Can we quickly reduce natural gas demand? That should be a question for many decision makers in Europe now natural gas prices are extremely high, and supply of natural gas could potentially be constrained.

It is a question that is discussed – not for natural gas but for electricity – in reports by the International Energy Agency: “Saving Electricity in a Hurry”, first published in 2005, updated in 2011. The important message: quick savings of up to 20% are possible.

Most interesting in these reports are a range of case studies. They are from actual situations in which electricity supply disruption occurred. The case studies come from all over the world – ranging from Alaska to New Zealand. Some are well known, like the supply disruptions in Japan 2011, after the tsunami. But most didn’t hit the global headlines. The causes were quite diverse, for example droughts that reduced hydropower output, fires in transformer stations, interruption of natural gas supply for power plants, or just simple lack of generation capacity. The interruptions lasted from just a few days to several months.

It turns out that there are many actions available to people, actions they probably will not take when not really necessary. People in Juneau, Alaska were able to save 25-40% of electricity consumption, when the power lines broke down caused by an avalanche. This is what they said they did:

Fraction of respondents taking the specific actions in Juneau, Alaska [2].

What can governments do? Across all cases information campaigns – harnessing multiple media – were very important to stimulate behaviour change. Also, technology change can be stimulated this way, at least for technologies that can be rapidly replaced, like lamps, showerheads and control systems. But also other elements could be part of a policy package. Price signals are important of course – if they are not already induced by market forces. But also rationing was applied in some of the cases. Note that in most cases not only the residential sector was tackled, but other sectors as well.

Savings generally were not as high as those in Alaska, but in most cases the effect on electricity consumption turned out to be substantial, ranging from 0.3 – 20% of consumption:

Reduction of electricity consumption caused by the government actions [1].

So far, this is about electricity, not about natural gas. And the energy crisis in Europe is first of all a natural gas crisis, but it also translates into higher electricity prices. And there is little doubt that at least some of the lessons from the IEA will also be relevant for saving natural gas “in a hurry”.

What then do these reports tell us? They show again that the demand side of the energy system is important and is too often neglected. Oh yeah, policy makers in Europe pay attention to the demand side – but just as passive consumers. These consumers face high energy prices, and policy makers are trying to compensate them. But the demand side can also play an active role. By reducing demand they can at least alleviate the financial impact of higher energy prices and – if collective action is strong enough – even make up for shortages on the supply side.

But there is more to come. The natural gas challenges in Europe will certainly not be the last energy crisis we are facing. In most of the cases described in the IEA reports, governments had little preparation and needed to come with ad hoc plans. How much more could have been done if policy action would have been carefully prepared in advance and could just be taken off the shelf?

Photo credit: Doris Morgan via Unsplash

References:

  1. Saving electricity in a hurry – dealing with shortfalls in electricity supplies, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2005.
  2. S. Bryan Pasquier: Saving electricity in a hurry: Update 2011, Information paper, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2011.

Also available: