DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
 DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in

electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.
 Printed in the United States of America
Available from:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Price: 5'2)
Microfiche $3. ~ C4
Printed Copy ~· ( . <-tJ

NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Govern-
ment. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of
their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes
any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
 SERI/TR-354-245
UC CATEGORY: UC-59

RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY USERS:

) A ~EVIEW OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH AND
RELATED LITERATURE

CHARLES T. UNSELD
ROBIN CREWS

DECEMBER 1979
~------- ~c~;~ER. ~ - --- -- -~
This boOk was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.
Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
I
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for th~ accuracy,
completeness. or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or pro~ss d•sclosed .. ~r
represents that its use ....auld not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herem to any. spec•hc
mmmerci"' product. process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer. _or otherw•se. ~oes j
not necessarily constitute or imply 1ts enaorSl!mllHI, re-eommondation, nr favoflnQ by t.h.e Untied
States Government or any agency thereof, The views and opinions of authors expressed herem do not
L "'"""'"v ""'.,""'"tho" of the Unhed Stot" G""mment"' ••v ,..ncv the<eof. __ ;-

TASK No. 5637.20

Solar Energy Research Institute

1536 Cole Boulevard
GoldP.n, ~olorado 80401

A Division of Midwest Research Institute

Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Energy
Contract No. EG ·77· C ·01· 4042

DISJRIBUTION OF Tlllll DOCUM[rH 18 UNLI~I~Il

v~
 ~ ''1 .

. · THIS PAGE
WAS INTENTIONALLY
.
LEFTBLANK .
 - TR-245
s:~l~fl~ ---------------------------
FOREWORD

This report is a oroduct of the National Study of the Residential Solar Consumer, a joint
project of SERI's Analysis and Technology Commercialization Divisions. The overall goal
of the study is to provide a base of knowledge contributing to the formulation of policies
that will aid the accelerated commercialization and use of solar technologies.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of their many colleagues who have
shared information on solar energy users. Other project staff contributing to the report
include Barbara C. Farhar, Rebecca Vories, and Craig Piernot. Suggestions for revision
of ali earlier draft of this report were provided by Avraham Shama, SERI; Lynda Connor
and Eugene Frankel, DOE; Sheldon Butt, Solar Energy Industries Association; Jeffrey
Cook, Arizona State University; Dorothy Leonard-Barton, Stanford University; Doug
Lorriman, Energy Mines and Resources, Canada; Stephen Sawyer, University of Maryland;
and Seymour Warkov, University of Connecticut. Numerous study authors contributed to
the preparation of this report by providing information on completed or ongoing
research. Additional input was received from Stephen Spigel, Real Estate Research
Corporation; Diana Rains, California· Energy Commission; Herb Wade, Missouri Depart-
ment of Natural Resources; and Min Kantrowitz of Booz, Allen, and Hamilton.
~·

l It is hoped that this report will aid in coordinating the efforts of researchers attempting
;
to better understand and promote the application of solar energy technologies in the
J residential sector.

Approved for

SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Robert Odland, Chief

Institutional and Environmental
Assessment Branch

iii
Ill
Ill
_.,
~W~
~
-
$5~~~-; ________________________T_R_-_24_5

SUMMARY

Our nation has a goal of meeting 20% of national energy needs through solar energy
sources by the year 2000. A significant portion of this solar contribution will have to
occur in the residential sector,- which will require decisions on the part of numerous
individuals to adopt solar technologies. Estimates of present residential solar energy use
range from 30,000 to nearly 100,000 installed systems, and this figure is expected to
increase dramatically. Yet, little is known at present about the users of these systems,
the factors that motivated them to adopt solar technologies, and their experiences in
building or buying and living with solar energy systems. Better understanding of such
questions should prove invaluable in assessing the potential contribution of solar technol-
ogies in meeting national energy needs and in designing effective policies and programs
to accelerate the commercialization and implementation of these technologies.

The purpose of this review is to analyze the experiences of residential solar users to aid
in formulating policies relevant to solar commercialization. Fifteen studies of owners of
residential solar energy systems (representing all studies of this type identified by the
authors) are summarized. Four of the studies were small-sample case studies or relied ·
upon special data-gathering techniques, such as focus groups. The remaining 11 studies
employed questionnaires and represent interviews with over 1,600 solar users nation-
wide. 'The paper summarizes what is known frqm empirical research about the experi-
ences and demographic characteristics of solar energy users.

A discus.Sion section considers in-depth the following issues: satisfaction levels among
solar users; user reports of system performance; evidence of lack of .correlation between
reported satisfaction and performance; possible explanations for this discrepancy,
particularly the basis of user satisfaction (including expectations about and motivations
for adopting a solar energy system); the implications for consumer protection in the
residential solar energy sector; and empirical research needs.

The review led to the following general conclusions:

• There has been very little systematic empirical research on residential solar
users to date. The results of the research reviewed indicate that more
unanswered questions than systematic knowledge have resulted from this empir-
ical research. The present data base is not strong enough to permit the general-
ization of these findings for policy purposes. The best use of these empirical
findings is as a guide for future, more systematic research.
• The overall experiences with solar energy systems of the queried solar users have
been very positive, as determined by self-reports. This evidence alone is insuf-
ficient lu warrant conclusions that the experiences of future users will be
positive. However, if the opposite were true-that is, if large numbers of
surveyed users had reported negative experiences-there would be cause for
concern about the prospects for solar commercialization. This was not the
case. At the least, it is safe to conclude that high levels of reported satisfaction
provide hope that commercialization of solar technologies in the residential
sector can proceed rapidly but rationally and contribute to stated goals of
achieving a 20% solar contribution to the nation's total energy needs by the year
2000.
• There · is evidence that significant numbers of early solar installations have
experienced problems relating to design, insta1Jation, or operation. Such prob-
lems appear not to be readily apparent to many owners of systems. These

v
 - TR-245
S5~1~fi~ ---------------~---------

problems appear to be resolvable without major technological breakthroughs.

·That is, the available evidence indicates that presently available residential solar
energy systems are technologically ready for widespread commercialization.
However, accelerated commercialization will require increased attention to
improvements in all elements of the technology delivery system for solar energy-
including financing, system (rather than component) design~ installation, and
consumer education.
• Provision of adequate measures for consu.mer protection should be a priority for
those concerned with solar energy policies pertaining to commercialization in the
residential sector. The lack of adequate provisions in this area could potentially
hinder CO!llmercialization. However, the necessity for improving consumer
protection does not indicate the need for slowing commercialization at present.
• Much research remains to be done in the area of residential solar energy use.
Much more extensive and systematic research dealing with both present and
potential residential solar energy users should yield knowledge of direct rele-
vance to policy making and ~ommercialization in the residential sector.

Two appendices conclude this report. Appendix A provides a quick reference list of the
15 studies reviewed. Appendix B is an anryotated listing of 10 ongoing studies.

vi
S5~111ll _____________________T_R_-2_45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 Introduction .............................................................. . 1

1.1 Objective ...................................................... . 1

1.2 Overview ...................................................... . 1
1.3 Limitations of Studies Reviewed ..••.••••.•..........•..•••..••...• 2

2.0 Summar~es of Questionnaire Studies ......•......•.........•...•...•.•... 5

2.1 Solar Consumers: An Investigation toward Commercialization

(Cook, Conelly, Garrett; 197 7) ...•.•..••......•...•.•..•....•••..• 6
· 2.1.1 Background and Demographics •....•.....•..•.•..•••. ·..•...• 6
2 .1.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems .......•.•................•. 7
2.1.3 Objective ............ ~ ................................... . 7
2 .1.4 Research Findings ........................................ . 7
2.1.. 5 Conclusions .... !' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9
2.2 Low Energy Consuming Communities: Implications for Public
Policy (1-Iamrin; 1978) . ..................................• ........ . 9
2.2.1 Background and Demographics ....•.....•....••...•..•..•••• 9
2.2.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems ..•.................••..•.•. 10
2.2.3 Objective ............................................... . 11
2.2 .4 Research Findings ........... ·............................. . 11
2.2.5 Conclusions .............. ·............................... . 12
2.3 The Diffusion and Adoption of Solar Equipment among California
Homeowners: Report on a Pretest Study (Leonard-Barton;
197 8) ......................................................... . 14
· 2.3.1 Background and Demographics ..•.•.........•.••••.....••... 14
2.3.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems ............................ . 15
2.3.3 Objective ............................................... . 15
2.3.4 Research Findings ....................................... -.. 15
2.3.5 Conclusions .............. .- .............................. . 17
2.4 San Diego Gas and Electric Solar Water Heating Initia~ Purchaser
Analysis (Marylander Marketing Research, Inc.; 1978) ....•...•.....•. 17
2.4.1 Background and Demographics •...•..•.......•... ; .....•.... 17
2.4.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems ..••..•.•................•.. 17
2.4.3 Objective ............................................... . 18
2.4.4 Research Findings ........................................ . 18
2.4.5 Conclusions ............................................. . 18
2.5 Working Papers on Marketing and Market Acceptance:· Residential
Solar Demonstration Program. Volume· 1: Preliminary Findings
and Analysis (Real Estate Research Corporation; 1978) .....•..•..•••. 19
2.5.1 Background and Demographics ....•.....•........••.•......• 19
2.5.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems •.•..........•......•....•.. 20
2.5.3 Objective .......................................... ·..... . 21
2.5 .4 Research Findings ........................................ . 21
2.5.5 Conclusions ........ ~ .................................... . 22
2.6 A Survey of Solar Consumers in Northeastern and Southwestern '
United States (Sawyer; 1979) .•..•.••. ·.•....••..•..•· ...•......••.. 22
2.6.1 Background and Demographics ••......•..•..••....•....•.•.. 22
2.6.:l Characteristics of Solnr Systems •.......••• , •.••.•.••.....•• 23

vii
 TR-245
!;:5~1 1~1---------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

2.6.3 Objective ............................................· ... . 23

2.6.4 Research Findings ........................................ . 23
2.6 .5 Conclusions .............................................. . 25
2.7 Socioeconomic Factors Affecting the Adoption of Household Solar
Technology (Sparrow, Warkov, Kass; 1978) ••••••••.•..•••••••••.•••. 25
2.7 .l Background and Demographics ...•......•................... 25
2. 7.2 Characteristics of Solar SystP.ms ......••• , •.......••........ 26
2.'1 .J Objective .. ·.......................... ,,, ........ ~ ....... . 26
2.7 .4 Research Findings ..............••••••.•••..............••. ~6
~.7.5 Cor•c~l•Jsions ........••.................................... 26
2.8 Solar Energy and Today's Consumer (Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigation's; 1~7R) ..•••••••• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 27
2.8.1 Background ·and Demographics ..........•.......•..........• 27
2.8 .2 Characteristics of Solar Systems ........•................•.• 27
2.8.3 Objective ......................................... ·...... . 28
2.8 .4 Research Findings ....................... ·................. . 28
2.8.5 Conclusions ............................................... . 29
2.9 Solar Adopters and Near-Adopters: A Study of the HUD Solar Hot
Water Grant Program (Warkov; 1979) •••...•••••••••••.•..••••••.•• 30
2.9.1 Background and Demographics ............................. . 30
2.9.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems .....·~ ..•••.............•... 31
2.9.3 Objectives ............. , ........... ~ ..........• , •......... 31
2.9 .4 ltesearch Findings ......................................... . 31
2.9.5 Conclusions ............................................. . 32
. 2.10 Missouri Solar Consumer Survey (Wilson; 1979) ••.. , .....••••••••••••• 33
2.10.1 Background and Demogt"aphics ........••.........•........•. 33
2.10 .2 Cha1·acteristics of Solar Systems ....••............•••••••... 34
2.10.3 Objective ............................................... . 34
2.1 0.4 Research Findings .................................. • ..... . 34
2.10.5 ConclusiOns .............................................. . 36
2.11 Solar Commercialization: The Consumer Experience (Yarosh and
Litka; 1978) ............... , ................................... . 37
2.11.1 Background and Demographics •............•••••...........• 37
2.11.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems ......•.............•...•... 37
2 .11.3 Objective .............................. '·' ............... . 37
2.11.4 Research Findings ............................... , , ....... '!' 38
2 .11.5 ConcllJSions .....••....................................... 38

3.0 Sum maries of Special Studies . • • • . . . . . . . . • . . . • • • . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . 39

3.1 Perceptual Assessment of a New Energy Concept

(Lorriman; 1976) .... ~.......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 Low-Income Solar Housing Project Analysis (Towle; 1978).............. 40
3.3 Citizen Participation in the Domestic Policy Review of
Solar Energy (Farhar, Unseld, Caputo, Easterling; 1979) . . . • . • . • • • • • • • 41
3.4 Attitudes, Usage Patterns, and System Characteristics among
Owners of Solar Pool Heaters and Owners of Solar Water
Heaters (Marylander Marketing Research, Inc.; 1976) • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • 42

viii ·
 TR-245

. TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)

3.4.1 Solar Water Heater Owners ....••...••..•..••.•... 42

3.4.2 Solar Pool Heater Owners ......... ·· •.....•...•.•• 43

4.0 Observations on Samples ............................................... 45

4.1 Age ........••...•...•... 45
4.2 Race .. 45
4.3 Gender ..................................................... 45
4.4 Income .....................•...................... 45
4.5 Educational Level 46
4.6 Occupation ..... . .... 46
4·.7 Family Structure .......................... . 46
4.8 Solar Systems ..•.......•.... 47

5.0 Discussion: User Satisfaction and System Performance. 49

5.1 Empirical Data ................................................. . 49

5.2 Discrepancies Between Satisfaction and Performance ...••• 52
5.3 Possible Explana:tions for Observed Discrepancies .. 60
5.3.1 Invisibility of Problems ......•. 60
5.3.2 Definition of Problems ...•..... • .... .. 61
5.3.3 Dissonance Reduction ••..•. 61
5.3.4 The Role of Expectations ... 62
5.3.5 The Role of Motivations & Values 63
5.3.6 The Typicality of Present Users 63
5.4 Consumer Protection ............................. . 66
6.0 Implications for Future Research. 69

7 .0 General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

References ....· ........................................ . 75

Appendix A: Bibliography of Empirical Studies of Residential Solar
Energy Users ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B: · Annotated Bibliography of Ongoing or Planned Studies of

Residential Solar Energy Users. ~ ..••.....•........•. B-1

ix
><
 -
s:~l~fl~ ------------------------
. TR-245

LIST OF FIGURES

5-1 Adopter Categorization on the Basis of lnnovativeness .....................

•.
64

LIST OF TABLES

5-1 Reported Satisfaction with Solar Energy System •...•..••..•••• ; • • • • • • • . • . • 50

5-2 Site Visit Characterization of System Status . . • • • • • • . . • • . . • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • . 54

5-3 Category Identification: FSEC Site Inspections • • . • • . • . • •.• • • . . . • . • • . • • • . • • 59

xi
 - TR-245
!;:5~1 1~1---------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to review identified studies of residential solar energy
users to (l) summarize knowledge about residential solar users revealed through empiri-
cal research and (2) provide a guide to subsequent research on solar users by identifying
research gaps and by suggesting profitable directions for further research~

1.2 OVERVIEW

There are an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 residential solar energy systems in this country,
and the number is expected to increase dramatically over the next several decades.*
Yet, little is known at present about the users of these systems, the factors that moti-
vated them to adopt solar technologies, and their experiences in building or buying and
living with solar energy systems. Better understanding of such questions should prove
invaluable in assessing the potential contribution of solar technologies in meeting
national energy needs and in designing effective policies and programs to accelerate the
commercialization and implementation of these technologies.

Given the potential value of information about residential solar energy users, surprisingly
few empirical studies of this population have been conducted to date. This report is
based on a review of 15 empirical studies of residential solar energy users conducted
during 1976-1978. These 15 studies "represent all existing empirical studies of solar
owners identified by the authors.** Four are special studies, unique in their meth-
odologies or having very small sample sizes. The remaining 11 studies utilized question-
naires, and together provide information gathered from over 1,600 solar users. Two
studies included small samples that were distributed across the country; one covered the
northeastern and southwestern regions of the United States. The remaining studies took

*This estimated present use includes solar hot water and/or space heating systems, the
overwhelming majority of which are hot water systems. Projections range from 11
million residential units as a base case to a technical limit of 37 million units by the year
2000 (U.S. DOE 1978). This is a conservative estimate of present use of active systems
and further excludes passive solar applications. Booz, Allen, and Hamilton estimate total
residential solar ·heating and cooling installations, excluding pool installations, to be in
the range of 55,000 to 60,000 (Ward 1979), while the Solar Energy Institute of North
America estimates over 90,000 such units (1979). The number of solar installations in
California alone is estimated by that state's Department of Consumer Affairs to be
30,000 (including pool installations), representing about one-third of all known installa-
tions in the country (Ramsay and Niland 1979).

**See Appendix A, Bibliography of Empirical Studies of Residential Solar Energy Users.

Summaries of the studies appear in this report alphabetically by author. Exclude·d from
this review are studies of solar energy systems in which data (primarily on operating
characteristics of systems) were gathered without direct contact with solar users (for ex-
ample, Smith et al. 1977; Bezdek, Hirshberg, and Babcock 1979).

1
 - TR-245
!&5:~11~1---------------------------------------------------------------

place in Arizona (l), California (4), Connecticut (l), Florida (l), Michigan (1), Mis-
souri (l), and Wisconsin (l).*

This report first summarizes the sample characteristics, research findings, and conclu-
sions of all 15 studies. Comparative analyses of the sample characteristics and solar
system characteristics from the 11 questionnaire studies follow the summaries. The
discussion section deals with four issues of importance to commercialization: user
satisfaction, system performance, and implications for both commercialization and
consumer protection. The section on research needs outlines a research agenda for
further empirical work in this area. Finally, general conclusions are drawn, based on the
review.

1.3 T.TMTTATIONS OF STUDI:fl; REVIEWED

Since the universe of preseul sular users b unknown, it f~ irnpossible to assess the g~n­
eralizability of the results of these studies to a larger population of solar users. That is,
one cannot· know the exl~::nt to which rm:earch ffnrHne-s are atypical and result from
special characteristics of studied populations or, conversely, the extent to which these
research findings can be utilized to make policy decisions regarding commercialization of
solar technologies in the general residential sector. The safest assumption to make is
that the findings are not generalizable but provide preliminary information on present
solar energy users in the nation. In general, however, where a convergence of findings is
discovered across samples of different regions and sociodemographic characteristics,
there is some basis for giving greater weight to this information. Where divergent or
contradictory results are found, this information can only be regarded as preliminary and
suggestive of areas for subsequent, more systematic research efforts. "'

Another caveat is that the information yielded by these studies is obviously a function of
what questions were asked by researchers. Since researchers had different research
objectives and used different data collection methods, the type and quality of informa-
tion yielded by these studies varies widely.

Many of the studies reviewed here are preliminary in nature, and they vary widely in
sophistication of experimental design and reporting of findings and conclusions. Few
studies reported detailed information on how samples were drawn. None of the studies
employed random sampling, the universe of solar users being unknown. Almost none of
the studies employed control g·t·oups or statistical tests of significance -of finciings. Most
findings were reported as percentages of samples; a few simply reported raw data.
Often, there was ambiguity in meaning of results as reported by study authors. The
summaries of the studies found below will necessarily represent the quality of the
information available in reports provided by study authors.

A final, major limitation of most of the studies reviewed here concerns the lack of a firm
theoretical basis on which to interpret research findings. Most studies appeared to be of
an ad hoc nature. Several studies (Hamrin 1978; Leonard-Barton 1978; Sparrow et al.
1978; Warkov 1979) made general reference to the body of theory associated with diffu-
sion of innovations (Rogers and Shoemaker 1971) and tested specific hypotheses. Others
(Hamrin 1978; Sawyer 1979) referred to various other social science theories and again
tested hypotheses. Even given these cases, there is, yet, no body of empirical knowledge

*One study took place in three states.

2
 /."'~ TR-245
!SS:~I ~~~---------------------------------------------------------------

generated by theoretically based research that canserve as a basis for interpreting or

judging the validity of research results.

Given the preliminary and exploratory nature of most of the research reviewed here, the
above observation is not offered as criticism of particular research projects. It is a
caution against possible attribution of greater validity to specific research findings than
the state ofi the art warrants, and to emphasize the need for more systematic and
theoretically grounded research efforts.

Because of these limitations, it is important to emphasize that this review is intended to

be used primarily as a research tool. Summarizing existing knowledge and identifying
research needs are important prerequisites to subsequent research. Because of the
rapidly changing nature of solar utilization as well as the above-cited caveats regarding
the quality of research or generalizability of results, it is only with great caution that
the information summarized here can be used for policy-making purposes. Fortunately,
the quality of research projects in this area is improving and the number of empirical
studies is growing. Appendix B of this report lists those studies identified as current· or
planned. When the findings of these studies are available, the information base for policy
makers should be much more reliable, current, and policy-relevant.

3
-.
 -
$=~ 1 ·,·, ----------·-----------o....:T-=R:._:-2=:-=4=-5
~~~

SECTION 2.0

SUMMARIES OF QUESTIONNAIRE STUDIES

Eleven studies of solar users employing questionnaires as data-gathering instruments are

reviewed below. These are:

• Solar Consumers: An Investigation toward Commercialization (Cook etal. 1977)

• Low Energy Consuming Communities: Implications for Public Policy (Hamrin
1978)
• The Diffusion and Adoption of Solar Equipment among California Homeowners:
Report on a Pretest Study (Leonard-Barton 1'978)
• San D}ego Gas and Electric Solar Water Heating Initial Purchaser Analysis
(Marylander Marketing Research, Inc. 1978)'
• Working Papers on Marketing and Market Acceptance: Residential Solar Demon-
stration Program. Volume 1: Preliminary Findings and Analysis (Rea,l Estate
Research· Corporation 1978)
• A Survey of Solar Consumers in Northeastern and Southwestern United States
(Sawyer 1979)
'
• Socioeconomic Factors Affecting the Adoption of Household Solar Technology
(Sparrow et al. 1978) ·
• Solar Energy and Today's Consumer.(Subcqmmittee on Oversight and Investiga-
tions 1978)
• Solar Adopters and Near-Adopters: A Study of the ·HUD Solar Hot Water Grant
Program (Warkov 1979)
• Missouri Solar Consumer Survey (Wilson 1979)
• Solar Commercialization: The Consumer Experience (Yarosh & Litka 1978)

To portray the characteristics of solar users whose experiences have been empirically
researched to date, this paper ·summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of the
samples and the solar energy systems employed by the samples. Research findings and
conclusions drawn by each study's author(s) are presented in summary fashion.

The conclusions presented here are based primarily on data gathere9 from solar users;
they relate to such issues of central concern in this review as user experiences, user
satisfaction, and marketing of solar technologies. A few studies provided conclusions
about or recommendations for much broader policy issues, such ·as appropriate research
and development 'priorities for various energy technologies. These' broad~r ·conclusions·
are not reported here in detail.

5
. ~ $=,1~r=·;1
- .Z-s·)
--------------------------·
.
_T_R_-_24_5

2.1 SOLAR CONSUMERS: AN INVESTIGATION TOWARD COMMERCIALIZATION·

(COOK, CONELLY, GARRETI'; 1977)

2.1.1 Bael<grotmd and Demographies

Data Collection Period: May-June 1977

Study Site: Maricopa County, Arizona (metropolitan Phoenix and

surrounding area)

Sample Size*: 26 Users**

Data Collection Method; filct!-lO-fHct:: iut..::rviews

Sociodemographic Characteristics:

Age: average= 46.5 years; 46% 50-65; none under 31

Race: 96% white

Gender: 88% male

Household Income: 5% under $10,000

24% $10,000-:$20,000
71% over $20,000

Occupation: 88% professional, managerial, or administrative

Educational Level: average = 18 years

0% less than high school
5% high school
31% some college/colleg~ degree
61% graduate studies

Poiitictil Affiliation: 48% Republican

24% independent
16% Democrat
12% conservative

*Sample size indicates the number of respondents (households) included in each study.
When referring to "users," this number is synonymous with the number of solar homes
and/or solar energy systems (installations). Generally, this number is smaller than the
number of individuals using solar energy; i.e., a couple or a family of solar users is repre-
sented by only one respondent in the sample.

-**Sample was not random, but was "assumed to provide a representative sample of the var-
ious types of solar installations found in the county."

6
 · = TR-245.
!;55~1 1 ~1--------------------------------------------------------~-------

2.1.2 Charaeteristies of Solar Systems

• 21 residential, 5 commercial
• 12 domestic hot water
. 1 space heat ·
5 pool heating
6 hot water and space heat
1 space and pool heating
1 hot water, space, and pool heating
• 20 purchased
6 constructed by owner, not purchased
• Cost: $25.00-$18,000.00 per system

. 2.1.3 Objeetive

Data collection focused on the following general topics.

• Identification of motivations .for solar purchases.

• The role of existing solar users in the dissemination of information about solar
equipment.
• Behavior patterns of various types of solar users.

2.1.4 .Research Findings

• Most solar users reported a long period of awareness about solar products pre-
ceding serious personal interest in solar applications. A combination of personal
experience (e.g., visits to solar facilities), mass media exposure, and public
education (e.g., conferences and short courses) assured that solar technology w·as
included in energy-related decisions.
• The period of deliberation for a solar purchase varied from more than two years
to less than one month and was affected by such. factors as amount ·of financial
commitment, degree of difficulty in installing the unit, complexity of the
decision-making process, confidence in the products, amount of investigation,
and opinions of trusted friends. There was a strong trend toward reduced delib-
eration time over the period 1971-1977.
• In addition to awareness of solar technologies, the following were identified as
supplying an impetus in the decision-making process.
Incr·eases in utility rates.
Gas shortages or a moratorium on gas hookups.
Construction of a new home.
Moving to a new residence.
Initiation of a new business vent.ure.
Necessary replacement of existing mechanical system.

7
 - TR-245.
!;5:~1 1~1-----------------------------------------------------------------

Impatience with rate of social response to energy and environmental prob-

lems.
• Half the respondents shared with others (spouses, business associates) the process
of making a decision to use a solar energy system.
• Acquisition of reliable information was found to be important to the deliberation
process. The most influential sources, in descending order, were public libraries,
owners of other solar installations, donated professional advice, relatives or
friends, sales personnel, educational institutes, government agencies or repre-
sentatives, paid professionals (architects, engineers), and special interest groups
(e.g., Sierra Club). Articles in popular magazines (e.g., Sunset, Popular
Mechanics) and newspapers were the most important type of literature.* Adver-
tisements in magazines, journals, and newspapers had virtually no influence on
the decision.
• Most of the respondents made cost comparisons between solar installations and
conventional systems. Those who purchased systems were more likely to make
:such L"UIIl~Mri:suws lllMH ll•u:se whu built their own systems. Life-cost analyses
were done by 11% of those who compared costs. When comparisons were made
among solar systems, comparisons were for only two or three systems. The
choice to install a "do-it-yourself" system was often compared to such activities
as home remodeling, building a shortwave radio, or restoring an antique car.
• Fewer than half of the respondents could estimate monthly operating costs of
their solar equipment. Half monitored fuel costs. Thirty-eight percent had
applied for or planned to apply for an Arizona tax rebate; others had not heard of.
it or were confused about it. None reported increases in homeowner's insurance.
• Justifications for the purchase were as follows, ranked by primary considera-
tion: cost effectiveness, personal gratification, financial return, social-environ-
mental impact, and quality of services. Decisions about cost effectiveness were
related to the type of and recent cost increases in utilities used prior to the
installation of the solar system.
· • Information on "lifestyle" (e.g., transportation and household consumption be-
haviors) indicated that the reported behavior of users (i.e., purchase of a solar
system) was consistent with stated reasons for their behaviors, such as cost
consciousness and personal satisfaction. However, expressions of concern for.
conservation were seldom realized in actual consumer activity.
• Present solar users appeared to be an important source of information about
solar energy for potential users. The users were likely to be members of organi-
zations, often in leadership roles. They did not appeAr to he highly knowledgl?!-
able about the field, however, as measured by their ability to identify solar
experts and provide references to solar literature.
• In general, the users were highly satisfied with the service provided by solar
installers, despite the fact that most had some difficulties with their equipment
(27% had no problems; 50% had minor problems; 19% had 1-2 major problems; 4%
had serious problems). Satisfaction with the systerns wMS high (69% were very

*Respondents were asked "to rank the influence of various types of literature on their
/
decision to adopt solar technology." Other sources, in descending order of importance,
include nonfiction books, articles in technical journals, advertisements in magazines or
journals, advertisements in newspapers, and fiction books.

8
 - TR-245
!;:5~1 1~1------------------------------------------------------------~---

satisfied; 19% were moderately pleased; 4% were satisfied; 8% were somewhat

disappointed; 0% were very disappointed).*.

2.1.5 Conclusions

• The study authors concluded that the "stereotype of solar users as young, liberal
environmentalists living on limited budgets appears to be wrong". Users were
mostly middfe-aged, conservative professionals with relatively high incomes,
characterized by a 'practical outlook on life, the ability to make independent
judgments, sufficient monetary resources to make the purchase, and high
achievement motivation. "Do-it-yourselfers," however, were more likely than
others to be more concerned with social and ecological issues, have more exten-
sive technical training, and have _smaller budgets. ·
• Most solar users had strong economic motivations for adoption and expected
payback periods of less than eight years.
• Most indicated satisfaction with their systems relating to their association of
solar ·energy use with such attributes as conservation, innovation, social responsi-
~ bility, and technical ingenuity.
• Owners are important sources' of information to potential owners. They are
encouraging to potential users because of their satisfaction, but they frequently
are not up-to-date on technical information.
• Solar consumers generally were favorable in their views of installers but criti-
cized the salesmen who were ignorant of products or who made exaggerated
claims and criticized companies where solar equipment was sold as a sideline.
• The authors found that the immediate market was for· pool heaters and domestic
hot water systems, with solar cooling as a market with consumer interest.
• Based on reduced deliberation periods evidencing greater consumer confidence,
growing interest, and high levels of consumer satisfaction, the authors concluded
that solar technology is perceived as a reasonable investment.

2.2 LOW ENERGY CONSUMING COMMUNITIJ<l;: IMPUCATIONS FOR PUBUC POL-

ICY (HAMRIN; 1978)

2.2.1 Baekgrotmd and Demographies

Data Collection Period: November 1976-June 1977

Study Sites: Hemet and Davis, California. One "experimental group"

of users (purchasers of solar homes in energy-conserving
subdivisions) and one "control group" of nonusers (pur-
chasers of conventional homes in neighboring subdivi-
sions) were studied in each site. Although the "experi-
mental group" homes in both Hemet and Davis were

*For exact wording of survey items concerned with users' levels of satisfaction, see Table
5-1. The following six studies include items on users' levels of satisfaction: Cook et al.
1977; Marylander 1978; RERC 1978; Sawyer 1979; Warkov 1979; Yarosh et al. 1978.

. 9
S:S~IIIll ----------------~-------T_R_-_2_45

similar in their incorporation of solar systems and

energy-conserving features, they were not necessarily
intended to be similar in other respects. The members
of control groups in both Hemet and Davis purchased
conventional homes in a subdivision in the vicinity of
the experimental group; the homes were constructed at
approximately the same time and were of the same· gen-
eral price and size range. ·

Sample Size: users-Davis, 50; Hemet, 15

. nonusers-Davis, 50; Hemet, 15

Data Collection Method: face-to-face interviews

Sociodemographic Characteristics (users):

Hemet Davis

Age: mean= 47 years mean =31 years

Household
Income: mean = $16,833 mean= $16,140

Occupation: majority "skilled" 38% "professional"

or "semiskilled" 32% student, housewife,
retired, or unemployP.ci

Educational
Level: · 15% less than high school 4% high school graduate
3696 high school gt·aduate 38% some college
30% oome college 29% college graduate
12% college graduate or 29% some graduate studies or
· graduate degree graduate degree

Other: 47% households with children 22% households with children

54% single heads of households

2.2.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems

Hemet: New subdivision homes with high insulation and active water and space heating
systems.

Davis: New subdivision homes; all oriented north-south; all highly insulated; 9 units with
some passive design features; 24 units with solar domestic water heaters; 16
units with wood-burning stoves for supplemental heat.

10
$5~1 t"-~, _________________________T_R_-_2_45
\,.-=-/

2.2.3 Objective ·

The study attempted to describe variables and generate a model for predicting energy
consumption and general conservation behavior from different energy-conserving housing
alternatives for use in public policy decision making. Specifically, the study attempted
to d~termine the actual impact of new conservation community developments upon
energy consumption and to assess the implications for public policy relevant to the
societal costs and benefits of these types of developments.

2.2.4 Research Findings

• Those persons included in the Davis experimental group tended to be white, well
educated, young professionals earning a moderate income. Most were single or
recently married; most were active in various leisure-time activities. Further-
more, residents in this group tended to perceive themselves as "politically.
liberal, independent_ thinkers, artistic, to value self-sufficiency, and to believe
that they could influence what happens in the world around them." Most believed
that there is or will be a "serious energy problem which will not be solved by the
government or science."
• Those persons included in the Hemet experimental group tended to be under 30
years old in semiskilled occupations or over 50 years ·old and retired. The adults
-all married, white, and "moderately educated"-tended to perceive themselves
as "politically conservative, practical, independent thinkers who valued self-
sufficiency." Persons in this group tended to watch television, be active in
church activities, and involve themselves in projects in and around the house.
These residents "did not tend to believe that there is or would be a serious energy
problem nor that government or science would solve the world's problems."
• The attitudes, interests, and opinions of the Davis and Hemet eXperimental
groups (users) were similar in the following manner: both groups saw themselves
as independent thinkers, though not necessarily leaders;· both "felt positively
about their jobs and the future"; both considered themselves as "do-it-your-
selfers" and felt communities should work toward self-sufficiency; neither group
believed that science or the government would "solve ~he world's problems."
• The Hemet control group tended to be much more neutral than the Hemet eXper-
imental group in the areas of job satisfaction, the government's (vs. the indi-
vidual's) ability to solve the "energy problem," and the necessity of communities
becoming as self-sufficient as possible. In Davis, there were several areas with a
statistically significant difference between the exprimental and control groups.
The control group placed more value than did the experimental group on the need
for privacy and family obligations, whereas the experimental group emphasized
the importance of friends and community. On the· other hand, the control group
agreed more strongly than did the experimental group with the statement, "It is
important to help those less fortunate than yourself." Finally, the experimental
group believed much more strongly than did the control group that there are
definite energy and resource shortages facing the country and that they can do
something about them.
• The Davis and Hemet experimental groups differed in that the Davis group
"believed strongly that there ~re or will be severe energy problems in the near
future" whereas the Hemet group "tended toward neutrality or disbelief on this
topic." In additiqn, the Hemet experimental group "expressed stronger feelings

11
 TR-245
S5~1

of loyalty toward their family and a greater need for peer approval than did the
Davis experimental group."

• While both Davis groups agreed with the statement, "It is morally wrong to own a
large automobile," the Hemet groups disagreed (at 0.001 level). The responses
are consistent with reported behavior: 80% of the Hemet experimental group
residents owned full-sized cars compared to 37% of the Davis experimental group
residents.
• The Davis experimental group belonged to significantly more conservation or-
ganizations and cooperatives than did the Hemet experimental group. Moreover,
both the experimental and control groups in Davis participated in significantly
~ more recycling activities than either of the Hemet groups.
• The Davis experimental group "participated more in everything" (e.g., reading,
llstemng to mustc, stttmg, thmkmg, buildmg things, entertaining. taking classes.
attending movies, and participating in all sports activities). -In contrast, the
Hemet experimental group attended church group activities and watched televi-·
sion more than the Davis experimental group.
• Appliance ownership and use varied significantly between the Davis and Hemet
experimental groups. The Hemet group had more frost-free refrigerators and
more houses with larger refrigerators. In addition, the Hemet experimental
group. had more gas ranges, garbage disposers, dishwashers, washing machines,
microwave ovens, color television sets, and central air conditioning systems than
the Davis experimental group.
• The experimental communities in Davis and Hemet used significantly less total
energy than the control communities in the same cities. Although the Davis
experimental households used significantly less electricity than the Hemet ex-
perimental households, there was no significant difference between the two
experimental groups in mean total energy consumed.

2.2.5 Conelusions

The study report includes numerous conclusions and policy recommendations, many of
which fo(!us on differential energy consumption by owners of innovative and conventional
housing. The following are selected summaries of some of the conclusions that are most
relevant to the purposes of this review.

It is important to reiterate the study author's caution about the generalizability of the
results of the study: "Because both experimental subdivisions were unique at the time of
the study and did not represent a random sample, the results cannot be generalized to a
larger population in existence at this time. However, when considered in conjunction
with other research data on related topics, the results should contribute to a better
understanding of the impact of housing developments designed to be low energy consum-
ing and the process of disseminating innovative ideas and technology."

• The study author hypothesized that residents in the experimental groups would
have a significantly higher average income and more formal education, represent
a higher proportion of persons in the "professional" occupational categories, and
have significantly fewer children living with them than would residents in con-
ventional housing. However, there was no statistically significant difference
between either of the two sets of experimental and control groups with regard to

12
 /-=, TR-245
S ::~1 ~~~---------------------------------------------------------------

average income, formal education, or proportion of persons in "professional"

occupational categories. On the other hand, the Davis experimental group had
significantly fewer households with children than did the Davis control group.
• Sociodemographic characteristics of the Davis experimental group are consistent
with Rogers' (1962) description of innovators as younger and having a more
favorable financial position and high social status. Moreover, the sociodemo-
graphic characteristics of the Davis experimental group also correspond to those
of persons sympathetic to Voluntary Simplicity, as described by Elgin and
Mitchell (1976); e.g., 19 to 39 years of age, middle- to upper-class background,
white, and well educated.
• Though there is the potential for many benefits from the use of innovative tech-
nology and creative subdivisions similar to the ones included in this study, for the
present they tend to benefit primarily white, middle- to upper-income house-
holds.
• The two types of experimental communities included in this study appeared to
satisfy the housing needs of two different subpopulations with different lifestyle
characteristics. The Hemet subdivision provided a "technological fix" for persons
who wanted to save energy but not change their lifestyles. The Davis develop-
ment offered an opportunity for people who wanted greater self-sufficiency, but
it required some behavioral and lifestyle patterns or changes that might not
appeal to the majority of the population at the present time, although this· could
be changed in the future.
• The innovative housing (in Davis and Hemet) included in this study tended to be
selected by people at the early or late stages of the family cycle. Persons
selecting the experimental housing tended to have fewer. children and/or fewer
children over I 0 years old than did persons selecting the control group housing.
• The persons in this study who selected housing in subdivisions that used innova-
tive technology exclusively as the method for saving energy (i.e., the Hemet
experimental group) did not exhibit conservation behavior as strong as that of
people in conventional housing. They appeared to feel that the "hardware" would
take care of the conservation and that they did not have to do anything more.
They felt that they had made their contribution to energy conservation by
selecting a solar house.
• The self-concept of people as innovators was found to be related to the person's
reference group as much as to the ideas or innovation they had adopted.
• The perception of a house as experimental and/or innovative appeared to be
related to its location (e.g., the number of other similar houses constructed in
the same neighborhood) and the aesthetic design of the house. There appeared to
be a greater appeal and acceptance of innovative housing technology and design
when it was part of a whole subdivision than when it was a single home among a
group of conventional houses. There wa.s 11 wider support system for individual
homeowners should they have technical problems, a broader base of information
related to conservation behavior and technology, and more encouragement and
enthusiasm for experimentation.
• Rt:!spondents in both experimental and control groups tended to buy a house with
all the appliances as offered by the builder/developer unless they were en- -
couraged to consider alternative combinations.

13
s=~~ ("~ 1 -~-----------------------T_R_-_24_5
'-=-/

• Solar users who believed there is or will be a serious energy problem exhibited
other attitudes and behavior consistent with that belief (e.g., ownership of fewer
energy-consuming appliances, energy conservation, etc). However, solar users
who did not believe there is or will be a serious energy problem did not exhibit
other.attitudes and behaviors consistent with that belief.
• Both types of experimental communities used significantly less total energy than
did their respective control groups. In Hemet, the experimental group used 25%
less total energy than did the control group. In Davis, the experimental group
used 56% less total energy than did the control group. '

2.3 THE DIFPUSIOlf AND ADOPTION OF SOLAR EQUIPMENT AMONG CALIFORNIA

HOMEOWNERS; REPORT ON A PRET.EST STUDY (T.,EON ARD-BARTON; 1978)

2.3.1 Baekgrotmd and Demographics

Data Collection Period: Spring 1978

Study Site: Palo Alto/Mt. View· area (San Francisco Bay a·rea),
California

Sample Size: 25 (19 users; 3 in process of installation; 3 with cost

estimates for installation)

Data Collection Method: face-to-face interviews

Sociodemographic Characteristics:

Age*-• 22.7% 2:1-34 y~l:l.l"::i

43.2% 35-44 years
22.7% 45-54 years
11.3% over 55 years

Household Income: 96% over $25,000

24% over $50,000

Occupn ti ons: primarily professionals

Marital Status: all but one married (most with preteen or teenage
chi1c1rP.n)

Some of the respondents were associated with a group ("Creative Initiative") committed
to promoting alternative energy systems.

*Includes solar users and their spouses.

14
S5~11fll _______________________T_R_-2_4_5

2.3.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems

• All residential, retrofit

• 16 domestic hot water
9 pool heaters
• All purchased systems
• 15 of 25 had systems installed by a firm
• Most systems purchased from Alten Co. (founded by former nuclear engineers)

2.3.3 Objective

The study grew from an interest in investigating the technical, environmental, economic,
and social feasibility of the "soft path." The study intended to answer the following
questions about solar adopters.

• What sources of information brought solar equipment to their attention?

• What considerations entered the decision· process on adoption?
• What motivated adopters?.
• How satisfied are users with their equipment?
• Are interpersonal communications important in the decision process?
• What is the role of government in the diffusion process?

2.3.4 Research Findings

• The sample was discovered to exemplify people who "take actions based on a
cohesive philosophy of life"; they were for the most part young, wealthy profes-
sionals with families.
• "Do-it-yourselfers" tended to draw their information about solar technologies
from technical books arid articles initially, and later to rely on workshops,
lectures, and the advice of solar manufacturers. Purchasers of installed systems
were made aware of and persuaded to buy solar systems by their peers. Such
"interpersonal channels" of infor.mation were: sellers of solar equipment, friends
or neighbors, alternative technology groups, and workshops and lectures. Sunset
and Popular Mechanics were cited also as information sources.
• Many responde.nts said that noneconomic factors were primary considerations in
. their decision to adopt solar technologies; most emphasized environmental and
conservation concerns. Other considerations included aesthetics, equipment
reliability, effects on. property value, and structural feasibility of installing
equipment.
• Many of the perceived barriers to solar diffusion suggested by the literature were
not very important to the decision process of these users, including:,
Issues of solar access. ·
Fears of purchasing obsolescent equipment or that prices would drop after the
purchase was made.

15
 - TR-245
5 =~~~-~--------------------
-~.

Problems of obtaining financing.

Possibilities of shortages in cloudy periods.
Fears of increased property tax assessments.
Problems in obtaining insurance coverage for systems.
• The following represent the decision-making cons.iderations of the sample in rank
order:
The contribution of solar energy to easing the energy shortage.
Initial cost of equipment.
Lack of harmful effe~t~ on the environment.
Nut J·1o.vin~ to pay monthly C'nrrgy hillR.
Reltablli ty uf sulat• firms and supplier3.
Opet•ating reliability of equipment.
Not being forced to reduce energy consumption in the near future.
Possible increase in resale value of house.
• The author roughly categorized the respondents into four classes:
"Ecologists" (N = 10) who would have purchased a solar system whether it is
economical or not, who ex{>ressed concern about the environment,, and who
felt that solar energy is consistent with views of an ideal way of life and
better future society.
"Tinkerers" (N =:n who were intrigued by innovative technology and who
enjoy working with their hands.
"Comfort/convenience people" (N = 1) who saw solar energy as a means of
meeting their· IIP.P.t18 without feeling guilty about onargy u~e.
"Economy-minded people" (N = 9) who invested in solar energy primarily to
save money.
• The respondents were satisfied overall with their systems, and all indicated they
would install solar equipment in a new home if they move in the future. Two
were dissatisfied-one whose homemade equipment froze and broke, ancl one whu
felt that his system was oversold because his family could not swim in a solar-
healell !Juul throughout winter. Nono felt their equipment rPC]uired Rny special
maintenance, and two reported changes in family routine as a result of installing
solar equipment.
• Estimates uf payback periods varied willcly. Many estimates appcnrcd to be
guesses rather than calculated estimates.
• About two-thirds of the respondents said that the decision to adopt solar energy .
was not difficult or· compared it to the decision to purchase an appliance. The
remainder equated the difficulty of the decision to adopt solar energy with tha:t
of purchasing a house, or said that the decision was very difficult.

16
 - TR-245
5 ::~1
-~.
1~1------------------------------~------------------------------­

2.3.5 Conclusions

• The author concluded that present solar equipment owners will have a major role
in the diffusion of solar equipment because they (l) are aware of their innovative
roles; (2) are satisfied, even enthusiastic, about their systems; and (3) appear to
be "spreading the word" about solar energy. ·
• The author found evidence of an increasing acceptance of a "soft" energy path
with values shifting in a direction of desire for spirituality (as opposed to mater-
ialism), harmony with nature, and a desire for self-sufficiency. In fact, "people's
values and attitudes may be much more important in the diffusion of residential
solar energy use than in other types of innovations," although financial consider-
ations will continue to be important in the diffusion process.

2.4 SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC SOLAR WATER HEATING INITIAL PURCHASER
ANALYSIS (MARYLANDER MARKETING RESEARCH INC.; 1978)

2.4.1 Baekgrotmd and Demographies

Data Collection Period: August 1978

Study Site: within sa·n Diego Gas and Electric's service area (San
Diego, California)

Sample Size: 89 (17 purchasers; 7 2 nonpurchasers)

Data Collection Method: telephone interviews

Sociodemographic Characteristics (purchasers and nonpurchnsers):

Age: almost all respondents were 35 years or older;

median= 49 years

Household Size: average = 3.5 people

Household Utility Bill: monthly median = $67.00

Stability of Household: households were quite stable, with fewer than 20%
expecting to move within the next five years

Home Value: 15 of 17 purchasers placed a value of $100,000 or more

on their house, compared to two-thirds of the non-
purchasers

2.4.2 Chara.eteristies of Solar Systems

• All residential
• All domestic hot water
• All systems purchased from and installed by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)
17
$5~~~-~ ------------------------=T=-=R:.=....--=-24..:..::...5
/ '\: =
~

2.4.3 Objective

Purchasers and nonpurchasers were interviewed to better understand the factors involved
in the purchase decision, obtain an understanding of the impact of SDG&E's sales presen-
tation on prospects, and obtain an early assessment of customer reactions to the solar
system.

2.4.4 Research Findings

• Nonpurchasers were interested primarily in the cost-savings aspects of solar

systems; purchasers were interested in cost savings also but were particularly
likely to mention conservation-related factors as motivations for their interest.
• Although conservation was a major factor. in initial interest, the most popular
- characteristic of the solar systems, and a "major perceived benefit," was the
financial savings.
• The other "major perceived benefit" was energy conservation-an attribute
mentioned by about half of the purchasers.
• "For the most part, purchasers were satisfied with their new solar systems. Only
one of the 17 purchasers considered his new system to be 'poor,' and two other
owners were unable to rate the system at the time of interviewing." On the
other hand, seven of the 17 purchasers made a negative comment about their
solar hot water systems; two objected to the slow installation; and two felt that
the water did not get hot enough.
• "Many purchasers were also pleased with the system's performance, commenting.
on the amount of hot water available and efficient operation."
• Ten of the 17 purchasers rated the installation of their new domestic hot water
systems "excellent" or "extremely good"; three assigned a "neutral" rating; three
others rated the installation process "fair or poor"; one purchaser had no opinion.
• Purchasers described their neighbors' reactions to the solar hot water system as
"largely positive."

2.4.5 Coneluslom

• The author concluded that potential cost savings were a key factor in the deci-
sion to purchase a solar hot water system. Purchasers were pleased with the cost
savings, while nonpurchasers were very interested in cost savings.
• Nonpurchasers cited financial considerations (cost savings) as the primary moti-
vation in the decision to purchase a solar system. Purchasers, on the other hand,
were concerned with both cost savings and energy conservation.
• A major obstacle to the_ purchase of a solar hot water system was initial cost
(architectural and structural problems were relatively insignificant). Prospective
purchasers should be informed about existing tax credits.
• Warranties appeared to be important to the purchaser in the decision to pur-
chase: "Three out of four purchasers regarded the warranty on their solar system
as 'very important •."' -

18
 $5~~~-~ ______________________:.__T_R-_.2_45

• While purchasers appeared to be satisfied with their solar systems in general,

purchaser satisfaction could be best enhanced by improving the installation
process.

2.5 WORKING PAPERS ON MARKETING AND MARKET ACCEPTANCE: RESIDEN-

TIAL SOLAR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. VOLUME 1: PRELIMINARY
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS (REAL ESTATE RESEARCH CORP.; 19'18)*

2.5.1 Bael<grotmd and Demographies

Data Collection Period: 1976-1977 ~HUD Cycles 1-3)**

Study Site: sites were located in most states, with at least one or
two solar homes per state

Sample Size: users: 49; nonusers: 45***

Data Collection Method: face-to-face interviews

Sociodemographic Characteristics:

Age:

Users: Nonusers:
16% · under 30 years 22% under 30 years
47% 30-44 years 47% 30-44 years
27% 45-64 years 27% 45-64 years
10% .65 years and over 4% 65 years and over

*Working Papers updates RERC's Selling the Solar Home: Some Preliminary Findings.
This summary covers both publications. For further information on the status of the
ongoing HUD Residental Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program, see
Appendix B.

**It is Important to note the limitations of the dflh'l. Thus far, finoings include a survey of
Cycles 1-3 of the HUD Residential Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program.
Therefore, they do not reflect a representative sample of the demonstration programs as
a whole. Moreover, the .grant sites investigated do not constitute a rigorously selected
sample of the universe of nearly 5,000 units that have been funded. Consequently, all of
the· findings are tentative in nature; generalization to all HUD installations is not
possible. ·

***"Users" include pureha.sers of solar homes that are a part of the HUD Residential Solar
Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program. "Nonusers" include "compttrative pur-
chasers" of nearby conventional houses.

19
$5~~~-~ ________________________T_R_-_2_45

Household Income.*:

Users: Nonusers:

6% under $10,000 0% un.der $10,000

25% $10,000-$19,999 25% $10,000-$19,999
35% $20,000-$29,999 35% $20,000-$29,999
12% $30,000-$39,999 12% $30,000-$39,999
8% $40,000-$49,999 8% $40,000-$49,999
10% $50,000 and over 10% $50,000 and over

Educational Level:

Users: Nonusers:

18% high school or less 25% high school or less

16% college l-3 years 169(, college l-3 yP~r~
33% college graduate 35% college graduate
33% graduate/professional school 24% graduate/professional school

Occupations:

Users: Nonusers:

67% professional/managerial 73% professional/managerial

6% sales/clerical 11% sales/clerical
20% retired 7% retired
7% other 9% other

Household Size:

Users: Nonusers:

20% one person 11% one person

47% two persons 27% two persons
16% three persons ll% three persons
10% four persons 33% four per~ons
7% five persons or more 18% five persons or more

2.5.2 Charaeteristics of Sol1.1.t' Systems

• All new residential (HUD Demonstration Program)

• All domestic hot water or combined space-hot water systems
• 64% are liquid medium systems
• Almost all systems are active
• Median solar system cost is $11,650

*Percentages do not add to 100 due to sorrie response refusals on this item.

20
 - TR-245
!;:5~1 1~1--------------------------------------------------------------~-

2.5~3 Objective

The objective of this study was to monitor and assess the market acceptance of solar
homes.

2.5.4 Research Findings

• The age distributions of solar purchasers (users) and comparative purchasers

(nonusers) are almost identical.
• The majority of solar (82%) and comparative (75%) purchasers have at least some
college or have a professional degree. However, solar purchasers are more likely
to have advanced degrees, while comparative purchasers are more likely to have
a high school education.
• :eoth solar (67%) and comparative (73%) purchasers are quite likely to have
professional or managerial occupations. The percentage of solar purchasers who
are -retired, however, is three times greater than the percentage of retired
comparative purchasers. The authors suggest that this percentage might reflect
interest in energy conservation on the part of a fixed-income group.
• The majority of solar and comparative purchasers are either in middle- or high-
income brackets. The major difference between solar and comparative pur-
chasers was that more solar purchasers (31 %) earned less than $20,000 than did
comparative purchasers (18%).
• About 30% of the solar buyers initially heard of the solar home through news-
paper advertisements or feature news stories. Personal contacts and friends
account for 25% of the information sources. Another 22% of the solar pur-
chasers said they learned of the solar home development when they were "just
passing through" the area. Another 20% of the solar purchasers cited builders
and agents as their information sources, while 2% mentioned television and radio.
• Many did not visit .solar homes with an initial intention to buy. Of those who did,
interest was related to, in order: (1) concern for savings on utility bills, (2) pre-
serving the environment, and (3) satisfying techr:tical curiosity.
• Factors ranked by purchasers as "very important" to the purchase decision were,
in order: resale value, house value, energy-saving materials, house quality, solar
system, and general location.
• Solar purchasers did not. have difficulty arranging financing. Of the 33 solar
loans, eight were arranged by builders; the rest (7%) were arranged directly by
the buyer. Two cases involved some delays. ·
• Ninety-two percent of the purchasers liked their solar homes or liked them very .
much; 6% percent were neutral; 2% disliked their homes.
• The majority had no special concerns about their solar homes. About one-third
expressed some concern about possible breakdowns in their solar systems, the
impact- of the system on the resale value of the house, maintenance costs, and
lack of data on the actual savings received from operation of a solar unit.
• An over·whelming majority (80%) of the solar purchasers indicated they would
pur~hRse a solar home if they were to buy another home in the future. IJ:t addi-
tion, 64% of the nonusers in the comparative purchase group said they would give
serious consideration to the purchase of a solar home in the future.

21
55'1'*' ---------:---------------------=T=-=R.::....-=24.::..=..5

• Solar purchasers have small households compared to nonsolar purchasers. While

67% of the solar buyers consist of one- or two-member households, 38% of the
nonsolar households are of this size.

2.5~5 Conclusions

The authors reached the following preliminary conclusions about marketing solar homes.
• Successful sales most often derive from traditional· promotional techniques,
including newspaper advertisements, open houses, and individual referrals.
Feature articles and special m~;>c:'!iR ~ovP.rRgP. increased interest in solar homes on
the part of potential customers.
• When selli~ a horne with active solar water an~ space healing, IHW"kt!ling ~rrorts
emphasizing traditional concerns with the residence, such as price, location,
layout, and amenities, are more effective than those that focus solely on the
solar energy system.
• Local and regional market characteristics are critical in marketing solar homes
(e.g., homes that are over-priced for the locality or are outside existing growth
areas can be difficult to sell).
• Current policies adopted by institutions involved with mortgage loans, backup
utility rates, insurance coverage and premiums, and tax assessments do not
appear to either encourage or discourage the development of solar energy.
• Satisfaction with solar homes is ·quite high. Ninety-two percent of the solar
consumers either "liked very much" or "liked" their solar home. Six percent were
neutral; 2% "disliked" their solar homes. ·
• The purchasers of solar homes were not found to represent a "fringe" market;
they were indistinguishable in most respects from purchasers of similarly priced
conv~;>ntjonAJ homes in the same area (e.g., vis-a-vis education, age 7 and income
levels). Buyers were attracted to solar homes because of the general features of
the homes and an interest in energy savings. The study authors speculated that a
solar energy system is not, by itself, a determining factor in the purchase of a
new home.

2~6 A SURVEY OF SOLAR CONSUMERS IN NORTHEASTERN AND SOUTHWESTERN

UNITED STATES (SAWYER; 19'19)

2.6.1 BaeJciround and Demographics

Data Collection Period: October 1977-April 1978

Study Site: New England arid the Southwest (Colorado, Arizona, and
New Mexico

Sample Size: 177 users (88 in New England; 89 in the Southwest)

Data Collection Method: face to face interviews

22
 "' TR-245
55~1 1 !1 1 ---------------------------

Sociodemographic Characteristics:

Age: range: 20 to 79 years

Household Income: -9% $10,000 and less

33% $10,000-$20,000
31% $20,00.0-$30,000
27% $30,000 or above

Education: · 17% high school degree

20% some college .
36% college degree
33% some graduate work
71% advanced degree
Political Affiliation: 27% Democrat
31% Republican
41% independent

2.6.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems

• All installed in single-family homes

• All were nonsubsidized; none was involved in a solar research or demonstration
project
• All were purchased during or since 1973 (72% were installed during or since 1976)
• All were active domestic hot water, space heating, or combined water and space
heating systems; all had storage systems

2.6.3 Objective

The study was conducted to identify the experiences, attitudes, and assessments of
present, nonsubsidized solar consumers.*

2.6.4 Research Findings

• An overwhelming majority of the solar users (84%) indicated that they were
genuinely satisfied by their overall experience. Fifty-four percent stated that
they were "very pleased" with their solar system; 16% were "moderately
pleased"; and 1496 w_ere "satisfied."
• Levels of satisfaction were found to be almo5t entirely. independent of other
variables, such as specific consumer characteristics, the nature of the consumers'
motivations for adoption, or the particular configuration of the systems. Only

*The study author has conducted a parallel mail survey (N=57) of persons in the solar
research/administrative com munit.y, in order to compare their experiences, attitudes, and
assessments with those of the solar consumers. Almost all of the respondents were·
nonusers. Results of the comparative study are not yet available.

23
 TR-245
!;55~1 1~1-----------------------------------------------------------------

two variables--the strength of the consumer's self-sufficiency motivation and the

backup energy supply-were found to exert a significant influence on levels of
satisfaction.
• All of the "very dissatisfied" consumers relied on natural gas for supplemental
fuel.
• A high level of environmental concern along with the widely held belief that the
energy crisis is a real and very serious phenomenon was found among solar user·s.
• The media (magazines and newspapers) and books have been the most important
information sources about solar energy. Conferences, contact with other instal-
lations, friends, and journals played a lesser, yet still important, role in informing
the solar consumers. The government, architects, And ~ontrHctors were found to
have relatively little influence.
• SiKty-one percent of responding sular cuusumers rated their solar service as
t:!illter better than or equal to that experienced with traditional systems. More-
over, despite the fact that many of the systems had technical malfunctions and
m10my im;lHllt:!rs were comparatively mexperienced, only 21% of the solar con-
sumers surveyed felt that their solar repair service was "inadequate."
• High cost, lack of clear and reliable information, and technical prohlems,
respectively, were ranked as the most significant barriers encountered in an
assessment of potential barriers to solar adoption. High cost, utiJity pricing, and
lack of clear, reliable information were ranked as the most significant barriers to
adoption by a subsample of the respondents judged to be more likely to represent
future adopters. "Poor installation-repair personnel" and "technical problems"
ranked 7th and 8th in a list of 18 potential barriers.
• The study author noted that the nature of technical malfunctions was related to
the technical configurations of the systems. The study author disaggrega.ted the
data in categories of "packaged," "contractor made," and "homemAde" systems.
The CJIIAntity and typQs of technical malfunctions vary conshlt-:rHIJly H11rr1rr~ lhese
system types. The study author noted that in comparing responses disaggregated
on the basis of manufacture, questions relating to the perceptions of consumers
arise. (E.g., to what extent are the three groups of owners likely to have the
same definition of a "problem" or "downtime"? Also, can repair costs of pack-
aged systems be compared to homemade repair costs that frequently do not
include labor costs?)
• Seventy-seven percent of the "packaged" systems had technical problems result-
Ing in an aver·age "downtime" of 11%. '(he average repair cost was $44 (most of
the repair work was covered by the system warranties). Sixty percent of the
malfundiuus uccurred within t:firee months of installation. Forty-eight percent
of the prohlr:m::t ~l'!urred in colltrull::ytilcrn3.
• Seventy-eight percent of the "contractor-made systems" had technical malfunc-
tions (52% occurred within three months of installation). Repair costs averaged
$350. This significantly higher figure was assumed by the study author to be the
result of the contractor's lack of corporAte resources to absorb repair costs and
the increased difficulty of repair due to the greater degree of integration of
these designs into the building structure. Fifty percent of the malfunctions
occurred in control systems.
• Sixty-three percent of the homemade systems experienced malfunctions (48%
occurred within three months of installation). The average repair cost was

24
$5~1 ,., ________________________T_R_-_24~5

$ll0. Fluid leaks in the collector panels and control system problems were most
frequent.

2.6.5 Conclusions

• The author concluded that the sample of solar users in this study was overwhelm-
ingly satisfied (84%) with their solar energy system experience.
• The author suggested that higher satisfaction levels are the result of the addi-
tional symbolic value which the solar system had for these consumers. Such
value would not necessarily be diminished by poorer system performances.
• The consumers with more demanding motivations (e.g., economics) were as
satisfied with their systems as consumers with less exacting motivations (e.g.,
environmental concern).
• Satisfaction levels did not appear to be related to the financial savings generated
by the systems.
• The author concluded that satisfaction levels are very much a function of the
expectations of the consumers. Therefore, solar users owning more complex and
costly space and combined systems had lower expectations. In addition, owners
of contractor-made systems, knowing that the contractor had very little experi-
ence in the field, anticipated the greater number of technical problems that they
experienced. On the other hand, solar users in New England, who were less sure
of having sufficient insolation, had lower expectations than solar users in the
Southwest.
• Solar consumers were strongly motivated by economics, environmental concern,
and the desire for greater self-sufficiency.
• ·The author suggested that the two attitudes appearing to set the solar consumers
apart from the general public were (1) their conviction that the energy crisis is
very serious and (2) their environmental concern.

2. 7 SOCIOECONOIVIIC FACTORS AFFECTING THE ADOPTION OF HOUSEHOLD

SOLAR TECHNOLOGY (SPARROW, WARKOV, KASS; 1978)

2. 7.1 Baekgrotmd and Demographies

Data Collection Period: Spring 1977

Study.Site: Small exploratory sample distributed across the country

Sample Size: 45 users

Data Collection Method: telephone interviews

Sociodemographic Characteristics:

Income: 4796 over $30,000

Education: 53% graduate or professional degree

25
55,1~-~ _____________________T.::...::R;..:....--=-24~5

2.7 .2 Charaeteristies of Solar Systems

• All "solar custom homes"

• Solar energy was the primary energy source for both hot water and space heat
for 56% of the sample
• Average cost = $8,000-:-$10,000

2.7 .3 Objeetive

The study intended to test hypothes~s ·drawn from economics and the social sciences
concerning innovative behavior in the field of solar energy.

2.7 .4 Research Findings

• The market for solar homes was found to be ·shifting over time toward a more
representative family income than was fouhd among earlier adopters.
• No trend toward regional concentration of solar adopters was discovered.
• Upper-income adopters tended to reside in solar-viable areas and to have a
"major commitment" to household solar technology (as evidenced by primary
reliance upon solar energy systems for both hot water and space hea_ting).
• "Sophistication" (as evidenced by holding a graduate or professional degree) was
more indicative of a "major commitment" than was sheer ability to pay (as
measured by income). -
• Lower-income households (below $30,000) wer~ more likely than higher-income
households to encounter problems with various Rspe~ts of the technology delivery
system, such as t·iigii first cost; difficulty in obtaining financing; amount of space
required for the solar system; difficulty obtaining parts, components, or person-
nel to make repairs; and willingness of the building trades to adopt new building
designs and construction techniques.
• · "Innovators" (pre-1976 users) tended to be more hi2'hly educRterl Ann hi'IVt:' higher
incomes than "early Rnopters" (those adopting in 1976 or 18ter). The innovatut'l)
as a group were older and more likely to be involved in solar energy research,
deiign, and dovelopment. The innovatoi'S Wt!l'l:! Htur~ likely to be opinion leaders,
although both groups appear to be forerunners of social change.
• Architects and solar engineers were important "change agents" for both inno-
vators and· early adopters. A trend was discovered toward an increasing impor-
tance of developer-contractors and local utilities and away from importance of
financiers over time as change agents. While architects and engineers tended to
encourage prospective solar homeowners; financiers, local utilities, and realtors
tended to discourage users.

2.7 .5 Conclusions

The authors drew the following policy-relevant conclusions.

• Since average incomes of users are dropping over time, solar subsidies are not
"transferring income from the poor to the rich" as some have argued.

26
55~1'*' - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T _ R _ - _ 2 4 _ 5

• The emergence of developer-contractors as key agents in solar diffusion suggests

the need to examine the feasibility of direct subsidies to this group.
• Attention needs to be directed toward lowering the first cost of solar systems
since it is still a significant barrier.

2.8 SOLAR ENERGY AND TODAY'S CONSUMER (SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND INVESTIGATIONS; 1978) ,

2.8.1 Bacl<grotmd and Demographics

Data Collection Period: 1978

Study Site: California, Michigan, Wisconsin

Sample Size: 336 users (Calif.= 255; Mich.= 21; Wise.= 60)

Data Collection Method: mail questionnaire

Sociodemographic Characteristics:

Household Income: 10% less than $12,000

20% $12,000-$20,000
37% $20,000-$35,000
33% over $35,000

Household Size: 37% 1 or 2 persons

17% 3 persons
· 24% 4 persons
12% 5 persons
average: 3.5 persons

A large majority reported engineering or mechanical training~ or ability to install or

repair their systems.

2.8.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems

• All residential
• 66% domestic hot water
· 45% space heat
38% pool heaters
9% cooling
• 42% new
58% retrofit
• 11% constructed systems themselves
29% in.stalled systems themselves
• · 20% air systems
73% liquid systems

27
 -
55~1'11' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TR-245
--

• System cost: 28% over $5,000

25% $2,500-$5,000
18% $1,500-$2,500
23% under $1,500

2.8.3 Objeetive

This study was designed to measure generally consumer experience and satisfaction with
active solar energy systems.

2.8.4 Research Findings

The findings of this study have been reported in the form uf percentage· rcGponses to
specific questionnaire items. A committee staffer provided the following sum~nary of
major findings, Rs ~ited in a recent magazine article (Maize 1978).

• Over 86% of respondents were satisfied with their solar systems, regardless of
problems.
• The early purchasers of systems sampled in this survey most likely were "hardy
pioneers" intrigued with the concept of solar energy.
• The high level of satisfaction may have resulted in part from the significant
number of "do-it-yourselfers" in the sample.

A review of the survey results reveals the following findings of particular interest.

• The most rewarding aspects of owning solar energy equipment were, in order:
the money being saved, the amount of ene1·gy being saved for the nation, and the
contribution being made to a cleaner environment.
• Thirty-two percent reported never having problems with equipment; 4% rarely;
12% only in the first six weeks after installation; and fewer than 15% "some of
the time," "most of the time," or "every time" it was used.
• Sixty-four percent reported that owning solar equipment had not been trouble-
some. The remainder cited problems, such as maintenance, locating reliable
equipment, or installation.
• Most often cited sources of information were solar equipment dealers (62%),
magazine or journal articles (57%), solar fairs or exhibits (38%), friends or neigh-
bors (26%), advertisements othet· than 'I'V or radio (20%), home builders (20%),
state agencies (18%), and other government agencies (16%).
• Many respondents took measures to conserve energy prior to installing solar
equipment. Measures most often cited were attic insulation (66%) and weather
stripping (48%).
• Most respondents (67%) estimated payback periods for their systems prior to
installation. Over half made the estimates themselves. Thirty-one percent of
those who made estimates estimated a 2-5 year payback period; 38% a 5-10 year
period.

28
 <=, TR-245
!;55~1 1~1-----------------------------------------------------------------

• Sixty-four percent paid cash for their systems; the rest financed the purchase.
Of· those who financed the purchase, 4.5% did so as part of a mortgage; 18% did
so through a commercial bank or savings and loan association. Eighty-one per-
cent of those borrowing from a bank or savings and loan association reported no
diffic.ulty arrangi~g financing.
• Fifty-six percent reported proper installation of their systems and 21% reported
minor installation mistakes, while 4% reported major mistakes.
• Fifty-two percent reported receiving instructions or owners' manuals for their
systems·. Of these, 78% reported using them and most found them helpful.
• Of those who had occasion to use a warranty service (38% of those with war-
ranties), 88% reported that all requests were honored.
• When asked ·about the accuracy of promises regarding life expectancy, reliability,
required maintenance of systems, and availability and cost of service, fewer than
8% reported inaccurate promises in any in these five areas. ·
• The most common operating problems reported were water or fluid leaks (35%),
water condensing inside collectors (22%), and various problems with pumps.
• Seventy-six percent reported that friends and neighbors were anxious to see how
the system worked before deciding to purchase one themselves. Four percent
reported that neighbors complained about the system's appearance.
• .Fewer than 3% reported any of the following: damage by vandals; incursions on
solar access by neighbors; or difficulty with local zoning, restrictive covenants,
or government ordinances.
• Nineteen percent reported increased property tax assessments due to installation
of the solar system.
• Forty-two percent purchased systems from dealers, 23% purchased systems from
manufacturers, 16% purchased homes with installed systems, and 18% built their
own systems.
• Sixty-two percent reported decreased utility costs, 33% didn't know if costs had
changed, 5% reported no change in costs, and 1% reported increased costs.
• Over half named tax incentives as an important government action to improve
the climate for energy conservation and the use of appropriate energy tech-
nology. About 13% named loans or other financial aid, pubiicity, and demonstra-
tion as important actions.

2.8.5 Conclusions

The study authors, drawing upon other evidence presented at hearings as well as the
questionnaire survey, derived the following C!Onclusions.

• If properly designed, manufactured, and installed, many solar technologies are

mechanically and economically feasible at present.
• A significant number of design, manufacturing, or installation problems have
been experienced by residential users of active solar energy systems. If uncor-
rected, such problems could set back the ·popularization of solar technologies for
years.

29
 S5:flllli-------------------T_R_-2_45

• Much government policy action is needed to promote solar energy in order to

meet national goals of reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and im-
proving the environment.

2.9 SOLAR ADOPTERS AND NEAR-ADOPTERS: A STUDY OF THE HUD SOLAR HOT
WATER GRANT PROGRAM (WARKOV; 1979)

2.9.1 Bael<grotmd and Demographies

Data Collection Period: completed in early May 1979

Study Site: (;t"'nnP.cttcut

Sample Size: Adopters 61

Near-adopters"' 121
Total 182

Data Collection Method: telephone interview survey

Total
Sociodemographic Characteristics: Sample** Adopters Near Adopters

Household Income:
$10,000 296 4% 1%
$10,000-$14,999 7% 4% 8%
$15,000-$19,999 9% 10% 9%
$20,000-$29,999 36% 33% 3896
$30,000 and over 46% 48% 45%

Educational Level:
less than high school 1% 2% 1%
high school graduate 10% 2% 13%
some college 15% 21% 12%
college graduate 73% 75% 74%

Employment Status:
employee of private company 54%
government employee 18%
self-employed 24%
r e ti n:~d 1%

*The survey includes a sample of households entering the HUD Solar Hot Water Grant Pro-
. gram by Fall 1977. "Near-adopters" include those who applied for a grant but did not
subsequently purchase a solar energy system through the program.

**Some total percentage figures may not equal 100 due to rounding.

30
 TR-245
55~1 1 111 ---------------------------
Adopters
Race:
White 178
Spanish-American 1
no answer 3
Total 182

2.9.2 Characteristics of.Solar Systems

.- All domestic hot water

• All installed by grants applied for prior to September 1977 as part of the HUD
Solar Hot Water Grant Program

2.9.3 Objectives

• The survey attempted to identify factors affecting public interest, acceptance,

and participation in the HUD Solar Hot Water Program. Specifically, the survey
focused on information sources affecting adoption and incentives for and barriers
to adoption. Differences between solar adopters, near-adopters, and state or
national sample popu~ations were examined.
• In addition, the survey was designed to identify solar adopters' experiences,
levels of satisfaction, and perceptlcins of system performance.

2.9.4 Research Findings

• Seventy-eight percent of the solar adopters indicated that they were "very
satisfied" with their solar hot water systems.
• Compared to the state at large, applicants to the HUD program were quite
distinctive. For example, while 55% of the population sample of the state of
Connecticut earned 1m<'ler $20,000, 16% of the HUD- program adopters and
nonadopters fell into this category. Similarly, 38% of the HUD program appli-
cants earned $30,000 or over, yet 20% of the state population sample earned
comparable incomes.
• HUD program applicants also were differentiated from the state sample popula-
tion in terms of educational attainment. Program applicants appeared to have a
much higher educational attainment -than the state sample population. Twelve
percent of the state sample did not complete high school, compared to 1% of the
HUD program applicants. Thirty-seven percent of the state sample were high
school graduates, but 10% of the HUD applicants were high school graduates.
Finally, while .29% of the state sample graduated from college, 73% of the HUD
program applicants finished college.
• HUD program applicants tended to express greater environmentalist propensities
than the national sample. Whereas 13% of the national sample were "active
participants" in the environmental movement, nearly twice as many applicants
proportionally (24%) were "active participants." Eighteen percent of the appli-
cants were members of national environmental organizations, and another 18%
were members of state or local organizations. In contrast, 8% of the national
sample belonged to national, state, or local environmental·organizations.

31
$5~~~-~ _______________________TR_-_2_45

• Although a similar percentage of HUD applicants and the general population

appeared to agree that air and water pollution were "very serious," more than
twice as many of the applicants (61 %) than members of the general population
(,29%) felt that the energy shortage was also "very serious."
• Eighteen percent of the national sample and 9% of the HUD program applicants
indicated that they would accept higher levels of pollution to retain lower prices.
• Solar adopters cited the following as the most frequently contacted information
sources vis-a-vis solar adoption: solar equipment dealers (88%), household
members (86%), friends (80%), state energy office (72%), solar equipment manu-
facturers (68%), and neighbors (66%). Near-adopters mentioned the same six
contacts, however, household members and friendo wer.e ranlced foremost and
solar equipment dealers were ranked third by neat·~adoptet·s.
• Solar adopters found solar engineers to be the most encouraging information
sources, followed by solar equipment manufacturers, dealers, household mem-
bers, architects, and the state energy office. Near-adopters indicated that solar
equipment manufacturers were the most encouraging contacts, followed by solar
engineers, solar equipment dealers, architects, the state energy office, and
household members.
• Barriers to solar adoption mentioned most by near-adopters were economic in
nature. These included (in ranked order):
$400 grant was too small,
solar system pri~e was higher than expe~ted, and
respondent was not convinced solar system would pay for itself.
• FinRIIy, I I% mP.ntionP.rl thRt t.hP.ir towns rlirl not pRs.c; soiRr orrllnRnr>P.s, '1% fP.RrP.rl
that their utility rates might increase if they adopted solar energy, and 6% had
trouble getting their solar system purchases financed.

2.9.5 Conclusions

• In general, a large majority (78%) of applicants to the HUD program who became
solar adopters were "very satisfied" with their· solar systems.
• While applicants to the HUD program were easily differentiated from the state
sample population in terms of income and educational attainment, income and
education did not differentiate oolar adoptcre: from nonadoptcrs among partici-
pants in the program. Similarly, the same holds true for most indicators of
environmentalism: applicants tended to express environmentalist propensities (as
compared with the general population), but adopters and near -adopters were not
distinguishable on the above items.
• The author concluded that barriers perceived by a majority of program partici-
pants for dropping out of the HUD initiatives were economic (e.g., price, pay-
back, and size of economic incentive offered by HUD).

32
 ""'' TR-245
!;:5~11~1------------------------------------------------------------

2.10 MISSOURI SOLAR CONSUMER SURVEY (WILSON; 1979)

2.10.1 Baekground and Demographies

Data Collection Period: March-May 1979

Study Sites: St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, and Springfield,

Missouri

Sample Size: 75 users

Data Collection Method: face-to-face interviews

Sociodemographic Characteristics:

Age: Average: 44 years .

Range: 24 to 78 years

Education: 3% eighth grade

20% high school degree
41% college degree
36% postgraduate work

Occupation*: 44 professionals (e.g., health care, law, education, busi-

ness management, engineering, and architecture)
5 sales
4 builders
3 retired
2 warehouse workers
2 installers (i.e., air-conditioning and heating)
2 photographers
1 in each of 11 miscellaneous occupational categories
(e.g., foreman, barber, bricklayer, student)

Incullle: Mean: $22,000 to $27,000

Range: $0 to $75,000-$80,000

Family Structure: 43% no children (under 18)

21% one child
25% two children
8% three children
3% four t:.'hilrlrP.n
two households consisted of single adults living alone

Race: all respondents were Caucasian

*Twenty-three of the 75 were self-employed.

33
 - TR-245
S5~1~fl~-----------------------

2.10.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems

• All residential
• 60% new (installed in new homes)
40% retrofit, with at least one-half requiring extensive home remodeling or room
additions
• 41% active
36% pa~ive
.23% hybrid
• 84% space heating
9% domestic hot water
7% preheat domestic hot water
• 50% in operation less than one year (but opP.rRt.ed during the previous h~MUng
season)
38% in operation 1 lu 2 years
12% in oper,ation more than 2 years
Qpgration time range wH::; 6 monthS to 'l years

2.10.3 Objective

The study was designed primarily to investigate the underlying purchase rationale and
motivating forces of solar consumers. In addition, the study was used to identify the
. types and locations of solar installations in the state of Missouri.

2.10.4 _!tesearch FJmJings

• Almost all (93%) of the solar consumers employed ~onservation measures in·
addition lQ DUr~hRsing solar sye:tems, 3olar lluuiP.S, or increasing insulation
levels. On the average, each solar consumer had taken four additional energy-
conserving measures.
• Respondents described 41 different categories of energy-conserving measures
that they employed. The energy-conserving measure most frequently mentioned
was a fireplace with special heat circulating features and/or glass doors. The
second ann third most frequently rnentiumnl mcMtires wet•e thermopa.ne windows
and woodburning stoves. ·
• The greatest source of satisfaction for the greatest number of solar consumers
(33%) was economic ("it saves money"). Twenty-seven percent ::;Mid their solar
systems were effective ("it works"). On the othP.r hand, 37% coulrl not think uf
any ui~utfsfaction relMled to their solar systems. The major source of dissatis-
faction (29%) was installation and mechanical difficulties.
• A majority (65%) of the solar consumers reported that they did not experience
any difficulties with the original design of their systems (29% of the solar con-
sumers said they had designed their uwn systems). Six of the r~maining 26 felt
that their difficulties were "minor." The remaining 20 respondents had a broad
range of difficulties with their systems that they felt were major.
• Many more of the systems were installed by owners (44%), some with expert
· help, than by solar companies (11 %). Builders installed 15% of the systems, air
conditioning and heating companies installed 12%, and carpenters and contrac-
tors installed 7% and 5% of the solar systems respectively.

34
$5~1'*' _______________________TR_-_2_45

• In evaluating installation problems, solar consumers cited builders, carpenters,

subcontractors, and others involved in the installation process as responsible for
the most severe problems. The systems, themselves, did not contribute to instal-
lation problems. ·
• Most solar consumers appeared to be pleased generally with their experiences
. with solar manufacturers or distributors. Thirty-one respondents interacted·
directly or indirectly with manufacturers or distributors of solar systems or
components. All but six said they would recommend the company with which
they had de.al t.
• Respondents reported few problems locating component parts· needed for their
systems. Also, they did not experience delivery problems in connection with
these parts.
• Thirty-seven percent of the respondents attempted to monitor their systems. A
variety of methods was employed, including the charting of weather patterns,
installation of additional meters by utility companies, maintainance of records of
kilowatt hours reported on their monthly electric bills, records of temperature
fluctuations of their systems' storage mediums, and use of computers to monitor
their systems.
• Three of the respondents reported no savings, six respondents stated that they
did not know, and 66 claimed savings from the installation of their solar system,
even though 47 admitted that they had not tried to keep records nor did they
have reliable monitoring equipment.
• The majority of solar conSUJ"!lers (55%) stated that people's responses to their
solar application was "very favorable." Another 40% felt that reactions to their
solar applications were "somewhat favorable." Only 5% said people's reactions
were "not favorable."
• . The study author noted that most solar homes were not conspicuously solar (e.g.,
only 44% were oriented facing south on their lots with solar collectors on the
front; collectors on the remainder were not visible to passersby). Friends and
relatives of several solar homeowners did not believe the homes were solar
because they didn't look "different enough." These solar homeowners had to "go
out of their way" to prove that their homes were solar.
• Eighty percent of the solar consumers felt that the energy situation was "serious"
(25%) or "very serious" (55%). Eighty-nine percent were directly influenced in
their decisions to adopt solar energy by their concerns about the seriousness of
the energy situation. ' Another noneconomic factor involved in the adoption
·decision was the desire on the part of respondents for energy independence
(69%).
• While 83% of the respondents viewed the purchase of a solar energy system
during the purchase decision process as a good investment with a reasonable
payback period, other economic concerns had less influence. Most purchasers
(83%) indicated that the availability of federal tax credits did not influence their
decisions to adopt. Furthermore, 60% said that price was not a factor in their
decisions to purchase a solar system.
• Solar consumers expressed pride in their ownership of solar homes· and solar
systems. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents stated emphatically that their
solar systems were a source of pride for them. Moreover, 84% of the respond-
ents had feelings of being unique or unusual due to their ownership of solar
systems •.

35
 ~

55 1
, == ________________________ _
TR-245
11
,

• The most important sources of information for those respondents who sought
information were individuals, books about solar energy, and magazine articles
about solar energy.
• Information about solar energy available in solar books, literature, and other
,publications was viewed by solar consumers as either too technical or too vague
and general. There did not seem to be any middle ground. Government publica-
tions were more frequently criticized than credited as a good information
source. The most severe criticism was that government-published solar informa-
tion was "just plain wrong."
• A significant number (41 %) of the solar consumers had difficulty locating sources
of information to educate themselves and aid in their solar purchase decision.
Many responded that the materials were scarce. The majority felt that more
information was needed in the following specific areas: do-it-yourself literature,
passive applications, building solar earth-contact homes (e.g., berm wall homes),
using conventional building materials in new ways, heat-loss charts and rules-of-
thumb for sizing solar applications to homes, and examples to ::;tudy.
• The sample was almost evenly divided with regard to mobility: 35 said they
would move if offered a better job (most insisted they would adopt solar in their
new homes); 40 believed they were settled permanently in their present location.

2.1 0.5 Conclusions

• The study author concluded that solar consumers' satisfaction with their systems
was economic and noneconomic in nature; economic reasons (savings) for satis-
faction were mentioned most often (33%). Thirty-seven percent expressed no
dissatisfaction with their solar systems.
• The author noted that installation ("people") problems outnumber original design
problems. A clear majority of solar consumers said they had no difficulties with
original design problems.
• Factors involved in the motivation to adopt solar energy included perceived seri-
ousness of the energy situation, energy independence, and beneficial aspects as
an economic investment. While economic reasons (savings) were the greatest
source of satisfaction, the author concluded that the credits and system price
considerations did not influence the decision to adopt solar energy systems.
·• Most solar homeowners did not atterript to monitor their solar systems any more
than they would monitor their furnace, fireplace, or woodburning stove. How-
ever,. when asked to relate their energy savings, only six uf lhe 75 ;,·espondents
~f.lid they did not know what savings they obtained.

The author concluded that there were no common standards or procedures by

which the sample of solar users judged the economic performance of their sys-
tems. Respondents most often compared savings in dollars over past fuel bills
for their homes, or they compared their utility bills with those .of neighbors or
friends whose conventional homes were of comparable size. ·

36
.
$=~~~-~ -~----------------------~T_R_-_2_45.

2.ll SOLAR COMMERCIALIZATION: THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCE (YAROSH &:

LITKA; 1978)

2.11~1. Bac)(groWld and Demograptiics

Data Collection Period: September 1977-September 1978

Study Site: Florida (statewide)

Sampl~. Size: approximately 800 users

Data Collection Method: multiple (staged data collection process: postcards,

telephone "hot line questionnaire," in-depth telephone
interviews, mailed questionnaire, site visits) ·

Sociodemographic Characteristics:
Income (mailed questionnaire): 42% over $20,000

2.11.2 Characteristics of Solar Systems

• System cost (mailed questionnaire): majority in $1,200-$1,500 range

• 23% installed systems themselves
• System type (telephone hot line):
. 96% residential
4% commercial
82% domestic hot water (DHW)
8% pool heating and DHW
3% space cooling, heating and DHW
• Date of Installation:
1977-1978 51%
1976 14%
1975 8%
)974 3%
1970-1974 2%
1960s 1%
1950s 4%
1940s 8%
1930s 7%
1920s 1%
prior to 1920s less than 1%

2.11.3 Objective

The study was initiated to assess consumer experience and need for consumer protection
r~garding solar energy.

37
 - TR-245
55~1 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.ll.4 Research Findings*

• Almost half of the users expected to save 10-25% on their utility bills.
• Eighty-six per.cent reported that they were generally or very satisfied with their
solar experience, while 50% of solar pool owners reported a high degree of satis-
faction.
e Forty-six percent received operating and maintenance instructions; 51% received
a written warranty.
• Forty-nine percent reported never having had problems with their systems, and
an additional 33% reported they seldom had problems. Only 7% reported fre-
quent or continual problems. Most problems occurred within six months after
in!tallation.
• Many more users answered questions about specific types of problems- encoun-
tered thAn thMP who reported problems in reoporoe to more general questions.
,.
The study aUthors, therefore~ felt that many malfunctions revealed by answers to
specific inquiries may not have been considered "problems" by the users.

2.ll.5 Conclusions

• The study authors determined that those solar users surveyed were probably
atypical of an ultimate major market for solar energy because of their relatively
high incomes, concerns about energy problems, and active interests in solar
energy and novel approaches to problems.
• Users were characterized as very satisfied with their systems. They possibly are
willing to make allowances for problems encountered due to their "sense of
commitment to go solar." -'
• A limited number of site visits indicated sharp contrasts betwP.P.n reported high
levels of satisfaction and· actual operating and installation conditjons. Many
systems appeared to be working below maximum potential and to have actual or
potential installation problems. Owners seemed unaware of these problems or
willing to make allowances for such problems. Incompetence in design and
installation rather than intent to defraud was suspected to be re9pon~ible for
most problems encountered.

*These findings are derived from the mail questionnaire portionof this study and represent
preliminary results awaiting further analysis.

38
. S5~1'1i' - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - . - . , - - - - - - - - T _ R _ - _ 2 4 _ 5

SECTION 3.0

SUMMARIES OF SPECIAL .STUDIES

The four studies reviewed here as "Special Studies" are unique in some way; i.e., sample·
size, method, or purpose. They are: ·

Perceptual Assessment of a New Energy Concept (Lorriman 1976)

Low-Income Solar Housing Project Analysis (Towle 1978)

Citizen Participation in the Domestic Policy Review of Solar Energy (Farhar,

Unseld, Caputo, Easterling 1979)

Attitudes, Usage Patterns, and System Characteristics among Owners of Solar Pool·
Heaters and Owners of Solar Water Heaters (Marylander Marketing Research, Inc.
1976)

These four studies are included because each contributes to the knowledge about solar
users through its special emphasis. Two studies employed very small samples (case
studies) but obtained in-depth information. One consists of a study in which a solar· users'
subsample was identified from a larger sample of a study, the primary purpose of which
was not to gather information on solar users. One employed focus group sessions as a
data-gathering technique.

3.1 PERCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT OF A NEW ENERGY CONCEPT (LORRIMAN 19'16)

The Lorriman study was a user-owner "perceptual assessment" of the experiences of

living in a solar-heated home in Ontario. The owner and his wife recorded their experi-
ences over an eight-month period. In addition, comments of neighbors and visitors.
regarding the exterior and interior appearance of the house were solicited by question-
naire.

This report provides summary information on the reactions of visitors and neighbors. In
general, re~:tctions were positive. None of the reactions to the "overall form" of the
house and its external appearance were completely negative; most ranged from noncom-
mittal to enthusiastic. There was a general consensus that the north-facing elevation
with few windows was "bare" and "uninteresting." The interior was regarded by some as
lacking sufficient light and as being too small (the size was kept small for energy con-
servation reasons).

People were questioned about "sP.lling points" and drawbacks from a marketing view-
point. The majority of selling points perceived by respondents were related to technical
aspects-high insulation values, quality of construction, and the solar .heating system.
Negative features cited most often included the size (too small), the high initial cost, and
the apparent complexity of the solar system. Almost unanimously, respondents reported
that they could see themselves living in that type of house.

The more interesting and relevant results from the perspective of this review (since the
focus is on information obtained from users) are those derived from the occupants'
records of their own experiences. A major problem encountered by the occupants was
the use of a large amount of.gl~ss on the south wall: occasional excessive solar heat gain

39
 -· /- "'~
5:~11!111 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TR-245
--
resulted to the extent that certain rooms were uncomfortable to sit in. By tm·ning on the
circulation fan in the forced air heating system, the occupants were able to distribute
the heat from overheated areas to other parts of the house. This seemed to reduce the
problem considerably and overheating no longer was a concern after the first year of
occupancy. Moreover, the installation of storm windows over the home's south-facing
glass, which essentially made most windows triple glazed, effectively diminished the
problem of overheating.

A second ramification of the large amount of glass used on the south wall was that,
during the winter months, excessive glare occasionally resulted during certain times of
the day. By rearranging the furniture on a seasonal basis, the occupants not only reduced
the wintertime glare, but they created a distinctly unique feeling to the room that re-
sponded to sum mer and winter conditions. In the summertime, the furniture was ar-
ranged to face out of doors, thus extending the living space. outdoors to include the
pBUo. I.Juring the winter, the furniture facecl inward towards the fireplace, providing a
perceptually more comfortable and cozy aspect to the Iivingroom.

A third problem related to reflections from the glass covers of the collector panels.
During certain months (March and April), motorists using the road behind the house
complained of annoyance (although the neighbors behind the house did not complain).
The reflection was also annoying to the occupants when th~y used the backyard in May,
June, and July. The occupants, however, were enthusiastic in general about their house.

The Lorriman study does not include information on the operation of the solar heating
system or the energy savings resulting from the system. The occupants discovered that,
because they were able to check the storage tank temperature on a daily basis, they were
able to determine the amount of energy they had used during the day and the amount of
energy they had left before running out. The author noted that this was in stark contrast
to conventional energy users, who must rely on newspapers, company reports, and gov-
ernment publications to tell them how much energy may be left for them to use. As a
result, the occupants found that they had a much greater ai?r;>reciation of their energy
use: tt·ying to keep the tank temperature from reaching "rock bottom" provided them
with an extra incentive to conserve energy.

The author-occupant observed that his perception and awareness of the weather in-
creased by living in· a house that was more dependent on weather patterns than a conven-
tional home. In addition, the author noted an increase in his appreciation for those whose
daily lives were much more affected by weather than his own (e.g., farmers, sailors, and
fish~rmen).

While the results of. Lorriman's study have Rlmo..,t no generalizability beyond the par~
ticular house and occupants who were the source of the user rlR.ta, this study does point
tu a neglected ar_ea of- research that promises to yield important information regarding
residential solar energy use. The manner in which solar energy systems may cause unan-
ticipated annoyance, inPnnvenience, or risks to occupants and the means of alleviating
the sources of annoyance should be important considerations in the design of solar
homes. Solar home design would profit from more systematic research of this nature.

3.2 LOW-INCOME SOLAR HOUSING PROJECT ANALYSIS (TOWLE 1978)

A second study employing a small sample consisted of an analysis of three houses with
modified Trombe wall solar systems in a low-cost, self-help housing project in Colorado.
It attempts to determine the residents' attitudes toward this form of solar utilization.

40
 -
s:~l~t~~ ----------,---------------------
TR-245

The study was conducted in a project of 24 homes constructed as part of the Colorado
Rural Housing Development Corporation's self-help housing program. The Colorado
Division of Housing and the Community Services Administration provided funds to install
Trombe wall systems in 12 of the units.. Families were assigned to the units with solar
systems, but had the option of refusing a solar home (one of the 12 families assigned to
solar units exercised this option).

The first phase of this study utilized one solar and one nonsolar control house in the
project to analyze the thermal performance of the solar system. This analysis showed
the solar system to be providing 37% of the annual heating requirements of the solar
home. In a second phase of the study, an open-ended interview was used to gather in-
formation on the homeowners' attitudes toward the utilization of solar energy, specifi-
cally the solar wall systems in their homes. Three families agreed to be interviewed.

One family (two adults, two small children) indicated they had agreed to live in a solar
unit because of anticipated utility savings. They felt that their solar wall was function-
ing properly but admitted that they would not know if it were malfunctioning. The
husband of this family felt the solar wall is not aesthetically pleasing and was concerned
about vandalism. They felt they had not been informed adequately about the operation
of their system, and they expressed a desire for a training program on its operation and
maintenance.

A second family consisted of two adults and three small children. Again, their incentive
to participate was related primarily to anticipated utility savings. However, they were
unaware of any savings since they paid little attention to utility bills. Their wall was not
functioning properly, and they did not know whom to contact to have the problem (a
malfunctioning damper) repaired. They felt the solar wall was unattractive. Neverthe-
less, they were pleased with the home and with the solar system.

The third family (one parent, four teenagers) complained that their home's heating sys-
tem never functioned properly, that the house was always uncomfortable, and they
suspected this was the result of the solar system. This family appeared to be almost
totally dissatisfied with their solar system and home.

This study, although of very limited gE:meralizability, points to the value of supplementing
technological and economic evaluations of systems with information regarding the ex-
periences of the users since the "objective" data on system performance or economic
savings do not necessarily indicate degree of user satisfaction.

3.3 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE DOMESTIC POLICY REVIEW OF SOLAR EN-

ERGY (FARHAR, UNSHLD, CAPUTO, EASTERLING 1979)

The third special study consisted of a SERI research project on citizen participation in
the public hearings associated with the Solar Energy Domestic Policy Review (DPR) held
in 17 cities throughout the United States in June and July 1977. This study consisted in
part of a self-administered questionnaire filled out by hearing participants, most of
whom were solar activists by virtue of their attendance. Of a total of 1,476 respondents,
19% were solar users. Of the users, about half had space heating systems, one-fourth had
domestic hot water systems, and one-fourth had combined space-hot water systems.

Some comparisons of the solar users with nonusers were made, and some demographic
analyses of the solar users were performed. Users were most likely to be found among
mobile-home dwellers; second, among those living in houses; and third, apartments.

41
 - TR-245
S5~1~tt~---------------------------

Homeowners were more likely to be solar users than were renters. High school graduates
were most likely to b.e users followed by those with some college, and then those with
less education. Residents of rural areas were most likely to be users, followed in order
by residents of small towns, cities, and suburbs. Age and income were not found to be
related to solar ownership in this sample.

Users were found to be more likely than nonusers to view solar technologies as commer-
cially ready and to indicate a willingness to pay increased monthly energy bills for solar
energy. Users were less likely than nonusers to perceive costs to consumers as a barrier
to commercialization. This evidence indicates that noneconomic factors partially moti-
vated the decisions of the users in the DPR sample to adopt solar energy systems.

Further evidence of this noneconomic motivation is found in the pattern of responaes to

items intenc1ed to gauge attitudes toward social change. Users were more lll<ely than
nonusers to agree that reduction of material consumption with fundamental institutional
and lifestyle change are necessary to solve the energy problem. Users are less likely to
agree with a solution consisting primarily of continued development and expansion of
energy sources. ·

While not generalizable, these results give some insights into possible factors, motivating
the decision to adopt solar ener~, that deserve consideration in future research efforts.

3.4 ATI'ITUD&C;, USAGE PATrERNS, AND SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AMONG

OWNERS OF SOLAR POOL HEATERS AND OWNERS OF SOLAR WATER HEATERS
(MARYLANDER MARKETING R&C;EARCH, INC. 1976)

The fourth special study was based on two focus group sessions held by a market research
firm in San Diego County, California. One session was with owners of swimming pool
heaters (N = 10) and one was with owners of home water heating syotcms (N"' 5).

3.4.1 Solar Water Heater Owners

Five users of domestic· solar water heaters were characterized as having skills permitting
them to be knowledgeable about their systems. (e.g., one was an HVAC sales engineer,
one a science teacher and former contractor). Three of the five performed most of the
work on their systems themselves. Tttey were chR.rRr.teri.zed a~ having an "emotional/
creative" involvement with their systems. Their primary motivation for the systems was
financial-three installed the systems to save money now, two installed systems as
hedges against rising fuel costs. These users are generally satisfied with their systems,
l::l.lthough all five feel that improvements coUld be made. Most agreed that professional
installers are still learning the trade. Several complained that the systems do not
provide super-heated water, as needed for dishwashers. Besides the economic motivation
and the creative outlet offered, other motivating factors mentioned by several users
were related to resentment toward utility companies and a feeling of helplessness against
obstacles such as oil embargoes, multinational corporations, and monopolies. All five
viewed their systems as sound investments and felt the systems increased the value of
their homes. None felt that the systems detracted from the aesthetics of their homes
(although all had collectors on roofs). All educated themselves to some extent prior to
purchasing and installing the systems. The users appeared pleased to be perceived as
pioneers by friends and neighbors, though this perception was not reported to be a
motivating factor. Only one user reported problems with getting a loan for his system.

42
 · - TR-245
55~1 1 !1 1 - - . , . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ ; __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

3.4.2 Solar Pool Heater Owners

Users of solar heaters for swimming pools were characterized as more technically ori-
ented than the typical consumer. They were less emotionally involved with their systems
than were the hot water users, and were more likely to have had their systems installed
commercially. These users conceived of their systems simply as products to meet par-
ticular needs more than did the owners of home water heating systems. Motivations
consisted primarily of concern with present and. future energy costs. Five of the ten
were "very satisfied" with their systems; three, "satisfied"; two, "not tpo satisfied'.' (the
last two users purchased homes with systems in place; one system was very primitive).
One user complained that the system did not adequately heat the pool. Other complaints ·
related to the need to clean solar panels, the need to cover pools, and the absence of
"automatic features." Most systems appeared· to have payback periods of about five
years, although there was no evidence of the users having performed any sophisticated
financial analyses. The selection of a contractor appeared to be almost casual; few
owners talked to more than one contra~tor or requested references." They obtained
information about contractors through mailings, solar energy fairs, and word-of-mouth.·
Most considered the aesthetics of the pool heaters neutral; one found his system a slight
eyesore; a few felt it enhanced the aesthetics of their property. Most enjoyed the
"conversation piece" aspects of their systems. No safety problems were mentioned. The
few minor operating problems (e.g., occasional start-up noise) were not considered
serious. Three of the pool heater users also had solar water heaters, suggesting oppor-
tunities to the authors of the focus group study for marketing broader lines of solar
products.

43
Ul
Ill
N
~
,-.,
 - TR-245
!;55~11~1---------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 4.0

OBSERVATIONS ON SAMPLES .

This section reviews the summaries of questionnaire studies and, where possible, draws
conclusions about the user samples and systems studied. As pointed out previously, since
the universe of residential solar users is unknown, it is impossible to suggest how repre-
sentative the samples of these. studies are of the general population of ·solar users.
Another issue that precludes such statements about representativeness of samples is the
fact that, since the use of solar energy is growing rapidly, these samples of users may be
atypical of more recent adopters, as the literature on the diffusion of innovations sug-
gests (see Section 5.3.6). ·

4.1 AGE

Six studies reported statistics on age: Cook et al. 1977; Hamrin 1978; Leonard-Barton
1978; Marylander 1978; RERC 1978; Wilson 1979. Two samples were primarily in the
older age category: Cook et al. 1977;· Marylander 1978. Two had a relatively diverse age
spread: Leonard-Barton 1978; Wilson 1979. One had a predominantly younger (under 35)
sample: RERC 1978. One study (Hamrin 1978), which compared energy-conserving
subdivisions in two different towns, reported a younger sample in one town and a rela-
tively older sample in the other town.

4.2 RACE

Only three studies reported the race of the sample: 96% white, Cook 1977; 97% white, ·
Warkov 1979; 100% white, Wilson 1979. Although racial information is limited, it
appears likely from other reported sociodemographic characteristics that few racial
minorities were represented in the samples.

4.3 GENDER

Since most interviews sought information from households rather than individuals, almost
no information on user gender was reported. Moreover, since the household is probably
the basic decision-making unit in the purchase of solar equipment for residential use,
gender appears to be a variable not particularly relevant to this analysis. However,
future research efforts would benefit from attempting to solicit views from both males
and females in a household regarding purchase decisions, ·satisfaction, lifestyle changes,
etc., since there may be some variation by gender in_ such experiences, perceptions, and
concerns.

4.4 INCOME

Ten studies reported data on household income: Cook 1977; Hamrin 1978; Leonard..;
Barton 1978; RERC 1978; Sawyer 1979; Sparrow 1978; Subcommittee 1978; Warkov 1979;
Wilson 1979; Yarosh 1978. The overwhelming majority of solar users sampled to date
appear to have relatively high incomes. For example, the following represent the
percentages of samples with a household income of O"er $20,000: 71% (Cook 1977); over

45
 - TR-245
S5~1IMJ-------------------------

96% (Leonard-Barton 1978); 73% (RERC 1978); 58% (Sawyer 1979); 47% (over $30,000)
(Sparrow 1978); 70% (Subcommittee 1978); 68% (Warkov 1979); 64% (Wilson 1979); 42%
(Yarosh 1978). Another study employed two samples with mean incomes of about $16,000
(Hamrin 1978). It should be noted that the DPR sample of solar users did not reveal a
significant relationship of solar ownership to income, although the overall DPR sample
was above the national average· in income. Since it appears that the majority of present
solar users who have been studied have relatively high incomes, the skewness of samples
toward affluent groups suggests that use of data, revealed by these studies in attempts to
market solar technologies to more general populations in the future, will necessarily be
made with caution. This suggests the need for pilot, exploratory research aimed at more
general consumer groups.

4.5 IIDUCA1'10NAL LEVEL

Seven studies reported the educational level of users (Cook 1977; Hamrin 1978; R.ERC
1978; Sawyer 1979; Sparrow 1978; Warkov 1979; Wilson 1979). All found users to be of
exceptionally high educational level. Inferences from occupational data in one study
(Leonard-Barton 1978) confirm the probable skewness of sampled populations in this
·direction. The caveat expressed above regarding income appears to apply to both educa-
tion and occupation as well.

4.6 OCCUPATION

Five studies reported the occupations of users. These found the predominant proportions
of the samples to be professional/administrative/managerial. (Cook 1977; Hamrin 1978;
Leonard-Barton 1978; Wart<ov 1979; Wllson 1979).

4.7 FAMILY STRUCTURE

Six studies reported on family characteristics· of the samples (Hamrin 1978; Leonard-
Barton 1978; Marylander 1978; RERC 1978; Subcommittee 1978; Wilson 1979). There
appears to have been more variation on this dimension than on most others, with a mix-
ture of family sizes and household types.

With some inference, a safe hypothesis is that most of the knowledge yielded to date by
the questionnaire studies reviewed here dealt with samples that were primarily white and
of relatively high income, education, and occupational status. There was greater varia-
bility in age and family structure than on the other variables reviewed. It should be
noted, though, that sooiodemographic information on the sample of the study with the
largest sample size (N =800) has not been reported yet. Moreover, since this study took
place in Florida, a state with a long history of residential solar use, it is likely that the
data base for the study is not quite as skewed as those of most other studies.

Clearly, though, information is needed about the experiences of solar users who do no~
conform to the characteristics outlined above if commercialization of solar technologies
·is to be directed toward a more general population. It is known that solar energy systems
have been employed by a variety of other socioeconomic groups, often through govern-
ment-assisted programs (e.g., Community Services Administration programs). Research
attention directed at these groups would add immensely to the knowledge available at
present about experiences of solar users. ·

46
$=~~~-'
. ~:::: v
____________________ T_R-_2_45

4.8 SOLAR SYSTEMS

All of the studies reported data on the characteristics of the solar systems used by the
samples. Examination of the summaries reveals a mix of domestic hot water, pool heat-
ers, space heaters, and combined water-space heaters as constituting most of the types
of systems examined, with the majority being domestic· hot water. Only two of the
studies (Hamrin 1978; Wilson 1979) specifically mentioned users of passive homes (with
the exception of Towle 1978); it is suspected that most systems were active. There
appears to have bef!m a mix of both new and retrofit units: all retrofit (Leonard-Barton
1978; Marylander 1978); all new (Hamrin 1978; RERC 1978); mix (Subcommittee 1978;
Wilson 1979). Nine studies reported on purchased versus user-built or installed systems in
their samples: purchased (Hamrin 1978; Leonard-Barton 1978; Marylander 1978; RERC
1978; Sawyer 1978); mixed (Cook 1977; Sparrow 1978;· Subcommittee 1978; Yarosh
1978). Thus, there appears to have ·been a good deal of variability across system charac-
teristics in the studi~s reviewed. This creates a broader data base, but presents certain
problems.

If the markets for various types of systems differ, then conclusions from the research
results ideally would'be cross-tabulated by system type. This type of analysis, however,
is clearly beyond the scope of this report. Given the number of dimensions (new/retrofit;
DHW /space heat/pool/cooling/mixed; purchased/do-it-yourself; etc.) and the different
types of data gathered, such market-specific conclusions simply cannot be drawn from
the results of these studies. To the extent, though, that "solar energy systems" as a
generic class of alternative energy systems share common characteristics as opposed to
conventional systems (unfamiliarity, high first-cost, etc.), some general conclusions can
be drawn about the experiences of solar users. These are discussed in Section 5.0.

47
Ill
N
t •.
"'-
~
 5 =~~~-~
-~ '~
_______________________ TR_-_2_45

I
,j SECTION 5.0

·f~
DISCUSSION: USER SATISFACTION
AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

5.1 EMPIRICAL DATA

In this section, the results of .the empirical studies are analyzed, particularly with regard
to their relevance to policie·s for the commercialization of solar technologies in the
r
j.
residential sector. User satisfaction with systems and the operational performance of
l systems, as well as the relationship between them, are discussed in detail. Additionally,
the implications of these results for consumer protection are briefly reviewed.

Six of the studies reviewed here (with a combined N of 1071) collected data on users'
satisfactions with their systems. A consistent finding across all of these studies was that
a very high proportion of users reported satisfaction with their systems.* Table 5-l
shows reported levels of satisfaction and describes the items used in each study to solicit
this information.

The implications of this consistent finding of high levels of user satisfaction are
unclear. Particularly when juxtaposed with reports (reviewed below) that owners of
poorly installed or improperly functioning systems sometimes report high levels of satis-
faction, this finding is, at best, perplexing. It seems apparent that those solar users
whose experiences have been studied to date have, for the most part, been satisfied with
their decisions to utilize solar technologies. But it does not necessarily follow that their
experiences have been, or will continue to be, trouble free as elaborated below.

Seven of the empirical studies sought information about problems with or performance
of** solar energy systems. The items used to solicit this· type of information varied .
widely; thus, no summary of these data or comparisons across studies is attempted. The
lack of systematic data on problems or performance indicates a need for e}{panded ·

*An additional indication of high consumer satisfaction is found in the report of a study
done for the Tennessee Energy Authority. Although not enough details are provided to.
report on this study in full, the researchers found that "[alll in all, people who purchase
and have hot water systems installed are pleased with their performance, and people who
have installed hydronic systems for space heating are, in general, satisfied with their
units" (Peplies et al. 1978, p. 86).

**"System performance," as used here, refers in general to the efficiency at which a system
operates. One operational definition of performance employs a <>riterion of total useful
solar heat delivered to load divided by total electric power for solar operations (Ward
1979). None of the studies reviewed here measured performance in this sense. Most
studies that referred to performance made inferences about performance based on user
assessments. One (Yarosh et al. 1979) made inferences about performance based on
inspections of systems. Almost no data are available on actual performance of residen-
tial solar energy systems in the field. The most systematic effort to date in this regard is
the U.S. Department of Energy's National Solar Data Network, the objective of which is
"to determine solar energy system perfot·mance by collecting and analyzing datn from a
variety of instrumented solar demonstration sites" (U.S. Department of Energy 1979c,
p. 1). Data collected by this effort are not yet available.

49
 Table 5-l. REPORTED SATISFACTION WITH SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMa

Cook et al. Marylander RERC Sawyer Warkov Yarosh

Response Categories 1977b 1978c 1978d 1979e 1979f 1978g
% N = 26 N = 17 N = 49 N = 177 N = 60 N = 742

Very Satisfied 69% 54% 78% .65%

Satisfied 23 82% 92% 30 15 26
Neutral 6
Dissatisfied 8 6 2 11 5 3
Very Dissatisfied 0 2 2 6
No Kesponse 12 4

aQuestions reported here inquired about global or general assessments of satisfAction with
system. .
bltem asked respondents to "evaluate their overall satisfaction with the solar equipment" (very
pleased = 69%; moderately pleased = 19%; satisfied = 4%; somewhat disappointed = 8%; very
disappointed = 0%) (p. 25).
c"How would you rate your solar water heating system overall? (excellent, extremely good,.
very good, good, fair, poor)." "Only 1 of the 17 purchasers considered his new system to be
'poor,' and two other owners were unable to rate the system at the time of interviewing (p. II-
5).n
d"Purchasers of the solar units are asked how well they like their 'home" (like unit or like it
very much =92%; neutral= 6%; dislike unit =2%) (p. 7-2).
e"On balance, how satisfied are you with your solar energy system?" (very pleased = 54%;
moderately pleased = 16%; satisfied = 14%; somewhat disappointed = 11 %; very disappointed =
2%; no opinion yet = 4%) (p. 11).
f"ln general, how satisfied are you with your system?" (very satisfied = 78%; somewhat
satisfied = 15%; somewhat dissatisfied = 5%; very dissatisfied = 2%).
gltem asked respondents about "their level of satisfaction with their solar system and their solar
eXperience" (very satisfied = 65%; generally satisfied = 21 %; somewhat satisfied = 5%;
somewhat dissatisfied = 3%; very dissatisfied= 6%) (p. 11).

50
$5~1'*' ______________________T_R_-_24_5

efforts to collect such data. The information that is available from the studies reviewed
here is presented below; these findings should be regarded as preliminary and suggestive
of areas for further research.

Cook et al. (1977) reported that "few problems have been encountered by most of the
respondents since the time their units were installed" (p. 24). When asked about "diffi-
culties with their systems," 27% reported "none"; 50%, "few minor difficulties"; 19%,"1-2
major difficulties"; and 4%, "extensive, serious problems." Also, "in general, the solar
users were highly satisfied with the service provided by solar installers" (p. 24).

Leonard-Barton (1978) reported that '.'[o]nly two respondents (out of 19 adopters) seemed
at all dissatisfied with their equipment" (p. 10). One of these was dissatisfied because his
family could not swim throughout the winter in a solar heated pool; the other's home-
made system froze and broke •. Both of these indicated that they "would purchase solar
equipment if they 'had it to do all over again,' however" (p. 11).
Marylander Marketing (1978) found that 10 of 17 purchasers judged their installations to
be "excellent" or "extremely good," three assigned neutral ratings to the installation
process, and three rated the process "fair" or "poor."

Sawyer (1978) reported that "[o]n an aggregate level, 73% ••• of the consumers had
experienced some technical problems at a direct cost averaging $156. The survey proto-
col asked the consumers to estimate how much of the time their systems had been mal-
functioning. Most consumers responded to this question in terms of downtime and gave
an average figure of 12%. Many consumers indicated that their systems, while function-
ing adequately, were not operating at design performance levels due to chronic technical.
problems most of the time" (pp. 7-8). Control systems represented the most frequent
problems (41% of systems), followed by problems related to water pumps or air fans
(21%).

The survey done for the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (1978) ·
inquired in detail about problems experienced by solar users. A question about satisfac-
tion with operation of the systems ("How satisfied .or unsatisfi-ed are you-with the opera-
tion of your solar energy system?") revealed 52%, "very satisfied"; 34%, "satisfi~JJ"; 4%,
"unsatisfied"; 2%, "very unsatisfied"; and 7%, unable to respond. A similar question,
which inquired about general satisfaction with performance of the system ("In general
how satisfied are you with the performance of your solar energy equipment?"), found
59%, "very satisfied"; 17%, "somewhat satisfied"; 1%, "neither dissatisfied nor satisfied";
2%, "somewhat dissatisfied"; 9%, "very dissatisfied"; and 11%, "not sure yet."

When asked, "Have you ever had a problem with your solar energy equipment?" 48.5%
responded affirmatively; 51.5%, negatively.

When asked, "How frequently have you had problems with your equipment?" 32% respon-
ded "never"; 40%, "rarely"; 13%, "only in the first six weeks after installation"; 12%,
"some of the time"; 2%, "most of the time"; and 1%, "every time it is in use." When
asked a nearly identical question ("How frequently have you had problems with your solar
energy equipment?") but with different response categories, 42% rep.orted "never" having
had problems with their solar energy equipment; 40%, "seldom'.'; 12%, "occasionally"; 4%,
"frequently"; and 2%, "always." Of these problems, the most frequent were water or
fluid leaks (35%) and pumps operating on warm days when the sun was not shining (21%).
Fifty-six percent reported proper installation; 21%, minor mistakes during installation;
and 4%, major installation mistakes.

51
 - TR-245
=~~~-~----------------------
5 -~ ~

Wilson (1979) inquired if users "had experienced any difficulties with the original design"
of their systems. Sixty.,..four percent reported no difficulties; 20% reported "major"
difficulties; and 8%, "minor" difficulties.

Yarosh and Litka (1978) reported:

In response to a question on problem frequency, 49% of 702 respondents

indicated they never had problems and an additional 33% said they seldom
had problems. Only 7% indicated frequent problems or continual problems.
Most of the problems (60%) occurred within the first six months and 30%
within the first two weeks. ·

In seeking additional information on the kinds of problems encountered and

experiences with getting J:.ll'OIJlems <!orre~t~rl, Wf:!. obtained information
whi~h WA~ somewhat contradiotory to rcsponsc3 to questions on problem
frequency. For example, many more owners answered questions concerning
the type of prohlP.ms ~n~ountered and their exporicncco with problem
correction than one would expect from the problem frequency question.
The data is still heing examined, but we believe many owners may have had
malfunctions which they detailed in question responses, but which they did
not class as problems. That this may be true is also suggested by the
significant fraction of owners who have installed their own systems (23% of
DHW systems) and by the many others who indicated they perform their
own service. (p. 11)
Though the evidence reviewed above does not present a consistent picture, the weight of
the evidence suggests that, based on owners' self-reports, the performance of the syf'l.-
tems of users surveyed has been perceived as satisfactory by these users. But, as dis-
cussed below, it is unwarranted to draw conclusions about system operation or perform-
ance based solely on user reports.

5.2 DISCREPANCl&S BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND PERFORMANCE

Some evidence suggests that owner reports of system performance or satisfaction with
systems may correlate poorly in some cases with actual performance as determined by
inferences made about performance drawn from system inspections. The most extensive
investigation of system performance vis-a-vis user satisfaction has been performed by
the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) as part of its effort to develop solar energy
consumer protection systems for DOE (Yarosh et al. 1979). As reported earlier, this
study consisted of a mail S"rvey of approximately 800 solar users in Florida, which gath-
ered data on attitudes, perceptions, and experiences. The survey found that "solar users
were, in general, satisfied with their solar systems" (p. 1). However, since "responses to
certain questions required owners to make judgments and assessments in areas in which
they might lack expertise," the FSEC researchers decided to "assess the accuracy of
those responses in areas where some technical knowledge may be required" (p. 1).

Thus, a pilot series of 60 site visits, representing a sample population of those responding
to the mail questionnaire, was initiated to inspect system installations. The sites for
field visits, which included 19 Florida counties, were chosen "to assure that systems
inspected were typical of present commercial practice" (p. 3). Accordingly, only
commercially installed systems were chosen, and all of these had been installed within

52
 TR-245
!;:5~1 1~1---------------------------------------------------------------

the previous five years. Excluded were systems installed as part of government demon-
stration programs. Additionally, a cross-section of system vendors and installers was
chosen. Visits were limited to sites with domestic hot water (N =55) and swimming pool
applications (N = 5). Thirty-two percent were installations on new construction; 68%
were retrofits.

The methodology for this effort included "a careful inspection .•. of the syste·m and its
operation (employing a checklist of items to be examined); of available warranty, sales
contract, and operating and maintenance instructions; and an interview .•. with the
solar owner" (p. 4). Each of the systems was placed into one of six categories of "system
status." These results are shown in Table 5-2, wherein the inspectors' classification is
cross-tabulated with the owners' expression of satisfaction.

The authors summarized their results as follows:

Sixteen of the sixty system installations visited (or 27%) were assessed by
the team as acceptable, (categories l-3), while forty-four system installa-
tions (73%) were classed as unacceptable, in varying degrees. However,
forty-one of the sixty system owners (68%) characterized their experience
as satisfactory while only eleven owners (18%) classified their overall
experience as unsatisfactory. This illustrates the difficulty in judging the
adequacy of commercialization activities in terms of solar user satisfac-
tion.

One explanation of the above incongruities is that the systems which were
visited and classified in categories 4 through 6 included potential problems
not perceived by system owners. Typically, such potential problems in-
volved poor roof penetrations, inadequate collector mounting, lack of
ability to drain, and evidence of corrosion. In two systems the backup
heating element was found to be providing all of the hot water needs.
Because the owners had a sufficient supply of hot water they assumed that
the solar unit was functioning satisfactorily when, in fact, it was not. In
another instance, a very forgiving consumer, wflose collectors ruptured
during a freeze, was repairing them himself. He was very satisfied with his
system and was willing to overlook and overcome this otherwise major
problem. In yet anothel,' instance, a pool system with a malfunctioning
controller did not allow the collector circlJlation pump to operate. (Yarosh
et al. 1979, pp. 7-8)

Sawyer (1979) also found evidence that some consumers who reported technical problem's
and performance deficiencies also reported high levels of satisfaction. These results
provide evidence that reports of satisfaction alone cannot be used to conclude that solar
systems are adequately installed or properly functioning. The FSEC data raise the issue
of the extent to which solar installations are typically performing below expectations or
contain potential problems that could result in poor performance in the futUre, despite
high levels of reported satisfaction.

A case study performed at Texas Tech University, in which a HUD solar demonstration
project was monitored, led researchers to conclude; "Verbal assurances that a system is
functioning properly are not convincing" (Teske 1979). This study, detailing the problems
discovered- in one HUD Cycle 1 demonstration home, lllusti·alt:s the potential problems
that can result through poor system design; lack of a proper understanding regarding
responsibility among manufacturers, designers, dealers, and installers; and lack of

' 53
 = ~~~;I
s-~~-
TR-245

Table 5-2. SITE VISIT CHARACTERIZATION OF SYSTEM STATUSa '-

(Includes Both Pool and DHW Systemsb)

Owner Views
Study Team's Characterization of from Mailed Questionnaire
System Stat11s (Received Prior to Site Visit)
sc Me uc Total

1. . System operational-No major problems,

pflst or present. Appcnro properly de-
signed, installed and adequately sized. 3 _3

2. System operational-Had major problems

in the past but now corrected. Properly
imtalled and liu~lJUH lely slze<'l. 3 ·3

3. System operational-Has problems or

deficiencies which are character-
ized as minor or easily correctable. 7 2 1 "10

4. System operational-But installation

and/or design does not-conform to
acceptable industry practices. Could
result in major problems. 14 4 6 24
5. System operational-But with major
present problems that will need
expert and extensive corrections. 10 2 1 13
6. System not operational-Has major
problems. 4 3 7

aYarosh et al. 1979, p. 11.

b55 DHW systems and 5 pool heating systems.

cs = Satisfactory
M = Mixed
U = Unsatisfactory

54
 TR-245
S =!!!tl,.,
-~ ~
-----------------------------

adequate information to the user. But such case studies cannot address the issue of the
typicality of such problems.

Systematic reviews of data on system performance are required to assess the extent and .
nature of operational problems. A recent conference held specifically to review such
data came to the conclusion that:

The operational performance of residential Solar heating and cooling sys-

tems were, in general, considerably below expectations. Many of the
active solar heating systems experienced problems with collection, storage,
distribution, and control. Of 30 projects funded by HUD, 12 were heating
systems which delivered only 5% to 8% of the incident solar energy. Four
of the HUD DHW systems delivered 20% of the incident energy to load.
(Ward 1978, pp. 3,5) ·

Ward notes, however, that:

The conference reports are based in large part on information provided by

the National Solar Data Program, and thus reflect a bias on the reported
results by referring, in most cases, to federally funded projects involved in
the National Demonstration Program. It is apparent that the operating
performance of the demonstration program projects were, in general, of a
lower quality than nondemonstration program projects. This fact is due in
part to the tendency of the Demonstration Program to fund unique, innova-
tive, and relatively untried. systems, whereas nonfederally funded systems
were selected on a more conservative basis. Consequently, it is necessary
to note these factors in evaluating the results of poorer system perform-
ance of some installations. (Ward 1978, p. 3)

More optimistic results were obtained by the Booz, Allen, and Hamilton Solar Heating
and Cooling Demonstration Project in which 30 site inspections were conducted of solar
systems that were not federally subsidized. This effort found that:

Only minor problems were encountered in the installation and the operation
of systems visited. Only one of the 30 systems examined had major design
problems. Most systems had minor installation problems such as leaking
pipes and faulty controls. However, installers stood behind their work and
rectified all malfunctions. After initial fixes, systems generally are work-
ing well. (Ward 1978, p. 20}

Of these 30 systems, however, 12 were on nonresidential buildings (banks, restaurants,

etc.) and one was on a 63-unit apartment building. Owners of the remaining 17 systems
probably were not "typical" solar owners. The majority of these owners possessed some
specinl expertise in solar energy bec.ause they were solar installers, HV AC contractors,
architects, employees of solar companies, or active participants in the installation of
these systems (Booz-Allen 1979). Thus, it is difficult to generalize from the findings of
these site inspections.

Evidence of poor system performance has led some people to conclude that, despite
reported high levels of satisfaction, commercialization may not be proceeding well at
present. For example, a DOE program manager concerned with consumer protection
suggests: ·

55
s=~· r*' _________________________ T_R.;_-_2_45

The greatest danger .•• to solar is that consumers would be- misled [by
reports of consumer satisfaction} at this point in time about the ease of
obtaining a solar system that will work. Fortunately, they are not now
rushing to install systems on a large scale, before we have affirmed that
there is at least a favorable chance that they will be satisfied over the long
term. We do not now know even this. (Connor 1979)

Connor points out that, if government planning is based solely on reports of satisfaction,
then:

We may then fail to undertake the difficult and expensive programs for
consumer a.s..c::urance and protection that 111ay well be necessary for success-
ful commercialization. And, if basefi solely on user reports of s~:ttisfaction
which mAy well be identified as very high-without objective hasis-
..• "maimtream" consuming groups are influenced, either directly or
indirectly, to go ahead with solar installations, then we will have actl?!d
irrQspom:ibly. For •.. we lt~:tve no baSis to indicate that a successful con-
sumer experience, one which merits a large investment, is likely; the litt1e
data we do have indicate the contrary. (Connor 1979)

Information regarding the likelihood of a successful consumer experience is critical to

the policy-making process at a time when we have a stated policy of achieving a 20%
contribution to total energy needs from solar sources by the year 2000 (Griffin 1979).
Decisions regarding the extent and pattern of commercialization to be encouraged by
government policies require resolution of this issue. As noted previously, it is important
that reports of satisfaction (from the studies herein reviewed or from subsequent re-
search efforts) not be used as the sole basis for concluding that the consumer experience
is wholly positive and that consumer protection is not an issue, nor should they be used
for concluding that solar commercialization will be unproblematic and that present
systems have achieved a satisfactory state of commercial readiness. It is equally impor-
tant that conclusions that the contrary is true not be based solely on reports of inade-
quate installation and poor performance. That is, one cannot safely conclude that resi-
dential solar technologies are necessarily problem-ridden, that commercialization must
be delayed, and that solar consumer protection measures will require an effort far
beyond those required for other consumer purchases. ·

The possibility that consumers have been misled into making hasty and ill-fated
purchases deserves consideration. Also deserving oonsideration is the possibility that the
prospects for commercialization have been harmed by exaggerated reports of problems in
the news media. If these reports do not accurately represent consumet' experience to
d~:tle, then the public might likewise be misled.
. '

Ideally accounts of the solar owner's -experience that appear in the popular press would
convey an accurate picture of the reality of the situation. After having been heralded as
a panacea, solar energy is now undergoing a period of critical examination necessary for
this energy source to be judged on its meritc:;. Reports of problems with residential
systems, based on research on operational performance, can serve the purpose of promot-
ing a legitimate concern for consumer protection. However, reports of operational
problems may also add to the barriers to commercialization by reinforcing doubts about
solar energy in an already cautious public if these reports are not based upon full under-
standing of the experience ·or solar users or if they are reported out of context .. As yet,
too little is known about the solar user's experience to permit the drawing of firm con-
clusions regarding the likelihood of a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory experience. The
following passage, from an environmental journal, exemplifies the manner in which

56
$5~1'*' __________________ .o....___ _ _ _ _.!T=R!:..._--=-24=5

reports of problems can raise possibly unwarranted doubts about the likelihood of a
satisfactory experience with solar energy systems. The article cites reports on the New
England Electric Demonstration Program (Smith 1977), the House Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations Study (1978), and. anecdotal evidence.
A growing problem troubles the infant solar energy industry. It's sunburn-
solar energy consumer ripoffs. It's solar systems that leak, won't turn on,
won't tum off, cost more than advertised and don't deliver what they
promise.
The problem is widespread. Indeed, the solar industry is beginning to look
more and more like business as usual. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised to
discover that underneath that "Sun Day" t-shirt and mellowed-out expres-
sion lurks the heart of a robber baron. Let the buyer beware. (Maize 1978,
p. 8)

One cannot determine the extent to which accounts, such as the above, convey a realistic
portrayal of the consumer experience or to which they are, perhaps, exaggerations,
without a much better understanding of this issue informed by systematic research.
Required is a balanced portrayal of the consumer experience that can contribute to
informed policy making and consumer purchase decisions.

A critical question in this context concerns determining what proportion of installed

systems have experienced operational problems. The most extensive effort to address
this issue is the FSEC study cited earlier in which 73% of inspected systems were judged
to be "unacceptable, in varying degrees" (Yarosh et al. 1979, p. 7). Careful interpreta-
tion of this finding requires consideration of the following points:

• The FSEC researchers pointed out that "the population distribution (of the 60 of
800 sites that were inspected) in terms of 'satisfied' and 'unsatisfied' consumers
for the sites visited should not differ radically from the findings in the larger
population" (pp. 3-4). However, the reported sampling method and selection cri-
teria do not satisfactorily establish that the sample for site selection was in fact
representative of the larger population. The statement that "[a] dditional consid-
erations of geographic location and convenience of visit were used to make the
final selections" (p. 3) raises questions about the representativeness of the site
visit sample. Although it seems clear that the researchers attempted to achieve
as representative a sample as practicable, the cases for site visits were not
chosen by random sampling procedures. Thus, these results cannot be general-
ized to the larger Florida sample with great confidence. The results are clearly
not generalizable to all installed solar energy systems.*

*A strong point of the FSEC study is that the inspected systems were commercially in-
stalled and were not part of government demonstration programs. While the FSEC report
implies that because of oversight these systems may be of better quality than others, the
previously cited review of operational results suggests that, in fact, these demonstration
program systems are likely to be of lower quality "due in part to the tendency of the
[I-IUD] Demonstration Program to fund unique, innovative, and relatively untried systems"
(Ward 1978, p. 3). The latter point of view is more convincing. Yet, one of the most pub-
licized studies of system performance, which discovered a large proportion of poorly
installed or operating systems, consisted exclusively of demonstration program systems
(Smith et al. 1977).
57
 - TR-245
s=~•~tl~-------------------------

• It is important to point out that this study did not measure performance. Rather,
performance was inferred from inspection of the installation.
Classification of a system as "unsatisfactory" does not necessarily imply that the
system itself did not perform well. "A number of features were looked for
which, though they would not affect system performance, would be classed as
major problems" (Yarosh et al. 1979, p. 5). These features included poor or
improper collector mounting, poor roof penetratiqns, lack of a draining mechan-
ism regardless of freeze protection, or evidence of corrosion. "Many of these
factors normally would not be easily recognized by the solar owner and would not
seriously affect system performance when the system was relatively new. Thus,
such a system might well be classed as satisfa~tory by unsuspecting owners and
unsatisfactory by the FSEC team" (p. 5).
Proper 1nstall!itiuu, ft·t:H:::~t! pr·ulectlon, etc., are certamly critical to a satisfac-
tory consumer experience. Such problems are solvable, however, and do not
reflect upon the te~hnologiP-al readiness of the solar energy Gystcm per se, al-
lhough they may reflect upon current installation practices and standards in the
industry. ·
• While it has been argued that user reports of performance and satisfaction are
subjective and, hence, misleading unless confirmed by "objective" measures of
performance (Connor 1979), it appears that the system classifications based on
the FSEC site inspections, while clearly more objective than user self-reports,
also contained subjective judgments, as can be seen in Table 5-3, listing criteria
for category identification.
• The FSEC study did not explore the basis of consumer satisfaction. Moreover,
owners unaware of problems were not distinguished from owners aware of prob-
lems but nevertheless satisfied.
It has been argued, "There is a strong inclination on the part of many present owners to
want their solar experience to be positive and to make allowance for system inadequa-
cies" (Yarosh et al. 1979, p. 17). There appears to be no evidence in the data collected
by FSEC for such a statement, although there is reason to believe that such a phenome-
non may account partially for observed reports of satisfaction. Similarly, one could
argue that when a study is designed "to assess the nature and causes of consumer prob-
lems with solar energy systems" (Yarosh et al. 1979, Foreword), evaluators who are
looking for problems in a system will, thus, tend to find problems (to the extent that
there are subjective components of the evaluation process).

Although the FSEC study is the most carefully conducted effort directed at determining
quality of installation and performance, it is clifficnlt to accept their estimate, as typi-
cal, that 73% of installations are unsatisfactory, for the reasons cited above. ·

The Solar/Insulation Unit of the California Department of Consumer Affairs maintains a

complaint handling and mediating service for consumer complaints in the areas of solar
energy, conservation, and insulation. In thP.ir first year the number of soltll' energy
system complaints received represented 1% of known solar installations in the state. Of
these, 60% were complaints about pool heaters; the department notes that "because the
solar systein is new to most consumers, they will tend to blame any pool problems on the
solar system" (Ramsey and Niland 1979, p. 4). Thirty percent of complaints involved
firms that had gone out of business. Twenty percent of complaints were for combination
systems (such systems included various combinations of hot water, space, and pool heat-
ing, as well as cooling), although these systems represented less than 1% of actual
installations. Particularly since installations in California are estimated to represent

58
S5~1'fl' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L . U = : t . . . J

Table 5-3. CATEGORY IDENTIFICATION: FSEC SITE INSPECTIONSa

The order of the assessment categories in Tables 5-l and 5-2 correspond to increasing
severity of problems (actual and potential) encountered. Descriptions of each category
are as follows:

Category 1 - The solar system was functioning at the time of the site visit and appears
to have no significant actual or pot~ntial problems. ·It was installed in
accordance with acceptable practice. and the components appeared
compatible and adequately sized. Also, the system had experienced no
major problems in the past (information conveyed to study team by
owner at the time of the site visit).

Category 2 - System had experienced major problems in the past but these were
adequately corrected. .Such problems as collector freeze and rupture,
plumbing leaks, controller failure, and pump failure would fall in this ·
category.

Category· 3 - The solar system was func~ioning but some existing problems were
noted. These problems were characterized.as minor or easily correctable
(but could become major if not corrected) and included items such as
insecurely mounted or improperly placed control sensors, small cracks or
chips . in glazing, collector box paint peeling, and deteriorated piping
insulation or lack of special · valves to drain collectors without
interruption of DHW service.

Category 4 - The solar system was operational but the installation practice (and/or
component design) was questionable in terms of long-term reliability or
safety. The practices used were considered below recommended
practices for the industry •. The integrity and reliability of the system
and/or building would be-compromised under conditions of heavy winds,
rains, and freezes. Examples of such practices include mounting of
collectors by bolting into roof sheathing only, poor roof penetration and
sealing techniques, inability of collectors to be totally drained manually,
improper component sizing, ~.nn 11se of incompatible materials that could
be expected to result in corrosion.

Category 5 - Category 4 discrepancies already give evidence of major problems.

These problems are already overt .and include roof leakage, deterioration
. of collectors, deterioration of collector mounting, and corrosion of
·piping,· pumps, ana valves, such that operation problems are certain to
occur or are now occurring.

Category 6 - System is not now operational due to causes similar to those already
noted in the other category descriptions.

aYarosh et al. 1979, p. 20 ..

59
 - TR-245
!;:5~1 1~1----------------------------~---------------------------------

about 1/3 of all known installations in the country, this suggests that problems are not as
widespread as indicated by FSEC data. (One must keep in mind, however, FSEC's caution
that consumers may not be aware of problems, or that problems may take some time to
become evident. Further, one can surmise that only those problems which have not been
satisfactorily ameliorated through other methods have been brought to the attention of
the California Department of Consumer Affairs.)

Taken together, all of the evidence reviewed above leads to the conclusion that, at
present, not enough is known about the _quality of installation or operating characteristics
of the solar energy systems of present residential solar energy users or about the basis of
consumer satisfaction to permit the drawing of firm policy implications. To summarize,
it is known that:

• The large majority of solar owners who have been studied to date have expre::;~f;!d
satisfaction with their systems.
• Expressions of satisfaction alone cannot be used as a basis for· concluding that
systems Hr'P. prnp~rly installed or opcrnting correctly.
• There is evidence of poorly installed or operating systems among those that have
been examined to date.
• It is unknown what proportion of installed systems have installation or operating
problems.
• Little is known about· the basis of consumer satisfaction with solar energy sys-
tems or about how satisfaction relates to system performance.
• Much more research is needed to draw definitive conclusions about these matters
and to utilize the information for policy purposes. (Tht:- type of research needed
in this area will be discussed later.)

The apparent discrepancy, discovered between the user reports of satisfaction .with
systems lind the engineering assessments of performance of systems, is an intriguing and
important research issue, the investigation of which should contribute much to the un-
derstanding of the solar owner's experiences to date.

5.3 POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR OBSERVED DISCREPANCI:m;

There are a variety of possible explanations· for this observeci ph~nomenon of occm:ionol
reports of satisfaction with solar systems that are not properly installed or performing.
Conclusions that consumer reports cannot be trusted as valid, based on the reported lHck
of correspondence between subjectively reported satisfaction and interpretations of sat-
isfactory performance deriving from observations of "problems," are unwarranted for
several reasons. As explained in greater detail below, this discrepancy might be ex-
plained in part by the invisibility of many of these problems, by the manner in which
problems are perceived and defined, by tendencies on the part of users to reduce cogni-
tive dissonance, by the manner in which expectations. can influence experience, by the
manner in which experience is influenced by motivations and values, or by special attri-
butes of the users whose experiences have been examined empirically.

5.3.1 Invisibility of Problems

One obvious explanation, as pointed out by the FSEC (Yarosh et al. 1979), is that, at least
for improper installation, the problems may not become apparent for a few years.

60
 55~1'*' ________________________T_R_-_24_5

Similarly, if a system has a properly functioning backup system, and the user does not
monitor energy· consumption, he or she would in many cases have no way of knowing that
a system is performing below capacity or not at all.

5.3.2 Definition of Problems

A second possible explanation relates to the manner in which systems are classified as
"unsatisfactory." As pointed out earlier, most studies which inquired about problems
discovered that the majority were minor and were satisfactorily repaired. Thus, to have
had a "problem" as defined by the researcher does not necessarily indicate that the
consumer has had an unsatisfactory experience. This interpretation is confirmed by the
fact that more owners responded affirmatively to having experienced specific types of
problems when queried directly about these than indicated that they had problems in
response to general questions (Yarosh and Litka 1978). This supports the interpretation
that· all malfunctions are not necessarily perceived as "problems" by users; rather, they
may be perceived merely as inconveniences in some cases. The definition of "problem" is
in part a judgment· that must be grounded in the experience of the actual user. What
appears to be a problem from the perspective of an engineer concerned with maximizing
operational performance might in fact be considered tolerable by a user and compatible
with an overall satisfactory experience.

5.3.3 Dissonance Reduction

Reports of discrepancies can . convey the impression that solar users are irrational,
ignorant, or purposefully blind to problems. For example, the FSEC reports, "There is a
strong inclination on the part of many present owners to want their. solar experience to
be positive and to make allowance for system inadequacies" (Yarosh et al. 1979, p. 17).
The implication here is that users report unsatisfactory experiences as satisfactory
simply because of this desire to have a positive experience.

Such an interpretation, in fact, might apply to some owners. The social psychological
literature on cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957) would predict that in some cases users
might 8ttempt to convince themselves that their decisions to adopt were correct and
that their experiences have been satisfactory, even given considerable evidence to the
contrary.* Such an interpretation is hardly capable of explaining all cases of satisfaction
with systems that are not deemed satisfactory by measures of performance, however.

*The theory of cognitive dissonance suggests that, when individuals simultaneously hold
two cognitions (e.g., attitudes, perceived behaviors) that are psychologically inconsistent,
they experience dissonance and will attempt to reduce this dissonance by changing one of
the cognitions. Thus, for example, if a solar owner knows that s/he has invested a large
sum of money or time in his or her system and also knows that the system is problematic,
s/he might attempt to reduce the dissonance by ignoring the problems or by convincing
himself or herself that the system's problems are minimal, particularly since the other
cognition (knowledge of investment) is more difficult to change.

61
55~1 ,_,
"' ________________________ _
TR-245

5.3.4 The Role of Expeetations

The expectations of users play an important role in determining how system problems
will influence satisfaction. Given consumer problems with other major purchases, such
as automobiles, one would not expect that users of solar energy systems would demand an
absolute absence of problems in order to be satisfied with their purchase. Yet, it is clear
that the bases of consumer satisfaction with solar systems are complex and not well
understood. One researcher who examined the bases of satisfaction in some detail ob-
served that "[t]he consumers' 'satisfaction' with their system is one of the least precise
pieces of data recorded in the survey and as such it may appear too vague and imprecise
to warrant serious attention. However, its very generality has the advantage of provid-
ing an overall assessment· of the consumers' solar experiences •••" (Sawyer 1979). He
notes that these individuals had macfe f!onsidP,rf.'.ble financial and/or emotional inve3t---
ment3 in their systerus Hnd, hence, "It can be assumed that they would be biased towArd
optimistic appraisals that would confirm the wisdom of their decisions. This attitudinal
framework is important because, lacking elaborate monitoring equipment and economic
modeling abilities, specific technical data on which to evaluate their systems was
minimal."
Sawyer (1975) noted the likelihood of some dissonance-reducing tendencies as a partial
explanation for the incidence of those consumers who noted numerous problems but
reported high satisfaction levels. He also examined other possible explanations deriving
from examination of the user's "attitudinal framework," particularly the role of expecta-
tions about the system. He found that desire to reduce energy bills was the most signifi-
cant motivation for the users in his sample, and that their payback expectations were
rigorous, but that consumers with more demanding motivations such as economics were
as satisfied with their systems as were consumers with less exacting motivations such as
environmental concern. The only motivation significantly correlating with satisfaction
was desire for self-sufficiency, and Sawyer hypothesized that the higher level of
satisfaction among such users related to the symbolic value their systems held. No
statistically significant relationship was found between satisfaction levels and any other
motivation, nor between satisfaction and demographic characteristics of users, or system
variables (function, collector design, manufacturer, application, year of installation) with
the apparently inexplicable exception of backup systems. (In this . case, satisfaction
apparently was not related positively to cost of backup fuel, presumably an indicator of
financial savings generated by the systems.)

Sawyer concluded thatz

It had heen ant.i~ipRtP.rl thRt the overall satie:faction lcvcl3 would be found
to be skewed toward consumers who hRvP. had more positive experienr.P.r..
The research results indicate that these consumers are those who have
installed domestic water systems, had packaged or homemade systems,
lived in the Southwest~ and recently purchased their systems. The lack of
any statistical linkage between these variables suggests that the satisfac-
tion levels are very much a. fun('tion of the· expectations of the consumers.
Thus the owners of space and combined systems, recognizing that their
systems were more complex and costly than domestic water designs, had
lower expectations. Owners of contractor-made systems, knowing that the
contractor had very little experience in the field, anticipated the greater
number of technical problems that they experienced. Consumers in New
England, less sure of having adequate solar insolation, had lower expecta-
tions than their peers in the Southwest. Similarly, the earlier adopters
anticipated more significant barriers than the most recent consumers.

62
 TR-245
!iE:~I ~~~~----------------~-------------------------------------------
/-=

5.3.5 The Role of Motivatiom and Values

The roles of motivations for adoption and expectations for systems in determining user
satisfaction are promising areas for further research. The study by Leonard-Barton
(1978) revealed a typology of solar adopters, characterized as "ecologists," "tinkerers,"
"comfort/convenience people," and "economy-minded people" (see study summary for
more detail). This and other evidence (e.g., Bezdek et al. 1979; DOE 1978) indicate that
people adopt' solar energy for a variety of reasons and would be expected to have differ-
ent. expectations and 9ifferent tolerances for and feelings about system problems. (See
study summaries for other data on motivations). For example, differential tolerances for
and feelings about risk could very well affect a user's satisfaction with a system. For
those motivated by environmental concern, the risk of occasional problems with system
operation, particularly if the system has an adequate backup, could very well be accepted
when compared to their views of possible risks from expanded fossil fuel or nuclear
development. In such a hypothetical case, high levels of satisfaction would be consistent
with less than perfect performance. Thus, a clear need for further research into these
areas exists.

5.3.6 The Typicality of Present Users

A question which arises in this context is the typicality of early solar users. It has been
, argued that precisely because of the characteristics of early users, their experiences are
of relatively low relevance to more widespread commercialization.*
The literature on diffusion of innovation (Rogers and Shoemaker 1971)** does predict
that the earliest users of an innovation' are atypical and differ from later users in impor-
tant .ways. Five "ideal types" of adopters of innovation are proposed, operationally
defined according to when their adoption takes place (see Fig. 5-l). These ideal types,
and brief characterizations, are as follows:

• Innovators: venturesome; eager to try new ideas; cosmopolite; control substan-

tial financial resources; able to understand and apply complex technical know-
ledge (represent the first 2.5% of the population to adopt);
• Early Adopters: more integrated into the local social system than innovators;
localites; greatest degree of opinion leadership in most social systems; serve as
. role models; respected by peers; embodiment of successful and discrete use of
new ideas (represent the next 13.5% to adopt);
• Early Majority: adopt new ideas just before the averag~ member of a social
system; interact frequently with peers, but rarely hold leadership positions;
deliberate for some time before adopting a new idea (represent next 34% of
adopters);

*It is also important to note, that the systems whose performances have been examined
were installed and designed by an early generation of solar professionals. It is likely that
as experience is gained by the solar industry infrastructure, quality of system design,
installation, and performance will increase accordingly. Similarly, recent attention to
consumer protection measures for solar consumers can be expected to positively influ-
ence user experiences. ·

**For a discussion of the applicability of tttis literature to solar energy policy issues, see
Roessner et al. 1979. ·· ·

63
S =~l
-~ ~
[.[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - -TR-245
--

• Late Majority: adopt new ideas just after the average member of a social sys-
tem; adoption may be both an economic necessity and the answer to increasing
social pressures; skeptical and cautious about innovations (represent next 34% of
adopters);
• Laggards: last to adopt; possess almost no opinion leadership; most localite;
point of reference is the past; traditional in values; suspicious of innovations and
change agents (represent last 16% of adopters).

·Early Early Late

Adopters Majori~y Majority Laggards
2.5% 13.5% 34% 34% 16%

~- sd

The innovativeness dimension. as measured by the time at which an individual acopts an

innovation or innovations. is continuous. However. this variable may boa partitioned into five
adopter categories oy laying off standard deviations from the average time of adoption.
(Roger and Shoemaker 1971. ::~. 182)

Figure 5-1. Adopter Categorization on the Basis of lnnovativeness

By definition, it is likely that all the existing solar adopter studies have looked at innova-
tors or early adopters and, thus, it is likely that they are atypical of later adopters. It is
important that researchers be cognizant of this distinction, particularly when attempting
to utilize information generated from studying existing adopters for near-term policy and
marketing purposes.
'
When considering longer-range questions of policy and marketing, one particular charac-
teristic of early adopters is important-that of their role as opinion leaders. "Opinion
leadership is the degree to which an individual is able to influence informally other
individuals' attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with relative frequency" (Rogers
and Shoemaker 1971, p. 35). Thus, it can be asserted that early adopters of solar energy

64
 -
5 =~1 .-
1·1----~--------------------
TR-245

technologies are a particularly important population for research. Several studies noted
the importance of solar users as a source of information or influence to potential adop-
ters (Cook et al. 1977; Hamrin 1978; Leonard-Barton 1978; Sawyer 1979). Other studies
emphasized contact with "individuals," "neighbors," etc. (without the specification that
these were solar users) as important to the adoption decision. process. The bulk of avail-
able evidence thus indicates that interpersonal channels of communication are important
to the diffusion of solar technologies. Early adopters play the role of legitimizing the
innovation for later adopters.

Because the bulk of the diffusion of solar technologies will occur over the next several
decades, it is important that policy makers consider the possibility that future market
conditions are likely to be quite different from those existing today. Costs of conven-
tional fuels will continue to rise, and solar technologies will be improved. There is a
. similar likelihood of change in the values, attitudes, and behavior of the populace as the
market context changes, and such potential changes have implications important to·
understanding the diffusion process.

As Leonard-Barton (1978) points out:

[SJolar technology is a very unusual innovation. Adoption of a technological

innovation in the past has usually meant commitment to such values as
increased efficiency or productivity. While people may indeed, as noted
above, install solar equipment for reasons of increased comfort, the act
still implies a concern for societal benefit. For some, this social commen-
dation may be undeserved; it accrues to the act .nevertheless. For others,
concern for environment is paramount, yet added family comfort may
result from the installation.
The solar innovation, unlike many technical changes, carries with it overt
value implications which "soft path" advocates maintain are hidden in the
choice of "hard" technology.* Therefore, peoples' values and attitudes may
be much more important in the diffusion of residential solar energy use
than in other types of innovations (e.g., video-tape recorders; microwave
ovens). Solar energy enjoys great favor among U.S. citizens. Even pro- and
anti-nu~lear forces can agree on the merits of solar energy (Milstein 1978).
For these reasons, the small sample of adopters that we Interviewed in this
pretest study may speak for many other p0tential adopters. We do not wish
to imply that finan~ial considerations are unimportant, but rather that the
intangible, value-laden benefits of adoption must be considered along with
the unquestionable important financial factors. (p. 17)
The utilization of solar technologies may be more consciously linked to the user's values
and attitudes than is the adoption of many other innovations. In particular, those for
whom the use of solar energy is an integral part of an energy-conscious lifestyle are an

*Lovins (1977) distinguishes the "soft path" (which "combines a prompt and serious com-
mitment to efficient use of energy, rapid developrpent of renewable energy sources
matched in scale and in energy quality to end-use needs, and special transitional fossil
fuel technologies") from the "hard path" (which "relies on rapid expansion of centralized
high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity")
(p. 25).

65
 - TR-245
5 -~
=~·1·1-------------------------
~

important and unique source of data of relevance to policies dealing with solar com-
mercialization and energy conservation.

If values, attitudes, and lifestyle preferences are indeed changing in the direction of
those held by some early solar users, as some maintain (e.g., Henderson 1978), then it is
imperative that primarily economic models of market penetration be expanded and
refined to permit incorporation of more explicitly social data of this type. Research that
can measure changes in such areas as the attitudes, values, and lifestyle preferences of
the public should be encouraged to provide this type of policy-relevant information.

5.4 CONSUMER PROTECTION

While this discussion has dwelled a_t. some length on the bases of consumer satisfaction
with solar systems, particularly with regard to evidence that subjective reports of satis-
faction sometimes may be at odds with more objective assessments of installation or
performance, it is to be emphasized that high levels of reported satisfaction should not
be used to conclude that commercialization of residential solar energy systems will
. proceed without problems. It is important that reasonable measures to ensure consumer
protection receive adequate attention from policy makers. In short, providing solar
energy consumers with the best possible systems, at the lowest possible cost, with the
best possible protection against operating or installation problems should be central to
the effort to commercialize residential solar energy systems.

While analysis of the proper role of the government in consumer protection, or of the
extent or form of consumer protection measures required, is beyond the scope of this
paper, a few general statements regarding P-on.sumer protection are provided below.*

• Adequate consumer protection measures are important if a satisfactory con-

sumer experience is to be a~ured and accelerated commercialization of solar·
technologies is to be successfully pursued. As Yarosh et al. (1979) point out:
The government thrust towards near-term use of solar energy
is, to a large extent, driven by the necessity to displace
scarce fossil fuels. For the adventure in solar commercial-
. r ization to be successful it is vital that the majority of near-
term systems work well and work reliably. If the first few
hUndred thousand solar systems installed reveal a high ratio
of less than satisfactory performance, this may tend to con-
firm widespread perceptions already existing among nonsolar
owners that solar technology is unproven. If the systems
already del)loyed are not displacing fossil fuel usc as expec- ·
ted, it will raise serious questions concerning the necessity
for commercializing near-term solar technology. (p. 18)

*The interested reader is referred to the following publications containing recommenda-

tions for consumer protection measures: Fienemann 1979; Ramsay and Niland 1979; Sub-
committee 1978; U.S. Dept. of Energy 1979a; U.S. Dept. of Energy 1979b; U.S. Dept. of
Energy 1979d; Ward 1979; Yarosh et al. 1979.

66
 $5~1rflr _______________________TR_-_2_45

·• Assuring a satisfactory residential solar user experience will require that atten-
tion be paid to all elements of the technology delivery system,* including qual-
ity control of system components, adequate training of system designers and
installers, mechanisms for financing solar systems, provision of adequate infor-
mation for decision making by potenti81 owners, provision of adequate warran-
ties, and provision of operating and maintenance instructions and services to
owners.
• In addition to measures for protecting consumers, measures must be undertaken
to educate potential solar users as well. According to the California Depart-
ment of Consumer Protection:

The consumer is not always the victim-he or she may be part

of the problem.· A consumer may not have read the instruc-
tion manual and failed to drain the system before a freeze,
for example. Consumers become important components of
passive systems and we may expect to see this kind of prob-
lem arise more often as passive systems become widespread.
If the vents are not opened at night, the house will not cool
down. This puts an added burden of education on the people
who sell the consumer any solar product to make sure that
the customer understands his or her part of the bargain.
(Ramsay and Niland 1979, p. 5) ·

• The need for measures to ensure consumer protection does not indicate that
residential solar energy systems are not ready for commercialization. As the
summary of a DOE/SERI workshop on operational results of solar heating and
cooling systems points out:
Solar heating and cooling systems are technically and eco-
nomically feasible at the present time. If this conclusion
seems contradictory, it is because a careful analysis of the
results indicates rather precisely why the operational results
of many of the solar heating and cooling systems presented at
this conference failed to meet expectations. More impor-
tantly, it has now become clear what steps are necessary to
ensure high quality systems in the future. The only necessity,
as so graphically brought out by the conference, is that the
solar system must be engineered and installed properly.
(Ward 1979, p. 30)

*A technology delivery system consists of "a number of interacting components, and each
component consists of a set of institutions that perform a common function ••.• Before
a new technology can reach the marketplace in the form of a new product, .process, or
service, all of the components of the appropriate TDS· have to be ready to accept it"
(Ezra 1975, p. 187).
67
5 =~~~-~
-~ ~
---------------------..~.T..uR'---'-2=><-45

SECTION 6.0

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There is a clear and urgent need for much more research aimed at increasing knowledge
about the issues reviewed in this report. At a: time when policy statements indicate a
serious commitment on the part of· the federal government to rapidly increasing the
utilization of solar energy technologies, the process of developing policies and commer-
cialization strategies pursuant to this goal needs to be informed by high quality, system-
atic empirical research.

The studies of solar users reviewed here contained a number of limitations relating to
sample size, the exploratory nature of most of the studies, and other factors (see Section
1.3). Therefore, a major conclusion of this review is that the current data base on resi-
dential solar energy uses is limited. Research findings based on any one study, or on the
body of studies reviewed here, are not generalizable to any population with any degree of
confidence. Some very general conclusions deriving from the review have been drawn
(see Section 7 .0). Those conclusions addressing solar users' experiences can, at best, be
considered hypotheses to be tested in subsequent research. Inconsistencies or contradic-
tions in the findings summarized in this report are also useful in providing directions for
future research aimed at resolving these questions.

Fortunately, there has been a growing interest recently in the contributions that policy-
relevant social science research can provide for the purposes of encouraging more wide-
spread utilization of solar energy technologies. SERI's National Study of the Residential
Solar Consumer, of which this report is a product, will be an important source of infor-
mation about present and potential residential solar energy users. In addition, a number
of other planned or ongoing empirical studies dealing with residential solar energy users
have been identified and are listed in Appendix B.
This section will provide an outline of research topics con~erned with the experience of
solar users that promise to yield information of relevanc.e to solar energy policy and
commercialization.

The following list of questions (Farhar et al. 1979) outlines very generally the types of
informational needs that research on present and potential solar users could satisfy.

• What factors affect individual decisions to use solar energy (e.g., perceptions of
present and future energy supplies, costs, values, performance expectations for .
solar systems, environmental concerns, concern about risks of using solar ener-
gy)'!
• Who in a household actually makes the decision to use solar energy?
• What are the present levels of exposure to information sources about solar ener,...
gy, investment plans, and actual use among the nation's homeowners?
• What are the present levels of knowledge about personal household energy use
and about solar energy as an alternative response? What sources of information
are being used? What sources are perceived as credible?
• What personal trade-offs are consumers willing to make for various energy
systems?

69
$5~~~-~ ----------'--------------~T~R~-2~4~5

• What are the characteristics of those already using solar .energy? Of those with
plans to use it?
• What are the perceived barriers to solar energy use?
• What financing schemes for solar energy would be most preferred?
• What concerns does the public have about consumer protection and solar fraud?
• What techniques can be used to deal with them?
• What roles does the public prefer for institutions in the commercialization of
solar energy (e.g., federal government, solar industry, utilities)?
• What can be done to involve the elderly, the poor, the handicapped, and minority
groups in the commercialization of solar energy?

Drawing directly from the literature reviewed in this report, the following issue areas
appear to be important topics for future empirical research. Some are more directly
relevant to near-term marketing of commercially available solar energy systems; others
are areas of more relevance t~ longer-range policy and commercialization activities.

• What are the characteristics of present solar energy users? Of particular con-
cern are the demographic characteristics, value sets, lifestyle patterns, and
attitudes of present adopters. Such information can be utilized for identifying
market segments for commercialization and for devising marketing strategies,
and it should contribute importantly to market penetration or d~ffusion studies.
• What inform8tion sources have solar owners utilized? What sources are per-
ceived as credible? What forms of information dissemination appear to be most
promising?
• What are the sources of motivation for solar adoption among present owners? Of
particular importance are the relative weights given to economic and noneco-
nomic motivations, such as environmental concern, a.nticipation of future short·
ages of conventional fuels, or desire for achieving greater self-sufficiency.
• How does ownership of a solar energy system affect lifestyles or living
patterns? What are the unintended consequences of solar energy adoption? What
are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of solar energy use?
• How typical or atypical of the general population are present solar users? Of
what releyance are their experiences to those of potential adopters? Specifi-
cally, to what extent are the demographic and psychographic characteristics of
present users ohnred by the general population, and to what extent, if at all, is
the population changing in the direction of greater consoriance with these char-
acteristics?
• What are the bases of satisfaction-dissatisfaction with solar energy systems? To
what extent are expectations, attitudinal frameworks, and values determinant of
satisfaction, and how? How aware are solar owners of the operation or per-
formance of their systems? To what extent and how is satisfaction related to
system performance?

In addition to the above questions, which can be answered through systematic research
efforts relying primarily upon communication with present and potential users, an impor-
tant research area identified in this review requires a different research approach.
There is a critical need for expansion of efforts to assess performance of residential -

70
S5~11tll - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - . . . . . _ T......
R-_.2,_.....,.45

solar energy systems from an engineering orientation. Such assessments. can be provided
in part by site inspection, but ideally would be provided by monitoring of system per-
formance in real-world situations. The availability of this type of data would aid in
resolving some of the questions encounter~d when researchers attempt to explain ob-
served discrepancies between reports of satisfaction and indications that systems in some
cases are not performing optimally.

Research on these issue areas should yield information of value to the following types of
activities:

• assessment of public policy preferences for accelerated solar energy commer-

cialization strategies (e.g., for the use of incentives);

• planning of marketing strategies for the solar industry;

• provision of empirical data on noncost variables for the development of market

pen~tration models;

• development of consumer. information and education efforts; and

• development of consumer protection policies and programs.

Logistically, the research agenda outlined above can be carried out through several types
of research.

• Large, national surveys of present solar energy users. There is a critical need for
an expanded and current base of information on the experiences of these adopt-
ers. Because of rapid changes in technologies, market strategies, and the general
· energy situation, periodic updating of such a data base would be of great value.
• National surveys of public attitudes, knowledge, and behavior relevant to solar
energy and energy conservation. Again, perio<Hc updating of the data base would
be valuable. ·
• Market- and technology-specific research on present and potential solar energy
users, as well as regional, state, and local research activities. Because market
conditions, resource bases, climatic conditions, and social climates differ widely,
studies that yield geographically disaggregated data are needed, particularly to
the extent that implementation of solar policies will occur at a. politically disag-:-
gregate level. Similarly, because residential solar technologies cover a broad
spectrum (active water and space systems, ·passive design, wind, photovoltaics,
biomass), the similarities and differences among these technologies must be
assessed, both in regard to each other and conventional residential energy. sys-
tems.
• Coordinated research efforts that can gather both "subjective" data from present
users and "objective" data on system performance.

Given the relative lack of knowledge about the subject matter reviewed in this report
and the critical need for such information, much research remains to be done. It is hoped
that thP. results of such research will play an important role in our nation's effort to
achieve a sustainable energy future.

71
 - TR-245
!;:5~11~1-----------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 7.0

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

This review of empirical studies of residential solar energy users and of other literature
relevant to issues raised in the review, leads to the following general conclusions.

• There has been very little systematic empirical research on residential solar
energy users to date. The results of the research reviewed here indicate that
more unanswered questions than systematic knowledge have resulted from this
empirical research. The present data base is not strong enough to permit the
generalization of these findings for policy purposes. The best use of the
empirical findings reviewed here is as a guide for future, more systematic
research.
• The overall experiences with solar energy systems of those solar users whose
experiences have been investigated empirically have been very positive, as
determined by self-report. This evidence alone is insufficient to warrant con-
clusions that the experiences of future users will be positive. However, if the
opposite were true-that is, if large numbers of surveyed users had reported
negative experiences-there could be cause for serious concern about the pros-
pects for solar commercialization. This was not the case. At the least, it is safe
to conclude that high levels of reported satisfaction provide hope that commer-
cialization of solar technologies in the residential sector can proceed rapidly but
rationally and contribute to stated goals of achieving a 20% solar contribution to
the nation's total energy needs by the year 2000.
• There is evidence that significant numbers of early solar installations have
experienced problems relating to- design, installation, or operation. Such prob-
lems appear not to be readily apparent to many owners of systems. These prob-
lems appear to be resolvable without major technological breakthr~:mghs. That is,
the available evidence indicates that presently available residential solar energy
systems are technologically ready for widespread commercialization. However,
accelerated commercialization will require increased attention to improvements
in all elements of the technology delivery system for solar energy, including
financing, system (as opposed to component) design, installation, and consumer
education.
• Provision of adequate measures for consumer protection should be a priority for
those concerned with solar energy policies pertaining to commercialization in the
residential sector. The lack of adequate provisions in this area could potentially
hinder commercialization. However, the necessity for providing for consumer
protection does not indicate the need for slowing commercialization at present.
• Much research remains to he done in the area of residential solar energy use.
Much more extensive and systematic research dealing with both present and
potential residential solar energy users should yield knowledge of direct rele-
vance to policy making and commercialization in the residential sector.

73
(
 TR-245
S5~1~fl~ ---------------------------

REFERENCES

Bezdek, Roger H.; Hirshberg, Alan S.; Babcock, William H. 1979. "~conomic Feasibility
of Solar Water and Space Heating." Science. Vol. 203: - 23 March 1979; pp. 1214-
1.220. .

Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, Inc. 1979. The SHAC Evaluation Study: Vol. 5, Data Analy-
sis of Site Collected Data. Draft. Bethesda, MD: Booz, Allen, and Hamil ton.

Connor, Lynda. 1979. U.S. Dept. of Energy (Conservation and Solar Applications);
personal communication.

Cook,.Jeffrey; Conelly, W. Thomas; Garret, Billy G. 1977. Solar Consumers: An Inves-

tigation toward Commercialization. Tempe, AZ: College of Architecture, Arizona
State University; June 30.
. .
Elgin, Duane; and Mitchell, A. 1976. Stanford Research Institute Business Intelligence
Program Guidelines: Voluntary Simplicity. No. 1004. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
Research Institute.
Ezra, Arthur A. 1975. "Technology Utilization: Incentives and Solar Energy." Science •.
Vol.187 (No. 4178): 28 February 1975; pp. 707-713.

Farhar, Barbara C.; Unseld, Charles T.; Caputo, Richard; Easterling, James. 1979.
Citizen Participation in the Domestic Policy Review of Solar Energy, Draft Final
Report. Golden, CO: Solar Energy Research Institute; January.

Farhar, Barbara C.; Unseld, Charles T., Vories, Rebecca. 1979. A National Study of the
Residential Solar Consumer: Decision Factors and Experiences~ Project Plan.
Golden, CO: Solar Energy Research Institute.

Festinger, Leon. 1959. A Theory of Cognitive -Dissonance., Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Fienemann, Mia C. 1979. Solar Consumer Protection within the Residential Conserva-
tion Service Program (Draft). New York: Science Applications Inc.; June 26.

Griffin, Robert L. 1979. "The Sun: An Alternate Energy Source." Energy Insider.
Vol. 2 (No. 14): Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy; July 9; pp. 1,6.

Hamrin, Janice Graham. 1978. Low Energy Consuming Communities: Implications for
Public Policy. Davis, CA: University of California.

Henderson, Hazel. 1978: Creating Alternative Futures: The End of Economics. New
York: Berkley Publishing Corp.

Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. 1978. The Diffusion and Adoption of Solar Equipment among
California Homeowners: Report on a Pretest Study. Stanford, CA: Institute for
Communications Research, Stanford University; December.

Lorriman, Doug. 1976. "Perceptual Assessment of a New Energy Concept." Pro-

ceedings: ISES/SES of Canada Sharing the Sun Conference. Vol. 9: August 1976; pp.
276-281.

75
 - TR...:245
S5~1'1i' -----------,..------------- --

Lovins, Amory B. 1977. Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger Publishing Co.

Maize, Kennedy P. 1978. · "The Dark Side of the Sun." Environmental Action. Vol. 10
(No. 11): 7 October 1978; pp. 8-11.

Marylander Marketing Research, Inc. 1978. San Diego Gas and Electric Solar Water
Heating Initial Purchaser Analysis. Sherman Oaks~ CA: Marylander Marketing
Research.

Marylander Marketing Research, Inc. 1976. Attitudes, UsAge Patterns, ood System
Charactetislics among Owners of Solar Pool Heaters and Owners of Solar Water
Heaters. Sherman Oaks, CA: Marylander Marketing Research, Inc.

Milstem, Jeffrey S. 1978. Soft and Hard Energy Paths: What People _on the Streets
Think. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departil!ent of F.nergy; Maroh.

Peplies, R. N.; Johnson, Jeff; Horne, Scott. 1978. Inventory and Analysis of Solar Tech-
nology in Tennessee. Johnson City, TN: East Tennessee State University; July.

Ramsay, Kathryn; Niland, Penny. 1979. California's Experience with Solar-Consumer

Inquiries and Complaints. Sacramento, CA: State Department of Consumer Affairs ..

Real Estate Research Corporation. 1978. Sellin the Solar Home: Some Preliminar
Findings, Residential Solar Program Report 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Dept. of Energy; April,

Roessner., J. David; Posner, David; Shoemaker, Floyd; Shama, Avraham. 1979. Applica- ·
tion of Diffusion Research to Solar Energy Policy Issues. SERI/TR-51-194. Golden,
CO: Solar Energy Research Institute.

Rogers, Everett M.; Shoemaker, Floyd F. 1971. Communication of Innovations. New

York: The Free Press.

Sawyer, Stephen W. 1978. The Cost, Performance, and Reliability Patterns of Solar
Heating Systems: An Assessment by 177 Owners. Presented at Solar Heating and
Cooling Systems Operational Results Conference, 28 November-! December 1978;
r.olorado Springs; CO.

Sawyer, Stephen W. 1979. A Survey of Solar Consumers in Northeastern a11d_ South-

western United StAtE's. College Pork, MD: DelJHrtment of Geography, University of
Maryland.

Smith, Robert C.; et al. 1977. Summary of Performance Problems of 100 Residential
Solar Water Heaters Installed by New England Electric Compan~ Subsidiaries in 1976
and 1977. Upton, NY: Solar Technology Transfer Program, rookhaven National
Laboratory; October.

Solar Energy Institute of North America. 1979~ Solar State of the Union Report.
Washington, D.C.: Solar Energy Institute of North America.

Sparrow, F. T.; Warkov, Seymour; Kass, Robert C. 1978. "Socioeconomic Factors Af-
fecting the Adoption of Household Solar Technology." Energy Policy in the United
States: Social and Behavioral Dimensions. New York: Praeger Publishers.

76
 - TR-245
!;5:~1 1~1--------~-----------------------------------------------------

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee. on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce, U.S. House of Repres~ntatives. 1978. Solar Energy and Today's Con-
sumer. Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives; December.

Teske, C. E. 1979. Solar System Operational Problems. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech
University.

Towle, Sharyn Casner. 1978. Low-Income Solar Housing Project Analysis. Fort Collins,
CO: Department of Consumer Sciences and Housing, Colorado State University.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1978a. Solar Energy Incentives Analysis: Psycho-Economic

Factors Affecting the Decision Making of Consumers and the Technology Delivery
System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOE, Office of Conservation and 'Solar Applica-
tions.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1978b. .Status Report on Solar Energy Domestic Policy
Review; Draft. Washing~on, D.C.: U.S. DOE; August 25.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1979a. Proceedings of Solar Energy Consumer Protection

Workshop, Opening and Final Plenary Session, Vol. One. 3-6 May 1978; Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1979b. "Solar Consumer Protection Workshop Held." The
Energy Consumer. Vol. 1 (No.3): June/July;· pp. 14-15.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1979c. The National Solar Data Network (NSDN) Program,
Request for Proposal, 28 February 1979.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1979d. Status Report on Solar Energy Domestic Policy
Review; Draft. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOE.

Ward, Dan S. 1979. Executive Summary: Solar Heating and Cooling Systems Opera-
tional Results Conference. Nov. 27 -Dec. 1. Colorado Springs, CO.

Wilson, Sandra. 1979. Missouri Solar Consumer Survey. Jefferson City, MO: Solar
Program, Division of Policy Development, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources.

Yarosh, M. M.; Litka, A. H. 1978. Solar Commercialization: The Consumer Experience.

Cape Canaveral, FL: Floriaa Solar Energy Center.

Yarosh, M. M.; Litka, Arthur H.; Kettles, Colleen M. 1979. Inspections and Case His-
tories of Private Sector Solar Svst~m Installations in Florida. Cape Canaveral, FL:
Florida Solar Energy Center. ..... .,..... -...-···--

77
$5~~~-~ _________:________________T_R_-_.2_45

'APPENDIX A

BIDLIOGRAPHY OF EMPmiCAL STUDIES OF

RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY USERS

A-1.
 TR-245
!;:S~I ~~~---------------------------------------------------------------
/-=

Cook, Jeffrey; Conelly, W. Thomas; and Garret, Billy G. 1977. Solar Consumers: An
Investigation toward Commercialization. Tempe, AZ: College of Architecture,
Arizona State University.

Farhar, Barbara, C.; et al. 1979. Citizen Participation in the Domestic Policy Review of
Solar Energy, Draft Final Report. Golden, CO: Solar Energy Research Institute ..

Hamrin, Janice Graham. 1978. Low Energy Consuming Communities: Implications for
Public Policy. Davis, CA: University of California.

Leonar9-Barton, Dorothy. 1978. The Diffusion and Adoption of Solar Equipment among
California Homeowners: Report on a Pretest Study. Stanford, CA: Institute for
Communications Research, Stanford University.

Lorriman, Doug. "Perceptual Assessment of a New Energy Concept." Proceedings:

ISES/SES of Canada Sharing the Sun Conference. Vol. 9: August 1976; pp. 276-281.

Marylander Marketing Research, Inc. 1978. San Diego Gas and Electric Solar Water
Heating Initial Purchaser Analysis. Sherman Oaks, CA: Marylander Marketing
Research, Inc.

Marylander Marketing Research, Inc. 1976. Attitudes, Usage Patterns, and System
Characteristics among Owners of Solar Pool Heaters and Owners of Solar Water
Heaters. Sherman Oaks, CA; Marylander Marketing Research, Inc.

Real Estate Research Corporation. 1978. · Selling the Solar Home: Some Preliminary
Findings, Residential Solar Program Report # 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Dept. of Energy.

Sawyer, Stephen W. 1979. A Survey of Solar· Consumers in Northeastern and South-

western United States. College Park, MD: Department of Geography, University of
Maryland.

Sparrow, F. T.; Warkov, Seymour; Kass, Robert C. 1978. "Socioeconomic Factors

Affecting the Adoption of Household Solar Technology." In Seymour Warkov,
Editor. Energy Policy in the United States: Social and Behavioral Dimensions. New
York: Praeger Publishers.

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives. 1978. Solar Energy and Today's Con-
sumer. Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives.

Towle; Sharyn Casner. 1978. Low-Income Solar Housing Project Analysis. Fort Collins,
CO: Department of Consumer Sciences and Housing, Colorado State University.

Warkov, Seymour. 1979. Solar Adopters and Near-Adopters: A Study of the HUD Solar
Hot Water Grant Program. Storrs, CT: Department of Sociology, University of
Connecticut.

Wilson, Sandra. 1979. Missouri Solar Consumer Survey. Jefferson City, MO: Solar
Program, Division of Poli~y Development, M.issouri Department of Natural
Resources.

Yarosh, M. M.; Litka, A. H. 1978. Solar Commercialization: The Consumer Exper-

ience. Cape Canaveral, FL: Florida Solar Energy Center.

A-3
 Ill
Ill
N
II
-~-~Ill
~=~
$=~~ ~-~ ________________________ T_R_-2_4_5

APPENDIX B

ANNOTATED BIDLIOGRAPHY OF ONGOING OR PLANNED STUDIES OF

RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY USERS

B-1
,-
 TR-245
S =~I~W~
-~ ~
---------------------------

This Appendix summarizes a number of current studies of residential solar energy users
to promote greater communication among researchers, policy makers, and interested
members of the solar industry.

Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. Solar Heating and Cooling (SHAC) Evaluation Study.
· Bethesda, MD: Energy and Environment Division.

· Objectives: To collect information regularly concerning nondemonstration SHAC instal-

lations. The study is comprised of three phases: (I) feasibility, (2) prototype system
design and testing, and (3) implementation.

Phase 1: The purpose was to test the feasibility of various techniques for collecting
data on nondemonstration SHAC installations.

Phe,se ll: Currently underway, this phase will design and test two prototype data
collection and analysis systems based on methods demonstra~ed to be feasible in
Phase I. The system will be tested by conducting an expanded survey in a number of
states.
Phase lll: The final phase will.involve transferring the implementation of the system
to the appropriate government and private organizations.

Sample: A sl:ratified random sample of 50 site visits in each of four metropolitan areas,
derived from the census of solar installations in 12 states conducted in Phase n.

Methodology: The census will consist of mailed letters of introduction to approximately

1,500 solar installers, dealers, and users in 12 states. Data will be obtained in 15-
minute telephone interviews, using a structured interview guide. Information sought
will include the numbers of systems sold or installed, types of systems, types of
buildings, and other descriptive data. A sample of installers will be sent a follow-up
questionnaire requesting more detailed information, such as system cost, collector
area, new or retrofit applications, system characteristics, type of applications, etc.
Finally, a sample of systems will be selected, and appointments for site visits will be
made with owners. Site visits will be conducted by a solar engineer and a trained
interviewer for a combined interview and system inspection. Issues to be covered
include owner experiences and attitudes about their systems; e.g., general level of
satisfaction with system operation. During the system inspection, the engineer will
assess design deficiencies and performance problems.

Use of Results: (I) For DOE, as baseline data for policy and program decisions, (2) for
the solar mdustry for market development purposes, and (3) for the general public,
as information about the status of solar energy use.

Funding Source: DOE.

Estimated Publication Date: Phase I Feasibility Study Report will be available in the
fall, 1979. A report on Phase n will be available in Summer 1980.

Contact: National Technical Information Service (NTIS) or DOE.

 - TR-245
!;5:~1 1~1----------------------------------------------------------~---

Califomia Energy Commission Solar Survey Program. Sacramento, CA.

The following three studies, funded by the California Energy Commission, are sep-
arately contracted yet integrally related. The third study, a statewide survey of
1,000 households, incorporates items on major issues and themes identified in the
first two studies. A final report on all of the solar studies is expected to be pub-
lished sometime in January 1980.

The overall objective of the California Energy Commission's Survey Program is "to
assess current and future consumer attitudes and actions toward solar in order to
develop basic marketing strategies and an in-house data base." The three studies
include: (1) a study of current users who have retrofitted their homes with solar
energy systems, (2) small decision analysis panels (focus groups) of nonusers, and
(3) a statewide household survey. The funning snnr('~;> for the studies iss Solnr
Office, California. Eru::r~y Cuuuuission. In each case, the contact person is Diana
Rains, Solar Office, California Energy Commission, 1111 Howe Avenue, Sacramento,
CA 95825, Below, each element is discussed separately. To date, individual survey
reports are untitled; titles assigned below are descriptive.

Rogers, Everett M.; Leonard-Barton, Dorothy; Rosa, Eugene. A Survey of Solar Ret-
rofits. Stanford, CA: Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University.

Objectives: (1) to probe for items and issues that ·have not been adequately addressed in
previous surveys; e.g., nonfinancial considerations in the decision-making process to
adopt solar energy; (2) to investigate what motivates homeowners to retrofit homes
with solar energy focusing on level of awareness and knowledge, expectations, and
decision-making process.

Sample: Includes 100 or more solar adopters (retrofit) in northern CAlifornia, 100 or
more nonadopters who are near neighbors of the solltr adoptP.rs, ?.0 to 30 "providers"
in northern California (i.e., solar equipment manufaP-t1.1rers and distributors). Total
sample is roughly 225.

Methodology: The survey will include a pretest of approximately 40 solar adopters (of
active space, water, or pool heating systems). The pretest will field test the survey
instrument for reliability and validity; results will he used in the design and imple-
mentation of the study of solar adopters. The survey of solar adopters will provide
information on those factors that influence the decision to udopt solar, what gratifi-
cations and dissatisfactions accompany ownership, the potential effect of various
government regulations, and the expectations th.ese initial adopters have for the
future of solar energy. From the survey of nonadopter neighbors, the investigators
hope to gain information about the neighborhoods into which solar systems are being
introduced (e.g., the second-hand experience of adopters' neighbors and their percep-
tions of solar efficiency, aesthetics, and desirability). The survey of solar manu-
facturers and distributors will provide insight into current marketing practices and
the attitudes of "providers" towards their customers and the government.

Use of Results: The study will serve as a model for future tracking of trends in solar
purchasing, in potential response to governmental action, and in public attitudes
towards solar. Data will be statistically analyzed and interpreted. Re~ults of the
survey will be fed back to the solar industry and widely disseminated. ·

Publication Date: Preliminary findings due in August 1979; final report due in Fall 1979.

B-4
 TR-245
-
S=~~~-~----------------------
~

Margolin, Joseph B.; Misch, Marion Ruth. In-Depth Survey of Nonsolar Consumer Focus
Groups. Washington, DC: Behavioral Studies Group, Program of Policy Studies in
. Science. and Technology, George Washington University.

Objectives: A 1978 DOE study involving focus groups or decision analysis panels com-
prised of representatives from the building, manufacturing, distributing, financing,
and building official and consumer segments of the technology delivery system (TDS)
did not include consumers in the Far West region meetings. This study will provide
detailed information on consumer behavioral/ economic barriers to solar acceptance
in Calif.

Sample: Sixty to 90 representatives of the consumer market across geographic segments

of California.

Methodology: Participants will meet in small, homogeneous focus groups (ten groups of
six to nine members each) for a two-hour period. Attendance is voluntary. Each
panel or group meets only once. Each session begins with the completion of a ques-
tionnaire, which provides both sociodemographic and attitudinal information on
participants prior to their being influenced by group discussion. Meeting discussions
will be conducted to elicit information concerning attitudes, current behavioral
intentions, and likely future behavior. Motivational processes affecting the accept-
ance of solar energy that are not easily identified through the administration of
questionnaires will b~ identified thro.ugh decision analysis panel techniques.

Use of Results: Results of the study will be directly incorporated into the final state-
wide household survey.

Expected Publication Date: Draft report is due in August 1979.

Heyer, Robert; Grunwald, Jeanie. Statewide Household Survey.' San Francisco, CA:
Field Research Corporation.

Objectives: The entire solar survey program is designed to gather information that will
lead to increased use of solar energy in California residences. Input to this final
survey will come from the findings of the first two studies. The statewide survey
will (1) determine . attitudes and actions and their relation to segrnenls of the
population and (2) act as a "bench mark for measuring change."

Sample: Random. GeneraUzation to California's population as a whole and its major

subregions will be possible. Names will-come from a Master Sample List which has
been developed, tested, and ref~ned by Field Research Corporation. The list will
provide cluster samplP.s for 1,000 interviews.

Methodology: The survey will include a pretest of approximately 20 persons in California

households that represent the range of types of interviewing situations to be en-
countered in the major survey. The pretest will allow the instrument to be field
tested, evaluated, and modified to insure relevance, reliability, and validity. Per-
sonal, in-home interviews with adult members of a statewide sampling of California
households will take place. The major survey will be administered by trained inter-
viewers under close supervision.
Use of Results: Data generated by the survey will most likely consist of attitudinal
measures (in the form of scales or indices), and items on awareness, behavioral

B-5
 - TR-245 '
!;:5~11~1---------------------------------------------------------------

intentions, op1mons, knowledge, and personal and household characteristics. The

final ·report of the solar survey program will be the responsibility of Everett M.
Rogers, Dorothy Leonard-Barton, and Eugene Rosa. Results will be incorporated
directly into a "basic market strategy for accelerated solar development in Califor-
nia."
Estimated Publication Date: Analysis of the statewide survey and a summary of findings
will be due in December 1979. A final report on the solar survey program (all of the
studies) will be available sometime in January 1980.

Center for Renewable Resotlrces. National Survey of Model Solar Projects. Washington,
D.C.
Objectives: To catalogue innovative and creative solar energy projects nationwide.

Sample: The intent is to exhaustively survey solar projects in all states, with an ex-
pected identification of over 1,000 projects. Solar projects in this case are program-
matically defined and would cover such activities as solar related labor programs,
bank financing projects for solar energy, CAP agency solar projects, low income
self-help projects, commercial and educational projects.

Methodology: CRR has subcontracted with· broadly-based solar coalitions in each state,
which will compile one-page descriptions for each model solar project identified.
The descriptions will be compiled into a reference document.

Use of Results: The survey is intended to provide information of value to a variety of

organizations interested in developing solar-related projects. Contact people for
each project will be listed.
Funding Source: DOE (Conservation and Solar Applications).

Expected Publication Date: December 1979.

Contact: Anita Gunn, Center for Renewable Resources, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Fifth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036.

Davis, Duane. ..At!.__!.\nalysis Q{ Solar Energy Adopters in the State of Florida. OrlandO,
.FL: Department of Marketing, University of Central Florida.

Objectives: 'I'o investigate the differences between solRr adopters and nonnnopters in
terms of psychographies, risks, and basic attitudinal components.

Sa.mple: Approximately 1,000 respondents, including nearly equal numbers of solar

adopters and nonadopters. All respondents are homeowners of single-family dwell-
ings in Florida. Solar adopters' names comP. from the Florida Solar Energy Center's
Solar Energy Adopter Sample (all were screened prior to being sent questionnaires).
The list of adopters represents nearly the entire universe of Florida adopters, and is
not considered to be a sample of any kind. Names ·of nonadopters belong to a list
that was commercially purchased; they represent a random sample of single-family
residences without solar systems in Florida.

B-6
 TR-245
5 ==~1
-~ ~
1~1---------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology: Questionnaires were mailed to over 4,000 potential respondents. Coding

of returned questionnaires is currently underway. Data collection is scheduled to be
completed by the last week of August 1979. Questionnaires include mixed items. A
standard attitude scale is employed. Lifestyle profiles are generated from Atti-
·tudes, Interests, and Opinions (AIOs) items. An Extended Fishbein Multi-Attribute
· Attitude model is employed.

Use of Results: For publication in national marketing journals and pretest for further
research.

Funding Source: The initial stages of the project are being funded by the Department of
Marketing, University of Central Florida.

Estimated Publication Date: Preliminary .results should be available in late October

1979; a final report is expected in March or April 1980.

Contact: Duane Davis, Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, University of

Central Florida, Box 25000, Orlando, FL 32816.

Klinefelter, John; Paee, Deborah F. New Construction DiffusiOn Study: Survey Report.
Saeramento, CA: Seleetion Consulting Center.

Objectives: (1) Comparison of homeowners who have purchased new tract homes which
incorporate solar systems with nonsolar new homeowners to determine differences in
socioeconomic characteristics, attitudes toward solar, and perceptions of future
energy prices; (2) evaluation of the impact of tax incentives and other economic
policies; (3) documentation ·of actual energy savings realized 'from solar adoption
through comparisons of utility bills for each group of new homeowners.

Sample: Includes 150 homeowners who have purchased new tract homes which incorpor-
ate solar systems and an equal number of new nonsolar homeowners. Groups will be
matched in terms of housing cost and geographical proximity (solar and nonsolar
homeowners are no more than five miles apart). ·

M.~jhodology: All 300 occupants will be interviewed person_ally, and utility bills will be
examined by the investigators. While one study for the California Energy Commis-
sion study (Rogers et al.) focuses on homeowners who have retrofitted with solar,
and a second study (Heyer and Grunwald) focuses on potential solar consumers, this
study investigates the comparative experiences and motivations of new solar and
nonsolar homeowners.

Use of Results: To develop policy options by the California Energy Commission, and to
. enable the California State Legislature to enact legislation that would incorporate
solar energy in the construction of new homes in California. In addition, study
findings will be incorporated in the commission's development of a marketing strat-
egy for new solar home construction.

Funding Source: California Energy Commission.

Expected Publication Date: December 1979.

Contact: Diana Rains, Solar Office, California Energy Commission, 1111 Howe Avenue,
Sacramento, CA 95825.

B-7
 TR-245
!;55~1 1~1---------------------------------------------------------------
Real Estate Research Corporation. Working Papers on Marketing and Marketing Accept-
anee: Residential Solar Demonstration Program. Findings and Analysis. And Selling the
Solar Home, 1979: Market Findings for the Building Industry. Chicago, IL.

Objectives: To establish a nontechnical information base and general knowledge about

the way in which marketplace dynamics operate to facilitate or constrain solar.
systems marketability and acceptance. Specific analytic objectives include:

• how well solar systems operate in the residential housing marketplace;

• acceptance of solar systems by consumers and other relevant actors;
• marketing techniques which facilitate information dissemination and widespread
market acceptance; and
• potential and problems of informati.on dissemination to specific user groups and
the public-at-large regarding solar utilization.

Sample: Includes purchasers of HUD solar demonstration homes and purchasers of

comparable conventional homes in the vicinity.* The total expected sample (Cycles
1-5) will include about 300 solar home purchasers and about 250 comparative pur-
chasers. As of mid-August 1979, initial face-to-face interviews with 177 solar home
purchasers and 162 comparative purchasers had been administered. In addition,
follow-up phone interviews of 93 solar home purchasers and 27 comparative puchas-
ers have been completed. The current reports (to be published in ·october 1979)
represent interviews with 132 solar home purchasers and 76 comparative purchasers.

Methodology: RERC employs a comparative analysis approach to its research of market-

ing and market acceptance. For each solar demonstration home selected for study,
a comparable conventional unit built in the same general location and in the\ same
general price range is selected as a comparative unit. Solar and nonsolar units are
tracked during the construction and marketing phase, at time of purchase, and with
follow-up interviews once the units have been occupied. A third group of prospec-
tive purchasers, people seriously looking for a home who inspected the solar units
but decided to purchase a conventional unit instead, will be interviewed as well. It
is anticipated that primary data collection will continue until the end of 1980 or
early 1981. RERC will continue to monitor occupied units beyond 1981 iffunds are
available. To date, RERC has evaluated over 175 solar projects in more than 40
states.

Issues being researched include: cost-effectiveness and efficiency of solar systems;

pricing of. solar units, (e.g., can builders recover costs'?); experimental nature of
solar technology (e.g., is it too experimental?); and characteristics of solar pur-
chasers.

Use of Results: For HUD and DOE, as baseline data for policy, program and marketing
decisions; and for builders and consumers, as information on acceptance, consumer
and builder experiences.

Funding Source: HUD, in cooperation with DOE.

*All HUD solar demonstration homes have active systems; one or two may possibly be
hybrid.

B-8
55~1 'il'- ------------------------
TR-245

Estimated Publication Date: The current reports will be available in October 1979.
Updated project reports are scheduled to be published in March 1980. In addition,
there will be special reports published at the request of HUD.

Contact: Stephen Spigel, Real Estate Research Corporation, 72 West Adams, Chicago,
IL 60603.

Sawyer, Stephen W. Survey of Solar and Wood Energy Consumers in Maryland. College
Park, MD: Department of Geography, University of Maryland.

Objectives: To determine: (1) the most significant barriers to. the use of active solar
energy systems for domestic water heating or wood stoves for space heating; (2) the
most effective incentives; (3) performance and cost records; (4) satisfaction levels;
and (5) motivations for adoption.

Sample: Three hundred Maryland consumers who use active solar energy systems for
domestic water heating (150) or wood stoves for space heating (150). Owners will
include 75 HUD grant participants and 75 nonsubsidized consumers. All of the wood
stove owners will rely on wood as their primary space heating source.

Methodology: Face-to-face interviews will be conducted by trained graduate students.

The survey will be undertaken in Fall 1979 and Spring 1980.

Use of Results: The study will produce (1) a report to the Maryland Energy Policy Office
and (2) a nontechnical pamphlet to potential solar users about the experiences of
current solar users.

Funding Source: Maryland Energy Policy Office.

Estimated Publication Date: Summer 1980.

Contact: Stephen W. Sawyer, Department of Geography, University of Maryland, College

Park, MD 207 42.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Survey of Residential Solar Users in the Tennessee
Valley Area. Chattanooga, TN: Solar Applieations pi vision, TVA.

Objective: (1) To ascertain the best location for TVA's second solar water heater
project; (2) to determine general attitudes, and perceived advantages and disad-
vantages of solar domestic water heaters; (3) to determine whether or not misinfor-
mation about solar hot water heating exists; (4) to provide more information on
perceived benefits of solar hot water systems by consumers and potential consumers;
and (5) to investigate factors in the motivation to purchase such systems.

Sample: Includes participants in focus groups in the Memphis area (adopters and near-
. adopters in TVA's first solar hot water heater project), of homeowners in the. entire
Tennessee Valley area (seven states).

Methodology: Adopters and near-adopters in TVA's first solar hot water heater project
participated in focus groups in the Memphis area. From these sessions, information
on attitudes, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of solar domestic water

B-9
s=~~~-~
-~ ~
-
--------------------------- TR-245

heaters was gathered. A second result of the focus groups was TVA's choice of
Nashville as the location for the second solar hot water heater project. A valley-
wide survey (face-to-face interviews) of homeowners will comprise the next phase of
the study. Adopters and near-adopters in the Nashville area will be invited to par-
ticipate in future focus group .sessions.

Use of Results: Information obtained in the study will be incorporated into TVA's mar-
keting strategies. In addition, TV A is building a marketing data base; information
from the study will aid in that endeavor.

Funding Source: Solar Applications Division, TVA.

Estimated Publication Date: Unknown.

CuulMcl: Jean Solari, :Solar Applications Division, 1'P.nnP.~C::t:>t:> Valley Authority, . ...126
United Bank Bldg., Chattanooga, TN 37401.

Towle, Sharyn. User Evab.uition Study of Passive Solar Residences. Golden, CO: Passive
Teelmol()gy Braneh, Solar Energy Research Institute.

Objectives: (1) To document residential solar user experiences in passive solar homes;
(2) to collect information that will be useful to architects, builders, and developers
in passive solar residential planning and design.

Sample: Twenty-five occupants of passive solar homes that were builtspeculatively or

are adaptable to the mass housing market. The homes are located nationwide,
mainly in the Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast, and represent a wide range of
passive system types. Market values vary from low cost to expensive.

Methodology: The survey provides for the collection of longitudinal data: o~cupants are
interviewed within three months of occupAncy, AgAin within six to nine months (or at
the end of the first heating season), and finally, one year after the second inter-
view. In focused, unstructured personal interviews, the occupants are asked to com-
ment on their purchase decision process and give a postoccupancy evaluation of their
home in terms of aesthetics, thermal comfort, lifestyle, financial concerns, system
performance, and overall satisfaction. The ArchitP.ct 8.nd builder are also being
asked to give their opinion on the marketability of the home and note changes that
they would make in the design or the marketing approach as a result of their
experience.

Use of Results: (1) Consumer attitudinal information regarding living in a passive solar
home wiiT be developed and disseminated through popular publications; (2) survey
results will be disseminated to builders, designers, and developers.

Fundin Source: Passive Technology Branch, Solar Energy Research Institute and DOE
Conservation and Solar Applications).

Estimated Publication Date: Fall 1979.

Contact: Sharyn Towle, Passive Technology Branch, Solar Energy Research Institute
(SERI), 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401.

B-10
 - TR-245
s:~l'il' ------------------------------
Zimmerman, Jane D. Field Study of Lifestyle and Value Issues in Solar Energy Use
Through Self-observation. Tucson, AZ: Department of Psychology, University of
Arizona.

Objectives: To provide detailed, in-depth information on the actual experiences, motiva-

tions, and values of solar energy users.

Sample: Nine families living in residences employing solar energy systems. The house-
holds cover a range of family structures. Four of the nine families are new solar
users, having lived in their residences for less than four months prior to the start of
the study.

Methodology: Exploratory, longitudinal field study. Data are collected through personal
interviews and self-observation methodologies, including behavior checklists and
experiential journals.

Use of Results: This study will provide an additional source of data on solar users' deci-
sion factors and experiences for the SERI National Study of the Residential Solar
Consumer.
Funding Source: Solar Energy Research Institute (DOE, Energy Technology and Conser-
vation and Solar Applications).

Expected Publication Date: February 1980.

Contact: Jane D. Zimmerman, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona,

Tucson, AZ 85724.

B-ll
 Document Control
Page
,1. SEAl Report No.
SERI/TR-354-245
.
I~ NTIS Accession No. 3. Recipient's Accession No:

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Publication Date

Residential Solar Energy Users: A Review of Empirical .January 1980
Research and Related Literature
6.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept. No.

Unseld, Charles T.; Crews, Robin
9. P'i!rforming Organization Name and Address 10. ProjecVTask/Work Unit No.
5637.20
Solar Energy Research Instit~te 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.
1617 Cole Blvd. (C)
Golden, CO 80401
(G)

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Rapnrt & PP-riod Covered

TechniL:al R.evurt
14.

15. Supplementilry Notes

This report reviews 15 empirical studies of residential solar

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
energy users and related literature on residential solar energy use. The purpose of the
review is to summarize and analyze the experiences of residential solar users for help-
ing formulate policies concerning the accelerated commercialization of solar technologies
Four of the studies employed case histories or focus group techniques. The 11 question-
naire studies represented interviews with over 1,600 owners of solar systems. The
demographic characteristics of samples are listed and compared; research findings and
conclusions are presented. Findings on user satisfaction and system performance, pos-
sible reasons for evidence of lacking correlation between them, and implications for
consumer protection and future research are disc.ussed. General findings arc: (l)
systematic research on the experiences of solar users is lacking--much research remains
to be done; (2) the reported overall experiences of users has been very positive;
(3) user reports indicate that system-performance is generally good but there is some
evidence that user reports are not accurate measures of actual performance; (4) a need
exists for adequate consumer protecti,on; (5) cie.sten or installation problems arc
evidenced in significant numbers of early solar installations; and (6) these problems
evidently are resolvable. An annotated bibliography describes 10 other studies in
prnerPt=:.c:.

17. Document Analysis

Solar Energy Systems; Consumers; Residential Sector; Reviews; Research;
a. Descriptors
Bibliographies; Performance; Consumer Protection

b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

c. UC Categories
59

18. Availability Statement 19. No. of Pages

National rechnical Information Service 103
U.S. Department of Commerce 20. Price
5285 Port Royal Road $6.50
S~ringfield. VA 22161
Form No. 8200-13 !6-791 -trU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980·0·677·175/106