Never heard of a Choice Engine? | Enervee Blog

Choice Engines at ACEEE: eliminating market & behavioral barriers at scale

Hats off to the ACEEE team for delivering their first virtual Buildings Summer Study. While we missed the Asilomar summer-camp vibe, the 2020 program still gathered the sector’s leaders around a fitting theme: Efficiency—The Core of a Clean Energy Future. Writing from California—where flexible load helped avoid worse outcomes during triple-digit heat—the moment underscored how crucial it is to convert customer intent into action at the point of purchase.

Enervee’s contribution was a market-transformation paper: “Eliminating Market & Behavioral Barriers with Choice Engines.” If you’re new to the concept, Nobel laureate Richard Thaler and Will Tucker’s HBR piece describes how a choice engine uses data and design to make the better choice the obvious one[HBR]. Enervee has applied this approach for years on utility marketplaces—where shoppers explore full-market assortments, see clear guidance (e.g., the Enervee Score®), and check out with transparent net pricing, instant incentives (when available), enrollments, and installation.

What we shared

Early utility deployments (many beginning as pilots) intentionally targeted persistent market, cognitive, and psychological barriers that keep customers from buying efficient models—especially during “replace-now” events. Prior peer-reviewed research confirmed that the resulting decision-based design measurably shifts choice toward higher-efficiency models. Our ACEEE paper advances this with results from independent impact evaluations across multiple utilities.

Key insights from independent evaluations

• Decision-based marketplaces (with Choice Engine tech) remove barriers that block private investment in efficient products—without relying on rebates.
• Evaluators have established defensible methods to quantify savings and have documented significant, cost-effective kWh impacts that were previously untapped.
• Because most savings are market-based (vs. incentive-driven), portfolios see favorable cost metrics alongside meaningful non-energy benefits (e.g., better CX, faster replacement, higher equity reach).
• Marketing matters: scaled, search-led, data-informed outreach meaningfully increases transactions and savings.

Results snapshot

Two examples cited in the paper: independent assessments for AEP Ohio and Con Edison found their deployments cut ~16 MW of peak demand and delivered 41+ GWh of first-year gross savings (186 MW and 543 GWh lifetime), respectively—achieved primarily by eliminating barriers that nudge shoppers to choose more efficient models.

Decision-based vs. direct-sale marketplaces

• Decision-based (Enervee): full-market visibility, model-level guidance (e.g., Enervee Score), personalized ownership cost, program enrollments at checkout, inclusive payments (e.g., Eco Financing), installation & haul-away options.
• Direct-sale: limited assortments and transactional cart mechanics, with fewer tools to change choice architecture or capture savings beyond instant discounts.

Program resilience

Always-on, 24/7 online marketplaces proved among the few program channels resilient to COVID-19 stay-at-home orders—supporting safe, remote research and purchasing when contractors and stores were constrained.

Why this matters for today’s program design

• Meet customers at the moment of need: when equipment fails, a utility marketplace with transparent net price and enrollments converts intent into action.
• Scale beyond giveaways: barrier-removal + clear guidance + inclusive monthly payments (via Eco Financing) drive efficient purchases—even without rebates.
• Claimable savings, cleaner CX: evaluable measures, transaction data, and grid-program enrollments in one calm checkout.

Want the ACEEE paper?

We’re happy to share the full write-up and evaluation references with program teams. Get in touch and we’ll send the paper.

References

• Thaler, R., & Tucker, W. (2013). Smarter Information, Smarter Consumers, Harvard Business Review.
• Independent utility marketplace evaluations cited in the paper (AEP Ohio, Con Edison, and others).