The smart grid has become important in energy discussions. Inspired by science and technology studies (STS), this article compares four smart grid demonstration projects that engage households in Norway, where much activity has been triggered by a mandatory roll-out of smart electricity meters by 2019. We ask how local actors across different sectors interpret the potential of smart electricity meters, and how different understandings lead to diverging innovation strategies. The result is four case studies illustrating how smart grid set-ups are constructed, and how new smart technologies are socialized into pre-existing localities or not. The four case studies highlight: (1) a constellation of healthcare and the electricity industry, resulting in a focus on simplicity and welfare. (2) A merger between the construction industry and the electricity industry, exploring how passive houses, PV-systems and smart technology influence collective practices. (3) How local authorities, research and industry interpreted smart grids differently, resulting in a focus on “greening”, grid optimization and user flexibility. (4) How organizational and disciplinary conflicts led to alienation from the smart grid concept, hindering socialization. This diversity within a small country suggests that smart grids should be treated as situated technology rather than a “catch-all” silver bullet.
IEA. FAQs: Energy efficiency. International Energy Agency, 2014.
2.
Ding Y, Østergaard J, Sørensen PE, Meibom P and Wu Q. Status and prospects of European Renewable-Based Energy Systems Facilitated by Smart Grid Technologies. Smart Grid Applications and Developments. London: Springer, 2014, pp. 47–57.
3.
FadaeenejadMSaberianAFadaeeMRadziMHizamHAbKadirM. The present and future of smart power grid in developing countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2014; 29: 828–834.
4.
VerbongGPBeemsterboerSSengersF. Smart grids or smart users? Involving users in developing a low carbon electricity economy. Energy Policy2013; 52: 117–125.
5.
Katzeff C and Wangel J. Social practices, households, and design in the smart grid. ICT innovations for sustainability. London: Springer, 2015, pp. 351–365.
6.
Haunstrup Christensen T, Gram-Hanssen K and Friis F. Households in the smart grid – existing knowledge and new approaches. In: Hansson UH and Brembeck H (eds) Making sense of consumption: Selections from the 2nd Nordic Conference on Consumer Research 2012. Gothenburg: Centre for Consumer Science, University of Gothenburg, 2013.
7.
Skjølsvold TM. Back to the futures: Retrospecting the prospects of smart grid technology. Futures 2014; 63: 26–36.
8.
Frøysnes AS. Bare en jævla boks? En analyse av visjonsarbeidet knyttet til Avanserte måle- og styringssystemer (AMS). Dept of interdisciplinary studies of culture. Trondheim: NTNU, 2014.
9.
Ballo I. The visions and discourses of a future Smart Grid: Imagining Utopia? Smart grids and the social sciences. NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 2014.
10.
Throndsen W. Constructing the Norwegian smart grids: To fix what is not broken? In: ECEEE summer study proceedings, 3–8 June 2013, Belambra Les Criques: ECEEE, pp. 1831–1840.
11.
RyghaugMSørensenKH. How energy efficiency fails in the building industry. Energy Policy2009; 37: 984–991.
12.
Ellingsen P. Hjelp folk med strømmen, Dagbladet, 2002.
13.
Tjeldflåt A and Kolbeinstveit O. Automatisk måleravlesning og toveiskommunikasjon. Styringsinstrument eller avlesningsautomat. Oslo: Norges vassdrags- og Energidirektorat, 2006.
14.
Tjeldflåt A and Vingås L. Toveiskommunikasjon i det norske kraftmarkedet. Er det hensiktsmessig med tiltak fra myndighetene for å fremskynde en utbygging? Oslo: Norges vassdrags- og Energidirektorat, 2004.
15.
LöfströmE. Smart meters and people using the grid: exploring the potential benefits of AMR-technology. Energy Proc2014; 58: 65–72.
16.
Williams R. Television: technology and cultural form. New York: Routledge, 1974.
17.
Christensen TH, Ascarza A, Throndsen W, Gram-Hanssen K and Friis F. The role of households in the smart grid: a comparative study. ECEEE 2013 summer study on energy efficiency. Belambra Les Criques: ECEEE, 2013.
18.
GouldenMBedwellBRennick-EgglestoneSRoddenTSpenceA. Smart grids, smart users? The role of the user in demand side management. Energy Res Soc Sci2014; 2: 21–29.
19.
HargreavesTNyeMBurgessJ. Making energy visible: a qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy2010; 38: 6111–6119.
20.
HargreavesTNyeMBurgessJ. Keeping energy visible? Exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term. Energy Policy2013; 52: 126–134.
21.
NausJSpaargarenGvan VlietBJvan der HorstHM. Smart grids, information flows and emerging domestic energy practices. Energy Policy2014; 68: 436–446.
22.
Strengers Y. Smart energy technologies in everyday life: smart Utopia? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
23.
WolsinkM. The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: renewable as common pool resources. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2012; 16: 822–835.
24.
Nyborg S and Røpke I. Energy impacts of the smart home-conflicting visions. Stockholm Publisher: European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 2011.
25.
BijkerWEHughesTPPinchTJ. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
26.
Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Peterson JC and Pinch T. Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001.
27.
Sismondo S. An introduction to science and technology studies. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
28.
PinchTJBijkerWE. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc Stud Sci1984; 14: 399–441.
29.
Bijker WE. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Camebridge, MA: MIT press, 1995.
30.
BijkerWE. How is technology made?—That is the question!. Cambridge J Econ2010; 34: 63–76.
31.
PinchT. The social construction of technology: a review. Technol Change Meth Themes Hist Technol1996; 35: 17–35.
32.
BijkerWd’AndreaL. Handbook on the socialisation of scientific and technological research, Rome: River Press Group, 2009.
33.
Skjølsvold TM. Towards a new sociology of innovation: the case of bioenergy in Norway and Sweden. Dept of interdisciplinary studies of culture. Trondheim: NTNU, 2012.
34.
SørensenKH. Beyond innovation. Towards an extended framework for analysing technology policy. Nordic J Sci Technol2013; 1: 12–23.
35.
Heidenreich S. Blowing in the wind: the socialization of offshore wind technology. Trondheim: NTNU, 2014.
36.
Macions JJ and Plummer K. Sociology, a global introduction. Prentice Hall Europe, 1997.
37.
Jasanoff S. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge, 2004.
38.
Strauss A and Corbin JM. Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.
39.
BuchananKRussoRAndersonB. The question of energy reduction: the problem(s) with feedback. Energy Policy2015; 77: 89–96.
40.
PowellsGBulkeleyHBellSJudsonE. Peak electricity demand and the flexibility of everyday life. Geoforum2014; 55: 43–52.
41.
Nicholls L and Strengers Y. Changing demand: flexibility of energy practices in households with children: interim report findings from interviews with 44 family households. RMIT University, Melbourne: Centre for urban research, 2014.
42.
Sørensen KH. Domestication: the enactment of technology. Berkshire: Open university press, Domestication of Media and Technology, 2005, pp. 40–61.
43.
Sørensen KH and Lie M. Making technology our own?: domesticating technology into everyday life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996, p.223.
44.
BorupMBrownNKonradKVan LenteH. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strategic Manage2006; 18: 285–298.
45.
BrownNMichaelM. A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technol Anal Strategic Manage2003; 15: 3–18.
46.
van LenteH. Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technol Anal Strategic Manage2012; 24: 769–782.
47.
Russell S and Williams R. Social shaping of technology: frameworks, findings and implications for policy with glossary of social shaping concepts. Shaping technology, guiding policy: concepts, spaces and tools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002, pp.37–132.
48.
Throndsen W and Ryghaug M. Material participation and the smart grid: exploring different modes of articulation. Energy Res Soc Sci. Forthcoming.
49.
Marres N. Material participation: technology, the environment and everyday publics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
50.
WoolgarS. Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. Sociol Rev1990; 38: 58–99.
51.
SchickLWinthereikBR. Innovating Relations-or why smart grid is not too complex for the public. Sci Technol Stud2013; 26: 82–102.
