This interview study with UK electricity distribution and transmission network operators (DNO and TNO) and the regulator Ofgem, examines how key industry actors conceptualise “publics,” “stakeholders” and “customers” and how these conceptualisations subsequently inform their engagement practices with these heterogeneous groups. The results show that regulatory changes to the structure of distribution networks have encouraged greater levels of “stakeholder” involvement. However, DNO regional monopoly powers and the regulatory environment serve to conflate network actors’ representations of “the public” with “customers,” and also “hides” DNO roles in a manner that precludes direct citizen engagement. TNO respondents employ public exhibitions in transmission line siting, although at a stage “downstream” in the decision-making process whereby citizens have little decisional influence. We conclude that network operators adopt the rhetoric of deliberative engagement whilst lacking a clear rationale and effective means to incorporate citizen perspectives in long-term network development or specific infrastructure siting proposals.
AultG.FrameD.HughesN.StrachanN. (2008) “Electricity Network Scenarios for Great Britain in 2050: Final Report for Ofgem’s LENS Project.”London: Ofgem.
4.
BarnettJ.BurninghamK.WalkerG.CassN. (forthcoming) “Imagined Publics and Engagement around Renewable Energy Technologies in the UK,”Public Understanding of Science.
5.
BeierleT. C. (1999) “Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions,”Review of Policy Research16(3–4): 75–103.
6.
BeierleT. C.KoniskyD. M. (2000) “Values, Conflict, and Trust in Participatory Environmental Planning,”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management19(4): 587–602.
7.
BellM. M. (1999) “The Rationalization of Risk.”Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University.
8.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
BucchiM. (1996) “When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication,”Public Understanding of Science5: 375–94.
10.
BurninghamK. (2000) “Using the Language of NIMBY: A Topic for Research, Not an Activity for Researchers,”Local Environment5(1): 55–67.
11.
BurninghamK.BarnettJ.CarrA.CliftR.WehrmeyerW. (2007) “Industrial Constructions of Publics and Public Knowledge: A Qualitative Investigation of Practice in the UK Chemicals Industry,”Public Understanding of Science16(1): 23–43.
12.
ButlerS. (2001) “UK Electricity Networks,”POSTnoteNo. 163 (October): 1–4. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
13.
CassN.WalkerG. (2009) “Emotion and Rationality: The Characterisation and Evaluation of Opposition to Renewable Energy Projects,”Emotion, Space and Society2(1): 62–9.
14.
ChilversJ.BurgessJ. (2008) “Power Relations: The Politics of Risk and Procedure in Nuclear Waste Governance,”Environment and Planning A40: 1881–900.
15.
CoffeyA.AtkinsonP. (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
Department of Trade and Industry (2007) Energy White Paper: Meeting the Energy Challenge. London: The Stationery Office.
17.
DETR (1999) A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom. London: Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
18.
Devine-WrightH.Devine-WrightP. (2005) “Representing the Demand Side: ‘Deficit’ Beliefs about Domestic Electricity Users,” in ECEEE 2005 Summer Study Proceedings: What Works & Who Delivers, pp. 1343–8. Mandelieu, France: European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
19.
Devine-WrightH.Devine-WrightP. (2009) “Social Representations of Electricity Network Technologies: Exploring Processes of Anchoring and Objectification through the Use of Visual Research Methods,”British Journal of Social Psychology48(2): 357–73.
20.
DraperG.VincentT.KrollM. E.SwansonJ. (2005) “Childhood Cancer in Relation to Distance from High Voltage Power Lines in England and Wales: A Case-control Study,”British Medical Journal330(7503): 1290.
European SmartGrids Technology Platform (2006) “Smart Grids: Vision and Strategy for Europe’s Electricity Networks of the Future.”Luxembourg: European Commission.
23.
FeltU.FochlerM. (2008) “The Bottom-up Meanings of the Concept of Public Participation in Science and Technology,”Science and Public Policy35(7): 489–99.
24.
FiorinoD. (1990) “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms,”Science, Technology & Human Values15(2): 226–43.
25.
FletcherR. (2009) “Electricity Distribution Price Control Review Methodology and Initial Results Paper.”London: Ofgem.
26.
FriedmanA. L.MilesS. (2006) Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
GrahamS.MarvinS. (1994) “Cherry Picking and Social Dumping: Utilities in the 1990s,”Utilities Policy4(2): 113–19.
28.
HabermasJ. (2002) On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HagendijkR.IrwinA. (2006) “Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe,”Minerva44(2): 167–84.
30.
HindmarshR.MatthewsC. (2008) “Deliberative Speak at the Turbine Face: Community Engagement, Wind Farms, and Renewable Energy Transitions, in Australia,”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning10(3): 217–32.
HunsbergerC.KenyonW. (2008) “Action Planning to Improve Issues of Effectiveness, Representation and Scale in Public Participation: A Conference Report,”Journal of Public Deliberation4(1): Article 1.
33.
Ipsos MORI (2008) “Customer Engagement Survey: Report Prepared for Ofgem.”London: Ofgem.
34.
IrwinA. (2001) “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences,”Public Understanding of Science10(1): 1–18.
35.
IrwinA.MichaelM. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
36.
IrwinA.WynneB. (1996) Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
JayS. (2004) “The Forces Shaping Local Planning Policy on High Voltage Electricity Installations,”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning6(3): 207–26.
38.
KerrA.Cunningham-BurleyS.AmosA. (1997) “The New Genetics: Professionals’ Discursive Boundaries,”Sociological Review45(2): 279–303.
LawJ.HassardJ. (1999) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell.
41.
McClymontK.O’HareP. (2008) “‘We’re Not NIMBYs!’ Contrasting Local Protest Groups with Idealised Conceptions of Sustainable Communities,”Local Environment13(4): 321–35.
42.
McCoolS. F.GuthrieK. (2001) “Mapping the Dimensions of Successful Public Participation in Messy Natural Resources Management Situations,”Society and Natural Resources14(4): 309–23.
43.
McCrackenR. (2008) “Smart Meters: Gizmo or Revolution?,”Energy Economist317(1): 23–5.
44.
MarantaA.GuggenheimM.GislerP.PohlC. (2003) “The Reality of Experts and the Imagined Lay Person,”Acta Sociologica46(2): 150–65.
45.
MarrisC.WynneB.SimmonsP.WeldonS. (2001) “Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: Final Report.”Lancaster: University of Lancaster.
46.
Massoud AminS.WollenbergB. F. (2005) “Toward a Smart Grid: Power Delivery for the 21st Century,”IEEE Power & Energy Magazine3(5): 34–41.
47.
National Grid (2005) “Seven Year Statement.”Warwick: National Grid.
Ofgem (2009) “Project Discovery Status Report.”London: Ofgem.
50.
O’MahonyJ. (2004) “The Stakeholder Route to Corporate Social Responsibility,”Risk & Regulation7 (Summer): 10. London: London School of Economics, Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation.
51.
OwensS. (2000) “‘Engaging the Public’: Information and Deliberation in Environmental Policy,”Environment and Planning32(7): 1141–8.
52.
OwensS.CowellR. (2002) Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process. London: Routledge.
53.
PellizzoniL. (2003) “Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy,”Environmental Values12: 195–224.
54.
PriestleyT.EvansG. W. (1996) “Resident Perceptions of a Nearby Electric Transmission Line,”Journal of Environmental Psychology16(1): 65–74.
55.
RaynerS. (2003) “Democracy in the Age of Assessment: Reflections on the Roles of Expertise and Democracy in Public-sector Decision Making,”Science and Public Policy30(3): 163–70.
56.
RossiJ. (1997) “Participation Run Amok: The Cost of Mass Participation for Deliberative Agency Decision Making,”Northwestern University Law Review92: 173–249.
57.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2000) “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation,”Science, Technology & Human Values25(1): 3–29.
58.
Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society of London.
59.
ScloveR. (1995) Democracy and Technology. London: Guilford Press.
60.
SimsS.DentP. (2005) “High-voltage Overhead Power Lines and Property Values: A Residential Study in the UK,”Urban Studies42(4): 665–94.
61.
StirlingA. (2004) “Opening Up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology,” in LeachM.ScoonesI.WynneB. (eds) Science, Citizenship and Globalisation, pp. 218–31. London: Zed.
62.
WilsdonJ.WillisR. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
63.
WolsinkM. (1996) “Dutch Wind Power Policy: Stagnating Implementation of Renewables,”Energy Policy24(12): 1079–88.
64.
WolsinkM. (2000) “Wind Power and the NIMBY-Myth: Institutional Capacity and the Limited Significance of Public Support,”Renewable Energy21(1): 49–64.
65.
WoolgarS.PawluchD. (1985) “Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations,”Social Problems32(3): 214–27.
66.
WynneB. (1982) Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain. Chalfont St Giles: British Society for the History of Science.
