Who ‘Uses’ Smart Grids? The Evolving Nature of User Representations in Layered Infrastructures
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What kind of user-related expectation work is carried out in smart grid projects?
- What do these representations of users and user-related expectations reveal about the evolving social impacts of infrastructural technologies such as smart grids?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Who Are the ‘Users’? User-Technology Relationships and the Sociology of User Representations
2.2. Social Science and Humanities Research on Smartness and Smart Grids
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results
4.1. Layered Infrastructure and Layered ‘Use’: Smart Meter Users or Users of Smart Electricity Services?
Smartness has two components: enabling responsive consumers and near real-time information. It allows you to change your behaviour. It allows you to do things that you couldn’t do before by responding to data, such as refurbish your home’s heating systems you could not do in the same way by using the ‘dumb’ meter.
4.2. Differing Time Spans of Benefits: Users of Current Smart Grid Configurations or Users of Future Intelligent Networks?
We should ask though why decarbonization is so important. Decarbonization is following the top priority of addressing climate change. Here we have an important driver for decarbonization itself. The other key issues in the decarbonization target of the European Commission and at world level include the environmental aspect of pollution, so several new countries are deciding one after the other a switch off date for gasoline cars. The main driver here is not climate change but environmental issues, in order to prevent the consequences of having polluted cities.
4.3. Differing Perceptions of What is a Smart Grid: Everyone is in a Grid or Specific and Differentially Impacted Groups of Users?
I think a factor might be consumers’ interest towards reducing their bills, however it was when we did public workshops for example on that, people don’t see the trade off in terms of higher electricity bills versus flexibility that they need to create.
Making smart energy meters often has little direct relation to energy end users in their homes. First, the manufacturers do not sell smart meters directly to the public. The end users, for their part, will be very rarely looking directly at their energy meter even if it is a ‘smart’ meter. The meter may be placed under the stairs or other difficult locations to see. There are other companies making In-Home Displays (IHDs) and apps on the phone for these smart meters. They do engage in market research. There have been a few companies that both manufactured meters and the IHD for it but in the UK’s next Smart Metering Equipment Technical Specification (SMETS) 2.0, no companies are present that do both.
4.4. Varying Certainty of User and Technology Representations in Different Parts of Smart Grids
4.5. Metaphors of System Evolution: Active, Rational Consumer or Routinized User of Optimization Services?
4.6. Cui Bono? What Can Early Assessment Assert About the Harms and Benefits of Smart Grid Projects?
5. Discussion
- The likely intensity of users’ engagement with smart-grid technologies varies considerably: at the one end of the spectrum, users draw on smart technologies to carry out limited optimization of their energy usage; at the other end are ‘prosumers’ who actively optimize their own production, storage, and home energy use and transit electricity themselves.
- There is a significant temporal difference: the represented user could be expected to engage with currently existing smart-metering solutions, or with intelligent optimization software and services that are envisaged to be in place once the smart grid is mature sometime in the 2020s.
- These differences find their corollary in whether the user is seen just in terms of the smart meter (and perhaps supplemented by visualization tools), or more comprehensively through the adoption of further layers of services and applications.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Who do you see as the most important potential kinds of user of smart grids and smart meters? Please provide a list.
- For each of these users, can you detail how you think they might use these technologies and what would be their main benefits and limitations?
- Do specific kinds of users have difficulties to access the potential benefits of smart grids and smart meter technology? Why?
- Do you think that some users are reluctant to adopt smart grids and smart meter technologies despite having access and being aware of their potential benefits? Please, give us some real case examples if possible.
- Does the notion of ‘smart’ have different nuances between different kinds of users: for example, ‘savvy’ users such as citizen initiatives or the quantified-self movement, or consumer groups advocating more consumer-led smart energy developments? Do these conceptions differ from or resemble those of smart device manufacturers or energy companies?
- Which needs are driving smart energy developments: for example, ‘technological push’ from the ICT industry, the electric power generators and distributors, or the needs of energy users?
- Are users usually involved and do they participate in designing these technologies? How?
- What advantages and disadvantages may user involvement bring for designing smart energy technologies?
- ‘Smartness’ raises crucial questions about the protection of fundamental rights and values like privacy, data protection, and autonomy. Anti-smart meter campaigns, lawsuits against smart metering, consumer organization critiques, and motions against smart meters exemplify these problems. Do you think these objections have made designers and policy-makers reconsider and modify their projects? Please provide details of any examples where you think this has happened.
- How do expectations about the users and uses of smart energy technology differ across countries, for example in different EU member states?
References
- Executive Office of the President of the United States. A Policy Framework for the 21st Century Grid: Enabling Our Secure Energy Future. Available online: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nstc-smart-grid-june2011.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- European Parliament and Council. Directive on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. 2012/27/EU. 2012. Off. J. Eur. Union 2012, 315, 1–49. [Google Scholar]
- UK National Infrastructure Commission. Smart Power. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505218/IC_Energy_Report_web.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Frickel, S.; Wühr, D.; Horne, C.; Kallman, M.E. Field of Visions: Interorganizational Challenges to the Smart Energy Transition in Washington State. Brooklyn Law Rev. 2017, 82, 693–724. [Google Scholar]
- UK Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Smart Meter Rollout Cost-Benefit Analysis Part I. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/567167/OFFSEN_2016_smart_meters_cost-benefit-update_Part_I_FINAL_VERSION.PDF (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Institute of Communication & Computer Systems of the National Technical, University of Athens; AF-MERCADOS EMI. Study on cost benefit analysis of Smart Metering Systems in EU Member States, final report. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/AF%20Mercados%20NTUA%20CBA%20Final%20Report%20June%2015.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Rommetveit, K.; Dunajcsik, M.; Tanas, A.; Silvast, A.; Gunnarsdóttir, K. The CANDID Primer: Including Social Sciences and Humanities scholarship in the making and use of smart ICT technologies. CANDID (H2020-ICT-35-2016). Available online: http://candid.no/progress (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- van Dijk, N.; Tanas, A.; Rommetveit, K.; Raab, C. Right engineering? The Redesign of Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Int. Rev. Law Comput. Technol. 2018, 32, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Smart grid. From Innovation to Deployment. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0202:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed on 28 August 2018 ).
- European Commission. Benchmarking smart metering deployment in the EU-27 with a focus on electricity. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2014%3A356%3AFIN (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. Smart Metering Implementation Programme. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/68976/Smart_metering_programme_update_-_April_2012.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- UK House of Commons. Evidence Check: Smart metering of electricity and gas. Science and Technology Committee. Available online: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/161/161.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Helm, D. Cost of Energy Review: Independent report for the UK Government. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-energy-independent-review (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Hess, D.J.; Coley, J.S. Wireless smart meters and public acceptance: The environment, limited choices, and precautionary politics. Public Understan. Sci. 2014, 23, 688–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van der Horst, D.; Staddon, S.; Webb, J. Smart Energy, and Society? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2014, 26, 1111–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- von Schomberg, R. Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. In Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields; von Schomberg, R., Ed.; European Commission Services: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; pp. 7–16. [Google Scholar]
- Hoenkamp, R.; Huitema, G.B.; de Moor-van Vugt, A.J. The neglected consumer: The case of the smart meter rollout in the Netherlands. Renew. Energy Law Policy Rev. 2011, 4, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oudshoorn, N.; Pinch, T. How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Hyysalo, S.; Jensen, T.E.; Oudshoorn, N. The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wolsink, M. The Research Agenda on Social Acceptance of Distributed Generation in Smart Grid: Renewable as Common Pool Resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 822–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darby, S.J. Metering: EU Policy and Implications for Fuel Poor Households. Energy Policy 2012, 49, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyborg, S.; Røpke, I. Constructing Users in the Smart Grid – Insights from the Danish eFlex Project. Energy Effic. 2013, 6, 655–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strengers, Y. Smart Energy Technologies in Everyday Life: Smart Utopia? Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Skjølsvold, T.M.; Ryghaug, M.; Berker, T. A Traveler’s Guide to Smart Grid and the Social Sciences. Energy Res Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 1–8. [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]
- Bulkeley, H.; Powells, G.; Bell, S. Smart Grid and the Constitution of Solar Electricity Conduct. Environ. Plann. A 2016, 48, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heiskanen, E.; Matschoss, K. Consumers as innovators in the electricity sector? Consumer perceptions on smart grid services. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40, 665–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Throndsen, W. What Do Experts Talk about When They talk about Users? Expectations and Imagined Users in the Smart Grid. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovell, H.; Pullinger, M.; Webb, J. How do Meters Mediate? Energy Meters, Boundary Objects and Household Transitions in Australia and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 34, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumpf, P.; Klemm, M.; Throndsen, W.; Büscher, C.; Robison, R.; Schippl, J.; Foulds, C.; Buchmann, K.; Nikolaev, A.; Kern-Gillard, T. Energy System Optimisation and Smart Technologies—A Social Sciences and Humanities Annotated Bibliography. Available online: https://shapeenergy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SHAPE-ENERGY-Annotated-Bibliography_ENERGY-SYSTEM-OPTIMISATION-AND-SMART-TECHNOLOGIES.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Bijker, W.; Hughes, T.P.; Pinch, T. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Akrich, M. The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change; Bijker, W., Law, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 205–224. [Google Scholar]
- Oudshoorn, N.; Rommes, E.; Stienstra, M. Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2004, 29, 30–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J.; Williams, R. The Wrong Trousers? Beyond the Design Fallacy: Social Learning and the User. In User Involvement in Innovation Processes: Strategies and Limitations from a Socio-Technical Perspective; Rohracher, H., Ed.; Profil-Verlag: Munich, Germany, 2005; pp. 195–221. [Google Scholar]
- Hyysalo, S.; Johnson, M. The User as Relational Entity: Options that Deeper Insight into User Representations Opens for Human-Centered Design. Inf. Technol. People 2015, 28, 72–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akrich, M. User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment; Rip, A., Misa, T.J., Schot, J., Eds.; Pinter Publisher: London, UK, 1995; pp. 167–184. [Google Scholar]
- Hyysalo, S. Uses of Innovation. Wristcare in the Practices of Engineers and Elderly. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Woolgar, S. Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. Soc. Rev. 1990, 38, 58–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, R.; Stewart, J.; Slack, R. Social Learning in Technological Innovation: Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, J.; Latour, B. Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Soc. Probl. 1988, 35, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madeleine, A.; Latour, B. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change; Bijker, W.E., Law, D., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 259–264. [Google Scholar]
- Hyysalo, S. Health Technology Development and Use: From Practice-Bound Imagination to Evolving Impacts; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, M. How Social Media Changes User-Centered Design—Cumulative and Strategic User Involvement with Respect to Developer–User Social Distance. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, P.N.; Jackson, S.J.; Bowker, G.; Knobel, C.B. Understanding infrastructure: Dynamics, tensions, and design. Report of a Workshop on “History & Theory of Infrastructure: Lessons for New Scientific Cyberinfrastructures”. Available online: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/49353/UnderstandingInfrastructure2007.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Pollock, N.; Williams, R. E-infrastructures: How do we know and understand them? Strategic ethnography and the biography of artefacts. Comput. Support. Cooperative Work 2010, 19, 521–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollock, N.; Williams, R.; D’Adderio, L. Generification as a Strategy: How Software Producers Configure Products, Manage User Communities and Segment Markets. In The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies; Hyysalo, S., Jensen, T.E., Oudshoorn, N., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 178–208. [Google Scholar]
- Mozaffar, H. User Communities as Multi-Functional Spaces: Innovation, Collective Voice, Demand Articulation, Peer Informing and Professional Identity (and more). In The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies; Hyysalo, S., Jensen, T.E., Oudshoorn, N., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 219–248. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart, J. The social consumption of information and communication technologies (ICTs): Insights from research on the appropriation and consumption of new ICTs in the domestic environment. Cognit. Technol. Work 2003, 5, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konrad, K. Dynamics of type-based scenarios of use: Opening processes in early phases of interactive television and electronic marketplaces. Sci. Technol. Stud. 2008, 21, 3–26. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkie, A.; Michael, M. Expectation and Mobilisation: Enacting Future Users. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2009, 34, 502–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J.; Hyysalo, S. Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2008, 12, 295–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borup, M.; Brown, N.; Konrad, K.; van Lente, H. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2006, 18, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Silvast, A. Energy, economics, and performativity: Reviewing theoretical advances in social studies of markets and energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 34, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvast, A. Making Electricity Resilient: Risk and Security in a Liberalized Infrastructure; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Silvast, A. Co-constituting Supply and Demand: Managing Electricity in Two Neighbouring Control Rooms. In Infrastructures in Practice: The Evolution of Demand in Networked Societies; Shove, E., Trentmann, F., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 171–183. [Google Scholar]
- Verbong, G.; Beemsterboer, S.; Sengers, F. Smart Grid or Smart Users? Involving Users in Developing a Low Carbon Electricity Economy. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luque, A. The Smart Grid and the Interface between Energy, ICT and the City. In Urban Retrofitting for Sustainability: Mapping the Transition to 2050; Dixon, T., Eames, M., Hunt, M., Lannon, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 159–173. [Google Scholar]
- Powells, G.; Bulkeley, H.; McLean, A. Geographies of Smart Urban Power. In Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision or False Dawn? Marvin, S., Luque-Ayala, A., McFarlane, C., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 141–160. [Google Scholar]
- Hargreaves, T.; Wilson, C. Who Uses Smart Home Technologies? Representations of Users by the Smart Home Industry. Available online: https://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2013/6-appliances-product-policy-and-ict/who-uses-smart-home-technologies-representations-of-users-by-the-smart-home-industry/ (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Wilson, C.; Hargreaves, T.; Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. Smart Homes and their Users: A Systematic Analysis and Key Challenges. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2015, 19, 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Groves, C.; Henwood, K.; Shirani, F.; Butler, C.; Parkhill, K.; Pidgeon, N. Energy Biographies: Narrative Genres, Lifecourse Transitions, and Practice Change. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2016, 41, 483–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pullinger, M.; Lovell, H.; Webb, J. Influencing Household Energy Practices: A Critical Review of UK Smart Metering Standards and Commercial Feedback Devices. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2014, 26, 1144–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schick, L.; Gad, C. Flexible and Inflexible Energy Engagements—A Study of the Danish Smart Grid Strategy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, M.; Borup, M. Smart grids and households: How are household consumers represented in experimental projects? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 30, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargreaves, T.; Wilson, C. Domestication of Smart Home Technologies. In Smart Homes and Their Users; Hargreaves, T., Wilson, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 75–90. [Google Scholar]
- Kahma, N.; Matschoss, K. The Rejection of Innovations? Rethinking Technology Diffusion and the Non-Use of Smart Energy Services in Finland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 34, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winther, T.; Bell, S. Domesticating in home displays in selected British and Norwegian households. Sci. Technol. Stud. 2018, 31, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J.R. Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures 1993, 25, 735–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyysalo, S.; Marttila, T.; Temmes, A.; Lovio, R.; Kivimaa, P.; Auvinen, K.; Pyhälammi, A.; Lukkarinen, A.; Peljo, J. Uusia Näkymiä Energiamurroksen Suomeen—Murrosareenan tuottamia kunnianhimoisia energia- & Ilmastotoimia Vuosille 2018–2030. Available online: http://www.smartenergytransition.fi/tiedostot/murrosareena-loppuraportti.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2018).
- Cuijpers, C.; Koops, B.-J. Smart metering and privacy in Europe: Lessons from the Dutch case. In European Data Protection: Coming of Age; Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., de Hert, P., Poullet, Y., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 269–293. [Google Scholar]
- Hyysalo, S.; Pollock, N.; Williams, R. Method matters in the social study of technology: Investigating the biographies of artifacts and practices. Sci. Technol. Stud. 2018, prepublication. [Google Scholar]
- Silvast, A.; Virtanen, M. Assemblages of Tamings and Framings: Multi-Sited Analysis of Infrastructures as a Methodology. J. Cult. Econ. 2018. under review. [Google Scholar]
- March, H.; Morote, Á.F.; Rico, A.M.; Saurí, D. Household smart water metering in Spain: Insights from the experience of remote meter reading in Alicante. Sustainability 2017, 9, 582–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finnish Energy. Finnish Energy’s position on the features of next-generation electricity meters. Finnish Energy. Available online: https://energia.fi/files/1697/Finnish_Energy_position_paper_features_of_next_generation_electricity_meters_final_20170810.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2018).
- Smart Energy Collective. An Introduction to the Universal Smart Energy Framework. Smart Energy Collective. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/xpert_group3_summary.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2018).
- Graham, S.; Marvin, S. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition; Routledge: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Mesarić, P.; Đukec, D.; Krajcar, S. Exploring the potential of energy consumers in smart grid using focus group methodology. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1463–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shove, E.; Warde, A. Inconspicuous consumption: The sociology of consumption, lifestyles and the environment. In Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights; Dunlap, R.E., Buttel, F.H., Dickens, P., Gijswijt, A., Eds.; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, ML, USA, 2001; pp. 230–251. [Google Scholar]
- Shove, E.; Pantzar, M.; Watson, M. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes; Sage Publishing: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Kivimaa, P.; Hielscher, S.; Jenkins, K. Vulnerability and resistance in the United Kingdom’s smart meter transition. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 767–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smart Energy GB. Smart Energy Outlook. Available online: https://www.smartenergygb.org/en/resources/press-centre/press-releases-folder/smart-energy-outlook-march18 (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Smart Energy GB hits back at smart meter research. Available online: https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/smart-energy-gb-hits-back-smart-meter-research-2017-09/ (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Klopfert, F.; Wallenborn, G. Empowering consumers through smart metering. Report for BEUC, the Bureau Europeen Des Unions Des Consommateurs. Available online: http://www.beuc.eu/publications/2012-00369-01-e.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2018).
- Rip, A.; Misa, T.J.; Schot, J. Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment; Pinter Publisher: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Raven, R.P.; Jolivet, E.; Mourik, R.M.; Feenstra, Y.C. ESTEEM: Managing societal acceptance in new energy projects: A toolbox method for project managers. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 963–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2018 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Silvast, A.; Williams, R.; Hyysalo, S.; Rommetveit, K.; Raab, C. Who ‘Uses’ Smart Grids? The Evolving Nature of User Representations in Layered Infrastructures. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103738
Silvast A, Williams R, Hyysalo S, Rommetveit K, Raab C. Who ‘Uses’ Smart Grids? The Evolving Nature of User Representations in Layered Infrastructures. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103738
Chicago/Turabian StyleSilvast, Antti, Robin Williams, Sampsa Hyysalo, Kjetil Rommetveit, and Charles Raab. 2018. "Who ‘Uses’ Smart Grids? The Evolving Nature of User Representations in Layered Infrastructures" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103738