Globally, consumers are beginning to be able to choose their electricity supplier. Increasing concerns about the environment are prompting some of them to consider ‘green’ electricity—that is, electricity that has been generated by more environmentally sustainable means (for example, solar power or wind power). This article profiles the potential purchaser of green electricity. Drawing upon the literature on green product purchasers more generally, three sets of hypotheses are presented—more specifically, it is proposed that those who would pay increasingly higher premiums for green electricity are more likely to possess particular demographic characteristics, attitudinal characteristics and socialization characteristics. Responses from a survey distributed in a major Canadian metropolitan area are then examined. Attitudinal characteristics—specifically ecological concern, liberalism and altruism—best identify the potential purchasers of green electricity. Suggestions for managers and marketers are made following these findings. Directions for future research are also presented. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. and ERP Environment.

No abstract

The residential sector uses nearly 30% of all electricity in Canada, and, it is important to know how this energy is being used, so that savings may be identified and realised. We propose a method that can be applied to hourly whole-house electrical energy data to partially disaggregate total household electricity use into five load categories/parameters (base load, activity load, heating season gradient, cooling season gradient and lowest external temperature at which air-conditioning is used). This paper develops the proposed method, and verifies it using high-resolution end-use data from twelve households with known characteristics. We then apply the method to hourly whole-house (smart meter) data from 327 households in Ontario. The roll-out of smart (advanced) metering infrastructure in many countries will make hourly whole-house data abundant, and we propose that this method could be widely applied by utilities to target their demand-side management programs towards households more likely to provide benefits, thus increasing the cost-effectiveness of such programs.

No abstract

The author attempts first to determine whether there are significant differences among the major oil companies' positions on global climate change, and second to discover the reasons behind any differences found. The investigation focuses upon Exxon and BP Amocoötwo of the world's largest oil companies. The differences between the two, with regard to their attitudes and actions on global climate change, are striking: whereas Exxon is continuing to act as one might initially expect (resisting proactive policies on climate change), BP Amoco appears more willing to contemplate a world that uses less oil. Attempts to explain these differences focus upon the companies' respective interests, their management structures, and their nationalities. It appears that all factors are important, at least to some degree. The paper concludes with a discussion of research limitations and suggestions. (1) The Economist (1997, page 102) called it``[breaking] ranks with other bosses of big oil firms by proclaiming his concern about climate change''. (2)``T here will be costs associated with the impact that global warming will have on the climate and on the rising of the seas. Losses may be incurred at offshore drilling platforms, for example. Shipping facilities may be adversely affected by the rising seas. Increases in temperature will affect the market for heating oil'' (UNCTC, 1992, page 52). (3) By`proactive' policies, I mean policies like those agreed in the Kyoto Protocol of December 1997. This treaty places legally binding emissions-reduction obligations upon industrialised countries. Specific targets vary; that is, they are`differentiated'. For example, the USA must reduce by 7% its 1990 levels by 2008^12; EU countries by 8%; and Canada by 6%. Though a number of countries have signed the Protocol, only two have ratified it to date. Hence, it has yet to come into force (