Survey research is essential in energy demand studies for capturing consumer preferences and informing policy decisions. Stated preference (SP) surveys, in particular, analyse how individuals make trade-offs in hypothetical scenarios. However, traditional survey methods are costly, time-consuming, and affected by biases and respondent fatigue. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a potential tool to address these challenges by generating human-like textual responses. This study investigates the ability of LLMs to simulate consumer choices in energy-related SP surveys. A series of test scenarios evaluated the simulation performance of LLMs at both individual and aggregated levels, considering factors in the prompt, in-context learning (ICL), chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, the comparison between local and cloud-based LLMs, integration with traditional choice models, and potential biases. Results indicate that while LLMs achieve an average accuracy of up to 48%, surpassing random guessing, their performance remains insufficient for practical application. Local and cloud-based LLMs perform similarly in simulation accuracy but exhibit differences in adherence to prompt requirements and susceptibility to social desirability biases. Findings suggest that previous SP choices are the most effective input factor, while longer prompts with varied factor formats may reduce accuracy. Furthermore, the traditional mixed logit choice model outperforms LLMs and provides insights for refining LLM prompts. Despite their limitations, LLMs provide scalability and efficiency advantages, requiring minimal historical data compared to traditional survey methods. Future research should refine prompt structures, further investigate CoT reasoning, and explore fine-tuning techniques to improve LLM-based energy survey simulations.