%
and 51%. In 2011, younger consumers held a more positive view of electric cars (61% for
those under 30) than the older than 65 consumers (46%). In 2012, some variation was seen
within ethnicity; the Asian American segment showed a higher percentage of favorable views.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
23
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 3.5
Consumer Favorability for Electric Cars by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Average
22%
Education
Graduate School
25%
4-Year College Degree
Income
Gender
28%
Very Favorable
2-Year College Degree
16%
28%
Favorable
20%
High School Graduate or Less
Age
31%
23%
Technical School/Some College
Ethnicity
27%
29%
22%
$125,000+
26%
$75,000 - $125,000
27%
$35,000 - 75,000
20%
Less than $35,000
22%
Female
20%
Male
18%
32%
23%
33%
22%
28%
23%
65+
20%
45 - 64
21%
30 - 44
25%
28%
25%
25%
26%
Under 30
19%
30%
Caucasian
21%
27%
Hispanic
29%
African American
22%
21%
Asian American
22%
30%
All Other
41%
24%
0%
20%
20%
40%
60%
80%
(n=978)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
24
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
As Chart 3.6 details, those respondents that identified themselves with the early adopter and
early majority groups held higher favorability ratings for electric cars (59% and 54%,
respectively). In addition, those with higher electric bills (monthly bills in excess of $300)
looked more favorably upon electric cars. Also of note, there was a 23 percentage point gap
between Democrats and Republicans.
Chart 3.6
Consumer Favorability for Electric Cars by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012
Average
22%
Early Adopter
32%
Early Majority
27%
24%
Late Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
27%
30%
20%
Laggards
28%
16%
Less than $100
22%
$100 - $200
Favorable
23%
20%
$200 - $300
Very Favorable
19%
31%
23%
More than $300
29%
40%
Not Sure About Bill
15%
Democrats
18%
23%
28%
Republicans
32%
15%
0%
10%
23%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
(n=980)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
25
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
3.3
Natural Gas Vehicles
As with electric cars, favorability for natural gas vehicles was close to 50%, consistent with the
52% favorability rating seen in 2011. More than 40% of respondents had a neutral opinion or
no opinion on this topic, and 10% had unfavorable views of natural gas vehicles. This is an
interesting finding since there are no commercially available natural gas vehicles in the United
States. It may be that consumers lump all alternative fuel vehicles together or assume that a
natural gas car would be less expensive to run than a gasoline-powered car.
Chart 3.7
Consumer Favorability for Natural Gas Vehicles, United States: 2012
N/A
11%
Strongly
Unfavorable
4%
Very Favorable
21%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
6%
Neutral
30%
Favorable
28%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
When segmenting the favorable responses by the demographic characteristics of the
respondents, differences were once again seen within the education segment. Those
respondents with a high school diploma or less held lower favorability ratings of natural gas
vehicles than those with 4-year college degrees (43% vs. 54%). In addition, those that earned
more than $75,000 annually held a more favorable impression of natural gas vehicles, as did
men. Survey participants who were younger than 30 years old held lower favorability
impressions of natural gas vehicles compared to the older age groups.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
26
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 3.8
Consumer Favorability for Natural Gas Vehicles by Demographic Segment, United States:
2012
Average
21%
Age
Gender
Income
Education
Graduate School
18%
4-Year College Degree
29%
24%
2-Year College Degree
30%
15%
32%
Technical School/Some College
21%
High School Graduate or Less
22%
$125,000+
22%
$75,000 - $125,000
$35,000 - 75,000
21%
Less than $35,000
20%
Female
38%
26%
29%
26%
26%
24%
65+
21%
45 - 64
22%
30 - 44
21%
30%
28%
33%
28%
16%
Caucasian
23%
20%
Hispanic
22%
African American
22%
Asian American
28%
26%
22%
17%
All Other
43%
24%
0%
10%
Favorable
21%
17%
Male
Very
Favorable
28%
28%
Under 30
Ethnicity
28%
24%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
(n=983)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
27
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Within the behavioral and political segments for natural gas vehicles, trends were similar to
those seen for electric cars. As Chart 3.9 shows, Democrats, those with electric bills in excess
of $300 per month, and consumers who identified themselves as early adopters held more
favorable impressions of natural gas vehicles.
Chart 3.9
Consumer Favorability for Natural Gas Vehicles by Behavioral and Political Segment, United
States: 2012
Average
21%
Early Adopter
32%
Early Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
28%
27%
22%
Late Majority
18%
Laggards
18%
Less than $100
19%
$100 - $200
30%
31%
Very Favorable
19%
22%
$200 - $300
29%
24%
More than $300
Favorable
29%
30%
38%
Not Sure About Bill
7%
23%
Democrats
21%
Republicans
21%
0%
20%
10%
29%
27%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
28
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
3.4
Biofuels
Favorable views on biofuels were less common than for any other clean transportation concept.
Almost half of respondents stated they were either neutral or unfamiliar with biofuels, 39% held
a favorable opinion on this topic, and 12% had an unfavorable view of the topic.
Chart 3.10
Consumer Favorability for Biofuels, United States: 2012
N/A
16%
Very Favorable
14%
Strongly
Unfavorable
5%
Favorable
25%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
7%
Neutral
33%
(n=983)
(Source: Pike Research)
Chart 3.11 below shows the favorability impressions of biofuels by the various demographic
segments. Like many of the energy and environmental concepts covered in the survey,
favorability increases as income increases. Close to half of respondents with a 4-year college
degree indicated favorable views of the concept, while approximately one-third of respondents
within the high school education segment expressed a favorable opinion. Respondents in the
under 30 age group had the highest favorability rating for biofuels, and Asian Americans and
Hispanics also skewed more positive. However, the latter findings may be due to the small
sample size for these ethnicities.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
29
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Education
Chart 3.11
Consumer Favorability for Biofuels by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Average
14%
Graduate School
14%
4-Year College Degree
2-Year College Degree
9%
Income
23%
Very Favorable
23%
15%
$125,000+
Gender
29%
12%
High School Graduate or Less
Favorable
16%
14%
$75,000 - $125,000
37%
19%
$35,000 - 75,000
15%
Less than $35,000
13%
Female
22%
26%
21%
12%
Male
25%
16%
65+
Age
29%
17%
Technical School/Some College
10%
45 - 64
25%
24%
11%
30 - 44
24%
17%
Under 30
23%
16%
Caucasian
Ethnicity
25%
27%
14%
Hispanic
18%
African American
17%
Asian American
23%
28%
25%
13%
All Other
9%
0%
42%
20%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
(n=981)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
30
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
As Chart 3.12 details, it is once again the early adopters and respondents with high electric bills
that look upon biofuels most favorably. 59% of early adopters and 69% of respondents with
electric bills in excess of $300 held favorable impressions of biofuels. In terms of political
segments, there was a 13 percentage point difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Chart 3.12
Consumer Favorability for Biofuels by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States: 2012
Average
Early Adopter
27%
32%
Early Majority
29%
14%
Late Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
25%
14%
25%
12%
Laggards
Very Favorable
17%
8%
Less than $100
13%
25%
$100 - $200
13%
25%
$200 - $300
14%
More than $300
Favorable
28%
33%
35%
Not Sure About Bill
19%
7%
Democrats
28%
17%
Republicans
22%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
(n=983)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
31
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 4
SMART GRID
4.1
Smart Grid
Despite the continued buildout of smart grids and deployments of smart meters, consumer
perceptions of these topics remain stagnant. While the clean energy and transportation
concepts received high levels of favorable responses and low levels of unfamiliarity, consumer
views on the smart grid and smart meters remain less positive and more uncertain.
As Chart 4.1 shows, 36% of respondents stated their opinions of smart grids were favorable or
very favorable, which is about half of the favorability rating of solar energy. Interestingly, the
percentage of unfavorable responses to the smart grid was similar to that of solar energy (8%).
Perhaps most telling is that 56% of respondents were either neutral or had no opinion on the
concept of smart grids. Thus, despite the low level of unfavorable responses, utilities
upgrading their infrastructure to include smart grid capabilities must do a better job of educating
consumers about the benefits the smart grid can provide.
Chart 4.1
Consumer Favorability for Smart Grid, United States: 2012
Very Favorable
15%
N/A
29%
Favorable
21%
Strongly
Unfavorable
4%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
4%
Neutral
27%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
32
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 4.2 below indicates that the favorability rating for smart grid varies by education level,
gender, and income. Those respondents who had household incomes in the $75,000–$125,000
range held a 48% favorability rating for the smart grid, versus 27% for those earning less than
$35,000 annually. In addition, 41% of men held a favorable impression of smart grid
technology versus 29% of women. Within the education segment, there was a 23 percentage
point difference in favorable impressions of the smart grid between respondents with the lowest
education levels (25%) and those with the highest education levels (48%). These patterns are
very close to the ones seen in previous years.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
33
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 4.2
Consumer Favorability for Smart Grid by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Education
Average
15%
Graduate School
22%
4-Year College Degree
2-Year College Degree
9%
Income
Favorable
11%
18%
$75,000 - $125,000
29%
24%
$35,000 - 75,000
23%
14%
Less than $35,000
Gender
Very Favorable
17%
14%
$125,000+
26%
24%
10%
High School Graduate or Less
13%
Female
10%
Male
23%
14%
19%
19%
65+
Age
26%
17%
Technical School/Some College
13%
45 - 64
10%
22%
17%
24%
30 - 44
20%
Under 30
22%
17%
Caucasian
Ethnicity
21%
18%
15%
Hispanic
19%
17%
African American
12%
Asian American
24%
17%
17%
All Other
11%
0%
35%
18%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
(n=982)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
34
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
As Chart 4.3 shows, early adopters of technology and respondents who identified themselves
as part of the early majority showed a substantially higher percentage of favorable responses
(54% and 48%, respectively). In addition, those with higher electric bills (monthly bills of $300
or more) had the most favorable opinion of smart grid technology (59%). With more than half of
all respondents unfamiliar or neutral about smart grids, educating consumers about the benefits
of the smart grid should be the critical focal point for utilities.
Chart 4.3
Consumer Favorability for Smart Grid by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012
Average
29%
20%
Late Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
21%
33%
Early Majority
Laggards
21%
15%
Early Adopter
19%
12%
Very Favorable
14%
4%
Less than $100
14%
$100 - $200
14%
$200 - $300
21%
18%
16%
More than $300
Favorable
22%
22%
37%
Not Sure About Bill
19%
9%
Democrats
25%
17%
Republicans
22%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
35
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
4.2
Smart Meters
The breakdown of responses to the concept of smart meters is nearly identical to that of the
smart grid, as seen in Chart 4.4. Both concepts received a moderate number of favorable
responses (39% for smart meters), few unfavorable responses (9%), and a relatively large
percentage of unfamiliar or neutral responses (52%).
Chart 4.4
Consumer Favorability for Smart Meters, United States: 2012
Very Favorable
16%
N/A
24%
Strongly
Unfavorable
4%
Favorable
23%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
5%
Neutral
28%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
Chart 4.5 shows the demographic breakout of responses for smart meters. The data shows
that more than half of consumers with incomes in the $75,000–$125,000 range gave smart
meters a favorable rating. Asian Americans also had higher favorable opinions of smart meters,
as did respondents in the 30–44 age range. When examining the education segments, the
favorable responses ranged from 31% (for technical school/some college) to 47% (for those
with a graduate degree).
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
36
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 4.5
Consumer Favorability for Smart Meters by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Education
Average
23%
16%
Graduate School
21%
4-Year College Degree
19%
2-Year College Degree
27%
26%
23%
12%
Technical School/Some College
Very Favorable
21%
10%
Favorable
High School Graduate or Less
Age
Gender
Income
$125,000+
29%
17%
$75,000 - $125,000
25%
25%
$35,000 - 75,000
25%
16%
Less than $35,000
13%
Female
13%
Male
18%
65+
17%
45 - 64
18%
22%
24%
22%
25%
13%
30 - 44
27%
19%
Under 30
17%
14%
Caucasian
Ethnicity
17%
15%
23%
16%
Hispanic
26%
17%
African American
17%
10%
Asian American
30%
20%
All Other
18%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
37
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Noticeable differences in favorable views of smart meters are apparent when viewed through
the behavioral and political scope. Self-identified early adopters and early majority respondents
stand out within the behavioral segments; 51% of early adopters and 50% of the early majority
held favorable impressions of smart meters, compared to the average of 39%. Those with
electric bills in excess of $300 also held more favorable opinions of smart meters. There was
no difference in regard to political affiliation, as 40% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans
held favorable views of smart meters.
Chart 4.6
Consumer Favorability for Smart Meters by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012
Average
23%
16%
Early Adopter
Early Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
31%
19%
Late Majority
Laggards
14%
38%
23%
12%
Very Favorable
17%
5%
Less than $100
14%
24%
$100 - $200
14%
25%
$200 - $300
19%
19%
More than $300
Favorable
22%
36%
Not Sure About Bill
16%
9%
Democrats
22%
18%
Republicans
26%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
38
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 5
CARBON MANAGEMENT
5.1
Carbon Offsets/Credits
Even more controversial than the smart grid concepts, carbon management concepts received
some of the highest percentages of unfavorable responses from consumers. Since the
concepts of carbon offsets/credits and cap and trade are relatively new, these results are not
surprising. When compared to the responses to other energy and environment topics, it is clear
that consumers are unlikely to warm up to the idea of making payments in exchange for carbon
emissions anytime in the near future.
Approximately one-fifth of respondents, or 21%, held favorable impressions of carbon
offsets/credits – the third-lowest percentage of favorable responses among all concepts
surveyed. This is very similar to results seen in 2011, when carbon offsets also ranked as the
least favorable concept. One change between 2011 and 2012 is that the percentage of
unfavorable responses decreased by 6 percentage points to 19% in 2012 (from the 2011
number of 25%). However, the majority of respondents remain either neutral or not familiar
(60%), indicating that many consumers are either ambivalent about or unaware of the concept.
Chart 5.1
Consumer Favorability for Carbon Offsets/Credits, United States: 2012
Very Favorable
8%
N/A
28%
Strongly
Unfavorable
11%
Favorable
13%
Neutral
32%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
8%
(n=984)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
39
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 5.2 shows the favorability ratings for the carbon offset/credit concept by demographic
segment. The study found that respondents who earn $75,000–$125,000 or more than
$125,000 annually had double the favorability rating for carbon offsets/credits than those
earning less than $35,000 (30% for the $75,000–$125,000 income range, 31% for the $125,000
or more income range, and only 15% for those earning less than $35,000). In addition, those
who reported lower levels of education demonstrated a favorability rating for carbon
offsets/credits that was half that given by the more educated respondents. More specifically,
13% of those with a high school diploma or less had favorable responses, compared to 27% of
those with a 4-year college degree and 28% of those with graduate degrees.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
40
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 5.2
Consumer Favorability for Carbon Offsets/Credits by Demographic Segment, United States:
2012
Average
Education
Graduate School
2-Year College Degree
8%
Technical School/Some College
7%
High School Graduate or Less
6%
Income
Gender
15%
Very Favorable
10%
Favorable
8%
19%
12%
$75,000 - $125,000
13%
18%
$35,000 - 75,000
17%
6%
Less than $35,000
Age
16%
11%
$125,000+
Ethnicity
17%
12%
4-Year College Degree
7%
7%
Female
13%
6%
Male
65+
13%
9%
13%
11%
12%
5%
45 - 64
12%
6%
30 - 44
11%
14%
Under 30
7%
Caucasian
8%
Hispanic
17%
12%
17%
12%
African American
11%
Asian American
11%
All Other
7%
0%
12%
30%
4%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
(n=982)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
41
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 5.3 shows consumer opinions toward carbon offsets/credits by behavioral and political
segmentation. Within this breakdown, respondents who indicated they spend $300 or more on
their monthly electric bill had the most favorable opinion of this concept at 52%. As expected,
laggards had the lowest favorability rating for carbon offsets/credits at 10%, while early
adopters had a favorability rating of 47%.
Chart 5.3
Consumer Favorability for Carbon Offsets/Credits by Behavioral and Political Segment,
United States: 2012
Average
8%
13%
Early Adopter
24%
Early Majority
10%
Monthly Electric Bill
Late Majority
Laggards
5%
4%
7%
$100 - $200
8%
$200 - $300
16%
12%
Very Favorable
7%
Less than $100
Favorable
12%
15%
10%
12%
More than $300
Not Sure About Bill
23%
32%
3%
7%
Democrats
8%
Republicans
8%
0%
20%
18%
11%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
(n=984)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
42
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
5.2
Cap and Trade
The concept of cap and trade, a market-based approach to regulating carbon emissions,
continues to be one of the least favorable topics covered in the survey. It is noteworthy that
cap and trade was the only concept to receive more unfavorable responses than favorable
ones. While only 15% of respondents rated cap and trade as favorable or very favorable, 19%
stated their opinion of cap and trade was either somewhat unfavorable or strongly unfavorable.
In addition, a full two-thirds stated they were either unfamiliar with or had no opinion on the
subject of cap and trade.
Chart 5.4
Consumer Favorability for Cap and Trade, United States: 2012
Very Favorable
7%
Favorable
8%
N/A
36%
Neutral
30%
Strongly
Unfavorable
11%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
8%
(n=987)
(Source: Pike Research)
Chart 5.5 below highlights the demographic characteristics of respondents to the cap and trade
question. The most noticeable variation in favorability ratings for cap and trade is seen within
the income and education levels. Those respondents who had a high school diploma or less
had an 11% favorability rating for cap and trade, while those with graduate degrees had a 22%
favorability rating for this topic. In addition, only 10% of respondents with incomes of less than
$35,000 had favorable or very favorable impressions of cap and trade, while 25% of
respondents with incomes greater than $125,000 had favorable views. Favorability also
decreased with age, from 20% for those under 30 to 11% for those 65 and older. Notably, the
minority groups (African American, Asian Americans, and Native American/Other) had higher
favorable responses to cap and trade in both 2011 and 2012.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
43
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 5.5
Consumer Favorability for Cap and Trade by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Average
7%
8%
Education
Graduate School
12%
4-Year College Degree
8%
2-Year College Degree
11%
6%
9%
Very Favorable
Technical School/Some College
2%
High School Graduate or Less
7%
6%
Income
15%
$75,000 - $125,000
Gender
10%
12%
$35,000 - 75,000
5%
Less than $35,000
Female
6%
5%
Male
11%
9%
4%
9%
8%
65+
Age
Favorable
6%
$125,000+
8%
5%
45 - 64
6%
3%
6%
30 - 44
11%
Under 30
9%
8%
Caucasian
Ethnicity
10%
11%
6%
Hispanic
7%
12%
African American
9%
Asian American
9%
All Other
4%
0%
10%
14%
19%
7%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
(n=985)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
44
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
As Chart 5.6 shows, the level of favorable responses to cap and trade mirror those for the
carbon offsets/credits concept, with early adopters more than twice as likely as the general
respondent pool to hold positive impressions of cap and trade (39% vs. 15%). Those with
higher electric bills ($300 or more per month) held the most favorable opinion of the
concept (47%).
Chart 5.6
Consumer Favorability for Cap and Trade by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012
Average
7%
8%
Early Adopter
25%
Early Majority
6%
Monthly Electric Bill
Late Majority
Less than $100
12%
5%
Laggards 2%
Very Favorable
6%
6%
3%
$100 - $200
Favorable
7%
7%
$200 - $300
8%
10%
5%
More than $300
Not Sure About Bill
14%
31%
3%
Democrats
4%
8%
Republicans
5%
0%
16%
11%
9%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
(n=987)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
45
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 6
BUILDING EFFICIENCY
6.1
LEED Certification
With only one-fifth of respondents indicating a favorable or very favorable impression of LEED
certification, it would appear that this building efficiency concept is relatively unappealing to
consumers. However, Chart 6.1 paints a more accurate picture of how consumers view the
concept. LEED certification has the second-lowest percentage of favorable responses,
sandwiched between the carbon concepts discussed in the previous section. However, it was
also in the bottom half among all concepts in terms of unfavorable responses at 8% (just above
highly favorable concepts such as solar energy).
The majority of consumers (72%) are simply unfamiliar with or have no opinion of this green
building certification program. As seen in previous years, LEED certification was unfamiliar to
more consumers than any other energy or environmental concept identified in the survey and
was the only concept for which a majority of respondents selected not familiar. Clearly, this is
the concept that has the least amount of consumer awareness. Yet, since LEED certification
exists in both residential and commercial buildings, consumers are just as likely to benefit from
the program as businesses.
Chart 6.1
Consumer Favorability for LEED Certification, United States: 2012
Very Favorable
9%
Favorable
11%
N/A
42%
Neutral
30%
Strongly
Unfavorable
4%
Somewhat
Unfavorable
4%
(n=984)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
46
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
As Chart 6.2 below shows, there are some variations in LEED favorability. Favorability
increases with education, steadily rising from a 10% favorability rating from respondents with a
high school diploma or less to 35% from those with a graduate degree. The older demographic
groups, those in the 45–64 and 65 and older groups, held favorability ratings of 16% and 15%,
respectively, for LEED certification. Meanwhile, the under 30 and 30–44 age groups each held
favorability ratings of 25%. This may be because older consumers are less aware of LEED
certification than the younger consumers. 29% of respondents who earned between $75,000
and $125,000 and 37% of those who earned more than $125,000 reported a favorable opinion
of the concept. However, only 16% of respondents earning less than $35,000 annually had a
favorable opinion of LEED certification.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
47
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 6.2
Consumer Favorability for LEED Certification by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012
Average
9%
11%
Education
Graduate School
17%
4-Year College Degree
13%
2-Year College Degree
14%
6%
Technical School/Some College
12%
4%
High School Graduate or Less
6%
Favorable
4%
Income
20%
$75,000 - $125,000
Gender
16%
15%
$35,000 - 75,000
14%
7%
Less than $35,000
Age
Very Favorable
7%
$125,000+
11%
8%
Female
8%
8%
Male
10%
11%
65+
5%
45 - 64
6%
11%
10%
10%
30 - 44
15%
Under 30
11%
11%
Caucasian
Ethnicity
18%
14%
9%
Hispanic
10%
14%
African American
12%
Asian American
13%
All Other
7%
0%
14%
9%
24%
7%
10%
20%
30%
40%
(n=982)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
48
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 6.3 shows the behavioral and political segment breakout by tech adopter, monthly electric
bill, and political identification. Similar to the smart grid and carbon management topics, 43%
(double the average) of consumers who identified themselves as early adopters of technology
held favorable impressions of LEED certification compared to a meager 7% of laggards.
Another 43% of those who had electric bills of more than $300 monthly had a favorable view of
LEED certification, also more than double the average for this topic.
Chart 6.3
Consumer Favorability for LEED Certification by Behavioral and Political Segment, United
States: 2012
Average
11%
9%
Early Adopter
Early Majority
Monthly Electric Bill
16%
11%
Late Majority
Laggards
15%
28%
9%
7%
Less than $100
Very Favorable
5%
3%
Favorable
10%
8%
$100 - $200
9%
12%
$200 - $300
9%
12%
More than $300
10%
33%
Not Sure About Bill
9%
4%
Democrats
14%
12%
Republicans
6%
0%
5%
8%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
(n=984)
(Source: Pike Research)
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
49
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1
Clean Energy
Consumer opinions of the clean energy concepts were generally positive; all four concepts
(solar, wind, clean coal, and nuclear) received favorable responses from at least 40% of
respondents. Most notably, the two renewable energy concepts, wind and solar, continued to
generate favorable opinions among more consumers than any other topic included in the
survey. The non-renewable clean energy concepts, clean coal and nuclear power, did not enjoy
the same level of enthusiasm from the respondent base. Nuclear power also earned the
highest percentage of unfavorable and neutral responses among all energy and environmental
concepts. These results have held steady year over year.
Of the four clean energy concepts, consumers were the least familiar with clean coal; 18% of
respondents selected not familiar for this concept. These results reveal that solar and wind
power have reached a point of mass appeal among consumers. Clean energy concepts that do
not utilize renewable resources are less likely to appeal to the vast majority of consumers.
7.2
Clean Transportation
Clean transportation concepts are also well-liked by consumers, though not to the levels
achieved by solar and wind energy. Hybrid vehicles, electric cars, and natural gas vehicles
were all considered favorable by approximately half of all respondents. Biofuels were favored
by less than two-fifths of respondents (39%) and received the highest incidence of unfamiliar or
neutral responses (50%) among the clean transportation concepts.
Given the longevity of cars like the Toyota Prius and other hybrids, as well as extensive
advertising and publicity campaigns for electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, it
is interesting that not much has changed in terms of consumer favorability in regard to vehicles
that utilize electricity in some form. An interesting note is that natural gas-powered vehicles
received similar favorability ratings to electric cars even though natural gas powered-vehicles
are largely limited to commercial vehicles.
Within the various demographic splits, consumers with higher education and higher income
levels continue to have the highest favorability ratings for clean transportation. The marketing
messages for these alternative fuel vehicles often focus on the environmentally friendly benefits
of low to zero emissions. With gas prices in the United States likely to fluctuate in the coming
years, consumers are likely to be drawn to the potential cost savings these cars provide – as
well as their low impact on the environment.
7.3
Smart Grid
Little has changed between 2011 and 2012 in regard to smart grid concepts. Consumer
reactions to smart grid and smart meters concepts appeared less positive, with smaller
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
50
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
percentages of favorable responses than the clean energy and transportation topics. However,
a closer review of the responses to the concepts reveals that there are also few consumers who
hold an unfavorable view of the smart grid or smart meters (less than 10%). In fact, all
concepts except solar energy and LEED certification received higher percentages of
unfavorable responses than either of the smart grid concepts.
What stood out in the survey results for the smart grid and smart meters was the high number
of respondents reporting they were unfamiliar with or held neutral opinions on these concepts.
In general, the higher educated, higher income-earning male respondents had the highest
favorability ratings for smart grid technologies, as did consumers with higher monthly electric
bills. As smart grid and smart meter deployments and installations continue, it is clear that
consumers are still learning about the energy savings potential of smart grid technologies.
7.4
Carbon Management
Lagging behind nearly all other concepts in favorable responses, the concepts dealing with
carbon management (carbon offsets/credits and cap and trade) did not garner a high level of
favorable responses by survey respondents. The lack of favorable responses to these topics
was accompanied by relatively high percentages of unfavorable and unfamiliar responses. This
consumer reaction is interesting since these concepts are designed to be utilized by
businesses. It may be that some negative media coverage and weak political support has
drawn consumer attention to these topics.
Carbon offsets/credits and cap and trade tied with the most unfavorable ratings, both at 19%.
In addition, 27% of respondents were unfamiliar with carbon offsets/credits and 36% were
unfamiliar with the concept of cap and trade. Of note, both carbon offsets/credits and cap and
trade were better received by consumers with higher education, income levels, and those who
consider themselves early adopters.
7.5
Building Efficiency
The only building efficiency topic included in the survey was LEED certification. As in previous
Energy and Environment Consumer Surveys, consumers continue to state they are not
acquainted with the concept. Pike Research believes this is because green building
certification programs such as LEED have yet to draw significant attention outside of the real
estate and construction industries.
With nearly three-fourths of respondents selecting these two choices (42% unfamiliar and 30%
neutral), it is clear that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on educating end users about
LEED certification and the benefits and value of certification. A closer examination of segments
shows that early adopters and higher income earners are the most aware of LEED certification
and hold more favorable opinions of the concept.
While this low level of familiarity among the general population is challenging, a positive finding
is that consumers do not generally hold adverse opinions on the concept. In other words, there
are not as many negative perceptions to overcome.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
51
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Section 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Clean Energy ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Solar Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Wind Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Clean Coal ........................................................................................................................................ 14 2.4 Nuclear Power ................................................................................................................................... 17 Section 3 .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Clean Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Hybrid Vehicles ................................................................................................................................. 20 3.2 Electric Cars ..................................................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Natural Gas Vehicles ......................................................................................................................... 26 3.4 Biofuels ............................................................................................................................................. 29 Section 4 .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Smart Grid ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 4.1 Smart Grid ........................................................................................................................................ 32 4.2 Smart Meters ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Section 5 .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Carbon Management ........................................................................................................................................ 39 5.1 Carbon Offsets/Credits ...................................................................................................................... 39 ©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
52
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
5.2 Cap and Trade .................................................................................................................................. 43 Section 6 .......................................................................................................................................................... 46 Building Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................... 46 6.1 LEED Certification ............................................................................................................................. 46 Section 7 .......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 50 7.1 Clean Energy .................................................................................................................................... 50 7.2 Clean Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 50 7.3 Smart Grid ........................................................................................................................................ 50 7.4 Carbon Management.......................................................................................................................... 51 7.5 Building Efficiency ............................................................................................................................. 51 Section 8 .......................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................. 52 Section 9 .......................................................................................................................................................... 54 Table of Charts and Figures ............................................................................................................................. 54 Section 10 ........................................................................................................................................................ 57 Scope of Study ................................................................................................................................................. 57 Survey Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 57 ©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
53
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 9
TABLE OF CHARTS AND FIGURES
Chart 1.1
Favorable Impressions of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2012 ....................... 3
Chart 1.2
Unfavorable Impressions of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2012 .................... 4
Chart 1.3
Neutral Impression/No Opinion of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2012 ........... 4
Chart 2.1
Consumer Favorability for Solar Energy, United States: 2012 ......................................................... 7
Chart 2.2
Consumer Favorability for Solar Energy by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 .................. 9
Chart 2.3
Consumer Favorability for Solar Energy by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Chart 2.4
Consumer Favorability for Wind Energy, United States: 2012 ......................................................... 11
Chart 2.5
Consumer Favorability for Wind Energy by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 ................. 12
Chart 2.6
Consumer Favorability for Wind Energy by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States: 2012 .. 13
Chart 2.7
Consumer Favorability for Clean Coal, United States: 2012 ........................................................... 14
Chart 2.8
Consumer Favorability for Clean Coal by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 .................... 15
Chart 2.9
Consumer Favorability for Clean Coal by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States: 2012 .... 16
Chart 2.10
Consumer Favorability for Nuclear Power, United States: 2012 ................................................. 17
Chart 2.11
Consumer Favorability for Nuclear Power by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 .......... 18
Chart 2.12
Consumer Favorability for Nuclear Power by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Chart 3.1
Consumer Favorability for Hybrid Vehicles, United States: 2012 .................................................... 20
Chart 3.2
Consumer Favorability for Hybrid Vehicles by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 ............. 21
Chart 3.3
Consumer Favorability for Hybrid Vehicles by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Chart 3.4
Consumer Favorability for Electric Cars, United States: 2012 ......................................................... 23
Chart 3.5
Consumer Favorability for Electric Cars by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 ................. 24
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
54
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Chart 3.6
Consumer Favorability for Electric Cars by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States: 2012 .. 25
Chart 3.7
Consumer Favorability for Natural Gas Vehicles, United States: 2012 ............................................ 26
Chart 3.8
Consumer Favorability for Natural Gas Vehicles by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 ..... 27
Chart 3.9
Consumer Favorability for Natural Gas Vehicles by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Chart 3.10
Consumer Favorability for Biofuels, United States: 2012 ........................................................... 29
Chart 3.11
Consumer Favorability for Biofuels by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 .................... 30
Chart 3.12
Consumer Favorability for Biofuels by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States: 2012 .... 31
Chart 4.1
Consumer Favorability for Smart Grid, United States: 2012............................................................ 32
Chart 4.2
Consumer Favorability for Smart Grid by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 .................... 34
Chart 4.3
Consumer Favorability for Smart Grid by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States: 2012 ..... 35
Chart 4.4
Consumer Favorability for Smart Meters, United States: 2012 ........................................................ 36
Chart 4.5
Consumer Favorability for Smart Meters by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 ................ 37
Chart 4.6
Consumer Favorability for Smart Meters by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States: 2012 . 38
Chart 5.1
Consumer Favorability for Carbon Offsets/Credits, United States: 2012.......................................... 39
Chart 5.2
Consumer Favorability for Carbon Offsets/Credits by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 .. 41
Chart 5.3
Consumer Favorability for Carbon Offsets/Credits by Behavioral and Political Segment, United
States: 2012 ................................................................................................................................ 42
Chart 5.4
Consumer Favorability for Cap and Trade, United States: 2012 ..................................................... 43
Chart 5.5
Consumer Favorability for Cap and Trade by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 .............. 44
Chart 5.6
Consumer Favorability for Cap and Trade by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 45
Chart 6.1
Consumer Favorability for LEED Certification, United States: 2012 ................................................ 46
Chart 6.2
Consumer Favorability for LEED Certification by Demographic Segment, United States: 2012 ......... 48
Chart 6.3
Consumer Favorability for LEED Certification by Behavioral and Political Segment, United States:
2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 49
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
55
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Table 1.1
Favorable Impressions of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2009-2012 ............... 5
Table 1.2
Unfavorable Impressions of Energy and Environmental Concepts, United States: 2009-2012 ........... 6
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
56
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Section 10
SCOPE OF STUDY
Pike Research has prepared this report to provide participants involved in clean technology markets with a
study of consumer opinions about a select set of energy and environment topics. One of the major objectives
of the report is to impartially assess levels of consumer interest in various concepts dealing with clean energy,
clean transportation, smart grid, carbon management, and building efficiency. Pike Research also provides an
analysis of key consumer attitudes that are relevant to the clean technology market.
Great care was taken in constructing a survey questionnaire that would yield the most accurate and
unbiased results possible. However, it should be noted that consumers often have difficulty providing survey
responses that will accurately predict their purchase behavior for products that have not yet been introduced
into the market.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Pike Research conducted a web-based survey of 1,001 United States consumers in the fall of 2012 using a
structured online questionnaire. The survey invitation was sent to a nationally representative and
demographically balanced sample of consumers who are members of a large online panel. Respondents were
offered a chance to win prizes in exchange for their participation. The margin of error for these survey results
is +/- 3% with a 95% confidence interval.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
57
Energy & Environment Consumer Survey
Published 4Q 2012
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc.
1320 Pearl Street, Suite 300
Boulder, CO 80302 USA
Tel: +1.303.997.7609
http://www.navigant.com/pikeresearch
This publication is provided by Pike Research, a part of the Navigant Consulting, Inc. (“Navigant”) Energy
Practice and has been provided for informational purposes only. This publication may be used only as
expressly permitted by license from Navigant and may not otherwise be reproduced, recorded, photocopied,
distributed, displayed, modified, extracted, accessed, or used without the express written permission of
Navigant. Navigant makes no claim to any government data and other data obtained from public sources found
in this publication (whether or not the owners of such data are noted in this publication), and makes no express
or implied warranty, guaranty, or representation concerning the information contained in this publication, its
merchantability, or its fitness for a particular purpose of function. Any reference to any specific commercial
product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by Navigant. Navigant does not assume, and
hereby disclaims, any liability that may result from any reliance on or use of any information contained in this
publication, or for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions in this publication. This publication is
intended for the sole and exclusive use of the original purchaser. If you do not have a license from Navigant
covering this publication, please refrain from accessing or using this publication. Please contact Navigant to
obtain a license to this publication.
©2012 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Notice: No material in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
58