This research examined the preferences and psychological barriers of Dutch households toward Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS) for charging electric vehicles (EVs) at home. Balancing electricity demand is increasingly critical due to growing grid congestion caused by the rapid adoption of EVs. Smart technologies like HEMS can shift EV charging to off-peak hours, easing grid strain and supporting renewable energy integration. Yet, despite technological readiness, adoption remains limited. Previous studies have largely examined either technical potentials or general behavioral barriers, leaving a gap in understanding specific user perceptions, especially the concept of ”hassle.” In this research, hassle is defined as the perceived effort, inconvenience, and cognitive load associated with managing energy behaviors without technical support.
The main research goal was to assess how different HEMS functionalities either reduce or potentially
introduce new forms of hassle in the context of manually shifting EV charging behavior. To achieve this, a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was conducted alongside a comprehensive survey that included open-ended responses and statements evaluating psychological factors.
The DCE presented respondents with three distinct HEMS functionalities: basic in-home smart energy coordination, smart charging aligned with dynamic electricity prices, and grid balancing coordinated with external signals. Each functionality was evaluated at different price points and monthly subscription fees to measure willingness to adopt under varying conditions.
Findings revealed that households currently shifting EV charging manually reported moderate levels
of hassle, primarily due to cognitive effort, managing apps, and planning conflicts. Interestingly, all
three HEMS functionalities were expected to increase hassle rather than alleviate it. Grid balancing
was perceived as particularly burdensome due to significant concerns about losing control and unclear personal benefits. Key psychological factors identified included cost savings, environmental impact, comfort, privacy, and control. Cost savings and environmental benefits emerged as strong motivators, especially among younger respondents and those already engaged with smart home technologies. Comfort, defined as maintaining existing routines and minimizing active engagement, was highly valued and represented a significant barrier when compromised. Privacy and control were less prominent overall, though loss of control was frequently mentioned in qualitative responses, suggesting its importance should not be underestimated.
The DCE revealed that users were most likely to adopt HEMS profiles that matched their comfort
preferences and budget constraints. While functionalities like smart energy use and dynamic tariffs
were well-received overall, grid balancing showed more mixed responses. Adoption of this function was significantly lower among users who highly valued comfort, reflecting concerns about loss of control and flexibility. This suggests that preferences are not solely shaped by system complexity, but by how different features interact with personal routines and expectations.
These insights offer valuable guidance for policymakers and developers. To support broader HEMS
adoption, it is not enough to offer financial incentives alone, the systems also need to fit smoothly
into people’s daily lives. That means designing HEMS in a way that limits hassle and respects users’
routines and need for control. When technical features align with what people find comfortable and manageable, the chances of adoption increase. This can help make flexible energy use more common and support the energy transition in the Netherlands.