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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
[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.