Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Anonymised smart meter data is worth 12% of a UK electricity bill

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Consumers in Great Britain are willing to pay for anonymised smart meter data sharing, and information about privacy risks increases their reluctance to share non-anonymised data.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, policy-relevant DCE that delivers the first explicit monetary values for anonymisation of smart meter data; the central estimates are credible and likely conservative. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.00101 v1 pith:DKD3YTTL submitted 2025-08-27 cs.CY cs.SYeess.SY

Privacy, Informed Consent and the Demand for Anonymisation of Smart Meter Data

Saurab Chhachhi , Fei Teng This is my paper
classification cs.CY cs.SYeess.SY
keywords smart metersdata privacywillingness to payinformed consentrandomised control trialdiscrete choice experimentanonymisationendowment effect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to establish that British electricity bill payers have a real, measurable demand for anonymisation of their smart meter data, not just for privacy in general. Based on choices made by 965 nationally representative bill payers in an online discrete choice experiment, it estimates that households would on average require compensation of about 12% of their monthly electricity bill (roughly £7) to consent to sharing anonymised half-hourly data, and would pay about 5.4% (roughly £3) to have it anonymised, with the large gap between the two revealing a strong endowment effect. The paper also argues that consumers currently consent in ignorance: in a randomised experiment, informing people about what smart meter data can reveal roughly doubled willingness-to-pay for anonymisation among the privacy-cautious and made a substantial share less willing to share non-anonymised data. The authors conclude that current opt-out arrangements and information asymmetries suppress the true demand for anonymisation, and that privacy-by-design defaults would better match consumer preferences.

Core claim

The central discovery is that anonymisation of smart meter data has a positive, quantifiable value to consumers, and that this value is strongly asymmetric. In the control group, mean willingness-to-accept to share anonymised half-hourly data rather than non-anonymised real-time data was 12.40% of the monthly bill (£7.04), against a willingness-to-pay of 5.42% (£3.09), a WTA/WTP ratio of 3.21 read as the endowment effect applied to privacy: people treat anonymisation as a right, not a commodity to buy. Simply presenting anonymisation as an option shifted behaviour: 41.7% of respondents became more willing to share anonymised data and 26.8% less willing to share non-anonymised data. The embed

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a discrete choice experiment answered by 965 GB bill payers and modelled with a mixed logit. Respondents repeatedly chose between two electricity contracts differing only in three attributes: the change to their monthly bill, the resolution of data shared (real-time, half-hourly, or daily), and whether the data was anonymised. Estimating the fee (bill increase) and discount (bill decrease) parameters separately lets the model separate willingness-to-pay to avoid non-anonymised real-time sharing from willingness-to-accept compensation to endure it, which is what exposes the endowment effect. The experiment embeds a randomised information treatment: half the sample wa

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that stated choices in an online survey predict real contracting behaviour for a service that does not yet exist; the sample's below-average privacy concern and above-average smart meter ownership mean the estimates could understate true demand.

What would settle it

Offer a randomly selected set of GB households a real choice between sharing non-anonymised or anonymised half-hourly data with an actual bill discount or fee, and compare opt-in rates with the paper's predicted market shares (41% high-resolution sharing without anonymisation rising to 64% with it). A cheaper check: re-run the survey on a sample whose privacy attitudes match national benchmarks, where most adults report concern about third-party data sales, and see whether the 12% WTA and 5.4% WTP figures rise as the paper's own sample-limitation logic predicts.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Offering anonymisation roughly doubles consumers' willingness to share high-resolution data (from 41% to 64% in the control group's simulated market shares), and the financial incentive needed to push uptake to 90% falls dramatically once anonymisation is available, showing bill discounts and privacy protection act as substitutes.
  • Anonymisation is worth more than data resolution to consumers: valuations for half-hourly and real-time sharing are statistically indistinguishable once anonymisation is offered, so regulators can include higher-resolution options without much added privacy cost.
  • Consent based on consumers understanding what smart meter data reveals is unlikely to be truly informed: the information treatment moved mainly those already privacy-cautious, so the least cautious remain the least informed under current disclosure practices.
  • Framing matters as much as price: with compensation demands about three times willingness-to-pay, an opt-out regime exploits inertia and loss aversion, while an opt-in default with anonymisation aligns with the preferences the study measures.
  • A sizeable minority (about a fifth of the control group, a quarter of the treatment group) would refuse a smart meter even with anonymisation available; the qualitative responses attribute this to distrust of suppliers, indicating trust-building is a separate lever from privacy engineering.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The headline valuations are plausibly lower bounds for the GB population: the online panel was more comfortable sharing data than national benchmarks (roughly half routinely pass data to third parties) and smart meter ownership was over-represented, and the paper's own logic implies a sample matching national privacy attitudes would yield higher WTP/A and stronger treatment effects.
  • A direct opt-in versus opt-out framing comparison within the same choice design, rather than the cross-scenario simulation used here, would quantify the default effect the paper invokes through the endowment-effect literature; this is the natural next experiment.
  • Because the information effect concentrates in the privacy-cautious subgroup, privacy education as currently designed may widen rather than narrow the gap between the concerned and the indifferent; targeting the least-cautious groups is the testable corollary.
  • Since a stubborn minority rejects smart meters regardless of anonymisation and cites supplier distrust, the next lever to test is institutional trust, for example an independent data steward, an audit regime, or a user-facing data dashboard, rather than further privacy-preserving techniques.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper estimates British consumers' valuation of anonymisation for smart meter data using a nationally targeted online sample of 965 bill payers, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with an embedded randomised control trial, and mixed logit modelling. It reports a mean willingness-to-pay (WTP) for anonymised half-hourly data of about 5.4% of the monthly bill and a mean willingness-to-accept (WTA) of about 12.4%, with WTA significantly exceeding WTP. It further finds that providing information about privacy risks reduces willingness to share non-anonymised data, particularly among privacy-cautious subgroups, and that demand for smart meters remains below 70% even when anonymisation is offered. The paper claims to be the first to provide explicit monetary valuations for anonymisation of smart meter data.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper fills a real gap in the energy-privacy literature: prior work has measured willingness to share data or willingness to avoid sharing, but not willingness to pay for anonymisation per se. The study is policy-relevant for the GB Market-Wide Half-Hourly Settlement and the debate on privacy-by-design versus opt-out models. Methodologically, the DCE is carefully constructed: priors from a pilot, D-efficiency selection, dominance restrictions, a manipulation check for price misinterpretation, and an extensive battery of robustness checks. Hypotheses are stated ex ante, and the paper includes both quantitative and qualitative evidence. The authors also commit to releasing code for reproducibility. These strengths make the paper a potentially useful reference for regulators and for future valuation studies of privacy-preserving techniques.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3.1, Eq. (2), Table E.1/E.2] The monetary attribute distribution is described inconsistently, and the reported WTP/A estimates are not reproducible from the information given. Section 3.3.1 states that monetary parameters follow a symmetric zero-bounded triangular distribution, but Table E.1 notes that Fee(%) and Discount(%) are fixed. More importantly, for the control full sample, Eq. (2) and Table E.1 give an anonymised half-hourly WTP of (β_HH + β_Anon + β_Anon×HH)/(−α_Fee) = (0.196 + 0.510 − 0.016)/0.178 = 3.88% of bill, whereas Table E.2 reports 5.42%. The analogous WTA calculation gives 8.85%, not 12.35%. The discrepancy presumably arises from the price-misinterpretation correction or from the actual distributional assumption, but the manuscript does not show the exact computation. Please clarify the model actually estimated and verify that the headline WTP/A values are consistent with Eq. (2) and the reported
  2. [§3.4, Table B.7] 43% of respondents in both the control and treatment groups answered the anonymisation comprehension check incorrectly, indicating they believed anonymised data could still be linked back to them. The central DCE attribute is precisely 'anonymised', so a large share of the sample may not have understood the key concept. The paper attributes this to ambiguous wording, but provides no sensitivity analysis excluding those who failed the comprehension check or interacting comprehension with the anonymisation attribute. Given the central claim is a positive demand for anonymisation, this is a construct-validity concern. Please add a robustness check that excludes respondents who failed the anonymisation check or controls for comprehension.
  3. [§3.4, Tables B.1–B.4, §5] The sample over-represents smart meter owners (52.0% and 55.7% versus 44% national) and respondents with permissive data-sharing attitudes, and the paper acknowledges this. The authors argue that the estimates are lower bounds because these over-represented groups show lower WTP/A. However, no nationally reweighted WTP/A estimates are presented, and the 'lower bound' claim is not directly tested. Since the quantitative magnitudes (e.g., WTA of 12% of bill) are a central policy output, a reweighted or otherwise calibrated sensitivity analysis is needed to substantiate the claim that the headline results are conservative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.2, Eq. (3)] The notation in Eq. (3) is inconsistent: β4,j is used for both the Anon×TR interaction and the Anon×IWTS interaction. The second should be a different index (e.g., β5,j).
  2. [Figure 7] Figure 7 appears as four separate figure panels with repeated captions. It should be combined into a single multi-panel figure or each panel should have a distinct caption to avoid confusion.
  3. [§4.1 and Table E.2] The text reports a WTA/WTP ratio of 3.21, but Table E.2 shows lower ratios for individual options (e.g., 2.28 for anonymised half-hourly). This is presumably because the 3.21 is the mean of the ratio distribution, whereas the table gives ratios of means. Please clarify which definition is used and ensure the text is not read as inconsistent.
  4. [§2.4] Typo: 'technology savy' should be 'technology savvy'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: all central results are empirical estimates from a discrete choice experiment, not reductions from inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—mean WTP/A for anonymisation, WTS shifts, treatment effects, and SMD—are estimated directly from a stated-preference discrete choice experiment using a random utility/mixed logit framework. There is no first-principles derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to an input by construction. The WTP/A values are ratios of estimated attribute parameters (Eq. 2) taken from data, not fitted to reproduce the headline result. The RCT treatment effect is identified by randomised assignment and is tested against pre-registered-style hypotheses, several of which are rejected (H6 for SMD, H8). Self-citations (Teng et al., 2022; Chhachhi and Teng, 2024) are used only for background motivation and for constructing the privacy educational material in the treatment arm; they are not invoked as evidence for the estimated valuations, and no uniqueness or ansatz claim is imported from them. Acknowledged sample limitations (over-representation of smart meter owners, relatively low privacy concern, high comprehension-check failure) are discussed as possible biases but do not make the estimation circular. The empirical estimates are self-contained and falsifiable against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted beyond standard econometric coefficients. The analysis rests on the validity of stated preferences, sample representativeness, and the RUM framework. No new theoretical constructs are introduced.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Random utility maximisation: individuals choose the alternative that maximises utility, with an additive type-1 extreme value error term (McFadden 1974).
    Invoked in section 3.3.1 as the basis of the DCE model. This is a standard econometric framework, though it assumes rational behaviour and specific error distribution.
  • domain assumption Representativeness of the survey sample: the 965 GB bill-payers, with quotas on gender, age, ethnicity, SEG and region, accurately reflect the GB population's preferences.
    The paper states the sample is nationally representative, but acknowledges significant deviations (smart meter ownership 52-55.7% vs 44% national; online panel with low privacy concerns). This domain assumption is load-bearing for extrapolating the results to the population.
  • domain assumption Stated preferences from the DCE translate monotonically to real-world acceptance and willingness to pay.
    The DCE is hypothetical; respondents do not actually pay or receive money. The paper relies on the standard stated-preference assumption that choices reveal true preferences, and the endowment effect measured in the DCE is treated as a real behavioral phenomenon rather than an artifact of the hypothetical setting.
  • domain assumption Anonymisation as described in the survey is a technically feasible and meaningful privacy protection.
    The survey defines anonymisation as 'data cannot be linked to a particular person'. Real-world anonymisation may be imperfect against re-identification, but the paper uses this simplified definition to elicit valuations. This is a modelling simplification, not a flaw, but it limits the connection to actual PPT efficacy.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Privacy, Informed Consent and the Demand for Anonymisation of Smart Meter Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKD3YTTL

@misc{pith2026250900101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Privacy, Informed Consent and the Demand for Anonymisation of Smart Meter Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKD3YTTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00101}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Access to smart meter data offers system-wide benefits but raises significant privacy concerns due to the personal information it contains. Privacy-preserving techniques could facilitate wider access, though they introduce privacy-utility trade-offs. Understanding consumer valuations for anonymisation can help identify appropriate trade-offs. However, existing studies do not focus on anonymisation specifically or account for information asymmetries regarding privacy risks, raising questions about the validity of informed consent under current regulations. We use a mixed-methods approach to estimate non-monetary (willingness-to-share and smart metering demand) and monetary (willingness-to-pay/accept) preferences for anonymisation, based on a representative sample of 965 GB bill payers. An embedded randomised control trial examines the effect of providing information about privacy implications. On average, consumers are willing to pay for anonymisation, are more willing to share data when anonymised and less willing to share non-anonymised data once anonymisation is presented as an option. However, a significant minority remains unwilling to adopt smart meters, despite anonymisation. We find strong evidence of information asymmetries that suppress demand for anonymisation and identify substantial variation across demographic and electricity supply characteristics. Qualitative responses corroborate the quantitative findings, underscoring the need for stronger privacy defaults, user-centric design, and consent mechanisms that enable truly informed decisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00101 by Fei Teng, Saurab Chhachhi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example Choice Task 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Baseline Results for Control Group (n=477). (a) Initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effect of Treatment on Probability of being Less Likely to Share Half-Hourly Data. Estimated marginal probabilities of change in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of Treatment on mean WTP/A for anonymisation and data sharing frequency by DSA (BM - Basic sharing or for marketing & research, TP - sharing with third parties). Reference option: non-anonymised real-time data. See Table E.2 for WTP/A estimates and Table E.1 for underlying MXLs. Significance levels indicate results of one-sided complete combinatorial test between treatment and control group with: + … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Expected Proportion of Consumers Sharing High-Resolution Data under Different Framing Options. High-Resolution data includes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of Treatment on SMD. Estimated marginal probabilities of change in demand based on binary logistic regression (see Table F.3). Significance levels indicate results of z-tests between treatment and control group with: + p < 0.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. p-values adjusted with Holm correction for multiple comparisons across subgroups. Grey line indicates marginal mean probability across… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Heterogeneity in Measures. (a) IWTS for half-hourly data. Marginal mean probabilities of being unwilling based on partial proportional odds model in Table D.9. (b) Change in WTS for non-anonymised data. Marginal mean probabilities for being less likely based on MNL with random effects in Table D.12. (c) Mean WTA for anonymised real-time data. Marginal means based on MXL with interactions in Table E.4. (d) … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [2]

    HH (Half-Hourly), Anon (Anonymised). 39 Table E.7: Complete Combinatorial Test p-values for Mean Willingness-to-Pay/Accept by Treatment and Data Sharing Attitude Full Sample Basic + Marketing & Research Third-Party WTP WTA WTP WTA WTP WTA H1: Treatment> Control1 HH 0.749 0.791 0.034 0.021 + 0.155 0.152 Daily 0.026+ 0.089 0.957 0.837 0.167 0.121 Anon RT 0....

    work page 2013

  2. [3]

    Supporting T ables for Willingness-to-Share Analysis Table D.1: Non-Parametric Testing of Willingness-to-Share Responses Grouping Test Stat p Effect unadj

    21 Appendix D. Supporting T ables for Willingness-to-Share Analysis Table D.1: Non-Parametric Testing of Willingness-to-Share Responses Grouping Test Stat p Effect unadj. adj. sig. Est. Low High Size Equality of Proportions: Pearson’s Chi Square Goodness-of-Fit Test WTSG(4) 278.58 0.000 *** 0.47 0.43 0.51 v. large WTSN(2) 65.37 0.000 *** 0.25 0.19 0.31 me...

    work page 2019

  3. [7]

    A Joint Energy and Differentially-Private Smart Meter Data Market

    A joint energy and differentially-private smart meter data market. arXiv preprint doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.07688. Christensen, R.H.B.,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.07688

  4. [9]

    Routledge

    Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203771587. Cuijpers, C., Koops, B.J.,

    doi:10.4324/9780203771587

  5. [10]

    Springer Netherlands, pp

    Smart metering and privacy in europe: Lessons from the dutch case, in: European Data Protection: Coming of Age. Springer Netherlands, pp. 269–293. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5170-5

  6. [11]

    Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models. Transp. 39, 19–31. doi:10.1007/s11116-011-9331-3. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero,

    work page doi:10.1007/s11116-011-9331-3

  7. [12]

    Subnational estimates of domestic properties not on the gas grid, Great Britain, 2015 -

    work page 2015

  8. [14]

    Energy Policy 38, 6222–6231

    Unlocking the €53 billion savings from smart meters in the EU: How increasing the adoption of dynamic tariffs could make or break the EU’s smart grid investment. Energy Policy 38, 6222–6231. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.010. Field, A.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.010 2010

  9. [16]

    Energy Policy 61, 483–495

    Determinants of willingness to pay for smart meters: An empirical analysis of household customers in germany. Energy Policy 61, 483–495. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.012. Glasgow, G., Butler, S., Iyengar, S.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.012 2013

  10. [18]

    Market failures and willingness to accept smart meters: Experimental evidence from the uk. J. of Environ.l Econ. and Manag. 118, 102756. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102756. Grunewald, P., Reisch, T.,

    work page arXiv 2022

  11. [20]

    Zenodo preprint doi:10.5281/ZENODO.4122103

    Differential privacy and the 2020 census: Modernizing disclosure avoidance at scale to mitigate growing privacy threats. Zenodo preprint doi:10.5281/ZENODO.4122103. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.,

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4122103 2020

  12. [22]

    Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies. Trans. Res. Part B: Methodol. 44, 781–790. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.001. Hess, S., Palma, D.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.001 2009

  13. [23]

    Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application. J. of Choice Model. 32, 100170. doi:10.1016/J.JOCM.2019.100170. Hess, S., Train, K.,

    work page arXiv 2019

  14. [25]

    Privacy, technology, and norms: The case of smart meters. Soc. Sci. Res. 51, 64–76. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.003. ICO,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.003 2014

  15. [26]

    Technical Report

    Response to OFGEM’s open letter of 17 December 2015: Half-hourly settlement (HHS): the way forward. Technical Report. Information Commissioner’s Office. URL: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/d ocs/2016/03/information_commissioner_response_-_dec_15_open_letter.pdf. ICO,

    work page 2015

  16. [27]

    Jawurek, M., Kerschbaum, F., Danezis, G.,

    doi:10.1145/3281444. Jawurek, M., Kerschbaum, F., Danezis, G.,

    work page doi:10.1145/3281444

  17. [28]

    Technical Report MSR-TR-2012-119

    Privacy Technologies for Smart Grids - A Survey of Options. Technical Report MSR-TR-2012-119. Microsoft Res. URL: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/pri vacy-technologies-for-smart-grids-a-survey-of-options/ . Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Thaler, R.H.,

    work page 2012

  18. [30]

    Technical Report

    Privacy by Design Setting a new standard for privacy certification. Technical Report. Deloitte and Privacy and Big Data Institute, Ryerson University. URL: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/ Deloitte/ca/Documents/risk/ca-en-ers-privacy-by-design-brochure.PDF . Knight, A., 2018a. Consumer views on sharing half-hourly settlement data. Technical Report. ...

    work page 2018

  19. [32]

    Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp

    Investigating willingness to pay–willingness to accept asymmetry in choice experiments, in: Choice Model.: The State-of-the-art and The State-of- practice. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 517–541. doi:10.1108/9781849507738-024. Maidment, C., Vigurs, C., Fell, M.J., Shipworth, D.,

    work page doi:10.1108/9781849507738-024

  20. [33]

    Energy Res

    Can solar energy become polarized? understanding the role of expressive and negative partisanship in support for solar tax credits. Energy Res. & Soc. Sci. 113, 103545. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2024.103545. McFadden, D.,

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [34]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.17028/rd.lboro.2001129.v8

    Crest demand model. doi:https://doi.org/10.17028/rd.lboro.2001129.v8. National Readership Survey,

    work page doi:10.17028/rd.lboro.2001129.v8

  22. [35]

    URL: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationa ndcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections /2018based

    ONS population projections. URL: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationa ndcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections /2018based. OFGEM, 2019a. Consultation on access to half-hourly electricity data for settlement purposes: Ofgem decision and response to stakeholder feedback. URL: https://www.ofgem.gov....

    work page 2019

  23. [36]

    OFGEM, 2021a

    URL: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default /files/docs/2019/09/vulnerable_consumers_in_the_energy_market_2019_final.pdf. OFGEM, 2021a. Electricity Retail Market-wide Half-hourly Settlement: Decision Document. Technical Report. Ofgem. URL: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2021/04/mhhs_draft_ia_consultation_decisio n_document_final_version...

    work page 2019

  24. [37]

    Palinski, M.,

    URL: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/svt%20non-ppm%20custo mer%20accounts%20for%20the%2011%20largest%20suppliers%20-%20July%202021.xlsx. Palinski, M.,

    work page 2022

  25. [38]

    privacy tradeoffs in ride-hailing services

    Paying with your data. privacy tradeoffs in ride-hailing services. Appl. Econ. Lett. , 1–7doi: 10.1080/13504851.2021.1959891. Pelka, S., Preuß, S., Stute, J., Chappin, E., de Vries, L.,

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [39]

    Energy Res

    One service fits all? insights on demand response dilemmas of differently equipped households in germany. Energy Res. & Soc. Sci. 112, 103517. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2024.103517. Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., Loomis, J.B.,

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [43]

    2018 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Effic

    Daily life and demand: New data on behavioral drivers of residential electricity use patterns. 2018 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Effic. in Build. doi:10.1007/s12053-019-09791-1. Simon, H.A.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s12053-019-09791-1 2018

  28. [45]

    PLOS ONE 18, e0284581

    Unpacking privacy: Valuation of personal data protection. PLOS ONE 18, e0284581. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284581. Smart Energy GB,

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284581

  29. [46]

    Energy Policy 109, 767–781

    Vulnerability and resistance in the United Kingdom’s smart meter transition. Energy Policy 109, 767–781. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.037. SSEN,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.037 2017

  30. [47]

    Technical Report

    Smart Meter Data Privacy Plan (Access to household Electricity Consumption Data). Technical Report. Scottish & Southern Electricity Networks. URL: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2020/0 5/ssen_smart_meter_data_privacy_plan_redacted_final.pdf. Stankovic, L., Stankovic, V., Liao, J., Wilson, C.,

    work page 2020

  31. [48]

    Measuring the energy intensity of domestic activities from smart meter data. Appl. Energy 183, 1565–1580. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.09.087. Teng, F., Chhachhi, S., Ge, P., Graham, J., Gunduz, D.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.09.087 2016

  32. [49]

    Imperial College London , 1–64doi:10.25561/96974

    Balancing privacy and access to smart meter data: an Energy Futures Lab briefing paper. Imperial College London , 1–64doi:10.25561/96974. Train, K.,

    work page doi:10.25561/96974

  33. [51]

    Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Appl. of Simul. Methods in Environ. and Resour. Econ. , 1–16doi:10.1007/1-4020-3684-1

    work page doi:10.1007/1-4020-3684-1

  34. [54]

    Energy Policy 180, 113645

    Smart meter-related data privacy concerns and dynamic electricity tariffs: Evidence from a stated choice experiment. Energy Policy 180, 113645. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113645. V´ eliz, C., Grunewald, P.,

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [55]

    Nature Energy 3, 702–704

    Protecting data privacy is key to a smart energy future. Nature Energy 3, 702–704. doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0203-3. van de Waerdt, P.J.,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0203-3

  36. [56]

    Information asymmetries: recognizing the limits of the gdpr on the data-driven market. Comput. Law & Secur. Rev. 38, 105436. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105436. Wang, Y., Chen, Q., Gan, D., Yang, J., Kirschen, D.S., Kang, C.,

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [57]

    IEEE Trans

    Deep learning-based socio-demographic information identification from smart meter data. IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid 10, 2593–2602. doi:10.1109/TSG.2018.2805723. Which?,

    arXiv 2018

  38. [58]

    Energy Policy 103, 72–83

    Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Energy Policy 103, 72–83. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.047. Winegar, A.G., Sunstein, C.R.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.047 2016

  39. [59]

    How much is data privacy worth? a preliminary investigation. J. of Consumer Policy 42, 425–440. doi:10.1007/s10603-019-09419-y. 24 Appendix A. Survey Questions Table A.1: Survey Questions Question Options 1 Are you responsible, either fully or jointly , for paying the electricity bills in your household? Y es No 2 Please select your gender: Male F emale O...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10603-019-09419-y 2019

  40. [715]

    Kuhfeld, W.,

    doi:10.2307/1924536. Kuhfeld, W.,

    work page doi:10.2307/1924536

  41. [1990]

    Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp

    Bounded rationality, in: Utility and Probability. Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 15–18. doi:10.1007/97 8-1-349-20568-4

    doi:10.1007/97

  42. [1991]

    Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J. of Econ. Perspectives 5, 193–206. doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193. Kingsmill, S., Cavoukian, A.,

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193

  43. [2000]

    A critique and improvement of the ”CL” common language effect size statistics of mcgraw and wong. J. of Educ. and Behav. Stat. 25, 101–132. doi:10.2307/1165329. von Loessl, V.,

    doi:10.2307/1165329

  44. [2005]

    Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am. J. of Agric. Econ. 87, 353–365. doi:10.1111/J.1467-8276.2005.00727.X. Richter, L.L., Pollitt, M.G.,

    work page arXiv 2005

  45. [2006]

    Modeling Disinterest and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food. Environ. & Resour. Econ. 33, 485–509. doi:10.1007/s10640-005-4995-9. Satre-Meloy, A., Diakonova, M., Grunewald, P.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s10640-005-4995-9

  46. [2009]

    2 ed., Cambridge University Press

    Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2 ed., Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511 805271. Train, K., Weeks, M.,

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511

  47. [2010]

    Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470594001. Apple Inc.,

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470594001

  48. [2011]

    mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J. of Stat. Softw. 45, 1–67. doi:10.18637/jss.v045.i03. Vargha, A., Delaney, H.D.,

    doi:10.18637/jss.v045.i03

  49. [2012]

    Energy Policy 51, 673–682

    Labeling renewable energies: How the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance. Energy Policy 51, 673–682. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.005. Chhachhi, S., Teng, F.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.005 2012

  50. [2013]

    What is privacy worth? J. of Leg. Stud. 42, 249–274. doi:10.1086/671754. Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., Wagman, L.,

    work page doi:10.1086/671754

  51. [2014]

    Energy 78, 397–410

    Revealing household characteristics from smart meter data. Energy 78, 397–410. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.10.025. BEIS,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.10.025 2014

  52. [2015]

    2 ed., Cambridge University Press

    Applied Choice Analysis. 2 ed., Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316136232. Hess, S., Hensher, D.A.,

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781316136232

  53. [2016]

    The economics of privacy. J. of Econ. Literature 54, 442–492. doi: 10.1257/jel.54.2.442. Agresti, A.,

    doi:10.1257/jel.54.2.442

  54. [2017]

    Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. J. of Choice Model. 23, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jocm.2 017.03.001. Hledik, R., Bagci, P., Chhachhi, S.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jocm.2

  55. [2018]

    Energy Econ

    Which smart electricity service contracts will consumers accept? the demand for compensation in a platform market. Energy Econ. 72, 436–450. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2018.04.004. Rigby, D., Burton, M.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2018.04.004 2018

  56. [2019]

    Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Adv. in Methods and Practices in Psychological Sci. 2, 156–168. doi:10.1177/2515245919847202. Gerpott, T.J., Paukert, M.,

    doi:10.1177/2515245919847202

  57. [2020]

    Energy Res

    The trust gap - privacy perceptions of location data for energy services in the uk. Energy Res. and Soc. Sci. 68, 101534. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101534. Hawes, M.B.,

    arXiv 2020

  58. [2021]

    Survey response bias and the ‘privacy paradox’: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Appl. Econ. Lett. 28, 625–629. doi:10.1080/13504851.2020.1770183. Gosnell, G., McCoy, D.,

    work page arXiv 2020

  59. [2022]

    Dickman, A., Aslaksen, A.P.,

    URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65b0be04f2718c0014fb1 bdb/Subnational_estimates_of_properties_not_connected_to_the_gas_network_2015-2022.xlsx. Dickman, A., Aslaksen, A.P.,

    work page 2022

  60. [2023]

    URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/packa ge=ordinal

    ordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal Data. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/packa ge=ordinal. R package version 2023.12-4.1. Citizens Advice,

    work page 2023

  61. [2024]

    Energy Econ

    Willingness to pay for solar adoption: Economic, ideological, motivational, and demographic factors. Energy Econ. 136, 107703. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107703. Beckel, C., Sadamori, L., Staake, T., Santini, S.,

    work page arXiv 2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.