• No results found

Smart grids, smart users? The role of the user in demand side management

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "Smart grids, smart users? The role of the user in demand side management"

Copied!
9
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Energy

Research

&

Social

Science

j o ur na l h o me p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e r s s

Original

research

article

Smart

grids,

smart

users?

The

role

of

the

user

in

demand

side

management

Murray

Goulden

,

Ben

Bedwell,

Stefan

Rennick-Egglestone,

Tom

Rodden,

Alexa

Spence

UniversityofNottingham,NottinghamNG72RD,UK

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received25October2013

Receivedinrevisedform8April2014 Accepted9April2014

Availableonline24May2014

Keywords: DSM Domestic Energycitizenship Smartgrid

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Smartgridsareakeyfeatureoffutureenergyscenarios,withtheoverarchinggoalofbetteraligning energygenerationanddemand.Theworkpresentedhereconsiderstheroleoftheuserinsuchsystems, andthecontextsinwhichsuchrolesmightemerge.Thedatausedisdrawnfromfocusgroupswith 72participants,usingnovelscenariotechniquestocontextualisesmartgridtechnologiesindomestic settings.Twocontrastingvisionsofthesmartgridarepresented,acentralisedsystembasedoncurrent institutionalarrangements,andanalternativesysteminwhichdecentralisationofgenerationandcontrol ispursued.Usingtheconceptsof‘energyconsumer’and‘energycitizen’,thepaperconsiderswhatforms ofengagementarelikelytobegeneratedbythetwovisions.Weproposethatsmartgriddesignsmust lookbeyondsimplythetechnologyandrecognisethatasmartuserwhoisactivelyengagedwithenergy iscriticaltomuchofwhatisproposedbydemandsidemanagement.Weconcludethattheenergycitizen holdsoutmostpromiseinthisregard.Theimplicationsofthisforpolicymakersarediscussed.

©2014heAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

1. Introduction

Energy systems are undergoing enormous transformations aroundtheworld.Thoughlooselydefined,theconceptofthe‘smart grid’entailspowernetworkstransmittingdigitalinformationas wellasenergy.Theprimarypurposeistoallow(near)realtime con-sumptionandgenerationdatatobetransmittedbetweendifferent nodes,butitalsoallowsforpossibilitiessuchasremoteactivation ofappliances.Incombinationwithfacilitatingincreasedamounts ofdistributedgeneration,oftenfromrenewablesourceswith vari-ableoutput,thegoalistooptimisethebalanceofgenerationand consumptioninordertoachieveefficiencies[1].

Morethanjustagrandtechnologicalprojecthowever,asmart gridhasthepotentialtofundamentallychangethesocial dynam-icsoftheenergysystem.Twoopposingvisionsofhowthesmart grid’spotentialmightberealisedareestablished[2],thoughthey should beconsidered two poles of a continuumrather than a

∗Correspondingauthorat:Horizon,NGBBuilding,UniversityofNottingham Inno-vationPark,TriumphRoad,NottinghamNG72TU,UK.

E-mailaddresses:Murray.goulden@nottingham.ac.uk

(M.Goulden),Ben.bedwell@nottingham.ac.uk(B.Bedwell),

Stefan.RennickEgglestone@nottingham.ac.uk(S.Rennick-Egglestone),

Tom.rodden@nottingham.ac.uk(T.Rodden),Alexa.spence@nottingham.ac.uk

(A.Spence).

binarychoice.Thefirst,inkeepingwiththecentralised,hierarchical paradigmwhichhasdefinedtheenergysystemsofthelast cen-tury[3],entailscentralisedgeneratorsincreasingmonitoringand controlofend-userconsumption[4],asdetailedinUKERC’s‘Smart

PowerSector’scenarioofsmartgridfutures[5].Henceforth,werefer

tothisvisionas‘centraliseddemandsidemanagement’(CDSM), asaspecificformofthegenericterm‘demandsidemanagement’ (DSM).Thealternativeinvolvesblurringthedistinctionbetween generatorsandend-users,withthelatter—whetherasindividuals orcommunities—increasinglyindependentthrough microgenera-tionandself-management,amodelWolsinkcalls‘DisGenMiGrids’ (distributedgenerationmicro grids)[2],and similartoUKERC’s

‘Groundswell’scenario[5].Thesecontrastingvisionssharethesame

technologies,butdifferradicallyinthesocialstructures underpin-ningthem.

In extending generator control of consumption, centralised demandsidemanagementtargetstheprovisionofaccurateusage informationtoconsumers,includingdynamicpricingtariffs,and theremotecontrolofelectricity loadand devices.Withinthese approaches there is considerable latitudein regard to the role envisagedfortheuser;howeverallrequireintegrationintodaily routinesandsosomedegreeofuserinteraction.A‘weak’version ofCDSMmightsimplyentaila‘smart’implementationofdynamic pricing tariffs,in which certain white goodsare remotely trig-geredtorunduringlowdemandperiods.A‘strong’implementation couldincludeusingreal-timepricingsignalsandnewtechnologies

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.008

(2)

toencourage and enableusers to‘time shift’1 energy-intensive

behavioursawayfromperiodsofpeakdemand,ortowardsperiods when fluctuatingrenewable energygenerationishigh. Such an approachwould requireenergytotakeaprominentrole inthe ordering of household activities (see [6] for a more detailed appraisalofwhatthisrangeofoptionsmightlooklike).

Todate,aconsiderablebodyofworkhasbeengeneratedfrom practicetheory-basedstudiesofenergyuseindomesticcontexts, (e.g.[7,8]).Someofthis workhascalledfor adisassembling of theproducer–consumerdividewhichhasdefinedtheenergy sys-tems ofthe lastcentury, tobereplaced insteadbythekind of ‘co-management’ofresources[9]seeninDisGenMiGrids.Strengers extendsthisfurther,callingfor‘co-managementofpractices’[10], a moreambitious visionwhich recognisestheco-production of

demand—that istherelationshipsinwhichwantsandneedsare

formed—aswellassupply.Bycontrast,muchoftheworktodate onDSMspecificallyhasbeennarrowinfocusandconcernedwith individualusers,disregardingthedynamicsoftheshared house-holdasadeploymentsite[11,12].Researchthathasexploredthis areaisoftenlimitedtocertainaspectsofDSM,forexampleonsmart metres(e.g.[13]),inhomedisplays(IHDs)[14,15];dynamicpricing [16];orpeercomparisonfeedbackeffects[17].

Researchingthesocietalimplicationsofsmartgridsfacessimilar problemstothatofothernewtechnologies(e.g.biotechnologies, nanotechnologies)ingaininginsightintosocio-technicalsystems thatdonotyetexist.Theuncertaintyoffuturetechnologies neces-sitates defining themfor research participants.In doing sothe contextandframingusedcanhavealargeinfluenceonresponses. Despitethis,thenecessityofsuchresearchstemsfromthe con-siderablebenefitinupstreamengagementwithnewtechnologies wherelayperspectiveshelptodirectresearchanddevelopment efforts[18],andsmartgridsarenoexceptioninthisregard[6].

Thecurrentresearchmakesuseofcontravisionscenariofilms [19]withinaseriesoffocusgroupsinordertoengagemembers of the publicwith therange of potential smart grid technolo-giesavailablewithinfutureenergy systems.Theseenableusto probe people’s understandings of, and engagement with, their ownenergyconsumption,andexploreinteractionswithcurrent andfuturesmartgridtechnologies.Recentworkdrawsattention tothe prominentrole that theuseris expected toplay within smartgridsystems[20].Ourcoreinterestiswhatthatrolemight look like,and the consequences of it. Twoforms of public are identified—energyconsumersandenergycitizens—whichincrude termsaredistinguishedbytheirorientation:asenergyend-users andenergysystemparticipantsrespectively.Itisarguedthatthe energyconsumerframeisaconsequenceofthesameparadigmthat drivesCDSM,andyetitunderminestheverythingCDSMhopes toachieve—namelyagridinwhichconsumptionadjuststomeet generation.We proposethatenergy citizens,aligning with Dis-GenMiGrids,holdoutmuchgreaterpotentialinthisregard.The implicationsofthisforpolicymakersarediscussed.

2. Methods

2.1. Theoreticalframing

Exploring the role of end-users within smart gridsrequires anunderstandingofthecontextinwhichenergyandassociated devicesareusedwithinthehome.Inthissectionwewilloutlineour

1Timeshiftinginvolvesthemovingofenergy-consumingpracticesawayfrom

timesofpeakelectricitydemand,inordertoeasethedemandsplacedonelectricity generation.

implementationofpracticetheory,andexplaintheenergycitizen andenergyconsumerconceptswhichstructureouranalysis.

PracticeTheoryisemployedhereasameansofunpackingthe

mundane, embeddeduse of energy in day-to-day life. Practice theoryhasanumberofoverlappingformulations[21,22],butas appliedhereitbreaksdownpracticesintofourcomponents: mate-rialsandinfrastructures;rulesandknowledge; embodiedskills; andengagementsandmeanings[8].

Time-shiftingshoweringforexample,entailsmaterial techno-logicalchangestofeedsignals(e.g.electricityunitcosts)totheuser throughthesmartgridandassociateddisplaydevice,and incorpo-ratingnewknowledgeofhowthesystemworks.Italsopotentially entailschangesinskills—forexampletheuseralteringtheir show-eringroutinetocompleteitinfiveminutesinsteadofeight—and alsopossiblyinmeanings—asintheshower’ssymbolicpurpose switchingfromarefreshingwake-upbeforework,toarelaxing de-stressafterwork.Changingthepracticeofshoweringiscomprised thenofmultipleelementsuniquetoit.Additionally,and impor-tantly,showeringpracticesaswithmostdomesticpractices,are oftendevelopedinadynamicwaythroughinteractionsbothwith othermembersofahouseholdandwidersociety,through inter-actionandnegotiation.Theseincludepowerfulnormsconferring properbehaviour,forexamplesignifyingnotonlysuitablehygiene, butalsoachievingthiswitharapidityappropriateforthe contem-porarytime-pooradult(showersbeingfasterthanthebathsthey supplanted)[7,Ch.5].

Weusethisperspectiveonenergyuse—embeddedinthesocial andphysicalinfrastructureofdailydomesticlife—tostructureour analysis.Themannerinwhichitisdeployedmightbecharacterised as‘weak’practicetheory[23,p.1279]aswedonotadopt prac-ticesasourunitofenquiry.Instead,ouroverarchingframeisthat ofenergyconsumerandenergycitizen.Thispreferencefor main-tainingthehumanactorasourfocusstemsfromadesiretoavoid reducingtheindividualtoamule-like‘carrier’ofpractices. Our hybridapproachisanattempttorecognisethatenergyuseemerges fromcomplexsocio-technicallandscapes,whilststillmaintaining theagencyofthehumanactor.

2.1.1. Energyconsumerandenergycitizenpersonas

ThespecificsofthesetwinnedconceptswillbegiveninSection 3,herethoughwewishtoprovideabackgroundtotheirformation. Theconceptsemergedduringdataanalysis,outofthenecessityto reconcilethetensionsinherentwithinindividuals’accounts.One suchtensionwasbetweenawishforenergytoremaininvisible andademandformoreknowledgeaboutenergyconsumptionand efficientusage.

Theseconceptsexistasbothpersonasandframes,whichisto saytheyarebothenactedfromwithinandimposedfrom with-out,inamannerthatisco-constructive.Wedeploythesepersonas ascharacters—rolesthatareperformed,orinthecaseofframes

expectedtobe performed,witha particular setof assumptions

abouttheirorientationtooverarchingsocialstructures(inthiscase, the‘energysystem’initsbroadestsense).Inthistheydiffer some-whatfromthetypologyofenergysystemusersdeployedbyvan Vliet[24],whichis“definedbythekindofrelationshipbetween providersandconsumers”[p.3].VanVlietidentifiesthreetypes: (i)customer;(ii)citizen–consumer;and(iii)co-provider.Thelatter twooverlapwithenergycitizenasusedhere,howeverour for-mulationislessconcernedwithformalrelationsbetweenactors, favouringinsteadtheactor’sorientationtotheenergysystem—that istosaytheirknowledge,andmeaningsofthesystemandtheirrole withinit—reflectingthispaper’sinterestinhowtoenrolsmartgrid participantsmosteffectively.

(3)

morecomfortablythantheother,butneverthelessdeployedboth atdifferenttimesandindifferentcontexts.It isintheshifting, overlappingboundariesofthepersonasthattensionsemerge.

2.2. Participants

Thedata isdrawn fromfour focusgroups, each of eighteen people,conductedinandaroundthecityofNottingham.The inten-tionwastoachieveabroadlyrepresentativedemographicspread, whilstensuringahighproportionhadsomeexistingexperienceof lowcarbonenergyschemes,whichcontainelementsofsmartgrids (e.g.distributedgeneration).Theresultwasawiderangeof par-ticipantswithvaryinglevelsofknowledgeandengagementwith energyefficiencyandreductionschemes.

Anagencyrecruited participantsbasedondemographic rep-resentativeness (age, gender, ethnicity, and income) of the recruitment areas (see Appendix). The first focus group was recruitedtoofferaspreadoftheurbancity(C)populationandhad amodalincomerangeofbetween

£

25,000and

£

50,000. Subse-quentgroupswereselectedtoofferdifferentexperiencesoflow carbonenergyschemesandvaryinglevelsofurbanicityand socio-economicstatus.Bickton(B)isaruralvillagesometwentymiles fromthecitywitha modalincome of<

£

25,000,wherea wind turbineschemewasrefusedplanningpermissiontwoyearsago followinglocalresistance.Lowell(L)issimilarly ruralbut hasa highermodalincomeof>

£

75,000,andhasawindturbinescheme runbyaconsortiumofvillagers,aswellasseveralzerocarbon housingdevelopments.Weston(W)isaninnercityestatewitha modalincomeof<

£

25,000,whichforthelastdecadehashadits owncommunityenergygroup,whichamongotheractivitiesruns aschemeinstallingPVonhomesatnocost,inexchangeforwhich itcollectstheFeed-InTariffwhichisinvestedbackintoschemesto reducetheenergyuseofthecommunity.Inwhatfollows,‘C’,‘B’,‘L’ or‘W’designateswhichfocusgroupaquotewasdrawnfrom.

2.3. Procedureandmaterials

Threeshortfilms2 made bytheresearchteam wereshown,

interspersedwithdiscussionsstructuredaroundthemesand tech-nologies featured in the preceding film. Each focus group was sub-divided into three groups of six to facilitate in-depth dis-cussion,witha researcher allocatedtoeach. Discussionthemes comprised existing energy practices; time-shifting and ‘smart’ energytechnologies;understandingofenergyandbilling;and per-ceptionsoftheenergyindustry.

Thefilmswereintendedtoanchorabstracttechnologiesina domesticsettingthatmightbemeaningfultoparticipants. Char-actersillustratedinthefilmswerepurposefullychoseninorderto representabroadspectrumofsocietyandeachshowedasubset ofsmartgridtechnologiesbeingusedinafictionalhome.The sett-ingsandrangeofsmartgridtechnologiesweredevelopedthrough amultidisciplinaryworkshop(N=12)incorporatingexpertswithin engineering, computer science, psychology and sociology with interestsinenergytechnologies.

Inanefforttoavoidthenarrativeframingsfrombiasing subse-quentdiscussion,a‘contravision’approach[19]wasusedinwhich eachfilmwassplitinto‘light’and‘dark’versionsofthesame narra-tive.Inonethetechnologyandusersoperatedinperfectharmony, inthe otherthediscordwastotal. These intentionallyextreme accountswereintendedtoopenupaswideanimaginativespace

2Short films used during focus group hosted at http://horizonenergy.

blogspot.co.uk/.

aspossibleinordertofacilitatediscussion,whilstsimultaneously engagingparticipantswitharecognisablesetting.

3. Results

Transcriptionsofthefocusgroupswereanalysedusinga the-maticapproach,codedusingNvivosoftware.Ourfollowinganalysis firstdiscussesthequestionofhowusersareframed,andhowthis mapstothesocialityofthesharedhome.Wethenintroducethe conceptsofenergyconsumerandenergycitizen,withwhichwe structureoursubsequentanalysisofuserroleswithinsmartgrid systems.Inparticularweconsidertheideaoftheenergyconsumer withinCDSMapproaches,andoutlinethechallengesthiscreates. Wethenfocusondevelopingtheideaoftheenergycitizen,the intertwinedrolesofcommunityandownershipinrelationtothis personaandwhatthismeansforsmartgrids.

3.1. UnderstandingtheUser

Contemporary policy makers commonly approach energy demandissueswithanindividualisticmodelofattitudesandchoice [23].Accordingly, incentives for shifts in energy behaviour are commonlyframedinfinancial(lowerbills)terms[11].Ourfocus groupparticipantswereimmediatelyresponsivetosuchaframing, reflectingthattheparadigm’sinfluenceisnotlimitedto govern-ment.Whenpresentedwithsuchaframe,participantsaffirmed financialreasonsasthedominantincentivetoadoptsuch tech-nologies.Discussionsquicklyproblematisedsuchasimpleframing however:

L[owell]: Ithinkunless your savingsaredramatic... forthe upheaval, thechange of lifestyle for pennies then you’ve...

wouldchildrensitthere?[...]Ifyou’vegotsmallchildren,what wouldIsay?‘Thisisgoingtosaveyoufivepence,youcan’thave yourdinnerjustyet’,buttheystartcrying...

Theroleofthechildheredemonstratesthatmotivationsarefar morediverseandcomplexthanthatcapturedbyanindividualistic framingofsustainablebehaviourchanges.Therearemultiple phys-icalandpsychologicalrewardstriggeredbyenergy-usingpractices which might,in anygivensituation,outweighspecificconcerns (e.g.financial)thatCDSMpromotionsmightappealto.

Asituatedappraisaloftheuserhasbeenlargelyoverlookedby previousresearchintotheacceptanceofsmartgridtechnologies(a rareexceptionbeingStrengers’work[16,25]ondynamicpricing). Focusonindividualusersofsuchtechnologiesneglectsthecomplex socialtopographyofsharedhouseholdsinwhichnooneactorholds total controloverenergypracticesandassociated consumption. Rettie[26]identifies“practicedomainowners”withinhouseholds, whotakeownershipofasubsetofthehousehold’spractices,and thusdetermineassociatedenergyuse.Thepicturefromthefocus groupssuggestedevengreaterintricacy.Thequoteabovefroma fatherpressedtoschedulecookingatatimedeemedacceptableby hischildrenpointstothefactthatevendomainownersaredenied thelibertyofamonopoly.

(4)

againstreducingthehouseholdtotheattitudinalresponsesofa singleautonomousrationalactor.

3.2. Energyconsumers

Participants’responsesduringthefocusgroupdiscussionstook twocontradictoryforms,inaccordancewithwhatcanbe charac-terisedastheirorientationtoenergy.Thisengagementcommonly developedasthediscussiondid, asparticipantsmovedfroman immediate,unsituatedperspective,inwhichenergy-related prac-tices were rather inflexible, and energy itself was of minimal presence, to a more reflexive, grounded one in which energy becamesalientandconsequential.Theseconceptionsweremarked enoughtosuggest twodifferentpersonas werebeingdeployed byparticipants,which welabelenergyconsumerandenergy cit-izen respectively.For thiswe drawonDevine-Wright’s concept of‘energycitizenship’[28]inwhichthepublic’sroleinenergyis

“framedbynotionsofequitablerightsandresponsibilitiesacross

soci-etyfordealingwiththeconsequencesofenergyconsumption”(p.71).

Incontrastwiththeconsumer,forwhomenergyissimplyagoodto beexpendedinpursuitofpersonalgoals,theenergycitizenengages withenergyasameaningfulpartoftheirpractices.

Themostimmediatelyaccessiblepersonaformanywasthatof energyconsumer.Here,discussionsemphasisedenergyasjustone ofmultiplecontingencesofdailylife,e.g.work;family;finances; many ofwhich aremore pressing.Commonly,energy’sdesired roleistobeneitherseennorheard,asinthefirstquotebelow. Thesecond quoteemphasisesthesubservientrole ofenergyin themundaneactivitiesofthehousehold.Thenotionthatitshould structurethemwasalientomostparticipants’current understand-ings.Unlikethepracticesitmakespossible,itisnot“partofyour life”andparticipantsdidnothave,norwanttomake,timetothink aboutenergy.

C[ity]1:Dopeoplerealisticallyhavethatmuchtimeinthedayto thinkabouttheirenergysituations,‘causetome,we’relooking foreasysolutions,thatdon’ttakeanytimetothinkabout.

C2:It’sanecessityinthemorning,havingashower,it’spartof yourlife.Idon’twanttobethinking,oh,Ican’thaveanothertwo minutesintheshowerbecause,heavenforbid,themeter’sgoing togoover.Ithinkit’soneofthosethingsthatcanpotentially stressyououtevenmore.

Inaccordancewiththeseviews,thenotion,asadvancedinthe ‘light’filmsandimplicitinsomeaccountsoffuturepotential func-tionsofsmartgrids,e.g.[4,11],thatenergymightbea‘surfaced’ aspectofinteractionwithinthehousehold—thatisaconsciously perceivedentityandanexplicittopicofconversationandgroup planning—wasmetwithconsiderablescepticism.

Reflecting energy’s current background role, participants expressedalackofknowledgeaboutfunctionalmatterssuchas how pricingworked,and what theenergydemandof different goodswas.Thiscoalescedaroundtheissueofenergybills,a com-moncomplaintbeingtheiropaqueness.Acleartensionexistedhere betweenthedesiretonotthinkaboutenergyontheonehand,and ontheotheraconcernthatalackofknowledgewascostingmoney, eitherthroughinefficientuseofenergyorunsuitabletariffing.This wasexacerbatedbyhighlevelsofindustrydistrust.

3.3. TheroleofIHDs

ManyparticipantsappearedtoreadIHDsasasolutiontothis tension,byofferinganundemandingmeansofbecominginformed. However,somethathadexistingdisplayscomplainedthatthe dis-playsthemselveswereopaqueintheirpresentationofinformation

andreliedonpoorlyunderstoodmetricslikekilowatthours.Given thepreferenceamongstmanyforenergytoremainbackgrounded, itisunsurprisingthat severalparticipantsexpressedinterestin IHDsthatpresentedinformationinverysimpleterms,e.g.witha lightindicatingcurrentelectricitypricethroughcolour.Thisappeal speaksofadesiretounderstandandmanageenergyusethrough intuitiveandundemandingmeans,summedupbyoneparticipant

as“Aquickglance,ifyou’vegotthetime”[C].

However,even positiveaccountsfromIHDowners indicated thatusedinisolationthesurfacingofenergybyIHDstendedto diminishafteramatterofdaysorweeks,andbecomelargely hid-denbeneaththepatinaofdailyexperience,leavinglimitedorno longtermeffectonpractices.

Itis clearfromourworkandthat ofothers[29,30]thatthe utilityof IHDsislimited iftheyareusedinisolation purelyfor feedingbackconsumptiondata.Participants’accountssuggestthat suchapproaches fail due to purely targeting a single element ofpractices—knowledge—in anabstract (e.g.poorlyunderstood ‘kw/h’)formthat failsto engagewithactors’meanings.It also failstoaddressembodied actionsinanyclearway,whichisto say,whatisausertodowiththisinformation?Incontrast,focus group participants who used an IHD as but one element of a widermicrogenerationschemeappearedtohaveagreater ongo-ingengagement,andstudiesofdynamicpricingschemessuggest that,asoneelementofsuchascheme,adisplaycanhelpachieve sustainedreductionsinenergy use[31].Participantsin IHD tri-alshavehighlightedadesireforaccompanyingadviceonenergy saving[32].Inisolationhowever,theirutilityappearslimited.

IHDsarea technologycommontoCDSMand DisGenMiGrid models,providinghousehold consumptioninformation in both. Beyondthistheirrolesdiffersomewhat.Fortheformer,theyoffer ameansforthegeneratortomanagedemandbyrelayingpricing informationtotheuser.Inthelatter,theirprimaryroleisin provid-ingtheuserwithdataontheirpersonalorcommunitygeneration. Assuch,bothintegrateIHDsintoasetofpractices,inamanner sup-portiveofongoingengagement.Theexceptionisweakversionsof CDSM,whichfavourautomationoveruserinvolvement.Insucha system,IHDsarelikelytoquicklybecomeanirrelevance,asthey arecurrentlyformanyfocusgroupparticipants.

3.4. Automationandtimeshifting

IHDsareoneelementoftheprojectofmakingthesmartgrid end-user supply-responsive. One key aspectof this may beto encourage peopleto time shiftactivities—for example shower-ingata differentpoint intheday—byrelayingsignals tothem fromanetworkcontroller.Alternatively,theusers’devicesmaybe enrolledthroughautomation—forexamplestartingapre-loaded whitegoodsmachineatatimeoflowdemand.InthecaseofCDSM suchinterventionswouldrelyoneconomicmotivations. Difficul-tiesforthisapproachemergedfromthefocusgroups.

Whenevaluatingconcreteexamplesthatmightentail reorder-ingpractices, mostparticipantswerequick toadopt anenergy consumerpersona,aperspectivefromwhichotherdemandswere seenastakingpriorityovertheneedtoreduceorshiftenergy. Accordingly,changesthatwereeasilyacceptedwerethosethatdid notrequirereconfiguringthepracticeinquestion.

(5)

automationisthatenergyconsumptionisnotpoint-of-useduring practicesinvolvingwhitegoods,whichistosaytheuser’s involve-mentinloadingandunloadingofthemachinecanbeseparated fromtherunningofit.Aslongastheprogrammecompleteswithina windowacceptabletotheuseritentailslittleornoreconfiguration oftheuser’srolewithinthepractice.

Exceptionstothisgenerallystemmedfromlocalcircumstances, suchasconcernfromthoseinterracedhousingthatthemachine mightgeneratetoomuchnoiseforthemselvesorneighbourstorun overnight.Suchexamplespointtothedangerthatthosewiththe leastflexibilitytoshifttheirpracticesmightbethosewiththe great-esteconomicneedtobenefit.Whilsttheun-orunder-employed whoareathomeduring(partof)thedayhaveintheorythegreatest flexibilitywithregardtoconductingenergy-usingpractices[33], themostvulnerablemayhavechaoticlifestylesorconstrained abil-itiesthatnegateanysuchopportunities.Deploymentsofdomestic smartgridtechnologiesrequirefurtherresearchinthisregard.

Forenergyconsumptionthatispoint-of-use,e.g.showeringand cooking,reactionstotimeshiftingwerefarlessfavourable. Partic-ipantswouldcommonlypointtothenexusofrelatedactorsand actionsthatmademovingsuchpracticesimpossible.Thismight bethedemandsofchildrentobefed,ortheneedtobeshowered beforeleaving forworkat8.00a.m.Suggestionsofshiftingsuch practicesoftengeneratedemotiveresponsesreflectingthedegree towhichtheyarewovenintotherepertoiresofperformancefrom whichindividualsconstructnotionsofself[7]:

B[ickton]1:Igetupinthemorning,Imightgetupearlierthan mostpeoplebutthefirstthingIdoistakeashower.

B2:Yes.

B1:Idon’twantBigBrotherdictatingtomethetimeIgetup. B3:No,no,that’showyoustartyourday,itwakesmeupand getsyougoing.

Fortheseparticipantsshoweringsignifiedaprocessofgaining alertnessatthestartoftheday.Twoothermeaningsattachedto showeringwerethatofcomfortandrelaxation.Indeedparticipants reactednegativelytoadevice,portrayedinoneofourfilms,which limitedtheamountoftimethatcouldbespentintheshowerbefore thewaterturnedcold.Bothrelaxationandcomfortwere threat-enedbythisformofintervention.Inasimilarmanner,therewas moreopennesstothenotionofusingelectricvehiclesasapersonal

storeandsourceforsurplusmicrogeneratedenergyasopposedto agridstoreandsourceforsurplusenergy,regardlessofwhether theusermaintainedanoverride.Inthisexampleitseemsthatthe independencecommonlysignifiedbycars[34]waschallengedby thetechnology,butlesssoiftheparticipantmaintainedownership ofoperations(evenifonlysymbolically).

3.5. TheimplicationsoftheenergyconsumerforCDSM

Itisstrikingthatthediscoursesuponwhichtheenergy con-sumerfrequentlydrawsareonesthatrenderconsumer-targeted interventionslargelymoot.Whenrejectingspecificexamplesof CDSM,participantsreferencedobligationstootherfamily mem-bers; or the requirements of their work life; or the everyday pressuresthatleadthemtoseekoutconvenience.Theydidnot referencefinancialmatters.Assuch,participants’accountssuggest thattheonlyformsofbehaviourchangethatmightbeachieved bytargetingenergyconsumersarethosethatenableconvenience, oratleastareconvenience-neutral(suchastime-windowedwhite goodsautomation);orthatareincentivisedbyfinancial induce-mentsthataresosignificanttheycompeltheconsumertoconsider them.Giventhelowcostofmostpracticeswhenconsideredin

isolation,3findinganeconomicbasisforsuchanapproachcould

beextremelychallenging.

Thedemonstratedefficacyofdynamicpricingtrials[31]could beseen tocontradict thisargument. Considerablevariability of impactisapparentfromsuchtrials(figurein[31]),reflectingthe interactionsofspecifictrialdesignswiththecontextinwhichthey areenacted.Theyneverthelessappeartobeconsistently success-fulofachieving(oftensignificant)reductionsinuse.Onecouldread theirsuccessasevidencethatenergyconsumerswereresponsive topricingsignals,suchthattheywouldaccept—atleastforcertain periodsofpeakdemand—anextendedsurfacingofenergyinwhich mundanepracticesmightneedtobereorderedonadailyorhourly basis.However,wewouldarguethatthefactthatdynamic pri-cingschemeshavebeensuccessfulislikelytobeanoutcomeofthe self-selectionofparticipants.Wecanhypothesisethatthosetaking partarelikelytobepredominantlyenergycitizenswhoarealready engagedwithenergyasasurfacedcomponentoftheirpractices. ThisissupportedbyStrengers’work,whichfoundthatthosethat tookpartinanAustraliantrialcommonlycited“asenseofsocial responsibility”[16]ratherthananyindividualisticmotivationsfor theirparticipation.Energyconsumersmaybeunlikelyto volun-teerforsuchatrialinthefirstplacegiventhechangingorientation toenergyitwouldrequire,andindeedreluctancetoparticipatein suchschemeshasbeennotedpreviously[35].Furthersupportfor thishypothesiscomesfromastudyofalargetrialinwhich par-ticipationwasnon-voluntary.Thisfoundthataverageuseactually

increasedunderthescheme[36].

Thisisnottheonlysenseinwhichtheenergyconsumeris prob-lematicforCDSM.InSection3.2above,wenotedthattheenergy consumerpersonaseeminglyfreesusersfromengagementwith energy,whilstburdeningthemwithaconcernthattheyarenot beingefficientorgettingthebestdeal.Furthercontradictionsor tensionswereapparentwhenparticipantsappraisedsomeofthe technologies,skillsandmeaningsembeddedintheireveryday con-sumerlifestyles.Thisisillustratedinanexchangediscussingthe roleofyoungergenerationsintacklingclimatechange:

W1:It’seasier toeducatechildren than itis toeducate old codgerslikeus....Wetryanddoourbitbutthosekidsaregoing todomorethanus.

W2:It’sthosesamekidsyou’retalkingabout,theythinknothing ofjumpingonaflightandgoingaroundtheworldonceortwice ayear.Sotheylearnhowtoturnalightoffandthentheygoand jumponaplaneandgoandspendamonthinThailand.

We observedthisphenomenoninseveralforms ofresponse. Many participants couldsee a contradiction in the motives of energycompaniesinencouragingenergyefficiencywho,bythe natureoftheirbusiness,wereseentomakemoneywhen individ-ualsconsumemore,notless.Atahouseholdlevel,oneparticipant recountedhersuccessfuleffortstoconvinceherchildrentorecycle. However,whenitcametotheirenergyconsumption,whichtook theformofconstantchargingof“thegadgets,theirpersonal

posses-sions”[W],sheheldupherhandsinsurrender.Herchildrenwere

consumersandthiswashealthyconsumption.Assuchitwasnot somethingshehadtherighttochallenge.

Theseresponseshighlightparticipants’awarenessofthe con-tradictions inherentin targeting sustainablebehaviour through aconsumermodel.Inencouragingindividualstosimultaneously consumeandtoreducetheirenvironmentalimpactthereis con-siderabledangerthatrecipientsoftheseconflictingmessagesare liabletorespondwithcynicismanddisengagement[37,p.115,38].

3AtthestandardUKrateof13pence/kWh,makingacupofteacostslessthana

(6)

Combinedwithadistrustoftheenergyindustry[39],itcreatesa potentiallyunfavourableenvironmentforintroducingCDSM.

3.6. Energycitizens

Theshallowandinflexibleengagementwithenergybeganto diminish as the focus groups proceeded. Participants began to recountexamplesthatshowedtheirpracticestobemoreplastic: learningtoswitchappliancesoffatthewallafterfindingouthow muchtheyusedinstandby;turningofflightsinemptyroomsatthe insistenceofthegrandchildren(anotherexampleofthepluralistic setting).Theenergycitizenpersonabecameincreasinglyapparent, leadingsometoself-critiquetheirpractices,evenwhilstdefending them.Thisagainsuggestsinternaltensionsbetweencitizenand consumerpersonas:

C:Allofournegativereasonsarequiteluxuryreasonsreally, aren’tthey?Theydon’tholdanywater,whenyouaretalking aboutextremelyhighenergycostsandclimatechange.There’s goingtobecomeapointwhere,likeourlifestyleswillchange somuchthatsomeofthethings,someofourargumentswon’t bethatgood,butrightnow,theyare,youknowwhatImean, it’sabigchangeforus,sorightnow,it’slike,no,can’tdothat.

Wenotedabovethatnotallparticipantsstartedfromthesame positionrelativetothetwopersonas.Highlynotablewasthe dif-ferentlevelsofengagementwithenergybetweengroupswhohad directexperienceofcommunityorpersonalenergysystemsand thosewhodidnot.Thosewithdirectexperiencehadaheightened awarenessofenergy’sroleswithintheirpractices.Thisappeared tofosteragreateropennesstothesmartgridschemesdiscussed inthefocusgroups.Theywerequicknotonlytoengageasenergy citizensonatheoreticallevel,butalsoatapracticalleveloflived experiences.

Practice theory suggests that a change in one element of a practice—forexampleanunresponsivedevice,ornewknowledge gleanedfromafriend—canleadtoareconfigurationoftheentire assemblage[21].PierceandPaulos’[40]phenomenologicalaccount of human-electricityrelations providesfurtherinsight intothis process.DrawingonIhde’s[41]schematicofhuman-technology relations,PierceandPaulosdescriberareoccurrencesof“alterity relationstoelectricity”(p.2407),whenenergybecomespresenced asanobjectinitsownright.Thisismarkedlydifferentfromthe “backgroundrelation”energycommonsoccupies,inwhichit struc-turesexperience(e.g.bylightingaroom)withoutbeingconsciously noted.Anexampleofalterityistherunningflatofa battery,at whichpointenergybecomesrealisedinitsabsence.Ourresearch showed that community energy schemes have a similar effect throughmakingenergysalient;inparticularmicrogeneration tech-nologiesdrawattentionthroughthecreationofelectricity.

Forthoseproducingenergythroughmicrogeneration,aswell as consuming it, the effect of this surfacing is a reorientation towardsenergyasanactivecomponentintheirpractices,rather thansomethingtaken-for-granted.Incontrasttothenegative sur-facinginvokedbypayingenergybillsthisisinapositiveframe, whichfocusesonthegainstotheindividual(see[42]).This engage-ment potentiallyeasestransitions tolowercarbon lifestyles,as suggestedbythefollowingexcerpt.

L:wehavea fourkilowatt[PV]systemandwhatIfindvery interestingisit’snotwhatitgenerates,itishowitchangesour behaviourbecausewe’vesuddenlybecomemuch,muchmore awareofwhatwe’redoingandwhatwe’respending,there’sthe meterthattheygaveuswhichshowshowmuchwe’vebeen generatingbutthere’sanothermeterwhichshowshowmuch

we’reusing.Myeyeisnowonthemeterofwhichwe’reusing andthat’sreallychangedmybehaviour.

Itisimportanttoemphasisethatthisshifttoanalterityrelation toenergygoesbeyondmerevisibility,asthesurfacingmetaphor mightsuggest.Thesurfacingofferedbydisplaysactinginisolation canbecharacterisedashermeneutic[40,p.2407],thatisreading

energythroughthedevice.Thedeviceisamediator:theuser pri-marilyexperiencingitratherthantheenergybeingrepresented. Bycontrast,thealteritysurfacingofferedbymicrogenerationis markedoutbythegreater“ratioofobjectness”[41,p.108]accorded toenergy.Itdoesthisbyinvolvingtheuserinitscreationaswell asconsumption.Thiscreatespotentialsformoreintuitive engage-ments:

C[PVowner]:Ithinkitwouldbeinterestingtousethesmart meterthing,butIsuspectitwouldjustbeinteresting,whether wechangethewayweoperateasaresultoftheinformation, I’mnotsure.We’vekindofcometotheconclusionthatnowyou useallyourbigmachineswhenthesun’sshining.

Heredevicesarerecognisedasdependantontheenergy flow-ingfromthesunandcapturedbythePVpanels.Itwasclearfrom participants’accountsthatmicrogenerationtechnologywas trigg-eringdifferentmeaningsrelatingtoenergy,mostnotablypersonal ownership,aclosecorrelateofcitizenship.Inturn,thiswas prom-ptingthedevelopmentofnewknowledgeandskills(e.g.checking theweatherforecastandsettingthewashingmachinetorunwhen thesunwasout).

Thislinkingofenergyandspecificpracticesisamorepowerful catalystofchangethanonewhichconceivesofusersasindividual economicactorsand accordinglytargetsthemwithinformation suchaspricesignals[16,p.7320].Wehighlighttheimportance ofrecognisingtheinterpersonalandembeddednatureofenergy practices.Theownershipofproductiongivesenergyanovertrole in users’ formulations of their practices, with implications for howtheybothuseandthinkaboutit.Thefollowingquotehints atthepotentiallycomplexwaysin whichbehaviourandvalues areco-constructive[43].Forthisparticipant,thepresencedrole ofmicrogeneratedenergyinbehaviourinfluencedenergy-related values,inturnfeedingbackintobehaviour:

L:IthinkbothonthesupplysideandtheturbineandthePVsand thedemandside,consciousthatyou’reusing[...]Idon’tthink it’sconstantlylookingatsomesortofgizmoremindingyouof whattodo,ratherthanhavingageneralsubconsciousnotion, perhapsI’veusedtoomuchhotwater.It’ssortoflifestylethings really,changingthemslowly.

Inthismanner,microgenerationisacatalystforreformulating practices—concerningconsumptionaswellasproduction.

3.7. Ownershipandtrust

Ownershipisasacentralfeatureofcitizenshipandplaysan importantroleinresponsestosmartgridtechnologies.Inmarked contrasttoenergytechnologieslikenuclearpower,themateriality ofsuchtechnologiesweretreatedbyparticipantsasbeinglargely benign.Theissuelayintheirinstitutionalframework.Therewasa perceptionthat,throughCDSM,ownershipofenergycould trans-latetoownershipofthehome.Discussionsofenergyusebeing monitored;cheapertariffsrequiringtimeshifting;orthepurchase ofspecificremote-operated‘smart’appliances,4promptedfearsof

4 ‘Smart’appliancesherereferstonetworkeddeviceswhichinthiscasewould

(7)

alossofautonomyovertheorderingofdomesticlife.These con-cernsweretypicallyrealisedinreferencessuchas‘BigBrother’and ‘Orwellian’.

This discourse was closely associated with distrust of industry—and, to a much lesser degree, government—motives. Interestingly,whilstthenotionofbeingmonitoredbyenergy com-panies provoked highly negativeresponses, Strengers’ research withAustralianparticipantsina2008dynamicpricingtrialfound that notions of being monitoredby the energy company were positive—participantsreportedthemselvesencouragedtoadapt. Thisdiscrepancyhighlightstheimportanceoflocalcontexttohow suchtechnologiesarereceived. Internationalworkdoessuggest thatthehighlevelsofdistrustinenergycompaniesintheUK[44] [39]arebecomingincreasinglycommonelsewhere[45].

ForthefocusgroupsthisdistrustunderminedthecaseforCDSM, notonlyintermsofhomeautonomy,butalsothrowingdoubton claimsforenvironmentalandfinancialbenefitsofsuchschemes. Forexample,whilstacceptingofthelogicthatamoreefficientuse ofenergysourceswouldresultinlowercarbonemissions, partici-pantsnotedthatefficienciesalsomeantlowercostsfortheenergy industry,whichitwasassumedwouldnotbepassedon.

W:wehavetakenthingsonboardovertheyearslikerecycling whichwehaveactuallybeentoldtodoandwenowdo[...]but Ithinkit’swhotellsus,Ithinkit’sthecompaniesthatwedon’t trust.Soit’sactuallywhogivesoutthatinformationIthinkis reallyimportantandwhetherpeopletrustit,isitfortheirown goodratherthanthecompany’sgood?Werecyclebecausewe believethatit’sgoodfortheplanetbutwefeelthey’renot,they aredoingitjusttoincreasetheirsharethenit’sdifferent.

Themediatinginfluenceofownershipwasdemonstratedbythe differentresponsesgiven byfocusgroups incommunities with andwithoutlocally-ownedpowerschemes.Incommunitieswith DisGenMiGrid-likeownershipoflocalenergyschemes, negative discoursesaround profit-based industrymotivations contrasted withpositivediscoursesaroundthecommunityreapingrewards.

W:Itistodowithtrustandthetrust[inenergysuppliers]is gone.Butthat’swhyoneofthethingsthat’sgoingonatthe momentinWestonisthe[communitypower]thingbecause there isthe trust sopeople arewilling togo along withit, becausethemoneyisgoingbackintoWeston.Whenit’s disap-pearingintotheether,intodirectors’pockets...

Furthermore the shared ownership of community schemes introducedadditionalpracticessupportiveofenergycitizenship. ParticipantsintheLowellcommunityturbineschemewereinthe processofdecidinghowtospendacommunityfundgeneratedby theprofitsfromtheschemeatthetimeofourfocusgroups.Another practiceemergingfromtheschemeinvolvedagroupofmembers whohadsetupamonthlyexchangeofenergyusedatathrough whichtheycouldcomparesavingsand learnfromoneanother. Intheseexamplesweseethestrongestexpressionofenergy citi-zenship,notonlyadoptingaroleascustodianofenergy,butalso integratingenergyintothesocialstructurestheyinhabit.Inthis way,thesenewformsofpracticeresemblethe‘co-managementof practice’thatStrengerscallsfor[10],thoughitisnotablethatit isthe‘co-managementofresources’whichappearstoprovidethe impetustothisdevelopment.

4. Discussion

Inthisresearchweidentifiedtwoformsofengagementwith energy,formsthatwecharacterisedaspersonas.Participantsoften switched between them depending on the context—few stuck

solelytoonethroughout.Despitethisplasticity,itwasclearsome participantsfoundoneeasiertoadoptthantheother.Theenergy

consumerwasoftentheinitialperspectiveandgavelittlethoughtto

energy,anddespiteconcernsthattheyweren’tusingitasefficiently astheycould—whetherinenvironmentalorfinancialterms—they werenotseekingagreaterlevelof engagement.Thepopularity ofIHDsthatprovidedinformationinintuitiveforms(e.g.colour coding)wasunderstandableinthisframework,provingameans ofdoingsomething—namelydemonstratingconcernaboutenergy use—whilst not requiring anything. Such forms of participation Marreslabelsthe‘changeofnochange’[46,p.517].

Thepoverty ofoptionsavailablewithinanenergyconsumer framewerecapturedbythefollowingperspective:

C:Imightchargemyphoneatworkinsteadofhome,butyou can’ttotallychangeyourlifestylebecauseyou’vehityourlimit onyourenergyuse.

The current energy systemin its dominant form, of multi-national energy generation companies on the one hand, and individual household users on the other, is markedly skewed towardsthecreationofenergyconsumers.Giventhiscontext,it istobeexpectedthatfocusgroupparticipantswerequicktoadopt thepersonaofenergyconsumer.However,theywerejustasquick toundermineitthroughdiscussionsthatrevealedhowsucha fram-ingwasincompleteincapturingtheirmotivations.Inthiscomplex settingmodestfinancialinducementsarelikelytostrugglefor trac-tion.Thealternativeoptionopentotheenergyconsumerframeis tolimitCDSMtoschemeswhichdonotthreatenexisting conve-nience.

Within this frame there is a tendency to treat consumers’ ‘choices’ as sacrosanct, which has the danger of unnecessarily ossifyinghigh-energypractices[16].Furthermore,inapproaching the smartgrid useras a consumer,CDSMrisksbecoming sim-ply another means of targeting the sale of electronic devices to thehome, withthe effect of increasingconsumption rather thanreducingit[47].DarbypointsoutthatsomeDSM—suchas automation of fridge-freezers—requires little or no input from theuser[6],and soitwould not becorrect tosuggestthat all smartgridtechnologiesrequireconsciousend-userengagement. Evenwithin anenergy consumerframe,suchtechnologycould beadopted.However,thesepassiveoptionsofferonlyafraction oftheefficiencypossibilitiesthesmartgridoffers,andgiventhe scaleofcarbonreductiontargetssuchlimitedambitioncouldbe disastrous.

(8)

Forthosewithexperienceofcommunityand/orpersonalenergy schemestherewasagreatersalienceofenergy.Farfrom reject-ingtheideaofreconfiguring practicestoconserveenergy,they already hadexperienceof suchchanges. Whatmicrogeneration achieveswithenergywehavelabelled‘alteritysurfacing’,forthe mannerinwhichitrendersenergyafunctionalelementof house-holdplanning.Morethansimpleincreasedvisibility,individualand communitypowergenerationshiftsthepublicfromapositionof outsideruponwhichthesystemimposeschange.Itwasfromthis positiononeparticipantresponded“WhyshouldIchangemy

rou-tine?BecauseBigBrotherwantsmeto?Goandtakeaflyingleap”

[B].Insteadthepublicbecomesastakeholder:“WhenIseeI’vegot

surplus,[...]whenIknowI’musing300wattsandIgenerated4

kilo-watts,Ithink‘whatcanIdowiththat?”’[L].Strenger’s[10]argument

tolookbeyondco-managingresourcestoco-managingpractices isacompellingone,andprovidesafullyrealisedvisionofwhat energycitizenshipmightextendto.Wenotethoughthatinour sampletheclosestthiscamebeingrealisedwaswithincommunity energyschemes,andthesemaybethoughtofasfirststepsinthis regard.

Forthesmartgridtoachieveitsfullpotential,itisclearthat themodelofenergycitizenholdsoutgreaterpromiseforchange than doesthat of theenergy consumer.The questionbecomes howsuchaframecanbepursued.Suchaquestionistoogreatto dojusticetohere,butsomepointsstandoutimmediately.Smart metreshaveaclearutilityforenergysuppliers,andina support-ivesocio-technicalenvironment(e.g.combinedwith community-ormicro-generation),thedisplayofthisinformationbyIHDscould encourageuserengagement.However,deployedinisolation,inthe expectationofincreasingengagement,therolloutofsmartmetres andIHDsislikelytobeamissedopportunity.

Ourdatahasindicatedthewealthofchangebroughtaboutby communityenergyschemesandbymicrogenerationtechnologies inparticular.Here,theutilityofsuchschemesshouldnotmerely becalculatedintermsofenergyproduced,butalsoenergycitizens produced.Indeed,thepopularityofcommunityenergyschemes contrasted starkly withthepervasive distrust of themajor UK energysuppliers.Communitylevelsolutionsarenotimmuneto conflictanddistrust[49],andtosucceedmustbetailoredtolocal circumstances[2,p. 831].Itispromisingthenthat theUK gov-ernmentisnowmakinggreatereffortstosupportsuchschemes throughitsCommunityEnergyStrategy[50],thoughintakingno stepstochallengethecurrentenergy consumerframe,and the dominanceof the biggenerators, it appearsthere is still some waytogobeforealocal-scaleimplementationofDisGenMiGrids isrealisedonanysignificantscale.

5. Conclusion

Thechallengeofrealisingthesmartgridisatleastasmuch insti-tutionalastechnical.Atthecoreofthislietwoconflictingvisions ofthe‘demandside’[5].Inonealargelypassiveconsumerhands limitedcontrolofsomedevicestothegrid,withanIHD provid-ingconsumptionandpricingfeedbackthatislikelytogolargely unnoticedbythehouseholder. Consumersherearea‘managed’ demandsideandtheagentofchangeislimitedtothetechnological realm,supportedbysomeformoffinancialinducementto encour-ageadoption.Theuserofthissmartgridremainsessentiallydumb. ThisvisionlimitsDSMopportunitiestoweakinterventions requir-inglittleuserengagementandsubsequentlyfewerefficiencies.

The contrasting vision is of an active citizen who becomes

a ‘manager’ in the process of consumption as well as,

poten-tially, generation. Such a perspective avoids reifying current practices as sovereign consumer choices, and frames—and so

co-constructs—userswhoareinvolvedinbothproblemand solu-tion.Whilsttensionsexistbetweenthetwovisions,theyareclearly notmutuallyexclusive,andinpracticetheyarelikelytoco-exist. Wenotethattheenergycitizenisnotapanaceaforthechallenge ofde-carbonisingenergysupplies,afteralltheactivestanceofa citizencannotsimplybeassumedtocorrespondwiththegoals ofotherstakeholders,whethertheybedistantcommunities, gov-ernmentorindustry.Itappearsanecessarystepforensuringuser engagementhoweverandabroaduptakeofsmartgrid technolo-gies.Ultimately,themosteffectivesmartgridwillbeoneinwhich intelligenceissourcedfromusersaswellasdevices.

Acknowledgment

The research was supported by the EPSRC Horizon Digital EconomyResearch Hub grant (EP/G065802/1).The videosused inthisworkwerefundedbytheEPSRCfundedDESIMAXproject (EP/I000496/1).ThefocusgroupswerefundedbyE.ONResearch InitiativeundertheSWITCHproject. Thanksalsogoes toKevin TassiniofCarnegieMellonUniversitywhoseshortfilmsinspired thedesignofthoseusedwithinthisproject.

AppendixA. Focusgroupdemographics

Location Modalhousehold income

Gender Ethnicity Age

City £25,000–50,000 Female–10 Male–8

White–British –11 White–Other –2 Blackand Ethnic Minority (BEM)–5

18–30–4 30–45–8 45–60–3 >60–3

Bickerton <£25,000 Female–11 Male–7

White–British –15 White–Other –1 BEM–2

18–30–1 30–45–4 45–60–8 >60–5

Weston <£25,000 Female–13 Male–5

White–British –13 White–Other –2 BEM–3

18–30–0 30–45–5 45–60–5 >60–8

Lowell >£75,000 Female–8 Male–10

White–British –16 White–Other –0 BEM–2

18–30–1 30–45–7 45–60–7 >60–3

Totals Female–42 Male–30

White–British –55 White–Other –5 BEM–12

18–30–6 30–45– 24 45–60– 23 >60–19

References

[1]DECC.Electricitysystem:assessmentoffuturechallenges–summary;2012.

[2]WolsinkM.Theresearchagendaonsocialacceptanceofdistributedgeneration insmartgrids:renewableascommonpoolresources.RenewSustainEnergy Rev2012;16(January(1)):822–35.

[3]HughesT.Networksofpower:electrificationinWesternSociety,1880–1930. Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress;1983.

[4]DEFRA.Thepotentialforbehaviouralanddemand-sidemanagementmeasures tosaveelectricity,gasandcarboninthedomesticsector,andresulting supply-sideimplications.London:DEFRA;2008.

[5]Balta-OzkanN,WatsonT,ConnorP,AxonC,WhitmarshL,DavidsonR,etal. ScenariosforthedevelopmentofsmartgridsintheUK–synthesisreport. London:UKERC;2014.

(9)

[7]ShoveE.Comfort,cleanliness,convenience:thesocialorganizationof normal-ity.MiltonKeynes:Berg;2003.

[8]Gram-HanssenK.Understandingchangeandcontinuityinresidentialenergy consumption.JConsumCultureJan.2011;11(1):61–78.

[9]vanVlietB,ChappellsH,ShoveE.Infrastructuresofconsumption: environmen-talinnovationintheutilityindustries.London:Earthscan;2005.

[10]StrengersY.Beyonddemandmanagement:co-managingenergyandwater practiceswithAustralianhouseholds.PolicyStud2011;32(1):35–58.

[11]DECC.Quantitativeresearchintopublicawareness,attitudesandexperience ofsmartmeters(Wave1of3).London:HMGov.;2012.

[12]Ngar-yinMahD,MarinusvanderVleutenJ,HillsP,TaoJ.Consumerperceptions ofsmartgriddevelopment:resultsofaHongKongSurvey.UniversityofHong Kong;2011.

[13]DarbyS.Theeffectivenessoffeedbackonenergyconsumption.Areviewfor DEFRAoftheliteratureonmetering,billinganddirectdisplays.Environmental ChangeInstitute;2006.

[14]HargreavesT,NyeM,BurgessJ.Makingenergyvisible:aqualitativefieldstudy ofhowhouseholdersinteractwithfeedbackfromsmartenergymonitors. EnergyPolicy2010;38(10):6111–9.

[15]SpenceA,LeygueC,BedwellB,O’MalleyC.Engagingwithenergyreduction: doesaclimatechangeframehavethepotentialforachievingbroader sustain-ablebehaviour?JEnvironPsycholJun.2014;38:17–28.

[16]StrengersY.Air-conditioningAustralianhouseholds:theimpactofdynamic peakpricing.EnergyPolicy2010;38(November(11)):7312–22.

[17]AyresI,RasemanS,ShihA.Evidencefromtwolargefieldexperimentsthatpeer comparisonfeedbackcanreduceresidentialenergyusage.Nationalbureauof economicresearchworkingpaperseries;2009.

[18]Rodgers-HaydenT,PidgeonN.Movingengagementupstream? Nanotechnolo-giesandtheRoyalSocietyandRoyalAcademyofEngineeringinquiry.Public UnderstandSci2007;16:346–64.

[19]ManciniC,RogersY,BandaraAK,CoeT,JedrzejczykL,JoinsonAN,etal. ‘Con-travision:exploringusers’reactionstofuturistictechnology.In:Proceedings ofthe28thinternationalconferenceonHumanfactorsincomputingsystems. 2010.p.153–62.

[20]DarbySJ,McKennaE.Socialimplicationsofresidentialdemandresponsein cooltemperateclimates.EnergyPolicyOct.2012;49:759–69.

[21]ReckwitzA.Towardatheoryofsocialpractices:adevelopmentinculturalist theorizing.EurJSocTheoryMay2002;5(2):243–63.

[22]SchatzkiT.Thesiteofthesocial.Aphilosophicalaccountoftheconstitution ofsociallifeandchange.Pennsylvania:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress; 2002.

[23]ShoveE.BeyondtheABC:climatechangepolicyandtheoriesofsocialchange. EnvironPlanA2010;42(6):1273–85.

[24]vanVlietBJM.Sustainableinnovationinnetwork-boundsystems:implications fortheconsumptionofwater,wastewaterandelectricityservices.JEnviron PolicyPlan2012;14(3):263–78.

[25]StrengersY.Peakelectricitydemandandsocialpracticetheories:reframingthe roleofchangeagentsintheenergysector.EnergyPolicyMay2012;44:226–34.

[26]RettieR.Practiceroutines:publicandprivate.In:Presentedatthe4S/EASST, Copenhagen,20-October.2012.

[27]KanMY,SullivanO,GershunyJ.Genderconvergenceindomesticwork: dis-cerningtheeffectsofinteractionalandinstitutionalbarriersfromlarge-scale data.Sociology2011;45(January(2)):234–51.

[28]Devine-WrightP.EnergyCitizenship:PsychologicalAspectsofEvolutionin SustainableEnergyTechnologies.In:MurphyJ,editor.GoverningTechnology forSustainability.London:Earthscan;2007.p.63–89.

[29]HargreavesT,NyeM,BurgessJ.Keepingenergyvisible?Exploringhow house-holdersinteractwithfeedbackfromsmartenergymonitorsinthelongerterm. EnergyPolicy2013;52:126–34.

[30]HarriesT,RettieR,StudleyM.CHARMresearchsummary1:thehomeenergy study–quantitativeanalysis;2013.

[31]FaruquiA,SergiciS.Householdresponsetodynamicpricingofelectricity:a surveyof15experiments.JRegulEcon2010;38(October(2)):193–225.

[32]OFGEM.Energydemandresearchproject:finalanalysis;2011.

[33]Faruqui A, Palmer J. Dynamic pricing and its discontents. Energy 2011;(Fall):16–22.

[34]DennisK,UrryJ.Afterthecar.UK:PolityPress;2009.

[35]SaliesE.Real-timepricingwhensomeconsumersresistinsavingelectricity. EnergyPolicy2013;59(August):843–9.

[36]TorritiJ.Price-baseddemandsidemanagement:assessingtheimpactsof time-of-usetariffsonresidentialelectricitydemandandpeakshiftinginNorthern Italy.Energy2012;44(August(1)):576–83.

[37]WebbJ.Climatechangeandsociety:thechimeraofbehaviourchange tech-nologies.Sociology2012;46(1):109–25.

[38]ButlerC.Moralityandclimatechange:isleavingyourTVonstandbyarisky behaviour?EnvironValues2010;19(2):169–92.

[39]ParkhillC,DemskiC,ButlerC,SpenceA,PidgeonN.TransformingtheUKenergy system:publicvalues,attitudesandacceptability:synthesisreport.London: UKERC;2013.

[40]Pierce J, Paulos E. Aphenomenology of human–electricity relations.In: Proceedingsofthe2011annualconferenceonhumanfactorsincomputing systems.2011.p.2405–8.

[41]IhdeD.Technologyandthelifeworld:fromgardentoearth.IndianaUniversity Press;1990.

[42]Spence A, Pidgeon N. Framing and communicating climate change: the effectsofdistanceandoutcomeframemanipulation.GlobalEnvironChange 2010;20(4):656–67.

[43]HardsS.Socialpracticeandtheevolutionofpersonalenvironmentalvalues. EnvironValues2011;20(1):23–42.

[44]MumfordJ,GrayD.Consumerengagementinalternativeenergy—Canthe reg-ulatorsandsuppliersbetrusted?EnergyPolicy2010;38(June(6)):2664–71.

[45]Accenture.Thenewenergyconsumerhandbook;2013.

[46]Marres N.The costs ofpublic involvement: everyday devices ofcarbon accountingandthematerializationofparticipation.EconSoc2011;40(4): 510–33.

[47]NyborgS,RopkeI.‘Energyimpactsofthesmarthome—conflictingvisions’, Energyefficiencyfirst: thefoundation ofa lowcarbon society;2011. p. 1849–60.

[48]MarvinS,PerryB.Whennetworksaredestabilized:userinnovationandtheUK fuelcrises.In:CoutardO,HanleyRE,ZimmermanR,editors.Sustainingurban networks:thesocialdiffusionoflargetechnicalsystems.London:Routledge; 2005.p.86–100.

[49]WalkerG,Devine-WrightP,HunterS,HighH,EvansB.Trustand commu-nity:exploringthemeanings,contextsanddynamicsofcommunityrenewable energy.EnergyPolicy2010;38(June(6)):2655–63.

References

Related documents

The process for development of design tools required for implementation of PPBSD are described and such development is illustrated for a 4-story reinforced concrete

More than half of the faculty are willing (combining the ‘very likely’ and ‘likely’ responses) to teach classes in an early (June 21- July 23) 5-week summer session or a

Isolation of anaerob thermophilic bacteria from Gedong Songo hot spring 1 (GS 1) Ambarawa had been done in SP (Sucrose Peptone), LMM (Lactose Minimal Media) and

The calculation methods used for bolted joints The calculation methods used for bolted joints between, or to, hollow sections are basically not between, or to,

○ If BP elevated, think primary aldosteronism, Cushing’s, renal artery stenosis, ○ If BP normal, think hypomagnesemia, severe hypoK, Bartter’s, NaHCO3,

A description of how the baseline environment could potentially be affected by the Development, including prediction of potential significant effects comprising of both the

The fact that three patients deemed “low risk” developed pressure ulcers shows that they still had risk factors that may have lead to pressure ulcer

After reviewing the data from this variable and the previous variable, I was given the impression that this sample would be regarded as insignificant in that there was not