Learning from residential smart grid pilots as sites of contestation

Recent EU Directives propose that citizens and energy communities take a more active role in generation, self-consumption and demand-side flexibility. European R&D is supporting an increasing number of residential smart grid pilots, to test and try new configurations aimed at “untapping” the residential flexibility potential. The transition of a centralized supply-oriented energy system towards a more decentralized organization with increasing attention for the demand-side flexibility, is likely to cause friction and conflict. Based on action research in Dutch residential smart grid pilot projects, an analysis of current/recent institutional and policy changes, and on a review of recent literature, we discuss the residential smart grid pilot as a site of contestation where we identify potential conflicts in expectations, values, interests (which may translate into actual conflict in time). Taking a socio-technical perspective, we look at the ways in which these smart grid pilots shape and are shaped by both the providers of smart energy ‘solutions’and the diverse types of communities and household end-users, and how this is affected by institutional settings and changes in these (e.g. the transposition of EU Directives). Next, taking a pluralistic environmental justice perspective, we discuss how energy communities and citizens are enabled to participate in these new smart grids, addressing recognition of diverse needs, interests and capabilities. We distinguish three levels where mismatches, friction or even conflict occurs, illustrated with empirical material. First, at the smart grid project level, assumptions about household end-users result in propositions that are not in line with real user expectations, needs and capabilities (creating mismatches when the ‘smart grid solutions’ are not adopted by the users). A second level is the household itself, where levels of energy and digital proficiency are unevenly distributed among household members (often along gendered roles). Concentration of such expertise with one person, brings the risk of exclusion for other members, potentially undermining experienced control, comfort and trust. The third level is that of the energy community: even within ‘frontrunner‘ smart grid pilot communities, often only a minority is capable of understanding the technologies and digital arrangements and acting upon these. In view of the complexity of smart grid pilots, this raises the question about how to ensure that community interests and values are indeed in line with the course taken and how to effectively discuss and deliberate about this within an energy community. In the transposition of EU directives into national legislation and policy, there is little attention for tackling the above mentioned (potential) conflicts. The implications for the energy transition are that the identified frictions turn into more explicit conflicts and/or disengagement from users. We need design and policy practices that can strengthen the position of end-users in these negotiations and conflicts, if we consider residential smart grids not only as a tool to create value for the grid but also to create value for the citizens and communities involved – enabling them to adopt a more active role as energy citizens in the energy transition.