Building Social License for Automated Demand-Side Management—Case Study Research in the Swiss Residential Sector
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Previous Studies on Behavioural Barriers for Automated DSM Acceptance
1.3. Aim and Objectives
2. Social License to Operate (SLO)
3. Methods
4. Case Studies
- A level of automation of 1/5 refers to semi-automation with a possibility to override automation at any time.
- A level of automation of 2/5 refers to full-automation with a possibility to override automation at any time.
- A level of automation of 3/5 refers to either full automation with a restricted possibility to override automation or semi-automation with a restricted or without any possibility to override automation.
- A level of automation of 4/5 refers to full automation without any possibility to override automation but the possibility to opt-out from the project.
5. Results
5.1. Economic Legitimacy
5.1.1. Economic Legitimacy—Benefits Presented to End-Users
5.1.2. Economic Legitimacy—Risks and Costs Communicated to End-Users
5.2. Socio-Political Legitimacy and Interactional Trust
5.2.1. Socio Political Legitimacy—Legitimacy of the Rationale and the Operator
5.2.2. Interactional Trust—Management of End-Users’ Sense of Control
5.2.3. Interaction Trust—Information Communicated and Interface Provided
5.2.4. Interactional Trust—End-User Reciprocity and Inclusion
6. Discussion
6.1. Findings and Implications
6.2. Limitations and Future Work
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CB | Community battery |
DHW | Domestic hot water |
DLC | Demand load control |
DSM | Demand-side management |
DSO | Distribution system operators |
EV | Electrical vehicles |
HEMS | Home energy management system |
HP | Heat pump |
IEA | International energy agency |
PV | Photovoltaics |
RTP | Real time pricing |
SCC | Self-consumption community |
SH | Space heating |
SL | Social license |
SLA | Social license to automate |
SLO | Social license to operate |
TSO | Transmission system operator |
TCP | Technology collaboration programme |
CSR | Corporate social responsibility |
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. IEA DSM User-Centred Energy Systems TCP—Social License to Automate, Common Template
Appendix A.2. Section 1: Project Details
- Project name:
- Project lead organization:
- Project partner organizations:
- Project funding bodies:
- Project funding amount:
- Project start date
- Project end date:
- Project website:
- Contact name:
- Contact role:
- Contact email:
- Project aim:
- Research focus:
- Data sharing: possibilities and constraints:
- Number of cases within study:
- Case description:
- Case location (country, city/region):
- For how long has the automation system been tested?
Appendix A.3. Section 2: Context, Aims, and Framing
- 19.
- What are the characteristics of the local/regional energy system (including energy mix, status of the grid in the area)?
- 20.
- What are the characteristics of the energy users involved?
- 21.
- How were end-users recruited?
- 22.
- What was the rationale for automation communicated to end-users?
- 23.
- What is the purpose of the automation? (i.e., solve distribution grid congestion, transmission grid congestion, grid balancing, minimize network charges, minimize costs at day-ahead-market, maximization of self-consumption, innovation, etc.)
- 24.
- What is expected from them in the project?
- If this includes a change of energy practices, which practices were changed?
- 25.
- Which expectations and benefits are presented to end-users? Were costs and cons communicated as well?
- 26.
- Was a sense of fairness and reciprocity established, and if yes, how?
- 27.
- Was dialogue with consumers (ways to receive feedback, answer questions, etc.) enabled, and were consumers encouraged to give feedback?
- 28.
- Was accountability communicated to end-users, and if yes, how?
- 29.
- Which technical components to enable the automation were installed in the houses of clients, and which actor owns them? (i.e., smart meters, smart sensors, smart appliances, smart heating systems, batteries, EV charging systems, etc.)
Appendix A.4. Section 3: Involved Actors and Regulatory Aspects
- 30.
- Who controls automated flexibility activation? (i.e., consumer/prosumer, aggregator/retailer, distribution system operator, etc.)
- 31.
- Which actors were involved?
- ∘
- Suppliers
- ∘
- DSOs
- ∘
- TSOs
- ∘
- Component manufacturers
- ∘
- Regulatory instances/authority
- ∘
- Aggregators
- ∘
- Other technology providers -> Please be precise:
- ∘
- Others: Please be precise
- 32.
- Which tasks did each actor performed/currently performs within the project?
Task/Role | Actor |
Frequency control | |
Congestion management | |
Voltage control/regulatory | |
Trading flexibility in day-ahead market | |
Trading flexibility in intra-day market | |
Providing power reserves | |
Technology provider | |
Other, please specify | |
Frequency control |
- 33.
- With whom do the actors interact and why?
Actor 1 | Actor2 | The Relation |
DSO | Consumer | Direct load control |
Aggregator | Consumer | Smart meter roll-out |
- 34.
- How were the relationships between involved stakeholders established, and how are they governed? (i.e., on mutual regard, bilateral contracts, regulatory framework (protocols, etc.), market rules, others, etc.)
- 35.
- Briefly describe the regulatory framework for automation projects within the corresponding country context:
- 36.
- Briefly describe the market framework (e.g., rules) for automation project within the country context:
- 37.
- Are there any rules or protocols that hold energy companies accountable for their mistakes and unjust practices?
Appendix A.5. Section 4: Technical Parameters of Automatization and Impact
- 38.
- Which loads can be automatically activated? (i.e., in-home battery, community battery, heat pump, e-car, electric boiler, EV charging system, air conditioning, smart appliances, other: please specify)
- 39.
- Did you specify a uniform maximum duration per activation? (yes—same value for all participants, no—different values for each participant or choice, no—we did not specify this)
- ∘
- What was the maximum duration per activation? (hours)
- 40.
- Did you specify a uniform maximum activation frequency? (yes—same value for all participants, no—different values for each participant or choice, no—we did not specify this); If yes:
- ∘
- Which units were used to specify maximum activation frequency? (none, activations per year/month/week)
- ∘
- What was the maximum frequency using these units? (activations per unit)
- 41.
- Did you specify the time window when activations would take place? (yes—same value for all participants, no—different values for each participant or choice, no—we did not specify this)
- ∘
- During which time of the day were activations allowed? (please specify all allowed time windows)
Season | Weekday | Hour |
Summer/Winter/Anytime | Weekday/weekend/anytime | 1,2,...24, anytime |
- 42.
- Did you specify how many times participants could veto activations? (yes—same value for all participants, no—different values for each participant or choice, no—we did not specify this); if yes:
- ∘
- Which units were used to specify maximum veto frequency? (none, vetos per year/month/week)
- ∘
- What was the maximum frequency using these units? (activations per unit)
- 43.
- Did you specify a minimum advance notice period? (yes—same value for all participants, no—different values for each participant or choice, no—we did not specify this)
- ∘
- What was the minimum advance notice period? (hours)
- 44.
- What is the automation level? (i.e., manual demand response, manual automation, consensual automation, monitored automation, full automation, etc.)
- 45.
- Is a home energy management system involved?
- 46.
- How does flexibility activation impact end-users? (Please provide details on fluctuation/availability impact and if measures have been taken to minimize that impact)
Appendix A.6. Section 5: Incentives
- 47.
- Was there an incentive for consumers/prosumers for initial program participation? (yes, no)
- ∘
- What form of incentive was chosen? (Bonus paid as reduction of monthly bill, shipping voucher, maintenance voucher, discount on purchase of new technologies but also sustainability reasons, curiosity (early adopters), etc.). If the incentive was monetary, how much/what was the value?
- ∘
- How high was this incentive?
- 48.
- What price signals were used to incentivize load shifting? (None, time of use pricing, critical peak pricing, peak time rebate, real-time pricing, spot market prices, balancing market prices, other: please specify)
- 49.
- What was the ratio between the highest price and the average price?
- 50.
- What are the overall achievable revenues of flexibility activation (for all stakeholders)? (i.e., EUR/activation, EUR/component/a, EUR/customer/a, % of costs)
- 51.
- How are the revenues split between stakeholders?
- 52.
- Have there been developed any business cases within the project? If yes, please describe them shortly.
Appendix A.7. Section 6: Information Provision and Data Sharing
- 53.
- Which information channels are used to communicate with end-users? (i.e., app, online portal, in-home display, alternative ambient display, SMS, e-mail, etc.)
- 54.
- Which general information on the automation does the system provide? (automation rationale, automation conditions, general expected benefits)
- 55.
- Does the system provide process information to end-users, such as automation status as well as post and planned automation?
- 56.
- Does the system provide specific information on gained benefits (e.g., money saved, reduced CO2-emissions, etc.)
- 57.
- Does the system provide information on safety, privacy, and security measures?
- 58.
- Where is the consumer data stored and managed? (i.e., completely local, centralised cloud, decentralised cloud/blockchain, etc.)
- 59.
- Which consumer data was accessed, and which actors have access to the data?
Which Actors Have Access to the Data? | |||||
Data | TSO | DSO | Aggregator | Technology Provider | Component Manufacturer |
Power demand (smart meter reading) | X | ||||
Household temperature | |||||
Hot water temperature | |||||
Boiler temperature | |||||
Photovoltaic production | |||||
Battery charging level | |||||
Charging levels of cars |
Appendix A.8. Section 7: End-User Interaction with the Automation System
- 60.
- Does automation system provide an interface for end-users?
- 61.
- Are consumers actively contacted by the system, and if yes:
- For which reasons? (i.e., to inform about flexibility activation, for confirmation/rejection of flexibility activation, to suggest/request manual flexibility, etc.)
- How often? (i.e., multiple times a day, once a day, weekly, etc.)
- Is a response required?
- 62.
- Are end-users actively engaged through the system, and if yes, how? (i.e., self-monitoring and feedback, social comparisons, challenges, cooperation, rewards, etc.)
- 63.
- Does the system provide choices to end-users regarding:
- Opt-out
- Flexibility activation (e.g., interruption or adjustment)
- System personalization (e.g., comfort ranges)
- Data access
- Other
- 64.
- If available:
- Do end-users use the system actively?
- Did any aspects receive positive feedback?
- Did any system aspects receive negative feedback?
Appendix A.9. Section 8: Project Results (As Available)
- 65.
- What were the main project results?
- 66.
- What percentage of invited consumers signed up for the project?
- 67.
- What was the average peak shifting that was achieved?
- 68.
- Was the desired automation outcome (e.g., shifts, peak-shaving) successfully achieved?
- 69.
- If acceptance of the system was directly measured:
- How was this done?
- Which acceptance factors were looked at? (such as usefulness, ease of use, trust, etc.)
- What were the results? (if possible, please rate considered acceptance factors on a scale of 1 = very low to 10 = very high in addition to your answer)
- 70.
- What has been learned so far?
- What was the overall experience of the users? (broadly positive, negative, or mixed)
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the system?
- Did it work as expected, and if not, why?
- For whom did it work and for whom not?
- Other:
- 71.
- Has the system changed the users’ lives, and if yes, how?
- Were energy practices changed?
- Were household/workplace dynamics impacted?
- Other changes?
- 72.
- Would users want to keep the automation after the demo?
- Reasons for continuing it:
- Reasons for quitting it:
References
- United Nations. Paris Agreement; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- IRENA. Global Renewables Outlook: Energy Transformation 2050; IRENA: Masdar City, United Arab Emirates, 2020; p. 291. [Google Scholar]
- Knoeri, C.; Steinberger, J.K.; Roelich, K. End-User Centred Infrastructure Operation: Towards Integrated End-Use Service Delivery. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IEA. UsersTCP 2021 Annual Report; IEA User-Centred Energy Systems Technology Collaboration Programme: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Sugiyama, M. Climate Change Mitigation and Electrification. Energy Policy 2012, 44, 464–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tévar, G.; Gómez-Expósito, A.; Arcos-Vargas, A.; Rodríguez-Montañés, M. Influence of Rooftop PV Generation on Net Demand, Losses and Network Congestions: A Case Study. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 106, 68–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, V.; Pandey, A.S.; Sinha, S.K. Grid Integration and Power Quality Issues of Wind and Solar Energy System: A Review. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Electrical Electronics & Sustainable Energy Systems (ICETEESES), Sultanpur, India, 11–12 March 2016; pp. 71–80. [Google Scholar]
- Karimi, M.; Mokhlis, H.; Naidu, K.; Uddin, S.; Bakar, A.H.A. Photovoltaic Penetration Issues and Impacts in Distribution Network–A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 594–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerrero, J.; Gebbran, D.; Mhanna, S.; Chapman, A.C.; Verbič, G. Towards a Transactive Energy System for Integration of Distributed Energy Resources: Home Energy Management, Distributed Optimal Power Flow, and Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 132, 110000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torriti, J.; Grunewald, P. Demand Response-A Different Form of Distributed Storage? In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Smart Grid Technology, Economics and Policies (SG-TEP), Nuremberg, Germany, 3–4 December 2012; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Gellings, C.W.; Smith, W.M. Integrating Demand-Side Management into Utility Planning. Proc. IEEE 1989, 77, 908–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyabadi, A.F.; Deihimi, M.H. A Review of Demand-Side Management: Reconsidering Theoretical Framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, I.; Sunstein, C.R. Behavioral Considerations for Effective Time-Varying Electricity Prices. Behav. Public Policy 2017, 1, 219–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, P.D.; Lindgren, J.; Mikkola, J.; Salpakari, J. Review of Energy System Flexibility Measures to Enable High Levels of Variable Renewable Electricity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 785–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torriti, J. Price-Based Demand Side Management: Assessing the Impacts of Time-of-Use Tariffs on Residential Electricity Demand and Peak Shifting in Northern Italy. Energy 2012, 44, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torriti, J.; Hassan, M.G.; Leach, M. Demand Response Experience in Europe: Policies, Programmes and Implementation. Energy 2010, 35, 1575–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pimm, A.J.; Cockerill, T.T.; Taylor, P.G. Time-of-Use and Time-of-Export Tariffs for Home Batteries: Effects on Low Voltage Distribution Networks. J. Energy Storage 2018, 18, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faruqui, A.; Sergici, S. Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity—A survey of the experimental evidence. J. Regul. Econ. 2010, 38, 193–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asadinejad, A. Electricity Market Designs for Demand Response from Residential Customers. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2017; p. 194. [Google Scholar]
- Mathieu, J.L.; Haring, T.; Ledyard, J.O.; Andersson, G. Residential Demand Response Program Design: Engineering and Economic Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Stockholm, Sweden, 27–31 May 2013; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Finn, P.; Fitzpatrick, C.; Connolly, D. Demand Side Management of Electric Car Charging: Benefits for Consumer and Grid. Energy 2012, 42, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballo, I.F. Imagining Energy Futures: Sociotechnical Imaginaries of the Future Smart Grid in Norway. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goulden, M.; Spence, A.; Wardman, J.; Leygue, C. Differentiating ‘the User’ in DSR: Developing Demand Side Response in Advanced Economies. Energy Policy 2018, 122, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EPRI. The Green Grid: Energy Savings and Carbon Emissions Reductions Enabled by a Smart Grid; EPRI: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Stenner, K.; Frederiks, E.R.; Hobman, E.V.; Cook, S. Willingness to Participate in Direct Load Control: The Role of Consumer Distrust. Appl. Energy 2017, 189, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murtagh, N.; Gatersleben, B.; Uzzell, D. A Qualitative Study of Perspectives on Household and Societal Impacts of Demand Response. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2014, 26, 1131–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.-K.; Kim, H.-J.; Kim, Y.-S. A Study of Factors Enhancing Smart Grid Consumer Engagement. Energy Policy 2014, 72, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shove, E.; Cass, N. Time, Practices and Energy Demand: Implications for Flexibility; Lancaster University Management School: Lancaster, UK, 2018; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
- Breedveld, K. The Double Myth of Flexibilization: Trends in Scattered Work Hours, and Differences in Time-Sovereignty. Time Soc. 1998, 7, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blue, S.; Shove, E.; Forman, P. Conceptualising Flexibility: Challenging Representations of Time and Society in the Energy Sector. Time Soc. 2020, 29, 923–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soland, M.; Loosli, S.; Koch, J.; Christ, O. Acceptance among Residential Electricity Consumers Regarding Scenarios of a Transformed Energy System in Switzerland—A Focus Group Study. Energy Effic. 2018, 11, 1673–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, T.H.; Friis, F. Materiality and Automation of Household Practices: Experiences from a Danish Time Shifting Trial. In Proceedings of the Demand Centre Conference 2016, Lancaster, UK, 13–15 April 2016; p. 10. [Google Scholar]
- Lackes, R.; Siepermann, M.; Vetter, G. Turn It on!-User Acceptance of Direct Load Control and Load Shifting of Home Appliances. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2018), Portsmouth, UK, 23–28 June 2018; p. 19. [Google Scholar]
- Kubli, M.; Loock, M.; Wüstenhagen, R. The Flexible Prosumer: Measuring the Willingness to Co-Create Distributed Flexibility. Energy Policy 2018, 114, 540–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annala, S.; Viljainen, S.; Tuunanen, J. Demand Response from Residential Customers’ Perspective. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the European Energy Market, Florence, Italy, 10–12 May 2012; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Vossebein, A.; Muster, S.M.; Betschart, U.; Kölliker, B. Studie «Potential Demand Side Management in Der Schweiz»; Bundestamt für Energie BFE: Bern, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, B. Laundry, Energy and Time: Insights from 20 Years of Time-Use Diary Data in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 22, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fischer, D.; Madani, H. On Heat Pumps in Smart Grids: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 342–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masy, G.; Georges, E.; Verhelst, C.; Lemort, V.; André, P. Smart Grid Energy Flexible Buildings through the Use of Heat Pumps and Building Thermal Mass as Energy Storage in the Belgian Context. Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 2015, 21, 800–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metz, M.; Doetsch, C. Electric Vehicles as Flexible Loads—A Simulation Approach Using Empirical Mobility Data. Energy 2012, 48, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Cheng, X.; Yang, L. Flexible Energy Management Protocol for Cooperative EV-to-EV Charging. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 2019, 20, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tan, Z.; Yang, P.; Nehorai, A. An Optimal and Distributed Demand Response Strategy With Electric Vehicles in the Smart Grid. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 5, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, S.; Xu, X.; Cabrera, D.; Chanez, C.; Cuony, P.; Patel, M.K. Analysis of Demand-Side Response Preferences Regarding Electricity Tariffs and Direct Load Control: Key Findings from a Swiss Survey. Energy 2020, 212, 118712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramírez-Mendiola, J.L.; Grünewald, P.; Eyre, N. Linking Intra-Day Variations in Residential Electricity Demand Loads to Consumers’ Activities: What’s Missing? Energy Build. 2018, 161, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beckel, C.; Sadamori, L.; Staake, T.; Santini, S. Revealing Household Characteristics from Smart Meter Data. Energy 2014, 78, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sankar, L.; Rajagopalan, S.R.; Mohajer, S.; Poor, H.V. Smart Meter Privacy: A Theoretical Framework. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2013, 4, 837–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenna, E.; Richardson, I.; Thomson, M. Smart Meter Data: Balancing Consumer Privacy Concerns with Legitimate Applications. Energy Policy 2012, 41, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Skinner, E.A. A Guide to Constucts of Control. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 71, 549–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fell, M.J.; Shipworth, D.; Huebner, G.M.; Elwell, C.A. Exploring Perceived Control in Domestic Electricity Demand-Side Response. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2014, 26, 1118–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, X.; Chen, C.; Zhu, X.; Hu, Q. Promoting Acceptance of Direct Load Control Programs in the United States: Financial Incentive versus Control Option. Energy 2018, 147, 1278–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pidgeon, P.N.; Whitmarsh, D.L. Transforming the UK Energy System: Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability; UK Energy Research Center: London, UK, 2013; p. 48. [Google Scholar]
- Mert, W.; Suschek-Berger, J.; Tritthart, W. Consumer Acceptance of Smart Appliances. Smart Domestic Appliances in Sustainable Energy Systems (Smart-A). 2008, pp. 1–46. Available online: https://www.ifz.at/sites/default/files/2021-02/D5_5-Consumer%20acceptance.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
- Moser, C. The Role of Perceived Control over Appliances in the Acceptance of Electricity Load-Shifting Programmes. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 1115–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodden, T.A.; Fischer, J.E.; Pantidi, N.; Bachour, K.; Moran, S. At Home with Agents: Exploring Attitudes towards Future Smart Energy Infrastructures. Sustain. Energy 2013, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar]
- Huijts, N.M.A.; Molin, E.J.E.; Steg, L. Psychological Factors Influencing Sustainable Energy Technology Acceptance: A Review-Based Comprehensive Framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karjalainen, S. Should It Be Automatic or Manual—The Occupant’s Perspective on the Design of Domestic Control Systems. Energy Build. 2013, 65, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. The Social Dimension of Smart Grids: Consumer, Community, Society; Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Stern, S.M. Smart-Grid: Technology and the Psychology of Environmental Behavior Change. Chic.-Kent Law Rev. 2011, 86, 23. [Google Scholar]
- Ted Luor, T.; Lu, H.-P.; Yu, H.; Lu, Y. Exploring the Critical Quality Attributes and Models of Smart Homes. Maturitas 2015, 82, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balta-Ozkan, N.; Davidson, R.; Bicket, M.; Whitmarsh, L. Social Barriers to the Adoption of Smart Homes. Energy Policy 2013, 63, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumford, J.; Gray, D. Consumer Engagement in Alternative Energy—Can the Regulators and Suppliers Be Trusted? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2664–2671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fell, M.J.; Shipworth, D.; Huebner, G.M.; Elwell, C.A. Public Acceptability of Domestic Demand-Side Response in Great Britain: The Role of Automation and Direct Load Control. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hargreaves, T.; Nye, M.; Burgess, J. Making Energy Visible: A Qualitative Field Study of How Householders Interact with Feedback from Smart Energy Monitors. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 6111–6119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamma, K.; Loock, M.; Cometta, C. Paying for Flexibility: Increasing Customer Participation in Demand Response Programs through Rewards and Punishments; Said Business School: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Gamma, K.; Mai, R.; Cometta, C.; Loock, M. Engaging Customers in Demand Response Programs: The Role of Reward and Punishment in Customer Adoption in Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 74, 101927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooney, J. Reflections on the 20th Anniversary of the Term ‘Social Licence’. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 2017, 35, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunningham, N.; Kagan, R.A.; Thornton, D. Social License and Environmental Protection: Why Businesses Go Beyond Compliance. Law Soc. Inq. 2004, 29, 307–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, P.; Lacey, J. Can’t Climb the Trees Anymore: Social Licence to Operate, Bioenergy and Whole Stump Removal in Sweden. Soc. Epistemol. 2014, 28, 239–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, N.L. Can the “Social Licence to Operate” Concept Enhance Engagement and Increase Acceptance of Renewable Energy? A Case Study of Wind Farms in Australia. Soc. Epistemol. 2014, 28, 219–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr-Cornish, S.; Romanach, L. Exploring Community Views toward Geothermal Energy Technology in Australia; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2012; p. 22.
- Corvellec, H. Arguing for a License to Operate: The Case of the Swedish Wind Power Industry. Corp. Comm. Int. 2007, 12, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hall, N.; Lacey, J.; Carr-Cornish, S.; Dowd, A.-M. Social Licence to Operate: Understanding How a Concept Has Been Translated into Practice in Energy Industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 86, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boutilier, R.G.; Thomson, I. Modelling and Measuring the Social License to Operate: Fruits of a Dialogue between Theory and Practice; Center for Social Responsibiltiy in Mining; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Moffat, K.; Lacey, J.; Zhang, A.; Leipold, S. The Social Licence to Operate: A Critical Review. Forestry 2016, 89, 477–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prno, J. An Analysis of Factors Leading to the Establishment of a Social Licence to Operate in the Mining Industry. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 577–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Putten, I.E.; Cvitanovic, C.; Fulton, E.; Lacey, J.; Kelly, R. The Emergence of Social Licence Necessitates Reforms in Environmental Regulation. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, art24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boutilier, R.G. A Measure of the Social License to Operate for Infrastructure and Extractive Projects. SSRN 2017, 3204005, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, J. The Social License to Operate and Social Contract Theory-Themes and Relations of Two Concepts–A Literature Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Nelsen, J.; Scoble, M. Social License to Operate Mines: Issues of Situational Analysis and Process; Departement of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia: Vancouver, Canada, 2006; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
- Thomson, I.; Boutilier, R.; Black, L. The Social License to Operate: Normative Elements and Metrics. In Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Social Responsibility in Mining, Santiago, Chile, 19–21 October 2011; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
- Kuch, D.D.; Ellem, D.G.; Bahnisch, D.M.; Webb, S. Social License and Communications Report; Centre for Social Research in Energy and Resources, University of Newcastle: Newcastle, UK, 2013; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
- Parsons, R.; Moffat, K. Constructing the Meaning of Social Licence. Soc. Epistemol. 2014, 28, 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilburn, K.M.; Wilburn, R. Achieving Social License to Operate Using Stakeholder Theory. J. Int. Bus. Ethics 2011, 4, 3–16. [Google Scholar]
- Parsons, R.; Lacey, J.; Moffat, K. Maintaining Legitimacy of a Contested Practice: How the Minerals Industry Understands Its ‘Social Licence to Operate’. Resour. Policy 2014, 41, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barich, A.; Stokłosa, A.W.; Hildebrand, J.; Elíasson, O.; Medgyes, T.; Quinonez, G.; Casillas, A.C.; Fernandez, I. Social License to Operate in Geothermal Energy. Energies 2021, 15, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boutilier, R.G. Frequently Asked Questions about the Social Licence to Operate. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2014, 32, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Axsen, J.; Sorrell, S. Promoting Novelty, Rigor, and Style in Energy Social Science: Towards Codes of Practice for Appropriate Methods and Research Design. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 45, 12–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, S.; Diamond, L.; Esterl, T.; Fröhlich, P.; Ghotge, R.; Hemm, R.; Henriksen, I.M.; Katzeff, C.; Kuch, D.; Michellod, J.L.; et al. Social License to Automate: Emerging Approaches to Demand Side Management; IEA User-Centred Energy Systems Technology Collaboration Programme: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Ableitner, L. User Behavior in a Real-World Peer-to-Peer Electricity Market. Appl. Energy 2020, 270, 115061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ableitner, L.; Bättig, I.; Beglinger, N.; Brenzikofer, A.; Carle, G.; Dürr, C.; Meeuw, A.; Proll, S.; Rosatzin, C.; Schopfer, S.; et al. Schlussbericht: Community Energy Network with Prosumer Focus: Quartierstrom; BFE: Bern, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Imhof, P.; Suter, A. Schlussbericht: WarmUp Phase 3 Optimale Verwertung der Flexibilität von Thermischen Speichern; BFE: Bern, Switzerland, 2018; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
- Pfaffen, S.; Werlen, K. Schlussbericht: WarmUp Phase 2 Pilotversuch zur Optimalen Verwertung der Flexibilität von Thermischen Speichern; BFE: Bern, Switzerland, 2016; p. 69. [Google Scholar]
- Pfaffen, S.; Werlen, K. Schlussbericht: WarmUp Phase 1 Optimale Verwertung Der Flexibilität von Thermi-Schen Speichern; BFE: Bern, Switzerland, 2013; p. 51. [Google Scholar]
- Koller, M. Eigenverbrauchsoptimierung in MFH Über Innovative Strombörse; Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW.; University of Applied Sciences FHNW: Windisch, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zogg, D.; Gysin, H.; Zimmerli, D. Schlussbericht: Innovative Eigenverbrauchsoptimierung Für Mehrfamilien-Arealüberbauung Mit Lokaler Strombörse in Möriken-Wildegg-Phase I: Inbetriebnahme Und Erste Messperiode; BFE: Bern, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Zogg, D. Win-Win-Situation Für Alle Beteiligten. HK-Gebäudetechnik 2017, 10–17, 64–66. [Google Scholar]
- Pierre, F.; Dervey, S.; Darbellay, G.; Barras, D.; Gabioud, D.; Roduit, P. GOFLEX_D8.1_Requirement and Prosumer Analysis-Use Case 2 (Switzerland); The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and the European Comission (EC): Sion, Switzerland, 2017; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- Moix, P.-O.; Roduit, P. GOFLEX_D8.2_Business Model Design and KPI Definition Switzerland-Use Case 2 (Switzerland); The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and the European Comission (EC): Sion, Switzerland, 2017; p. 81. [Google Scholar]
- Barras, L.; Dervey, S.; Ferrez, P.; Forclaz, D.; Gabioud, D.; Gubler, O.; Pignat, M.; Roduit, P.; Moix, P.-O. GOFLEX_D8.3_ Report on the System Prototype Implemented in the Field-Use Case 2 (Switzerland); the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and the European Comission (EC): Sion, Switzerland, 2018; p. 77. [Google Scholar]
- Sidqi, Y.; Dervey, S.; Tauxe, D.; Udressy, M.-H.; Ferrez, P.; Gabioud, D.; Roduit, P.; Largey, G. GOFLEX_D8.4_ Report on Demonstration Results Evaluation-Use Case 2 (Switzerland); the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and the European Comission (EC): Sion, Switzerland, 2020; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
- Yilmaz, S.; Cuony, P.; Chanez, C. Prioritize Your Heat Pump or Electric Vehicle? Analysing Design Preferences for Direct Load Control Programmes in Swiss Households. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 82, 102319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, S.; Chanez, C.; Cuony, P.; Patel, M.K. Analysing Utility-Based Direct Load Control Programmes for Heat Pumps and Electric Vehicles Considering Customer Segmentation. Energy Policy 2022, 164, 112900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivola, D.; Medici, V.; Nespoli, L.; Strepparava, D.; Rosato, F.; Maayan Tardif, J.; Buddhika Heendeniya, C.; Salani, M.; Corbellini, G.; Rossi, P. LIC Project: Annual Report 2021; BFE: Bern, Switzerland, 2021; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
- Geidl, M.; Arnoux, B.; Plaisted, T.; Dufour, S. A Fully Operational Virtual Energy Storage Network Providing Flexibility for the Power System. In Proceedings of the 12th IEA Heat Pump Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 15–18 May 2017; p. 12. [Google Scholar]
- Broman Toft, M.; Schuitema, G.; Thøgersen, J. Responsible Technology Acceptance: Model Development and Application to Consumer Acceptance of Smart Grid Technology. Appl. Energy 2014, 134, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broman Toft, M.; Schuitema, G.; Thøgersen, J. The Importance of Framing for Consumer Acceptance of the Smart Grid: A Comparative Study of Denmark, Norway and Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darby, S.J.; McKenna, E. Social Implications of Residential Demand Response in Cool Temperate Climates. Energy Policy 2012, 49, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alvial-Palavicino, C.; Garrido-Echeverría, N.; Jiménez-Estévez, G.; Reyes, L.; Palma-Behnke, R. A Methodology for Community Engagement in the Introduction of Renewable Based Smart Microgrid. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2011, 15, 314–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
SLO’s Factors | Definition in the Original Concept (Based on [73]) | Adaptation to SLA |
---|---|---|
Economic legitimacy | Refers to the perception that the project/company is beneficial to the perceiver. | Which benefits and costs have been communicated to the end-users as well as which indirect and direct monetary incentives have been used to convince the end-users. |
Socio-political legitimacy | Refers to the perception that the project/company contributes to the well-being of the region, respects local way of life, meets expectations about its role in society, and acts according to stakeholder’s view of fairness. | Which actors control automation, and how does the rationale of the project match with the end-users’ interest and operator’s expected role? |
Interactional trust | Refers to the perception that the company and its management listens, responds, keeps promises, engages in mutual dialogue, and exhibits reciprocity in its interactions. | Which means were available for mutual dialogue (for listening, response, and inclusion)? Which information was shared through which channels to ensure promises are kept? How was end-users’ sense of control dealt with (e.g., overriding)? |
Project Name | Date | Documentation | Appliances Automated | Size/Scale | Core Stakeholders and Location | Actor Leading the Case Studies |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quartierstrom | 2017–2020 | [89,90] | Community battery (4/5) | 37 households; 1 battery sized for 4 household | Virtual self-consumption community (SCC) in a village and including multi-family housing | Small DSO (WEW, supplying fewer than 10,000 consumers), University (ETHZ, Bits to Energy Lab) |
WarmUp | 2016–2018 | [91,92,93] | Shared heat pumps for SH and DHW (5/5) | 15 buildings with 22 hot water boilers fed by 9 HPs | Individual consumers living in a big city (Zürich) and in multi-family housing | Big DSO (EWZ, supplying more than 100,000 consumers) |
Innovative self-consumption optimization for multi-family area development with local electricity exchange (ISCO-LEE) | 2017–2022 | [94,95,96] | Shared heat pumps for SH (3/5) and DHW (4/5); individual EVs, washing machines, and dishwashers (1/5). | 35 households with 4 HPs, one EV charging station, and 70 combinations of washing machines and dishwashers. | Self-consumption community (SCC) in a village with only households living in multi-family housing | Small DSO (RTB Möriken-Wildegg supplying fewer than 10,000 consumers), University (Fachochschule Nordwestschwiez) |
GoFlex | 2016–2020 | [97,98,99,100] | Individual heat pumps, electric boilers for DHW, and electric heaters for SH (4/5) and individual EVs (3/5, 1/5 de facto). | 195 households (with control of HPs, resistive heating, and/or electric boilers); 6 EV charging stations and 9 HEMS | Individual consumers and prosumers living in a medium city (Sion) and in single-family housing | Big DSO (OIKEN, supplying more than 100,000 consumers), University (HES-SO Valais/Wallis) |
Decentralised flexibility | 2020–2022 | [101,102] | Individual heat pumps and electric boilers for DHW (4/5) | 45 HPs and electric boilers | Individual consumers living either in a medium city (Fribourg) or in villages and in single/multi-family houses | Big DSO (Group E, supplying more than 100,000 consumers) |
Luggagia Innovation Community (LIC) | 2018–2022 | [103] | Individual electric boilers for DHW (2/5 in the first phase and 3/5 in the second phase) and centralised battery (5/5) | 17 single-family households (incl. 3 prosumers); 1 kindergarten with rooftop PV | Self-consumption community (SCC) in a village with households living in single-family housing | Small DSO (AEM, supplying fewer than 10,000 consumers) |
Tiko | 2014—commercial | [104] | Individual electric boilers for DHW, heat pumps, electric heaters, and night storage heaters (3/5) | 6000 devices (50% HPs) | Individual consumers in single-family housing across the country | Private aggregators |
OKEE | 2019–2021 | No publication yet | Rented EVs (3/5) | 2 smart charging stations with 2 EVs for sharing with V2G capabilities | EV renters in a big city (Basel) | Private aggregators |
Case Study | Context * | Tangible Benefits | Wider Benefits | Incentives |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quartierstrom | (a) Centralised battery (b) SCC (village) (c) Small DSO | Reduce the bill and increase local energy consumed (PV). Better visualization. | Participate in an innovative project. Contribute to environment. Increase the community feeling. | RTP (Indirect). Free installation. |
WarmUp | (a) Shared heat pumps (b) Individual consumers (big city) (c) Big DSO | More economical heating. | More ecological heating. | Free installation. |
ISCO-LEE | (a) Shared heat pumps (b) SCC (village) (c) Small DSO | Reduce the bill and increase local energy consumed (PV). | Contribute to energy transition and an innovative project. | RTP (Indirect). |
GoFlex | (a) Individual heat pumps, electrical boilers, electric heaters, EVs, HEMS (b) Individual consumers, prosumers (medium city) (c) Big DSO | Better visualization (resulting in energy savings and monetary savings). | Participate in an innovative project. Participate in the Swiss Energy Transition. | Free installation. |
Decentralised flexibility | (a) Individual heat pumps (b) Individual consumers (village/medium city) (c) Big DSO | None. | Solving grid and network problems. | Free installation and 3 cts/kWh discount for each device automated. |
LIC | (a) Individual heat pumps, electrical boilers, centralised battery (b) SCC (village) (c) Small DSO | Increase self-consumption. | Contribute to the energy transition. | Free installation. |
Tiko | (a) Individual heat pumps, electrical boilers, electric heaters (b) Individual consumers (all Switzerland) (c) Private aggregators | Monetary savings. Reduce CO2 emissions. | Help to better manage network issues of the TSO. | Free installation. |
OKEE | (a) Rented EVs (b) Individual consumers (Big city) (c) Private aggregators | Reduce the bill and increase local energy consumed (PV). Better visualization. | Participate in an innovative project. Contribute to environment. Increase the community feeling. | RTP (Indirect). Free installation. |
Case Study | Context * | Rationale Presented | Remaining Control | Information Channels (Information Shared) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quartierstrom | (a) Centralised battery (b) SCC (village) (c) Small DSO | Decrease imports from the grid and exports of PV produced in the boundary of the microgrid. | Full automation. No overriding options. Opt-out possible. | Web interface, monthly mail (to inform about energy costs and consumption and PV production and self-consumption at the household and the community scale). Detailed billing (to inform about monetary savings). Information sessions (to introduce project and stakeholders). Phone line (to inform about to the interface in the beginning, then to express complaints). Interviews (to express future expectations, collect perceptions, and know if households did manual DSM). |
WarmUp | (a) Shared heat pumps (b) Individual consumers (big city) (c) Big DSO | Increase efficiency; decrease CO2 emissions and costs. | Full automation. No overriding options. Opt-out impossible. | Web interface (to inform about energy and power costs). Billing (to inform about monetary savings). Phone line (for any complaints). No interviews. |
ISCO-LEE | (a) Shared heat pumps (b) SCC (village) (c) Small DSO | Increase self-consumption of PV in the eco-district. | HPs: Semi automation (choice of temperature thresholds). No overriding options. Opt-out possible. EVs: Semi automation (choice of departure time and journey planned). Possibility of overriding automation at any-time. Opt-out possible. Wet appliances: Semi automation (schedule). Possibility of overriding automation at any-time. Opt-out possible. | In-home interface (to inform about temperature, automation state, and electricity mix). Web interface and smartphone interface (to inform about market prices, temperature, energy consumption, PV production, and self-consumption/self-sufficiency at the device, the household, and the community scale and self-consumption/self-sufficiency at the household and the community scale). Detailed billing (to inform about monetary savings). Phone line (for any complaints). Surveys (to collect satisfaction related to comfort and prices and know if households used automation or did manual DSM). |
GoFlex | (a) Individual heat pumps, electrical boilers, electric heaters, EVs, and HEMS (b) Individual consumers, prosumers, (medium city) (c) Big DSO | Better management of the grid (but a bit unclear for end-users); increase self-consumption (for prosumers). | Heating systems: Full automation. No overriding options. Opt-out possible. EVs: Semi automation (choice of departure time and journey planned, and schedule). Possibility of overriding automation at any-time (de facto, by not using the app where semi automation is made). Opt-out possible. | Smartphone interface for EVs (to inform about flexibility activation). Web interface for heating systems (to inform about flexibility activation, temperature, and energy consumption at the device scale). Billing (to inform about monetary savings). Phone line (for any complaint). Interviews (to identify preference related to benefits/rationale before the project and ask about perception related to discomfort and control as well as fear). |
Decentralised Flexibility | (a) Individual heat pumps (b) Individual consumers (village/medium city) (c) Big DSO | Grid stabilization | Full automation. No overriding options. Opt-out possible. | Web interface (to inform about energy consumption at the device scale). Billing (to inform about monetary savings). Phone line (for any complaint). Interviews (to identify preference related to benefits/rationale before the project). |
LIC | (a) Individual heat pumps, electrical boilers, centralised battery (b) SCC (village) (c) Small DSO | Increase self-consumption of PV and self-sufficiency of the community. | Battery: Full automation. No overriding options. Opt-out possible. Heating systems: Full automation. Possibility to override automation at any-time (phase 1)/restricted possibility to overriding automation (phase 2, confirmation needed from the DSO). No overriding options. Opt-out possible. | Web interface and biannual mail (to inform about energy consumption, PV production, and flexibility activation for the battery). Billing (to inform about monetary savings). Phone line (for any complaint). Interviews planned. |
Tiko | (a) Individual heat pumps, electrical boilers, electric heaters (b) Individual consumers (all Switzerland) (c) Private aggregators | Helping the TSO by providing ancillary services | Full automation. Restricted possibility to override automation (for a day). Opt-out possible. | Web interface and smartphone interface (to inform about temperature, CO2 avoided, and energy consumption at the device scale). Billing (to inform about monetary savings). Phone line (for any complaint). No interviews. |
OKEE | (a) Rented EVs (b) Individual consumers (Big city) (c) Private aggregators | Help renewables integration and reduce power peak. | Semi automation (choice of departure time and journey planned). No overriding options. Opt-out possible. | Web interface (to inform about solar consumption). Billing (to inform about monetary savings). Phone line (for any complaint). |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Michellod, J.L.; Kuch, D.; Winzer, C.; Patel, M.K.; Yilmaz, S. Building Social License for Automated Demand-Side Management—Case Study Research in the Swiss Residential Sector. Energies 2022, 15, 7759. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207759
Michellod JL, Kuch D, Winzer C, Patel MK, Yilmaz S. Building Social License for Automated Demand-Side Management—Case Study Research in the Swiss Residential Sector. Energies. 2022; 15(20):7759. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207759
Chicago/Turabian StyleMichellod, Julien Lancelot, Declan Kuch, Christian Winzer, Martin K. Patel, and Selin Yilmaz. 2022. "Building Social License for Automated Demand-Side Management—Case Study Research in the Swiss Residential Sector" Energies 15, no. 20: 7759. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207759