Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Tailored emails prompt electric vehicle owners to engage with tariff switching information


The carbon intensity of the electricity used to charge an electric vehicle (EV) is dependent on when in the day charging occurs. However, persuading EV owners to adopt incentives to charge during off-peak hours is challenging. Here we show that governments could exploit the ‘window of opportunity’ created when people purchase their first EV to promote time-of-use tariffs. Email recipients (n = 7,038 EV owners) were more likely to click-through to an information webpage when the email emphasized specific reductions in home-charging costs versus general bill savings. However, the ‘window of opportunity’ for maximizing potential adoption is short; email open rates declined from over 70% immediately after purchase to 40% for recipients owning their EV for over three months. These results demonstrate the potential of prompts to change behaviours for which opt-out enrolment (where enrolment is automatic unless people explicitly opt out) would be unethical or less effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Experimental procedure.
Figure 2: Percentage of emails opened and clicks-through to online advice page by experimental condition.
Figure 3: Percentage of emails opened by the time in months since the recipient purchased their electric vehicle.


  1. Knight, T., Kivinen, E. & Fell, D. Uptake of ultra low emission vehicles in the UK: a rapid evidence assessment for the Department for Transport 1–59 (Brook Lyndhurst, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ma, H., Balthasar, F., Tait, N., Riera-Palou, X. & Harrison, A. A new comparison between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles. Energy Policy 44, 160–173 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zarnikau, J., Zhu, S., Russell, R., Holloway, M. & Dittmer, M. How will tomorrow’s residential energy consumers respond to price signals? Insights from a Texas pricing experiment. Electr. J. 28, 57–71 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  4. My Electric Avenue. My Electric Avenue Summary Report EA Technol. 1–9 (2015).

  5. Klara, A. C. et al. Customer-Led Network Revolution High-Level Summary of Learning Electrical Vehicle Users 1–13 (CLNR, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tran, M., Banister, D., Bishop, J. D. K. & McCulloch, M. D. Realizing the electric-vehicle revolution. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 328–333 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Braff, W. A., Mueller, J. M. & Trancik, J. E. Value of storage technologies for wind and solar energy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 328–333 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Faruqui, A., Hledik, R. M., Levy, A. & Madian, A. L. Will smart prices induce smart charging of electric vehicles? SSRN Electron. J. 1–14 (2011).

  9. Energy Market Investigation - Final Report 1–1417 (CMA, 2016);

  10. Pichert, D. & Katsikopoulos, K. V. Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 63–73 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ebeling, F. & Lotz, S. Domestic uptake of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 868–871 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Faruqui, A., Hledik, R. & Lessem, N. Smart by default: time-varying rates from the get-go not just by opt-in. Public Util. Fortn. 24–32 (2014).

  13. Fenrick, S., Getachew, L., Ivanov, C. & Smith, J. Demand impact of a critical peak pricing program: opt-in and opt-out options, green attitudes and other consumer characteristics. The Energy Journal 35, (2014).

  14. Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wells, J. Pension annuities: a review of consumer behaviour (Financial Conduct Authority, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, E. J. & Goldstein, D. G. Do defaults save lives? Science 302, 1338–1339 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Keller, P. A., Harlam, B., Loewenstein, G. & Volpp, K. G. Enhanced active choice: a new method to motivate behavior change. J. Consum. Psychol. 21, 376–383 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sunstein, C. R. Impersonal default rules vs. active choices vs. personalized default rules: a triptych. Soc. Sci. Electron. Netw. 1–41 (2013).

  19. Sunstein, C. R. & Reisch, L. A. Automatically green: behavioral economics and environmental protection. SSRN Electron. J. (2013).

  20. Fenrick, S. A., Getachew, L., Ivanov, C. & Smith, J. Demand impact of a critical peak pricing program: opt-in and opt-out options, green attitudes and other customer characteristics. Energy J. 35, 1–24 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cappers, P., Spurlock, C. A., Baylis, P., Fowlie, M. & Wolfram, C. Time-of-use as a default rate for residential customers: issues and insights. Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab. LBNL-1005704 1–53 (2016).

  22. Haynes, L. C., Green, D. P., Gallagher, R., John, P. & Torgerson, D. J. Collection of delinquent fines: an adaptive randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of alternative text messages. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 32, 718–730 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A. & Jurasek, M. Context change and travel mode choice: combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 121–127 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Verplanken, B. & Roy, D. Empowering interventions to promote sustainable lifestyles: testing the habit discontinuity hypothesis in a field experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 127–134 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thomas, G. O., Poortinga, W. & Sautkina, E. Habit discontinuity, self-activation, and the diminishing influence of context change: evidence from the UK understanding society survey. PLoS ONE 11, 1–16 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Verplanken, B. & Wood, W. Interventions to break and create consumer habits. J. Public Policy Mark. 25, 90–103 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Ubaydli, O. & Lee, M. Can tailored communications motivate environmental volunteers? A natural field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 323–328 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rimer, B. K. & Kreuter, M. W. Advancing tailored health communication: a persuasion and message effects perspective. J. Commun. 56, S184–S201 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Next Green Car. Electric vehicle market statistics 2016—How many electric cars in UK? Next Green (2016);

  30. Mail Chimp. Email marketing benchmarks (2016);

  31. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discover rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289–300 (1995).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Wasserstein, R. L. & Lazar, N. A. The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 1305, 129–133 (2016).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Hirst, E. & Brown, M. Closing the efficiency gap: barriers to the efficient use of energy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 3, 267–281 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Allcott, H. & Greenstone, M. Is there an energy efficiency gap? J. Econ. Perspect. 26, 3–28 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gabaix, X. & Laibson, D. Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Q. J. Econ. 121, 505–540 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Allcott, H. Consumers’ perceptions and misperceptions of energy costs. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 98–104 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kormos, C. & Gifford, R. Validity of self-report measures of pro-environmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 1–38 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Smith, N. C., Goldstein, D. G. & Johnson, E. J. Choice without awareness: ethical and policy implications of defaults. J. Public Policy Mark. 32, 159–172 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Frontier Economics. A framework for the evaluation of smart grids: a consultation document prepared for Ofgem. 1–50 (2011); framework for the evaluation of smart grids.pdf

  41. Stern, P. C. et al. Opportunities and insights for reducing fossil fuel consumption by households and organizations. Nat. Energy 1, 16043 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Boudet, H. et al. Effects of a behaviour change intervention for Girl Scouts on child and parent energy-saving behaviours. Nat. Energy 1, 16091 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kreuter, M. W., Lukwago, S. N., Brennan, L. K., Scharff, D. P. & Wadud, E. S. Effectiveness of tailored and non-tailored educational materials to promote nutrition label reading. Health Educ. 102, 271–279 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Littlechild, S. Retail competition in electricity markets—expectations, outcomes and economics. Energy Policy 37, 759–763 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Maltz, M. Psycho-Cybernetics (Prentice Hall, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W. & Wardle, J. How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 998–1009 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nicolson, M. Electric vehicle owner engagement with tariff switching increased by tailored email prompts sent by government shortly after vehicle purchase: replication dataset and code. Figshare Figital Repository (2017).

Download references


M.N. is funded by the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Energy Demand (LoLo), grant numbers EP/L01517X/1 and EP/H009612/1. G.M.H., D.S. and S.E. are supported by Research Councils UK (RCUK) Centre for Energy Epidemiology, grant number EP/K011839/1. We would like to thank Nicholas Brooks and Thomas Younespour at the UK Government Office for Low Emission Vehicles for the substantial contribution they made to executing the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



M.N. conceived, designed and implemented the research project, with substantial input on the design, analysis and interpretation of data from G.M.H. and D.S. G.M.H. provided critical revisions of the pre-analysis plan and critical revisions of the manuscript. D.S. also provided critical revisions of the manuscript. S.E. assisted with the creation of the data sharing agreement between UCL and the Office for Low Emission Vehicles and facilitated the introduction of the Energy Saving Trust into the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moira Nicolson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–3, Supplementary Tables 1–3. (PDF 381 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nicolson, M., Huebner, G., Shipworth, D. et al. Tailored emails prompt electric vehicle owners to engage with tariff switching information. Nat Energy 2, 17073 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing